Attitudes toward stereotypical versus counterstereotypical gay men and lesbians.

The popularity of such television shows as Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, in which a team of five gay men teaches clueless straight men how to dress more fashionably, prepare gourmet meals, and decorate their otherwise lackluster apartments, and Will & Grace, a sitcom about the quirky friendship between a straight woman and a gay man, illustrates a key point: To the extent that the mainstream media reflects the sentiment of the general viewing public--a population that is predominantly straight--it is now okay to be gay. In some circumstances, being gay may provide you with a perspective and skill set that straight people may be lacking.

Despite the popularity of these television shows, however, sexual prejudice (prejudice against gay and bisexual men and women) remains a serious problem. For example, a study conducted in 2000 at 14 U.S. colleges found that over one-third of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered students had experienced harassment within the past year, with 20% of these students reporting that they feared for their physical safety because of their sexual orientation or gender identity (Rankin, 2003). In a 2005 survey of 662 self-identified gay, lesbian, and bisexual adults, about one half of the respondents reported being victims to verbal harassment based on their sexual orientation, with roughly 20% reporting a crime to their person or to their property (Herek, 2007). According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's 2005 Hate Crime Statistics Report, law enforcement agencies reported 1,171 hate crime offenses based on sexual orientation bias in 2005 alone (U.S. Department of Justice, 2005). Understanding how the heterosexual majority forms attitudes about people with different sexual orientations is crucial for the reduction of sexual prejudice.

There has been a considerable amount of research investigating heterosexuals' attitudes toward homosexuality, in general, and homosexual men and women as targets (e.g., Davies, 2004; Herek, 2000, 2002; Herek & Capitanio, 1996; Kite & Deaux, 1987; Kite & Whitley, 1996, 1998; LaMar & Kite, 1998; Oliver & Hyde, 1993, 1995; Whitley & Kite, 1995). Much of this work has examined homosexuality within the context of traditional gender stereotypes. Dating back to Freud's inversion theory of homosexual behavior, homosexuality has often been viewed in terms of the presence of traits and tendencies characteristic of the opposite gender. From this perspective, masculinity and femininity represent opposite ends of the same dimension (see Foushee, Helmreich, & Spence, 1979)--the more feminine an individual is, the less masculine he or she is, and vice versa. This helps to explain the content of many of the existing stereotypes about gay men and lesbians, as well as how the heterosexual majority conceptualizes homosexuality more broadly. Gay men are seen as possessing traits and interests that have been traditionally associated with straight women, and lesbians are seen as being similar to straight men (Kite & Deaux, 1987; Taylor, 1983). As a result, many heterosexuals have come to view homosexuality as the violation of traditional gender-role stereotypes.

Attitudes about homosexuality are further complicated by two sets of gender differences: (a) differences in the attitudes held by heterosexual men versus heterosexual women and (b) differences in the degree of sexual prejudice against gay men versus lesbians. Considerable progress has been made toward understanding the nature of these differences. For example, compared to heterosexual women, heterosexual men have been found to hold more negative attitudes toward homosexuality (Herek, 2002; Herek & Capitanio, 1996; Kite, 1984; Kite & Whitley, 1996). One explanation for this finding stems from differences in the way heterosexual men and women organize their thoughts about homosexuality. Herek (2000, 2002) found that, whereas heterosexual men are more likely to regard homosexuality as a violation of traditional gender roles, heterosexual women are more likely to view gay men and lesbians as members of a disadvantaged social group. As a result, the negative attitudes held by heterosexual men may fulfill an ego-defensive function--that is, heterosexual men may be motivated to affirm their own masculine identity by derogating individuals they believe have strayed from the appropriate norm (Herek, 2000). Heterosexual women, on the other hand, who themselves may defy traditional gender norms, may be less likely to view homosexuality as a threat.

