Sex Roles, Vol. 40, Nos.

1/2, 1999

Brief Report

Attitudes Toward Hom osexuals Am on g

1
Students at a Can adian University
E. Glenn Sch ellen berg2
University of Toronto

Jessie Hirt an d Alan Sears

University of Windsor

We exam in ed attitu des toward hom osexu als am on g a bro ad selectio n of

un dergraduates (101 m en, 98 wom en) atten ding a Canadian university, where
a vast m ajority of the studen ts are from workin g- or m iddle-class fam ilies of
European descent. Attitudes toward gay m en were m ore negative than attitudes
toward lesbian s. Com pared to Scien ce or Busin ess studen ts, studen ts in the
faculties of Arts or Social Science had m ore positive attitu des toward gay m en,
an d wom en were m ore positive than m en. Attitudes toward gay m en also
im proved with tim e spen t at college, bu t on ly for m ale studen ts. Although

associated with studen ts’ gen der or facu lty of enrollm ent. Thus, a college
attitu des toward lesbian s im proved with tim e at college, th ey were n ot

educatio n m ay prom ote a reduction in an ti-h om osexual preju dice am on g

youn g people, particularly am ong you ng m en.

Negative attitude s toward homose xuals are pre vale nt in American and Ca-
nadian socie ties (e.g., Herek & Glunt, 1993) . Such attitude s can re sult in
a lack of he lping be haviour (Tsang, 1994) or in malicious comments, othe r
forms of verbal harassme nt, and outright physical viole nce toward homo-
sexuals (D ’Auge lli & Rose , 1990; Here k, 1989; Here k & Be rrill, 1992) . In
the prese nt inve stigation, we use d Here k’s (1988) Attitude s Toward Lesbi-

1
This article is based on an Honours thesis submitted by the se cond author to the De partment
of Psychology at the University of Windsor. We thank Charlene Senn and two anonymous
revie wers for their comments and advice .
2
To whom correspondence should be addre ssed at Departme nt of Psychology, Unive rsity of
T oro n to at Missi ssauga, Missi ssauga, O n tario , C anada, L5L 1C 6; e -m ai l:
g.schelle nbe rg@ utoronto.ca.

139

0360¯ 0025/99/0100 ¯ 0139$16.00/0 Ó 1999 Plenum Publishing Corporation

140 Sch ellen ber g et al.

ans and Gay Me n scale to e xamine the influe nce of ge nde r, faculty of en-
rollme nt, and time spe nt at unive rsity on Canadian colle ge stude nts ’ atti-
tude s toward homose xuals. We were particularly interested in whethe r such
attitude s would differ as a function of faculty of enrollme nt and amount
of colle ge education. Herek’s scale also allowe d for e xamination of differ-
ence s be tween attitude s toward lesbians and attitude s toward gay men.
To the be st of our knowle dge , the prese nt study is the first to e xamine
attitude s toward homose xuals as a function of stude nts ’ choice in faculty.
We e xpe cted that stude nts who chose majors in the Arts or Social Sciences
would have more libe ral views than their counte rparts in Busine ss or Sci-
ence . The basis for this hypothe sis was twofold. First, stude nts who value
traditional sex roles may be the most like ly to select programs in facultie s
of Busine ss or Science, whe re political attitude s in general are like ly to be
relative ly conservative . By contrast, stude nts with less traditional attitude s
toward se xuality and ge nde r, including gay- and le sbian-ide ntifie d stude nts,
are like ly to be drawn to departments thought to be more libe ral. Second,
programs in facultie s of Arts and Social Science s (e .g., Psychology, English,
Social Work) tend to have a relative ly high proportion of fe male stude nts,
and wome n te nd to be more accepting than men of homose xuality. Thus,
departments in these facultie s may be come re lative ly disassociate d from
typically masculine pe rspe ctive s. We also expe cted that stude nts ’ attitude s
toward homose xuals would be come more positive ove r the course of time
spe nt at colle ge, possibly as a result of exposure to a varie ty of pe ople and
beliefs. We were le ss clear, however, about whe the r such change s would
be more pronounce d in some facultie s than in othe rs.
Although men ’s attitude s toward homose xuals tend to be more ne ga-
tive than those of women (D ’Auge lli & Hershbe rge r, 1995; D ’Auge lli &
Rose , 1990; Glassne r & Owen, 1976; Here k, 1988; Here k & Capitanio,
1995; Here k & Glunt, 1993; Kite , 1984; Kite & Whitle y, 1996, 1998; Kur-
dek, 1988; Luhrs, Crawford, & Goldbe rg, 1992; Pratte , 1993; Whitle y &
Kite , 1995) , acceptance of homose xuality also varie s as a function of the
gende r of the homose xual, with attitude s toward gay men being more ne ga-
tive than attitude s toward le sbians (Kite & Whitle y, 1998) . In some case s,
a person ’s attitude is particularly negative toward homose xuals of their own
ge nde r, with male s’ attitude s toward gay me n being the most ne gative
(Herek, 1988; Kite, 1984, 1994; Whitle y, 1987, 1988) . Because socially con-
structe d conce pts of appropriate male behavior —or masculinity — are more
narrowly defined than conce pts of appropriate female be havior — or fe mi-
ninity (Fe inman, 1981; Hort, Fagot, & Le inbach, 1990; Martin, 1990) , de-
parture s from the norm (i.e ., he te rose xuality) te nd to be judge d more
harshly by men than by wome n, and for male than for female homose xuals.
We expe cted to replicate the gende r differences re porte d in e arlie r studie s,
Attitudes Toward Hom osexuals 141

