The Effect of Television
On Audience Perception of
Gay and Lesbian Stereotypes
Team Captain Planet:
Amy Rourke
Yun Chang
Brittany Jones
Sakura Robles
Deandre Williams
1
INTRODUCTION
Studies have shown the affect television can have on a viewer’s perception of the world
around them, often causing heavy viewers to adopt common, conservative beliefs (Gerbner,
1980). Repeated exposure to similar portrayals of minority groups can lead to the mainstreaming
of these beliefs, resulting in stereotypes. When stereotypes are formed group members are no
longer judged as individuals, but instead viewed as one entity with the same set of
characteristics. In the absence of personal experience, people often turn to media outlets, such as
television, to form opinions about unknown groups. The familiarity of television and the
emotional involvement that viewers often experience make them more open to be influenced by
the portrayal of stereotypes (Fouts & Inch, 2005). While some argue that stereotypes are
inevitable because of basic human nature to categorize and simplify the external world, others
view television as a strong force that often introduces and reinforces these stereotypes (Lee,
2009).
Although many studies have been devoted to the portrayal of gender, race, and class
stereotypes within the media, recently, an increasing number of studies have been focused how
homosexuality is portrayed in the media. Despite the fact that a significant number of people
identify themselves as homosexual fewer research studies have been done on this group as
compared to other minorities (Fout & Inch, 2005). Past research has identified several common
stereotypes shown on television, wherein homosexual people are portrayed as being humorous,
marginal characters who engage in promiscuous or effeminate behaviors. The full effect of these
portrayals on audiences is not yet known (Avila-Saavedra, 2009; Calzo & Ward, 2009; Chung,
2007). These stereotypes could have a real effect on how homosexuals are perceived and treated
within society, and understanding the role of television on these stereotypes is imperative. This
2
study examines the correlation between television viewing and the likelihood that heavy viewers
will agree with common stereotypes about homosexuality. We expected to find a strong,
positive correlation between the amount of television a viewer consumes and their agreement
with stereotypes about homosexuality. From a theoretical perspective it seems likely that heavy
television viewers, who are repeatedly exposed to stereotypes about homosexuality, would
perceive these stereotypes as the norm for the gay and lesbian community.
RATIONALE
Homosexual people are clearly underrepresented on television, and the limited
numbers of gay and lesbian characters that are portrayed have been shown to fit a number of
identified stereotypes. Fouts and Inch (2005) found that television does not accurately depict
society, identifying only two percent of characters in popular situational comedies as being
homosexual, while 10 to 12 percent of Americans identify themselves as homosexual.
The limited, stereotypical portrayals of homosexual characters in the media could
be contributing to the perceptions and attitudes toward the group. A recent study indicates 84.6
percent of teenagers who identified themselves as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transsexual, had been
verbally harassed, 40.1 percent were physically harassed, and 18.8 percent were physically
assaulted as a result of their sexuality (Khaduru, 2010). These statistics could be contributing to
the growing number of teen suicides linked to harassment for sexuality. Many argue that suicide
is not likely higher in the gay and lesbian community because they are implicitly more prone to
this behavior, it instead stems from cultural reactions and perceptions toward the group (SavinsWilliams, 1999).
Regardless of the intentions of television programming, or the responsibility of the
media to accurately depict homosexuality, more consideration on this issue is warranted. As the
3
government and the public places judgment on such pertinent issues as gay marriage, gay rights,
hate crimes, discrimination, and military policies; it is important to understand how the
perceptions and attitudes toward homosexuality are formed. Stereotypes can affect the way
certain people are treated within a society, and they do not serve to illustrate the diversity that
individuals possess.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Many theoretical viewpoints suggest a direct correlation between the way that people
perceive groups as different from themselves and the amount of media they consume. Pro- and
anti- gay messages often emerge in broadcast media as well as print media and could have a
definite effect on how society perceives homosexuality (Atkinson, 2003; Jensen 1996). Gerbner
(1980) found, as stated in his cultivation theory, that heavy television viewers not only are more
likely to accept homosexual stereotypes as being true, they are also likely to internalize these
messages, taking them on as personal beliefs. Further evidence suggests that this phenomenon is
more prominent when a person’s only observation of a group is through media (Lee, 2009).
