¡Descarga atribución y más Ejercicios en PDF de Psicología Social solo en Docsity!
E M P I R I C A L R E S E A R C H
Intergroup Contact and Beliefs about Homosexuality
in Adolescence
Justin E. Heinze Æ Stacey S. Horn
Received: 20 November 2008 / Accepted: 27 March 2009 / Published online: 16 April 2009 Ó Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009
Abstract This study examines the relationship between intergroup contact and adolescents’ attitudes regarding homosexuality and the treatment of lesbian and gay (LG) peers. Fourteen- through 18-year-olds (n = 1,069, 59.7% females) completed self-report attitude and judgment questionnaires about the acceptability of homosexuality, levels of comfort around LG peers, and the acceptability of excluding or teasing an LG peer. The results suggest that having an LG friend is related to more positive attitudes toward homosexuals/homosexuality and less tolerance toward the unfair treatment of LG peers. The findings lend further support to intergroup contact theory and provide evidence that the intimacy of contact is related to prejudice reduction, and offer general support that age is related to prejudicial attitudes, but less so to prejudicial behaviors.
Keywords Intergroup contact Homosexuality Social domain theory Attitudes Adolescence Peers Friendship
Introduction
Research on sexual prejudice in adults provides evidence that knowing a gay or lesbian person (intergroup contact) leads to improved attitudes and reduced prejudice and bias
toward gay and lesbian people (Herek and Capitanio 1996). There is very little research, however, on intergroup con- tact and sexual prejudice in adolescence. Adolescence is a time of significant cognitive, biological, and social transi- tions that affect young peoples’ identity development, as well as their peer relationships. Additionally, with the onset of puberty, issues of sex and sexuality become extremely salient and the press for heteronormativity is quite strong (Fine and McClelland 2006; Kimmel 1994). Given these factors, intergroup contact may function very differently in adolescence than it does in adulthood. While we know little about the role of intergroup con- tact on adolescents’ sexual prejudice, research on sexual prejudice in adolescence provides evidence that factors such as age, gender, and school climate are related to attitudes and beliefs about homosexuality during this developmental period (Horn 2006; Horn and Szalacha 2009; Horn et al. 2008). Further, this research also provides evidence that heterosexual students’ reasoning about homosexuality and the treatment of gay and lesbian peers, rather than being a unidimensional construct, is multifac- eted and draws from different domains of social knowledge (Horn and Nucci 2003, 2006; Turiel 1983). That is, an adolescent’s understanding of sexual prejudice involves issues such as fairness and human welfare, issues related to societal norms, religious conventions and stereotypes, as well as an individual’s understanding of sex and sexuality as a private and personal aspect of one’s identity. How individuals coordinate and apply these different dimensions of their social knowledge is directly related to their attitudes and beliefs regarding homosexuality and the treatment of gay and lesbian peers (Horn 2006; Horn and Nucci 2003; Horn et al. 2008). For example, Horn et al. (2008) provide evidence that adolescents’ religious and societal knowledge about homosexuality, as well as their
J. E. Heinze (&) University of Illinois at Chicago, 827 Forest Ave., Evanston, IL 60202, USA e-mail: [email protected]
S. S. Horn University of Illinois at Chicago, 1040 W. Harrison St., MC 147, Chicago, IL 60607, USA e-mail: [email protected]
DOI 10.1007/s10964-009-9408-x
stereotypes, relate more directly to their attitudes about the acceptability of homosexuality, whereas adolescents’ understanding of fairness and harm relate more directly to their decisions regarding the acceptability of excluding or teasing gay and lesbian peers. Given the multidimensional nature of sexual prejudice, it could be the case that inter- group contact decreases sexual prejudice because it is related to the type of social knowledge individuals bring to bear on their judgments regarding homosexuality and the treatment of gay and lesbian people. The purpose of this study was twofold. First, we investigated the relationships between intergroup contact, age, and adolescents’ attitudes about homosexuality, as well as their attitudes about dif- ferent types of social interactions with LG peers. Second, we investigated the relationship between intergroup contact and the types of social knowledge adolescents bring to bear on their judgments regarding homosexuality and the treatment of LG peers.