and to find that e ffects of faculty and ye ar at colle ge would be appare nt

eve n when attitudinal diffe re nce s due to stude nts ’ ge nde r were held con-
stant. A se condary goal was to test the validity of Here k’s (1988) scale
when conducting direct comparisons be tween attitude s toward le sbians and
attitude s toward gay men.
In ge neral, incre ase d le ve ls of education tend to be predictive of rela-
tive ly positive attitude s toward homose xuality (B obys & Lane r, 1979; Herek
& Capitanio, 1995; Here k & Glunt, 1993; Klasse n, William s, & Le vitt,
1989) . In a longitudinal study (Lottes & Kuriloff, 1994) , colle ge stude nts
in their fourth ye ar were more positive than the y were during the ir first
ye ar and gene rally more libe ral on a numbe r of attitude scale s. Because
this study was conducte d with stude nts at an exclusive , Ivy Le ague school
(Unive rsity of Pennsylvania) , howe ve r, one cannot ge ne ralize the se findings
to othe r unive rsitie s. More ove r, because the stude nts ’ attitude s were meas-
ure d during a time when the AIDS crisis was rapidly accele rating (i.e., in
1987 and 1991) , attitudinal change s could ste m from change s in the his-
torical and social context (D ’Auge lli & Hershbe rger, 1995; Pratte , 1993)
rathe r than highe r education. By contrast, our cross-sectional de sign al-
lowed for simultane ous e xamination of fre shme n, sophomore s, juniors, and
seniors. O ur sample was colle cted from a midsize , public, Canadian uni-
versity (Unive rsity of Windsor) locate d a fe w mile s from downtown Detroit,
which has a mandate of accessibility rathe r than sele ctivity.
Q uinle y and Glock (1979) contend that e ducation re duces prejudice
by: (1) te aching stude nts ‘‘to unde rstand prejudice d be lie fs for what they
are and to reje ct the m,’’ ( 2) training stude nts ‘‘in the rules of e vide nce and
infe re nce ,’’ (3) introducing stude nts ‘‘to the customs and practice s of mi-
nority groups, ’’ and (4) te aching stude nts ‘‘to make inde pende nt, critical
judgme nts about societal norms and practice s’’ (p. 52). This point of vie w
sugge sts that greate r levels of e ducation will ge ne rally be accompanie d by
a reduction in pre judice toward any minority group, including homose xuals.
But the expe rience of a colle ge stude nt in a Busine ss program is like ly to
differ marke dly from that of a stude nt majoring in Sociology or English.
Although course s that de al spe cifically with human se xuality have be en
shown to promote tole rance toward homose xuality ( D ’Auge lli, 1992;
Ste ve nson, 1988; Wells, 1991) , it is uncle ar whether highe r e ducation in
ge ne ral re sults in similar increase s in tole rance , or if there are systematic
differences relate d to a stude nt ’s choice of program. If increases in accep-
tance of homose xuality are confine d to stude nts in certain programs, spe-
cific aspe cts of programs would appe ar to play a crucial role . By contrast,
if such change s are similar for all stude nts re gardle ss of their chosen faculty,
this finding would provide support for theories claiming that a colle ge e du-
142 Sch ellen ber g et al.

cation improve s tole rance of dive rsity in gene ral (Pascare lla & Tere nzini,
1991; Quinle y & Glock, 1979) .

