Psychology of Men & Masculinity Copyright 2008 by the American Psychological Association

2008, Vol. 9, No. 3, 154 –166 1524-9220/08/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/1524-9220.9.3.154

Heterosexual Men’s Attitudes Toward Gay Men: A Hierarchical

Model Including Masculinity, Openness, and Theoretical Explanations
Joseph M. Barron, Cindy Struckman-Johnson, Randal Quevillon, and Sarah R. Banka
The University of South Dakota

The present investigation aimed to shed light on how masculinity and other variables
could be combined to predict prejudice against gay men. Therefore, the study tested a
hierarchical model including correlates of antigay attitudes and two theoretical expla-
nations for these beliefs: The Functional Approach and the Self-Discrepancy Theory.
Responses from 243 heterosexual men revealed that prejudice toward gay men signif-
icantly correlated with interpersonal contact, openness to experience, hypermasculinity,
sexism, defensive and experiential attitude functions, religiosity, and political leanings.
These variables accounted for 53% of variance in attitudes toward gay men. The
findings suggest that openness, the defensive attitude function, religiosity, and political
beliefs are influential in understanding prejudice against gay men.
Keywords: masculinity, homosexuality, prejudice, Big Five personality, gender

Masculinity tends to be at the heart of con-
ceptualizations of male sexuality and gender
presentation (Adams & Coltrane, 2005; Renold,
2007). What is and is not acceptable behavior
for a male seems to be communicated from a
very early age. Parents have clear preferences as
to which types of toys are viewed as most
appropriate given the gender of their child
(Bridges, 1993; Coltrane & Adams, 1997).
Masculinity tends to be associated with posi-
tive, assertive characteristics, while femininity
tends to be associated with negative, passive
characteristics (Condry & Condry, 1976; Eisen-
berg, Wolchik, Hernandez, & Pasternack, 1985;
Fagot & Hagan, 1991). Instead of viewing gen-
der traits on a continuum, children are taught to
dichotomize behaviors and characteristics into
categories appropriate for boys or girls. As boys
grow, proper adherence to gender role norms
become central to aspects of fitting in, maintain-
ing group cohesion, and shaping an emerging
sense of identity (Erikson, 1963; Mahalik et al.,
2003; Plummer, 2001). In these formative years,
social pressures in America seem to prescribe only
Joseph M. Barron, Cindy Struckman-Johnson, Randal
Quevillon, and Sarah R. Banka, Department of Psychol-
ogy, The University of South Dakota.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed
to Joseph M. Barron. Department of Psychology, The Uni-
versity of South Dakota, South Dakota Union Bldg. 105,
414 E. Clark Street, Vermillion, SD 57069-2390. E-mail:
Joseph.Barron@usd.edu
154
one sexuality that can be consistent with mascu-
linity: heterosexual romantic preferences.
In his theoretical review of American mascu-
linity, Kimmel (1997) argued that men fear being
seen as insufficiently masculine and tend to disas-
sociate themselves with the nonmasculine. One
way to avoid being thought of as insufficiently
masculine would be to harbor and communicate
antigay attitudes. Therefore, homosexuality be-
comes a matter of ridicule and a symbol of “what
not to be” as a male (Herek, 1992a; Pleck, 1981).
Given this cultural system, a situation may arise in
which one must harbor negative attitudes toward
male homosexuality in order to conform to dom-
inant conceptualizations of masculinity (Herek,
1992b). These hegemonic forms of masculinity
have been linked to less effective interpersonal
functioning (Blazina, Eddins, Burridge, & Settle,
2007; Levant et al., 2003), prejudice (Herek, 1986,
1991, 1992a), discrimination (Röndahl, Innala, &
Carlsson, 2004; Wade & Brittan-Powell, 2001),
and violence (Herek, Gillis, & Cogan, 1999; Jak-
upcak, Lisak, & Roemer, 2002). Thus, notions of
masculinity are closely tied to prejudice toward
homosexuality, which begs for further under-
standing of beliefs about gender, personality, and
antigay sentiments.
Correlates of Prejudice
Against Homosexuality
Gender has been found to be one of the most
salient predictors of prejudice against gay men
 HETEROSEXUAL ATTITUDES
in recent literature. Kite and Whitley’s (1996)
meta-analysis of 112 studies showed that het-
erosexual men harbor more negative attitudes
toward homosexuality than heterosexual
women. In other large sample studies, hetero-
sexual men were more likely than women to
oppose the civil rights of a gay person, have
negative feelings toward homosexuals in gen-
eral, and view gay men as defective and pred-
atory (Herek 2000a; Herek & Capitiano, 1999).
While both heterosexual men and women have
tended to harbor negative views toward homo-
sexuals of their same sex, research has shown
that heterosexuals have more prejudicial atti-
tudes toward gay men than lesbians (Herek,
2000a, 2002).
Interpersonal contact with gay men and les-
bians has been repeatedly shown to be nega-
tively related to prejudice against gay men. Re-
search has demonstrated that heterosexuals who
had some meaningful (and positive) interaction
with a gay man or lesbian were less likely to
have prejudicial attitudes toward homosexuals
(Herek & Capitiano, 1996). In a study of 937
heterosexuals, Herek and Glunt (1993) found
that interpersonal contact with gay men was
negatively correlated with prejudice against gay
men, even when demographic variables such as
age, gender, and race were controlled.
In addition, several studies have linked prej-
udice against gay men with sexism. Davies
(2004) found that overtly sexist attitudes, dis-
approval of feminism, and adherence to tradi-
tional views regarding male sexuality were pos-
itively related to negative attitudes toward gay
men. Similarly, beliefs that males should al-
ways behave in a “tough” and sexualized man-
ner were positively associated with prejudicial
attitudes. Such exaggerated beliefs regarding
how a “real man” is supposed to behave have
been conceptualized as “hypermasculinity”
(Burk, Burkhart, & Sikorski, 2004; Mosher &
Sirkin, 1984). Many heterosexual men tend to
view gay men as having cross-gender attributes
and mannerisms (Herek, 2004). Therefore, the-
orists have argued that harboring negative
views toward gay men may be related to under-
lying sexism (Connell, 1995; Kimmel, 1997). If
women are viewed as inferior and weaker than
men, it would follow that men “acting like
women” would be the ultimate targets for ridi-
cule (Herek, 1992a, 1992b).
155
Faith and politics also have been implicated
in predicting attitudes toward homosexuality. In
general, higher levels of religious commitment
tend to be positively related to prejudice against
gay men, although certain types of beliefs seem
to be more salient than others (Herek, 1987a,
Herek, 1994, Herek, 2000b; Kunkel & Temple,
1992). Harboring fundamentalist religious be-
liefs tends to be a more robust predictor of
prejudice against homosexuality than general
religiosity (Herek, 1987a; Laythe, Finkel, Brin-
gle, & Kirkpatrick, 2002). Similarly, a number
of studies have linked political leanings with
negative attitudes toward homosexuality. Herek
and Glunt (1993) found that self-reported polit-
ical “conservatives” were more likely to have
negative attitudes toward gay males than non-
conservatives. Identifying oneself as a republi-
can has also been positively correlated with
prejudicial attitudes toward gay men (Yang,
1998).
Openness to Experience and Prejudice
Toward Gay Men/Lesbians
The construct of openness to experience has
been theorized as one of the “Big Five” dimen-
sions of personality that are displayed in all
individuals (Digman, 1990). According to
McCrae (1996), openness includes “vivid fan-
tasy, artistic sensitivity, depth of feeling, behav-
ioral flexibility, intellectual curiosity, and un-
conventional attitudes” (p. 326). Therefore,
openness refers to a broad class of characteris-
tics related to an individual’s needs to question
the status quo, value a large variety of perspec-
tives, and tolerate ambiguity (Flynn, 2005).
Theorists have suggested that homosexuality
could be distressing to psychologically closed
individuals because gay men and lesbians may
be perceived as blurring the distinctions be-
tween the sexes (Herek, 2002; Kimmel, 1997).
Individuals scoring low in openness have been
found to have difficulty understanding others’
viewpoints, show a greater need for conformity,
and were more likely to harbor prejudicial be-
liefs in general (Akrami & Ekehammar, 2006;
Flynn, 2005; Gurtman, 1995).
While a body of literature has examined per-
sonality links with prejudice (see Duriez &
Soenens, 2006; Ekehammar, Akrami, Gylje, &
Zakrisson, 2004), little research has explicitly
linked openness to experience with prejudice
156 BARRON ET AL.
against gay men. In a study of 123 men and
women, Cullen, Wright, and Alessandri (2002)
investigated several correlates of prejudice
against gay men and personality variables. The
authors found that the most robust predictors of
prejudice against gay men were meaningful in-
terpersonal contact, gender (male), and open-
ness, respectively. As such, openness seems to
be a potentially influential component of preju-
dicial views toward gay men and is in need of
additional study.
Theoretical Explanations: Predicting
Rationales for Prejudice Against Gay Men
While several correlates of prejudice against
homosexuality have been identified, less is
known about why individuals harbor these be-
liefs. To address this deficit, two theoretical
explanations were examined as part of this in-
vestigation. Herek’s (1987b, 1992b) Functional
Approach to attitudes toward homosexuality
and Theodore and Basow’s (2000) Self-
Discrepancy Theory.
Herek (1987b) hypothesized that individuals
rely on four primary functions in their appraisal
of homosexuality: an Experiential Function, a
Social Expressive Function, a Value Expression
Function, and a Defensive Function. These
functions were thought to assist heterosexuals
in making sense of social norms and forming
opinions regarding homosexuality. The Experi-
ential Function served to help individuals un-
derstand previous or imagined interactions with
gay persons (Herek, 1992b). The Social Expres-
sive function was thought to serve individuals
by providing an opportunity to communicate
views consistent with his or her peer group. The
Value Expressive component served to display
what kind of person one was or was not. Finally,
the Defensive Function served to distance un-
wanted stimuli that could elicit fear or discom-
fort with sexuality, such as gender or sexuality
norms or even latent homosexual desires.
More recently, Theodore and Basow (2000)
posited that men who feel they fall short of the
expectations of male peers might utilize nega-
tive attitudes about gay men to boost their sense
of masculinity. According to this theory, the
“discrepancy” between appraisal of oneself and
perceived gender expectations influences men
to distance themselves from anything that could
be considered feminine. In short, heterosexual
men’s feelings of inadequacy may inspire
greater prejudice against gay men in order to
present an image that better conforms to notions
of heterosexual masculinity (Herek, 1992a).
Therefore, Self-Discrepancy Theory suggests
