Adolescents' and Young Adults' Beliefs About Homosexuality

Cognitive Development 21 (2006) 420–440
Heterosexual adolescents’ and young adults’
beliefs and attitudes about homosexuality
and gay and lesbian peers
Stacey S. Horn ∗
University of Illinois at Chicago, Department of Educational
Psychology, College of Education (mc 147),
1040 W. Harrison St., Chicago, IL, United States
Abstract
Reports on the school climate for gay and lesbian students in
the United States suggest that negative
attitudes toward gay and lesbian individuals are quite common
in adolescence. Very little research, however,
has investigated adolescents’ sexual prejudice from a
developmental perspective. In this study, 10th- (N = 119)
and 12th- (N = 145) grade adolescents and college-aged young
adults (N = 86) completed a questionnaire
assessing their beliefs and attitudes about homosexuality, their
comfort with gay and lesbian students, and
their judgments and reasoning regarding the treatment of gay or
lesbian peers in school. Results indicate
that middle adolescents (14–16) are more likely than older
adolescents (16–18) and young adults (19–26)
to exhibit sexual prejudice related to social interaction with gay
and lesbian peers. Interestingly, however,
age-related differences in beliefs about whether homosexuality

was right or wrong were not found. These
findings provide evidence for age-related differences in some
aspects of sexual prejudice but not others and
underscore the importance of using multiple measures in
assessing the development of this type of prejudice.
© 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Sexual prejudice; Gay and lesbian peers; Attitudes
and social reasoning
An extensive literature on adults’ attitudes toward gay and
lesbian people and beliefs about
homosexuality provides evidence that sexual prejudice1 (Herek,
2000) is influenced by or related
to an individuals’ gender (Herek, 1988, 1994; Kite, 1994),
religious fundamentalism (Altemeyer,
2003; Herek, 1987), gender role attitudes (Herek, 1988; Kite &
Whitley, 1998), and a host of other
∗ Fax: +1 312 996 5651.
E-mail address: [email protected]
1 In a recent paper in Current Directions in Psychological
Science, Herek (2000) argues for using the term sexual
prejudice to refer to negative attitudes and beliefs about gay and
lesbian individuals just as we use the term racial
prejudice to refer to negative attitudes and beliefs about
individuals from other racial groups.
0885-2014/$ – see front matter © 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights
reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2006.06.007
mailto:[email protected]
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2006.06.007

S.S. Horn / Cognitive Development 21 (2006) 420–440 421
factors (Altemeyer, 2003; Haddock & Zanna, 1998; Haslam &
Levy, 2006; Haslam, Rothschild,
& Ernst, 2000; Hegarty, 2002; Hegarty & Pratto, 2001; Kite &
Whitley, 1998). Very little research,
however, has investigated these same issues in school-aged
adolescents and virtually no research
has investigated sexual prejudice from a developmental
perspective (Herek, 2000). Reports indi-
cate, however, that the climate for gay and lesbian youth in
school is negative (Bochenek & Brown,
2001; Nairn & Smith, 2003; Rivers & D’Augelli, 2001).
Students frequently report hearing nega-
tive or homophobic comments from other students and school
staff and a high number of students
report that they are harassed on a daily basis by other students
because of their sexual orientation
(Bochenek & Brown, 2001; Rivers & D’Augelli, 2001; Russell,
Franz, & Driscoll, 2001; Savin-
Williams, 1994). Further, there is evidence to suggest that this
type of victimization can lead to
multiple negative developmental outcomes for youth such as
school absence, depression, anxiety,
and suicide (D’Augelli, 1998). This research would suggest that
adolescents hold very negative
attitudes toward homosexuality, generally, and toward their gay
and lesbian peers specifically,
and that these attitudes can have severe consequences for youth.
Yet, we know very little about
the development of adolescents’ beliefs and attitudes about
homosexuality or their evaluations
and reasoning regarding the treatment of gay and lesbian peers.
The purpose of this study was to
investigate age-related differences in adolescents’ and young
adults’ beliefs and attitudes about

homosexuality and the treatment of gay and lesbian peers.
The few studies that have been conducted on adolescents’
beliefs and attitudes about homosex-
uality present conflicting results. In some studies, the results
suggest that, with age, adolescents
become more prejudiced against gay and lesbian people (Baker
& Fishbein, 1998). In other stud-
ies, however, the results suggest that there are no age-related
differences in adolescents’ sexual
prejudice (Morrison, McLeod, Morrison, & Anderson, 1997;
Nairn & Smith, 2003; Price, 1982)
or that adolescents become less prejudiced of gay and lesbian
people with age (Marsiglio, 1993;
Van de Ven, 1994; Van de Ven, Bornholt, & Bailey, 1996). One
reason for these discrepant results
is that studies investigating sexual prejudice amongst
adolescents have used varied measures and
as such, they may be tapping into different dimensions of sexual
prejudice, some of which may be
sensitive to age-related or developmental differences and others
not. For example, in some studies,
the investigators obtained a single sexual prejudice score
comprised of averaging participants’
responses across a number of items ranging from beliefs about
the nature of homosexuality, to
stereotypes about gay and lesbian people, to attitudes toward
gay and lesbian rights (see Baker &
Fishbein, 1998; Morrison et al., 1997; Price, 1982). In other
studies, however, the investigators
have used more focused indicators such as willingness to be
friends with a gay or lesbian person
or affective reactions to same-sex sexual behavior (see
Marsiglio, 1993).
Researchers have argued that using a single score from a multi-

item measure of sexual prejudice
limits our understanding of individuals’ beliefs and attitudes
because it treats sexual prejudice
as a single structure rather than as a multifaceted and
multidimensional construct (Hegarty &
Pratto, 2001; Van de Ven, 1994). Recent research on intergroup
relations, more generally, pro-
vides evidence that discrimination and prejudice based on
gender and race are multifaceted and
involves multiple dimensions or domains of social reasoning
(Horn, 2006; Horn & Nucci, 2003;
Killen, Margie, & Sinno, 2006). In fact, Killen et al. argue that
“children’s prejudicial attitudes
are a product of their reflection on their social experiences,
which includes a wide array of social
influences, and that these judgments manifest in different ways,
depending on the context, target,
and meaning attributed to the . . . situation” (Killen et al., 2006,
p. 166). Thus, it could be the case
then that an individual could hold the belief that homosexuality
is wrong because of religious
prescription or sanction but also hold the belief that it is wrong
to discriminate against gay and
lesbian people because it is unfair or hurtful to the person.
Further, if these divergent attitudes or
422 S.S. Horn / Cognitive Development 21 (2006) 420–440
beliefs about homosexuality arise out of different domains of
social reasoning that are influenced
by different types of social interactions and social knowledge
we might expect age-related dif-
ferences on some measures of sexual prejudice but not others.
The purpose of this study, then,

was to explore the multidimensional nature of sexual prejudice,
as well as, age-related differ-
ences in adolescents’ and young adults’ judgments and
reasoning about homosexuality and the
treatment of gay and lesbian peers in a school. To do this, we
employed social cognitive domain
theory, a developmental theory of social reasoning, as the
primary theoretical framework for the
study.
1. Social cognitive domain theory
Because social cognitive domain theory provides a
developmental framework for investigat-
ing heterogeneity in individuals’ reasoning, research employing
this method is inherently suited
to studying complex social issues. By providing a systematic
and internally coherent account
of the elements that enter into socio-moral judgments, domain
theory affords a basis for under-
standing differences in beliefs about homosexuality and the
treatment of lesbian, gay, bisexual,
and transgender (LGBT) individuals’ and the factors that are
related to variation in people’s
judgments and reasoning about these issues. The central premise
of social cognitive domain the-
ory (herein referred to as domain theory) is that evaluative
social judgments are multifaceted
and draw from several conceptual frameworks or domains of
social reasoning (Nucci, 2001;
Smetana, 2006; Turiel, 1983, 1998). That is, within domain
theory, issues pertaining to human
welfare, rights, and fairness (termed morality), are
distinguished from concepts of social conven-
tions, which are the consensually determined standards of
conduct particular to a given social

group that promote group functioning and group identity (such
as gender roles). Further, while
morality and convention deal with aspects of interpersonal
regulation and issues of right and
wrong, a third domain of personal issues refer to actions that
comprise the private aspects of
one’s life (e.g., contents of a diary) and matters of preference
and choice (e.g., friends, music,
hairstyle). Numerous studies have documented that individuals’
understanding of these differ-
ent types of social knowledge arise out of different kinds of
social experiences and interactions
and that individuals (even young children) make distinctions
among these different domains
of social knowledge (Killen et al., 2006). Domain theory posits
that when making judgments
in everyday contexts, then, individuals must coordinate the
personal, conventional, and moral
issues involved in the judgment and bring their knowledge
about these issues to bear on the
situation.
For example, in a study utilizing domain theory to investigate
young adults’ beliefs about homo-
sexuality, Turiel, Hildebrant, & Wainryb (1991) found that
variation in social judgments regarding
homosexuality were related to individuals’ factual assumptions
regarding homosexuality as a nat-
ural form of sexuality. That is, some individuals viewed
homosexuality as psychologically deviant
and unnatural while others viewed homosexuality as a natural
form of sexual expression. Further,
they found that these beliefs were based on culturally mediated
information (such as religious
prescription) rather than empirical science. Thus, many
individuals held assumptions about the