METHOD

Participants

The participants in the main study were 199 unde rgraduate s (101 men
and 98 wome n be tween the age s of 18 and 35) atte nding the Unive rsity of
Windsor during the winte r te rm of 1997, who were re cruite d to maximize
the like lihood that the y would be e nrolle d in various facultie s (Arts, Busi-
ness, Science, or Social Science). The stude nts were give n a lottery ticket
for participating in the study, which took approximate ly five minute s. An
additional 75 participants (32 men, 43 wome n betwee n the age s of 19 and
45) were recruited for a subsidiary study (se e Results) . Sample de mograph-
ics were assumed to mirror those of the Unive rsity. The Unive rsity draws
most of its stude nts from the surrounding are a, which is large ly industrial
and working class, although the proportion of people of color at the Uni-
versity is estimated to be slightly highe r than it is locally (8% ).

Measu res

Participants were asked about the ir ye ar at colle ge , the ir faculty and

major, and their age and gende r. The Attitude s toward Lesbians and Gay
Men scale —short form (Herek, 1988) was use d to measure attitude s toward
homose xuals. This scale include s 10 state ments that yield two subscale s: one
measuring attitude s toward le sbians and anothe r measuring attitude s to-
wards gay men. State ments such as ‘‘Lesbians are sick’’ and ‘‘Male homo-
se xuality is a pe rversion ’’ are rated on 9-point scales ranging from 1 (strongly
disagre e) to 9 (strongly agre e). The 10 items from the scale are provide d
in Table I. Positive ly worded items are reve rse coded, such that highe r scale
scores indicate more negative attitude s. Several ye ars of research confirm
that the scale has good psychome tric prope rtie s (Here k, 1994) .

Procedu re

The e xpe rime nte r was situate d in various common are as at the uni-
versity, which were chosen to maximize the like lihood of re cruiting stude nts
from all facultie s. Stude nts were offe re d a lottery ticket for comple ting a
one -page que stionnaire on social attitude s. To ensure privacy, question-
Attitudes Toward Hom osexuals 143

Table I. Ite ms in the Attitudes Toward Le sbians and Gay Me n Scale — Short Form (Herek,
a
1988) .

1. Lesbians just can ’t fit into our socie ty.

2. Laws regulating private , conse nting lesbian behavior should be loosened. (R)
3. Female homosexuality is a sin.
4. Female homosexuality in itself is no problem, but what socie ty makes of it can be a
problem. (R)
5. Lesbians are sick.
6. I think male homose xuals are disgusting.
7. Male homosexuality is a pe rve rsion.
8. Just as in other spe cies, male homose xuality is a natural e xpression of sexuality in
human men. (R)
9. Homosexual behavior between two me n is just plain wrong.
10. Male homosexuality is merely a differe nt kind of lifestyle that should not be
condemne d. (R)
a
Items marke d R are reverse coded.

naire s were comple te d in e lection-style voting booths. Comple te d question-

naire s were imme diate ly place d in e nve lope s to reassure the stude nts that
the ir participation was anonymous.

RESULTS

Stude nts were groupe d by gende r, faculty ( 4 leve ls: Arts, Busine ss, Sci-
ence , or Social Scie nce), and year at colle ge (4 leve ls: first/freshman, se c-
ond/soph omore , third/jun ior, or fourth/se nior) . Stude nts who faile d to
report their year (n = 4) or reporte d be ing at colle ge for more than 4
ye ars (n = 14) were e xclude d from the main analyse s. Attitude s toward
gay men and lesbians were analyze d se parate ly using ge ne ral line ar mod-
els.3 Such mode ls were used initially to test the unique e ffects of stude nts ’
gende r, faculty, and ye ar at colle ge on their attitude s. Subse que nt analyse s
examine d the possibility of inte ractions betwee n variable s.

Attitudes Toward G ay Men

A general line ar mode l that include d thre e categorical variable s (fac-

ulty, gende r, and year at colle ge) was use d to e xamine stude nts ’ attitude s
toward gay men. Because stude nts’ age varie d as a function of the ir ye ar
3
The quasi-experimental design allowed for the possibility of empty cells. Indeed, our sample
containe d no fourth-year women in the faculty of Science, which precluded the possibility of
conducting a completely factorial analysis of variance.
144 Sch ellen ber g et al.