that men who feel they ought to be more mas-
culine will have negative views toward homo-
sexuality. Theodore and Basow (2000) found
that men who highly valued masculine traits but
did not believe they adequately possessed these
attributes were more likely to obtain higher scores
on a measure of prejudice against gay men.
Aims of the Current Investigation
Despite their intuitive appeal, little research
has been conducted examining the Functional
Approach or Self-Discrepancy theory as they
relate to antigay prejudice. The purpose of the
present study was to examine the degree to
which these two concepts, along with the vari-
ables reflecting interpersonal contact, sexism,
hypermasculinity, religiosity, political leanings,
and openness to experience were related to a
measure of antigay prejudice. Because of
research findings suggesting (a) gay men are
regarded more negatively than lesbians, (b) het-
erosexual men are more likely to exhibit preju-
dice against gay men than heterosexual women,
and (c) traditional views about gender and mas-
culinity are integral to the explanation of differ-
ences in levels of prejudice against gay men, the
current study focused on heterosexual men’s
attitudes toward gay men.
To extend the current literature, we planned
to use hierarchical regression analysis to deter-
mine which of these variables would have the
strongest predictive relationship with antigay
attitudes. This is the first study, to our knowl-
edge, to examine the predictive power of this
combination of antigay correlates. We hypoth-
esized that contact with gays would be the
strongest predictor based upon the many previ-
ous works that have found that men with posi-
tive contact with gays tend to be less prejudiced
(e.g., Herek & Capitiano, 1996). We expected
the second strongest predictor would be open-
ness to experience in that heterosexual men with
high openness would be more tolerant of men
with a different sexual orientation (Cullen et al.,
2002).
Finally, we thought that hypermasculinity
would be a strong predictor because of our
 HETEROSEXUAL ATTITUDES
interest in the notion that exaggerated mascu-
linity might show itself in antigay attitudes
(Kimmel, 1997; Mahalik et al., 2003; Pleck,
1981). Similarly, sexist attitudes are often found
in common with hegemonic forms of masculin-
ity (Connell, 1995; Davies, 2004) and we ex-
pected this variable to be significant predictor
comparable to hypermasculinity. We made no
specific predictions about measures of func-
tional attitudes or self-discrepancy, as there is
little research on these concepts. Religiosity and
political leanings were entered last as these have
been found to be less robust predictors of neg-
ative attitudes toward gay men (Herek, 2000b).
Method
Participants
Male participants were recruited from multi-
disciplinary courses at a small Midwestern uni-
versity and offered course extra credit as com-
pensation for their participation. Approximately
half of respondents were recruited from psy-
chology courses, while other participants were
recruited from large, introductory biology
courses. Surveys were completed by 267 stu-
dents; of these, 243 surveys were determined to
be usable for analysis. Respondents indicating
they were female or nonheterosexual (women,
n ⫽ 2; nonheterosexual, n ⫽ 3) were dropped
from further analysis. Several participants (n ⫽
19) neglected to provide a large number of
responses (i.e., 10% or more of items were
missing) and were also dropped from further
analysis. The mean reported age of the sample
was 22 (SD ⫽ 6.34), ranging from 18 to 69
years. Ninety-two percent of the sample were
Caucasian (non-Hispanic), 2% Black, 2%
Asian/Pacific Islander, 1% Hispanic, 1% Native
American, and 2% reported being “Other.” This
racial breakdown is consistent with the demo-
graphics of the university’s enrollment. Regard-
ing college education background, 34% were
freshman, 25% were sophomores, 17% were
juniors, 16% were seniors, and 8% were grad-
uate students.
Measures
Prejudicial views toward gay men. Preju-
dice against gay men was assessed using
Herek’s (1984, 1997) Attitudes Toward Gay
157
Men (ATG) scale. The measure consists of 10
statements to which a respondent is asked to
specify his level of agreement on a seven-point,
Likert-type scale where 1 ⫽ strongly disagree
and 7 ⫽ strongly agree. Responses were
summed to create a total score for prejudice
toward gay men, with lower scores indicating
less prejudicial attitudes and higher scores indi-
cating more prejudicial attitudes. The ATG has
been used as one of the standard measures of
prejudice against gay men in the literature
(Herek 1984, 1997). Internal consistency reli-
ability has been found to be between .89 and .91
(Herek, 1994), and Cronbach’s alpha for the
ATG in this investigation was .94.
Interpersonal contact. To determine
whether or not prior meaningful contact with a
gay person has occurred, participants were
asked to respond to the question, “How much
meaningful contact have you had with gay men
or lesbians?” Participants rated their level of
contact on a seven-point scale. Each anchor
point was given a behavioral description. In
accordance with recommendations by Herek
and Glunt (1993), the choices were worded in
such a way as to minimize the possibility that
responses could be influenced by situations in
which a participant might have guessed an in-
dividual was gay or lesbian without being ex-
plicitly informed. Choices for the measure
were: 1 ⫽ “I have never had any contact with
gay men or lesbians,” 2 ⫽ “I have been in the
same room with someone I knew was openly gay
or lesbian, but otherwise have had no contact
with gay people,” 3 ⫽ “I have met a gay or
lesbian person, but we did not really have a
meaningful conversation,” 4 ⫽ “I have an ac-
quaintance who disclosed to me that he or she is
gay or lesbian, but we’re not really close,” 5 ⫽
“I have a relative who is gay or lesbian, but I
hardly ever see him/her,” 6 ⫽ “I have a friend
who is gay or lesbian; we talk or see each other
every once in a while,” 7 ⫽ “I have a close
friend or immediate family member who is gay
or lesbian; we spend a good deal of time
together.”
Openness to experience. To assess the per-
sonality characteristic Openness to Experience,
the Openness scale from the Revised NEO Per-
sonality Inventory was utilized (NEO PI-R; Mc-
Crae & Costa, 1992). Items loading on the
Openness to Experience scale from the self-
report form (Form S) of the NEO PI-R were
158 BARRON ET AL.
included in the online survey. No other scales of
the NEO PI-R were administered in this study.
Items are phrased as self-statements to which
participants rate their degree of agreement or
disagreement on a five-point, Likert-type scale,
where 1 ⫽ strongly disagree and 5 ⫽ strongly
agree. Summed item scores were used to com-
pute a total score for the measure. Internal con-
sistency for the Openness scale has been found
to be .87 (McCrae & Costa, 1992), and Cron-
bach’s alpha for this investigation was .91.
Hypermasculinity. Men’s exaggerated
sense of conformity to heterosexual masculine
gender role norms and behaviors, also known as
“hypermasculinity,” was measured using the
Auburn Differential Masculinity Inventory
(ADMI-60; Burk et al., 2004). The ADMI-60
consists of 60 items rated on a five-point Likert-
type scale with anchors ranging from 1 ⫽ not at
all like me to 6 ⫽ very much like me. Burk et al.
(2004) found overall reliability for the
ADMI-60 was .85. The authors also reported
that the ADMI-60 was significantly correlated
with Mosher and Sirkin’s (1984) Hypermascu-
linity Inventory (HMI) at r ⫽ .70 ( p ⱕ .01). All
item scores were summed to calculate a contin-
uous total score for analyses. In the current
study, Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was .93.
Sexism. Negative attitudes toward women
and femininity (sexism) were measured using
Glick and Fiske’s (1996) Ambivalent Sexism
Inventory (ASI). The ASI consists of 22 items
that are rated on a six-point Likert-type scale,
where 0 ⫽ strongly Disagree and 5 ⫽ strongly
agree. The ASI is divided into two main scales,
Benevolent Sexism and Hostile Sexism. Glick
and Fiske (1996) performed six separate studies
during the construction of the ASI to provide
data on reliability and validity. The authors re-
ported reliability coefficients ranging from .85
to .73 (average ⫽ .78) for the Benevolent Sex-
ism scale and .92 to .80 (average⫽ .87) for the
Hostile Sexism scale. To demonstrate validity,
the authors found significant relationships be-
tween the ASI, Spence and Helmreich’s (1972)
Attitudes Toward Women scale, Swim, Aikin,
Hall, and Hunter’s (1995) Modern Sexism and
Old Fashioned Sexism scales, and Burt’s (1980)
Rape Myth Acceptance scale (Glick & Fiske,
1997). Scale scores were summed for the cur-
rent study to calculate a total score for sexist
attitudes. The Cronbach’s alpha for the total
ASI was .83 in this investigation.
Self-discrepancy theory. Self-discrepancy
was assessed using a modified version of Theo-
dore and Basow’s (2000) Ought-Self Question-
naire (OSQ). The OSQ asks respondents to rate
themselves on their level of perceived concor-
dance or discordance with peer expectations on
a nine-point Likert-type scale. With permission
from the authors, instructions on the OSQ were
modified for increased clarity. Possible re-
sponses range from “very different from how
my peers expect me to be” to “very much like
my peers expect me to be.” Respondents’ scores
were summed to calculate a total score. The
OSQ is divided into three subscales including
eight “masculine” items (e.g., Strong Under
Pressure), eight “feminine” items (e.g., Aware
of Others’ Feelings) and 10 “masculine-
feminine, bipolar” items (Theodore & Basow,
2000, p. 36). The authors found that the scales
had internal consistency alphas of .75, .79, and
.56, respectively. Due to the low reliability of
the “masculine-feminine, bipolar” scale, items
that loaded on the scale were omitted from the
modified OSQ as used in this study. The final
measure contained 16 items, and had a total
Cronbach’s alpha of .90 for the current investi-
gation. Validity data regarding the OSQ is lim-
ited as Theodore and Basow (2000) created the
measure by combining items from the Self-
Attribute Questionnaire (SAQ; Pelham &
Swann, 1989) and the Personal Attributes Ques-
tionnaire (PAQ; Spence & Helmreich, 1972).
Therefore, no formal validity studies have been
completed regarding the OSQ. However, the
PAQ and SAQ have demonstrated construct
validity through significant associations with
the Gender Role Conflict Scale (O’Neil, Helms,
Gable, David, & Wrightsman, 1986), and stud-
ies of self-appraisal (Ritts & Stein, 1995).
Attitude functions. Herek’s (1987b) Attitude
Function Inventory (AFI) was used to measure
the psychological justifications participants
used for their attitudes toward gay men. The
AFI includes 10 items, which load onto four
functions: the Experiential Function (four
items), the Social-Expressive Function (two
items), the Defensive Function (two items), and
the Value-Expressive functions (two items).
Participants rated statements on a nine-point,
Likert-type scale that ranges from 1 ⫽ not at all
true of me to 9 ⫽ very true of me. Therefore, it
was possible for participants to endorse several
functions that influenced their attitudes. Items
 HETEROSEXUAL ATTITUDES 159

