Faces of Prejudice: Comparing Homophobic and Racial Attitudes Across
Social Classes
This study, conducted on a university campus, analyzes the beliefs that students, staff personnel, and faculty hold about African-Americans, gays and lesbians, heterosexuals, and whites. We surveyed the attitudes about the way respondents were raised regarding the various groups and then examined the level of social distance desired from these groups today. A questionnaire was given to students enrolled in an upper division capstone course at a large, racially diverse university in Southern California. This same survey was then randomly distributed to a sample of staff personnel and faculty members.
Summary measures for both the socialization and social distance scales showed that all respondents regardless of whether they were student, staff personnel, or faculty were most negative in their attitudes regarding gays and lesbians, their attitudes were significantly less negative about African Americans, and overwhelmingly positive in their attitudes about whites and heterosexuals. Socialization had an effect on attitudes regarding social distance today and when the composite measures for the socialization and social distance measures between the three status groups were compared, significant race, class, and gender differences emerged. For example, male students and faculty were more negative than women in their social distance attitudes toward gays and lesbians, whereas significant racial differences distinguished differences in the attitudes of the staff personnel. These findings have a number of important implications for understanding the nature of the campus climate. While overall the climate can be characterized as overtly the “chilliest” for gays and lesbians, it is important to also examine the factors that contribute to improving such a climate.
Chick equals nigger equals queer. Think it over.
C. Wittman, A Gay Manifesto
Attitudinal studies reflect a benchmark in the social sciences from which the sociopolitical climate is often examined and predictions about social change are made.
While this body of research is replete with debates as to whether any real relationship between attitudes and behaviors exists (Kahle, 1984; Shuman, Steh, and Bobo, 1997), attitudinal studies continue to examine the stereotypical representations of minority groups (; Devine and Elliot, 1995; Katz and Braly, 1933; Wood and Chesser, 1993) and seek to explain the cognitive processes by which actors identify their beliefs about group members unlike themselves (Hollander and Howard, 2000). It is often argued, moreover,

2 that changes in stereotypical conceptualizations will effectively reduce actors’ prejudicial attitudes and as a result, influence behaviors (Devine and Elliot, 1995).
Most studies that examine stereotypes, however, have focused on attitudes that white students hold regarding African Americans, few have examined any attitudes about whites (Stephan and Rosenfield, 1982) or heterosexuals and none compare and contrast attitudes held about dominant versus minority groups. Our research corrects for this by examining attitudes about African Americans, European Americans, gays and lesbians, and heterosexuals. Yet another void in attitudinal research is the focus on attitudes of university status groups other than students, such as faculty and staff personnel. Our research compares attitudes held about both dominant and non-dominant groups by actors from all university status groups. Such analyses are critical to understanding the campus climate campus especially given the long-term employment status of faculty and staff personnel.
Attitudes about Blacks
Research on t he stereotyping of blacks by white university students dates back to 1932 when Katz and Braly studied such attitudes; their research was then replicated in 1951, 1967, 1971, 1982, and 1993. This research showed improvement in attitudes about blacks over the years, leading other scholars to conclude that such changes are a result of economic, political, and social conditions within which race relations are constructed (Kinder and Sears, 1981). More specifically, these scholars contend that beliefs about the innate inferiority of all blacks, which assigned to blacks lower intelligence and hyper-sexuality, characterized the Jim Crow era. These beliefs now have changed to assign responsibility for individuals’ failings as the result of their own