Fig. 1. Adjusted me ans on the scales me asuring attitudes toward

gay me n (hatched bars) and attitudes toward lesbians (white bars)
as a function of students’ faculty of enrollment (left pane l: A =
Arts, SS = Social Science, S = Scie nce , B = Business), ge nder
(middle pane l: F = female, M= Male) , and year at college (right
pane l: 1 = freshmen, 2 = sophomores, 3 = juniors, 4 = seniors).
For each variable, means are adjusted so that the other variables
(plus age ) are held constant. Higher scores indicate more negative
attitudes. Error bars re pre sent standard errors.

at colle ge , F(3, 177) = 22.95, p < .001, a covariate for age was also include d
in the model to partial out any e ffects due to difference s in age . Adjuste d
means are shown in Fig. 1 (hatche d bars) .
Attitude s toward gay men varie d reliably as a function of stude nts ’
faculty, F(3, 172) = 3.45, p = .018 (Fig. 1, left pane l). In line with our
pre dictions, orthogonal contrasts reve ale d that stude nts in the facultie s of
Arts or Social Science had more positive attitude s than their counte rparts
in Busine ss and Science , F(1, 172) = 9.36, p = .003. Busine ss and Science
stude nts did not differ. Unexpe ctedly, stude nts in Arts were more tolerant
than stude nts in Social Scie nce, F(1, 172) = 4.15, p = .043.
A significant effe ct of ge nde r confirme d that female stude nts had more
positive attitude s than males toward gay men, F(1, 172) = 11.82, p < .001
(Fig. 1, middle pane l). The effe ct of ye ar at colle ge was also significant,
F(3, 172) = 3.66, p = .014 (Fig. 1, right pane l); a line ar trend validate d
our hypothe sis that attitude s toward homose xuals improve d with time spe nt
at colle ge, F(1, 172) = 9.69, p = .002. Highe r-orde r trends were non-sig-
nificant. Thus, attitude s toward gay men were associate d with ye ar at col-
le ge e ven whe n diffe re nce s in age were he ld constant. By contrast, the
covariate for age was not significant.
Inte ractions betwe e n factors were examine d by adding e ach of the
three possible two-way inte raction terms to the mode l one at a time to see
Attitudes Toward Hom osexuals 145

whethe r it made a significant contribution. The inte raction be tween ge nde r

and year at colle ge was reliable , F(3, 169) = 3.07, p = .030; adjuste d means
are illustrate d in Fig. 2. The figure shows that male stude nts’ attitude s to-
ward gay men improve d with time spent at colle ge, F(1, 86) = 14.78, p <
.001, but female s’ attitude s did not. Other inte ractions, including the inter-
action be tween faculty and ye ar at colle ge , were not significant. Thus, in-
creases in tole rance of gay men ove r the course of time spe nt at colle ge
were similar across facultie s.

Attitudes Toward Lesbians

A gene ral line ar model that include d variable s for faculty, gende r, ye ar
at colle ge, and age was used to e xplain stude nts’ attitude s toward le sbians.
Adjuste d means are illustrate d in Fig. 1 (white bars). Although e ffects of
faculty and ge nde r were not significant (Fig. 1, le ft and middle pane ls, re-
spe ctively) , ye ar at colle ge made a significant contribution to the mode l,
F(3, 172) = 2.96, p = .034 (Fig. 1, right pane l). A line ar tre nd confirme d
that stude nts ’ attitude s improve d ove r time at colle ge, F(1, 172) = 7.10,
p = .008; highe r-orde r tre nds did not e merge . None of the two-way inter-
actions was significant, which indicate s that attitude s toward le sbians im-

Fig. 2. Adjusted means (faculty and age held constant) on

the scale measuring attitudes toward gay me n as a function
of students’ gender and ye ar at college ( 1 = freshmen, 2
= sophomores, 3 = juniors, 4 = se niors). Higher scores
indicate m ore ne gative attitude s. E rror bars re pre se nt
standard errors.
146 Sch ellen ber g et al.

prove d with time spent at colle ge re gardle ss of stude nts ’ age , ge nde r, or
faculty of e nrollme nt.

Com parison of Attitudes Toward Lesbian s an d G ay Men

Although attitude s toward lesbians were correlate d with attitude s to-

ward gay men, r = .696, N = 199, p < .001, attitude s toward gay men
were more ne gative than attitude s toward le sbians, t( 198) = 7.30, p < .001.
This finding was e xpe cted, but it could be due , at least in part, to differ-
e nce s in re sponding e voke d by particular scale ite ms (Here k, 1994) . In
othe r words, the wording of the five ite ms use d to measure attitude s toward
gay men may have evoke d more negative responding than the wording of
the five items conce rning lesbians (se e Table I). Accordingly, we tested an-
othe r sample of stude nts in a subsidiary study with a modifie d ve rsion of
Here k’s (1988) scale , alte red so that the terms ‘‘gay men ’’ and ‘‘male ho-
mose xual ’’ were inte rchange d with the terms ‘‘lesbian ’’ and ‘‘fe male homo-
sexual, ’’ respective ly.