Intergroup Contact and Prejudice Reduction
The intergroup contact hypothesis (Allport 1954; Pettigrew
- suggests that contact with members of an outgroup can reduce negative attitudes and beliefs toward members of that outgroup. The hypothesis further posits that inter- action between groups leads to a reduction of biased beliefs and prejudicial behavior—the familiarity that results from intergroup contact improves both communication and trust while also reducing anxiety, ultimately leading to less prejudicial and more positive intergroup attitudes (Petti- grew and Tropp 2006). Ample evidence supporting the contact hypothesis has been documented, including studies on racial attitudes, attitudes regarding the elderly, immi- grants and others (Pettigrew 1998; Pettigrew and Tropp 2006). Recent literature has built on this foundation and has extended our understanding of intergroup contact. Specif- ically research has proposed that cursory contact may be insufficient to improve attitudes toward members of an outgroup, and that intimate contact may be an essential component to prejudice reduction (Crystal et al. 2008; Dovidio et al. 2003; Herek and Capitanio 1996; Pettigrew and Tropp 2006). In fact, Allport (1954) contended that casual contact would reinforce stereotypes and prejudicial attitudes. In support of this, research provides evidence that intergroup friendships are more likely to lead to reduced biases and prejudicial attitudes regarding the outgroup and are an increasingly important intergroup contact context (Dovidio et al. 2003; Pettigrew 1997; Pettigrew and Tropp 2005). In adolescence, the level of contact may be particularly important in relation to adolescents’ attitudes about their
LG peers. Sexuality and sexual identity are extremely salient in adolescence as young people are trying to make sense of their own sexual feelings and desires. Addition- ally, as adolescents are trying to negotiate their own developing sexual identity, there is an extreme press for heteronormativity within the larger social context (Fine and McClelland 2006; Kimmel 1994). Given these two factors, casual contact, such as simply being exposed to out LG peers at school, may actually increase adolescents’ nega- tive attitudes toward LG people. Having a friend (a more intimate form of contact) who is lesbian or gay, on the other hand, will likely decrease an adolescents’ negative attitudes toward LG people, more generally, and be related to more comfort interacting with LG peers, as well as more sensitivity to prejudicial behavior directed at LG people. In the present study, we investigated increasing degrees of intimacy of contact from no perceived contact to having a lesbian or gay friend. Our measures of casual contact included knowing of LG peers in school to personally knowing a lesbian or gay person. Given that sexual identity is a concealable identity we also included a measure of no contact to capture adolescents who may not being cogni- zant of individuals in their environment who identify as lesbian or gay. While it could be that these adolescents will exhibit the most prejudicial attitudes (they have the least amount of contact), it could also be the case that they will be more temperate in the attitudes as they are not person- ally confronted with LG people. That is, similar to aversive or coversive racism (Dovidio and Gaertner 2004; Gaertner and Dovidio 2005) in which individuals claim tolerant and non-prejudicial attitudes in the abstract, but then act in prejudicial ways when confronted with a situation in which they have to interact with someone from a different race, adolescents claiming no contact with LG people may express more tolerant attitudes and beliefs than they would if they were actually confronted with LG peers in their immediate social environment, particularly in relation to judgments regarding excluding and teasing these individuals. While we are aware of no existing studies investigating the relationships between intergroup contact and sexual prejudice in adolescence, there is a growing body of research within developmental psychology investigating intergroup contact and other types of prejudice, predomi- nantly racial prejudice. In a meta-analyses of the effects of intergroup contact on prejudice, Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) state that, generally, intergroup contact has stronger effects among children, adolescents, and college students than adults, suggesting that contact may be particularly important as young people are developing their attitudes and beliefs about others who are different from them. Further, research suggests that perspective-taking mediates the relationships between intergroup contact and prejudice
Previous work by Horn et al. suggests that age and school climate are related to adolescents’ social reasoning about homosexuality and the treatment of LG people (Horn 2006; Horn and Szalacha 2009). In regard to age, (Horn 2006; Horn and Nucci 2003) found that young adults were more tolerant of their gay and lesbian peers than younger adolescents, were less likely to endorse informational assumptions (e.g., homosexual is disgusting, unnatural) regarding homosexuality, and less likely to view exclusion and teasing of lesbian or gay peers as acceptable than young adolescents (approximately 14–16 years of age). Interestingly, Horn (2006) found no evidence of age dif- ferences regarding attitudes about homosexuality in gen- eral (i.e., whether homosexuality is right or wrong). In regard to school climate, Horn and Szalacha (2009) found that safe schools practices were related to heterosexual students’ levels of sexual prejudice, as well as the types of reasoning individuals applied to their judgments. This research provides evidence that how individuals apply and coordinate their social knowledge in specific contexts varies and is influenced by a number of factors. In this study, we were interested in investigating how intergroup contact may be related to adolescents’ social reasoning.
Current Study
To investigate these issues, we administered a self-report questionnaire to 14- to 18-year-olds (ninth- through twelfth-grade students) attending two different high schools in or near a large Midwestern city. Because we were interested in investigating the relationships between intergroup contact and adolescents’ attitudes, as well as their social reasoning regarding issues of homosexuality and the treatment of gay and lesbian peers, we included a number of different types of outcome measures in the study. We were interested in measures that assessed indi- vidual attitudes and beliefs, as well as adolescents’ judg- ments regarding social interactions with LG peers. We assessed adolescents’ attitudes about the acceptability of homosexuality (is it wrong or all right), as well as the reasoning they applied to these judgments. In relation to social interaction measures, we first assessed adolescents comfort interacting with LG peers. Then, we assessed adolescents’ judgments regarding excluding and teasing LG peers at school, as well as the reasoning adolescents’ applied to these judgments. Participants also reported their level of contact with LG individuals (no contact, knew of LG students in school, personally knew a LG peer, or had a LG peer they considered a friend). We had several hypotheses for this study. As stated earlier, we had two overarching purposes for the study. Our first set of hypotheses concern the relationships among
