Correlates of negative attitudes toward gay men: sexism, male role norms, and male sexuality.

Research has shown that heterosexual men tend to hold more negative attitudes toward homosexuality than heterosexual women do (Kite & Whitley, 1996, 1998). More specifically, men's attitudes toward gay men are generally more negative than are their attitudes toward lesbians (e.g., Kite & Whitley, 1996, 1998). Traditional gender belief systems encourage men to be more negative toward homosexuality--particularly more negative toward gay men--than they do women. Men are encouraged by Western society to endorse more traditional views about gender roles than women are, and part of the traditional gender role belief system is to be homophobic (e.g., Kite & Whitley, 1998; Herek, 1986). Herek (1986) succinctly stated, "To be a man in society is to be homophobic" (p. 563). Male gender roles are more clearly defined in society than female roles are, and there are more sanctions imposed on men who are seen to violate these roles than there are on women (Archer, 1989). Thus, heterosexual men's negative attitudes toward gay men are reasoned to stem, at least in part, from their conformity to traditional gender belief systems (Kite & Whitley, 1998). Negative beliefs about the roles of women and attitudes toward male gender roles are also part of the traditional gender belief system and are both correlated with negative attitudes toward gay men (e.g., Agnew, Thompson, Smith, Gramzow, & Currey, 1993; Herek, 1988; LaMar & Kite, 1998; Sinn, 1997; Whitley, 2001; see also Kite & Whitley, 1998, for a review). It seems, therefore, that negative attitudes toward gay men are part of a larger construct than just negative attitudes toward homosexuality and that endorsing all of these attitudes demonstrates a general belief in traditional gender roles.

Attitudes toward homosexuality are complex and multifaceted. Kite and Whitley (1996) classified attitudes toward homosexuality into three subcomponents: attitudes toward homosexual persons, attitudes toward homosexual behaviour, and attitudes toward gay people's civil fights. Attitudes toward homosexual persons was conceptualised by Kite and Whitley as "homosexuality as a threat to the respondent, to people close to the respondent, and to strangers, and the management of homosexuality by means of social restrictions"(p. 337). In contrast, they conceptualised attitudes toward homosexual behaviour as "the moral reprehensability of homosexuality as a deviant sexual act and lifestyle" (p. 339). Finally, they conceptualised attitudes toward gay and lesbian civil fights as "issues such as free speech, parental rights, and other legal and constitutional issues" (p. 339).

In a meta-analysis of 112 studies that had investigated attitudes toward homosexuality, Kite and Whitley (1996) showed that gender differences were evident in attitudes toward homosexual persons and attitudes toward homosexual behaviour, with men being more negative than women. However, they found no clear gender difference on attitudes toward gay people's civil fights. Whilst many people believe that lesbians and gay men deserve the same civil fights as the heterosexual population, they still hold very negative attitudes toward gay people and their sexual behaviour (Kite & Whitely, 1996, 1998). Adding to Kite and Whitley's (1996) conceptions of attitudes toward homosexual persons and homosexual behaviour, LaMar and Kite (1998) grouped these attitudes conceptually as condemnation of or moral judgements toward homosexuals. More recently, Whitley (2001) made the distinction between the affective measurement of attitudes toward homosexuals (using items from Crites, Fabrigar, & Petty's [1994] affect scale) and beliefs about homosexuals. His beliefs scale assessed endorsement of certain stereotypes to do with homosexuals, such as "gay men have feminine characteristics" or "gay men's mothers are very domineering" (Whitley, 2001, p. 706). Whitley investigated the relationships between affective judgements toward homosexuals and beliefs about homosexuals and found that these two types of measures were highly correlated. Thus, it could be that specific beliefs and stereotypes about homosexuals measure affective responses to homosexuality that are conceptually different than other attitudes, such as attitudes toward the civil rights of homosexuals.

The aim of the current study was to investigate the subcomponents of attitudes toward gay men as conceptualised by Kite and Whitley (1996) and to investigate a number of possible attitudinal correlates of those subcomponents. A further aim was to investigate negative attitudes toward gay men in the United Kingdom. As most studies that investigate negative attitudes toward gay men are done in the United States, it is important to study this issue in samples other than from the U.S. This study should therefore extend current knowledge about the multifaceted nature of attitudes toward homosexuality. Specifically, I focused on attitudes toward gay men in this study, due to the generally greater negative reactions toward them (Kite & Whitley, 1996, 1998).

