THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COPING STYLE, OPEN-MINDEDNESS,
AND ATTITUDES TOWARD LESBIANS, GAYS, AND BISEXUALS
A Thesis
Presented to the faculty of the Department of Psychology
California State University, Sacramento
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
Psychology
(Counseling Psychology)
by
Alexandra P. Haas
SUMMER
2012
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COPING STYLE, OPEN-MINDEDNESS,
AND ATTITUDES TOWARD LESBIANS, GAYS, AND BISEXUALS
A Thesis
by
Alexandra P. Haas
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Rebecca P. Cameron, Ph. D.
__________________________________, Second Reader
Lawrence S. Meyers, Ph. D.
__________________________________, Third Reader
Lisa A. Harrison, Ph. D.
____________________________
Date
ii
Student: Alexandra Patricia Haas
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University
format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to
be awarded for the thesis.
__________________________, Graduate Coordinator
Jianjian Qin, Ph.D.
Department of Psychology
iii
___________________
Date
Abstract
of
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COPING STYLE, OPEN-MINDEDNESS, AND
ATTITUDES TOWARD LESBIANS, GAYS, AND BISEXUALS
by
Alexandra Patricia Haas
The present study explored the relationship between open-minded thinking coping styles,
and knowledge of and attitudes toward LGB individuals. Three hundred thirty-seven
heterosexual college students (79.9% female and 41.4% European-American/White) at a
large Western public university volunteered to participate in exchange for course credit.
Questionnaires were used to measure study variables. Results of a canonical correlation
analysis were consistent with previous research, suggesting that the less open-minded a
person is, the less knowledge they have about and more negative attitudes they have
toward LGB individuals, including their civil rights. In addition, an individualistic coping
style was directly related to endorsement of LGB civil rights, suggesting that valuing
autonomy may be connected to valuing others’ rights to autonomy. Future research
should continue to evaluate this finding in addition to exploring ways of fostering openminded thinking (Killen, 1997).
_______________________, Committee Chair
Rebecca P. Cameron, Ph.D.
___________________________________
Date
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank my thesis chair, Dr. Rebecca P. Cameron, and my committee
members, Dr. Larry S. Meyers and Dr. Lisa A. Harrison, for their guidance and support
over the course of my graduate program and for helping me get through the thesis
process. In addition, I would like to thank Pegah Naemi for her assistance and statistical
knowledge in helping me analyze my data and Brian Hall for editing the many drafts of
my thesis. Most importantly, I would like to thank my parents and my aunt, Dr. Patricia
Takeda, for allowing me this opportunity to pursue my academic and career goals. Lastly,
I would like to thank my friends for their support and encouragement as I complete my
journey of graduate school.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables ............................................................................................................ viii
List of Figures ..................................................................................... .........................ix
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION …… ..……………………………………………………….. 1
2.
LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................................... 4
Overview of Attitudes ....................................................................................... 4
Affirmativeness and Positive Correlates ......................................................... 11
Overview of Open-Mindedness ...................................................................... 14
Correlates of Open-Mindedness ..................................................................... 20
Attitudes and Open-Mindedness ..................................................................... 23
Overview of Coping .........................................................................................28
Hypotheses .......................................................................................................34
3. METHOD..... ..........................................................................................................36
Participants .......................................................................................................36
4. RESULTS…….. .................................................................................................... 42
Effective Sample Size ..................................................................................... 42
5. DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................ 52
vi
Appendix A. Consent to Participate as a Research Subject ....................................... 57
Appendix B. Debriefing ............................................................................................. 59
Appendix C. Demographics ........................................................................................60
References……………………………………………………………………………63
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Tables
1.
Page
Means and Standard Deviations for Predictor and Dependent
Variables…………………………….….……………………………………. 43
2.
Total Variance Explained………………………………………………….….43
3.
Structure Matrix of SACS Subscales with Promax Rotation…………..……. 45
4.
Correlations and Standardized Canonical Coefficients between Attitudes
toward LGB Individuals, Coping Styles, and Open-mindedness……………..47
5.
Bivariate Correlations of Dependent Variables of LGB Attitudes……………48
6.
Bivariate Correlations of Predictor Variables………………………………....48
7.
Bivarite Correlations Between Predictors and Dependent Variables..….…….49
8.
Eigenvalues, Cumulative % of Explained Variance, & Squared Canonical
Correlates for Each Canonical Function…………….….……………………..49
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1.
Page
Interaction between Political affiliation and LG Contact……......…...…….51
ix
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
People who identify themselves as lesbian, gay, or bisexual (LGB) are becoming
more visible in today’s society. Increased visibility has been accompanied by increased
acceptance among the general population (Yang, 2000), although LGB issues remain
highly controversial (Herek, Gillis, & Cogan 2009; Wright, 1999). Specifically, ongoing
conflicts related to same-sex marriage, resistance to the recent repeal of the military’s
institutionalized policy of discrimination Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT), and the use of
gay rights issues by some conservative politicians to polarize and rally the electorate
highlight the anti-gay sentiments that are still prevalent in American society. Stotzer
(2008) found evidence that compared to older adults, younger cohorts of Americans are
increasingly accepting of LGB individuals, which might allow for a gradual shift to new
norms of acceptance of LGB people. During this period of societal focus on LGB people
and LGB civil rights, it is important to understand factors associated with both positive
and negative attitudes toward LGB people.
Similar to racism and other oppressive ideologies, heterosexism, defined as “an
ideological system that denies, denigrates, and stigmatizes any form of non-heterosexual
behavior, identity, relationship, and community” (Herek, 1990, p. 321), is manifest in
both social customs and institutions. For example, twenty-nine of the fifty United States
currently ban same-sex marriage (New York Times, 2012). Policies that fail to ensure
2
equal rights for all citizens arise from and contribute to beliefs that LGB individuals are
abnormal, unnatural, and deserving of hostility (Herek et al., 2009). The term
“heterosexism” highlights the parallels between prejudice toward LGB individuals and
other forms of prejudice and discrimination and at the same time emphasizes the societallevel ideologies of institutionalized oppression of non-heterosexual people. Anti-gay
attitudes function to the preserve the privileged status of heterosexuals; therefore,
resistance to change must be overcome on multiple levels for transformation to occur at a
societal level.
Cultural construction of attitudes toward lesbians, gays, and bisexuals is
multifaceted and complex. Past research has focused mainly on negative attitudes such as
homophobia and heterosexism. Research has linked negative attitudes toward LGB
individuals to personality and demographic characteristics including low openness to
experience and values, right-wing authoritarianism, avoidant and defensive coping styles
(Johnson, Brems, & Alford-Keating, 1997), little to no contact with LGB individuals,
being male, high religiosity, preference for traditional gender roles, and living in
Southern states (Keiller, 2010; Stotzer, 2008). Less is known about what predicts positive
attitudes toward these populations. However, the research that has been conducted has
shown positive attitudes to be linked to high levels of openness to experience, increased
contact with LGB people, and high abstract reasoning skills (Cullen, Wright, &
Alessandri, 2002; Keiller, 2010; LaMar & Kite, 1998; Stotzer, 2008). Previous research
has focused more extensively on attitudes toward gay men; the present study includes
3
attitudes toward lesbians and bisexuals in addition. In an effort to expand our
understanding of attitudes toward LGB individuals, open-minded thinking, coping styles,
contact with lesbians and gay men, and political orientation are examined in relation to
positive and negative attitudes toward LGB people.
4
Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Overview of Attitudes
Historically, both lay people and mental health professionals have generally
viewed homosexuality as either a moral failing or a sign of mental illness. In fact, the
American Psychological Association (APA) officially considered homosexuality a form
of psychopathology until its removal from the Diagnostic Statistical Manual (DSM) in
1973 (Bullough & Bullough, 1977; APA, 2000). Although a great deal of progress has
been made in subsequent decades, it is not uncommon for mental health providers to hold
negative or ambivalent attitudes about lesbian, gay, bisexual individuals (LGB), and LGB
acceptance and civil rights remain a controversial issue in American society and politics.
One of the primary reasons that negative attitudes toward LGB individuals persist is that
homosexuality is viewed as a deviation from a socially constructed norm that is wideranging and multidimensional (Worthington, Dillon, & Becker-Schutte, 2005). As
Cardoso (2010) notes, one’s perception of homosexual and heterosexual categories is
related to culture and to social position within that culture. Presumably, the more value an
individual places on his or her culture and the more there is to lose by contradicting that
culture’s values, the more the individual may cling to socially accepted beliefs, including
attitudes towards LGB individuals.
Many people still view homosexuality as an illness, sexual deviance, or as a chosen
5
sexual identity that can be reversed. Homosexuality, however, is only considered deviant
because society has labeled it as such. This is thought to have at least two primary
causes. One is that the United States is a majority Judeo-Christian society (Hartmann,
Zhang, & Wischstadt, 2005) and this set of faith traditions has consistently included
teachings that homosexuality is immoral. The second has to do with heteronormativity
that arises from the fact that heterosexuality is a majority experience, at least in the way it
is socially constructed. One result of this assumption is that the concept of “homosexual”
as a distinct identity did not exist until recently.
When taken to an extreme, negative attitudes toward homosexuality become
homophobia, which has been defined as “an unreasoning fear or antipathy toward
homosexuality or homosexuals” and as “the dread of being in close proximity of a
homosexual” (Pardie & Luschetta, 1999, p. 4). Pardie and Luschetta (1999) note
however, that the term homophobia is problematic because homophobic people do not
always react to homosexuals in a truly phobic way. For example, some homophobic
people actively seek out homosexuals for the purpose of committing violence or other
hate crimes against them. In contrast, people, with true phobias often do everything in
their power to avoid that which terrifies them. Herek (1984) argues that most research has
portrayed homophobia as unidimensional construct of attitudes expressed through
irrational fears. He proposes that it would be more useful to view homophobia through a
model that distinguishes three types of attitudes: 1) experiential, categorizing past
interactions with homosexuals, 2) defensive i.e., coping with inner conflicts by projecting
6
them onto homosexual persons, and 3) symbolic, expressing abstract concepts linked to
one’s notion of self and social network.