intergroup contact, age, and adolescents’ attitudes about homosexuality as well as their attitudes about different types of social interactions with LG peers. First, given that the average age of coming out is typically between 14 and 16 (Rosario et al. 2006), we expected that older adolescents would be more likely to report higher levels of contact with LG peers than younger adolescents. Second, given All- port’s (1954) hypothesis that casual levels of contact would increase stereotypes and prejudicial behavior, we expected that adolescents with more casual levels of contact would be less comfortable interacting with gay and lesbian peers, more likely to rate homosexuality as wrong, and more likely to endorse exclusion and teasing as legitimate. Because intimate intergroup contact increases judgments regarding familiarity with and similarity to out-group members (McGlothlin and Killen 2005; Pettigrew and Tropp 2006) and leads to increased learning about the out- group (Pettigrew and Tropp 2006), however, we expected that adolescents reporting that they had a gay or lesbian friend would report higher levels of comfort interacting with gay and lesbian peers, would be less likely to judge homosexuality as wrong, and would be more likely to judge exclusion and teasing LG peers as wrong than those adolescents reporting more casual levels of contact. Finally, for students’ reporting no contact, we held com- peting expectations. On the one hand, they may exhibit the highest level of sexual prejudice due to the fact that they had the least contact with LG people. On the other hand, we expected that they might be more tempered in their judgments in that, in the abstract, they would hold more tolerant attitudes and beliefs about LG peers. Additionally, based on Horn (2006), we expected that older students would be more comfortable interacting with gay and les- bian peers and would be more likely to evaluate exclusion and teasing as wrong. We did not expect, however, that age would affect adolescents’ evaluations of the acceptability of homosexuality. Our second set of hypotheses concern the relationships amongst intergroup contact, age, and adolescents’ reasoning regarding the acceptability of homosexuality, as well as the acceptability of excluding and teasing a lesbian or gay per- son. Based on the literature presented above and similar to our expectations regarding the type of contact and adoles- cents’ attitudes, we expected that adolescents reporting casual levels of contact with LG people would be more likely to use informational assumptions and stereotypes in making their judgments. Conversely, we expected that those adolescents reporting that they had a lesbian or gay friend would be less likely to utilize informational assumptions and stereotypes and would be more likely to utilize moral rea- soning (such as fairness and individual rights) in justifying their judgments about the acceptability of homosexuality and about excluding and teasing a lesbian or gay person.
Further, we expected that adolescents reporting that they have a friend would be less likely to use conventional rea- sons to justify their judgments. In regard to age, based on Horn et al. work (Horn 2006; Horn and Szalacha 2009), we expected that older adolescents would use more moral reasoning and less conventional rea- soning, informational assumptions, and stereotypes than younger adolescents, particularly in relation to their judg- ments about exclusion and teasing.
Method
Participants and Procedures
One thousand sixty-nine adolescents (Female, n = 639; Male, n = 430) attending two different schools participated in the study. The sample consisted of 14- (73 male, 109 female), 15- (174 male, 286 female), 16- (93 male, 140 female), 17- (58 male, 77 female), and 18-year-old (30 male, 27 female) students. Students attended either an urban col- lege preparatory high school located within the downtown area of a large Midwestern city (n = 575), or a larger sub- urban high school located just outside of a large Midwestern city (n = 494). The urban school had a competitive enroll- ment admissions procedure and drew students from all over the city while the suburban school was located in a pre- dominantly middle-class suburb but drew students from three predominantly working- and middle-class suburbs within the township. The urban school had a very low dropout rate (1.3%), very few students with a limited pro- ficiency in English (.8%), and a majority of students from low income families (65.1%). The suburban school had a higher dropout rate (4.6%), more students with a limited proficiency in English (11.1%), and less than a third of students from low income families (27.7%). Because of these differences and because significant school differences related to adolescents’ sexual prejudice have been reported elsewhere (Horn and Szalacha 2009), in the current study we controlled for school by including it as a covariate. Only those students with parental consent and who provided individual assent participated. Parental consent was secured using parent notification letters and passive consent. That is, parents who did not want their adolescent to participate in the study needed to return the consent form indicating as such. All other students were included in the study. Student assent was determined at the time of the survey distribution. Those students not participating in the survey completed an alternative educational assignment. Six parents opted their adolescents out of the survey and another 24 students chose not to participate resulting in an overall response rate of 97%. We excluded 17 participants because they identified as other than heterosexual.
Participants completed the questionnaire in either their required advisory period (homeroom) or in their required English, health, or social studies class. Participants were first asked several questions to gauge the level of contact they have had with lesbian or gay peers (intergroup contact). Participants then responded to a series of questions regard- ing how comfortable they would be interacting with gay or lesbian peers in various school contexts (comfort). Partici- pants also responded to whether or not they thought it was wrong to be gay or lesbian (attitudes) and why (attitude justification). Finally, participants evaluated a series of hypothetical scenarios regarding whether or not excluding or teasing a gay or lesbian peer was wrong or all right (treatment judgments) and why (treatment justifications).
Measures
Intergroup Contact
To measure intergroup contact, students responded to five questions pertaining to different levels of contact they have had with LG individuals at their school: ‘‘Are there gay and lesbian students in your school?’’ (Yes, No, Not sure); ‘‘Do you personally know anyone who is gay or lesbian either at your school or anywhere else?’’ (Yes, No, Not Sure); ‘‘Do you have any gay or lesbian friends?’’ (Yes, No, Not Sure); ‘‘Is any member of your member of your immediate family (parent, brother, sister) gay or lesbian?’’ (Yes, No, Not Sure); ‘‘Which of the following do you consider yourself to be?’’ (Bisexual, Gay male, Lesbian, Straight, Questioning/ Unsure). Very few students reported having a gay or les- bian member of their immediate family or identified as gay or lesbian. Additionally, participants who reported having a gay or lesbian family member reported extremely varying levels of sexual prejudice suggesting that they may be at different levels of accepting their family members’ sexu- ality. For these two reasons, we excluded these two groups of students from our analyses. The remaining participants were classified into four levels of contact based on increasing levels of intimacy: ‘‘No contact with LG peers’’ (n = 53), ‘‘Know of LG individuals at your school’’ (n = 225), ‘‘Personally know a LG individual’’ (n = 331), ‘‘Have a friend who identifies as LG’’ (n = 460).