I developed a scale for the purpose of this study that included items that reflected attitudes toward gay male persons, attitudes toward the sexual behaviour of gay men, and attitudes toward gay men's civil rights. Several well-validated scales exist that purport to measure homophobic attitudes (e.g., Herek, 1984, 1988; Hudson & Rickets, 1980; Kite & Deaux, 1986). However, no previous scales have measured all three attitudinal subcomponents conceptualised by Kite and Whitley (1996). The scale in the current study used items available from previous research that I judged as the most appropriate items to assess each of the three attitude subcomponents. I modified several items to counteract problems with previous scales; for example, previous scales ask about disgust toward gay sex (Hudson & Rickets, 1980), but do not consider that people may find sex in general--not just gay sex--disgusting. Therefore, I reworded such items to take into account possible confounds.

As previously stated, prior research has shown that negative attitudes toward gay men are correlated with other attitudes, such as attitudes toward male role norms and negative attitudes toward women. The belief that men should be tough and strong may be particularly salient if negative attitudes toward gay men are indeed related to a general belief system regarding traditional gender roles. I used Thompson and Pleck's (1986) Toughness Scale of their Male Role Norms Scale as a measure of attitudes toward male toughness. Attitudes toward male sexuality in heterosexual interactions might also be pertinent to negative attitudes toward gay men. If people endorse conservative views about men in heterosexual sexual interactions, it could be that they also endorse negative views about homosexuals. To measure this possible relationship, I included two items from Levant et al.'s (1992) Attitudes Towards Sex Scale in this study. These two items measured men's behaviour in heterosexual sexual situations.

To measure negative attitudes toward women, I used the Hostile Sexism Scale of Glick and Fiske's (1996) Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI), as it is a contemporary scale that measures modern attitudes toward women. Older measures, such as Spence and Helmreich's (1972) Attitudes Towards Women Scale (AWS), have been correlated with negative attitudes toward homosexuality (Whitley, 2001). Although the AWS is still a useful research tool, I did not use it in this study as it measures the roles and rights of women in society and is not a general measure of beliefs about women (Eagly & Mladinic, 1989; McHugh & Hanson Frieze, 1997). Because I considered it worthy of measuring modern, hostile attitudes toward women in relation to subcomponents of attitudes toward gay men, I chose the Hostile Sexism Scale of the ASI for use in the current study. In addition to the Hostile Sexism Scale, the ASI also comprises the Benevolent Sexism Scale. Only the Hostile Sexism Scale was used in this study as it is a measure of overt sexist attitudes toward women (see Glick & Fiske, 1996).

Based on the premise that negative gender role beliefs operate on an affective level, I predicted that males would be more negative than females on the dimensions of gay men's sexual behaviour and attitudes toward gay male persons. I also predicted that negative attitudes toward gay men and the sexual behaviour of gay men would be correlated with attitudes toward male toughness, attitudes toward male sexuality, and hostile sexism. However, I predicted that attitudes toward the civil rights of gay men would not be related to these attitude constructs.

METHOD

Respondents

I recruited 517 respondents (194 males and 323 females). All respondents were undergraduate students at the same university in the northwest of England. All respondents completed the questionnaire voluntarily. Age ranged from 18 to 63 years (mean age = 23.5 years). The majority (91.3%) identified themselves as heterosexual, while 7 (1.4%) identified as homosexual, 15 (2.9%) as bisexual, 14 (2.7%) were not sure, and 9 (1.7%) did not specify their sexual orientation. As this study investigated heterosexual men's and women's attitudes toward gay men, respondents who indicated that they were anything other than heterosexual (homosexual, bisexual, or unsure) and those who did not specify their sexual orientation were excluded from all further analysis. This left 472 (170 male and 302 female) respondents in the study. The majority of the sample (80.3%) were White and of British nationality, 10.4% were Asian (Indian or Pakistani), and the rest were of other nationalities.

Materials

I designed the questionnaire booklet for this study. In completing the questionnaire, respondents provided some personal details: gender, age, and sexual orientation. Standardised instructions on how to complete the questionnaire were included within the booklet and I provided an addressed envelope for anonymous return of the questionnaire booklet.

The scales in this study were distributed as part of a larger attitudinal survey. As no current attitude scales measure all three subcomponents of attitudes toward gay men, I developed the scale for the purpose of this study. The Attitudes Toward Gay Men Scale contained 13 items adapted from previous scales measuring attitudes toward homosexuality. Items 1 through 5 were modified from Herek's (1984) Attitudes Toward Gay Men Scale. Item 6 was modified from Hudson and Ricket's (1980) Index of Homophobia. Items 7 through 10 were modified from Kite and Deaux's (1986) Homosexuality Attitude Scale. I developed items 11 through 13. The wording of several items was changed to reflect negativity toward sexual and affectionate behaviour between men, rather than sexual and affectionate displays in general. For example, Item 6 of this study was modified from Item 14 of Hudson and Ricket's Index of Homophobia. The original read "If I saw two men holding hands in public I would feel disgusted"; this was changed in this study to "lf I saw two men holding hands in public I would feel more disgusted than if I saw a man and woman holding hands." Where questions in the original scales pertained to homosexuals in general, I changed them to apply to gay men only.