3 laziness and lack of responsibility. They refer to this as symbolic racism because “blacks violate such traditional American values as individualism and self-reliance, the work ethic, obedience, and discipline” (Kinder and Sears, 1981:416).
Studies on the changes in attitudes have prompted other scholars to examine how much stereotypes about African Americans really have changed. For example, Devine and Elliot (1995) contend that there are consistent and negative stereotypes of blacks and it is not that individuals differ in their knowledge of such information; rather, it is more important to distinguish whether or not individuals endorse the stereotypes. These authors conclude that what is often measured in studies on stereotypes are the personal beliefs of respondents and not their knowledge about the stereotypes since essentially everyone is exposed to the same information. Rather, they distinguish between those highly prejudiced individuals who believe in the stereotypes and those who do not because such individuals have the capacity to overcome relying on limited information for their understanding of groups unlike them. Those individuals who continue to rely on stereotypical information in formulating their beliefs are characterized as “cognitive misers” (Devine, 1989; Devine and Elliots, 1995; Hollander and Howard, 2000).
Conversely, individuals who intentionally expand their more limited associative network in an effort to better understand groups unlike them must be motivated to change their more narrow beliefs (Devine and Monteith, 1993; Monteith, 1993).
Attitudes about Gays/Lesbians
Compared to the longstanding attitudinal research about blacks, only more recently have scholars examined the stereotyping of gays and lesbians. The majority of these studies, however, have focused on the characteristics of groups more likely to hold

4 negative attitudes rather than the specific nature of attitudes or any changes in them over time (Nardi, 1997). And while the political and social milieu has changed for gays and lesbians as a result of the social movement beginning with the Stonewall Rebellion of
1969, a strong anti-gay rhetoric championed by religious and political leaders also emerged. Moreover, it is not coincidental that the religious scriptures that were once used as the ideological justification for anti-black sentiments are now at the core of stereotypes about gays and lesbians.
As stated, the research on attitudes about gays and lesbians focuses on identifying characteristics of the individuals who are highly prejudiced against gays and lesbians.
Studies conclude that individuals who are religious conservatives possess more anti-gay attitudes (Black and Stevenson, 1984; Britton, 1990; Herek, 1988). Men are more negative than women in their attitudes (D’Augelli and Hershberger, 1995; Herek, 1988;
Patoglun-an and Clair, 1986). Scholars attribute gender differences in attitudes to the construction of masculinity asserting that because heterosexuality is a cornerstone of maleness, men perceive homosexuality as a threat to masculinity (Harry, 1995; Kimmel,
1994; Kinsman, 1996; Martin, 1990; McCreary, 1994). Herek’s (1988) study of students at six different universities also supported the finding that men are more negative in their attitudes and concluded that heterosexual men also expressed more hostility toward gays and lesbians and especially toward gay men. Herek found that similar social psychological variables predict men and women’s attitudes and specifically, that a belief in traditional ideologies of family and gender increase the likelihood that individuals will have anti-gay attitudes (1988).

5
Britton (1990) asserts that homophobia maintains sex-segregated institutions by a process Rosabeth Moss Kanter (1977) referred to as homosociality or the social preference for members of one’s own gender. Accordingly, men who favor traditional sex roles for women and who also support sex-segregated institutions are more homophobic because their erotic fears require them to maintain strict boundaries between social and sexual interactions (Britton, 1990). Conversely, other research demonstrates that individuals who are acquainted with gays or lesbians are less homophobic (Green, Dixon, and Gold-Neil, 1993). While women are more favorable in their attitudes toward gays and lesbians (Green, Dixon, and Gold-Neil, 1993), research has shown that the positive influence of college education on attitudes is greater for men (Schellenberg and Sears,
1999).
Comparing Attitudes toward Gays/Lesbians with Blacks
Since most research focuses on stereotypes about either blacks or gays and lesbians, studies that compare and contrast attitudes between various groups are largely nonexistent in the social psychological literature. Additionally, few studies examine attitudes about dominant groups and those that have show that people of color have negative stereotypes about whites in the same way that whites have about them (Stephan and Rosenfield, 1982). By comparing stereotypes at multiple levels (i.e., dominant versus non-dominant groups and different university status groups), our research demonstrates that heterosexuals and whites are the least stereotyped of the groups. Moreover, when comparing stereotypes about non-dominant groups, gays and lesbians are more negatively stereotyped than blacks; however, because everyone is exposed to the same