were ordered randomly within the AFI in order
to reduce any potential context effects. Re-
sponses to items loading on each function do-
main were summed, resulting in a continuous
total score for each of the attitude functions.
Herek (1987b) found internal consistency of the
Experiential, Social-Expressive, Defensive
Function, and Value-Expressive functions to be
.81, .75, .80, and .87, respectively. In the current
investigation, the Cronbach’s alpha for these
scales were .63, .71, .85, and .62. Herek (1987b)
also investigated validity and found AFI do-
main scores were significantly correlated with
measures of similar constructs, including the
Defense Mechanisms Inventory (Gleser &
Ihilevich, 1969), Self-Consciousness Scale
(Fenigstein, Scheier, & Buss, 1975), and the
Self-Monitoring Scale (Snyder, 1974).
Religiosity and political beliefs. Religios-
ity was assessed based on participants’ re-
sponses to two items. The first item asked par-
ticipants to indicate how religious they are, in
general. The second item asked participants to
indicate their level of agreement with the state-
ment, “I hold conservative, fundamentalist reli-
gious beliefs.” A total score was calculated for
religiosity by summing each participant’s re-
sponses to the two items. During analysis, the
total score was used as a continuous variable
representing overall religiosity. For political be-
liefs, participants were asked to indicate their
political inclinations on a single item created by
the investigators. This item asked participants to
rate themselves on a seven-point scale, where
1 ⫽ liberal and 7 ⫽ conservative.
Other demographics. Participants were
asked to indicate their age, level of education,
sexual orientation, gender, and racial back-
ground.
Procedure
After institutional review board approval was
secured, an electronic survey was created using
an independent data collection company. As
part of recruitment, participants were asked to
take part in a study of masculinity, personality,
and men’s ideas about sexuality. In collabora-
tion with course instructors, the participants
were offered extra credit for their completion of
an online questionnaire and given the address of
a Web site where they could participate. Once
connected to the website, participants read a
description of the research and provided their
consent to participate. In an effort to ensure data
integrity and proper scoring, the raw data were
duplicated and independently scored by two
raters. Later, the scored results were compared
and determined by the investigators to have
minimal coding error (less than 1% error on 100
randomly selected items). Participants with any
missing data were deleted from analyses, as
were data not meeting statistical assumptions.
An a priori power analysis indicated that at least
138 participants were needed for adequate
power (ⱖ.80) in the planned analyses (Tabach-
nick & Fidell, 2007). Thus, the current sample
size was judged to be sufficient.
Results
To assess whether interpersonal contact,
openness, attitudes toward masculinity, atti-
tudes toward women, level of self-discrepancy,
degree of religiosity, conservative political
views, and/or level of education were signifi-
cantly related to attitudes toward gay men as
measured by the ATG, a simple bivariate cor-
relation matrix was calculated using SPSS
(2001). A summary of descriptive statistics for
the measures is shown in Table 1. Several vari-
ables were found to be significantly associated
with prejudice toward gay men as measured by
the ATG (see Table 2). Responses indicating
greater degrees of Religiosity, conservative Po-
litical Leanings, Sexism, Hypermasculinity, and
endorsing high use of Defensive and Social
Expressive Attitude Functions were significantly
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for Variables in the
Current Study
Measure M SD
Attitudes Toward Gay Men (ATG) 41.49 15.49
Interpersonal Contact 4.04 1.78
Openness to Experience (NEO PI-R) 162.62 19.54
Hypermasculinity (ADMI-60) 153.15 27.94
Sexism (ASI) 83.28 12.61
Self-Discrepancy (OSQ) 69.52 23.29
Experiential Function (AFI) 16.64 6.30
Social Expressive Function (AFI) 8.87 3.97
Defensive Function (AFI) 9.91 4.79
Value Expressive Function (AFI) 11.58 3.42
Religiosity 9.18 3.02
Political Leanings 3.86 1.80
160 BARRON ET AL.