In addition, there is research to suggest that heterosexual men view gay men less favorably than lesbians, whereas heterosexual women tend to evaluate gay men and lesbians with a similar degree of favorability (Herek, 2000; Kite & Whitley, 1996, 1998; Louderback & Whitley, 1997). A number of plausible explanations for this finding have been offered, ranging from the erotic stigma that has been placed on certain lesbian habits (Herek, 2000, Louderback & Whitley, 1997) to differences in how negatively male versus female gender-role transgressions are evaluated (Kite & Whitley, 1996, 1998; Page & Yee, 1985).

Research Overview

Despite the extensive research on heterosexuals' attitudes toward gay men and lesbians, in general, no prior study has examined heterosexuals' attitudes toward gay men and lesbians who confirm versus disconfirm homosexual stereotypes. This research was designed to address the question of whether the attitudes held by heterosexual men and women about homosexual targets vary as a function of the target's perceived stereotypicality; or, put differently, given that the strongest stereotypes associated with homosexuality pertain to the violation of traditional gender-role norms, are feminine gay men and masculine lesbians (i.e., stereotypical targets) evaluated more positively or less positively than masculine gay men and feminine lesbians (i.e., counterstereotypical targets)? To answer this question, we tested for differences in how heterosexual men and women evaluated masculine versus feminine homosexual targets. Research on similarity, stereotype maintenance, and gender roles suggests three different hypotheses. We briefly examine each of these possibilities below.

Similarity

Research on similarity (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Cook, 2001) indicates that people like other people more when they are similar to them. In this context, the similarity hypothesis suggests that heterosexual women will prefer feminine gay men and feminine lesbians, whereas heterosexual men will prefer masculine gay men and masculine lesbians because these targets will be judged as more similar to heterosexual women and men, respectively.

Stereotype Maintenance

A separate factor affecting attitudes toward gay men and lesbians may be the degree to which these targets appear to confirm versus disconfirm prevailing stereotypes. Research on stereotype maintenance suggests that information that disconfirms cultural stereotypes is potentially threatening (Forster, Higgins, & Strack, 2000). As a result, individuals who act in counterstereotypical ways may face backlash (Rudman & Fairchild, 2004). Thus, the stereotype maintenance hypothesis implies that stereotypical targets will be liked more than counterstereotypical targets.

Assuming prevailing stereotypes hold that gay men are feminine and lesbians are masculine (Kite & Deaux, 1987), then the stereotype maintenance hypothesis provides a solid basis for the prediction that gay men and lesbians who seem to "fit" prevailing stereotypes (e.g., gay men who are fashionable) will be viewed more favorably than those who do not (e.g., gay men who are not fashionable). In this context, the stereotype maintenance hypothesis suggests that feminine gay men and masculine lesbians will be regarded as more stereotypical than masculine gay men and feminine lesbians; and, thus, the former will be preferred.

Gender Roles

Although feminine gay men and masculine lesbians fit prevailing stereotypes of homosexuals, they may be perceived to be in violation of traditional gender roles (Madon, 1997). Lieblich and Friedman (1985) found a positive relation between sex-role polarization, the belief that the sex roles of men and women are opposite, and the rejection of homosexuality in samples of American and Israeli students. The more participants subscribed to the idea of sex-role polarization, the more negatively they rated homosexuality. This is consistent with research on sex-role deviation, which finds that sex-role deviants are disliked more than non-deviants (Laner & Laner, 1979, 1980). These findings suggest that heterosexuals may hold negative attitudes toward homosexuality because they perceive gay men and lesbians to be in violation of traditional gender roles. According to this perspective, counterstereotypical homosexuals (i.e., masculine gay men and feminine lesbians) should be preferred because they do not violate traditional gender roles. Thus, the gender-role hypothesis suggests that masculine gay men and feminine lesbians will be evaluated more favorably than feminine gay men and masculine lesbians because the former subscribe to traditional gender roles.