“normality” or “naturalness” of homosexuality that were related
to their judgments about the
acceptability of homosexuality. They also found, however, that
individuals’ evaluations of the
psychological “normalcy” of same-sex sexuality were not
perfectly correlated with, nor determi-
native of their judgments about the acceptability of
homosexuality, nor their judgments regarding
the legal regulation of same-sex sexuality suggesting that these
are distinct components of sexual
prejudice. That is, while most individuals viewed sexuality as
inherent to the individual and a pri-
vate and personal aspect of one’s life, individuals’ differed in
their beliefs about what constitutes
a “normal” or “healthy” form of sexuality. Moreover, while
some individuals’ judged homosex-
uality to be wrong, they also felt that it should not be regulated
or sanctioned by law because
that would be an infringement on an individuals’ rights (to
freedom of expression, privacy, etc.).
Turiel and co-workers, however, did not investigate age-related
differences in individuals’ rea-
soning about homosexuality, nor did they investigate reasoning
about the intergroup interactions
involving gay and lesbian peers.
Research investigating children and adolescents judgments
about intergroup interactions pro-
vides evidence, however, that one of the factors that influences
how individuals’ coordinate
different domains of knowledge when making decisions about

social interactions is age (Horn,
2003, 2004; Killen et al., 2006). Domain theory posits different
developmental pathways within
each domain that may be related to age-related differences in
sexual prejudice. While adolescents’
understanding of the moral domain (issues of fairness, human
welfare, and individual rights) is
fairly developed and stable by middle adolescence,
developmental shifts in the conventional and
personal domains occur during this developmental period
(Nucci et al., 2004; Smetana, 2006;
Turiel, 1983). As children move into adolescence and begin to
establish an individual identity,
they have an expanded understanding of what is within their
legitimate jurisdiction (personal
domain) (Nucci, 2001), as well as a developing understanding
of the nature and purpose of soci-
etal conventions, norms, and authority (societal domain).
Development within the conventional domain moves through
cycles of affirming and negat-
ing social conventions and norms. Early adolescence (ages 12–
14) is a negation phase in which
conventions are seen as “the arbitrary dictates of authority”
(Turiel, 1983). Middle adolescence
(ages 14–16) is marked by an increased understanding of
conventions as important elements of
social systems that serve to structure social relations and
coordinate social interactions among
individuals in a group or institution (Nucci et al., 2004; Turiel,
1983). During this affirmation
period, young people tend to be invested in rigid adherence to
the conventions of their particular
normative reference group (Horn, 2003). In later adolescence
(ages 16–18) and young adulthood
(ages 19–26), while understanding the importance of shared

agreements and norms to the func-
tioning of social groups, individuals achieve a perspective on
social systems as being somewhat
arbitrary collections of conventions that are normatively
relative to one another. As a result older
adolescents are less likely to be rigidly invested in adherence to
particular conventions of their
social system than are middle adolescents (Turiel, 1983).
Coupled with these shifts in conventional knowledge are
developmental changes in adoles-
cents’ understanding of the personal domain and identity. That
is, during middle adolescence,
just when students are at the peak of trying on and testing out
different identities for them-
selves they are also at a point where conformity to peer norms
and conventions is seen as crucial
(Clasen & Brown, 1985; Horn, 2006). These developmental
shifts in the conventional and per-
sonal domain affect adolescents’ understanding of different
social issues and types of social
interactions in that at different ages, adolescents will coordinate
and prioritize the domains dif-
ferently in rendering social judgments (Horn, 2003, 2006;
Killen et al., 2006). In relation to
issues of sexual prejudice, given the heteronormative bias
(Nairn & Smith, 2003; Stein, 1995)
present in most schools, the prevailing normative assumptions
regarding sexuality would be het-
erosexuality and students identifying as other than heterosexual
would likely be perceived by
many middle adolescents as not adhering to the predominant
societal conventions or norms
and as such, open to legitimate social sanction (Horn, 2004). In
older adolescence, however,
as individuals become more secure with issues related to

sexuality and stable in their own
identity (sexual and otherwise) and as they become les invested
and rigid regarding their under-
standing of societal conventions and norms they may be more
able to tolerate views different
than their own and express more tolerance in interacting with
others who do not identify as
heterosexual.
1.1. The current study
To investigate these issues, middle (14–16) and older
adolescents (16–18), as well as young
adults’ (18–26) beliefs and attitudes about same-sex sexuality
were assessed using a self-report
questionnaire. The questionnaire included a number of measures
regarding adolescents’ beliefs,
attitudes, and reasoning about homosexuality and the treatment
of gay and lesbian peers. One set
of measures asked adolescents to render judgments regarding
different types of social interactions
with gay and lesbian peers. The other set of measures asked
adolescents about their individual
beliefs and attitudes regarding homosexuality. While both types
of measures have been used in
research to determine individuals’ levels of sexual prejudice, we
hypothesized that adolescents
would think differently about these different types of questions
because they would potentially
draw upon adolescents’ domain specific knowledge in different
ways and that this would lead to

age-related differences in responses to some measures and not
others.
Based on previous research on sexual prejudice (Baker &
Fishbein, 1998; Herek, 1994; Horn
& Nucci, 2003; Morrison et al., 1997; Price, 1982), as well as
developmental research on social
reasoning about sexuality and intergroup relationships (Horn,
2006; Killen et al., 2006; Nucci,
1996, 2001; Smetana, 2006; Turiel, 1983) we hypothesized that
on measures related to social
interaction with gay and lesbian peers, middle adolescents’
would exhibit the most sexual prejudice
and be the least tolerant due to the increased salience of
normative representations of gender
and sexuality to adolescent identities coupled with their rigid
adherence to conventional norms
during this developmental period. Specifically, middle
adolescents would be less comfortable
interacting with gay and lesbian peers in school contexts and
would be more likely to judge the
unfair treatment (e.g., exclusion, teasing) of a same-gendered
sexual minority peers as acceptable.
Further, we hypothesized that middle adolescents would
prioritize their conventional reasoning
(e.g., goes against norms of society) over their moral (e.g., it is
unfair) or personal (e.g., you can
be friends with who you want) reasoning in justifying their
judgments about the treatment of gay
and lesbian peers.
On the other hand, we did not expect age-related differences in
adolescents’ beliefs and attitudes
about homosexuality that did not involve elements of social
interaction. Individuals’ beliefs about
the acceptability of homosexuality (right or wrong), as well as

the origins of homosexuality do not
inherently involve the elements of social interaction which draw
upon moral concepts of fairness
and the welfare of others and thus, adolescents would not have
to coordinate these aspects of
their social knowledge with their individual beliefs and
attitudes. Given that individuals’ beliefs
and attitudes regarding homosexuality are likely to based on
culturally mediated information
informed by factual assumptions and stereotypes related to the
normality of homosexuality that
may be more resistant to change, we did not expect age-related
differences on these measures
related to social cognitive development.
Finally, given the robust evidence that men have higher levels
of sexual prejudice than women
(Herek, 1994, 2000; Kite & Whitley, 1998), as well as evidence
that girls are more likely than
boys to judge negative intergroup interactions (e.g., exclusion,
teasing) as wrong because they
are unfair or hurtful (Killen et al., 2006), we also expected that
boys would exhibit greater levels
of sexual prejudice (more negative attitudes and beliefs
regarding same-sex sexuality) than girls
across all the measures.
Table 1
Demographic distribution of the sample
Demographic category Middle adolescents Older adolescents
Young adults

Age (M) 15.6 17.6 24.6
Gender
Female 75 (63) 80 (55) 57 (66)
Male 44 (37) 65 (45) 29 (34)
Ethnicity
African American 33 (28) 28 (19) 7 (8)
Asian American 3 (3) 8 (6) 10 (12)
European American 61 (51) 84 (58) 48 (56)
Latino/a 7 (6) 6 (4) 17 (20)
Other 10 (8) 19 (13) 4 (5)
Religious denomination
Catholic 16 (13) 30 (21) 38 (44)
Baptist 4 (3) 11 (8) 6 (7)
Protestant 18 (15) 19 (13) 5 (6)
Non-denominational Christian 31 (26) 18 (12) 4 (5)
Jewish 9 (8) 21 (15) 3 (4)
Other 11 (9) 19 (13) 16 (19)
None 30 (25) 27 (19) 14 (16)
N 119 145 86
Values are n (%).
2. Method
2.1. Participants and procedures
Tenth- (44 male, 75 female, M age = 15.6) and 12th-grade (65
male, 80 female, M age = 17.6)
students attending a large suburban high school in the Midwest
and 29 male and 57 female
college-aged students (predominantly juniors and seniors, M age

= 24.6) from a medium-sized
urban university participated in the study. The schools from
which the sample was drawn were both
economically and ethnically diverse. For more information on
the demographics of the sample
(see Table 1).
The high school from which the adolescents were recruited was
located in an economically and
ethnically diverse suburb adjacent to a large city in the
Midwest. The median family income was
US $56, 338 with 26% of students from low-income families as
determined by the 2002 Illinois
state school report card (data were collected during the 2001–
2002 school year). The school was
chosen for the study because of its diversity and its willingness
to participate in research regarding
harassment based on sexual orientation. It should be noted that
while the school was fairly pro-
gressive regarding issues related to sexual orientation and
contained a number of the factors that
have been shown to improve the climate for LGBT students (had
an active gay-straight alliance,
anti-discrimination policy that included sexual orientation;
same-sex sexuality was discussed
in the curriculum in a positive manner, and there were out
visible gay and lesbian teachers
on the faculty), there were also teachers and students within this
environment who expressed
homophobic and heterosexist attitudes and comments. Further,
at the time of data collection, the
school had not had any staff development on creating safe
schools for LGBT students, one of
the strongest predictors of a safe school climate for LGBT
students (Szalacha, 2005).

Participants were recruited from the required 10th-grade health
or 12th-grade social studies
classes (psychology, sociology, philosophy). Within each grade
the classes were randomly chosen
for participation to ensure a representative sample of students
from each grade level. Approxi-
mately 35% of the students in each grade were asked to
participate in the study and provided
with parental consent and student assent forms. Students were
asked to return the forms to their
teacher regardless of whether they would participate in the
project or not. Of the students asked to
participate, only those students receiving affirmative parental
permission and providing their own
assent were surveyed (58%). Those students who were not given
permission to participate (1%)
or who did not return the parental permission form (41%)2
completed an alternate questionnaire
comprised of educational games during administration to protect
the anonymity of those students
participating in the study.
The university was located in a large Midwestern city and
enrolled students from the surround-
ing city and suburban communities. The university was chosen
because of its diverse population,
as well as its similarity to the high school in terms of student
aptitude. The composite ACT scores
for the high school were 22, while the composite scores for
entering freshman at the univer-
sity were 23. The university had an active gay and lesbian
student group; an office specifically

for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender concerns; as well as
a non-discrimination policy that
included sexual orientation and gender identity. Again, while
the University was fairly progressive
in its policies and programs related to same-sex sexuality, bias
motivated crimes against LGBT
identified students and faculty occurred on campus. Participants
were recruited from two classes
offered by the College of Education (one required and one
elective). All of the students consented
to participating in the study. One student chose not to complete
the survey due to the content. The
participation rate was 99%.
2.2. Design
All participants responded to the demographic questions, as
well as questions about their
beliefs and attitudes about homosexuality. Given that research
has suggested that individuals are
more biased and hold more negative attitudes toward gay or
lesbian individuals of their same
gender (Herek, 1994) for the purposes of this initial study, we
chose to investigate evaluations
of exclusion, teasing, and inclusion toward same-gender peers
only. For the measures regarding
comfort with gay and lesbian peers in school contexts
participants were asked about both gay and
lesbian peers.
2.3. Measures
2.3.1. Social interaction measures
We measured participants’ judgments and reasoning about
social interaction in two ways. First,