correlated with more prejudicial attitudes to-

Political
leanings
12.

—
ward gay men as measured by the ATG. Higher
levels of openness to experience, interpersonal
Religiosity contact and self-discrepancy were significantly
correlated with less prejudicial attitudes toward

.44**
11.

—
gay men as measured by the ATG. Age, educa-
tion, the value expressive attitude function, and
the experiential attitude function did not signif-
Experiential

function
attitude

⫺.17**
icantly correlate with scores on the ATG.

⫺.16*
10.

—
A hierarchical regression was used to analyze
predictor variables and their relationship to
attitudes toward gay men as measured by the
expressive

function
attitude

.36**
Social

ATG scale (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Cohen,

.13*
⫺.05
—
9.

Cohen, West, and Aiken (2003), recommended

that variables should be included in a hierarchi-
cal model in terms of their empirical support
Value-expressive
attitude function

and relevance to the research questions being

.33**

addressed. Previously studied correlates were

—
8.

.08
.11
.04

given preferential ordering above theoretical

explanations of negative attitudes toward gay
men. As interpersonal contact has been perhaps
Defensive

function
attitude

the most robust predictor of prejudice against

.19**
.42**

.33**
.21**
.14*
—
7.

gay men, this variable was placed at the front of

the line for analysis (Herek, 2000b). Openness
and hypermasculinity were placed next in the
Self-discrepancy

sequence, as they were the main points of in-

⫺.23**

⫺.17**

⫺.16*
⫺.08

.08

⫺.09

terest in the current study. Continuing with cor-

—
6.

relates of antigay prejudice, sexist beliefs was

placed fourth. The theoretical explanations were
added next, giving priority to the self-discrep-
Intercorrelations Between Measures for Heterosexual Men (n ⫽ 243)

Sexism

.34**

.21**

.29**

ancy model because it was the newer construct.

⫺.10

.03

.01

.10
—
5.