Additionally, LaMar and Kite (1998) identify two components of negative attitudes
toward homosexuality. The first of these is the perception that homosexuality is
immoral. The second component is a general condemnation of homosexual individuals
based on the notion that their gender role violation threatens the social order (LaMar &
Kite, 1998, p.190). Kite and Whitley (1996) divided attitudes toward homosexuality into
three subcomponents: 1) attitudes towards homosexual persons by means of social
restrictions, 2) attitudes towards homosexual behavior as moral reprehensibility of
homosexuality, and 3) attitudes towards homosexual persons’ civil rights such as free
speech, parental rights, and same sex marriage
An attitude is “a psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating a particular
entity with some degree of favor or disfavor” (Herek et al., 2009, p. 34). A negative
attitude reflects low self-esteem and psychological distress (Herek et al., 2009). Those
who study positive psychology have made it clear that the absence of a negative is not the
same as the presence of a positive and have demonstrated the independent nature of
positive and negative constructs (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). Within the research
literature, studies have mainly examined negative attitudes, without examining predictors
of positive attitudes. Attitudes are important in part because they predict behavior. For
example, prejudicial attitudes may be linked to actively discriminatory or hateful
behavior (Herek et al., 2009). Herek and colleagues (2009) found that attitudes were
7
“associated to beliefs positive or negative regarding sexual orientation, affective stance
toward belonging to a sexual orientation group, and past actions relevant to sexual
orientation” (p. 36). One important finding reported by Worthington et al. (2005) states
that negative feelings and thoughts about LGB orientations or individuals are associated
with self-reports of violence and hate crimes. They emphasize “anti-gay attitudes
function toward the preservation of the privileged status of heterosexuals which is
thought to be developed through gendered socialization” (p. 105). According to
Worthington and colleagues (2005), antigay violence reflects attitudes encompassing
hatred and violence that go beyond the level of “condemnation.”
A notable omission is that attitudes toward lesbians and bisexuals have not been
examined to the extent that attitudes toward gay men have. With the increased visibility
of bisexual individuals it is important to explore heterosexuals’ attitudes toward them as
well. Research that has looked at attitudes toward lesbians has found significant gender
differences; for instance, men tend to express less negativity toward lesbians than toward
gay men (LaMar & Kite, 1998).
Stigma
Society as a whole devalues homosexuality in comparison to heterosexuality and
hostility and malevolent stereotypes associated with these populations are prevalent
(Herek et al., 2009). Herek and colleagues describe heterosexism as a system of
attitudes, bias, and discrimination favoring heterosexuality (Herek et al., 2009, p. 33).
Heterosexism occurs through two general processes: it exists because society presumes
8
that everyone is heterosexual and because LGB individuals are largely unrecognized by
social institutions (Herek et al., 2009). Heterosexism is also independent from the
prejudice of individual members of society (Herek et al., 2009). This gives reason for the
general public to make LGB individuals feel of a lesser status than heterosexuals because
heterosexuals are seen as ideal members of society (Herek, 2009). Haider-Markel and
Joslyn (2008) found that the belief that one’s sexual orientation is involuntary is
associated with lower levels of heterosexual prejudice.
Society’s reaction to LGB individuals often mirrors the reaction to racial minorities.
For example, both groups are often accused of or blamed for drug abuse, sexually
transmitted diseases, child abuse, and drug addiction. In addition, both groups regularly
experience discrimination in housing, employment, insurance, and health care (Whitley,
2009). Whitley (2009) found that people who score high on measures of negative
attitudes toward racial ethnicities also score high on negative attitudes toward lesbians
and gay men. Past social psychology research has found that the greater the extent to
which in-group members believe the out-group poses a threat, the more likely they are to
have negative attitudes toward the out-group, in this case lesbians and gay men, because
they are often perceived as violating American values (Whitley, 2009).
A literature review conducted by Cullen and colleagues (2002) identified the
following partial list of variables correlated with and known to influence homophobia: an
individual’s support for traditional gender roles, gender, religious affiliation, degree of
religiosity, amount of personal contact with a gay man or lesbian, coping style, and
9
degree of empathy. According to Cullen et al. (2002), the amount of contact with LGB
individuals was found to be a critical predictor of homophobia. Specifically, those who
had never had any contact with an LGB individual indicated higher rates of homophobia.
Pardie and Luschetta (1999) state that stereotypes and stigma are the single greatest
impediment to gay and lesbian equality. For example, they report one study linking
AIDS/HIV related stigma to negative attitudes toward lesbians and gay men (Pardie &
Luschetta, 1999). According to Herek and colleagues (2009), sexual stigma is defined as
“the negative regard, inferior status, and relative powerlessness that society collectively
accords anyone associated with non-heterosexual behaviors” (p. 33). Researchers use a
variety of related terms to refer to the stigma surrounding LGB individuals, such as
heterosexism, sexual prejudice, and sexual stigma (Herek, et al., 2009). Herek and
colleagues (2009) discussed the importance of exploring sexual stigma as it relates to
heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbian, gay, and bisexual people. Herek’s social
psychological model for understanding sexual stigma describes its structural and
individual manifestations while highlighting parallels between the stigma-related
experiences of sexual minorities and heterosexuals. Herek et al. (2009) states that most of
us are socialized about sexual stigma as children through childhood experiences because
it is expected that we will be heterosexual. The internalized sexual stigma is defined as
“a heterosexual or sexual minority person’s acceptance of sexual stigma as part of their
value system” (p. 33) and involves adapting one’s self-concept to be congruent with
society’s expectations. Additionally, sexual orientation can often be hidden and people
10
may be perceived as a different sexual orientation than they are. One consequence of
such socialization reported by Whitley (2009) is that those who believe LGB persons
have a choice in their sexual orientation were more likely to hold negative attitudes
toward them. In other words, the belief that a behavior is under the control of the
stigmatized person is linked to more negative attitudes toward the stigmatized person
(Whitley, 2009).
Herek and colleagues (2009) identify three ways sexual stigma, or sexual prejudice,
is manifest: “through acts of shunning, antigay epithets, overt discrimination, and
violence”; altering behavior in ways to conceal being recognized as part of this
stigmatized group”; and lastly, “adopting one’s self concept to be congruent with the
stigmatizing responses of society” (p. 33). This occurs because of the shared knowledge
of society’s collective reaction to homosexuality and the anticipation of suffering
enactments of stigma in a given situation (Herek et al., 2009). An example of this is that
both heterosexuals and non-heterosexuals engage in modifying their behaviors due to felt
stigma, such as gender non-conformity and avoidance of physical contact with same-sex
friends. For LGB individuals, the perception that one’s culture is homophobic is
associated with higher levels of depression and perceived stress, and with lower selfesteem. This provides support for the association between negative attitudes and the
effects on well-being (Mireshghi & Matsumoto, 2008).
11
Affirmativeness and Positive Correlates
Civil Rights Endorsement
Little research has focused on the development of positive attitudes and the
factors that contribute to heterosexuals affirming LGB individuals. A change in attitudes
toward these populations is mostly credited to the gay and lesbian civil rights movement,
which first entered the national consciousness during protests such as the Stonewall riots
(Wright, 1999) and continues into the present with the recent struggle to end the
military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy as well as through the ongoing debate over gay
marriage. In recent years, the movement has included an increasing number of
heterosexual advocates, demonstrating that this minority group is not fighting civil rights
battles and struggles alone (Stotzer, 2009). In order for equal rights to occur for LGB
individuals, changes in legal protections are a crucial factor. In a meta-analysis by Kite
and Whitley (1996), heterosexuals were found to be more accepting of gay civil rights
than of homosexual behavior. They note that gender does not seem to affect heterosexual
endorsement of gay civil rights because “evaluations of civil rights issues are probably
based on global beliefs about Americans’ civil liberties” (Kite & Whitley, 1996, p. 339).
The laws can either reinforce beliefs people may have on a particular issue or encourage
change in those beliefs. Those who know an LGB individual and endorse civil rights are
more inclined to be LGB affirmative and hold positive attitudes toward LGB (Barber,
2003).
12
LGB Knowledge and Contact
As LGB individuals become more visible in mainstream culture, it is likely that
there will be a corresponding increase in heterosexuals’ knowledge of LGB history,
symbols, and community (Worthington et al., 2005). Additionally, the highest levels of
LGB-affirmativeness require heterosexuals to gain knowledge of LGB history, symbols,
and community, and to recognize heteronormativity in a way that goes beyond mere
tolerance (Worthington et al., 2005). Stotzer (2008) discusses the role pop culture
television shows and the media have played in providing knowledge and contributing
toward the development of positive attitudes toward LGB individuals. Media portrayals
of LGB individuals are one way the general population can gain familiarity with these
populations, albeit indirectly. Stotzer (2008) found that parents’ attitudes toward LGB
individuals are positively correlated with their children’s attitudes; however, there is a
much stronger positive correlation with peer’s attitudes about LGB individuals,
suggesting that knowledge is gained from various sources.
Fingerhut (2011) argued that “high-quality contact experiences allow majority
group members (heterosexuals) to discuss and reflect on the role of sexual orientation in
their lives and in society, which, in turn, inspires action” (Fingerhut, 2011, p.2234). In
other words, normalizing homosexuality by challenging myths and stereotypes about
LGB people increases reflection and thought about one’s own sexuality. Additionally,
Cullen et al. (2002) found that previous experience with a homosexual individual might
lower one’s prejudice because as a heterosexual individual gains further exposure to and
13
understanding of a different group, feelings of discomfort, disgust, and anxiety are
significantly lowered. Research has identified early normalizing childhood experiences,
meeting LGB peers in high school and college, and experiences of empathy based on an
LGB peer’s struggles and successes, or resistance to hatred expressed by those who hold
negative attitudes as important in the development of positive attitudes toward LGB
population (Stotzer, 2008).
Worthington and colleagues (2005) describe being “fully LGB affirmative” as
reevaluating one’s identity as heterosexual through sexual identity exploration, past or
current, and synthesis of sexual identity. They go on to state “heterosexual individuals
who have engaged in meaningful sexual self-exploration are more likely to be affirming
of LGB individuals because their personal sexual experiences are likely to be more
varied, making them less susceptible to homophobic confusion” (p. 105).
Aside from the correlates just discussed, other correlates of positive attitudes are
high levels of empathy (Fingerhut, 2011; Stotzer, 2008), female gender (Stotzer, 2008;),
higher levels of education (Fingerhut, 2011; Lambert, Ventura, Hall & Cluse-Tular,
2006), openness to experience (Cullen et al., 2002; Proctor & McCord, 2009; Baron,
Struckman-Johnson, Quevillon, & Banka, 2008; Stotzer, 2008) and high abstract
reasoning (Keiller, 2010). Certain cognitive traits, such as actively open-minded
thinking, may also be linked to positive attitudes. This cognitive style is similar to
abstract reasoning, in the sense that they both involve perspective taking. Open-minded
thinking may be teachable and may benefit individuals and society by promoting
14
listening to and considering multiple points of view as a part of evaluating one’s own
beliefs about an issue (Baron, 1993).
Overview of Open-Mindedness
Openness has been looked at as a personality trait and as a cognitive capacity. It
can be seen as the converse of several constructs that have been linked to homophobia,
such as authoritarianism, fundamentalism, and LGB contact. Initial research on the
personality construct of openness to experience suggests that greater openness to
experience is linked to more positive attitudes toward LGB persons. As a cognitive
construct, abstract reasoning has been linked to lower homophobic attitudes. A newer
approach to openness focuses on open-mindedness, borrowing from openness to
experience, but emphasizing the cognitive style of seeking disconfirming information.