Gerbner found (1980), people are influenced by what they see on television. While
Gerbner’s theory was applied to people’s perception of violence based on heavy or light
television viewing, one of the main ideas of his theory states that heavy viewers of television
undergo “mainstreaming”, or a “blurring, blending, and bending” which causes heavy viewers to
adopt a common, conservative outlook on subjects. Viewers who are repeatedly exposed to
images and stories that are similar were shown to adopt those ideas.
Bandura (2001) uses the social cognitive theory to suggest that humans attempt to
categorize their experiences in a way that reduces the discrepancies between their observations
4
and their beliefs. The images portrayed on television, even if they are inconsistent with reality,
may serve as the basis from which people judge their experiences.
Many experts agree that, while gay and lesbian characters on television are more
common today than in the past, these characters are still limited and are often portrayed in a
stereotypical manner with minimal diversity depicted. Our news media is also more likely to
cover stories related to homosexuality, yet they tend to portray the group in a stereotypical
manner. Characters on a sitcom may be identified as homosexual, with their sexuality being a
major component of their role and an important aspect of the plot line, rather than identifying as
a fully developed character. A content analysis within the 2005-2006 television season showed
that gay and lesbian characters comprise only 2 percent of the characters on the major networks
(Evans, 2007).
Several stereotypes have been identified through the analysis of television programming
featuring gay and lesbian people. These stereotypes include promiscuity, effeminate behavior,
and the use of these characters to provide punch lines for jokes (Evans, 2007). Chung (2007)
found that stereotypes are often easier to process and occur when people overlook the complex
nature of humanity. Stereotypes often lead to prejudices, discrimination, and often a feeling of
privilege by those who rely on stereotypes to categorize other groups as inferior. The prominent
gay roles in television have been found to be lacking in meaningful romantic relationships and
often serve a function related to heterosexuals (Papachrissi 2008). Chung (2008) found that
media depictions of marginalized groups are often void of any true depth of personality or
character, little empathy is given to homosexuals in the media. More often the perceived or
stereotypical differences in members of these groups were exaggerated, making it easier for
people to exclude these groups in society.
5
The subject of homosexuality in the media has been a controversial issue for some time.
While the research available on the portrayal of homosexuality in the media is limited, examples
of studies on the topic can be found dating back several decades. Fejes and Petrich (1993) found
that stereotypes about homosexuality in the media have been pervasive throughout modern
history. A notable report, which aired on CBS in 1967, illustrates one of television’s earliest
depictions of negative stereotypes about gay men. The report, narrated by Mike Wallace, focused
solely on gay men, excluding lesbians, and concluded with the phrase, “The average
homosexual, if there be such, is promiscuous. He’s not interested in, nor capable of a lasting
relationship like that of a heterosexual marriage.” (Laerme, 1985). This early treatment of
homosexuality may have influenced today’s media, and shows the possible roots of stereotypes
about homosexuality.
While in the 1970’s, negative depictions of gay and lesbians remained ubiquitous, the
upward trajectory of gay rights activism led to a strong demand for changes in network
portrayals. This pressure caused television networks to show some variation in how they
depicted gay people. More variations of homosexuality were evident on television, as illustrated
by the popular sitcom, All in the Family, which challenged some gay stereotypes by depicting the
character of a masculine ex- football player who came out as gay (Hoy, 1981).
Demographic variables, such as age, education, sex, and race, and especially religiosity
also play a crucial role in anti-gay attitudes (Brooks, 2000, Dejowski, 1992, Herek, 2002; Lewis,
2003; Treas, 2002.) These factors can also contribute to whether or not someone is likely to be
influenced by the depictions of homosexuality in the media. Strong influences in these areas
could be predictive of someone who would not be easily influenced by bias in the media.
6
Studies also found people likely to adopt attitudes that their social groups are portrayed
to have in the media. People who belong to influential groups, like professional athletes and
their fans, often mimic the attitudes of those like them and their depiction in the media. As these
groups often characterize themselves against the stereotypes of homosexuality, by not including
homosexuals into their group, these groups separate themselves from being characterized as
having characteristics associated with homosexuality. A recent study found that 62 percent of
sports fans believed that most Americans are not ready to accept and openly gay professional
athlete (Wertheim, 2005).