Attitudes Measures
To measure students’ attitudes regarding homosexuality (attitudes), 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 state- ments the reasons for why they thought homosexuality was
choice) and informational assumptions (unnatural, hit on, think gay). Scores were calculated as the proportion of a participant’s response that fell into each of the four cate- gories. Log-linear transformations were conducted on the proportional scores to adjust for non-normality (see Winer 1971; Winer et al. 1991).
Results
Intergroup Contact
To examine gender and age differences in participants’ level of intergroup contact, we conducted a 2 (gender: female, male) 9 5 (age: 14-, 15-, 16-, 17, and 18-year- olds) two way ANCOVA on level of contact. School was included as a covariate. The analyses revealed a main effect for gender [F(1, 1056) = 31.01, p \ .001, g = .029] and for age [F(4, 1056) = 4.98, p \ .001, g = .019]. The interaction between age and gender was not significant. The gender main effect revealed that females reported a higher level of contact than males (Female—M = 2.27, SE = .046; Male—M = 1.89, SE = .049). Follow-up tests of simple effects for the age main effect revealed that 14-year-olds reported the lowest level of contact. While 15-year-olds reported lower levels than the other three age groups, it was not significantly different from the other three age groups (16-, 17-, and 18-year-olds). (Fourteen— M = 1.82, SE = .066; Fifteen—M = 2.08, SE = .042; Sixteen—M = 2.18, SE = .058; Seventeen—M = 2.19, SE = .075; Eighteen—M = 2.13, SE = .115). Because of the age and gender differences in intergroup contact, in all subsequent analyses we include both gender and age. Further, in subsequent analyses we use the level of contact as a categorical variable with individuals falling into the highest level category they report. The groups included No Contact (n = 53), At School (n = 225), Per- sonally Know (n = 331), and Friend (n = 460).
Attitudes about Homosexuality
We expected to find contact-related differences in attitudes about homosexuality; however, we did not expect to find age-related differences. To investigate the relationship between intergroup contact, age, gender and attitudes about homosexuality a 4 (intergroup contact: no contact, at school, personally know, friend) 9 5 (age: 14, 15, 16, 17,
- 9 2 (gender: male, female) ANCOVA was performed on participants’ mean attitude judgments. We controlled for school by including it as a covariate. The analysis revealed a significant main effect for intergroup contact F(3, 1,060) = 32.82, p \ .001, g = .088, and gender F(1, 1,060) = 4.46, p \ .05, g = .004. Follow-up tests of
simple effects provided support for our hypotheses regarding intergroup contact. Overall, respondents who indicated that they had a LG friend judged homosexuality to be more acceptable [M (friend) = 3.57, SE = .083] and less wrong than participants reporting all other levels of contact [M (personally know) = 2.53, SE = .088, p \ .05; M (in school) = 2.51, SE = .119, p \ .05; M (none) = 2.36, SE = .225, p \ .05]. Female respondents were also significantly more likely to rate homosexuality as accept- able (M = 2.89, SE = .107, p \ .05) than males (M = 2.60, SE = .091, p \ .05). As expected, we did not find any age differences in judgments about the accept- ability of homosexuality nor did we find any age by contact interactions suggesting that attitudes toward homosexuality remain stable as adolescents grow older and intimate contact with LG peers may lead to more positive attitudes across age levels.
Justifications for Attitudes about Homosexuality
In regard to the reasons why participants felt that homo- sexuality was wrong or not wrong, we predicted that indi- viduals reporting that they had a lesbian or gay friend would use significantly fewer stereotypes and informational assumptions to justify their judgments than those reporting other levels of contact and instead would use more moral reasoning (individual rights). We also predicted that younger adolescents would use more informational assumptions and stereotypes than older adolescents. Given the strong rela- tionship between contact and attitude judgment and because we thought that participants’ reasoning might vary as a result of their attitude judgment, we included attitude judgment as an independent variable. We created three categories of attitude judgment (wrong, which included those who eval- uated homosexuality as completely or somewhat wrong; neutral which included those with evaluations of neither right nor wrong; and right, which included those who eval- uated homosexuality as completely or somewhat all right). We conducted a 4 (intergroup contact: no contact, at school, personally know, friend) 9 5 (age: 14, 15, 16, 17, 18) 9 2 (gender: male, female) 9 3 (evaluative judgment: wrong, neutral, right) 9 5 (type of justification: Human/individual rights, biological/genetic, informational assumptions, reli- gious opposition, stereotypes) repeated measures ANCOVA on participants’ attitudes justifications with type of justifi- cation as the repeated measure and school as the covariate. The analysis revealed a significant main effect for attitude justification F (4, 954) = 11.25, p \ .001, g = .012, as well as a two-way interaction between evaluative judgment and attitude justification F(8, 954) = 68.38, p \ .001, g = .125, and a four-way interaction between intergroup contact, grade, gender and attitude justification F(44, 954) = 1.84, p \ .001, g = .021. Overall, adolescents used predominantly