Open-mindedness has not yet been examined as a personality characteristic within the
context of attitudes toward LGB individuals. This is an interesting omission, considering
that many people, both among the general public and among researchers exploring
positive psychology, view open-mindedness as a virtue. Baerh (2011) describes openmindedness as a virtue that allows one to “think outside the box, to conceive of an
explanation” that lies within unfamiliar territory (p. 207). Essentially, open-mindedness
is the ability and willingness to suspend temporarily one’s prior belief in order to give a
fair and impartial hearing to an opposing belief, argument, or body of evidence (Baehr,
2011). Additionally, a crucial element of open-mindedness is the ability to adopt a new
mode of thinking when new evidence suggests that previously held beliefs are obsolete or
15
incorrect. Previous research on character strengths, such as open-mindedness, has
focused primarily on the relationship of these strengths to psychological health and wellbeing. For example, Proctor, Maltby, and Linley (2011) found that from a list of 24
character strengths, open-mindedness was among the top five virtues linked to people
with a positive self-identity and strong concept of self. This may be because people who
feel safe and secure in their own concept of self are less likely to feel threatened by ideas
and beliefs that contradict their own.
When presented with an idea, belief, or argument that stands in opposition to an
individual’s own beliefs, an open-minded person possesses both the emotional and
intellectual strength to assess the new information from an unbiased point of view (Baehr,
2011). In addition to rational assessment and evaluation, open-mindedness requires other
cognitive activities such as the ability to comprehend unfamiliar or challenging subject
matter (Baehr, 2011). As issues surrounding the LGB community are often unfamiliar to
a heterosexual audience, the need to be able to comprehend this information makes openmindedness a relevant topic of study in regard to the formation of attitudes toward the
LGB community. Thus, for the purposes of this study “open-mindedness” will be
defined as being receptive to new ideas, beliefs, or arguments and possessing the ability
to both comprehend that information and then assess it from an impartial perspective.
While there appears to be a consensus among both the general public and
researchers that open-mindedness is a positive trait, the concept itself is multifaceted and
rather ambiguous. There is no simple formula for identifying open-mindedness but an
16
open-minded person would presumably exhibit many, if not all, of the following
characteristics: a preference for deep thought and reflection over impulsivity; a desire to
seek information that contradicts their currently held beliefs; a willingness to adapt
beliefs as new information becomes available; the disposition to spend a great deal of
time on a problem before giving up; and the skill of unbiased reasoning or giving equal
weight to opinions and evidence with which they disagree. These characteristics, which
have been identified by various researchers (Stanovich & West, 1997; Fingerhut, 2011;
Bernstein, 2000) are interrelated and overlap in many crucial ways. As Milton Rokeach
proposes, knowing how an individual forms her or his belief system may allow us to
predict how they will respond to threats to their belief system.
Bernstein (2000) and Fingerhut (2011) both stress that in order to challenge any
homophobic or heterosexist bias, a heterosexual individual must be able to acknowledge
that differences in sexual orientation exist and possess the willingness to reflect on and
examine her or his own privileged heterosexual status. This is also similar to Stanovich
and West’s characteristic of reflection rather than impulsivity. According to Stanovich
and West (1997), “reasoning objectively about data and arguments that contradict prior
beliefs is often seen as the quintessence of thought” and suggest the importance of
examining individual differences (p. 342). It is essential to identify cognitive
components and relate these differences to other cognitive traits and personality variables
(Stanovich & West, 1997). Further, “the perseverance of mistaken beliefs taint our
perception of new data, whereas pre-existing accurate beliefs serve to provide a more
17
accurate picture of the world and inform our understanding more than distort it”
(Stanovich & West, 1997, p. 343). They argue that people tend to only engage in logical
reasoning about a premise when the belief seems questionable or inaccurate but are quick
to accept other opinions and beliefs when they seem believable. This relates to one’s
disposition to spend time on a problem before giving up and varies based on the
individual. This also relates to the ability to give equal thought to differing opinions in
relation to ones’ own. For example, allowing same-sex marriage may contradict or pose
a threat to one’s beliefs about marriage, however, being open to hearing different
perspectives on the issue demonstrates one’s cognitive ability to think critically about it
in the process of forming one’s own position.
Milton Rokeach, one of the leading researchers in the area of dogmatism and
open-mindedness, began his research by examining what behaviors and thoughts indicate
that someone is open or closed in their way of thinking. In addition, he explored what
characteristics are involved in all belief systems. If we know how an individual believes,
also referred to as the individual’s “cognitive style,” we may be able to predict his or her
problem-solving behavior. According to Rokeach (1960), a closed way of thinking
typically involves conflict about who is right and who is wrong, who is rational and who
is rationalizing, and conflict over whose convictions are dogmatic and whose are
intellectual. Within this construction of closed-mindedness, the dialogue between the
individual and cultural authority figures is responsible for either rejection or acceptance
of (1) ideas, which are categorized as a cognitive phenomenon, (2) prejudice or
18
intolerance toward a particular group of people, and (3) authority as authoritarianism
(Rokeach, 1960). Theoretically, those with relatively closed belief systems will
experience greater isolation because their belief system makes it more difficult to coexist
with those who hold contradictory beliefs. This is partially the result in having faith in an
authority and a refusal to believe that there could be multiple solutions to a given
problem, and thus remaining dogmatically loyal to a closed belief system. On the
contrary, less dependence on authority allows for greater communication among differing
belief systems creating a more open system (Rokeach, 1960). “When authority is seen as
absolute, it leads to extreme cognitive distinctions between faithful and unfaithful…
American and un-American” (Rokeach, 1960, p. 45). Those who agree will be accepted
and those who disagree will be rejected.
According to Rokeach (1960), a closed way of thinking is associated with an
authoritarian outlook on life, intolerance toward those with opposing beliefs and
acceptance of those with similar beliefs. Previous research has identified
authoritarianism as a potential factor that affects attitudes toward lesbian, gay, and
bisexual individuals. Whether someone is open or closed-minded can be “observed in the
‘practical’ world of politics and religion in addition to the more academic world of
science, philosophy, and humanistic thought” (Rokeach, 1960, p.5). Researchers of
belief systems view open-mindedness and closed-mindedness as being on a continuum
with both ends considered extreme (Rokeach, 1960; Stanovich & West, 1997).
19
Jonathon Baron (1997) has also been an important contributor to openmindedness research specifically in regard to the benefits of teaching actively openminded thinking. Stanovich and West, who have been heavily influenced by Baron’s
work, use his concept and definition of open-minded thinking in the construction of their
actively open-minded thinking scale (Stanovich & West, 1997). Baron (1997) argues that
learning what to believe is a formative experience within a society. He argues that a
main determinant of how people think is how they believe they ought to think.
Furthermore, he provides evidence regarding errors in thinking, such as “myside bias”
meaning people tend to respond more to evidence on their own side of an issue. Baron
states that the two errors in thinking are myside bias and the use of inferential heuristics
without understanding their purpose. Both of these errors are counteracted when the
individual is taught actively open-minded thinking. Open-minded thinking challenges
the individual to consider alternative possibilities, neglected goals, and counter evidence
(Baron, 1990).
Baron (1990) concludes that the absence of open-minded thinking is harmful
because it leads to the use of harmful heuristics in judgments and decisions. He goes on
to say that thinking is made up of search and inference. “We search for possibilities,
answers, and goals…possibilities are potential answers to our questions… evidence is
whatever bears on the strength of possibility, and goals are the standards we use to
evaluate possibilities in light of the evidence” (p. 394). Baron goes on to describe the
errors that are made when we use “closed-minded” thinking such as missing something
20
during the search for possibilities or evidence and neglecting goals. Secondly, we make
incorrect inferences from the evidence we have due to faulty heuristics (Baron, 1990).
Studying open-minded thinking may provide support for its teachable characteristics and
in turn be useful in efforts to influence positive attitudes toward LGB individuals.
Correlates of Open-Mindedness
One negative correlate to open-mindedness is resistance to the idea of changing a
behavior, belief, or personality. Rokeach (1960) suggests this is because we explain
resistance to change in terms of conformity, rigidity, and intolerance, traits that are all
diametrically opposed to the characteristics of open-mindedness. Those whose resistance
to change is at the extreme end of the spectrum are labeled dogmatic. Cullen and
colleagues (2002) define dogmatism as “a closed cognitive structure blocking an
individual from learning [or accepting] anything different from what has already been
established as societal norms” (p.123). To the dogmatic mind, the belief structure is an
inflexible whole and cannot be separated thus when a particular belief is threatened, “the
preservation of his total system will be at stake rather than the preservation of a particular
belief in his system” (p. 183).
Right Wing Authoritarianism
A tendency towards right-wing authoritarianism is another negative correlate of
open-mindedness. The tendency toward specifically right wing authoritarianism involves
a conservative orientation to preserving traditional values and the status quo as opposed
to extending new rights and liberties. Rokeach (1960) defines authoritarianism as being
21
“intolerant of those who disagree and closed in mode of thought and belief” (p. 15).
According to Cullen et al. (2002), the authoritarian personality type is well documented
as one that is prejudicial, seeks to impose his or her own will and beliefs on others, and
then demands conformity to those beliefs. Thus, authoritarian personality is incompatible
with open-minded thinking.
The cognitive rigidity exhibited by the dogmatic and authoritarian belief systems
serves the purpose of controlling and making sense of ambiguous stimuli (Stanovich &
West, 1997). New ideas that conform to the existing belief system are quickly deemed
acceptable while ideas that do not conform can be quickly dismissed. Separate from the
issue of the relative merits or disadvantages of this mode of thinking, it is easy to
understand the appeal of a thought process that quickly eliminates ambiguity. The result
of this rigidity, however, is that the individual is more likely to exhibit prejudice towards
others (Cullen et al., 2002). In fact, Cullen et al. (2002) report that cognitive rigidity may
also be part of a general set of attitudes that make up the prejudicial personality. In
contrast, an open-minded person possesses the willingness to set aside temporarily his or
her own beliefs in order to assess a new belief or argument from a neutral position
(Baehr, 2011). The result is that the open-minded person’s belief about any particular
idea will be based on a fair and rational analysis rather than an emotional response.
Unfortunately, this comes at the cost of living with a level of ambiguity that may be
uncomfortable for many people.