Avila-Saavedra (2009) found that many constructed plots used in television follow ideas
of heterosexism. Queer theory suggests that our culture views heterosexuality as the norm
making other sexual preferences deviant to this norm. Papachrissi and Fernback (2008) make
the distinction between heteronormative and homonormative discourse. Heteronormative
discourse sets homosexuality as the polar opposite to heterosexuality. Many television programs
use a heteronormative stance in order to create the illusion of acceptance while keeping the
programming free from controversy. The stories shown on television are often framed in an “us”
(heterosexuals) versus “them” (homosexuals) way. Conversely, a homonormative view would
set homosexuality as unremarkable and commonplace while also categorizing other sexualities
as different. Papachrissi and Fernback (2008) identified some television programs, such as
Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, while still employing the use of gay stereotype, as displaying a
homonormative view in which the straight men are the marginal class.
Research has shown that the controversial nature of sexuality and the lack of exposure to
individuals who are homosexual can lead to the media being the primary, driving influence on
how people perceive homosexuality. Calzo and Ward (2009) found that the influence of family,
7
political affiliation and religious involvement also affected people’s perceptions of gays and
lesbians. They also noted the importance of media influence on viewers’ perception of
homosexuality in the absence of other influences or personal experience. A recent study by the
Pew Research Center found that only 40 percent of Americans personally knew someone who
was gay. Theoretically, applying the social learning theory, which assumes that people learn
behaviors and attitudes through their life experiences, this means that media would be the logic
source for information about homosexuality for at least 60 percent of Americans. This theory
also assumes that the mass media will take the place of personal experience if none exists.
People may be ignorant or afraid of the homosexual lifestyle, and use the media to define
something which is foreign to them. The lack of education about sexuality at school or with
peers may also cause people, especially young people to be influenced by media stereotypes
(Chung, 2007).
Mazur and Emmers-Summer (2002) studied the impact of viewing a movie on
participant’s attitudes towards homosexuality and nontraditional families. Focusing on movie
portrayals of both homosexuality and nontraditional families could pose too broad an analysis to
retain results. The movies in this study were viewed only once, which could have a less lasting
effect than images repeatedly viewed. The two may not be interrelated and can be portrayed
quite differently. While the social learning theory does support the idea that movies could affect
a viewer’s attitude toward a certain lifestyle, the exposure of viewers may not have been to the
extent that could impact an attitude.
Mazur and Emmers-Summer found some correlation
between movie viewing and positive attitudes about homosexuality, the results were not
substantial. The media may then influence viewers’ perceptions and can lead to an
oversimplification or stereotypical viewpoints (Mazur & Emmers-Summer, 2002). Clearly, a
8
study on the similar effects that television can have on a heavy viewer could yield more
substantial results.
METHODOLOGY
Participants
The participants in this study were a sample of college students at a large university in
Central Illinois. The sample consisted of 50% males and 50% females. Sixty-eight percent of
our sample group was between the ages of 19 year and 23 years.
Students who thought their grades in school were above average made up 48% of the
sample, 34% of the sample had average grades, and 15% had grades of well above average. Race
proportions of the respondents were as follows: 77% white, 6% Asian, 5% Latino, 5% Black
African American, and 7% other races. Ninety one percent of the sample was heterosexual, 7%
homosexual, and 1% was bisexual. The sample consisted of 40% liberals, 34% moderates, 16%
conservatives, 8% very liberals, and 1% very conservative.
Students at a university were chosen because of their accessibility and willingness
to participate. The sample size for this study was 100 students who were chosen based on
accessibility. While these students are not be representative of the entire student population of
20,000, this sample size could serve as preliminary research to serve as a basis for further
research.
Methods
A self administered survey was given to 100 college students on campus. The survey
was conducted within a one-week period in October, 2010. Although researchers were available
to answer questions, participants were not informed of the specific nature of the study. This
method most effectively measures the correlation between our dependent and independent
9
variables, and could be administered to a larger sample at another time. Statistics and
correlations can easily be drawn from a survey. Economic factors and time constraints also
influenced the decision to administer a survey.
The independent variable in this study is the amount of television viewing, measured in
hours and minutes, and was measured by the question, “On an average day, how many hours and
minutes do you spending watching television?” While the research question focuses primarily on
the effects of television viewing on the dependent variable, consumption of other media will be
studied for insurance purposes. The other media that were also measured were TV news,
internet, social media, magazines, radio, and studying. For example, radio use was measured by
the question: On an average day, how many hours do you spend listening to the radio?” The
dependent variables were measured through responses to a total of 25 items which dealt mainly
with respondents’ attitudes, perceptions, and, behavior toward homosexuality. The responses
were measured through the use of a five-point Likert scale, which ranged from “strongly agree”
to “strongly disagree,” with “no opinion” as midpoint.