we measured their comfort interacting with gay and lesbian
peers in various school contexts (com-
2 Because we were not allowed to obtain any demographic
information on the students who did not return permission
forms we were unable to compare this group to the participants
in the study. Additionally, we do not know if the students
not returning their forms simply forgot to return the form or
selected themselves out of the study for some other reason. In
classes in which teachers required that students return the form
as part of their course participation the response rate was
close to 100%. Students were asked to return the form
regardless of whether their parents consented to their
participation
in the study or not. In classes where this was not the case the
response rate was typically lower than 30%. While this
may suggest that a majority of students simply neglected to
return their form, it is possible that some students selected
themselves out for other reasons, thus, our sample may be
biased toward individual students and families who are more
accepting of same-sex sexualities.
fort judgments). Participants were asked to respond to 10
questions about their attitudes toward
having gay and lesbian peers in a variety of school contexts. For
example, students responded
to questions such as “Having a gay or lesbian student in my
English class would be . . .”. They
could respond using a five-point Likert scale (1 = okay, it
would not bother me at all; 5 = really
bad, it would bother me a lot). A mean comfort score was then
determined by averaging partic-

ipants’ ratings across the 10 questions. Scores could range from
1 (extremely comfortable) to 5
(extremely uncomfortable).
We also asked participants to render judgments regarding
different types of intergroup interac-
tions with gay and lesbian peers. Participants were presented
with three scenarios depicting either
a gay or lesbian character who was excluded, teased, or
included by his/her peers. Although all the
characters were gay or lesbian they varied in terms of their
conformity to gender norms regarding
both appearance/mannerisms and choice of activities.3 For
example, “George is a gay male high
school student. He plays on the school baseball team. He is a
“B” student. He dresses and acts
like most of the other guys at school. To all outward
appearances, he seems just like any other
male at the school”. Participants were asked to evaluate whether
or not they thought it was right
or wrong (treatment judgments) for the students to exclude,
tease, or include the target individual.
Judgments were assessed on a five-point Likert scale (1 =
completely wrong; 3 = neither right nor
wrong; 5 = completely all right).
Additionally, for each story we asked participants to choose,
from a set of nine responses,
the reasons that best reflected their opinion for why they
thought the action (exclusion, teasing,
inclusion) was right or wrong. For example, “It is unfair/hurtful
to him”. The responses used
were developed from pilot interviews and informed by the
theoretical framework for the study
(Turiel, 1983; Turiel et al., 1991), and prior work on sexual
prejudice (Herek, 1994). Interestingly,

based on these pilot interviews, we determined that two
classifications of religious responses were
necessary: conventional and moral. Conventional religious
responses were those that related to
religious rules, conventions, or dictates of authority (e.g., He is
going against God’s law and
the laws of my religion). Moral religious responses were those
that related to the welfare or
fair treatment of others (e.g., We should treat others as we wish
to be treated ourselves). There
is precedent for this distinction in that research by Nucci
(Nucci, 2001) has documented that
religious adolescents make distinctions between religious
principles that are moral in nature
(regarding fairness, welfare, and justice) and religious
principals that are conventional in nature
(modes of dress, dietary restriction and laws, and prescriptions
regarding certain behaviors). (For
a complete list of justification responses see Table 2.)
Participants could choose more than one
response. While most participants chose only one response, a
number of participants did choose
more than one. Scores were calculated as the proportion of a
participants’ response that fell into
each justification type. Log-linear transformations were
conducted on the proportional scores to
adjust for non-normality (see Winer, 1971; Winer, Brown, &
Michels, 1991).
2.3.2. Beliefs measures
We also asked participants two different types of questions
regarding their beliefs about homo-
sexuality: origins and acceptability. To measure students’
beliefs about how someone becomes
gay or lesbian (origins) they were asked “How do you think

someone becomes gay or lesbian?”
and provided with a list of 8 possible reasons from which they
could choose all those that fit their
beliefs (for a list of reasons, see Table 2). As with the social
interaction measures, the reasons
3 For a discussion of results related to gender conformity please
contact the first author.
Table 2
Justification response categories for origins of homosexuality,
beliefs about homosexuality, and treatment judgments
Measure Category Justification response
Originsa Biological “Born that way”.
Parental socialization “How the person was raised by their
parents”.
Contagion “Hanging around other gay people”.
Cross-gender friends “Hanging around primarily with people of
the opposite sex”.
Childhood trauma “Victim of sexual abuse”.
Cross-gender activities “Participating in activities that are not
typical of people of the
person’s own sex”.
Choice “Person chooses to be gay or lesbian”.
Other “Please answer in one or two sentences”.
Acceptability
justficationb

Religious human equality Gay and lesbian people are also God’s
children.
Contribute to society Gay and lesbian people contribute a lot to
society.
Individual rights People should be allowed to love whomever
they wish; being
gay or lesbian is not a matter of choice, you are who you are;
people who are old enough should be allowed to have
consensual sex with whomever they wish; gay and lesbian
people are just like anyone else.
Religious opposition Against God’s law; goes against the
beliefs of my religion.
Social norms It goes against the norms of society.
Natural order It is unnatural, it is disgusting.
Biological/genetic People are born gay or lesbian.
Danger to society Gay and lesbian people are more likely than
others to engage in
sexual abuse or rape; gay and lesbian people caused AIDS to
exist; gay and lesbian people try to seduce or recruit children
into becoming gay or lesbian.
Other Other (please answer in one or two sentences)
Religious human equality Gay and lesbian people are also God’s
children.
Contribute to society Gay and lesbian people contribute a lot to
society.
Treatment
justificationsc
Fairness/welfare “It is unfair/hurtful to him.”

Religious human equality “God teaches us that we should treat
others as we wish to be
treated ourselves.”
Affirms norms “He dresses or acts the way a guy in our society
should.”
Negates norms “He doesn’t dress or act the way a guy in our
society should.”
God’s law “He is going against God’s law or the laws of my
religion.”
Personal choice “Who you hang out with is a matter of personal
choice.”
Unnatural “He is being unnatural/disgusting.”
Hit on “He might hit on them/be attracted to them.”
Accused gay “People might think they are gay if they don’t.”
Fairness/welfare “It is unfair/hurtful to him.”
a How do you think someone becomes gay or lesbian? Circle as
many as apply.
b Based on your answer to question 13, choose the reason(s)
that come(s) closest to why you think being gay or lesbian
is all right, wrong, or neither right nor wrong. Circle as many
reason as apply.
c Why do you think it would be al right or wrong for these
students to (exclude, tease, include) the target?
given were developed from pilot interviews with college
students and informed by the theoretical
model, as well as research on sexual prejudice. Participants
could choose more than one response.
Their origins score was calculated based on the proportion of
their response that fell into each
origins category.

Finally, to measure students’ attitudes regarding homosexuality
(acceptability judgments) they
were asked “Do you think homosexuality is all right or wrong?”
Responses were given on a five-
point Likert scale response (1 = completely wrong, 3 = neither
right nor wrong, 5 = completely
all right). We also asked participants to choose from a list of 18
statements the reasons for why
they thought homosexuality was right or wrong (acceptability
justification). The reasons given
for this question were also developed from pilot work and
informed by the theoretical model
(social cognitive domain theory) as well as available research
on sexual prejudice and stereotypes.
Participants could choose more than one response. The eighteen
reasons were collapsed into nine
conceptual categories (see Table 2). Participants’ acceptability
justification scores were calculated
based on the proportion of their response that fell into each
category.
3. Results
3.1. Data analysis plan
Findings are first provided for age- and gender-related
differences in participants’ attitudes
about different types of social interactions with gay and lesbian
people (comfort, treatment judg-
ments, treatment justifications). Then, findings related to
differences in adolescents’ beliefs about
homosexuality (origins, acceptability judgments, and
acceptability justifications) are reported.

Follow-up tests of simple effects were conducted using
Bonferroni tests or a Bonferroni adjust-
ment was made (pair-wise tests) to maintain a family-wise error
rate of p < .05. Due to the small
number of students who identified their sexual orientation as
gay, lesbian, or bisexual, as well
as the fact that we were interested in heterosexual adolescents’
attitudes and beliefs, we did not
include sexual orientation as a factor in the analyses. Thus, only
those students identifying as
straight were included in the analyses (N = 332).
Due to the demographic differences in the sample, we
investigated the relationships between
ethnicity and religious denomination and the outcome measures
using separate analysis of variance
(ANOVA) tests. These analyses revealed significant differences
related to self reported ethnic-
ity on the following measures: comfort interacting with gay and
lesbian peer, F (4, 253) = 8.07;
p < .01, judgments about teasing F (4, 339) = 6.31; p < .01, and
including F (4, 338) = 5.43; p < .01
a gay or lesbian peer, beliefs about the origins of
homosexuality, F (28, 2373) = 2.10; p < .01, as
well as acceptability judgments, F (4, 338) = 11.835; p < .01,
and justifications for those judg-
ments, F (32, 2712) = 3.25; p < .01. Differences based on
religious denomination were obtained
on the following measures: comfort interacting with gay and
lesbian peer, F (6, 256) = 6.34;
p < .01, as well as acceptability judgments about whether
homosexuality was right or wrong, F
(6, 341) = 6.46; p < .01, and justifications, F (48, 2736) = 2.58;
p < .01. We controlled for these
demographic variables in the subsequent analyses for measures
on which there were significant

differences by dummy coding the variables and including them
as covariates.4
3.2. Attitudes regarding interacting with lesbian and gay peers
Overall, we expected that younger adolescents and boys would
exhibit higher levels of sexual
prejudice than older adolescents or young adults and girls
across all of the measures having to
do with social interaction. Younger adolescents and boys would
report being less comfortable
4 For a report on ethnicity and religion differences in
adolescents’ beliefs and attitudes please contact the first author.
interacting with gay and lesbian and would be less likely to
judge excluding and teasing a gay or
lesbian peer as wrong, and also less likely to judge including a
gay or lesbian peer as acceptable.
Younger adolescents and boys would use more conventional and
less moral or personal reasoning
in justifying their judgments regarding the treatment of gay and
lesbian peers.
3.2.1. Comfort interacting with gay and lesbian peers in school
A 3 (grade: 10th, 12th, college) × 2 (gender: male, female)
univariate ANCOVA on partici-
pants’ mean comfort score with religion and ethnicity as the
covariate revealed a significant main
effects for grade, F (2, 316) = 9.11, p < .001, and gender, F (1,
316) = 5.35, p < .02. As expected,