6 information during their socialization, our research allowed us to distinguish between those who adhered to the stereotypes from those who did not.
Methodology
Student Participants
The first phase of the tri-part sampling design included 185 undergraduate students attending California State University, San Bernardino during the summer term,
1999. The survey was administered in an upper division general education capstone course that is requirement for all majors. Students were asked to complete the surveys following their final examinations so that the time they contributed was voluntary and did not take away from classroom instruction time. Completing the survey took approximately 30 minutes and the students were given extra credit points as incentive for participating. The respondents’ identities were separated from their results in order to protect their confidentiality. Additionally, 21 students enrolled in an upper-division ethnic studies methodology course participated in completing the survey. The goal of asking these students to participate was twofold: the students themselves were diverse along lines of race, class, gender, and sexual orientation and part of their coursework involved them in helping to administer the surveys to faculty.
The gender distribution of the sample is disproportionate to that of the campus, which has 62% female students and 38% male students. The gender distribution of the sample is 75.7% female and 21.8% male with the remaining students not identifying their gender. The racial distribution of the sample, however, does reflect the racial make-up of the general student population that includes 46.1% European-American, 29.6% Latina/o,
8.7% Asian-American, 10.7% African-American, 1% Native American, and 1.5% other.

7
Staff Participants
The next phase of the sampling involved surveying staff personnel. A list of the population of staff personnel was attained from the human resources department; a sample of approximately 50% of the staff personnel was randomly selected representing a total of 300 persons. The staff personnel were sent a survey through inter-campus mail during the latter part of the summer of 2000. Those who did not respond were sent a follow-up reminder postcard. The entire survey was mailed to staff personnel again at the beginning of the fall quarter and a reminder postcard followed. We had a total response rate of 33% and of those responding, 25% completed the survey.
The respondents were 64% female, 35% male with 1% of the respondents not identifying their gender. The racial distribution of the sample is 65% European-
American, 11% Latina/o, 1.4% Asian-American, 13.5% African-American, and 4% other-American; the remaining respondents did not identify their race. Additionally, high levels of educational attainment characterize the staff personnel. Specifically, only 3% of the respondents completed less than high school, 13% had completed high school, 31% completed two years of college, 32 % completed four years of college , 4% had completed work beyond the BA, 14% had a master’s degree, and 3% held a Ph.D.
Faculty Participants
The last phase of the sampling design involved surveying faculty members. A list of all faculty members was attained from the office of the Vice
Chancellor of Academic Affairs, a sample of approximately 33% of faculty members was randomly selected representing a total of 145 persons. We had a total response rate of
27% and of those responding, all but one person completed the survey. Faculty members

8 were sent a survey through inter-campus mail during winter quarter, 2002. The students enrolled in the survey research methods course that were part of the student sample participated in the sample selection, mailed the surveys, and followed up on nonrespondents. Specifically, students sent two follow-up electronic mail reminders to faculty with the last message stating that the student would come to their office and pick up their survey if they would like.
The faculty respondents were 56.4% female, 41% male; one respondent did not identify their gender. The racial distribution of the sample was 74.4% European-
American, 2.6% Latina/o, 5.1% Asian-American, 12.8% African-American, 2.6% other-
American; one respondent did not identify their race.
Measures
Participants were asked about their race, gender, age, sexual orientation, marital status, religious affiliation, college major, income, number of children, and both parent’s educational levels. Additionally, staff personnel were asked about their level of education and the bargaining unit they belonged to that included their job classification. A semantic differential scale of 15 items was presented for each of 4 groups: blacks, whites, gays, and heterosexuals. The participants were asked to indicate how they were raised with respect to attitudes about each of these groups on each of the 15 items. Next, a social distance scale was modified from its original use measuring attitudes toward gays to include parallel measures for blacks, whites, and heterosexuals. The items in each scale were mixed, including both negative and positive statements. Respondents rated their attitudes from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree) (see Appendices 1-5).
Results