Items 2, 7, 8, and 11 measured attitudes toward homosexual persons; Items, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 9 measured attitudes toward homosexual behaviour; and Items 10, 12, and 13 measured attitudes toward gay men's civil rights. All questions were rated on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Three items (4, 10, and 12) were reverse scored and were corrected accordingly before analysis. A high score on this scale represented a negative attitude.

I used the Toughness Scale of the Male Role Norms Scale (MRNS; Thompson & Pleck, 1986) to assess attitudes toward male toughness; an exemplary item is "fists are sometimes the only way to get out of a bad situation." An additional two items were added to this scale specifically to measure aspects of male sexuality. I took two items from the Attitudes Towards Sex Scale (ATSS) developed by Levant et al. (1992), which pertained to the expected roles and behaviour of men in sexual situations (for example, "Men should always take the initiative when it comes to sex"). All items on the MRNS and the ATSS were measured on a 7-point scale from 1 (don't agree at all) to 7 (agree very much). A high score on this scale represented a negative attitude.

Finally, I used the 11-item Hostile Sexism Scale of the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI) to assess modern attitudes toward women. This scale was developed by Glick and Fiske (1996) and measures hostile sexist beliefs about women; an exemplary item is "Women seek to gain power and control over men." All items on this scale were measured on a 7-point scale from 1 (don't agree at all) to 7 (agree very much). A high score on this scale represented a negative attitude.

Procedure

I recruited an opportunity sample of respondents from undergraduate students at a university in northwest England. I approached all respondents in person in the university library and other quiet study areas on campus and asked whether they would be willing to complete a psychology survey. Precise details about the nature of the survey were not given by me or within the questionnaire booklet. I asked respondents to complete the questionnaire in their own time using standardised instructions printed within the booklet. Participation in the study was voluntary and unpaid. Anonymity was maintained throughout the study. I gave respondents an addressed envelope to return their completed questionnaire via post. Seven hundred questionnaires were distributed in total; the response rate was 74%.

RESULTS

Principal Components Analysis of Attitude Scales

I submitted each of the attitudinal scales to principal components analysis with varimax rotation using SPSS for Windows, Version 10. Factor loadings below 0.1 were suppressed in all analyses. The results of each analysis are shown in detail in the following sections.

Negative Attitudes Toward Gay Men Scale. The rotated factor solution revealed two factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.00. Although this scale included items that assessed all three attitudinal subcomponents identified by Kite and Whitley (1996), items that pertained to attitudes toward gay men's sexual behaviour and attitudes toward gay male persons loaded onto the same factor. One item I expected to measure gay men's civil rights also loaded onto Factor 1. This factor thus comprised 9 items and appeared overall to refer to affective reactions toward gay men, so I labelled it "affective reactions." The scale developed from this factor showed a Cronbach's alpha of .95.

The second factor comprised 4 items. The two items that I expected to measure attitudes toward gay male persons loaded onto this factor in addition to the two that I used to assess attitudes toward civil rights. However, I still judged this factor to adequately measure civil rights and labelled it thus. This scale showed a Cronbach's alpha of .87 (see Table 1 for factor loadings and eigenvalues of both factors). Male toughness and male sexuality. The male toughness scale and the items referring to male sexuality both measured attitudes toward masculinity and were subjected to the same principal components analysis. I expected that male toughness items and those referring to male sexuality would load onto separate factors. This was indeed the case. However, the rotated factor solution revealed three factors with eigenvalues greater that 1.00. All but one item on Factor 3 loaded more highly onto Factor 1. Therefore, I included these items on the latter factor. The only item (Item 8, "A man should always refuse to get into a fight, even if there seems to be no way to avoid it") that loaded more highly onto Factor 3 than the other factors was not included in further analysis. Thus, Factor 1 comprised 7 items referring to attitudes toward male toughness. I labelled this scale "toughness" (Cronbach's alpha = .82). The second factor comprised 2 items that referred to attitudes toward the role of men in sexual relationships. I labelled this factor "male sexuality" (Cronbach's alpha = .62). Despite the low reliability, I used it in further analyses.