Conceptually and empirically, 25 items are reduced to indices of ‘perception,’ ‘attitude’
and ‘behavior’. The dimensions tapped by the indices are as follows:
Perceptions: A total of 14 variables measured students’ orientations towards perception of
homosexuality.
The specific questions are:
Heterosexual men are more masculine than homosexual men.
Lesbians are masculine.
All homosexual people are alike.
Religious people are heterosexual.
Being gay is a choice.
A person’s sexuality is a good indication of their personality.
Homosexual people are at higher risk to get AIDS.
10
The following questions were measured using a 7 point semantic scale, with 4 as a
neutral midpoint:
Conservative to Liberal
Family oriented to not family oriented
Religious to non religious
Healthy to sickly
Honest to Decietful
Traditional to non traditional
Reserved to Outgoing
Attitudes: A total of 5 variables measured students’ orientations toward attitudes regarding
homosexuality. The specific questions are:
Gay men want to make straight people gay.
Gay people should be able to legally marry each other.
Public displays of affection between two homosexual people are acceptable.
Homosexual couples should be able to adopt children.
Homosexuals should be able to openly serve in the U.S. armed forces.
Behavior: A total of 6 variables measured students’ orientations toward behaviors involving
homosexuals. The specific questions are:
I stay away from homosexuals.
I treat people the same, regardless of their sexuality.
I laugh when people pretend to be gay.
I openly support gay rights.
I have used gay slurs recently.
I have started fights with people because of their sexuality.
The data was collected and coded, and statistics were obtained through the use of SPSS statistical
package.
RESULTS
The first part of our survey measured demographic variable and the independent
variables. The first independent variable is general media exposure. This category also included
studying and using the Internet. This was posed by the question “On an average day, how much
time do you spend…” with continuous data used for the following categories: watching
11
television; reading magazines; surfing the internet; listening to the radio; studying or doing
homework; using social networking sites; watching television news.
Demographic variables were also asked to explore possible interactions. Respondents
were asked their gender, age, how well they do in school, race, sexual orientation, and selfdesignation of liberal/moderate/conservative.
12
Dependent variable indices can be viewed as a range from “strongly agree” to “strongly
disagree” perspectives regarding the indices. The following results (Table 2) can be interpreted
by looking at a positive correlation as being one where the slope favors an agreement with
stereotypical views on homosexuality, and negative correllations as favoring a disagreement with
stereotypical views on homosexuality.
These correlations were run with “general media exposure” independent variables. The
results showed that there was a positive interaction found between “surfing the internet” and
agreement with homosexual stereotypes (r=.2287, p<.05). Thus, findings for this sample reveal
that the more time a respondent spent surfing the internet, the more a respondent agreed with
homosexual stereotypes. There was also a positive correlation found between “time spent
reading magazines” and behavior toward homosexuals (r=.2245, p<.05), illustrating the more
time people reading magazines the less likely they were to believe stereotypes about
homosexuality. Although it was predicted that there would be a positive correlation between
heavy television viewing and agreement with stereotypes about homosexuality, a negative
correlation was found between these variables. In both the behavior and perception indices,
heavy television viewing showed a correlation with less agreement with stereotypes about
homosexuality Behavior (r= -.2188, p<.05), Perception (r= -.1873, p<.05). The indices
associated with these correlations are “I stay away from homosexuals” and “Homosexuals are
not religious”, respectively.
13
The final step showed the correlation of demographic variables to the dependent
variable factors. Significant, positive correlations were found between gender and four of the
dependent factors. Males were more likely to agree with stereotypes regarding homosexuality
than were females in perception indices, Perceptions (r=.317, p<.01). The more “conservative” a
14
person considered themselves, the more they were likely to agree with stereotypes about
homosexuality, a positive correlation was found on all three indices Behavior (r=.2680 , p<.01),
Attitudes (r=.4948 , p<.001), and Perceptions (r=.2874 , p<.05). Those who categorized
themselves as liberal were less likely to agree with stereotypes about homosexuality. This was
the strongest, most consistent correlation found within the study.
TABLE 3 : Correlation with Demographic Variables and Dependent Variables
Gender
V22:
Heterosexuals
are
more
masculine.
V23:
Lesbians are
more
masculine
than
heterosexual
women.