9
In order to rank the summary scales in relation to each other, the General Linear
Model, repeated measures, was used to compare estimated marginal means. We ran two separate analyses: one for the four variables summarizing how respondents were raised regarding each group, and one for the four variables summarizing how respondents reported their desires for social distance from each group. The results of the General
Linear Model were consistent on each set of variables. Respondents reported being raised with more negative attitudes and desiring greater social distance from the groups in this order: gays, blacks, whites and straights. Both of these rankings were significant at the .000 level.
(INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE)
Socialization
The socialization summary variables for each group were run together in the general linear model, repeated measures, with gender, race, education and income included as between subjects variables. None of these factors were significant as influences on respondents’ socialization. However, when independent samples T-tests were performed, using the mean of each socialization variable as the cut-point for determining groups, subjects who were raised with more negative attitudes a particular

10 group were significantly more likely to report desiring greater social distance from members of that group than were subjects who were raised with more positive attitudes.
Social Distance
When the general linear model was run with the four social distance variables
(blacks, whites, gays, and straights), race, as a between-subjects variable, (whether the respondent was white or non-white) was significant at the .009 level. Non-white respondents were reported desiring greater social distance from whites and gays than did the white respondents.
The same analysis was run using the respondents’ income levels as the betweensubjects variable. Income was not significantly related to differences in respondents’ reported desired levels of social distance from each group.
When the respondents’ education levels were used as the between-subjects variable, it was significant at the .000 level. The more highly educated the respondents’ were, the more positive their attitudes were in relation to both the dominant and the nondominant groups.
Gender had a significant relationship with attitudes toward gays and lesbians, although attitudes toward the other three groups were unaffected. An independent samples T-test demonstrated this significant difference at the .001 level.
Comparing Students, Staff, and Faculty
When the respondents’ identification as a student, staff member or faculty member was run as a between-subjects variable in the general linear model, repeated measures, it was significant at the .000 level. Faculty members were generally more positive toward all groups.

11 positive toward all groups.
(INSERT TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE)
Upon running the file split on whether the respondent was a student, staff member, or faculty member, gender was demonstrated in a test of between-subjects effects to be significant for both faculty (.045) and students (.014) in regards to their desires for social distance from members of the four groups. Race was significant for staff (.012) regarding their desires for social distance from members of the four groups.
There was no significant difference along gender between the students or faculty in their reported desires for social distance toward blacks. However, female staff reported desiring greater social distance toward blacks than did male staff (.048).
Students and staff demonstrated significant differences along race between their desired social distance with whites, with non-white students (.001) and non-white staff (.000) reporting desiring more social distance from whites than the white students and staff did.
Women students and faculty were significantly different (.000 and .001, respectively) from male students and faculty in their reported desires for social distance from gays. Males in these two groups reported desiring greater social distance from gays than did females. There were no gender differences in attitudes toward gays or straights among the staff, but non-white staff personnel were significantly different (.050) from white staff in their attitudes toward gays. Non-white staff personnel reported desiring more social distance than white staff from gays.

12
( INSERT FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE)
(INSERT FIGURE 2 ABOUT HERE)
(INSERT FIGURE 3 ABOUT HERE)
Discussion
Our findings have a number of important implications for understanding the effects of gender, race, and education on prejudicial attitudes across different status groups on campus. We have distinguished the associative network of beliefs that individuals were raised having from whether they are likely to adhere to such beliefs today; our research demonstrates that how individuals are raised is significantly correlated with their level of social distance desired today. More importantly, this research has demonstrated significant between group differences on the level of desired social distance, and that individuals report the highest levels of social distance desired from gays and lesbians and then blacks. These measures have given us important insights regarding the campus climate and allowed us to discern differences between various status groups regarding their attitudes.
Our research supports the findings of various studies that gender, race, and education have significant effects on prejudicial attitudes. The effects of higher education are the most significant especially when the gender and race of participants is taken into consideration. For example, the women faculty of color had the least amount of desired levels of social distance from both African Americans and gays and lesbians. White female faculty shared similar responses. Despite these more hopeful findings, however, overall the campus climate remains chilly for both blacks and gays and lesbians.