Hostile sexism. Despite Glick and Fiske's (1996) assertion that this scale comprised one factor, the rotated factor solution on these data actually revealed two factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.00. The first factor comprised 8 items referring to hostile sexist values. I labelled this scale "hostile sexism" (Cronbach's alpha = .82). The second factor comprised 3 items that I judged to measure attitudes toward feminism and feminist ideals. I labelled this scale "attitudes towards feminism" (Cronbach's Alpha = .63). Again, despite the low reliability of this scale, I used it further (see Table 3 for factor loadings and eigenvalues).

Gender Differences

I calculated total scores on all of the attitude scales. Scores between 9 and 63 were obtained for affective reactions, with 63 reflecting extreme negative affective reactions toward gay men. Scores for civil rights fell between 4 and 28, with 28 reflecting extreme negative attitudes toward gay men's civil rights. On the male role scales, toughness scores fell between 7 and 49, and male sexuality scores fell between 2 and 14. High scores represented conservative attitudes toward toughness and male sexuality, respectively. On the sexism measures, scores ranged between 8 and 54 for hostile sexism, and between 3 and 21 for attitudes toward feminism. A high score represented a more conservative attitude. I calculated means and standard deviations for men and women on all scales (see Table 4 below).

I performed two-tailed independent samples t tests to test the gender differences on all attitude scales. Predictions pertained specifically to affective reactions and civil rights. As predicted, the t test on affective reactions revealed a significant gender difference such that males were more negative toward gay men than females were. Also as predicted, the t test on civil rights revealed no difference between male's and female's attitudes toward the civil rights of gay men.

Significant gender differences were also revealed on all other attitude measures, except attitudes toward feminism. Men were more likely to endorse conservative views about male toughness, male sexuality, and hostile sexism than women were. However, no difference was revealed on attitudes towards feminism.

Pearson's Correlations of Affective Reactions and Civil Rights With Other Attitude Scales

I ran a series of two-tailed bivariate Pearson's correlations (using SPSS for Windows, Version 10), to measure associations between affective reactions and civil rights and the measures of hostile sexism, attitudes toward feminism, male toughness, and male sexuality. (1) Table 5 shows the correlation matrix for all scales.

I found significant correlations between affective reactions and hostile sexism, male toughness, and male sexuality. Civil rights did not correlate significantly with these attitudes. However, civil rights did correlate moderately with attitudes toward feminism. In addition, I found significant correlations between toughness and hostile sexism, male sexuality and hostile sexism, and toughness and male sexuality. (2)

Multiple Regressions

I conducted simultaneous multiple regression (using SPSS for Windows, Version 10) to investigate whether scores on all scales would predict scores on affective reactions. Based on the correlations, I expected that toughness, male sexuality, and hostile sexism would predict affective reactions, but that civil rights and attitudes toward feminism would not.

I entered affective reactions as the criterion variable, and civil rights, toughness, male sexuality, hostile sexism, and attitudes toward feminism simultaneously as predictors. As expected, three significant predictors were revealed: toughness, hostile sexism, and male sexuality. Toughness was the strongest predictor variable. Hostile sexism and (contrary to predictions) attitudes toward feminism were also significant predictors. Male sexuality approached significance. Summary statistics are shown in Table 6.

Ethnicity Differences

Although not planned a priori, because of the relatively high percentage of Asians (Indian or Pakistani) in the sample (just over 10%), I decided to compare scores on affective reactions and civil fights between White British and Asian respondents.

I conducted two two-tailed independent-samples t tests to compare White and Asian scores on affective reactions and civil rights. A significant difference was revealed on affective reactions such that Asians were more negative toward gay men than Whites. However, no difference was revealed on civil fights. Table 7 shows the means and standard deviations.

DISCUSSION

The principals components analysis of the Negative Attitudes Toward Gay Men Scale revealed that Kite and Whitley's (1996) constructs of attitudes toward homosexual persons and attitudes toward homosexual behaviour (at least in relation to gay men) loaded onto the same factor--one that reflected affective reactions toward gay men. This is consistent with research that indicates that negative attitudes toward gay men reflect an affective content (Herek, 1987; LaMar & Kite, 1998; Whitley, 2001).

However, this finding could be a function of the particular items chosen to reflect the constructs of attitudes toward gay male persons and attitudes toward gay male sexual behaviour. That is, the specific wording of these items could have had particular affective content. As I chose items that I thought would elicit an affective reaction, this explanation seems probable. Further investigation is thus needed to validate the scale used in this study to determine whether attitudes toward homosexual persons and those toward homosexual behaviour do indeed reflect an affective reaction toward gay men, or whether the findings of the current study were a function of the items used. However, in line with Kite and Whitley's research, this study did reveal that affective reactions toward gay men loaded onto a separate factor from that of attitudes toward civil fights. These findings are also consistent with LaMar and Kite's (1998) research, which conceptualised attitudes toward homosexual persons and behaviour as one construct that they termed condemnation of homosexuals.