22
Knowledge
Rokeach (1960) discusses the relative amount of knowledge a person possesses,
(facts, ideas, and interpretations consistent with his or her belief system) as a positive
correlate to open-mindedness, generally resulting in more differentiation, or richness of
detail, within his or her belief system. Ways of increasing knowledge that have been
researched include exposure to the mass media (Pardie & Luscetta, 1999), contact with
those who differ in beliefs and opinions (Worthington et al., 2005), and receiving higher
education (Stotzer, 2009). In addition, Cosme, Pepino, and Brown (2010) identify a
liberal political orientation and empathy as being positively correlated with open-minded
thinking using Rokeach’s (1960) dogmatism scale to measure the inverse of openmindedness. In their study, they argue that little research has looked at the relationship of
empathy to open-mindedness and discuss the similarities stating, “Both involve
understanding another person's ideas or state of mind, and perhaps as a consequence,
gaining some form of acceptance from this understanding” (para. 3). Cosme and
colleagues (2010) comment on the finding that those with a liberal political orientation
are generally more open to different experiences and are also understanding of the
inclusion of diverse populations in society. They further provide support that a moderate
or liberal political orientation is positively correlated with flexibility, receptiveness, and
tolerance, in addition to open-minded thinking.
23
Attitudes and Open-Mindedness
Little research has been conducted in the area of cognitive functioning (thinking,
memory, and perception) and social attitudes. Of the research that has been conducted on
attitudes, the focus has largely been on ethnic prejudice and discrimination. With the
increased awareness of homophobia and its destructive consequences, with similarities to
prejudice exhibited toward ethnic minorities, it is important to examine attitudes toward
these populations. In regards to in-group versus out-group behavior, Rokeach states that
sharing similar or compatible beliefs is often more important than having a shared ethnic
or religious background. In other words, when two individuals share the same beliefs,
they are more likely to overlook or minimize their ethnic, religious, and perhaps sexual
differences. Rokeach (1960) provides an important finding that people high in ethnic
prejudice and authoritarianism have more cognitive rigidity, are narrow in their grasp of
particular topics, have an increase in memory distortions, and decreased intolerance of
ambiguity. High levels of openness were associated with tolerance for ambiguity and
increased mental flexibility while those with low levels of openness were more often
male, less likely to have had meaningful contact with homosexuals, and more
homophobic (Stotzer, 2008). Baron and colleagues (2008) further add valuing others’
perspectives and an increased tolerance of ambiguity to the characteristic of openness.
Rokeach (1960) elaborates on this idea of ambiguity by discussing a psychoanalytic
finding that suggests that strict and authoritarian parenting during child development may
make children more likely to adopt their parents’ rigid worldview. If, however, the
24
parents are more permissive, children may initially adopt the parents’ stereotypical views
about ethnic minorities but they will not be as rigidly dedicated to that belief.
Keiller (2010) reports further data on the relationship between cognitive resources
and prejudice stating, “Automatically elicited stereotypes may be suppressed or tempered
by controlled processing (conscious and deliberate mental efforts)” (p. 915). Cognitive
resources, like open-mindedness, are defined as enabling people to minimize bias in the
process of perceiving and thinking about other groups of people. An important study by
Keiller (2010), found that low abstract reasoning, defined as “being able to take the
perspectives of others and consider multiple aspects of other people that contradict one’s
beliefs (p.915),” was a predictor of anti-gay attitudes and right wing authoritarianism.
Other predictors of anti-gay attitudes included the participant being male and having little
to no contact with LGB individuals. Potential limitations of this study are that it focused
on attitudes toward gay men only and measured abstract reasoning using an inventory of
Piaget’s Developmental tasks. Along these same lines, Johnson, Brems, and AlfordKeating (1997) found that the inability to understand others’ perspectives was linked to
increased levels of homophobic attitudes. Therefore, in the current study, it is predicted
that a closely related cognitive trait, such as open mindedness, would produce similar
attitudes toward lesbians and bisexuals in addition to LGB people.
Openness to Experience
The construct of openness to experience, included in the Big Five Personality
Model, is defined as “the propensity to pursue aesthetic interests, and to being open to a
25
variety of novel ideas, values, and experiences” (Hong, Paunonen, & Slade, 2008, p.
161). Stanovich and West adopted and expanded on the cognitive aspects of openness in
the development of their construct of actively open-minded thinking. To date, more
research has been conducted on the link between openness to experience and attitudes
toward LGB individuals than has been conducted on the links between open-mindedness
and these attitudes.
Openness is similar to open-mindedness in the sense that it affects social
perceptions and the formation of social attitudes including choice of friends and political
affiliation (McCrae & Sutin, 2009). Openness signifies individuals who are intellectually
curious, hold unconventional beliefs and attitudes, are more creative and aware of their
feelings, and open to a variety of experiences (Proctor & McCord, 2009; Baron et al.,
2008). McCrae and Sutin (2009) acknowledge that there are substantial correlations with
the openness facet of the NEO-PI-R with other openness measures and measures of
cognitive processes. The openness-values facet measures receptivity to non-traditional
values; traditional values were found to be correlated with negative attitudes toward LGB
individuals (Steffens, 2005) and low levels of openness (Stotzer, 2009; Keiller, 2010).
McCrae and Sutin (2009) found openness to values to have a strong inverse correlation
with dogmatic, or closed thinking, and authoritarianism.
Stanovich and West’s (1997) scale includes eight items from the values facet of
the openness to experience scale from the well-known NEO-PI-R measure (Stanovich &
West, 1997). Stotzer (2008) reports that the relative level of openness is an important
26
predictor of homophobia because it reflects dogmatism and cognitive rigidity. Stotzer’s
study differs from the existing literature by focusing on positive attitudes toward lesbians,
gays, and bisexuals rather than negative attitudes. Stotzer (2008) studied a sample of 68
participants utilizing a half hour semi-structured interview method asking participants
about their thoughts, beliefs, and attitudes regarding homosexuality and bisexuality. A
potential limitation of Stotzer’s study (2008) was the use of Herek’s Attitudes Toward
Lesbians and Gay Men short form scale, which does not assess attitudes about
bisexuality. However, one strength was gathering data by interviewing participants. To
gain a better understanding of predictors related to attitudes toward lesbians, gays, and
bisexuals, a larger sample size would be required as well as taking into consideration
whether questionnaires and interviews yield similar findings or whether social
desirability plays a differential role across these two methodologies.
Cullen et al. (2002) also found openness to experience to be correlated with a
decrease in homophobia suggesting that openness to having contact with lesbian, gay,
and bisexual individuals may allow for a decrease of unrealistic fears and expectations.
Two studies conducted by Proctor and McCord (2009) similarly compared openness to
experience with religious fundamentalism and open-mindedness using a different
measure than the one developed by Stanovich and West, and found openness to
experience to be negatively correlated with religious fundamentalism and positively
correlated with open-mindedness. Although this study examined participant’s openness
to different religions and tolerance toward contact with an ethnic minority, it is expected
27
that similar correlations will be found when examining the relationship between openmindedness and attitudes toward lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals.
A study by Baron and colleagues (2008) examined heterosexual men’s attitudes
toward gay men and correlated personality and demographic variables of anti-gay
attitudes including openness, sexism, defensiveness, contact, religiosity, and political
affiliation. Using a relatively large sample size (N=243), they found the previously
mentioned variables to be correlated with anti-gay attitudes.
The more closed-minded a person’s belief system is, the more difficulty would be
encountered in problem solving within a new belief system. If new beliefs, or
information, are not really accepted, then they will not be remembered, and would be less
likely to be synthesized or integrated into a person’s belief system (Rokeach, 1960).
Rokeach (1960) further says that not just thought and memory processes are involved in
the openness or closedness of a mind, but also the emotional and motivational attitude of
the thinker. An individual who resists viewing problems from different perspectives or
dislikes new ideas would typically respond to new situations, such as individuals
identifying themselves as LGB, with rejection and defensiveness, both considered ways
of coping. Rokeach (1960) acknowledges the role of personality variables in problemsolving behavior and basic emotional attitudes, which may help or hinder problemsolution.
Emotions during change have an effect on our attitudes also, by being positive or
negative depending on the person and how he or she anticipates or experiences the
28
outcomes and processes (Smollen, Sayers, & Matheny, 2010). Smollen, Sayers, and
Matheny (2010) acknowledge that emotions have cognitive antecedents and behavioral
outcomes such as acting out positive/negative attitudes, which either help or hinder the
implementation of change. For example, anxiety or anger can result from change that it
is too quick, too slow, or poorly timed. Ongoing change could maintain a feeling of
anxiety or anger as participants struggle with constant adaptation. The slow process of
acceptance of LGB people may create ongoing stress for some, requiring the use of
coping resources to adapt.
“Dogmatism and closed-minded thinking serves the purpose of ensuring continued
existence of the institution and belief system for which it stands. On the individual level,
threat may arise out of adverse experiences. To varying degrees, individuals may
become disposed to accept or form closed systems of thinking to the degree to which they
are made to feel alone, isolated, and helpless in society in which they live causing anxiety
for what the future holds. Attempts made to overcome such feelings may result in
compensatory and discriminating attitudes” (Rokeach, 1960, p. 360). In other words,
acceptance of LGB individuals within our heteronormative society may be threatening to
a heterosexual individual and his or her approach to coping with threat and stress may be
relevant to his or her attitudes toward LGB individuals.
Overview of Coping
One potential correlate of attitudes toward LGB individuals that has not received
much focus in the research literature is coping style. Coping style can be defined as the
29
characteristic way in which an individual confronts and attempts to resolve problems and
challenges and the typical efforts made to manage stress. This means that anything
people do or think about to deal with a situation, regardless of how well the strategy may
work, is part of their coping style (Alexander, 2008; Hobfoll et al., 1996). Aldwin (2000)
noted that past research has predominately identified coping strategies associated with
poor outcomes rather than focusing on strategies that are associated with positive
outcomes. Underlying much of the coping literature is the assumption that the ways in
which people manage their stress, rather than simply the existence of stress, is what leads
to distress and dysfunction. Some coping styles are maladaptive, in that they distort
reality, whereas others are considered adaptive and healthy. Coping researchers have
attempted to simplify the broad array of coping strategies by dichotomizing coping into
problem-focused vs. emotion-focused, situational vs. dispositional coping, and active vs.
passive/avoidant coping.
Hobfoll and his colleagues proposed that the emphasis on the distinction between
problem-focused and emotion-focused strategies was limited in that it did not account for
the social valence of coping, and therefore tended to privilege characteristically
masculine forms of coping as effective and condemn characteristically feminine forms of
coping as ineffective (Dunahoo, Hobfoll, Monnier, Hulsizer, & Johnson, 2002; Hobfoll,
Dunahoo, Ben-Porath, & Monnier, 1994). However, coping that is understood as
problem-focused or active may vary from individualistic, or even exploitive, to highly
prosocial, involving team efforts and social network based strategies. Monnier et al.