10th-graders (M = 1.82) were more uncomfortable interacting
with gay and lesbian peers than
either 12th-graders (M = 1.49), p < .01, or college students (M
= 1.29), p < .001. Additionally, boys
(M = 1.62) were more uncomfortable interacting with a gay or
lesbian peer in school than girls
(M = 1.43). The interaction between gender and grade was not
significant, F (2, 316) = .366, p < .1.
3.2.2. Judgments regarding the treatment of others
To investigate the relationships among age and gender and
adolescents’ judgments regarding
the treatment of others a 3 (treatment context: exclusion,
teasing, and inclusion) × 3 (grade: 10th,
12th, college) × 2 (gender: male, female) ANCOVA with
repeated measures on the first factor was
preformed on adolescents’ judgments. This analysis revealed a
significant main effect for treatment
context, F (2, 650) = 1273.30, p < .001. (M’s inclusion = 4.63,
exclusion = 2.29, and teasing = 1.31).
Additionally, there was a significant main effect for gender, F
(1, 325) = 5.4, p < .001, and a
significant interactions between treatment context and gender, F
(2, 650) = 8.86, p < .001 and
treatment context and grade, F (4, 650) = 6.42, p < .01 (see
Table 3 for means comparisons). The
three-way interaction amongst treatment context, gender, and
grade was not significant, F (4,
650) = 1.88, p > .05.
Follow-up tests of simple effects (Bonferroni t-tests) of the
grade by treatment context interac-
tion revealed that 10th-graders exhibited higher levels of sexual
prejudice in that judged exclusion
and teasing as more acceptable than college students and were

also more likely than 12th-graders
and college students to judge including a same-gendered sexual
minority peer as wrong. Across
all grades, however, including a gay or lesbian peer was judged
as the least wrong, followed by
exclusion and then teasing. Follow-up tests of simple effects of
the gender and treatment context
interaction revealed that as expected males were more likely
than females to judge excluding
Table 3
Mean evaluative judgments for excluding, teasing, or accepting
a same-gendered sexual minority peer by grade and gender
Treatment Grade Gender
Tentha Twelfthb Collegec Femaled Malee
Excluding 2.49a (1.14) 2.33 (1.02) 2.02b (1.00) 2.04a (1.03)
2.53b (1.04)
Teasing 1.45a (.75) 1.38 (.57) 1.17b (.35) 1.22a (.49) 1.48b
(.72)
Accepting 4.40a (.99) 4.75b (.56) 4.73b (.63) 4.66 (.75) 4.59
(.78)
Note: Standard deviations in parentheses; means with different
subscripts within grade or gender differ significantly at
p < .01.
a n = 107.
b n = 137.
c n = 82.
d n = 196.
e n = 130.

or teasing a same-gendered sexual minority peer as acceptable,
however, they were not more
likely to judge including a same-gender sexual minority peer as
wrong (see Table 3 for means
comparisons).
3.2.3. Justifications regarding the treatment of others
In regard to adolescents’ reasoning about the treatment of gay
or lesbian peers a 3 (treatment
context: exclusion, teasing, inclusion) × 9 (justification: affirms
norms, fairness, hit on them,
negates norms, choice, God’s law, unnatural, religious human
equality, think they are gay) × 3
(grade: 10th, 12th, college) × 2 (gender: male, female) ANOVA
with repeated measures on the first
two factors revealed a significant main effect for justification
type, F (8, 2608) = 456.68, p < .001;
significant two-way interactions between grade and justification
type, F (16,2608) = 2.72, p < .01,
gender and justification type, F (8, 2608) = 12.18, p < .001,
treatment context and justification type,
F (16, 5216) = 300.86, p < .001; and significant three-way
interactions amongst treatment context,
grade, and justification type, F (32, 5216) = 4.07, p < .001, and
treatment context, gender, and
justification type, F (16, 5216) = 3.6, p < .001. No other
significant effects were obtained, ps > .1.
Overall, adolescents used moral reasoning (fairness, religious
human equality) most frequently
for the teasing context followed by the exclusion context.
Conversely, adolescents used personal
choice reasoning most frequently for the inclusion context

followed by the exclusion context.
Finally, social norms reasoning was used most frequently for
the inclusion context, followed by
the exclusion context (see Table 4 for means).
Additionally, follow-up tests of the grade, treatment context,
and justification interaction par-
tially confirmed our expectations (see Tables 5 and 6 for means
and comparisons). In regard to
societal or conventional reasoning, 10th-graders used “affirms
norms” college students as reasons
for why it was acceptable or wrong to exclude or include, but
not tease, a same-gender sexual
minority peer. Tenth-graders also used “negates norms”
justifications more frequently than college
students across all three treatment contexts and more frequently
than 12th-graders for excluding
and including but not teasing. Additionally, 10th-graders used
“God’s law” justifications more
frequently than either 12th-graders or college students for all
three treatment contexts. In regard
to moral justifications, 10th-graders used “fairness/harm”
justifications less frequently than 12th-
graders and college students, as expected, but only for
justifying why it was acceptable or wrong
to tease a same-gender sexual minority peer. The expected grade
differences in the use of “fair-
ness/harm” justifications for excluding and including were not
obtained nor were the expected
Table 4
Percentage of adolescents’ justifications for exclusion, teasing,
and acceptance judgments
Justification category Treatment

Excluding Teasing Accepting
Affirm norms .03a (.07) .02b (.07) .03b (.09)
Fairness/harm .29a (.31) .56b (.31) .06c (.16)
Hit on them .02a (.07) .01b (.06) .00b (.04)
Negate norms .02a (.06) .02a (.07) .01b (.04)
Choice .43a (.36) .09b (.16) .68c (.40)
God’s law .01 (.06) .01 (.06) .01 (.04)
Unnatural .01a (.04) .01b (.06) .00a (.02)
Religious human equality .15a (.20) .24b (.24) .18b (.24)
Think gay .01 (.07) .01 (.06) .01 (.06)
Note: Standard deviations in parentheses; N = 332; means with
different subscripts differ significantly at p < .01.
Table 5
Age-related differences in adolescents’ justifications for
exclusion, teasing, and acceptance judgments
Justification Treatment and grade
Tenth Twelfth College Tenth Twelfth College Tenth Twelfth
College
Affirm norms .04a (.06) .02 (.06) .01b (.06) .03 (.07) .02 (.07)
.02 (.07) .05a (.07) .04 (.08) .02b (.09)
Fairness/harm .27 (.30) .30 (.29) .32 (.31) .50a (.30) .61b (.29)
.57b (.31) .10 (.16) .04 (.15) .04 (.26)
Hit on them .04 (.07) .02 (.07) .01 (.07) .01 (.05) .01 (.07) .01
(.05) .02a (.04) .01b (.05) .00b (.05)

Negate norms .03a (.06) .01b (.06) .01b (.06) .03a (.06) .01
(.06) .00b (.06) .02a (.03) .00b (.04) .00b (.04)
Choice .38 (.36) .45 (.35) .46 (.37) .10 (.06) .07 (.15) .09 (.16)
.56a (.38) .72b (.37) .75b (.40)
God’s law .02a (.05) .01b (.05) .00b (.05) .02a (.05) .01b (.05)
.00b (.05) .01 (.04) .01 (.04) .00 (.05)
Unnatural .01 (.04) .01 (.04) .00 (.05) .02 (.06) .01 (.06) .00
(.06) .01 (.02) .00 (.02) .00 (.02)
RHQ .16 (.19) .13 (.19) .16 (.20) .24 (.23) .21 (.22) .27 (.24) .19
(.24) .15 (.23) .19 (.25)
Think gay .02 (.06) .01 (.06) .01 (.06) .02 (.06) .01 (.06) .01
(.06) .02 (.04) .01 (.05) .00 (.05)
Note: Standard deviations in parenthesis. Tenth n = 107; 12th n
= 137; college n = 83; means with different subscripts
within treatment different at p < .01.
differences in the use of “religious human equality”
justifications. The expected grade differences
in the frequency of use of “personal choice” justifications, as
well as in the frequency of use
of stereotypes were obtained. That is, 12th-graders and college
students used “personal choice”
justification more frequently and ”hit on them“justifications
less frequently in response to why it
was all right or not all right to include a same-gendered sexual
minority peer.
Finally, follow-up tests of simple effects of the gender,
treatment context, and justification
interaction revealed that, as expected, girls used “religious
human equality” justifications more
frequently than boys across the treatment contexts. Boys, on the
other hand, used “personal
choice” justifications more frequently than girls across the
treatment contexts. Partially confirming

expectations, girls also used “fairness/harm” justifications more
frequently than boys but only for
the exclusion context. The expected gender difference in social
norms reasoning was not obtained
(see Table 6 for means comparisons).
Table 6
Gender differences in adolescents’ justifications for exclusion,
teasing, and acceptance judgments
Justification category Treatment and gender
Female Male Female Male Female Male
Affirm norms .03 (.06) .02 (.07) .03 (.07) .02 (.07) .04 (.08) .03
(.09)
Fairness/harm .36a (.29) .23b (.31) .57 (.29) .55 (.31) .06 (.15)
.05 (.16)
Hit on them .02 (.07) .03 (.08) .01 (.04) .01 (.05) .01 (.04) .01
(.05)
Negate norms .01 (.06) .02 (.06) .01 (.07) .02 (.07) .01 (.03) .01
(.03)
Choice .35a (.35) .51b (.36) .06a (.15) .12b (.16) .62a (.38) .73b
(.40)
God’s law .01 (.06) .01 (.06) .01 (.04) .00 (.05) .01 (.04) .01
(.05)
Unnatural .01 (.04) .01 (.05) .01 (.06) .01 (.06) .00 (.01) .00
(.02)
RHQ .18a (.18) .12b (.19) .27a (.22) .21b (.24) .22a (.22) .13b
(.24)
Think gay .01 (.06) .02 (.07) .01 (.06) .01 (.06) .01 (.04) .01
(.05)
Note: Standard deviations in parenthesis; females n = 197;

males n = 130; means with different subscripts within treatment
different at p < .01.
3.3. Beliefs about homosexuality
In contrast to measures regarding reasoning about social
interaction, age- or gender-related
differences in participants’ beliefs about homosexuality were
not expected.
3.3.1. Acceptability judgments
A 3 (grade: 10th, 12th, college) × 2 (gender: male, female)
ANCOVA performed on ado-
lescents’ mean acceptability judgments (with ethnicity and
religious denomination as covariates)
revealed no significant main effects for grade, F (2, 314) =
1.79, p > .05, or gender F (1, 314) = 1.38,
p > .05, as well as no interaction effect between gender and
grade, F (2, 314) = 1.12, p > .05. As
expected participants’ acceptability judgments did not
significantly differ across grades (12th
M = 3.5; 12th M = 3.88; college M = 3.62) or gender (male M =
3.64; female M = 3.69).
3.3.2. Acceptability justifications
In regard to the reasons why participants felt that homosexuality
was wrong or not wrong, we
did not expect age- or gender-related differences. A 3 (grade:
10th, 12th, college) × 2 (gender:
male, female) × 9 (acceptability justification: religious