Method

Overview

The purpose of this study was to investigate attitudes that heterosexual men and women hold toward masculine and feminine gay men and lesbians. Specifically, we were interested in whether attitudes would vary as a function of three factors: (a) the sex of the participant, (b) the sex of the homosexual target, and (c) the homosexual target's masculinity or femininity.

Participants

Fifty-six college students (25 men and 31 women) enrolled in introductory psychology classes at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill participated in the experiment for partial course credit. Because the focus of our investigation was on attitudes held by heterosexual men and women, we asked participants to report their sexual orientation at the conclusion of the study, as part of a larger demographic questionnaire. One participant, who identified himself as "homosexual/gay," was excluded from the analyses.

Design

The study included two between-subject factors (participant sex and target sex) and one within-subjects factor (target personality). Participant sex compared male and female participants; target sex compared male and female targets. Target personality compared the masculine target to the feminine target.

Procedure

Participants were informed that they would be taking part in a study on impression formation. Participants were told they would be reading personality surveys that had been filled out by two students at their university and then evaluating these students based on their initial impressions.

Following informed consent procedures, participants received a packet of materials containing descriptions (completed personality surveys) of two (fictitious) students, both of whom identified themselves as homosexual. Participants were randomly assigned to read descriptions of either two male students or two female students (target sex). In each set, one target was portrayed as being masculine, and one target was portrayed as being feminine (target personality). Specifically, one target reported interests and extracurricular activities, personality traits, and an academic major that are more commonly associated with heterosexual men; whereas the other target reported interests and activities, personality traits, and an academic major that are more commonly associated with heterosexual women (see the Appendix for complete target descriptions). The descriptions of the male and female targets were identical, and the order the masculine and feminine targets were presented was counterbalanced across participants. (1)

Manipulation Checks and Target Ratings

To ensure that participants adequately read and understood the target descriptions, they were asked to answer a series of questions based on the information they received. They answered these questions separately for each target, immediately after they read the target description. First, they were asked to identify the gender and sexual orientation of the student they had just read about. Next, they responded to eight rating scales assessing liking, similarity, stereotypicality, perceived masculinity, and perceived femininity. Responses ranged from 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely). The items were presented in the following order:

1. How much do like this person?

2. How similar is this person to you?

3. To what extent do you think this person represents a stereotype?

4. In your opinion, how masculine is this person?

5. In your opinion, how feminine is this person?

6. How friendly do you think this person is?

7. How likeable do you think this person is?

8. How likely is it that you would become friends with this person?

Four of the target ratings assessed various aspects of liking for the target (Items 1, 6, 7, and 8): A composite liking score for each target was formed by averaging these four items (masculine target, [alpha] = .80; feminine target, [alpha] =.76). Higher scores on the liking composite indicate more liking of the target.

The rating scales were analyzed with repeated-measures analyses of variance (ANOVAs). Separate analyses were conducted on masculinity, femininity, similarity, stereotypicality, and the target liking composite. Target personality (masculine vs. feminine) was treated as a within-subjects factor. Participant sex (male vs. female) and target sex (male vs. female) were treated as between-subject factors.

Relative Liking

After reading both target descriptions and making separate ratings of each target, participants answered five forced-choice items that assessed relative liking for the targets. Specifically, they were asked to report (a) which of the two targets they liked more; (b) which target they would be more likely to study with; (c) which target they would be more likely to talk to at a party; (d) which target they would be more likely to become friends with; and (e) if they had to pick one of the targets to work with on a 15-min problem-solving task immediately following this stage of the experiment, which target they would choose. A choice of the more masculine target was coded -1, and a choice of the more feminine target was coded 1.

A relative liking composite score was formed by averaging the five items ([alpha] = .68). A score of 1 on the relative liking composite indicates a complete preference for the feminine target, a score of-1 indicates a complete preference for the masculine target, and a score of 0 indicates no preference. The forced-choice relative liking composite was analyzed with an ANOVA. Participant sex and target sex were treated as between-subject factors.