biological (M = .06) and human rights (M = .09) reasons to justify their judgments regarding the acceptability/wrong- ness of homosexuality. Follow-up tests of the type of justi- fication by attitude judgment interaction revealed that adolescents who rated homosexuality as wrong used reli- gious opposition, informational assumptions and stereotypes as justifications more often than those who viewed homo- sexuality as neutral or all right and were less likely to use biological/genetic or human/individual rights justifications (see Table 3). Additionally, adolescents who viewed homo- sexuality as all right used religious opposition and informa- tional assumption justifications less often than respondents who were neutral about the acceptability of homosexuality. Within that overall pattern of results, follow-up tests of simple effects of the four-way interaction indicated type of justification, intergroup contact, gender, and age-related differences for attitudes justifications. For male subjects, we found differences for both informational assumptions and individual rights justifications. Sixteen-year old males in the no contact category used informational assumptions significantly more (M = .198, SE = .040) than those in the in school (M = .040, SE = .016, p \ .05) and friend cat- egories (M = .038, SE = .016, p \ .05). At the same time, those in the friend category used informational assump- tions less than those in the personally know category (M = .071, SE = .019, p \ .05). Male 17-year-olds with an LG friend (M = .021, SE = .029) also used informa- tional assumptions less than those who personally knew an LG peer (M = .065, SE = .021, p \ .05). Males also reported differences in individual rights justifications. Male 15-year-olds in with LG friends used individual rights justifications (M = .091, SE = .008) more than those who knew of LG peers in their schools (M = .088, SE = .009, p \ .05). Sixteen-year old males with LG friends used individual rights justifications (M = .108, SE = .010) more often than respondents in both the personally know (M = .096, SE = .012, p \ .05) and no contact categories (M = .025, SE = .025, p \ .05). A similar pattern held for
18-year-old males with those with LG friends using indi- vidual rights more often (M = .147, SE = .016) than those in the personally know category (M = .080, SE = .020, p \ .05). Interestingly, for 17-year-old males, respondents in the personally know category (M = .095, SE = .013) used individual rights justifications more often than those in the friend category (M = .081, SE = .018, p \ .05). We found no significant differences for any of the other justi- fication types. Female respondents reported differences in each category except stereotypes. Contrary to our expectations, 17-year- old females who had ‘‘no contact’’ used biological justifi- cations more (M = .375, SE = .040) than all other contact categories (In School: M = .055, SE = .029, p \ .05; Per- sonally Know: M = .057, SE = .016, p \ .05; Friend: M = .067, SE = .010, p \ .05). Fifteen-year old females with LG friends did, however, use informational assump- tions less often (M = .031, SE = .007, p \ .05) than those in the personally know category (M = .060, SE = .010), as did those in the in school category (M = .024, SE = .013, p \ .05). The difference between the friend and in school categories was not significant. Sixteen-year old females with LG friends (M = .023, SE = .009) used informational assumptions less often than those in the ‘‘in school’’ cate- gory (M = .056, SE = .017, p \ .05). We also found that 15-year old females with an LG friend used religious con- vention justifications less often (M = .066, SE = .006) than those in the ‘‘in school’’ category (M = .077, SE = .011, p \ .05). Finally, 15-year-old females with LG friends were less likely to endorse individual rights justifications (M = .095, SE = .004, p \ .05) than those in the personally know category (M = .099, SE = .006, p \ .05), which we did not expect. We found only one age difference in justi- fication for females. Eighteen-year-old females with an LG friend (M = .087, SE = .026) were more likely than both 15- (M = .051, SE = .005, p \ .05) and 16-year-old (M = .057, SE = .008, p \ .05) females with LG friends to use biological justifications.
Comfort Interacting with Lesbian or Gay Peers
We expected both intergroup contact and age to be related to adolescents’ comfort interacting with gay and lesbian peers. To investigate whether older students and those with more intimate relationships with LG peers were more comfortable interacting with LG peers than younger ado- lescents and those with less intimate contact, we conducted a 4 (intergroup contact: no contact, at school, personally know, friend) 9 5 (age: 14, 15, 16, 17, 18) 9 2 (gender: male, female) ANCOVA on participants’ mean comfort scores, controlling for school. The analysis revealed main effects for intergroup contact F(3, 1,066) = 45.00, p \ .001, g = .021, gender F(1, 1,066) = 15.25, p \ .001,
Table 3 Contact differences in adolescents’ justifications for teasing judgments
Level of contact Evaluative judgment
Wrong (1,2) Neutral (3) All right (4,5)
Biological .018 (.005) 1 .089 (.006) 2 .074 (.006) 2 Negative stereotypes .018 (.003) 1 .004 (.003) 2 .002 (.003) 2 Natural order .115 (.007) 1 .027 (.007) 23 .013 (.007) 24 Religious conventions .151 (.006) 1 .018 (.006) 23 .007 (.006) 24 Individual rights .023 (.004) 1 .122 (.004) 2 .127 (.005) 2
Note: Means represent the proportion of participants’ response that fell into each category. Standard error in parenthesis Values within column with different letters different at p \ .05 level
for gender and justification type F(3, 1,026) = 10.15, p \ .001, g = .010. There was also a three-way interaction between intergroup contact, age, and justification type F(36, 1,026) = 1.58, p \ .05, g = .018. Overall, adoles- cents used predominantly moral (M = .502) and personal (M = .235) justifications for their judgments. Within this general pattern of findings, however, follow-up tests of the gender by justification type interaction showed that female participants were more likely to use moral justifications (M = .576, SE = .027) than male participants (M = 4.29, SE = .023, p \ .05), while males used both conventional and information assumption justifications (M = .113, SE = .011 and M = .137, SE = .011, respectively) more than females (M = .075, SE = .013, p \ .05 and M = .067, SE = .013, p \ .05, respectively). For the intergroup contact, age and justification type interaction, follow up tests generally supported our expectation