As predicted, and in line with previous research, males were more likely to express negative reactions toward gay men than were females. In accordance with Kite and Whitley's (1996) research, this gender difference was only apparent on the affective reactions scale (the composite of attitudes toward homosexual persons and toward homosexual behaviour). Traditional gender belief systems encourage men to be more negative toward gay men than they do women. Men are encouraged by society to endorse more traditional views about gender roles than women are, and part of the traditional gender role belief system is to be homophobic (e.g. Kite & Whitley, 1998; Herek, 1986). Also consistent with Kite and Whitley's research, I found no difference in male and female attitudes toward gay men's civil rights. This implies that men's homophobia stems, at least in part, from affective aversion to gay men.

The second aim of this study was to investigate attitudinal correlates of Kite and Whitley's proposed attitudinal subcomponents. I predicted that attitudes toward gay male persons and attitudes toward gay male sexual behaviour would be related to hostile sexism, attitudes toward male toughness, and attitudes toward male sexuality. As predicted, moderate but significant correlations were revealed between affective reactions (the composite of these two subcomponents) and hostile sexism, male toughness, and male sexuality. This finding supports previous research that negative attitudes toward gay men are part of a larger construct concerning traditional gender roles (Kite & Whitley, 1998; Whitley, 2001). Interestingly, however, and as predicted, civil rights did not correlate with these attitudes. Rather, civil rights correlated specifically with attitudes toward feminism. Although caution must be taken in interpreting this particular finding because the reliability in the attitudes toward feminism scale was low, it extends previous research. It suggests that while affective reactions toward gay men are part of a general attitude construct concerning traditional gender roles, attitudes toward the civil rights of gay men are part of a different, independent attitudinal construct. Research has shown that negative attitudes toward gay men are related to a broader construct of conservative authoritarianism (Kite & Whitley, 1998; Whitley & AEgisdottir, 2000; Whitley & Lee, 2000). Whitley and AEgisdottir (2000), for example, investigated the relationship between attitudes toward homosexuals (using Herek's [1988] Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men Scale), gender role beliefs (using the AWS), and authoritarianism (using Altemeyer's [1988] Right Wing Authoritarianism Scale). Whitley and AEgisdottir found both direct and indirect links between attitudes toward homosexuals and authoritarianism. The indirect link was through gender role beliefs.

In addition to authoritarianism, which is a measure of the derogation of out-groups and beliefs in traditional values (Altemeyer, 1988), social dominance orientation is also related to attitudes toward homosexuals (Whitley & AEgisdottir, 2000; Whitley & Lee, 2000). Social dominance orientation is a measure of the extent to which people feel that the group in which they claim membership is superior to other groups (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Social dominance differs from authoritarianism in terms of the roles of the stereotypes that people use to endorse prejudice (see Whitley, 1999, for a further discussion). However, like people high in authoritarianism, those high in social dominance seek to derogate members of out-groups. As with authoritarianism, Whitley and AEgisdottir (2000) found links between social dominance and attitudes toward homosexuals. Therefore, attitudes toward homosexuality are related to both gender role beliefs and measures of the derogation of out-groups. It could be, as Whitley & AEgisdottir's research suggests, that affective reactions (as measured in the current study) would be directly related to traditional gender beliefs and indirectly related to measures of out-group derogation. However, attitudes toward the civil rights of gay people might be directly related to measures of out-group derogation. Future research is needed to investigate this suggestion.

A significant minority of respondents identified as ethnic minorities, with just over 10% of the sample being of Asian (Indian or Pakistani) origin. I made no a priori predictions regarding the effects of ethnicity on affective reactions or attitudes about civil rights, as I did not expect that I would recruit enough Asian respondents using opportunity sampling to enable such analyses. Although there were not enough Asian males in the sample (n = 13) to conduct a gender by ethnicity comparison, comparisons between White and Asian respondents excluding gender were possible. Results revealed that Asians were considerably more negative on affective reactions than Whites were, but no difference was revealed on civil rights. Scores on affective reactions of the sample as a whole averaged near the positive end of the scale. Very few respondents (regardless of gender) scored extremely negatively. However, when ethnicity differences were examined, Asians' scores averaged toward the negative end of the scale. This is perhaps not surprising, as some groups prominent within Asian cultures, such as Muslims, have a tendency to endorse homophobic views via their religious teachings. Under Islamic law, homosexuality is considered a great sin, especially for men. Further, the patriarchal structure of Muslim societies means that those who challenge traditional gender roles are considered a threat to society (Sakalli, 2002). I am not aware of any studies that have investigated attitudes toward homosexuality in Asian Muslims living in the UK; the findings regarding Asians in the current study (although limited due to the small sample) are therefore important. Future UK studies must endeavour to consider the attitudes of ethnic minorities such as Asians, as they make up a significant minority of the UK population.