Results

Manipulation Checks

Target sex and sexual orientation. All participants correctly answered the target sex questions. One participant incorrectly indicated that the masculine target was heterosexual, and one participant incorrectly indicated that the feminine target was heterosexual. Because the sexual orientation of the targets was a critical component of this study, these participants were excluded from further analyses, resulting in a final sample size of 53 participants.

Target personality. The first two panels of Table 1 display the mean ratings of target masculinity and femininity. As expected, a repeated-measures ANOVA revealed main effects of target personality for both masculinity, F(1, 49)= 190.07, p < .001, d= 3.94; and femininity, F(1, 49)=171.85, p<.001, d=3.75; masculine target: masculinity, M = 5.04, SD = 1.06 and femininity, M = 2.77, SD = 1.05; feminine target: masculinity, M = 2.30, SD = 0.97 and femininity, M = 5.32, SD = 1.05). As expected, the masculine target was perceived as more masculine and less feminine than the feminine target.

Unexpectedly, there were also several significant interactions. For masculinity, Participant Sex x Target Sex, F(1, 49) = 5.53, p = .02, d = 0.67. For femininity, Participant Sex x Target Sex, F(1, 49) = 9.17, p = .004, d = 0.87; and Participant Sex x Target Personality, F(1, 49) = 4.82, p = .03, d = 0.63. The means for these differences are reported in Table 1. The Participant Sex x Target Sex interactions indicate that both male and female participants regarded the targets of the opposite sex as more masculine and less feminine. The Participant Sex x Target Personality interaction on femininity indicates that female participants differentiated less between masculine and feminine personality than male participants. Important to this study, however, both male and female participants thought the masculine target was more masculine and less feminine than the feminine target.

Similarity

The third panel of Table I displays the mean ratings of target similarity. A repeated-measures ANOVA of the similarity assessment revealed a significant Participant Sex x Target Personality interaction, F(1, 49) = 69.84, p < .001, d = 2.39. As expected, female participants felt more similar to the feminine target (M = 4.43, SD = 1.38) than the masculine target (M = 2.70, SD = 0.95), F(1, 49) = 40.33, p < .001, d = 1.81; and male participants felt more similar to the masculine target (M = 3.87, SD = 1.63) than the feminine target (M = 2.17, SD = 1.11), F(1, 49) = 30.78, p<.001, d = 1.59. No other effects were significant. (2)

Stereotypicality

The fourth panel of Table 1 displays the mean ratings of perceived target stereotypicality. A repeated-measures ANOVA yielded a significant Target Sex x Target Personality interaction, F(1, 49) = 59.52, p < .001, d = 2.20. As expected, the masculine lesbian (M = 5.00, SD = 1.64) was seen as more stereotypical than the feminine lesbian (M = 2.69, SD = 1.19), F1, 49) = 19.27, p<.001, d = 1.25; and the feminine gay man (M = 5.19, SD = 1.52) was seen as more stereotypical than the masculine gay man (M = 3.33, SD = 1.54), F(1, 49) = 42.19, p < .001, d = 1.86.

Target Liking Composite

The bottom panel of Table 1 displays the mean ratings of the target liking composite, and Figure 1 graphically depicts this information. A repeated-measures ANOVA of target liking yielded significant effects for target personality, F(1, 49) = 7.04, p = .01, d = 0.76; participant sex, F(1, 49) = 11.46, p = .001, d = 0.97; Target Sex x Target Personality, F(1, 49) = 13.07, p =.001, d = 1.03; and Participant Sex x Target Sex x Target Personality, F(1, 49) = 6.00, p = .02, d = 0.70.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

We probed the triple interaction by testing the Participant Sex x Target Personality double interaction separately for male and female targets. The Participant Sex x Target Personality interaction was significant for gay male targets, F(1, 49) = 10.35, p =.002, d = 0.92; but not for lesbian targets, F(1, 49) = 0.04, p = .84, d = 0.06. The simple effect of target personality for the gay male target was significant for male participants, F(1, 49) = 6.55, p = .01, d = 0.73; but marginal, in the opposite direction, for female participants, F(1, 49) = 3.83, p = .06, d = 0.56. Whereas male participants liked the masculine gay man significantly more than the feminine gay man, there was a marginal tendency for female participants to like the feminine gay man more than the masculine gay man.