opposition, unnatural, biological, danger,
individual rights, social norms, religious human equality,
contribute to society, other) ANCOVA
with repeated measures on the last factor and ethnicity and
religious denomination as covariates
revealed a significant main effect for acceptability justification,
F (8, 2520) = 8.26, p < .001 but,
as expected, the two-way interaction between grade and
acceptability justification was not sig-
nificant, F (16, 2520) = 1.61, p > .05, nor were the interactions
between gender and acceptability
justification, F (8, 2520) = 1.3, p > .05, or grade, gender, and
acceptability justification, F (16,
2520) = 1.39, p > .05.
Overall, participants used significantly more individual rights
justifications (M = .35) than any
other justification. Participants also used more biological
justifications (M = .20) than any other
except individual rights and used more religious human equality
justifications (M = .15) than
any of the others but individual rights and biological. Finally,
participants used more religious
opposition (M = .09), contributes to society (M = .08) and
natural order justifications (M = .07)
than social norms (M = .02) or danger to society justifications
(M = .01).
3.3.3. Origins
Age- and gender-related differences in participants’ beliefs
about the origins of homosexuality
were not expected. A 3 (grade: 10th, 12th, college) × 2 (gender:
male, female) × 7 (origins: biolog-
ical, parents, hanging out with gay or lesbian people, cross-
gender playmates, sexual abuse, gender

atypical activities, choice) ANCOVA with repeated measures on
origins and ethnicity and reli-
gious denomination as covariates revealed a main effect for
origins, F (6, 1890) = 4.162, p < .001,
a significant two-way interaction between grade and origins, F
(12, 1890) = 5.81, p < .0001, and a
significant three-way interaction between grade, gender, and
origins, F (12, 1890) = 2.59, p < .01.
Follow-up tests of simple effects of the three-way interaction
revealed that, contrary to expec-
tations, male and female college students were more likely than
10th-graders to endorse the
belief that the origins of homosexuality were biological (college
males: M = .51; 10th males:
M = .13; college females: M = .41; 10th female: M = .25).
Additionally, college males were more
likely to endorse this belief than 12th-graders males (M = .27).
This difference was not obtained
for females. Further, 10th-grade males were also more likely to
endorse the belief than people
become gay or lesbian as the result of parental socialization
(10th M = .24; 12th M = .06; college
M = .02), whereas, college-aged males were less likely than
10th- or 12th-grade males to believe
someone becomes gay or lesbian as the result of childhood
abuse (10th M = .13; 12th M = .14;
college M = .02). No age-related differences in participants’
beliefs that people choose to be gay or
lesbian were obtained. Very few participants, of any age,
endorsed the beliefs that people become

gay or lesbian through hanging out with gay or lesbian people
or though engaging in gender
atypical activity.
4. Discussion
The primary purpose of the present study was to begin to
explore possible age-related differ-
ences in sexual prejudice, as well as the multifaceted nature of
this type of social reasoning among
a small sample of adolescents. The study contributes to our
understanding of sexual prejudice
by suggesting that developmental differences in social cognition
may be related to differences in
some components of sexual prejudice but not others. One of the
more provocative implications
of the results of this study is that age-related differences in
adolescents’ social concepts would
appear to be interacting with more general efforts at identity
formation to account for the observed
age-related differences regarding distinct dimensions of sexual
prejudice. Finally, the results of
this study suggest that some dimensions of sexual prejudice,
particularly around aspects of social
interaction, may be related to developmental changes in social
cognition while other dimensions
are tied to individuals’ assumption and beliefs about the nature
of sexuality (both as a normal
component of human sexuality and as a private and personal
aspect of an individual’s life).
4.1. Age-related differences in adolescents’ sexual prejudice
Interestingly, most of the participants in this study exhibited
fairly positive or tolerant attitudes
regarding interacting with gay and lesbian peers, which seems

counter to the extreme negative or
hostile climates for gay and lesbian youth described in the
extant literature (Bochenek and Brown,
2001; Nairn & Smith, 2003; Russell et al., 2001). It is likely
that this is a product of the generally
positive climates at the schools at which the data were
collected. Research provides evidence that
schools such as those included in this study have more positive
sexual diversity climates than
schools with less support systems (support group, policies, staff
development) in place for LGBT
students (Szalacha, 2005). Despite this, however, we did find
age-related differences on some
measures of sexual prejudice suggesting that social cognitive
development is related to some
components of this complex phenomenon.
4.1.1. Evaluations of interactions with and tolerance for gay and
lesbian peers
Overall, the results suggest age-related differences in
adolescents’ comfort with and tolerance
for gay and lesbian peers. That is, similar to the other research
we found that older adolescents
and young adults were also more likely than younger
adolescents to feel comfortable interacting
with gay and lesbian peers in various school contexts and
judged excluding or teasing a gay
or lesbian peer as less acceptable than younger adolescents. Not
only do these results provide
additional support for research suggesting that sexual prejudice
decreases through early adulthood,
the current study also extend this research by examining the
types of reasoning that individuals
apply to situations involving social interaction with gay and
lesbian peers.

It could be the case that adolescents simply become more
accepting or tolerant of others
who differ from them in beliefs, attitudes, or behaviors.
Available evidence does suggest that
adolescents and young adults become more tolerant of
dissenting views of others, particularly in
relation to issues that are conventional and personal in nature,
and more likely to maintain that a
number of views could be correct (Wainryb, Shaw, & Maianu,
1998; Wainryb, Shaw, Laupa, &
Smith, 2001). Thus, it could be that adolescents’ tolerance
regarding sexual minority individuals
is related overall to their social cognitive development within
different domains, as well as the
ability to coordinate multiple dimensions of a situation. This
view is supported by other work
on prejudice and discrimination in which similar patterns
regarding heightened prejudice during
middle adolescence have been found and attributed to social
cognitive limitations during this
developmental period (for a review, see Fishbein, 2002).
It seems likely, that overall tolerance of gay and lesbian peers
may be most directly related
to development within the conventional and personal domains of
social reasoning and the
coordination of these domains of knowledge with issues related
to fairness and harm more
generally. Research on the development of conventional
knowledge suggests that older ado-

lescents and young adults achieve a perspective on social
systems that recognizes the importance
of conventions but also recognizes that the normative systems
themselves are somewhat arbi-
trary and relative to one another (Nucci, 2001; Turiel, 1983).
Thus, in evaluating interacting
with others who are perceived as different, older adolescents
and young adults may be less
invested in their peers’ strict adherence to conventions or norms
around sexuality and gen-
der than middle adolescents, and thus, less likely sanction or
rebuke individuals who fall
outside of the normative boundaries of these dimensions of
identity as prescribed the social
group.
Interestingly, conventional reasoning was used much less
frequently than expected by partic-
ipants in this study to justify their judgments. This could be the
result of the type of schools
from which the participants were recruited. Nucci (2001)
suggests that development within the
conventional domain is facilitated by contexts that promote a
diversity of viewpoints and views
and facilitate students understanding of these divergent
viewpoints. Thus, in more homogeneous
schools or schools with less progressive policies and practices
regarding sexual orientation, we
might expect adolescents to rely on conventional reasoning
more in rendering judgments about
interactions with gay and lesbian peers. In fact, recent research
does suggest that the gay and les-
bian students in homogeneous school environments report
feeling less safe than their counterparts
in more heterogeneous environments (Goodnow, Szalacha, &
Westheimer, 2006).

The data reported here also suggest, however, that older
adolescent may also be more likely
to view social interactions related to who one hangs out with as
a matter of personal choice or
prerogative rather than as a context open to legitimate societal
sanction. Interestingly, participants
used personal reasoning much more frequently regarding the
exclusion and inclusion contexts, but
were not likely to use this type of reasoning in relation to
teasing. It seems then, that adolescents are
less likely to endorse social interactions as personal in
situations in which harm and unfairness
are more salient (such as teasing) providing additional support
for developmental research on
intergroup relationships which suggests that the complexity or
ambiguity of the social context is
important to understanding how adolescents come to understand
how to treat one another (Horn,
2003, 2006; Killen et al., 2006; Killen, Lee-Kim, McGlothlin, &
Stangor, 2002).
One limitation of this study is that we did not assess
individuals’ understanding of the conven-
tional and personal domains independently of their judgments
and reasoning about the treatment
of others nor did we assess intra-individual changes in
reasoning. Additionally, results regarding
social reasoning may have been influenced by providing
adolescents with a set of responses from
which to choose, rather than eliciting their spontaneous
reasoning about the situations. To fur-
ther understand the development of sexual prejudice, future
studies should include longitudinal
research that elicits adolescents’ reasoning through open ended
questions and that investigates

the relationships among the social context (school policies and
practices), development within
distinct domains of social knowledge, and developmental
changes in individuals’ judgments and
reasoning about gay and lesbian peers.
4.1.2. Beliefs about homosexuality
Despite finding age-related differences in participants’
judgments regarding different types of
social interactions with gay and lesbian peers, we did not find
age-related differences in ado-
lescents’ beliefs about whether homosexuality was right or
wrong, nor their reasons for why
they believed homosexuality was right or wrong. These results
provide additional support for the
assertion that sexual prejudice is a multifaceted construct
(Hegarty and Pratto, 2001; Van de Ven,
1994) and extend this research by suggesting that different
dimensions of sexual prejudice draw
on different domains of social reasoning. The results of the
current study reveal that individuals’
reasoning about the fair treatment of persons is distinct from
(but potentially related to) their
beliefs about the nature and acceptability of homosexuality.
Contrary to our expectations, however, we did find age-related
differences in adolescents’
beliefs about the origins of homosexuality. These results
provide some evidence that with age
(whether due to developmental or contextual factors),