A Subsidiary Study

The que stionnaire in this subsidiary study was ide ntical to the one
use d in the main study, exce pt that the five ite ms that pre viously re fe rre d
to gay men (Table I: Ite ms 6-10) now re fe rre d to le sbians, whe re as the
five items that pre viously refe rre d to lesbians (Table I: Ite ms 1-5) now
re fe rre d to gay men. A 2 ´ 2 re peate d-me asure s ANOVA with the com-
bine d data sets (main and subsidiary studie s) was use d to analyze stude nts ’
attitude s toward homose xuals as a function of the ge nde r of the homo-
se xual and the particular se t of ite ms use d to measure attitude s. Me ans
are illustrate d in Fig. 3. A significant main e ffect was e vide nt for ge nde r
of the homose xual, F(1, 272) = 12.10, p < .001, which confirme d partici-
pants ’ bias against gay men. The e ffe ct of scale ite ms was also significant,
F(1, 272) = 22.37, p < .001, which re ve ale d that ite ms 6-10 e voke d more
ne gative responding than ite ms 1-5 for both le sbians and gay men. The re
was no inte raction be twe e n ge nde r of the homose xual and which se t of
ite ms was use d to measure attitude s. In short, although ite ms 6-10 e voke d
more ne gative re sponse s for both le sbians and gay men, re gardle ss of
which ite ms were use d, re sponde nts had more negative attitude s toward
gay men than the y had toward le sbians.
Attitudes Toward Hom osexuals 147

Fig. 3. Means of the scales measuring attitudes toward gay me n

and lesbians as a function of the particular set of items used (se e
Table I). Highe r score s indicate more negative attitudes. Error bars
represe nt standard errors.

DISCUSSION

The results of the prese nt study support the hypothe sis that attitude s
toward homose xuals among colle ge stude nts vary as a function of faculty
of e nrollme nt and numbe r of ye ars spent at colle ge. The results furthe r
sugge st that these e ffects are more consiste nt for attitude s toward gay men
than the y are for attitude s toward le sbians. Indee d, although attitude s to-
ward lesbians improve d ove r time spent at colle ge , the y did not vary re liably
as a function of stude nts’ faculty or gende r. By contrast, attitude s toward
gay men were more positive among stude nts re giste red in the facultie s of
Arts or Social Scie nce than the y were for stude nts in Science or Busine ss.
More ove r, improve ments in attitude s toward gay men as a function of time
spe nt at colle ge were e vide nt among male stude nts but not among fe male s.
Attitude s toward gay men also differed as a function of stude nts’ ge nde r,
with male stude nts having more negative attitude s than the ir female coun-
te rparts. Finally, attitude s toward gay men were more ne gative than atti-
tude s toward le sbians.
Change s ove r time witnesse d among male stude nts in their attitude s
toward gay men were ide ntical re gardle ss of faculty of e nrollme nt, as were
improve ments in attitude s toward lesbians among all stude nts. In othe r
words, attitude s toward homose xuals appe ar to change as a by-product of
highe r e ducation and re late d life e xpe rience s. Thus, this study provide s
grounds for optimism that ne gative attitude s toward homose xuals can be
challe nge d succe ssfully. Such optimism is consiste nt with recent change s in
148 Sch ellen ber g et al.