13
African American students, staff personnel, and faculty are working in a climate where the culture has raised individuals with negative stereotypical information about their group. There is, however, a significant gap between the socialization and the social distance measure for blacks. This difference in the way respondents were raised and their level of reported social distance desired today has occurred as a result of struggles by blacks for social, political and economic justice that have then influenced changes in the attitudes held in the culture about them. The expression of overt racial stereotypes about blacks that once dominated our culture’s discourse are now viewed as offensive and inappropriate for individuals to express. And while negative stereotypes have been a large part of the socialization that individuals have received, many individuals have adopted new information that has replaced their more narrow stereotypes about blacks in the culture.
Of course, for some, new types of stereotypes emerge to replace older ones; yet for individuals who continue to endorse overtly stereotypical beliefs regardless of whether they are newer or older, they are subject to sanctions for such behavior. As a result, highly prejudiced individuals have an incentive to avoid openly expressing their beliefs; however, the problem remains that some individuals continue to hold onto their stereotypical beliefs and just learn not to express them. These more covert expressions of prejudiced thinking are why some scholars have questioned just how much change in stereotypical thinking has occurred. For African American students, faculty, and staff personnel on the university campus, the question is how do they distinguish the highly prejudiced persons from those who no longer adhere to this thinking?

14
Our research made important distinctions between the status groups showing that gender was more critical to understanding attitudes within the student and faculty status groups, whereas, race was significant in distinguishing differences in attitudes among the staff personnel. This latter finding was of particular interest because it showed that white female staff personnel desired greater social distance from blacks than their white male counterparts, and also that non-white staff personnel and students reported desiring greater social distance from whites than the white staff personnel and students did.
Overall, however, in spite of the motivation for highly prejudiced individuals to suppress expressions of their beliefs in negative stereotypes regarding African Americans, there remains a significant difference between the means of desired levels of social distance from whites and African Americans (1.660 to 1.943). This overall comparison confirms that African Americans experience the campus climate as more chilly than whites do.
We have learned that the campus climate for gays and lesbians is particularly chilly. For gays and lesbians, the social distance mean is equivalent to the socialization mean for blacks (2.781 to 2.791). Moreover, comparing the social distance means for each of the four groups reveals that the mean for gays and lesbians is substantially higher than any other group. These findings demonstrate that there have been fewer attitudinal changes regarding gays and lesbians, and we attribute this to a sociopolitical environment that still discriminates against gays and lesbians. For example, gay and lesbian unions are not recognized in most states; California proposition 22 was an attempt to ensure that heterosexual marriage was the only legitimate form of partnership. As a result, individuals are socialized with stereotypical information about gays and lesbians and there has not been the same level of sociopolitical change in the culture to influence

15 significant change in the attitudes individuals hold. Moreover, because of this conservative climate towards gays and lesbians, individuals even suffer less stigmatizing from their overt expressions of homophobic attitudes as opposed to if these same individuals overtly expressed their racist attitudes towards blacks. The overall comparison of the means for desired levels of social distance from straights and from gays (1.539 to 2.781) confirms the overt nature of the hostility toward gays and lesbians when compared with the welcome that heterosexual people receive.
Our research also well demonstrates that despite this homophobic cultural milieu that some people do not endorse the stereotypical information they have learned regarding gays and lesbians. In distinguishing these individuals from the cognitive misers, we learned that education is critical to achieving attitudinal change. Providing information to students and having them participate in learning activities about diverse groups (for good examples see Little and Marx, 2003; Marx and Texeira, 2001) is critical to the process of developing new cognitive schemata. Outside the classroom, diversity training provides opportunities for faculty and staff personnel to develop their cognitive schemata about out-groups.
The university, however, must be proactive in promoting the fair treatment of everyone by faculty, staff personnel and students. On our campus policies require that staff attend diversity training and, equally important, the leadership encourages diversity.
A presidential statement was issued to all faculty and staff personnel stating that fair treatment and respect would be given to everyone, and specific mention of gays and lesbians was made. In part, this statement resulted from a hate crime against a gay student that had occurred in the residence halls. It was also clear from our research that many