individuals come to view sexual orienta-
tion as something that is inherent to the biological or genetic
make up of the individual rather
than as something that is “caused” by environmental factors.
For the adolescent sample in this
study, this could be the result of information about human
sexuality provided to students in
their required health classes in which homosexuality was
presented as a natural form of human
sexuality. Information about the nature of sexuality education
among the college sample was
not obtained, however, so definitive statements about the
relationship between formal education
regarding sexuality and beliefs about origins of sexuality cannot
be made. It is likely that factors
beyond formal education, such as media coverage of the issue or
more frequent interaction with
age with gay or lesbian individuals (having a friend who is gay
or lesbian), also lead to changes
in adolescents’ understanding of the origins of homosexuality.
Social psychological research provides evidence that both of
these factors (reading scientific
accounts of the biological origins of homosexuality and
knowing a gay or lesbian person) are
related to having more essentialist beliefs about homosexuality
(that it is innate and unchangeable)
(Ernulf, Innala, & Whitman, 1989; Hegarty & Pratto, 2001;
Piskur & Delegman, 1992) Further,
given that research on adults’ sexual prejudice has revealed that
essentialist beliefs about the
origins of homosexuality are related to sexual prejudice (Ernulf
et al., 1989; Whitley, 1990) it
could be that the age-related differences in adolescents ‘and
adults’ sexual prejudice on measures
related to social interaction were also related to age-related

differences in beliefs about the origins
of sexuality. Given these relationships future research should
investigate the development of
adolescents’ concepts of the origins of homosexuality and how
these are related to age-related
differences in sexual prejudice.
4.1.3. Summary
While the age-related results regarding adolescents’ and young
adults’ judgments and reasoning
about excluding, teasing, and including someone who is gay or
lesbian parallel the age-related
differences in adolescents’ and young adults’ tolerance for or
comfort with gay and lesbian peers,
they are uniquely important because they suggest that with age
individuals not only become more
tolerant of gay and lesbian people but also that they become less
likely to endorse unfairness toward
others who are gay or lesbian, particularly related to social
interactions such as social exclusion and
teasing. Thus, while assessments of comfort or tolerance may
measure individuals’ homophobia
or prejudice, assessing adolescents’ judgments and reasoning
about the treatment of others is a
closer proxy for measuring discriminatory behavior toward gay
and lesbian individuals. These
results, taken together with the lack of age-related differences
in attitudes about homosexuality,
provide additional support for the idea that prejudice and
discrimination are distinct constructs that

are mediated by different things and have different
developmental patterns (Fishbein, 2002; Killen
et al., 2006). Due to the cross-sectional design of the current
study, however, it was not possible
to definitively determine if these age-related differences are due
to developmental differences in
adolescents’ social cognition or to some other factor such as
context or cohort effects. Further,
given the particular nature of the schools at which the study was
conducted, the results of this
study should not be generalized to adolescents as a whole.
While we know a great deal about the
correlates of sexual prejudice among adults, we know very little
about the relationship between the
school context/climate and differences in adolescents’ sexual
prejudice. It could be the case that
the school contexts in which these data were collected were
related to the age-related differences
in attitudes and judgments regarding gay and lesbian peers and
that the pattern of results would
be very different at schools with less supportive climates.
4.2. Gender-related differences in sexual prejudice
We also found that girls exhibited less sexual prejudice than
boys across most measures.
This is similar to other research on prejudice related to
sexuality, as well as the development of
prejudice more generally. Numerous studies provide evidence
that women are less prejudiced
toward gay and lesbian people than men (see Herek, 1994).
Further, research on the development
of racial and gender prejudice also provides evidence that girls
are generally less prejudiced than
boys (Fishbein, 2002). The results of this study also extend this
work and provide support for

research on reasoning about intergroup relationships (Killen et
al., 2006), more generally, in that
we also found gender differences in participants’ reasoning
regarding the treatment of gay and
lesbian peers. Interpreting these results, however, is limited for
two reasons. First, the sample was
significantly skewed toward females, particularly in the college
sample. Second, girls responded
to scenarios only about lesbian peers and boys responded to
scenarios only about gay male peers. It
could be the case, as in other research, that girls are generally
more sensitive to issues of tolerance
and peer harassment than boys (Killen & Stangor, 2001). Given
the strong evidence that people
have differential attitudes toward gay men and lesbians (Herek,
1994; Nairn & Smith, 2003),
however, it could also be the case that the gender differences
resulted from differences in how
individuals view treating gay men versus lesbians. Research on
the construction of masculinity
suggests that a part of being seen as male in our society is being
heterosexual (Kimmel & Mahler,
2003) suggesting that adherence to normative sexuality may be
more important for boys than girls
(Nairn & Smith, 2003). Future research must assess boys’ and
girls’ reasoning regarding both gay
male and lesbian peers in order to overcome this limitation.
4.3. Religious and ethnic differences in sexual prejudice
While not the focus of the current investigation, the results of
this study provide some interest-
ing data on the relationship between both religious affiliation
and ethnicity and adolescents’ sexual
prejudice. Based on the preliminary analyses investigating these
factors, it appears that religious

denomination and ethnicity were related to some measures of
sexual prejudice and not others.
Another intriguing finding related to this was that adolescents
and young adults, in these particu-
lar schools, used religious justifications to support fairness and
human welfare (religious human
equality) more frequently than religious justifications regarding
prescriptive or conventional rules
about homosexuality. These results suggest that the relationship
between religious beliefs and
sexual prejudice is also complex and multifaceted. Similar to
the work done by Nucci (1996) on
adolescents’ understanding of religious norms, this study
provides evidence that religion informs
both individuals’ understanding of fairness and human welfare
in relation to interpersonal inter-
actions, as well as their beliefs and assumptions regarding the
nature of homosexuality and has
important implications for future investigations on the
relationships between sexual prejudice and
religion.
5. Conclusion
The results of this study point to the need for more research on
sexual prejudice from a devel-
opmental perspective as well as the need for all investigations
of sexual prejudice to use multiple
measures in order to better understand the heterogeneity of this
complex construct. The study pro-
vides evidence that sexual prejudice is a multifaceted construct

that draws upon multiple domains
of social knowledge (moral, conventional, and personal). This
study has important implications
for research and theory on sexual prejudice by contributing to
our understanding of the multiple
dimensions of sexual prejudice and the ways in which
individuals’ socio-moral knowledge is dif-
ferentially related to these dimensions. By studying sexual
prejudice as a multifaceted construct
that is impacted by individuals’ domain related knowledge and
understandings of the issues we
will be better equipped to understand the development of this
form of prejudice, as well as the
relationships amongst individuals’ attitudes and beliefs about
homosexuality and their treatment
of gay and lesbian people.
Acknowledgements
The research reported in this article was supported, in part, by
grants from the Wayne F. Placek
Fund of the American Psychological Foundation and a
University of Illinois at Chicago Campus
Research Board awarded to the author and Larry Nucci. The
author would like to thank Sharon
Grimm, Larry Nucci, the Junior Faculty Writing Group at UIC
and the anonymous reviewers for
valuable feedback on the manuscript.
References
Altemeyer, B. (2003). Why do religious fundamentalists tend to
be prejudiced? The International Journal for the Psy-
chology of Religion, 13, 17–28.
Baker, J., & Fishbein, H. (1998). The development of prejudice

towards gays and lesbians by adolescents. Journal of
Homosexuality, 36, 89–100.
Bochenek, M., & Brown, A. (2001). Hatred in the hallways:
Violence and discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual,
and transgender students in U.S. schools. New York: Human
Rights Watch.
Clasen, D. R., & Brown, B. B. (1985). The multidimensionality
of peer pressure in adolescence. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 14, 451–468.
D’Augelli, A. (1998). Developmental implications of
victimization of lesbian, gay and bisexual youths. In G. Herek
(Ed.),
Stigma and sexual orientation: Understanding prejudice against
lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals (pp. 187–210).
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Ernulf, K. E., Innala, S. M., & Whitman, F. L. (1989).
Biological explanation, psychological explanation, and
tolerance
of homosexuals: A cross-national analysis of beliefs and
attitudes. Psychological Reports, 65, 1003–1010.
Fishbein, H. (2002). Peer prejudice and discrimination: The
origins of prejudice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Goodnow, C., Szalacha, L., & Westheimer, K. (2006). School
support groups, other school factors, and the safety of sexual
minority adolescents. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 573–589.

Haddock, G., & Zanna, M. P. (1998). Authoritarianism, values,
and the favorability and structure of anti-gay attitudes.
In G. Herek (Ed.), Stigma and sexual orientation: Understanding
prejudice against lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals
(pp. 82–107). Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage.
Haslam, N., & Levy, S. R. (2006). Essentialist beliefs about
homosexuality: Structure and implications for prejudice.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 471–485.
Haslam, N., Rothschild, L., & Ernst, D. (2000). Essentialist
beliefs about social categories. British Journal of Social
Psychology, 39, 113–127.
Hegarty, P. (2002). It’s not a choice, it’s the way we’re build:
Symbolic beliefs about sexual orientation in the US and
Britain. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology,
12, 153–166.
Hegarty, P., & Pratto, F. (2001). Sexual orientation beliefs: The
relationship to anti-gay attitudes and biological determinist
arguments. Journal of Homosexuality, 41, 121–135.
Herek, G. M. (1987). Religion and prejudice: A comparison of
racial and sexual attitudes. Personality and Social Psy-
chology Bulletin, 13, 56–65.
Herek, G. M. (1988). Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians
and gay men: Correlates and gender differences. Journal
of Sex Research, 25, 451–477.
Herek, G. (1994). Assessing heterosexuals’ attitudes toward
lesbians and gay men: A review of empirical research with the
ATLG scale. In B. Greene & G. Herek (Eds.), Lesbian and gay
psychology: Theory, research and clinical applications