This study was limited for a number of reasons. First, as previously stated, it is not clear whether attitudes toward gay men's sexual behaviour and attitudes toward gay male persons loaded onto the same factor due to the items chosen to measure these attitudes. Indeed, not all of the possible aspects of attitudes toward gay sexuality and gay male persons may have been measured in the scale used. It could be that only the most affective aspects of these concepts were tested in this study. In addition, the scale I used in this study to investigate attitudes toward gay men's civil rights only included four items. In future studies, other items pertaining, for example, to gay men's adoption rights or gay marriage could be added to increase the breath of this measurement.

Second, it was interesting that attitudes toward gay men's civil rights and attitudes toward feminism were related. As previously stated, the low reliability of the attitudes toward feminism scale was not ideal, and it thus cannot be assumed to measure the breadth of the concept. Glick and Fiske (1996) did not find a differentiation between the concepts of hostile sexism and attitudes toward feminism; they found the hostile sexism scale to be a unitary construct. Future research is thus needed to test whether or not hostile sexism as measured by the ASI is in fact two separate constructs. As the ASI was developed in the U.S., it is worth investigating further whether the structure of the ASI is different in UK samples. (3)

Third, I included only a relatively narrow set of measures in this study. I used only the Hostile Sexism Scale of the ASI. Only a few studies have investigated attitudes toward homosexuality using modern sexism scales such as the ASI; two studies that have used the ASI for this purpose have used both the Benevolent Sexism Scale and the Hostile Sexism Scale, with mixed results. Whitley (2001) found that benevolent sexism was more closely related to attitudes toward homosexuality than hostile sexism was. However, Sakalli (2002) found only a very small correlation between benevolent sexism and attitudes toward homosexuality, with hostile sexism having a stronger relationship with attitudes toward homosexuality than benevolent sexism had. These two studies are not directly comparable, as the former was conducted in the U.S. and the latter in Turkey; therefore, it is vital that future research clarifies this issue.

Also in regard to the narrow measure of sexism used in the current study, I measured only two aspects of attitudes toward male role norms (attitudes toward male toughness and attitudes toward male sexuality). Both were related to affective reactions, and therefore it is important for future research to investigate other aspects of male role norms (such as antifemininity) in relation to subcomponents of attitudes toward gay men. Moreover, the scale used to measure attitudes toward male sexuality in the current study only comprised two items. Future research should endeavour to use a broader measure of this construct.

Fourth, this study used a student sample. Much previous research has also used student samples, and this study is therefore certainly not unusual. Most previous studies have used samples from the United States, so it was useful to test attitudes toward gay men in a sample of students from the United Kingdom. However, the limitations of using student samples are worthy of note here. It could be argued that students have more liberal attitudes toward gay men than do members of the wider population, and thus attitudinal studies using students cannot be said to represent the views of the population as a whole. That said, it could further be argued that if student samples do tend to be more liberal in their views than the wider population, the findings of studies such as this one would be even more pronounced in a sample of the wider population.

This study only investigated attitudes toward gay men. Future research is needed to investigate the possible subcomponents of attitudes toward lesbians and their attitudinal correlates, such as those investigated in this study. Of particular interest to future research, for example, could be the possible relationships between negative attitudes toward lesbians, hostile sexism, and attitudes toward feminism.

To conclude, this study extends current knowledge about attitudes toward homosexuality by investigating the attitudinal correlates of this multifaceted construct. Although limited, it gives an insight into the complexity of attitudes toward homosexuality and gives several suggestions for future work. Understanding the nature of negative attitudes toward gay men may allow us to combat negative attitudes more effectively in the future by developing programs to reduce homophobia that take into account the relationships among the different components of homophobia and other attitudes. At a theoretical level, investigating the subcomponents of negative attitudes toward homosexuality gives a broader basis from which to work.