As little empirical data were available on the

four domains of attitude function, these do-
Hypermasculinity

mains were entered into the model based on

.40**
⫺.22**
.42**

.22**

their level of correlation with the ATG (greatest

.02

.09
.06
⫺.03
—
4.

to least). Finally, religiosity and political lean-

ings were entered last as they have been de-
scribed as less salient predictors of prejudice
against homosexuality (Herek, 2000b). There-
Openness to
experience

⫺.29**
⫺.28**
.28**
⫺.41**

⫺.18**

⫺.35**
⫺.26**

fore, the final order of predictor variables in the

.04

.07
—
3.

hierarchical regression was as follows: (1) in-

terpersonal contact with gay men or lesbians,
(2) openness to experience, (3) hypermasculin-
Contact with
gay/lesbians

ity, (4) sexist beliefs, (5) self-discrepancy, (6)

.36**
⫺.23**

.30**
⫺.32**

⫺.21**
.31**
⫺.20**
⫺.11

⫺.02

⫺.06
—
2.

defensive attitude function, (7) social expres-

sive attitude function, (8) value expressive atti-
tude function, (9) experiential attitude function,
p ⬍ .01.
Attitudes

gay men

⫺.26**
⫺.48**
.34**
.39**
⫺.19**
.59**

.22**

.50**
.41**
toward

(10) religiosity, and (11) political leanings.

.06

⫺.10
—
1.

Eight variables were found to significantly

account for variance of scores on the ATG (see
**
p ⬍ .05.
Variables

Table 3). Step one of the analysis regressed

Table 2

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.

responses to a measure of meaningful

interpersonal contact on attitudes toward gay
*
 HETEROSEXUAL ATTITUDES 161

Table 3
Summary of a Sequential (Hierarchical) Regression Analysis: Predicting Attitudes Toward Gay Men
(n ⫽ 243)
Variables entered B SE ␤ t Adjusted R2 R2 change F change
Step 1
Contact ⫺2.274 .538 ⫺.263 ⫺4.228 .065 .069 17.880**
Step 2
Openness to experience ⫺.349 .048 ⫺.438 7.241 .230 .167 52.425**
Step 3
Hypermasculinity .115 .033 .202 3.472 .264 .037 12.056**
Step 4
Sexism .297 .074 .239 4.030 .428 .046 16.241**
Step 5
Defensive function 1.347 .188 .419 7.162 .428 .121 51.290**
Step 6
Experiential function ⫺.426 .128 ⫺.174 ⫺3.333 .452 .025 11.109**
Step 7
Religiosity 1.352 .267 .265 5.069 .504 .053 25.693**
Step 8
Political leanings 1.621 .431 .189 3.759 .530 .027 14.127**
**
p ⬍ .01.