(pp. 206–228). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Herek, G. (2000). Sexual prejudice. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9, 19–22.
Horn, S. S. (2003). Adolescents’ reasoning about exclusion
from social groups. Developmental Psychology, 39,
71–84.
Horn, S. S. (2004). Adolescents’ peer interactions: Conflict and
coordination between personal expression, social norms,
and moral reasoning. In L. Nucci (Ed.), Conflict, contradiction
and contrarian elements in moral development and
education. New York: Erlbaum.
Horn, S. S. (2006). Group status, group bias, and adolescents’
reasoning about the treatment of others in school contexts.
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 30, 208–218.
Horn, S.S., & Nucci, L.P. (2003). The multidimensionality of
adolescents’ beliefs about and attitudes toward gay and
lesbian peers in school. In Equity and Excellence in Education
(vol. 36, pp. 1–12). Special Issue on LGBTQ issues in
K-12 schools.
Killen, M., Lee-Kim, J., McGlothlin, H., & Stangor, C. (2002).
How children and adolescents evaluate gender and racial
exclusion. Monograph of the Society for Research in Child
Development, 67, 4 (Serial No. 271).
Killen, M., Margie, N. G., & Sinno, S. (2006). Morality in the
context of intergroup relationships. In M. Killen & J. Smetana
(Eds.), Handbook for moral development (pp. 155–183).
Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Killen, M., & Stangor, C. (2001). Social reasoning about

inclusion and exclusion in gender and race peer group contexts.
Child Development, 72, 174–186.
Kimmel, M. S., & Mahler, M. (2003). Adolescent masculinity,
homophobia, and violence. American Behavioral Scientist,
46, 1439–1458.
Kite, M. E. (1994). When perceptions meet reality: Individual
differences in reactions to lesbians and gay men. In B.
Greene & G. Herek (Eds.), Lesbian and gay psychology:
Theory, research and clinical applications (pp. 25–53).
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Kite, M. E., & Whitley, B. E. (1998). Do heterosexual women
and men differ in their attitudes toward homosexuality? A
conceptual and methodological analysis. In G. Herek (Ed.),
Stigma and sexual orientation: Understanding prejudice
against lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals (pp. 39–61). Thousand
Oakes, CA: Sage.
Marsiglio, W. (1993). Attitudes toward homosexual activity and
gays as friends: A national survey of heterosexual 15- to
19-year-old males. The Journal of Sex Research, 30, 12–17.
Morrison, T., McLeod, L., Morrison, M., & Anderson, D.
(1997). Gender stereotyping, homonegativity and
misconceptions
about sexually coercive behavior among adolescents. Youth &
Society, 28, 351–382.
Nairn, K., & Smith, A. (2003). Taking students seriously: Their
rights to be safe at school. Gender & Equity, 15, 133–149.
Nucci, L. (1996). Morality and the personal sphere of actions.
In Edward. Reed, Elliot. Turiel, & Terrance. Brown (Eds.),
Knowledge and values. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Nucci, L. (2001). Education in the moral domain. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Nucci, L., Becker, K., & Horn, S. (June 2004). Assessing the
development of adolescent concepts of social convention.
In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Jean Piaget
Society. Toronto, CA.
Price, J. (1982). High school students’ attitudes toward
homosexuality. Journal of School Health, 52, 469–474.
Piskur, J., & Delegman, D. (1992). Effect of reading a summary
of research about biological bases of homosexual
orientation on attitudes toward homosexuals. Psychological
Reports, 71, 1219–1225.
Rivers, I., & D’Augelli, A. (2001). The victimization of lesbian,
gay and bisexual youths. In A. D’Augelli & C. Patterson
(Eds.), Lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities and youth (pp.
199–223). New York: Oxford University Press.
Russell, S., Franz, B., & Driscoll, A. (2001). Same-sex romantic
attraction and experiences of violence in adolescence.
American Journal of Public Health, 91, 903–906.
Savin-Williams, R. C. (1994). Verbal and physical abuse as
stressors in the lives of lesbian, gay male, and bisexual youths:
Associations with school problems, running away, substance
abuse, prostitution, and suicide. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 62, 261–269.
Smetana, J. G. (2006). Social domain theory and social justice.
In M. Killen & J. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook for moral

development (pp. 117–153). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Stein, N. (1995). Sexual harassment in school: The public
performance of gendered violence. Harvard Educational
Review, 65, 145–162.
Szalacha, L. (2005). Safer sexual diversity climates: Lessons
learned from an evaluation of Massachusetts Safe Schools
Program for gay and lesbian students. American Journal of
Education, 110, 58–88.
Turiel, E. (1983). The development of social knowledge:
Morality and convention. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Turiel, E. (1998). The development of morality. In W. Damon
(Series Ed.), & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child
psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality
development (5th ed., pp. 863–932). New York: Wiley.
Turiel, E., Hildebrant, C., & Wainryb, C. (1991). Judging social
issues: Difficulties, inconsistencies, and consistencies.
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development,
56 (Serial No. 224).
Van de Ven, P. (1994). Comparisons among homophobic
reactions of undergraduates, high school students, and young
offenders. The Journal of Sex Research, 31, 117–124.
Van de Ven, P., Bornholt, L., & Bailey, M. (1996). Measuring
cognitive, affective and behavioral components of homo-
phobic reaction. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 25, 155–179.
Wainryb, C., Shaw, L., Laupa, M., & Smith, K. R. (2001).
Children’s, adolescents’, and young adults’ thinking about

different types of disagreements. Developmental Psychology,
37, 373–386.
Wainryb, C., Shaw, L., & Maianu, C. (1998). Tolerance and
intolerance: Children’s and adolescents’ judgments of
dissenting beliefs, speech, persons, and conduct. Child
Development, 69, 1541–1555.
Whitley, B. (1990). The relationship of heterosexuals’
attributions for the causes of homosexuality to attitudes toward
lesbians and gay men. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 16, 369–377.
Winer, B. J. (1971). Statistical principles in experimental
design. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Winer, B. J., Brown, D. R., & Michels, K. M. (1991). Statistical
principles in empirical design. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Heterosexual adolescents' and young adults' beliefs and
attitudes about homosexuality and gay and lesbian peersSocial
cognitive domain theoryThe current studyMethodParticipants
and proceduresDesignMeasuresSocial interaction
measuresBeliefs measuresResultsData analysis planAttitudes
regarding interacting with lesbian and gay peersComfort
interacting with gay and lesbian peers in schoolJudgments
regarding the treatment of othersJustifications regarding the
treatment of othersBeliefs about homosexualityAcceptability
judgmentsAcceptability justificationsOriginsDiscussionAge-
related differences in adolescents' sexual prejudiceEvaluations
of interactions with and tolerance for gay and lesbian
peersBeliefs about homosexualitySummaryGender-related
differences in sexual prejudiceReligious and ethnic differences
in sexual prejudiceConclusionAcknowledgementsReferences
Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 6:80–97, 2010

Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1550-428X print / 1550-4298 online
DOI: 10.1080/15504280903472857
Family Members’ Support for GLBT Issues:
The Role of Family Adaptability and Cohesion
TERESA REEVES and SHARON G. HORNE
The University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee, United States
SHARON SCALES ROSTOSKY and ELLEN D. B. RIGGLE
University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, United States
LINDA R. BAGGETT and REBECCA A. AYCOCK
The University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee, United States
Families high in cohesion and adaptability are often able to
func-
tion better than families low in cohesion and adaptability. This
study hypothesized that heterosexual family members who
report
their family adaptability and/or cohesion to be high rather than
low
would have more contact with their GLBT family member,
report
more GLBT friends, family members, and GLBT acquaintances,
as
well as have more favorable attitudes toward and greater
knowledge
of GLBT issues. This study explored family environment
(adaptabil-
ity and cohesion as assessed by FACES III) of 136 family
members
of GLBT individuals and knowledge and attitudes (assessed by
the
Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Knowledge and Attitudes Scale for

Het-
erosexuals; GLB-KASH). Participants reporting high
adaptability in
their families reported having more contact with the GLBT
family
member and more GLBT acquaintances than participants
reporting
low adaptability in their families. Participants from more
cohesive
families reported more GLBT friends and family members, more
knowledge about GLBT issues, and more internalized
affirmative-
ness than participants reporting unbalanced cohesion.
Participants
from families high in both cohesion and adaptability reported
more
contact with GLBT family members, more GLBT friends and
fam-
ily members, more GLBT acquaintances, more knowledge about
GLBT issues, and more internalized affirmativeness than
partici-
pants reporting either unbalanced cohesion or adaptability in
their
families. Implications for counseling are discussed.
Address correspondence to Teresa Reeves, University of
Memphis, Memphis, 325 Watkins
St., Memphis, TN 38104. E-mail: [email protected]
80
Family Environment and Support for GLBT Issues 81
KEYWORDS gay, lesbian, bisexual, family, adaptability,
cohesion

INTRODUCTION
Coming out to family of origin is one of the most challenging
developmental
tasks for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT)
individuals (Savin-
Williams, 2001; Willoughby, Malik, & Lindahl, 2006).
However, despite the
challenge of self-disclosing to family members, many GLBT
individuals ap-
pear to be out to their families of origin about their GLBT
identities (Schope,
2002). Once self-disclosure has occurred, the family members
of a GLBT
individual often have a range of initial responses, including
feelings of loss
and disappointment (Robinson, Walters, & Skeen, 1989),
anxiety about being
excluded from the GLBT person’s life (Savin-Williams & Dubé,
1998) as well
as guilt, anger, and sadness (Herdt & Koff, 2000). Family
members of GLBT
individuals then appear to go through their own process of
identifying as
family members of a GLBT person (LaSala, 1998; Mohr &
Fassinger, 2003).
This process varies depending on the family member’s desire
and ability to
integrate their family member’s sexual or gender identity;
common reactions
include rejection, denial, tacit acknowledgement, tolerance, and
complete
acceptance of the GLBT family member (LaSala, 1998).
Family systems that are connected and flexible, or adaptable,

prior to
disclosure appear to be less negative toward their GLBT family
members
than families reported to be disconnected, rigid, or authoritarian
in their
relationships with one another (Willoughby et al., 2006).
Therefore, a family
climate that is connected and flexible may be best prepared for
the onset
of stressors and may protect against the impact of challenging
events on
a family system. Such a family climate may also enable family
members
to better integrate their GLBT family member once the family
system has
responded to the initial disclosure of GLBT identity. These
flexible family
environments may allow members to take risks to understand
and appreciate
GLBT issues once they learn they have a GLBT family member.
The current
study explores how family environment (cohesion and
adaptability) may
be associated with connection to GLBT issues, including GLBT-
affirmative
attitudes and interaction with GLBT community among family
members of
GLBT individuals.
Family systems that are cohesive and adaptable in their
relationship
dynamics tend to be more functional compared to families that
report a
lack of cohesion or adaptability (Olson, 2000). The Circumplex
Model of
marital and family systems was developed to explain how

families function
in a healthy or dysfunctional manner; it includes two major
components of
family functioning: family cohesion and family adaptability
(Olson & Gorall,
2003). Family cohesion is the degree to which family members
experience
an emotional bond with one another. This dimension includes
how well
82 T. Reeves et al.
families maintain boundaries and form coalitions, engage in
decision making,
and share interests, as well as use time and space for family
connection
(Olson, 1996, 2000; Olson & Gorall, 2003). Conceptually, this
aspect of the
Circumplex Model captures how families balance their
separateness and
their togetherness. In contrast, family adaptability refers to the
amount of
flexibility in family leadership and the degree to which family
roles fluctuate
and alter to meet family needs and changing family
circumstances. This
dimension reflects contemporary family systems theories that
emphasize the
importance of family change with respect to rules and
leadership (Carter &
McGoldrick, 1988; Olson & Gorall, 2003). Conceptually, family
adaptability
captures how families balance stability versus change.