For lesbian targets, there were main effects for target personality, F(1, 49) = 20.15, p < .001, d = 1.28; and participant sex, F(1, 49) = 13.09, p = .001, d = 1.03. Female participants liked both lesbian targets more than male participants liked them, and both male and female participants liked the feminine lesbian target more than the masculine lesbian target.

Relative Liking Composite

Figure 2 displays the mean scores for the relative liking composite. An ANOVA of relative liking yielded significant effects for target sex, F(1, 49) = 21.51, p < .001, d = 1.33; participant sex, F(I, 49) = 4.71, p = .04, d = 0.62; and Participant Sex x Target Sex, F(1, 49) = 8.60, p = .005, d = 0.84. For the lesbian target, the simple effect for participant sex was nonsignificant, F(1, 49) = 0.30, p = .59, d = 0.16. The mean relative liking rating for lesbian targets (M = 0.37, SD = 0.38) was significantly greater than zero, t(26) = 3.30, p = .003, d = 1.29, indicating that both male and female participants preferred the feminine lesbian to the masculine lesbian.

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

For the male target, the simple effect for participant sex was significant, F(1, 49) = 12.70, p = .001, d = 1.02. Although male participants strongly preferred the masculine gay man to the feminine gay man (M = -0.69, SD = 0.39), t(10) = -5.82, p < .001, d = 3.68, female participants had a slight, nonsignificant preference for the feminine gay man over the masculine gay men (M = 0.07, SD = 0.52), t(14) = 0.50, p =.63, d = 0.27.

Similarity and Liking Correlations

Regardless of target sex, female participants felt more similar to the feminine target than the masculine target, and also tended to like the feminine target more than the masculine target (although this trend was marginal when the target was a man). Taken together, these findings suggest that for female participants, liking may be related to perceived similarity. We tested this possibility by computing the correlations between the ratings of similarity and liking among female participants (n = 30), for both the masculine target and the feminine target. For female participants, the correlation between similarity and liking was r = .44, p = .02 for the masculine target; and r = .28, p =. 13 for the feminine target. Overall, female participants perceived the feminine target as more similar to them (see Table 1), but this perception of similarity was only weakly, and nonsignificantly, correlated with their liking of the feminine target.

Discussion

The goal of this research was to investigate differences in how heterosexual men and women evaluate masculine versus feminine homosexual targets. Research on stereotype maintenance (Rudman & Fairchild, 2004), similarity (McPherson et al., 2001), and gender roles (Laner & Laner, 1979, 1980) suggested three different hypotheses, but none of these hypotheses was uniformly supported. As expected, heterosexual men and women perceived a feminine gay man and a masculine lesbian as more stereotypical than a masculine gay man and a feminine lesbian. Also as expected, regardless of the target's gender, heterosexual women felt more similar to a feminine target, and heterosexual men felt more similar to a masculine target. Absolute and relative assessments of liking, however, did not conform to either of these patterns. Heterosexual men liked the masculine gay man more than the feminine gay man, whereas heterosexual women liked the masculine and feminine gay man approximately the same (although there were descriptive, nonsignificant, tendencies for heterosexual women to like the feminine gay man more).