30
(1998) acknowledged and demonstrated empirically that the majority of coping measures
did not tap instrumental means of using supportive coping strategies. The dual-axis
model not only addressed the activity dimension of coping, but also highlighted the
existence of both pro-social and antisocial means of problem-solving in order to increase
our understanding of social consequences of coping (Monnier et al., 1998). Building on
the original dual-axis model, they proposed a multi-axial model of coping that subdivided
active coping into strategies along a prosocial to individualistic continuum; furthermore,
in an effort to capture cultural variation in coping, they included indirect approaches in
addition to direct strategies.
The active-passive dimension reflects how active or passive-avoidant a person is in
achieving his or her goals and the pro-social-anti-social dimension “depicts the degree to
which individuals act in terms of their social interactions while seeking their goals”
(Monnier et al., 1998, p. 249). The direct-indirect dimension aims to “describe cultural
and gender differences in coping style and circumstantial constraints versus allowances
for direct action” (Monnier et al., 1998, p. 250). The Strategic Approach to Coping
Scale (SACS), developed by Hobfoll and colleagues (1994), was developed to facilitate
research on the Multiaxial Model of Coping.
Compared to other coping models, this model of coping depicts shared reliance
rather than self-reliance as a healthier way to cope (Monnier et al., 1998). Monnier et al.
(1998) further state that individualistically oriented measures of coping disfavor women
by ignoring pro-social and anti-social aspects. Monnier et al. (1998) found the Multi-
31
Axial Model of Coping able to balance individualistic and collectivist notions that lead to
successful predictions of coping outcomes under stressful conditions without disfavoring
women.
Dunahoo and colleagues (1998) cite Riger’s (1993) critique of the individualistic
bias of problem-focused coping, asserting that “individualism pits man against the
elements in a fight for survival, a viewpoint that esteems control and action and ignores
social and communal aspects of coping” (Dunahoo et al., 1998, p. 138). The
individualistic coping model de-emphasizes the influence of the social environment and
misses important gender, ethnic, and cultural differences, therefore Dunahoo, et al.
(1998) argues the multi axial model is necessary. The individualistic model operates
under the idea that “the healthy individual is one who is self-contained, independent and
self-reliant, capable of asserting himself an influencing his environment” (as cited in
Dunahoo et al., 1998). Folkman and Lazarus (1984) propose that the major alternatives
to action are typically individualistic, specifically avoidance or attempts to reduce
discomforting emotions. “Pro-social coping is thought to provide additional resources to
successfully cope with stress over time, whereas, coping in a manner that strains one’s
support network such as individual or anti-social coping may deplete social resources
needed for future stress events” (Monnier et al., 1998, p. 4). Monnier, et al. (1998)
discussed that pro-social behavior benefited an individual by building relationships and
enhancing a person’s support network allowing for future support if needed.
32
Within Western cultures, individualistic coping styles are idealized because they
promote the Westernized values of autonomy and independence compared to nonWestern cultures that utilize a more communal approach to coping (Bardi & Guerra,
2011). Prior research has emphasized coping as individualistic, drawing from a sense of
personal agency or control over one’s personal problems rather than the social and
communal aspects of coping (Dunahoo et al., 1998). Monnier and colleagues (1998)
identify one limitation of the coping literature by acknowledging too much focus being
placed on individual outcomes, such as anxiety level, rather than the support system
surrounding the individual. For instance, one’s coping behavior may reduce the distress
he or she is experiencing yet damage interpersonal relationships, or help an individual to
progress while hindering another’s progress or goals (Monnier et al., 1998). Hobfoll, et
al. (1998) stated that past coping research has promoted problem focused coping and
personal agency, ignoring the potential for this approach to be anti-social having a
negative effect on others, whereas support seeking has been devalued as a passive coping
style.
Prior to the multi axial model of coping, Folkman and Lazarus (1991) examined
coping as emotion-focused versus problem-focused and introduced a psychoanalytic ego
model involving realistic thoughts and behaviors that solve problems and reduce stress.
They defined coping as “consisting of cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage specific
external and internal demands that are exceeding the resources of a person” (Folkman &
Lazarus, 1991, p. 190). Hobfoll and colleagues attempted to have a more balanced model
33
that addressed both individualistic and communal orientations. In addition, they
confronted and addressed that coping has relational consequences that can be either
prosocial, for example seeking out social support to tackle a problem, or antisocial
perhaps by attacking others to meet a goal.
Coping styles that become habitual may be seen as dispositional coping, described
as the general tendency to approach problems with a characteristic set of behaviors.
Situational coping as defined by Monnier et al. (1998) is using a specific set of coping
behaviors to address any given situation. Monnier, et al. (1998), acknowledge that
people will utilize different coping styles based on their environment and this flexibility
is considered a strength. Aldwin (2000) described dispositional coping styles as being
learned early on as effective ways of reducing stress leading to viewing dispositional
coping as a personality characteristic.
Gender Differences in Coping
Coping research has also largely focused on gender differences for instance,
Monnier et al. (1998) found that women have a more pro-social coping style, whereas
men report using a more anti-social coping style. In addition, problem-focused coping
and personal agency have been viewed more favorably than emotional or communal
coping, ignoring the potential negative affect individualistic approaches can have on
others and the value of seeking out potential support when needed (Dunahoo, et al.,
1998). Men and women do not differ on the active-passive dimension of coping when
social aspects are considered.
34
Dunahoo and colleages (1998) and Hobfoll; (1991) found that men tend to cope in a
more individualistic manner while women tend to seek more social support. Increased
rates of depression were found in both men and women with regard to avoidant coping
styles. Howerton and Van Gundy (2009) found that men engage in “externalizing”
behavior, such as aggression and substance abuse at higher rates than do women. These
findings suggest that stereotypically male coping may be more discriminatory or
aggressive and Hobfoll’s model of coping proves to be fairer to women by highlighting
prosocial coping as an active and effective approach, rather than placing emphasis on
individualistic action as the “good” way to cope. In other words, active prosocial coping
is psychologically healthier and more effective for both men and women.
Hypotheses
There were five major predictions for the present research concerning the
relationship that coping style and open-mindedness have to heterosexuals’ positive and
negative attitudes toward LGB individuals. First it was hypothesized that individuals who
express high levels of open-minded thinking would have more positive attitudes toward
LGB individuals. Second, it was also predicted that individuals who utilize a more active
coping style, such as communal coping or individualistic coping, would hold more
positive attitudes toward LGB individuals. Third, it was predicted that avoidant coping
would be related to lower LGB-affirmativeness. The fourth hypothesis predicted that
individuals who have had prior contact with a lesbian or gay individual would be more
accepting of and hold more positive attitudes toward LGB individuals. Fifth, it was
35
predicted that individuals who consider themselves to be more liberal in regard to
political affiliation would hold more positive a attitudes toward LGB individuals.
36
Chapter 3
METHOD
Participants
Participants consisted of 337 (268 female and 69 male) undergraduate college
students at a large public university in the Western United States who were recruited
from introductory psychology courses. The participants ranged in age from 18 to 50
years, with a mean age of 20.6 (SD = 3.2) years. All participants received partial course
credit for their participation in the study. The sample consisted of the following
racial/ethnic groups: 41.4% European-American/White, 18.4% Asian-American/Pacific
Islander, 17.1% Latino/Hispanic, 14.5% Multi-Ethnic/Other, 8.4% African
American/Black. The participants were 41.6% Liberal (n = 122), 36.7% Conservative (n
= 110) and 18.2% Moderate (n = 58) and majority of the participants (77.7%) identified
as Christian. With regard to contact with lesbian and gay individuals, 91 participants
(27%) had non-meaningful contact implying the participant has little to no contact with
lesbian or gay individuals and 199 (59%) had meaningful contact referring to having a
close friend or family member who is lesbian or gay.
Measures
Subscale scores were derived by averaging across the responses for each of the
scales to account for any item participants may have skipped or left blank and to make
total scores interpretable with reference to the response options.
37
Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Knowledge and Attitudes Scale for Heterosexuals
(LGB-KASH). The LGB-KASH scale, developed by Worthington, Dillon, and BeckerSchutte (2005), assesses heterosexuals’ attitudes toward and knowledge about lesbians,
gays, and bisexuals. This measure was selected because of its multi-dimensionality and
ability to capture heterosexual attitudes toward those with a different sexual orientation.
The LGB-KASH consists of 28 items and five subscales assessing internalized
affirmativeness (e.g., “I would display a symbol of gay pride (pink triangle, rainbow,
etc.) to show my support of the LGB community.”), civil rights (e.g., “Hospitals should
acknowledge same-sex partners equally to any other next of kin”), knowledge (e.g., “I am
knowledgeable about the history and mission of the PFGLAG organization.”), religious
conflict (e.g., “I keep my religious beliefs to myself in order to accept LGB people.”),
and hate (e.g., “LGB people deserve the hatred they receive.”).
Participants responded to the items of the LGB-KASH on a 7-point response scale
ranging from 1 (very uncharacteristic of me) to 7 (very characteristic of me). Higher
scores indicate the corresponding subscale was more characteristic of the participant and
lower scores indicate that the corresponding subscale is less characteristic of the
participant. Internal consistency coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) for the five subscales at
the time of its development were .81 (Hate), .81 (Knowledge), .87 (Civil Rights), .76
(Religious Conflict), and .83 (Internalized Affirmativeness).
Attitudes Regarding Bisexuality Scale. The Attitudes Regarding Bisexuality Scale
(ARBS) was developed by Mohr and Rochlen (1999) to assess two dimensions of
38
attitudes of both women and men. The first dimension tolerance, relates to the degree to
which bisexuality is accepted as a morally tolerable sexual orientation (e.g., “I would not
be upset if my sister were bisexual.”). The second dimension, stability, involves viewing
bisexuality as a legitimate stable sexual orientation (e.g., “Most women who call
themselves bisexual are temporarily experimenting with their sexuality.”).
Participants responded to the items of the ARBS measure on a 5-point response
scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Upon the author’s
suggestion, the two subscales were combined into a single scale. Higher scores indicated
higher agreement with regard to each of the subscales. At the time of development,
internal consistency coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) were .89 for the Stability subscale
and .77 for the Tolerance subscale.
Strategic Approach to Coping Scale. The Strategic Approach to Coping Scale
(SACS-D) was developed by Hobfoll and colleagues (1994) to assess dispositional
coping styles using the Multiaxial Model of Coping. The measure consists of 51 items
and nine subscales: assertive action (“Don’t give up when things look their worst,
because you can often turn things around”), social joining (“I would join together with
others to deal with the situation together”), seeking social support (“Check with friends
about what they would do”), cautious action (“Move very cautiously, there may be a
hidden agenda”), indirect action (“Others need to feel they are the boss, so I would work
around them to get things done”), avoidance (“Back off and just let the smoke clear”),
antisocial action (“ Counter attack and catch others off guard”), and aggressive action (“I
39
would act fast, it’s better to throw myself into the problem”). Participants responded to
the SACS items on a 5-point response scale ranging from 1 (I would not do this at all) to
5 (I would do this a lot) based on how they generally cope in stressful situations. Higher
scores on each of the subscales indicated a greater tendency to utilize the corresponding
coping strategy. According to Dunahoo et al. (1998) Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for
the nine subscales ranged from .61 to .86.