that respondents who have an LG friend would use conven- tional reasoning or information assumption less frequently than other contact groups, however, our prediction that respondents with an LG friend would use moral reasoning more frequently than other contact groups was only par- tially supported. For moral justifications, we found that 15- year old respondents with LG friends selected the category most often (Friend: M = .613, SE = .029; no contact M = .416, SE = .072, p \ .05; in school M = .420, SE = .034, p \ .05; personally know M = .431, SE = .028, p \ .05). For conventional justifications, we found that 16-old students with LG friends used this cat- egory less often (M = .043, SE = .016) than those in the personally know (M = .109, SE = .020, p \ .05) and in school (M = .104, SE = .022, p \ .05) categories, and 18- year old students with an LG friend used conventional justifications less often (M = .042, SE = .031) than those in the personally know category (M = .203, SE = .036, p \ .05). We found no intergroup contact related differ- ences for personal choice justifications. Finally, for infor- mational assumptions, we found that subjects with LG friends endorsed these justifications less often than other groups at multiple ages: For 15-year olds, having an LG friend was related to lower means (M = .051, SE = .014) than both the personally know (M = .158, SE = .013, p \ .05) and in school categories (M = .112, SE = .016, p \ .05). For 16-year olds, respondents with LG friends had lower means (M = .050, SE = .016) than those in the no contact category (M = .200, SE = .055, p \ .05). For 17-year olds, ‘‘friend’’ (M = .050, SE = .020) was sig- nificantly lower than ‘‘in school’’ (M = .094, SE = .037, p \ .05). And for 18-year olds, ‘‘friend’’ (M = .035, SE = .031) was significantly lower than ‘‘personally know’’ (M = .178, SE = .036, p \ .05). We were surprised to find very few age differences. For moral justifications, 18-year olds who personally knew LG
peers endorsed these justifications less often (M = .272, SE = .077) than 16-year olds (M = .567, SE = .043, p \ .05), which did not agree with our hypothesis. We did, however, find that 18-year olds with LG friends selected personal choice more often (M = .387, SE = .058) than 15-year olds with an LG friend (M = .213, SE = .025, p \ .05).
Teasing
For the teasing justifications, the analysis revealed a sig- nificant main effect for justification type F(3, 1,026) = 122.62, p \ .001, g = .107 and significant three-way interactions between intergroup contact, gender and justi- fication type F(9, 1,026) = 1.88, p \ .05, g = .005, as well as age, gender and justification type F(12, 1,026) = 2.02, p \ .05, g = .008. In general, adolescents used pre- dominantly moral (M = .69) justifications for their teasing judgments. Within this general pattern of findings, how- ever, follow-up tests of the intergroup contact and gender by justification type interaction supported our intergroup contact hypothesis, although there were different patterns of results for males and females. Males with LG friends were more likely to use moral justifications than respondents in other contact groups [M (friend) = .732, SE = .034; M (personally know) = .548, SE = .031, p \ .05; M (in school) = .576, SE = .039, p \ .05; M (no contact) = .509, SE = .070, p \ .05] and less likely to use informational assumptions than all other contact groups [M (friend) = .041, SE = .016; M (personally know) = .149, SE = .015, p \ .05; M (in school) = .117, SE = .018, p \ .05; M (no contact) = .159, SE = .033, p \ .05] when justifying their teasing judgments. Means for males using conventional justifications were also lowest for those with LG friends, though differences were only significant between the friend (M = .071, SE = .094) and personally know (M = .134, SE = .013, p \ .05) categories. Female respondents who endorsed moral justifications showed a similar pattern to males with ‘‘friend’’ having the highest mean (M = .824, SE = .024), though the differ- ence was only significant with the ‘‘personally know’’ group (M = .704, SE = .032, p \ .05). Females with LG friends (M = .038, SE = .011) and those who knew LG peers in school (M = .020, SE = .022) had lower means than those in the personally know category (M = .053, SE = .015, p \ .05) when using informational assumption justification categories, however, the difference between ‘‘friend’’ and ‘‘in school’’ was not significant. No contact differences for personal choice justifications for females were obtained. Follow-up tests of the age and gender by justification type interaction did not reveal any differences between ages
across justification type, which was contrary to our hypothesis. We did, however, find gender differences. Females from each age group, with the exception of 14-year olds [M (15) = .734, SE = .031; M (16) = .840, SE = .047; M (17) = .843, SE = .047; M (18) = .859, SE = .097], used moral justifications more often than males [M (15) = .585, SE = .031, p \ .05; M (16) = .587, SE = .048, p \ .05; M (17) = .621, SE = .050, p \ .05; M (18) = .543, SE = .074, p \ .05]. Females from each age group (with the exception of 17-year olds) also used infor- mational assumptions less often [M (14) = .056, SE = .021; M (15) = .043, SE = .015; M (16) = .023, SE = .022; M (18) = .003, SE = .046] than did males [M (14) = .091, SE = .020, p \ .05; M (15) = .104, SE = .015, p \ .05; M (16) = .188, SE = .023, p \ .05; M (18) = .127, SE = .035, p \ .05]. A similar pattern held for conventional justifications with males reporting hiring means than females, though differences were only signifi- cant in the 15- [M (Males) = .086, SE = .013; M (Females) = .052, SE = .013, p \ .05) and 18-year old (M (Males) = .134, SE = .031; M (Females) = .023, SE = .041, p \ .05] age groups. In terms of personal choice justifications, males reported higher means than females in both the 15- [M (Males) = .119, SE = .019; M (Females) = .078, SE = .019, p \ .05] and 18-year old [M (Males) = .139, SE = .046; M (Females) = .008, SE = .060, p \ .05] categories.