the broade r social conte xt that have witnesse d the rise of promine nt and
positive re pre se ntations of le sbian and gay life in popular culture (e.g., te le-
vision shows such as Ellen and Spin City; films such as In an d Out and As
G ood as It G ets).
The finding that attitude s toward lesbians were relative ly positive and
did not vary as a function of stude nts’ ge nde r or faculty of enrollme nt (see
also D’Augelli & Rose , 1990) is consiste nt with the idea that such attitude s
ste m from a combination of factors that ofte n conflict (Kite & Whitle y,
1998) . For example , despite the fact that men typically re spond more ne ga-
tive ly toward homose xuality than women do, many heterose xual men find
the ide a of sex betwee n two women appe aling (Loude rback & Whitle y,
1997; Nyberg & Alston, 1977) . Inde ed, the bias in he te rosexual males’ at-
titude s toward gay men re lative to le sbians disappe ars when differences in
responde nts’ pe rceptions of lesbian eroticism are he ld constant (Loude r-
back & Whitle y, 1997). Alternative ways of measuring attitude s toward les-
bians (e .g., with ite ms about lesbian mothe rhood) might be more sensitive
to individual difference s than Herek’s (1988) scale. O ur results also high-
light the importance of using iden tical scale items whe n making compari-
sons be tween attitude s toward lesbians and attitude s toward gay men.
Inflate d leve ls of prejudice toward gay men in relation to lesbians are
particularly reve aling when conside red in combination with the re sult show-
ing that male stude nts ’ attitude s were more ne gative than those of fe males
toward gay men but not toward le sbians. The se findings —and the corre-
sponding improve ment of anti-gay attitude s over time only among male
stude nts — sugge st that contemporary attitude s toward homose xuality are
closely linke d to cultural ide als of masculinity (see also Harry, 1995; Kins-
man, 1996; McCreary, 1994) . Negative attitude s toward gay men among
colle ge stude nts might be the outcome of circumscribe d ide als of mascu-
linity that predominate during grade - and high-school years, when tests of
manhood are a crucial compone nt of male social relations (Frank, 1994) .
Ide als of masculinity vary across subgroups that differ in social class, e du-
cational e nvironme nt, and othe r cultural factors (Conne ll, 1989) , yet key
the mes recur, including: (1) the refusal of vulne rability and fear; (2) mas-
te ry over things, tasks and pe ople ; and (3) bodily prowess that might be
expre sse d in sports, sex, or fighting (Kaufman, 1994; Kimmel, 1994; Simp-
son, 1994) . In fact, negative attitude s toward homose xuals can be a crucial
compone nt of high-school conce pts of masculinity because they make same-
gende r bonding in sports and social activitie s safely he te rosexual (Frank,
1994; Simpson, 1994). In othe r words, anti-homose xual prejudice he lps to
police the boundarie s of male bonding by e nsuring that deviance is he ld
at bay, and by providing a focus for the viole nce that is linke d to maste ry
and bodily prowe ss (Herek, 1990; Kaufman, 1992). Thus, the shift in anti-
Attitudes Toward Hom osexuals 149

gay attitude s with time spe nt at colle ge could be the result of developme n-
tal change s in conce pts of masculinity.
Regardle ss, our results confirm that some aspe cts of colle ge life are
associate d with change s in stude nts’ unde rstanding of ge nde r and se xuality.
This finding was e vide nt whe n differences in age were held constant, which
rules out the possibility that the association could stem from increasing
maturity or length of time since leaving high school. The re sults from our
study— the first year-by-ye ar cross-se ctional examination of change s in at-
titude s toward homose xuals among colle ge stude nts —conve rge nicely with
those in the longitudinal study by Lotte s and Kuriloff (1994). Inde ed, such
conve rge nce makes it e xtre mely unlike ly that the observed tre nds are due
to cohort e ffects or to shifts in the historical conte xt. Moreover, differences
betwee n unive rsitie s in the Lotte s and Kuriloff study and the prese nt study
(US vs. Canada, se lective vs. acce ssible , private vs. public) sugge st that the
findings could ge neralize across a wide range of North American unive r-
sities. Lotte s and Kuriloff ’s re sults also imply that an increase in acce ptance
of homose xuality is part of a large r set of change s in attitude that take
place ove r the course of a colle ge education. Pe rhaps colle ge stude nts be-
come increasingly aware of the negative e ffects of pre judice . When such
aware ne ss is combine d with an increase d ability to think critically, stude nts
may begin to ree valuate their own prejudice s and form ne w, more accepting
and tole rant attitude s (Pascare lla & Tere nzini, 1991; Q uinle y & Glock,
1979) .
It is also possible that the decrease in negative attitude s toward gay
men and le sbians witne ssed over time is due , at le ast in part, to simple
exposure to a wide and dive rse group of people (which would include gay
people ) rathe r than to e ducation pe r se. For example , inte rpe rsonal contact
with gay men and lesbians is associate d with improve d attitude s toward
homose xuals (Glassne r & O wen, 1976; Here k, 1988; Herek & Capitanio,
1996; Herek & Glunt, 1993; Lance , 1987; Walters, 1997) . In fact, contact
with gay pe ople can be the best predictor of positive attitude s toward ho-
mose xuals, and, more ove r, pe ople with highe r leve ls of education are the
most like ly to have such contact (Herek & Capitanio, 1996; Here k & Glunt,
1993) . Nonethele ss, whe re as all stude nts became more positive towards les-
bians over time, only male stude nts showe d a marked improve ment in at-
titude s toward gay m e n. Me n m ay have m uch to le arn from the ir
e ducational expe rie nce about tole rance toward homose xuality, and, per-
haps, dive rsity in general. By contrast, young women atte nding colle ge in
some parts of North America may now be e xhibiting some thing close to a
‘‘floor effe ct’’ in anti-homose xual pre judice , at le ast with Herek’s ( 1988)
measure . Future rese arch could e xplore the possibility that a ne w, more
150 Sch ellen ber g et al.

sensitive measure might have greate r succe ss at uncove ring individual dif-
fe re nce s among women.
The past decade has witnesse d improve ments in attitude s toward ho-
mose xuals (Adam, 1995), ye t the relative ly high suicide rates among gay
and lesbian youth in Canada (Bagle y & Tremblay, 1997) and the US (Gib-
son, 1989) make it clear that anti-homose xual pre judice continue s to take
a de vastating toll on North American socie ty. Although our re sults show
that time spent at colle ge is associate d with a re duction in harmful preju-
dice s, furthe r clarification about the dire ction of causation will have to
await the findings of future research. In the meantime , we tenative ly sug-
ge st that young people , particularly young men, should be give n acce ss
whene ve r possible to environme nts such as colle ge that may enhance ac-
ceptance of human dive rsity.