Actively Open-Minded Thinking Scale. The Actively Open-Minded Thinking
Scale (AOTS) was developed to assess one’s ability to reason independently of prior
belief as well as think critically about those who differ in opinion or belief without letting
that disagreement affect one’s process. Stanovich and West (2007) developed this 41item scale consisting of 10 items from the flexible thinking scale (Stanovich & West,
1997), 8 items from the Openness-Values facet of the NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae,
1992), 3 items from Epstein and Meier’s (1989) categorical thinking subscale, 9 items
from the belief identification scale (Sa et al. 1999), 2 items from the counterfactual
thinking scale (Stanovich & West, 1997), and 9 items measuring dogmatism (Paulhus &
Reid, 1991; Robinson, Shaver, & Wrightsman, 1991; Troldahl & Powell, 1965). The
authors reported internal consistency coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) for the scale
ranging from .83-.84. Participants responded to the AOTS items on a 6-point response
scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 6 (Strongly agree) with higher scores
indicating a greater tendency toward open-minded thinking.
40
Demographic Questionnaire. A demographics questionnaire was used in order
to obtain information regarding the participant’s age, gender, race/ethnicity, and political
orientation. Participants identified their political orientation by circling a number on a
seven-point scale from 1 (liberal) to 7 (conservative). Additionally, participants were
asked to report their sexual orientation and the amount of meaningful contact with an
LGB individual by checking the closest relationship the participant had out of a list of
responses.
Procedure
The participants for this study were recruited from introductory psychology
courses at California State University, Sacramento. In exchange for their participation,
the participants received one hour of credit toward satisfying the Psychology Department
research participation requirement. The scales were collected as part of a larger project
that examined religiosity and sexual identity development. Undergraduate students
signed up to participate in the study at a designated time and location through the
psychology department’s research participation website. Participants were verbally read
the consent form and explained the general purpose of the study by a research assistant.
Research assistants included both men and women and undergraduate as well as graduate
students. They were then asked to sign and return the consent forms and to return
completed questionnaires by placing them face down in a box. Questionnaires were
completed in small groups of no more than eight students supervised by at least one
researcher each session. The researcher informed all participants that their participation
41
was completely voluntary and anonymous. In order to reduce the potential for order
effects, each of the questionnaire packets was assembled in counterbalanced order. Data
were entered twice to ensure there were no errors made during data entry.
42
Chapter 4
RESULTS
Effective Sample Size
The initial sample size consisted of 373 participants; however, participants were
excluded from the analyses if they identified their sexual orientation as lesbian, gay, or
bisexual, or if a participant left a substantial number of majority items unanswered. The
final sample size was 337 participants.
Descriptive Statistics
The means and standard deviations of both the predictor and dependent variables
in this sample (See Table 1) were generally consistent with the means and standard
deviations reported in other studies (Mohr & Rochlen, 1999; Stanovich & West, 1997;
Worthington, Dillon, & Becker-Schutte, 2005). Cronbach’s alpha for the five subscales
of the LGB-KASH and ARBS measure are shown in Table 4 and for the predictor
variables in Table 5.
Principal Component Analysis
In keeping with the theoretical model on which it is based and in order to simplify
data analyses, the nine subscales of the Strategic Approach to Coping Scale (SACS) were
analyzed using a principal component analysis with a promax rotation. Three factors
were obtained with eigenvalues greater than 1.0, cumulatively accounting for 66.7% of
the variance (See Table 2).
43
Table 1
Means and Standard Deviations for Predictor and Dependent Variables
Dependent Variables
LGB Hate
M
1.52
SD
.72
LGB Knowledge
2.39
1.19
LGB Civil Rights
5.66
1.52
LGB Religious Conflict
3.40
1.17
LGB Affirmative
3.51
1.63
Bi-Affirmative
3.56
.77
Open-minded
4.10
.51
Individualistic Coping
2.89
.57
Communal Coping
2.36
.56
Avoidant Coping
3.62
.53
Predictor Variables
Table 2
Total Variance Explained
Component
1
2
3
Eigenvalues
2.94
1.64
1.43
% of Variance
32.68
18.17
15.85
Cumulative
Variance
32.68
50.85
66.70
44
Table 3 presents the promax rotated structure matrix of the nine SACS subscales
and factor loadings. The first component was indicated by higher levels of anti-social
action, aggressive action, indirect action and instinctive action and was interpreted as
individualistic coping because the subscales that comprise it are more self-focused than
communal coping. The second component was indicated by higher levels of social
joining, social support, and cautious action and interpreted as communal coping. The
third component was indicated by higher levels of avoidance and lower levels of assertive
action, and was interpreted as avoidant coping. Similar results were found by Dunahoo et
al. (1998) when they performed a second order factor analysis of the SACS revealing that
the nine subscales could be grouped into three larger subscales and still be statistically
and theoretically sound.
Canonical Correlation
A canonical correlation analysis was used to explore the relationship between a
set of attitude variables towards LGB and sets of coping styles and open-mindedness
variables. The dependent variables were hate, knowledge, civil rights, religious conflict,
internalized affirmativeness, and bi-affirmativeness. The predictor variables were openmindedness, individualistic coping, communal coping, and avoidant coping.
With 323 cases in the analysis the relationship between the sets of variables was
statistically significant, Wilk’s Lambda = .63, R c ² = .37, Approximate F(24, 1093.14) =
6.42, p < .001. Four canonical roots were extracted, two of which were statistically
significant accounting for 84.07% and 9.52% of the explained variance, respectively.
45
Eigenvalues, percentages of variance explained, and the squared canonical correlations
for each function are shown in Table 8. The first function accounted for 84.07% of the
explained variance and the second function accounted for 9.52% of the explained
respectively. Based on the Cramer-Nicewater Index (1979), it appears that
approximately 10% of the variance of the dependent variates was explained by the four
canonical roots.
Table 3
Structure Matrix of the SACS Subscales with Promax Rotation (N = 373)
Factor Loading
Subscale
1
2
3
Communality
Antisocial Action
.32
-.002
.69
.83
Aggressive Action
.82
.21
-.19
.74
Indirect Action
.74
.19
.29
.61
Instinctive Action
.64
.18
.16
.42
Social Joining
.13
.85
.13
.75
Cautious Action
.42
.68
-.001
.52
Social Support
.22
.77
-.02
.60
Assertive Action
.14
.10
-.90
.85
Avoidance
.35
.26
.85
.83
Note. Boldface indicates highest factor loadings. Factor 1 = Individualistic Coping;
Factor 2 = Communal Coping; Factor 3 = Avoidant Coping.
46
The structure coefficients for the two functions for the predictor and dependent
variates are shown in Table 4. The first predictor function was associated with lower
levels of open-mindedness; the first dependent function was associated with higher levels
of hateful attitudes toward LGB individuals, somewhat less LGB knowledge, less
endorsement of civil rights, more religious conflict, less internalized affirmativeness, and
more negative attitudes toward bisexuality. The first function appeared to indicate that
heterosexual individuals who are not as open-minded report more negative attitudes
toward LGB individuals.
The second predictor function was associated with lower levels of individualistic
coping; the second dependent function was associated with lower levels of endorsement
of civil rights. This second function appeared to indicate that those who did not utilize an
individualistic coping style also tended to not endorse LGB civil rights.
Bivariate Correlations
Higher levels of positive attitudes toward bisexuality were associated with having
more knowledge, higher levels of endorsement of LGB civil rights, lower levels of LGB
religious conflict, and had higher levels of LGB affirmativeness than those who
expressed negative attitudes (Table 5). Higher levels of individualistic coping style were
associated with lower levels of open-minded thinking (Table 6). Lastly, higher levels of
open-mindedness were associated with less hatefulness toward LGB individuals, greater
knowledge regarding LGB individuals, greater endorsement of LGB civil rights, lower
47
levels of religious conflict regarding LGB issues, higher LGB affirmativeness, and more
positive attitudes toward bisexuality (Table 7).
Table 4
Correlations and Standardized Canonical Coefficients between Attitudes toward LGB
Individuals, Coping Styles, and Open-mindedness
First Variate
Second Variate
Dependent Variable
Correlation
Correlation
Attitudes Toward LGB
Hate
.73
-.06
Knowledge
-.27
-.37
Civil Rights
-.72
-.67
Religious Conflict
.46
-.13
Internalized Affirm
-.61
-.22
Positive Bisexual
Attitudes
-.90
.08
Individual Coping
.26
-.94
Avoidant Coping
.07
-.36
Prosocial Coping
.27
-.35
Open-mindedness
-.99
-.01
Predictor Variable
Coping Style & OpenMindedness
Note. Boldface indicates highest variate loadings.
48
Table 5
Bivariate Correlations of Dependent Variables of LGB Attitudes
1
2
3
4
5
1. LGB Hate
-
2. LGB
Knowledge
-.18**
-
3. LGB Civil
Rights
-.49**
.36**
-
4. LGB
Religious
Conflict
.16**
-.26**
-.15**
-
5. LGB
Affirmative
.44**
.49**
.64**
-.29**
-
6. Bisexual
Attitudes
-.49**
.36**
.61**
-.35**
.58**
6
Cronbach’s
Alpha
.68
.80
.88
.67
.81
-
.92
Note. **p < .01.
Table 6
Bivariate Correlations of Predictor Variables
1
2
3
1. Openmindedness
-
2. Individual
-.25**
-
3. Avoidant
-.03
.31**
-
.20**
.12*
4. Communal
-.25**
Note. ** p < .01, * p < .05.
4
Cronbach’s
Alpha
.86
.85
.68
-
.86
49
Table 7
Bivariate Correlations Between Predictors and Dependent Variables
Dependent Variables
Predictors
1
2
3
4
5
Individual
Coping
.13*
.04
.03
.08
-.04
-.15**
Communal
Coping
.15**
-.09
-.04
.13*
-.10
-.13*
Avoidant
Coping
-.03
.02
.02
.05
-.03
-.07
.15**
.41**
-.26**
.35**
.50**
Openminded
-.41**
Note. ** p < .01. * p <.05
6
Table 8
Eigenvalues, Cumulative % of Explained Variance, & Squared Canonical Correlates for
Each Canonical Function
Overall Variance
Squared Canonical
Function
Eigenvalue
Explained
Correlation
1***
.46
84.07
.31
2*
.05
9.52
.05
3
.03
4.86
.03
4
.01
1.55
.01
*** p < .001, * p < .05
Group Differences
A two-way between subjects multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was
conducted to determine whether heterosexual individuals’ political affiliations (liberal,
moderate, and conservative) and having contact with LGB persons (meaningful or nonmeaningful) were related to their attitudes toward bisexuals, LGB hate, LGB knowledge,
50
LGB civil rights, religious conflict, and LGB internalized affirmativeness. The
multivariate interaction of political affiliation and contact was significant, Wilks’
Lambda = .937, F(12, 674) = 1.86, p = .036, using Wilks’ criterion to determine
significance. Only the interaction for LGB knowledge was statistically significant, F(2,
342) = 3.43, p = .033, η2 = .149. The interaction for LGB knowledge is shown in Figure
1.