16 individuals still hold overt stereotypical attitudes about both gays and lesbians and
African Americans. We believe that the number of individuals who are highly prejudiced is even greater because if respondents did not want to divulge their attitudes, they would choose the neutral response. This pattern became obvious as the number of respondents choosing the neutral response varied greatly across the four groups. More specifically, the number of respondents who chose the neutral response increased considerably for attitudes regarding African Americans and even more so for attitudes about gays and lesbians. Seeing these results, we conclude that the prevailing norm influencing these responses is, "If you can say anything nice, don't say anything at all."
Conclusions
This study has presented issues that warrant further research. Methodological studies exploring the "neutral" response would be useful as researchers attempt to document the lifespan of prejudicial attitudes in this culture. Furthermore, samples that include larger representations of African-Americans, Latinos, and gays would help to better determine the stereotypes about the dominant groups and how they influence interaction with such groups. Additionally, other comparative analyses should include the stereotypes held about Latinos and Asian Americans, and whether the social political environment reflects changes in the thinking about this group. Attitudinal studies of prejudicial attitudes should continue to examine the effects of institutional acceptance on prejudice. Will openly prejudicial attitudes toward gay and lesbian Americans decrease, as have openly prejudicial attitudes toward African-Americans following greater institutional acceptance? Finally, the question could also be examined: is it better to know

17 clearly who your enemies are, or is life easier for members of non-dominant groups when prejudice is less openly hostile?

18
REFERENCES
Allport, Gordon. (1958). The Nature of Prejudice . Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc.
Black, B. and M. R. Stevenson. (1984). “The relationship of self-reported sex-role characteristics and attitudes toward homosexuality.”
Journal of Homosexuality ,
10(2): 83-93.
Britton, D.M. (1990). “Homophobia and homosexuality: An analysis of boundary maintenance.”
Sociological Quarterly , 31, 423-439.
Clark, M. L., and W. Pearson, Jr. (1982). “Racial stereotypes revisited."
International
Journal of Intercultural Relations 6:381-392.
D’Augelli, A.R. and S.L. Hershberger. (1995). “A multiyear analysis of changes in
AIDS concerns and homophobia on a university campus.”
Journal of American
College Health , 44, 3-10.
Green, S., P. Dixon, and V. Gold-Neil. (1993). “The effects of a gay/lesbian panel discussion on college attitudes toward gay men, lesbians, and persons with
AIDS.” Journal of Sex Education and Therapy , 19, 47-63.
Gilbert, G. (1951). “Stereotype persistence and change among college students.”
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychiatry 46:245-254.
Harry, J. (1995). "Sports ideology, attitudes toward women, and anti-homosexual attitudes." Sex Roles , 32, 109-116.
Herek, G.M. (1988). “Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: Correlates and gender differences.”
Journal of Sex Research , Vol.25, No. 4, pp. 451-477.
Devine, P. and A. Elliot. (1995). “Are racial stereotypes really fading? The Princeton
Trilogy Revisited.”
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 21:1139-50.
Hollander, J. and Judith Howard. (2000). Social Psychological Theories on Social
Inequalities.”
Social Psychological Quarterly, Vol. 63, No.4, pp.338-351.
Kahle, L. (1984). Attitudes and social adaptation. New York: Pergamon.
Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. 1977. Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic
Books.