Table 1. Items, Factor Loadings, and Eigenvalues of Homophobia Scale

                                               Loading      Loading
Item                                             onto         onto
number                  Item                   Factor 1     Factor 2

                Affective reactions (eigenvalue = 5.93)

1        Homosexual behaviour between men
           is morally wrong                      .85          <.10
2        Gay men are disgusting                  .90          <.10
3        Male homosexuality is a perversion      .90          <.10
5        If a man has homosexual feelings
           he should overcome them               .85          <.10
6        If I saw two men holding hands I
           would be more disgusted than if I
           saw a man and a woman holding
           hands                                 .80          <.10
8        I won't associate with gay men if
           I can help it                         .81          <.10
9        The thought of two men having sex
           is more disgusting than the
           thought of a man and woman having
           sex                                   .76          <.10
11       Gay men are a threat to the
           safety of children                    .67          <.10
13       Sexual behaviour between men
           should be illegal                     .74          <.10

                     Civil rights (eigenvalue = 2.85)

4        Male homosexuality is as natural
           a sexual expression in men as
           heterosexuality is                    <.10         .68
7        I would not mind having male
           friends who are gay                   <.10         .88
10       Gay men should have the same
           civil rights as anyone else           <.10         .90
12       I am happy when I hear about gay
           men fighting for rights in society    <.10         .90

Table 2. Items, Factor Loadings, and Eigenvalues of Scales Related to
Male Role Norms

                                          Loading    Loading    Loading
Item                                        onto       onto       onto
number                Item                Factor 1   Factor 2   Factor 3

                        Toughness (eigenvalue = 4.00)

1        When a man is feeling a
         little pain he should try not
           to show it                       .73        <.10       .17
2        Nobody respects a man who
           frequently talks about his
           worries, fears and problems      .77        <.10       <.10
3        A good motto for a man would
           be "When the going gets
           tough, the tough get going"      .70        .12        .15
4        A young man should try to
           become physically tough even
           if he isn't big                  .69        .33        <.10
5        Fists are sometimes the only
           way out of a bad situation       .66        <.10       -.17
6        A real man enjoys a bit of
           danger now and then              .60        .46        <.10
7        In some situations a man
           should use his fists even if
           his wife or girlfriend would
           object                           .73        .15        -.17

                        Male sexuality (eigenvalue= 1.20)

9        A man should always be ready
           for sex                          .15        .82        <.10
10       Men should always take the
           initiative when it comes
           to sex                           .14        .83        <.10

                                  Excluded item

8        A man should always refuse to
           get into a fight, even if
           there seems no way to avoid it   <.10       <.10       .95

Table 3. Items, Factor Loadings, and Eigenvalues of Hostile
Sexism Scale

                                               Loading     Loading
Item                                             onto        onto
number                  Item                   Factor I    Factor 2

                 Hostile sexism (eigenvalue = 4.20)

1        Many women are seeking special
           favours to favour them over men        .64        <.10
2        Most women interpret innocent
           remarks as sexist                      .52        <.10
3        Women are easily offended                .77        <.10
5        Most women fail to appreciate what
           men do for them                        .72        <.10
6        Women seek to gain power by
           getting control over men               .79        <.10
7        Women exaggerate problems they
           have at work                           .78        <.10
8        Once a woman get a man to commit
           to her she puts him on a short
           leash                                  .77        <.10
9        When women lose to men in fair
           competition they complain about
           being discriminated against             .78       <.10

             Attitudes toward feminism (eigenvalue = 1.74)

4        Feminists are not seeking for
           women to gain power over men          <.10         .81
10       Very few women get kicks out of
           teasing men by refusing their
           sexual advances                       <.10         .62
11       Feminists are making reasonable
           demands of men                        <.10         .83

Table 4. Means (SD) and t Values for Gender
Differences on all Attitude Scales

Scale                          Mean, male         Mean, female
                               respondents         respondents

Affective reactions           31.03 (13.41)       20.78 (12.50)
Civil rights                  15.57 (6.61)        14.79 (80.49)
Toughness                     26.77 (10.13)       18.60 (7.55)
Male sexuali                   5.54 (2.94)         4.81 (2.90)
Hostile sexism                32.27 (10.30)       26.26 (10.90)
Attitudes toward feminism     11.83 (3.69)        12.37 (4.04)

Scale                           t            df           p

Affective reactions            8.17         545         <.001
Civil rights                   1.02         461           ns
ToughnessMale                  9.64         443         <.001
sexuality                      2.53         451          .01
Hostile sexism                 5.60         431         <.001
Attitudes toward feminism     -1.37         443           ns

Table 5. Pearson's Correlations Between Attitude Scales
(all n values = 415)

                  Affective     Civil      Hostile
                  reactions     rights      sexism

Civil rights         .01
Hostile sexism      .42 *        -.02
Feminism             -.03        .32 *       -.03
Toughness           .51 *         .04        .49 *
Male sexuality      .36 *         .06        .36 *

                                             Male
Civil rights       Feminism    Toughness   sexuality
Hostile sexism
Feminism
Toughness            -.07
Male sexuality       -.05        .40 *

* All p values < .001.