These findings clearly indicate that the degree to which homosexual targets confirm stereotypes about homosexuality does not affect their likeability in the eyes of heterosexual men and women--that is, neither heterosexual men's nor women's liking for gay men and lesbians appears to be driven by the targets' congruence with homosexual stereotypes. Instead, the evidence suggests that, for heterosexual men, liking is driven primarily by the compatibility of the target with traditional gender roles (i.e., masculine men and feminine women were liked more than feminine men and masculine women). Traditional gender-role stereotypes seem to "trump" homosexual stereotypes in their ability to influence heterosexual men's attitudes. When heterosexual men evaluate a homosexual individual, their evaluation is likely to be more favorable when the individual's personality fits with traditional gender-role stereotypes, as opposed to homosexual stereotypes.

For heterosexual women, gender-role compatibility does not appear to matter. For women, liking may be driven more by perceived similarity, but this proposition is questionable given the weak correlations and the different pattern of ANOVA effects for target similarity and target liking. It is possible that heterosexual women's attitudes toward gay men and lesbians are determined by a multiplicity of influences, of which similarity is only one of many factors. Although we could not investigate this issue with these data, it remains an important question for future research.

Why should gender-role compatibility matter more for heterosexual men than women? One possibility relates to differences in how men and women conceptualize homosexuality. Men are more likely to conceptualize homosexuality as a departure from traditional gender roles, whereas women are more likely to view gay men and lesbians as members of a disadvantaged social group (Herek, 2000, 2002). According to Herek (2000), "heterosexual men apparently organize their attitudes in terms of gender and sexual identity, which results in different ways of thinking about lesbians and about gay men" (p. 264). Because gender and sexual identity are relatively more influential for men's attitudes, it follows that men will have more unfavorable attitudes toward men and women who violate traditional gender and sexual identity norms. Because women, instead, tend to organize their attitudes with a "minority group paradigm" (Herek, 2000, p. 264), it follows that gender-role incompatibility will be relatively less influential for their attitudes, and the results of these findings are consistent with this reasoning.

A potential limitation of this study is the use of liking assessments as the primary dependent variable. Heterosexuals' attitudes toward homosexuals may be complex and differ on a variety of dimensions, including condemnation, tolerance, and morality (LaMar & Kite, 1998). To address this issue, future research should explore the different dimensions of heterosexuals' attitudes toward stereotypical and counterstereotypical gay men and lesbians. Future research should also explore differences in attitudes heterosexuals have toward homosexuality, in general, versus attitudes they have toward particular homosexual targets. These two types of attitudes may be more distinct than is commonly assumed. Heterosexuals' general attitudes toward homosexuality might be primarily guided by their feelings about the sexual behaviors they believe gay men and lesbians practice, at least for heterosexual men (Herek, 2000, 2002). However, when it comes to forming attitudes toward actual gay men and lesbians, heterosexuals may base their evaluations primarily on the target's personality instead of the target's sexual orientation. Of course, extreme sexual prejudice might blind a person from seeing a homosexual individual's personality, but for those with less prejudice, an individual's sexual orientation might be relatively less influential for how they are evaluated compared to their interests and personalities.

Conclusion

The goal of this study was to shed new light on the attitudes that heterosexual men and women have about gay men and lesbians. Although tremendous strides have been made in recent decades to understand, accept, and embrace individuals of different sexual orientations, there is still more work to be done. Future research should continue to investigate the nature of attitudes about homosexuality. It is our hope that sharpened insight will bring greater harmony among those of different sexual orientations.

Appendix: Target Descriptions

Student #57 (Masculine Target)

Age: 21

Sex: Male/Female (randomly assigned)

Sexual orientation: Homosexual

Major: Engineering

Interests: rugby, basketball, camping, hanging out with friends

Extracurricular activities: Daily Tarheel, UNC Rugby Football Team

List three or four adjectives that describe you best: adventurous, hard-working, assertive, self-sufficient

Favorite television shows: Sports Center on ESPN, The Simpsons, Law & Order, The Sopranos

Favorite movies: Braveheart, Star Wars, The Godfather

Favorite music: Outkast, Guns N Roses, White Stripes

Brief description: I am laidback and easy to get along with. I take pride in my independence, although one of my favorite ways to pass the time is playing videogames with my friends. I believe that it's important to be willing to take risks in life.