Discussion
This study provides further evidence to support intergroup contact theory and, in particular, provides evidence that intergroup contact is related to sexual prejudice in ado- lescents. The results of this study support and extend the research on intergroup contact theory and sexual prejudice in three important ways: First, the results suggest that intergroup contact, in and of itself, is not enough to reduce negative attitudes and prejudices related to LG peers among adolescents, but rather that type of contact (intimate vs. casual) is a critical component to prejudice reduction. Second, while we found evidence of age differences in adolescents’ level of contact, contrary to previous research on sexual prejudice, this study found little evidence of age- related differences in adolescents’ attitudes and judgments suggesting that sexual prejudice may be related more too intergroup contact than developmental differences. Third, this study provides evidence, similar to Killen et al. (2006), that intimate intergroup contact is not only related to atti- tudes and beliefs, but also to the type of reasoning indi- viduals use in forming their attitudes and judgments regarding members of out-groups.
Level of Contact, Gender, and Age-Related Differences in Adolescents’ Attitudes and Judgments
This study provides strong evidence for Allport’s (1994) hypothesis that intimate rather than casual contact will lead to reductions in stereotype use and prejudice. Adolescents reporting that they had a lesbian or gay friend were less likely to judge homosexuality as wrong, were more com- fortable interacting with LG peers and were more likely to evaluate excluding and teasing a LG peer as wrong than adolescents reporting other levels of contact. Interestingly, adolescents reporting casual contact did not report more favorable attitudes than those students reporting no contact, and in some cases, reported more prejudicial attitudes, suggesting that contact, in and of itself, is not enough to improve intergroup attitudes and decrease prejudice. This is somewhat counter to Herek and Capitanio’s (1996) results that contact, in general, led to lower levels of sexual prejudice among adults. It could be, however, that due to the increased salience of sexuality and sexual identity in adolescence, the likelihood that adolescents may be encountering LG peers for the first time, and the fact that homosexuality is a highly stigmatized identity that the type of intergroup contact is particularly important during this developmental period. During adolescence, simply know- ing someone who is lesbian or gay may increase individ- uals’ awareness of and discomfort with homosexuality and LG individuals. These results underscore the research suggesting that simply pushing people into non-optimal contact situations may be detrimental to goals of improving intergroup relations, particularly around issues of homo- sexuality, and may, in fact, increase intergroup hostility and violence (Dovidio et al. 2003; Pettigrew 1998). With more and more students coming out during high school, these results have significant implications for schools in that heterosexual students are likely to come into casual contact with LG peers within the school context, potentially increasing intergroup conflict and issues of prejudice and harassment within the school context. Schools need to help young people negotiate these poten- tial conflicts by engaging in safe schools practices that are related to safer sexual diversity climates for students (Horn and Szalacha 2009; Szalacha 2003). These include such things as non-harassment and non-discrimination policies that specifically include sexual orientation and gender expression as protected classes, providing support for stu- dent-generated support and advocacy groups such as Gay Student Alliances (GSAs), and teacher training. Similarly to, level of contact differences, the results of this study also provide fairly strong support for gender differences in adolescents’ levels of sexual prejudice. In addition to reporting higher levels of contact with LG
likely to use conventional and personal reasoning, as well as informational assumptions in justifying their exclusion and teasing judgments. Killen et al. hypothesize that because girls may have more experience with being excluded or teased, they may be more attuned to the harm related to these types of social interactions and are, thus, more likely to view them in moral terms suggesting that adolescents’ understanding of these types of intergroup interactions are directly linked to their social experiences and how they construct meaning out of these experiences. Given that girls were also more likely to report having a lesbian or gay friend, it could also be the case that the experience of being friends with someone from the out- group is related to how adolescents’ construct meaning about these types of intergroup interactions. In relation to adolescents’ judgments regarding their attitudes about the acceptability of homosexuality, one of the most prominent findings pertained to differences in the types of reasoning used among adolescents who reported they believed it was wrong to be gay, those who reported it was neither right nor wrong, and those who reported it was right. Adolescents reporting that it was wrong to be gay used more religious opposition, informational assumptions and stereotypes as justifications than those who viewed homosexuality as neutral or all right and were less likely to use biological/genetic or human/individual rights justifi- cations. Further, adolescents who viewed homosexuality as all right used religious opposition and informational assumption justifications less often than respondents who were neutral about the acceptability of homosexuality. Interestingly, we found no interactions between different evaluative judgment groups and level of contact in relation to adolescents’ justifications. Given the strong relationships between having a lesbian or gay friend and the belief that homosexuality was not wrong, however, it is difficult to determine from these results the role that intergroup con- tact plays in adolescents’ reasoning about the acceptability of homosexuality. Additional research is needed to better untangle the relationships amongst intergroup contact, individuals’ judgments regarding the acceptability of homosexuality and their reasoning about these judgments. While we did not find a relationship between intergroup contact and the type of judgment in relation to adolescents’ reasoning, we did find a relationship amongst the level of contact, gender, and age in relation to the types of rea- soning adolescents used to justify their judgments regard- ing the acceptability of homosexuality. Overall, a clearer pattern emerged for males. In line with our expectations, males reporting that they had a gay or lesbian friend were more likely to use individual rights reasoning and less likely to use informational assumptions to justify their judgments than males reporting other levels of contact. This pattern emerged specifically for middle and older