19
Karlins, M., Coffman, T., and G. Walters. (1967). “On the fading of social stereotypes: studies in three generations of college students.” Journal of Personality and
Social Pyschology 13:1-16.
Katz, D. and K. Braly. (1933). “Racial stereotypes of one hundred college students.”
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 28:280-290.
Kinder, D. and D. Seares.
(1981). "Prejudice and politics: Symbolic racism versus threats to the good life.”
Journal of Personality and Social Pyschology 40:414-431.
Kinsman, G. (1996). The regulation of desire: Homo and hetero sexualities , 2 nd
ed.,
Montreal: Black Rose.
Little, P., & Marx, M. (2002). Teaching about heterosexism and creating an empathic experience of homophobia. Journal of Lesbian Studies , 6(3/4), 205-218.
Lippman, Walter. (1922). Public Opinion . New York: Harcourt and Brace.
Lowy, Richard. (1991). “Yuppie racism: Race relations in the 1980s.”
Journal of Black
Studies 21: 480-487.
Martin, C. L. (1990).
“Attitudes and expectations about children with nontraditional and traditional gender roles.”
Sex Roles , 22, 151-165.
Marx, M., & Texeira, M. (2001a). Critically thinking about race through visual media. In
K. McKinney, F. Beck, & B. Heyl (Eds.), Sociology through active learning:
Student Exercises (pp. 113-118). CA: Pine Forge Press.
Marx, M., & Texeira, M. (2001b).
Critically thinking about race through visual media . In
McKinney K., Beck, F. & Heyl, B. (Eds.), Sociology through active learning:
Instructor Manual (pp. 68-72). CA: Pine Forge Press.
Maykovich, M. (1971). “Changes in racial stereotypes among college students.” Human
Relations , 24: 371-386.
McCreary, D. R. (1994). “The male role and avoiding femininity.”
Sex Roles , 31, 517-
531.
Monteith, M.J.. (1993) Self-regulation of prejudiced responses: Implications for progress in prejudice reduction efforts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, pp. 469-485.
Nardi, P. and R. Bolton. (1998). “Gay-bashing: Violence and aggression against gay men and lesbians,” in Social Perspectives in Lesbian and Gay Studies: A Reader , edited by Peter Nardi and Beth Schneider. Routledge Press: New York.

Patoglun-an I., and J. M. Clair. (1986). “An experimental study of attitudes toward homosexuals. Deviant Behavior
” 7: 121-135.
Schellenberg, Hirt, J., and A. Sears. (1999). “Attitudes toward homosexuals among students at a Canadian university.”
Sex Roles , Vol. 40, Nos. 1 /2.
Shuman, Howard, Steh, Charlotte, and Bobo, Lawrence. 1997. Racial attitudes in
America: Trends and Interpretation . Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
Stephan, W. and David Rosenfield. (1982). “Racial and Ethnic Stereotypes.”
In the Eye of the Beholder:Contemporary Issues in Stereotyping, edited by Arthur Miller.
New York:Praeger.
Wood, P. and M. Chesser. (1993). “Black stereotyping in a university population.”
Sociological Focus, Vol. 27, No.1, pps. 17-34.
20

TABLE 1: COMPARISON OF ESTIMATED MARGINAL MEANS
Means
Group Raised Today
Blacks 2.791 1.943
Whites 2.228 1.660
Gays 3.504 2.781
Straights 2.047 1.539
21

TABLE 2: COMPARISON OF ESTIMATED MARGINAL MEANS ON SOCIAL
DISTANCE BY CAMPUS STATUS
Student, Staff, or Faculty Social Distance
Student Blacks
Whites
Gays
Straights
2.009
1.705
2.896
1.565
Staff Blacks
Whites
Gays
Straights
Faculty Blacks
Whites
Gays
Straights
1.919
1.661
2.787
1.545
1.665
1.438
2.205
1.396
22

Figure 1
3.5
Students: Social Distance Desired Today By Gender
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
1
black
2 white
3
gay
Gender Identity
Male
4 straight
Female
23

Figure 2
2.8
Faculty: Social Distance Desired Today by Gender
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
black
2 white
3
gay
4
Gender Identity
straight
Male
Female
24

Figure 3
3.5
Staff: Social Distance Desired Today by Race
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
1
black
2 white
3
gay
4
Racial Category
straight
Non-white
White
25