REFERENCES

Adam, B. D. (1995) . The rise of a gay and lesbian movem ent (rev. ed.). Boston: Twayne.
Bagley, C., & Tremblay, P. ( 1997) . Suicidal behaviors in homosexual and bisexual males. Crisis,
18, 24-34.
Bobys, R. S., & Laner, M. R. ( 1979) . On the stability of stigmatization: The case of ex-ho-
mose xual male s. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 8, 247-261.
Connell, R. W. (1989) . Cool guys, swots and wimps: The interplay of masculinity and educa-
tion. Oxford Review of Education, 15, 291-303.
D ’Auge lli, A. R. (1992). Teaching lesbian/gay de velopment: From oppression to e xceptionality.
Journal of Hom osexuality, 22, 213-227.
D ’Auge lli, A. R., & Hershbe rger, S. L. (1995) . A multiyear analysis of changes in AIDS con-
cerns and homophobia on a university campus. Journal of Am erican College Health, 44,
3-10.
D ’Auge lli, A. R., & Rose , M. L. (1990) . Homophobia in a university community: Attitudes
and experience s of heterose xual freshmen. Journal of College Student Developm ent, 31,
484-491.
Feinman, S. (1981) . Why is cross-sex-role be havior more approved for girls than for boys? A
status characteristic approach. Sex Roles, 7, 289-300.
Frank, B. (1994) . Queer selves/quee r in schools: Young men and se xualities. In Susan Prentice
(Ed.), Sex in schools: Canadian education and sexual regulation . Toronto: Our Schools/Our
Selves Foundation.
Gibson, P. (1989) . Gay male and lesbian youth suicide. In M. Feinleib (Ed.), Prevention and
intervention in youth suicide (Re port to the Secretary’s Task Force on Youth Suicide, Vol.
3) . Washington, DC: U.S. Departmen t of Health and Human Services.
Glassne r, B., & O we n, C. ( 1976) . Variations in attitudes toward homosexuality. Cornell Journal
of Social Relations, 11, 161-176.
Harry, J. (1995) . Sports ideology, attitudes toward women, and anti-homosexual attitudes. Sex
Roles, 32, 109-116.
Herek, G. M. (1988) . He terosexuals ’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay me n: Correlates and
gende r differences. Journal of Sex Research, 25, 451-477.
Herek, G. M. (1989) . Hate crime s against lesbians and gay me n: Issues for research and policy.
American Psychologist, 44, 948-955.
Herek, G. M. (1990) . The conte xt of anti-gay violence: Notes on cultural and psychological
heterose xism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5, 316-333.
Attitudes Toward Hom osexuals 151