V24:
Gay
men
want to make
straight men
gay.
V25:
All
homosexuals
are the same.
V26:
Religious
people
are
heterosexual.
V27:
Being gay is a
choice.
V29:
Sexuality
indicates
personality.
V30:
Homosexuals
Age
Grades
Race
Sexual
Political
Orientation
Orientation
-.1021
.0472
-.0291
.0554
.0104
.2586**
.2040*
-.0684
.0121
.1295
-.0042
.2192*
.3170**
-.517
-.1216
-.008
-.0492
.4331
.1376
.0486
-.3197**
-.0398
-.1188
.3160**
.2626
-.1432
-.1587
.1037
.0175
.2874*
.1196
-.0561
-.0783
.0179
.2076*
.4948***
.1613
-.0180
-.1003
-.0046
-.1273
.2884*
-.0581
.1163
-.0001
.0763
.1763
.3650***
15
are
more
likely to get
AIDs.
V31: -.0197
Public
displays
of
affection
between
homosexuals
are
acceptable.
V32: -.1515
Gay people
should be able
to
adopt
children.
V33:
Gay people
should be able
to
openly
serve in the
military.
V34:
I stay away
from
gay
people.
V35:
I treat people
the
same
regardless of
sexuality.
V36:
I laugh when
people
pretend to be
gay.
V37:
I use gay
slurs.
V39:
I have started
fights because
of someone’s
sexuality.
V41:
Homosexuals
are
family
oriented
to
-.0179
.0651
.0190
-.0279
-.3804***
.0202
.0538
-.0797
-.2111*
-.5368***
.0039
.0367
.0583
-.1207
-.1846
-.3539***
.1700
-.1497
-.1430
-.0295
.1398
.2680**
-.1205
.0126
.0522
-.1009
.2025*
-.2936
.0955
-.616
.0196
-.0164
.0165
.1975*
.0405
-.0441
.0467
-.1787
.2428
-.5368
.2402
-.1655
.0160
-.1103
.0886
.1839
.1386
-.0813
.2363
-.1391
.0400
.2481*
16
not
family
oriented.
V42: .2066*
Homosexuals
are healthy to
sickly.
V44: .0268
Homosexuals
are traditional
to
non
traditional
Note: *p<.05
**p<.01
.0068
.0546
.033
.034
.1404
-.3310**
-.3748***
.1932
-.2252*
-.2561**
***p<.001
DISCUSSION
The research findings in this study did support the expected outcome. Based on the
information analyzed in this study, television was shown to have the opposite than expected
effect on viewer’s attitudes and perceptions about homosexuality. Rather than heavy television
viewing having a positive correlation with agreement of stereotypes about homosexuality, the
more a respondent watched television the less likely they were to agree with a stereotypical
viewpoint of homosexuality.
A review of this study reveals several major weaknesses. First, a small sample size
(n=100) would not be representative of a large population of television consumers. The sample
was not chosen at random, but instead was selected from students studying communication at a
major university. Students studying communication, many of them having a more than basic
knowledge of the media, may be less likely to be influenced by media bias. Therefore, these
students may be more resistant than the average person to the effects of stereotypes in the media.
Another issue with surveying college students in this particular case lies in the fact that
many of these respondents share characteristics that could have an impact on the results of this
study. The students surveyed had a similar education level and the shared environment of a large
17
university. From a theoretical perspective, these characteristics could have an effect on the
students’ perceptions of stereotypes. Prior research has shown that the people most likely to be
influenced about stereotypes about a group are those who have had little contact with that group.
Limited education or open discussion about minority groups could also make people more
susceptible to being influenced about homosexuality by television. Because college students had
likely had some education or discussion about homosexuality, they would be unlikely to agree
with stereotypes on television. A large university may also provide a variety of opportunities for
a person to interact with a diverse group of people. When people can draw on personal
experiences about a group, they are theoretically less likely to be influenced by media that
portrays that group in a stereotypical manner. Other influences in a person’s life, such as friends,
religious affiliations, or family beliefs could have an effect on their agreement with stereotypes.
One of the major correlations found in this study was that those respondents who
classified themselves as liberal were less likely to agree with stereotypes about homosexuality.
While liberal people may be more prone to hold certain beliefs about homosexuality, it also
seems likely that people who classify themselves as liberal watch different programs on
television than those people who classified themselves as conservative. Certain programs on
television have been shown to depict stereotypes more frequently than others; therefore the
programs a person chooses to watch could have a correlation with their perception of
homosexuality.