Tests of simple effects, with a Bonferroni alpha level correction, revealed that
liberals who had meaningful contact with LGB individuals had more knowledge than
those with non-meaningful LGB contact. No differences were found between the groups
for non-meaningful LGB contact. For meaningful contact, liberals were more
knowledgeable than either conservatives or moderates; conservatives and moderates did
not differ.
51
Figure 1. Interaction between Political affiliation and LGB Contact
52
Chapter 5
DISCUSSION
The present study examined the relationship of open-mindedness and coping
styles, as well as degree of social contact with lesbian and gay individuals and political
orientation, to a range of variables representing heterosexuals’ knowledge of and attitudes
toward lesbians, gays, and bisexuals. In summary, open-mindedness, individualistic
coping, and, among those endorsing a liberal political orientation, greater contact with
lesbian and gay individuals were linked to LGB-affirmative responses on study measures.
Hypothesis one, that heterosexual individuals higher in open-mindedness would
hold more positive attitudes toward LGB individuals, was supported. This finding was
consistent with Keiller’s (2010) findings that those low in abstract reasoning, a cognitive
structure similar to open-mindedness, were higher in anti-gay prejudice. Keiller (2010)
hypothesized that low abstract reasoning skills would account for variance not accounted
for by previously found predictors, specifically gender, right-wing authoritarianism, and
prior LGB contact. This finding is also consistent with research on the personality
variable openness to experience and specifically, openness to values.
The second hypothesis contended that utilizing higher levels of active coping,
including both individualistic and communal coping, would be linked to holding more
positive attitudes toward LGB individuals. The present study did not find a link between
active, communal coping and attitudes toward LGB individuals; however, higher levels
53
of individualistic coping were related to stronger endorsement of LGB civil rights.
Research has demonstrated that those seeking advice or support from their social network
in times of stress may be more easily influenced by their attitudes about whatever the
issue is (Gino, Brooks, & Schweitzer, 2012). Gino, Brooks, and Schweitzer (2012) found
that individuals experiencing anxiety or uncertainty about an issue would seek out social
support and information when trying to figure out their own feelings about it. However,
communal coping was unrelated to attitudes toward LGB individuals in the present study.
Results did not support hypothesis three, that higher avoidant coping would be linked to
lower LGB-affirmativeness. This is inconsistent with previous research in which avoidant
coping styles (Cullen et al., 2002) have been found to be correlated with negative
attitudes toward LGB people. Other research that has explored the relationship between
coping style and homophobic attitudes has found that avoidant defenses are used when
the individual feels threatened or uncertain about their own sexuality, thus creating
anxiety (Johnson, Brems, & Alford-Keating, 1997).
Hypothesis four stated that heterosexual individuals who have had prior contact
with an LGB person will be more open-minded and hold more positive attitudes toward
LGB individuals. Research has repeatedly demonstrated that those who have had contact
with LGB individuals are more likely to hold positive attitudes toward these populations
(Satcher & Schumacker, 2009). Having one friend or acquaintance that is gay or lesbian
is associated with lower homonegativity and more internal affirmativeness (Satcher &
Schumacker, 2009). Further, it is suggested that those who have had this contact with the
54
LGB community would generally be more open-minded, perhaps because whatever
reservations, beliefs, or fears one has would be disconfirmed by interacting with LGB
individuals. The fifth, and final, hypothesis predicted that heterosexual individuals who
consider themselves to be more liberal in political orientation would be more likely to
hold positive attitudes toward LGB individuals. Research has consistently shown that
those who considered themselves liberal hold more positive attitudes toward LGB
individuals and have more knowledge about LGB communities (Lambert, Ventura, Hall,
& Cluse-Tolar, 2006; Mohr & Rochlen, 1999). The findings of the present study are
generally consistent with previous research, but suggest that contact with lesbian and gay
individuals may be linked to greater LGB knowledge only among individuals who
consider themselves to be politically liberal, and not among those who consider
themselves moderate or conservative.
This study adds to the current literature on attitudes toward sexual minorities by
including attitudes toward lesbians and bisexuals in addition to gay men, and by
including measures of positive as well as negative attitudes toward these groups. Openmindedness was found to be linked to LGB-affirmative attitudes and knowledge,
suggesting that there may be a benefit to teaching open-minded thinking skills in efforts
aimed at improving acceptance of LGB people. Baron (1993) stresses and discusses how
open-minded thinking is a teachable phenomenon and encourages people to practice this
way of thinking as it is seen as virtuous within positive psychology.
Coping was not found to be linked to LGB attitudes, with the exception that active,
55
individualistic coping was related to endorsement of LGB civil rights. Although past
theoretical and empirical work on individualistic coping suggests that it may be linked to
lower levels of relational well-being (Monnier et al., 1998), it may signal respect for
autonomy and self-determination that manifests in support for LGB civil rights
protections. Future research should continue to explore personality variables and beliefs
about personal freedoms and privacy in an effort to understand more fully the links
among heterosexuals’ cognitive, personality, and ideological characteristics in relation to
attitudes toward LGB individuals.
One of the variables most consistently related to attitudes toward LGB individuals
is contact with lesbian and gay people, suggesting that greater visibility of LGB people
and greater integration between heterosexual and LGB communities will result in greater
acceptance. Interestingly, in this study, contact with lesbian and gay individuals was only
related to greater knowledge about LGB cultural history, and then only for those who
identify as liberal. This finding should be replicated with a larger and more diverse
population, extending beyond college students, in order to better understand how to
promote LGB affirmativeness through opportunities to interact across sexual orientation
lines.
This study was limited to heterosexual college students, who are mostly Christian.
The sample was racially and ethnically diverse, with under half of the participants
identifying as European American/White. However, the sample was primarily female,
and racial/ethnic subsamples were not large enough to allow for analysis by cultural
56
group; questions of gender and cultural variability in attitudes might be addressed in a
larger study. Research has shown that the younger generations are becoming
increasingly more accepting of LGB individuals; results might differ among an older
adult population, or a more religiously diverse group. In addition, because this research
was voluntary, it may not be as representative of the population.
Overall, this research demonstrates that for the heterosexual college student
population, open-mindedness is an important predictor of positive attitudes toward LGB
individuals. Efforts to develop open-mindedness and to promote respect for individual
autonomy may influence future generations to be able to achieve equal rights for all.
Future research could explore other cognitive and personality characteristics that play a
role in the development of and our attitudes toward the LGB population. Herek et al.
(2009) have drawn parallels between negative attitudes and sexual prejudice that affects
both heterosexuals and lesbian and gay individuals, specifically in the instance of hate
crimes or concealing one’s sexual orientation from members of society. These findings
are especially relevant for mental health professionals working with LGB individuals
who will become increasingly visible and integrated within society. The present study
focused on attitudes toward LGB populations because of the ongoing political issues
related to LGB civil rights; however, future research should also address attitudes toward
transgendered individuals as their visibility is also increasing.
57
APPENDIX A
Consent to Participate as a Research Subject
I hereby agree to participate in a research project, entitled A Study of Sex and Sexuality,
which will be conducted by Rebecca Cameron, Ph.D., Associate Professor in the
Psychology Department of California State University, Sacramento, and which will
involve the following procedures:
Completing a questionnaire assessing demographics, sexual orientation, attitudes, and
identity, attitudes toward sexual minority individuals, religious attitudes, mood, coping,
and personality variables.
The research will take place in Amador Hall on the CSUS campus and will require
approximately 1 hour of my time.
The purpose of this research project is to better understand the connections among
personality variables and attitudes about sex, sexuality, and religion.
I understand that the research procedures and the nature of the questionnaire topics could
involve a risk of psychological discomfort for some individuals. Although the researcher
may need to avoid a complete description of the procedures at this time, I am entitled to a
full explanation after the research. If I experience any psychological discomfort during
the research, I may stop my participation. If I want help at that time or after completing
the research, I may contact the Student Health Center’s Counseling and Psychological
Services at (916) 278-6416 for assistance. Other than tracking my participation in the
study to provide me with research participation credit and to avoid duplicate
participation, my participation in the study is confidential. In addition, my questionnaire
is anonymous and will not be linked to my name. Reports of results will be in the form
of group data, and will not include identifying information.
I understand that this research may have the following benefits: benefit to the
community/society in the form of an increased understanding of attitudes about sex and
sexuality.
This information was explained to me by _________________________________. I
understand that he/she will answer any questions I may have now or later about this
research (contact Dr. Cameron and/or her research assistants at (916) 278-6892). I
understand that my participation in this research is entirely voluntary. I may decline to
participate now, or I may discontinue my participation at any time in the future without
penalty other than loss of research credit. I understand that the investigator may terminate
58
my participation at any time. I understand that I will not receive any compensation other
than research credit for participating in this study.
Signature: _______________________________Date: __________________________
Print name_______________________________________
59
APPENDIX B
Debriefing
Please do not discuss the purpose of this study with your peers who may participate in the
project in the future.
Numerous studies have linked personality factors (e.g., open-mindedness), religious
variables, and sexual attitudes to attitudes toward sexual minority individuals. However,
societal attitudes have been changing rapidly and sexual minority issues have been a
focus of a great deal of political and media attention. The goal of this study is to establish
current attitudes about sexual minority individuals among Sacramento State students, and
to examine whether relationships of other variables to these attitudes previously found in
the literature apply to Sac State students. This study expands on previous literature by
including attitudes toward bisexuality and attitudes toward transgender individuals.
I understand that Dr. Cameron will answer any questions I may have now or later about
this research (contact Dr. Cameron and/or her research assistants at (916) 278-6892).
If I want help at that time or after completing the research, I may contact the Student
Health Center’s Counseling and Psychological Services at (916) 278-6416 for assistance.
60
APPENDIX C
Demographics
Please respond to the following questions as accurately as possible. If it would be helpful
to clarify a particular answer, feel free to make a note in the margin. Please write legibly.