Herek, G. M. (1994) . Assessing heterose xual ’s attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. In B.
Gre ene & G. M. Herek (Eds.), Lesbian and gay psychology: Theory, research and clinical
applications . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .
Herek, G. M., & Be rrill, K. T. (Eds.). (1992) . Hate crim es: Confronting violence against lesbians
and gay m en. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Herek, G. M., & Capitanio, J. P. (1995) . Black heterose xuals’ attitudes toward lesbians and
gay me n in the Unite d States. Journal of Sex Research, 32, 95-105.
Herek, G. M., & Capitanio, J. P. (1996) . ‘‘Some of my best friends’’: Intergroup contact, con-
cealable stigma, and heterosexuals’ attitudes toward gay men and lesbians. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 412-424.
Herek, G. M., & Glunt, E. K. (1993) . Interpersonal contact and heterosexuals ’ attitudes toward
gay me n: Results from a national survey. Journal of Sex Research, 30, 239-244.
Hort, B. E., Fagot, B. I., & Leinbach, M. D. (1990) . Are people ’s notions of maleness more
stereotypically frame d than their notions of female ness? Sex Roles, 23, 197-212.
Kaufman, M. ( 1992) . The construction of masculinity and the triad of me n’s violence . In M.
S. Kimmel & M. S. Messner (Eds.), Men ’s lives. New York: MacMillan.
Kaufman, M. (1994). Men, feminism and men ’s contradictory expe rience s of power. In H.
Brod & M. Kaufman (Eds.), Theorizing masculin ities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kinsman, G. (1996). The regulation of desire: Hom o and hetero sexualities (2nd ed.). Montre al:
Black Rose.
Kimmel, M. S. (1994). Masculinity as homophobia: Fear, shame and silence in the construction
of ge nder identity. In H. Brod & M. Kauffman (Eds.), Theorizing masculin ities. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kite, M. E. (1984). Se x differe nce s in attitudes toward homosexuals: A meta-analytic review.
Journal of Hom osexuality, 10, 69-81.
Kite, M. E. (1994) . Whe n pe rceptions me et reality: Individual differences in reactions to les-
bians and gay men. In B. Gre ene & G. M. Herek (Eds.), Lesbian and gay psychology:
Theory, research and clinical applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .
Kite, M. E., & Whitley, B. E., Jr. (1996) . Se x differences in attitudes toward homosexual
persons, behaviors, and civil rights: A me ta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bul-
letin, 22, 336-353.
Kite, M. E., & Whitley, B. E., Jr. (1998) . Do he terosexual women and me n differ in their
attitudes toward homose xuality? A conceptual and methodological analysis. In G. M.
Herek (Ed.), Stigm a and sexual orientation: Understanding prejudice against lesbians, gay
men, and bisexuals. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Klassen, A. D., Williams, C. J., & Le vitt, E. E. ( 1989) . Sex and morality in the US Middletown,
CT: Wesle yan University Press.
Kurdek, L. A. (1988) . Corre lates of ne gative attitudes toward homose xuals in heterosexual
college students. Sex Roles, 18, 727-738.
Lance, L. M. (1987) . The effe cts of interaction with gay persons on attitudes toward homo-
sexuality. Hum an Relations, 40, 329-336.
Lottes, I. L., & Kuriloff, P. J. (1994) . The impact of college expe rience on political and social
attitudes. Sex Roles, 31, 31-54.
Louderback, L. A., & Whitley, B. E., Jr. (1997) . Perceived e rotic value of homosexuality and
sex-role attitudes as mediators of se x difference s in heterose xual college students’ attitudes
toward lesbians and gay men. Journal of Sex Research, 34, 175-182.
Luhrs, T., Crawford, I., & Goldberg, J. (1992). The presence of the defensive function as a
pre dictor of heterosexual college students’ affective response s toward gay men and les-
bians. Journal of Psychology & Hum an Sexuality, 4, 71-87.
Martin, C. L. ( 1990) . Attitudes and expectations about children with nontraditional and tra-
ditional ge nder roles. Sex Roles, 22, 151-165.
McCreary, D. R. (1994). The male role and avoiding femininity. Sex Roles, 31, 517-531.
Nyberg, K. L., & Alston, J. P. (1977) . Homosexual labeling by university students. Adolescence,
48, 541-546.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991) . How college affects students: Findings and insights
from twenty years of research . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
152 Sch ellen ber g et al.

Pratte, T. (1993) . A comparative study of attitudes toward homosexuality: 1986 and 1991. Jour-
nal of Hom osexuality, 26, 77-83.
Quinley, H. E., & Glock, C. Y. (1979). Anti-semitism in America. New York: The Free Pre ss.
Simpson, M. ( 1994) . Male impersonators. London: Casse ll.
Stevenson, M. R. ( 1988) . Promoting tolerance for homosexuality: An evaluation of interve n-
tion strategie s. Journal of Sex Research, 25, 500-511.
Tsang, E. (1994). Investigating the e ffect of race and apparent lesbianism upon helping be-
havior. Fem inism & Psychology, 4, 469-471.
Walters, A. S. (1997) . The influence of homophobia in HIV /AIDS e ducation. Journal of Psy-
chology and Hum an Sexuality, 9, 17-38.
We lls, J. W. (1991) . What makes a difference? Various teaching strategies to reduce homo-
phobia in university students. Annals of Sex Research, 4, 229-238.
Whitley, B. E., Jr. (1987) . The relationship of sex-role orientation to heterosexuals’ attitudes
toward homosexuals. Sex Roles, 17, 103-113.
Whitley, B. E., Jr. (1988). Sex differences in heterosexuals ’ attitudes toward homosexuals: It
depends upon what you ask. Journal of Sex Research, 24, 287-291.
Whitley, B. E., Jr., & Kite, M. E. (1995). Sex differe nce s in attitudes toward homosexuality:
A comme nt on Olive r and Hyde (1993). Psychological Bulletin, 117, 146-154.