Although the research presented in this study did not prove the hypothesis, the
aforementioned variables could clearly have had an impact on the findings. A similar study
using a more diverse sample of participants could realistically garner radically different results.
Another approach to this topic would be to expand beyond “general media” consumption and ask
18
respondents to report on more specific viewing habits in order to find if watching certain types of
programming on television has a greater impact on how viewers perceive stereotypes. Because
the gay and lesbian community has not been included in research as often as other minorities,
further research is imperative in order to better understand the media’s role in cultivating
stereotypes regarding these communities.
19
REFERENCES
Atkinson, C. (2003, August 4). Marketers warm up to gay audience. Advertising Age, 26,
4.
Avila-Saavedra, G. (2009) Nothing queer about queer television: televised construction
of gay masculinities. Media, Culture & Society, 31,1.
Bandura, A. (2001) Social cognitive theory of mass communication, Media Psychology,
3, 265-299
Bonds-Raacke, J., Cady, J., Schlegel, R., Harris, R., and Firebaugh, L. (2007)
Remembering gay/lesbian media characters, Journal of Homosexuality, 53 (3)
Brooks, C. (2000). Civil rights liberalism and the suppression of a Republican political
realignment in the United States, 1972 to 1996. American Sociological Review, 65, 483-505.
Calzo, J., Ward, M. (2009) Media exposure and viewers’ attitude toward homosexuality:
evidence for mainstreaming or resonance. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 53 (2),
280-299
Chung, S. (2007) Media literacy art education: Deconstructing lesbian and gay
stereotypes in the media. International Journal of Art and Design 26 (1)
Dejowski, E. (1992). Passing endorsement of restrictions in three aspects of free
expression by homosexuals: Socio-demographic and trends analysis 1973-1988. Journal of
Homosexuality, 23, 1-18.
Evans, V. (2007) Curved TV: The impact of televisual images on gay youth. American
Communication Journal, 9, Academic Search Elite
Fernback, J., Papacharissi, Z. (2008) The aesthetic power of the Fab 5. Journal of
Communication Inquiry, 32 (4)
20
Fejes, F., Petrich, K. (1993). Invisibility, Homophobia and Heterosexism: Lesbians, Gays
and the Media. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 10(4), 396-422.
Fouts, G., Inch, Rebecca (2005) Homosexuality in TV Situation Comedies:
Characters and Verbal Comments. Journal of Homosexuality, 45 (35-45)
Gerbner, G., Gross, L, Signorelli, N., Morgan, M., (1980) The Mainstreaming of
America. Journal of Communication, 30 (3).
Herek, G. (2002). Gender gaps in public opinion about lesbians and gay men. Oxford
Journal Public Opinion Quarterly, 66, 40-66.
Hoy, C. (1981). An historical look at the male homosexual characters on network
entertainment programs. Master’s thesis Carbondale:Southern Illinois University, Unknown,
N/A.
Jensen, R. (1996). The Howard Journal of Communications. The politics and ethics of
lesbian and gay "wedding" announcements in newspapers, 7, 13-28.
Jensen, R. (1996). The politics and ethics of lesbian and gay "wedding" announcements
in newspapers. The Howard Journal of Communications, 7, 13-28.
Laermer, R. (1985). The televised gay: How we're pictured on the tube . The Advocate, 1,
20-25.
Khadaroo,S. (2010. Death of California youth puts focus on rise in antigay bullying. The
Christian Science Monitor, Web
Lewis, G. (2003). Black White differences in attitudes toward homosexuals and gay
rights. Oxford Journals Public Opinion Quarterly, 67, 59-78.
21
Mazur, M., Emmers-Sommer, T. (2002) The effect of movie portrayals on audience
attitudes about nontraditional families and sexual orientation. Journal of homosexuality, 44, 157181
Treas, J. (2002). How cohorts,education, and ideology shapes a new sexual revolution on
American attitdes toward nonmarital sex, 1978-1998. Sociological Perspectives, 45(3), 267-283.
Savins-Williams, (1999) Matthew Shepard’s death: a professional awakening. Applied
Developmental Science, 3 (3), 150-155
Wertheim, L. (2005, April 18). Gays in sports: a poll. Sports Illustrated, 102, 64-65.
22