According to Olson (1996), balanced family systems function in
the cen-
ter of the poles of these two dimensions. For example, a family
considered
balanced in cohesion would effectively maneuver between
spending time
together as a family and engaging in separate activities as
individuals or in
subsystems of the family. On the other hand, a family
considered balanced
in adaptability would respond to change with flexibility while
maintaining
family equilibrium. When family cohesion is unbalanced, or at
the extremes,
the family is either disconnected or enmeshed. In terms of
adaptability, an
unbalanced family would either be too rigid or too flexible in
its rules and
functioning when confronted with systemic changes. Combining
the two di-
mensions, a balanced family would be both separated and
connected (i.e.,
cohesive) as well as structured and flexible (i.e., adaptable).
Families with balanced types have been found to generally
function
more effectively, particularly during times of stress, than
unbalanced types
(Cumsille & Epstein, 1994; Friedman, Nelson, Smith, &
Dworkin, 1988;
Kouneski, 2001; Olson, 1996, 2000). The curvilinear model of
family co-
hesion and adaptability (i.e., balanced cohesion and adaptability
are found
in the center between disconnected and enmeshed and rigid and
too flex-

ible, respectively), however, has been re-examined; increasingly
empirical
research has found a linear relationship existing between
cohesion and
adaptability with positive family functioning (Anderson &
Gavazzi, 1990;
Cumsille & Epstein, 1994; Green, Harris, Forte, & Robinson,
1991). In particu-
lar within the GLBT family literature (Willoughby et al., 2006;
Zacks, Green, &
Morrow, 1988), cohesion and adaptability have been found to
have a positive
relationship to healthy family functioning. Family stress theory
has usually
been offered as an explanation for the role of cohesion and
adaptability
in healthy family functioning (McKenry & Price, 2000).
Families that have
relational resources available prior to experiencing a stressor
may be able
to effectively respond, thus lessening the negative impact of the
stressor.
Therefore, the degree of intra-family strain during stressful
periods can be
associated with the level of adaptability and cohesion exhibited
(Lavee &
Olson, 1991). More cohesive families may experience less
disruption due to
stressors and more adaptable families may be better able to
recover from
stressors (McCubbin & Patterson, 1983). Therefore, cohesion

and adaptabil-
ity may be considered protective factors when families
experience stressful
events (McKenry & Price, 2000).
Disclosure of GLBT identity by a family member within a
family system
is generally experienced as a major stressor within the family
unit (Ben-Ari,
1995; LaSala, 1998; Mohr & Fassinger, 2003). Reactions range
from overt
hostility toward the GLBT individual, to avoidance or
disengagement of
family members, to active support of the GLBT family member
(LaSala, 1998;
Muller, 1987). Family dynamics may change after disclosure
(Savin-Williams,
2001) and family responses typically improve with time after
the disclosure
(Savin-Williams & Dubé, 1998). However, most heterosexual
family members
must adapt to having a GLBT family member, and this
developmental process
often involves self-examination of attitudes toward
homosexuality and their
own coming-out process in identifying as a family member with
a GLBT
relative (Gallor, 2006; Worthington, Dillon, & Becker-Schutte,
2005).
In a study of 72 gay men who came out to their parents, it was
found
that high family cohesion and adaptability prior to coming out
was related
to more positive reactions from parents when compared with
gay men who

reported having families with low cohesion and adaptability
(Willoughby
et al., 2006). The authors concluded that families with systems
that are high in
cohesion and adaptability may prioritize the family system over
social norms
and reject social attitudes that are negative toward
homosexuality when
integrating the knowledge of having a GLBT family member.
Therefore, we
expect more cohesive and adaptable family systems to exhibit
more favorable
attitudes toward homosexuality, to be more knowledgeable of
GLBT issues,
and to be more connected to GLBT community than family
members with
less cohesive and adaptable families.
Research exploring the relationship of cohesion and adaptability
beyond
initial self-disclosure within GLBT individuals’ families of
origin is limited.
Gallor (2006) found that positive attitudes toward
homosexuality were as-
sociated with better parent-child relationship functioning among
parents of
GLBT individuals. These parents were all attending PFLAG
(Parents and
Friends of Lesbians and Gays), a support and advocacy group
for family and
friends of GLBT individuals, and reported that their
involvement with this
organization increased their positive attitudes. If highly
cohesive and adapt-
able families are more likely to disallow negative social
stigmatization of gays

and lesbians to impact their family systems than families low in
cohesion and
adaptability, then it is likely that this rejection of social
stigmatization would
be evident in a range of attitudes toward homosexuality.
Research on attitudes toward homosexuality has advanced
beyond initial
assessments that explored a continuum from condemnation to
tolerance, pri-
marily focused on gay and lesbian individuals and their access
to civil rights
(Herek, 1984; Worthington, Savoy, Dillon, & Vernaglia, 2002).
For example,
new conceptualizations describe affirmativeness of GLBT
individuals to not
84 T. Reeves et al.
merely represent an absence of heterosexism, but to include
knowledge of
GLBT community history and symbols, full endorsement of the
civil rights of
GLBT individuals, as well as acknowledgement of heterosexual
privilege that
goes beyond tolerance (Worthington, Dillon, & Becker-Schutte,
2005). These
affirmative attitudes include a lack of religious conflict with
GLBT identities
and an internal sense of acceptance that recognizes one’s own
heterosex-
ual privilege. Cohesive and adaptable families would be
expected to have
moved beyond superficial support for GLBT issues to active

affirmativeness
of GLBT individuals and their rights, and to be more
knowledgeable of GLBT
history and symbols.
As well, family members from cohesive and adaptable family
systems
may be more likely to engage with the GLBT community in
comparison to
less cohesive and adaptable family systems. For example,
families that are
better able to change their family system to adapt to changing
situations may
be more likely to increase their support system with other GLBT
friends and
family members than less flexible families. Similarly, family
members from
connected families may be more likely to reach out and create
emotional
bonds with GLBT acquaintances. This connection may extend to
their own
GLBT family member, as well, with greater family contact with
the GLBT
family member exhibited by family members from cohesive and
adaptable
family systems.
Existing research on family systems has considered cohesion
and adapt-
ability either jointly or as separate variables. While some
researchers indicate
that cohesion and adaptability work together (Olson, 2000),
other research
has identified that cohesion and adaptability may affect various
areas of life
to different extents (Cumsille & Epstein, 1994; Vandeleur,

Perrez, & Schoebi,
2007). For example, Cumsille and Epstein (1994) found an
inverse significant
relationship between adolescent depression and family
cohesion, but no sig-
nificant relationship for family adaptability and depression.
Vandeleur and
colleagues (2007) found greater self-esteem and greater
perspective taking of
mothers was related to higher adaptability but not cohesion. For
daughters
both cohesion and adaptability were related to perspective
taking and adapt-
ability alone was related to emotional state. For sons,
adaptability was related
to perspective taking and cohesion was related to self-esteem.
Because co-
hesion and adaptability may differ in their relationships to
GLBT attitudes
and connection, we explored each dimension to determine how
it might
associate with attitudes toward GLBT issues and connection to
GLBT com-
munity for family members of GLBT individuals. We also
explored whether
family members who reported having families high in both
adaptability and
cohesion with these factors were more likely to be more
connected and
affirmative.
Research has found that stress for GLBT individuals can be
buffered by
social support and personal resilience (Diaz, Ayala, & Bein,
2004; Diplacido,
1998; Meyer, 2003), but few studies have considered the

experience of family
members of GLBT individuals beyond self-disclosure and
coming-out pro-
cesses (D’Augelli, 2005). Willoughby and his colleagues (2006)
speculated
that families with high cohesion and adaptability may value the
family’s
needs over the societal message of homonegativity. Therefore,
we explored
whether family members who are high in either cohesion or
adaptability,
or both cohesion and adaptability, would report more GLBT-
affirmative atti-
tudes, greater knowledge, and more connection to GLBT
community.
Hypothesis
Family members who report belonging to families high in
adaptability or
cohesion, or high in both, will have more contact with their
GLBT family
member, report more GLBT friends and family members, report
more GLBT
acquaintances, and have more favorable attitudes toward GLBT
issues than
family members reporting families that are less adaptable or
less cohesive.
METHOD

Participants
One hundred thirty-six family members of GLBT individuals
participated
in this study. Seventy-six percent were women and 23% were
men. The
average age was 47, ranging from 19 to 76 years old. Family
members
reported knowing their GLBT family member’s sexual
orientation on average
for 14 years. Ninety-three percent of the participants identified
as European-
American, 2% as Hispanic/Latino/Chicano, 2% as
Biracial/Multiracial, and
less than 1% as African American. Seventy-eight percent had an
undergrad-
uate or graduate degree. Fifty-eight percent reported full-time
employment,
11% were employed part-time, and 13% were retired. The
median annual
personal income was $40,000 and median annual household
income was
$80,000. Sixty-one percent of the sample reported being
married, 15% were
living with their other-sex partner, 11% were single, and 10%
were divorced.
Forty-eight percent of our participants were parents, 29% were
siblings, 7%
were aunts or uncles, 4.4% were children, 8.1% were extended
family, 2.9%
were spouses or partners, and 2.9% were nieces or nephews.
Participants
reported that of their GLBT family members, 51.5% identified
as lesbian,
38.2% identified as gay, 4.4% identified as bisexual women,
2.9% identified

as bisexual men, .7% identified as transgender, and 2.2% chose
“other” as
the GLBT individual’s identity.
Measures
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Participants were asked relevant demographic information,
including age,
gender, education, ethnicity, relationship status, income,
relationship to the
86 T. Reeves et al.
GLBT family member, years known of GLBT family member’s
sexual and
gender identity, and sexual and gender identity of the GLBT
family member.
FAMILY ADAPTABILITY AND COHESION EVALUATION
SCALES (FACES)
FACES III (Olson, Portner, & Lavee, 1985) is a 20-item self-
report inventory
that assesses family functioning, which is defined by the degree
of reported
adaptability and cohesion. The 10-item adaptability subscale
includes disci-
pline, leadership, roles, and rules. The cohesion subscale
includes emotional
bonding, family boundaries, interests and recreation, as well as
supportive-
ness. Participants’ responses are based on a 5-point Likert-type

Adolescents' and Young Adults' Beliefs About Homosexuality

Adolescents' and Young Adults' Beliefs About Homosexuality

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Ähnlich wie Adolescents' and Young Adults' Beliefs About Homosexuality

Ähnlich wie Adolescents' and Young Adults' Beliefs About Homosexuality (20)

Mehr von mary772

Mehr von mary772 (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Adolescents' and Young Adults' Beliefs About Homosexuality