Table 6. Multiple Regression Summary Statistics for Affective Reactions

Variable                      Beta          t       Significance

Toughness                      .25        2.66          .009
Hostile sexism                 .21        2.16          .033
Attitudes toward feminism      .20        2.30          .023
Male sexuality                 .15        1.61          .110
Civil rights                  -.05        -.61          .544

Note. Final statistics: F (5, 109) = 6.78, p < .001.

Table 7. Means (SD) and t Values for Ethnicity

                         Ethnicity

Scale              White           Asian         t        df       P

Affective
   reactions   22.16(12.07)    37.48 (15.76)   -7.69     417     <.001
Civil
   rights      15.24 (8.21)    13.85 (6.53)    -1.12     425      n.s.

(1) Missing values were dealt with listwise.

(2) Separate correlations were conducted on the data for male and female respondents. The same pattern of results was revealed for men and women, although correlations were slightly higher in men, These analyses can be obtained from the author on request.

(3) I would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for making this suggestion.

REFERENCES

Agnew, C. R., Thompson, V. D., Smith, V. A., Gramzow, R. H., & Currey, D. P. (1993). Proximal and distal predictors of homophobia: Framing the multivariate roots of out-groups rejection. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 2013-2042.

Altemeyer, B. (1988). Enemies of freedom: Understanding right wing authoritarianism. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Archer, J. (1989). Childhood gender roles: Structure and development. The Psychologist, 9, 367-370.

Crites, S. L., Fabrigar, L. R., & Petty, R. E. (1994). Measuring the affective and cognitive properties of attitudes: Conceptual and methodological issues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 619-634.

Eagly, A. H., & Mladinic, A. (1989). Gender stereotypes and attitudes towards women and men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 543-558.

Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491-512.

Herek, G. M. (1984). Beyond "homophobia": A social psychological perspective on attitudes towards lesbians and gay men. Journal of Homosexuality, 10, 1-21.

Herek, G. M. (1986). On heterosexual masculinity: Some psychical consequences of the social construction of gender and sexuality. American Behavioural Scientist, 29, 563-577.

Herek, G. M. (1987). Can functions be measured? A new perspective on the functional approach to attitudes. Social Psychology Bulletin, 50, 285-303.

Herek, G. M. (1988). Heterosexuals' attitudes towards lesbians and gay men: Correlates and gender differences. The Journal of Sex Research, 25, 451-477.

Hudson, W. W., & Rickets, W. A. (1980). A strategy for the measurement of homophobia. Journal of Homosexuality, 5, 357-372.

Kite, M. E., & Deanx, K. (1986). Attitudes towards homosexuality: Assessment and behavioral consequences. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 7, 137-162.

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

Kite, M. E., & Whitley, B. E. (1998). Do heterosexual women and men differ in their attitudes towards homosexuality? A conceptual and methodological analysis. In G. M. Herek (Ed.), Stigma and sexual orientation: Understanding prejudice against lesbians, gay men and bisexuals. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

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

Levant, R. E, Hirsch, L. S., Celentano, E., Cozza, T. M., Hill, S., McEachern, M., et al. (1992). The male role: An investigation into contemporary norms. Journal of Mental Health Counselling, 14, 325-337.

McHugh, M. C., & Hanson Frieze, I. (1997). The measurement of gender-role attitudes: A review and commentary. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 1-16.

Sakalli, N. (2002). The relationship between sexism and attitudes towards homosexuality in a sample of Turkish college students. Journal of Homosexuality, 42, 53-64.

Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Sinn, J. S. (1997). The predictive and discriminant validity of masculine ideology. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 117-135.

Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1972). The attitudes toward women scale: An objective instrument to measure attitudes toward the rights and roles of women in contemporary society. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 2, 66.

Thompson, E. H., & Pleck, J. H. (1986). The structure of male role norms. American Behavioral Scientist, 29, 531-543.

Whitley, B. E. (1999). Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 126-134.

Whitley, B. E. (2001). Gender role variables and attitudes towards homosexuality. Sex Roles, 45, 691-721.

Whitley, B. E., & AEgisdottir, S. (2000). The gender belief system, authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and heterosexuals' attitudes towards lesbians and gay men. Sex Roles, 42, 947-967.

Whitley, B. E., & Lee, S. E. (2000). The relationship of authoritarianism and related contructs to attitudes towards homosexuality. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 144-170.

Manuscript accepted November 4, 2003

Address correspondence to Dr. Michelle Davies, Department of Psychology, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, Lancashire, UK, PR1 2HE; e-mail: [e-mail].