men as measured by the ATG. As expected,
contact was found to be a significant predictor
of scores on the ATG. Steps 2, 3, and 4 added
openness to experience, hypermasculinity, and
sexism, respectively, all resulting in significant
contributions to the predictive model. At step 5,
self-discrepancy was dropped from the model as
it did not reach significance. The defensive at-
titude function was found to be significant and
was entered in Step 5. In step 6, the value-
expressive and social expressive attitude func-
tions were eliminated and replaced with the
experiential function, which was found to be a
significant predictor at its entry point in the
sequence. Finally, steps 7 and 8 added religios-
ity (composite score) and political leanings to
the model, which were both found to be signif-
icant predictors at their inclusion point. As a
whole, the predictive model was found to be
significant at F(8, 234) ⫽ 35.112, p ⬍ .001 and
accounted for 53% (f2 ⫽ 1.128) of variance in
scores on the ATG. Cohen (1988) recommend
that effect sizes in excess of f2 ⫽ .02 be con-
sidered “small,” f2 ⫽ .15 be considered “me-
dium,” and f2 ⫽ .35 be considered “large” ef-
fects for behavioral science research, therefore
the current findings are impressive. Individu-
ally, interpersonal contact accounted for 6.9%
(f2 ⫽ .074), openness 16.7% (f2 ⫽ .20), hyper-
masculinity 3.7% (f2 ⫽ .038), sexism 4.6%
(f2 ⫽ .048), the defensive function 12.1% (f2 ⫽
.138), the experiential function 2.5% (f2 ⫽ .025),
religiosity 5.3% (f2 ⫽ .055), and political leanings
accounted for 2.7% (f2 ⫽ .028) of the variance at
their entry points in the model. As such, the indi-
vidual correlates that showed the largest effects
were openness, the defensive function, interper-
sonal contact, and religiosity. Because of concerns
regarding potential multicolinearity between these
variables, diagnostics statistics were computed for
each variable in the model. No difficulties were
found regarding multicolinearity, as Variance In-
flation Factors for the variables were: interper-
sonal contact ⫽ 1.53, openness ⫽ 1.49, hyper-
masculinity ⫽ 1.44, sexism ⫽ 1.33, defensive
function ⫽ 1.77, experiential function ⫽ 1.51,
religiosity ⫽ 1.52, and political lean-
ings ⫽ 1.33.
Discussion
In general, the results show that heterosexual
men who have the strongest prejudicial attitudes
toward gay men tend to share a variety of atti-
tudinal characteristics. Looking at simple corre-
lations (see Table 2), the men in this sample
who endorsed more negative attitudes toward
gay men were more likely to have defensive
reactions when thinking about male homosexu-
ality, reported a higher degree of religiosity
(especially fundamentalist religious beliefs),
tended to be more close-minded, and reported
162 BARRON ET AL.
more conservative political beliefs. In addition,
more prejudicial men had increased sexist
views, had hypermasculine beliefs about gen-
der, reported less contact with gay men and
lesbians, were more conforming to peer atti-
tudes toward gay men, and endorsed less self-
discrepancy. While many of these characteris-
tics were found to be interrelated, interpersonal
contact, openness to experience, hypermascu-
linity, sexism, defensive attitude function, ex-
periential attitude function, religiosity, and po-
litical leanings were found to be significant in
an overall predictive model of prejudice against
gay men (see Table 3).
The results support the notion that prejudice
against gay men is intertwined with ideas about
what it is to be a “man” in the dominant U.S.
culture. Those men who showed greater degrees
of hypermasculinity, meaning those who tended
to place a high value on toughness, aggression,
sexual virility, and the devaluation of feminine
characteristics, also showed more prejudice
against gay men, albeit with small effects. This
is consistent with findings from previous re-
search and may indicate that many heterosexual
men see heterosexuality as integral to “real”
masculinity (Connell, 1995; Pleck, 1981). Prej-
udice against gay men may serve heterosexual
men by providing them an opportunity to ex-
press their conformity to traditional ideas about
what it is to be a “man” (Levant et al., 1992;
Mahalik et al., 2003). In this investigation, men
who expressed views consistent with Herek’s
(1992b) defensive function were more likely to
be prejudicial. In fact, the defensive function
was one of the most salient predictors in the
current model. In other words, men may fear
being associated with homosexuality because
they are uncomfortable thinking about their
own sexuality or fear others will view them as
gay (Kimmel, 1997). These results lend cre-
dence to Herek’s (1987b, 1992b) Functional
Approach and build a case for rethinking main-
stream definitions of masculinity. However,
these results should be interpreted conserva-
tively given that the defensive function only
consisted of two items. Also, given the large
effect of openness, one could logically consider
defensiveness to be a lack of openness.
While ideas about masculinity and gender
relations were shown to be influential in pre-
dicting negative attitudes toward gay men, it
was also clear that these are not the only im-
portant factors associated with prejudicial atti-
tudes. In the hierarchical regression analysis,
religious and political beliefs were entered last
in the predictive model of prejudice against gay
men and were found to be significant additions
to the predictive model accounting for a com-
bined 8% of total variance on a measure of
prejudice against gay men. While religiosity
and political leanings have been found to be
significant predictors of prejudice against gay
men in past research, their role in the develop-
ment or maintenance of these sentiments may
have been previously underestimated (Herek,
2000b). However, previous research has shown
that variables not examined in the current study,
such as Right-Wing Authoritarianism and So-
cial Dominance Orientation, are constructs that
likely underlie and may explain the predictive
ability of religiosity and political leanings
(Whitley & Lee, 2000).
The personality trait openness to experience
showed the highest effect size of all correlates
in this investigation. Individuals who scored
highly in openness demonstrated less likelihood
to be hypermasculine, sexist, harbor defensive
attitudes, or express prejudicial attitudes toward
gay men. Openness also predicted contact with
gay men and lesbians, as well as religious and
political beliefs. In addition, openness was the
greatest single contributor to the predictive
model of prejudice against gay men, accounting
for approximately 17% of variance in scores.
These results are consistent with the findings of
Cullen et al. (2002) and suggest that openness
may also play a major role in shaping views
about gender, masculinity, and sexual identity.
In support of this conclusion, previous studies
have found openness to be a causal factor in
processes leading to other forms of prejudice
(Duriez & Soenens, 2006). Therefore, openness
should be considered to be a leading predictor
of prejudice against homosexuality in future
research.
More theoretically, these results could also be
interpreted as evidence that attitudes toward gay
men are linked to complex schemata involving
beliefs about gender, group norms, and moral-
ity. Herek and Capitiano (1999) found evidence
for more negative schemata associated with gay
men, as opposed to lesbians. As such, it may be
that thinking about gay men may trigger more
broad conceptions of right and wrong, good and
bad, masculine and not masculine. Indeed, the
 HETEROSEXUAL ATTITUDES
current investigation showed that openness, de-
fensiveness, religiosity, political beliefs, hyper-
masculinity, and sexism are associated with
prejudice against gay men and with each other.
Therefore, the results are conceptually support-
ive of the notion that gay men are considered
symbols of immorality, failed masculinity, and
threats to norms of social order and power struc-
tures (Herek, 1992a; Kimmel, 1997).
Findings from the current study replicated
previous research on prejudice against gay men
with one exception: self-discrepancy. Theodore
and Basow (2000) found that men who both
have high self-discrepancy and view masculine
traits as highly important were more likely to
have prejudice against gay men. The current
study found just the opposite: men endorsing
less self-discrepancy were more likely to be
prejudicial. These results did not support the
Self-Discrepancy Theory as suggested by Theo-
dore and Basow (2000). On the other hand,
these findings may indicate that the effects of
self-discrepancy may be mediated by other fac-
tors (e.g., openness).
Limitations
Some unexpected findings in the current
study could be attributed to measurement error.
Specifically, the measurement of several predic-
tor variables, including interpersonal contact,
self-discrepancy, and attitude function, did not
lead to results consistent with the literature re-
garding attitudes toward homosexuality. If an
established measure of interpersonal contact
had been utilized, perhaps the results would