Student #64 (Feminine Target)

Age: 21

Sex: Male/Female (randomly assigned)

Sexual orientation: Homosexual

Major: Nursing, with a minor in Philosophy

Interests: shopping, gourmet cooking, spending time with friends, dancing

Extracurricular activities: Carolina Culinary Club, UNC Yearbook

List three or four adjectives that describe you best: conscientious, compassionate, artistic, expressive

Favorite television shows: Friends, The Bachelor, CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, Sex & the City

Favorite movies: Gladiator, Pretty Woman, Gone With the Wind

Favorite musicians: Missy Elliott, Beatles, Tori Amos

Brief description: I'm easygoing and enjoy meeting new people. There's nothing I like more than good sushi and late night conversations about current events, history, or anything else that is on a friend's mind. I believe an important skill in life is to be able to communicate your feelings to others.

References

Davies, M. (2004). Correlates of negative attitudes toward gay men: Sexism, male role norms, and male sexuality. Journal of Sex Research, 4, 259-266.

Forster, J., Higgins, E., & Strack, F. (2000). When stereotype disconfirmation is a personal threat: How prejudice and prevention focus moderate incongruency effects. Social Cognition, 18, 178197.

Foushee, H. C., Helmreich, R. I., & Spence, J. T. (1979). Implicit theories of masculinity and femininity: Dualistic or bipolar? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 3, 259-269.

Herek, G. M. (2000). Sexual prejudice and gender: Do heterosexuals' attitudes toward lesbians and gay men differ? Journal of Social Issues, 56, 251-266.

Herek, G. M. (2002). Gender gaps in public opinion about lesbians and gay men. Public Opinion Quarterly, 66, 40-66.

Herek, G. M. (2007). Sexual orientation. Science, education, and policy. Retrieved October 28, 2007, http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/ rainbow/index.html.

Herek, G. M. & Capitanio, J. P. (1996). "Some of my best friends": Intergroup contact, concealable stigma, and heterosexuals' attitudes toward gay men and lesbians. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 412-424.

Kite, M. E. (1984). Sex differences in attitudes toward homosexuals: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Homosexuality, 10, 69-81. Kite, M. E. & Deaux, K. (I 987). Gender belief systems: Homosexuality and the implicit inversion theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11, 83-96.

Kite, M. E. & Whitley, B. E. Jr., (1996). Sex differences in attitudes toward homosexual persons, behaviors, and civil rights: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 336-353.

Kite, M. E. & Whitley, B. E. Jr., (1998). Do heterosexual women and men differ in their attitudes towards homosexuality? A conceptual and methodological analysis. In G. M. Herek (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on lesbian and gay issues." Vol. 4. Stigma and sexual orientation: Understanding prejudice against lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals (pp. 39-61). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

LaMar, L. & Kite, M. E. (1998). Sex differences in attitudes toward gay men and lesbians: A multidimensional perspective. Journal of Sex Research, 35, 189-196.

Laner, M. R. & Laner, R. H. (1979). Personal style or sexual preference: Why gay men are disliked. International Review of Modern Sociology, 9, 215-228.

Laner, M. R. & Laner, R. H. (1980). Sexual preference or personal style: Why lesbians are disliked. Journal of Homosexuality, 5, 339-356.

Lieblich, A. & Friedman, G. (1985). Attitudes toward male and female homosexuality and sex-role stereotypes in Israeli and American students. Sex Roles, 12, 561-570.

Louderbeck, L. A. & Whitley, B. E. Jr., (1997). Perceived erotic value of homosexuality and sex-role attitudes as mediators of sex differences in heterosexual college students' attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. Journal of Sex Research, 34, 175-182.

Madon, S. (1997). What do people believe about gay males? A study of stereotype content and strength. Sex Roles, 37, 663-685.

McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415-444.