1. Age_______
2. Gender: (1) Male_____ (2) Female_____
3. Year in school (check one)
(1) ___ freshman
(2) ___ sophomore
(3) ___ junior
(4) ___ senior
(5) ___ unclassified
(3) Other gender ________
4. Major________________________________
5. Ethnicity (please check one)
(1) _____ Asian American/Pacific Islander
(2) _____African American/Black
(3) _____American Indian/Native American
(4) _____European American/Caucasian/White
(5) _____Latino/Hispanic American
(6) _____Foreign national (please list country of origin)_______________________
(7) _____Multiethnic (please list ethnic groups) _____________________________
(8) _____Other ethnicity (please describe)__________________________________
6. Country of Birth ______________________
7. Country of Citizenship________________________
8. The following generation best applies to me. Check only one.
(1) _____1st generation = I was born in a country other than the USA.
(2) _____2nd generation = I was born in USA; either parent born in a country other
than USA.
(3) _____3rd generation = I was born in USA; both parents born in USA and all grand
parents born in a country other than USA.
(4) _____4th generation = I and my parents born in USA and a t least one grandparent
born in a country other than USA with remainder born in USA.
(5) _____5th generation = I and my parents born in the USA and all grandparents
born in the USA.
(6) _____I do not know what generation I am.
61
7. Parental education
a. Mother: highest schooling completed _________________
b. Father: highest schooling completed _________________
c. Other parental figure: highest schooling completed _____________
(indicate relationship________________________)
8. Sexual orientation
a. ____ Heterosexual
b. ____ Gay or lesbian
c. ____ Bisexual
d. ____Other sexual orientation
9.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Current employment status (please check one)
_____Not employed
_____Employed 20 hours per week or fewer
_____Employed 21-39 hours per week
_____Employed 40 or more hours per week
10. Country of Citizenship Housing (please check one)
(1) _____Dorm
(2) _____Off-campus
11. Relationship status (please check one)
a. _____Single
b. _____Single, in a long-term committed relationship
c. _____Married, living together
d. _____Separated
e. _____Divorced
f. _____Other (please describe) __________________
12.
a
Number of religious services you attend: 0 _ none, 1 _ one a year, 2 _ a few times
year, 3 _ one a month, 4 _ one a week, and 5 _ more than one a week.
13.
How much meaningful contact have you had with gay men or lesbians:
1 _ “I have never had any contact with gay men or lesbians,”
2 _ “I have been in the same room with someone I knew was openly gay or lesbian,
but otherwise have had no contact with gay people,”
62
3 _ “I have met a gay or lesbian person, but we did not really have a meaningful
conversation,”
4 _ “I have an acquaintance who disclosed to me that he or she is gay or lesbian, but
we’re not really close,”
5 _ “I have a relative who is gay or lesbian, but I hardly ever see him/her,”
6 _ “I have a friend who is gay or lesbian; we talk or see each other every once in a
while,”
7 _ “I have a close friend or immediate family member who is gay or lesbian; we
spend a good deal of time together.”
14.
Please rate your political orientation on the following scale:
Liberal
1
Moderate
2
3
Conservative
4
5
6
7
63
References
Aldwin, C. M. (2000). Stress, coping, and development: An integrative perspective. New
York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Alexander, A. L. (2008). Relationship resources for coping with unfulfilled standards in
dating relationships: Commitment, satisfaction, and closeness. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 25, 725-747.
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric
Association.
Baehr, J. (2011). The structure of open-mindedness. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 41,
191-213.
Barber, M. (2003). Lesbian and gay issues are mental health issues. Behavioral Health
Management, 23(6), 8-9.
Bardi, A., & Guerra, V. (2011). Cultural values predict coping using culture as an
individual difference variable in multicultural samples. Journal of CrossCultural Psychology, 42, 908-927.
Baron, J. M. (1993). Why teach thinking? An essay. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 42(3), 191-237.
64
Baron, J. M., Struckman-Johnson, C., Quevillon, R., & Banka, S. R. (2008).
Heterosexual men’s attitudes toward gay men: A hierarchical model including
masculinity, openness, and theoretical explanations. Psychology of Men and
Masculinity, 9, 154-166.
Bullough, V. L., & Bullough, B. (1977). Sin, sickness, & sanity: A history of sexual
attitudes. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.
Cardoso, F. (2010). Political and sexual attitudes concerning same-sex sexual
behavior. Sexuality and Culture, 14, 306-326.
Cosme, D., Pepino, C., & Brown, B. (2010). Empathy, open-mindedness, and political
ideology. A Journal of Undergraduate Work, 1(3), 167-175.
Cullen, J. M., Wright, L.W., & Alessandri, M. (2002). The personality variable openness
to experience as it relates to homophobia. Journal of Homosexuality, 42(4),
119-134.
Dunahoo, C. L., Hobfoll, S. E., Monnier, J., Hulsizer, M. R., & Johnson, R., (1998).
There’s more than rugged individualism in coping. Part 1: Even the Lone Ranger
had Tonto. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping: An International Journal, 11(2),
137-165.
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Coping and emotion. New York, NY, US:
Columbia University Press.
Fingerhut, A. W. (2011). Straight allies: What predicts heterosexuals’ alliance with the
LGBT community. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41, 2230-2248.
65
Haider-Markel, D., & Joslyn, M. (2008). Beliefs about the origins of homosexuality and
support for gay rights: An empirical test of attribution theory. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 72, 291-310.
Hartmann, D., Zhang, X, & Wischstadt, W. (2005). One (multicultural) nation under
God? Changing uses and meanings of the term ‘Judeo-Christian’ in American
Media. Journal of Media and Religion, 4, 207-234.
Herek, G. M. (1984). Beyond ‘homophobia’: A social psychological perspective of
attitudes towards lesbians and gay men. Journal of Homosexuality, 10(1-2),
1-21.
Herek, G. M. (1990). The context of anti-gay violence: Notes on cultural and
psychological heterosexism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5, 316-333.
Herek, G.M. (2009). Sexual prejudice. In T. D. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of prejudice,
stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 441-467). New York, NY: Psychology
Press.
Herek, G. M., Gillis, J. R., & Cogan, J. C. (2009). Internalized stigma among sexual
minority adults: Insights from a social psychological perspective. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 56, 32-43.
Hobfoll, S. E., Dunahoo, C. L., Ben-Porath, Y., & Monnier, J. (1994). Gender and
coping: The dual-axis model of coping. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 22, 49-82.
66
Hobfoll, S. E., Cameron, R.P., Chapman, H. A., & Gallagher, R. W. (1996). Social
support and social coping in couples. In G. R. Pierce, B. R. Sarason, & I. G.
Sarason (Eds.), Handbook of social support and the family (pp. 413-433). New
York: Plenum Press.
Hong, R. Y., Paunonen, S. V., & Slade, H. P. (2008). Big five personality factors and the
prediction of behavior: A multitrait-multimethod approach. Personality and
Individual Differences, 45(2), 160-166.
Howerton, A., & Van Gundy, K. (2009). Sex differences in coping style and implications
for depressed mood. International Journal of Stress Management, 16, 333-350.
Johnson, M. E., Brems, C., & Alford-Keating, P. (1997). Personality correlates
of homophobia. Journal of Homosexuality, 34(1), 57-69.
Keiller, S. W. (2010). Abstract reasoning as a predictor of attitudes toward gay men.
Journal of Homosexuality, 57, 914-927.
Killen, M. (1997). Culture, self, and development: Are cultural stereotypes useful or
stereotypic? Developmental Review, 17, 239-249.
Kite, M. E., & Whitley, B. E. (1996). Sex differences in attitudes toward homosexual
persons, behaviors, and civil rights: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 22(4), 336-353.
LaMar, L. A., & Kite, M. E. (1998). Sex differences in attitudes toward gay men and
lesbians: A multi-dimensional perspective. The Journal of Sex Research, 35,
189-196.
67
Lambert, E. G., Ventura, L. A., Hall, D. E., & Cluse-Tolar, T. (2006). College students’
view on gay and lesbian issues: Does education make a difference? Journal of
Homosexuality, 50(4), 1-30.
McCrae, R. R., & Sutin, A. (2009). Openness to experience. In M. Leary, & R. Hoyle
(Eds.), Handbook of Individual Differences in Social Behavior (pp. 257-273).
New York: Guilford Press.
Mireshghi, S., & Matsumoto, D. (2008). Perceived cultural attitudes toward
homosexuality and their effects on Iranian and American sexual minorities.
Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 14, 372-376.
Monnier, J., Hobfoll, S. E., Dunahoo, C. L., Hulsizer, M. R., & Johnson, R., (1998).
There’s more than rugged individualism in coping. Part 2: Construct validity and
further model testing. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping: An International Journal,
11, 247-272.
Monnier, J., Stone, B., Hobfoll, S., & Johnson, R. (1998). How anti-social and pro-social
coping influence the support process among men and women in the U.S.
Postal service. Sex Roles, 39(1/2), 1-20.
New York Times. (2012). Same sex marriage, civil unions, & domestic partnerships.
Retrieved on: May 31, 2012, from http://www.nytimes.com
Pardie, L., & Luchetta, T. (1999). The construction of attitudes toward lesbians and gay
men. New York: Haworth Press.
68
Proctor, S. L., & McCord, D. M. (2009). Correlates of the openness to experience
domain. Individual Differences Research, 7, 222-227.
Rokeach, M. (1960). The open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Sa, W., Kelley, C., Ho, C., & Stanovich, K. E. (2005). Thinking about personal theories:
individual differences in the coordination of theory and evidence. Personality
and Individual Differences, 38, 1149-1161.
Satcher, J., & Schumacker, R. (2009). Predictors of modern homonegativity among
professional counselors. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 3(1), 21-36.
Smollan, R. K., Sayers, J., & Matheny, J. (2010). Emotional responses to speed,
frequency, and timing of organization change. Time and Society, 19(1),
28-53.
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1997). Reasoning independently of prior belief and
individual differences in actively open-minded thinking. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 89, 342-357.
Stotzer, R. L. (2008). Straight allies: Supportive attitudes toward lesbians, gay men, and
bisexuals in a college sample. Sex Roles, 60, 67-80.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief
measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.
Whitley, B. E. (2009). Religiosity and attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: A metaanalysis. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 19, 21-38.
69
Worthington, R. L, Dillon, F. R., & Becker-Schutte, A. M. (2005). Development,
reliability, and validity of the lesbian, gay, and bisexual knowledge and attitudes
scale for heterosexuals (LGB-KASH). Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(1),
104-118.
Wright, L. (1999, July 1). Stonewall Riots- A Turning Point for Gay and Lesbian
Liberation. Socialist Alternative. Retrieved: December 28, 2011 from
http://socialistalternative.org/literature/stonewall.html
Yang, A. (2000). From wrong to rights: Public opinions on gay and lesbian Americans’
move toward equality. Washington, DC: National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
Institute.