have been more consistent with previous find-
ings. Similarly, measurement of self-discrep-
ancy could have been compromised due to the
fact the OSQ was altered by the authors. In
addition, the brevity of the attitude function
measure may have posed a difficulty to some
participants. However, there is no research to
support the conclusion that these measures are
not reliable or valid. Therefore, the results
should be interpreted cautiously, but taken at
face value.
The demographics of this sample also call
into question the external validity of results. As
the sample was overwhelmingly White, it is
likely that results could be due to characteristics
of the sample. In addition, research and theory
has suggested that masculinities in rural areas
163
tend to conform to traditional, hegemonic val-
ues (Brandth & Haugen, 2005; Little & Jones,
2000; Peter, Mayerfeld Bell, Jarnagin, & Bauer,
2000). As such, the characteristics of the par-
ticipants attending a rural Midwestern univer-
sity may have influenced the data and limits the
generalizability of the results.
Finally, the nature of the hierarchical analy-
ses could have been tailored to ask more
specific questions. Although the current inves-
tigation was concerned with the collective pre-
dictive ability of several correlates of prejudice
against gay men, the ordering of the entry
method was based on current theoretical knowl-
edge as opposed to testing specific factors. For
example, it may have been more interesting to
enter openness or hypermasculinity last in the
analysis in order to determine if these variables
still significantly accounted for variance after
other variables had been included. As such, the
current analysis was essentially exploratory and
provided a framework for future investiga-
tions, as opposed to definitively answering
questions about masculinity, openness, theo-
retical explanations, and prejudice against
gay men. Still, these results demonstrate that
a large amount of variance in attitudes toward
gay men can be accounted for when including
the current constructs.
Implications for Future Research
The results of the current investigation illus-
trate that future studies should consider several
important attitudinal and personality character-
istics in designing investigations related to prej-
udice against gay men. First, the role of beliefs
about masculinity and femininity cannot be un-
derestimated. Hypermasculinity and sexism
were found to be significant predictors of neg-
ative attitudes toward gay men, albeit with
small effects. These beliefs may reflect under-
lying contempt for femininity and fear of rejec-
tion by other men (Kimmel, 1997; Mahalik
et al., 2003). As such, measures of masculinity
and/or beliefs about gender should be consid-
ered in any investigation of prejudice against
gay men.
Furthermore, this investigation discovered
some interesting findings regarding religiosity,
political values and Herek’s (1987b) Functional
Approach. Religiosity and political leanings
accounted for unique variance above other
164 BARRON ET AL.
predictors of prejudice against gay men. While
these constructs warrant further attention, they
have been considered to be less salient predic-
tors of prejudice than other constructs (Whitley
& Lee, 2000). It may be interesting to determine
if highly religious and/or conservative individ-
uals view gay men differently than lesbians or
bisexuals. The study also revealed that Herek’s
(1992b) Functional Approach has predictive
merit in determining negative attitudes toward
gay men. This theory has received little empir-
ical attention. Future studies should be designed
to test the predictive ability of the Functional
Approach. In addition, effort should be made to
create and validate more precise measures of the
function domains.
Finally, the current study and others have
provided evidence suggesting that the capacity
for open-mindedness is closely associated with
the ability to resist prejudicial attitudes (Akrami
& Ekehammar, 2006; Duriez & Soenens, 2006).
Because of the fact that openness is also related
to several other correlates of prejudice against
gay men, more effort should be devoted to
discovering how it functions in the cycle of
prejudice. Future investigations should also ex-
amine the malleability of individual levels of
openness. Perhaps if there were a means to
enhance individual levels of openness to expe-
rience, prejudicial views would be less likely.
With improved knowledge of these areas, it
may be possible to create prevention or inter-
vention programs aimed at ending prejudice
against gay men. It is likely, however, that
notions of masculinity, gender roles, religiosity,
and politics are woven closely together with
negative attitudes toward gay men. As such,
these constructs may band together into com-
plex schemas of gender, sexuality, and morality,
which may be resistant to change (Herek &
Capitiano, 1999). Interventions to reduce prej-
udice against gay men will likely require psy-
choeducation, cognitive restructuring of beliefs
about gender, opportunities for positive experi-
ences with nonheterosexuals, and exposure to
alternative models of masculinity.
References
Adams, M., & Coltrane, S. (2005). Boys and men in
families: The domestic production of gender,
power, and privilege. In M. S. Kimmel, J. Hearn,
& R. W. Connell (Eds.), Handbook of studies on
men & masculinities (pp. 230 –248). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Akrami, N., & Ekehammar, B. (2006). Right-wing
authoritarianism and social dominance orienta-
tion: Their roots in big-five personality factors
and facets. Journal of Individual Differ-
ences, 27, 117–126.
Blazina, C., Eddins, R., Burridge, A., & Settle, A. G.
(2007). The relationship between masculinity
ideology, loneliness, and separation-individua-
tion difficulties. The Journal of Men’s Stud-
ies, 15, 101–109.
Brandth, B., & Haugen, M. S. (2005). Doing rural
masculinity: From logging to outfield tourism.
Journal of Gender Studies, 14, 13–22.
Bridges, J. S. (1993). Pink or blue: Gender stereo-
typic perceptions of infants as conveyed by birth
congratulations cards. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 17, 193–205.
Burk, L. R., Burkhart, B. R., & Sikorski, J. F. (2004).
Construction and preliminary validation of the Au-
burn Differential Masculinity Inventory. Psychol-
ogy of Men & Masculinity, 5, 4 –17.
Burt, M. R. (1980). Cultural myths and support for
rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 38, 217–230.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the
behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erl-
baum.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S.
(2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation
analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Coltrane, S., & Adams, M. (1997). Children and
gender. In T. Arendell (Ed.), Contemporary par-
enting: Challenges and issues. Understanding
families (Vol. 9, pp. 219 –253). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Condry, J., & Condry, S. (1976). Sex differences: A
study of the eye of the beholder. Child Develop-
ment, 47, 812– 819.
Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Cullen, J. M., Wright, L. W., & Alessandri, M.
(2002). The personality variable openness to expe-
rience as it relates to homophobia. Journal of Ho-
mosexuality, 42, 119 –134.
Davies, M. (2004). Correlates of negative attitudes
toward gay men: Sexism, male role norms, and
male sexuality. The Journal of Sex Research, 41,
259 –266.
Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emer-
gence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of
Psychology, 41, 417– 440.
Duriez, B., & Soenens, B. (2006). Personality, iden-
tity styles, and authoritarianism: An integrative
study among late adolescents. European Journal
of Personality, 20, 397– 417.
 HETEROSEXUAL ATTITUDES
Eisenberg, N., Wolchik, S. A., Hernandez, R., &
Pasternack, J. F. (1985). Parental socialization of
young children’s play: A short-term longitudinal
study. Child Development, 56, 1506 –1513.
Ekehammar, B., Akrami, B., Gylje, M., & Zakrisson,
I. (2004). What matters most to prejudice: Big five
personality, social dominance orientation, or right-
wing authoritarianism? Eur J. Pers, 18, 463– 482.
Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society. New
York: Norton.
Fagot, B. I., & Hagan, R. (1991). Observation of
parent reaction to sex stereotyped behaviors: Age
and sex effects. Child Development, 62, 617– 628.
Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M. F., & Buss, A. H. (1975).
Public and private self consciousness: Assessment
and theory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 43, 522–527.
Flynn, F. J. (2005). Having an open mind: The im-
pact of openness to experience on interracial atti-
tudes and impression formation. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 88, 816 – 826.
Gleser, G. C., & Ihilevich, D. (1969). An objective
instrument for measuring defense mechanisms.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychol-
ogy, 33, 51– 60.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent
Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and be-
nevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 70, 491–512.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1997). Hostile and benev-
olent sexism: Measuring ambivalent sexist atti-
tudes toward women. Psychology of Women Quar-
terly, 21, 119 –135.
Gurtman, M. B. (1995). Personality structure and
interpersonal problems: A theoretically guided
item analysis of the Inventory of Interpersonal
Problems. Assessment, 2, 343–361.
Herek, G. M. (1984). Attitudes toward lesbians and
gay men: A factor analytic study. Journal of Ho-
mosexuality, 10, 1–21.
Herek, G. M. (1986). On heterosexual masculinity:
Some psychical consequences of the social con-
struction of gender and sexuality. American Be-
havioral Scientist, 29, 563–577.
Herek, G. M. (1987a). Religion and prejudice: A
comparison of racial and sexual attitudes. Person-
ality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 13, 56 – 65.
Herek, G. M. (1987b). Can functions be measured? A
new perspective on the functional approach to at-
titudes. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50, 285–303.
Herek, G. M. (1991). Stigma, prejudice, and violence
against lesbians and gay men. In J. Gonsiorek & J.
Weinrich (Eds.), Homosexuality: Research impli-
cations for public policy (pp. 60 – 80). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Herek, G. M. (1992a). The social context of hate
crimes: Notes on cultural heterosexism. In G. M.
Herek & K. T. Berrill (Eds.), Hate crimes: Con-
165
fronting violence against lesbians and gay men
(pp. 89 –104). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Herek, G. M. (1992b). Psychological heterosexism
and anti-gay violence: The social psychology of
bigotry and bashing. In G. M. Herek & K. T.
Berrill (Eds.), Hate crimes: Confronting violence
against lesbians and gay men (pp. 149 –169).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Herek, G. M. (1994). Assessing attitudes toward les-
bians and gay men: A review of empirical research
with the ATLG scale. In B. Greene, & G. M. Herek
(Eds.) Lesbian and gay psychology: Theory, re-
search, and clinical applications (pp. 206 –228).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Herek, G. M. (1997). The Attitudes Toward Lesbians
and Gay Men scale. Retrieved October 25, 2005,
from http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/
atlg.html
Herek, G. M. (2000a). Sexual prejudice and gender:
Do heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians and
gay men differ? Journal of Social Issues, 56,
251–266.
Herek, G. M. (2000b). The psychology of sexual
prejudice. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 9, 19 –22.
Herek, G. M. (2002). Gender gaps in public opinion
about lesbians and gay men. Public Opinion Quar-
terly, 66, 40 – 66.
Herek, G. M. (2004). Beyond homophobia: Think
about sexual prejudice and stigma in the twenty-
first century. Sexuality Research & Social Pol-
icy, 1, 6 –24.
Herek, G. M., & Capitiano, J. P. (1996). “Some of
my best friends”: Intergroup contact, concealable
stigma, and heterosexuals’ attitudes toward gay
men and lesbians. Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy Bulletin, 22, 412– 424.
Herek, G. M., & Capitiano, J. P. (1999). Sex differ-
ences in how heterosexuals think about lesbians
and gay men: Evidence from survey context ef-
fects. Journal of Sex Research, 36, 348 –360.
Herek, G. M., Gillis, J. R., & Cogan, J. C. (1999).
Psychological sequelae of hate crime victimiza-
tion among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychol-
ogy, 67, 945–951.
Herek, G. M., & Glunt, E. K. (1993). Interpersonal
contact and heterosexuals’ attitudes toward gay
men: Results from a national survey. Journal of
Sex Research, 3, 239 –244.
Jakupcak, M., Lisak, D., & Roemer, L. (2002). The
role of masculine ideology and masculine gender
role stress in men’s perpetration of aggression and
violence in relationships. Journal Men and Mas-
culinity, 3, 97–106.
Kimmel, M. S. (1997). Masculinity as homophobia:
Fear, shame, and silence in the construction of
gender identity. In M. M. Gergen & S. N. Davis
166 BARRON ET AL.
(Eds.), Toward a new psychology of gender (pp.
223–242). New York: Routledge.
Kite, M. E., & Whitley, B. E. (1996). Sex differences
in attitudes toward homosexual persons, behaviors,
and civil rights: A meta-analysis. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 336 –353.
Kunkel, L. E., & Temple, L. L. (1992). Attitudes
toward AIDS and homosexuals: Gender, marital
status, and religion. Journal of Applied Social Psy-
chology, 22, 1030 –1040.
Laythe, B., Finkel, D. G., Bringle, R. G., & Kirk-
patrick, L. A. (2002). Religious fundamentalism as
a predictor of prejudice: A two component model.
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41,
623– 635.
Levant, R. F., Cuthbert, A. C., Richmond, K., Sellers,
A., Matveev, A., Matina, O., et al. (2003). Mascu-
linity ideology among Russian and U.S. young
men and women and its relationship to unhealthy
lifestyle habits among young Russian men. Psy-
chology of Men & Masculinity, 4, 26 –36.
Levant, R. F., Hirsch, L., Celentano, E., Cozza, T.,
Hill, S., MacEachern, M., et al. (1992). The male
role: An investigation of contemporary norms.
Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 14, 325–
337.
Little, J., & Jones, O. (2000). Masculinity, gender,
and rural policy. Rural Sociology, 65, 621– 630.
Mahalik, J. R., Locke, B., Ludlow, L., Diemer, M.,
Scott, R. P. J., Gottfried, M., et al. (2003). Devel-
opment of the Conformity to Masculine Norms
Inventory. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 4,
3–25.
McCrae, R. R. (1996). Social consequences of expe-
riential openness. Psychological Bulletin, 120,
323–337.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1992). Revised
NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO
Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional
manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources, Inc.
Mosher, D. L., & Sirkin, M. (1984). Measuring a
macho personality constellation. Journal of Re-
search in Personality, 20, 77–94.
O’Neil, J. M., Helms, B. J., Gable, R. K., David, U.,
& Wrightsman, L. S. (1986). Gender Role Conflict
Scale: College men’s fear of femininity. Sex Roles,
14, 335–350.
Pelham, B. W., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (1989). From
self-conceptions to self-worth: On the sources and
structure of global self-esteem. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 57, 672– 680.
Peter, G., Mayerfeld Bell, M., Jarnagin, S., & Bauer,
D. (2000). Coming back across the fence: Mascu-
linity and the transition to sustainable agriculture.
Rural Sociology, 65, 215–233.
Pleck, J. H. (1981). The myth of masculinity. Cam-
bridge, MA: MIT Press.
Plummer, D. C.. (2001). The quest for modern man-
hood: Masculine stereotypes, peer culture, and the
social significance of homophobia. Journal of Ad-
olescence, 24, 15–23.
Röndahl, G., Innala, S., & Carlsson, M. (2004). Nurs-
ing staff and nursing students’ emotions towards
homosexual patients and their wish to refrain from
nursing if the option existed. Scandinavian Jour-
nal of Caring Sciences, 18, 19 –26.
Renold, E. (2007). Primary school “studs”: (De)con-
structing young boys’ heterosexual masculinities.
Men and Masculinities, 9, 275–297.
Ritts, V., & Stein, J. R. (1995). Verification and
commitment in marital relationships: An explora-
tion of self-verification theory in community col-
lege students. Psychological Reports, 76, 383–386.
Snyder, M. (1974). The self-monitoring of expressive
behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 30, 526 –537.
Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1972). The Atti-
tudes Toward Women Scale: An objective instru-
ment to measure the attitudes toward the rights and
roles of women in contemporary society. JSAS
Catalogue of Selected Documents in Psychol-
ogy, 2, 667– 668.
SPSS Inc. (2001). SPSS for Windows, Rel. 11.0.1.
Chicago: SPSS Inc.
Swim, J. K., Aikin, K. J., Hall, W. S., & Hunter,
B. A. (1995). Sexism and racism: Old fashioned
and modern prejudices. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 68, 199 –214.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using
multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Theodore, P. S., & Basow, S. A. (2000). Heterosex-
ual masculinity and homophobia: A reaction to the
self? Journal of Homosexuality, 40, 31– 49.
Wade, J. C., & Brittan-Powell, C. (2001). Men’s
attitudes toward race and gender equity: The im-
portance of masculinity ideology, gender-related
traits, and reference group identity dependence.
Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 2, 42–50.
Whitley, B. E., Jr., & Lee, S. E. (2000). The relation-
ship of authoritarianism and related constructs to
attitudes toward homosexuality. Journal of Ap-
plied Social Psychology, 30, 144 –170.
Yang, A. (1998). From wrongs to rights: Public
opinion on gay and lesbian Americans moves to-
ward equality. Washington, DC: National Gay and
Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute.
Received May 6, 2007
Revision received February 20, 2008
Accepted February 22, 2008 䡲