Oliver, M. B. & Hyde, J. S. (1993). Gender differences in sexuality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 29-51.

Oliver, M. B. & Hyde, J. S. (1995). Gender differences in attitudes toward homosexuality: A reply to Whitley and Kite. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 155-158.

Page, S. & Yee, M. (1985). Conception of male and female homosexual stereotypes among university undergraduates. Journal of Homosexuality, 12, 109-117.

Rankin, S. R. (2003). Campus climate for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people. A national perspective. New York: The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute.

Rudman, L., & Fairchild, K. (2004). Reactions to counterstereotypic behavior: The role of backlash in cultural stereotype maintenance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 157-176.

Taylor, A. (1983). Conceptions of masculinity and femininity as a basis for stereotypes of male and female homosexuals. Journal of Homosexuality, 9, 37-53. U.S. Department of Justice--Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2005).

Hate crime statistics 2005. Retrieved October 27, 2007, from http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/table1.htm

Whitley, B. Jr., & Kite, M. (1995). Sex differences in attitudes toward homosexuality: A comment on Oliver and Hyde (1993). Psychological Bulletin, 117, 146-154.

Taya R. Cohen

Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University

Deborah L. Hall

Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Duke University

Jennifer Tuttle

Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

(1) Despite the counterbalancing, in preliminary analyses we tested for order effects. The order the targets were presented did not moderate any of the findings we present.

(2) For similarity, there were marginal effects for participant sex, F(1, 49) = 3.57, p = .07, d = 0.54; Target Sex x Target Personality, F(1, 49) = 3.86, p = .06, d = 0.56; and Participant Sex x Target Sex x Target Personality, F(1, 49) = 3.86, p = .06, d = 0.56.

This article was submitted for publication under the Editorship of John DeLamater.

We thank Vaida Thompson for her encouragement to pursue this project.

Correspondence should be addressed to Taya R. Cohen, Department of Management & Organizations, Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, 2001 Sheridan Rd., Evanston, IL 60208. E-mail: [e-mail]

Table 1. Ratings of Masculinity, Femininity, Similarity,
Stereotypicality, and the Liking Composite

                                         Male Target

  Variable              Masculine Gay Man   Feminine Gay Man

Masculinity
  Male Participants        4.91 (1.04)        1.91 (0.83)
  Female Participants      5.13 (0.83)        2.67 (0.98)
Femininity
  Male Participants        2.91 (1.14)        5.82 (0.87)
  Female Participants      2.80 (1.01)        4.87 (1.13)
Similarity
  Male Participants        4.36 (1.29)        1.82 (0.60)
  Female Participants      2.73 (1.16)        4.47 (1.51)
Stereotypicality
  Male Participants        2.64 (1.29)        5.82 (1.08)
  Female Participants      2.73 (1.16)        4.73 (1.67)
Liking composite
  Male Participants        4.91 (0.68)        4.27 (0.72)
  Female Participants      4.70 (0.77)        5.12 (0.95)

                                     Female Target

  Variable              Masculine Lesbian   Feminine Lesbian

Masculinity
  Male Participants        5.50 (1.09)        2.25 (1.29)
  Female Participants      4.67 (1.18)        2.27 (0.70)
Femininity
  Male Participants        2.08 (0.67)        5.25 (1.22)
  Female Participants      3.20 (1.08)        5.47 (0.83)
Similarity
  Male Participants        3.42 (1.83)        2.50 (1.38)
  Female Participants      2.67 (0.72)        4.40 (1.30)
Stereotypicality
  Male Participants        5.58 (1.51)        3.50 (1.51)
  Female Participants      5.00 (1.64)        3.20 (1.61)
Liking composite
  Male Participants        3.58 (0.81)        4.33 (1.07)
  Female Participants      4.55 (0.67)        5.23 (0.49)

Note. N=53. Ratings ranged from 1 (not at alb to 7 (extremely).
Means (with standard deviations) are presented.