adolescents but not for 14-year olds. For girls, no clear pattern of results was evident, but similarly to boys, middle adolescent girls with a lesbian or gay friend were less likely to use informational assumptions to justify their accept- ability judgments than girls reporting other levels of con- tact. These results are important in that they extend the research on intergroup contact and provide some pre- liminary evidence that the experience of having a lesbian or gay friend is related to the ways in which adolescents construct an understanding of homosexuality, especially as related to their use of informational assumptions regarding LG people. The experience of having a lesbian or gay friend seems to decrease adolescents’ beliefs that homo- sexuality is unnatural or disgusting and in some cases, especially for boys, increases their beliefs that LG people have a right to be who they are. Given the complex set of relationships amongst contact, age, gender, and adoles- cents’ reasoning about the acceptability of homosexuality, however, more research needs to be conducted to fully understand how the experience of having a lesbian or gay friend is related to the ways in which adolescents construct an understanding of homosexuality and the additional factors that may influence this.
Limitations
Due to the cross-sectional nature of this study, it is impossible to determine the direction of effects regarding having a gay or lesbian friend and the reduction of sexual prejudice. It could be the case, as stated above, that as young people become more tolerant of LG others, they are more willing to befriend someone who is gay or lesbian, rather than their friendship impacting their attitudes and beliefs. Future research should address the ways in which intergroup contact predicts changes in beliefs and attitudes as well as how changes in beliefs and attitudes create the possibility of improved intergroup relationships. Research on individuals’ coming out experiences to family and friends suggests that the initial discovery of a family member or friend’s same-sex sexual orientation may in fact lead to decreased tolerance and increased bias and negative attitudes (Harris and Bliss 1997; Strommen 1989), sug- gesting that this may be a dialectical process. Additionally, the measures used in this study are all self- report and the situations participants are responding to are all hypothetical. While there is a correlation between individuals’ judgments about hypothetical situations and their judgments and behaviors in actual situations (Turiel 2007, 1990), many factors come into play when individuals are making decisions about how to act in their everyday lives. Particularly regarding issues of sexual prejudice, Poteat et al. have provided substantial evidence to sug- gest that peer groups act as socializing forces toward
homophobic behavior (Poteat, 2007; Poteat et al. 2007) suggesting that, in actual school contexts, the prevalence of sexual prejudice will likely be higher. Further, the role that having a gay or lesbian friend has on sexual prejudice in actual contexts may be more complex in these situations. Future research should investigate the role of intergroup contact on adolescents’ and young adults’ actual behaviors toward gay and lesbian people and the factors that may impact this relationship.
Implications and Conclusions
The results of this study suggest that intergroup contact is related to both adolescents’ attitudes and judgments regarding homosexuality and the treatment of LG peers, as well as the types of reasoning processes that adolescents bring to bear on these judgments. It underscores the importance of not only assessing prejudicial attitudes about stigmatized groups, but also the types of reasoning that individuals’ apply to their decision-making regarding these groups. Additionally, as Horn (2006, 2008) suggests, this study provides additional support that prejudice reduction strategies must be multifaceted and that attention to dif- ferential patterns in negative beliefs and attitudes is essential in working to increase positive intergroup rela- tionships. In particular, the results of this study advise against simplistic strategies that simply bring young people from different groups into contact with each other in order to improve intergroup relations. In relation to the safety and well-being LGBT students at school, the results of this study provide compelling evidence that schools in which young people are visibly out about their sexual orientation need to engage in serious and deliberate anti-bias training and prejudice reduction strategies to ensure a safe envi- ronment for these students. Additionally, however, the study also provides evidence that the visibility of gay and lesbian students within a school context can help to create a more accepting and welcoming environment if these stu- dents have the opportunity to interact with their peers in positive and mutually rewarding ways.
References
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading: Addison- Wesley. Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (2008). Introduction to classical & modern test theory. Mason: Cengage Learning. Crystal, D. S., Killen, M., & Ruck, M. (2008). It is who you know that counts: Intergroup contact and judgments about race-based exclusion. The British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 26, 51–70. doi:10.1348/026151007X198910. Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2004). Aversive racism. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 36, pp. 1–51). San Diego: Academic Press.
Dovidio, D. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Kawakami, K. (2003). Intergroup contact: The past, present and the future. Intergroup Relations, 6, 5–21. doi:10.1177/1368430203006001009. Fine, M., & McClelland, S. (2006). Sexuality education and desire: Still missing after all these years. Harvard Educational Review, 76 , 297–338. Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, D. F. (2005). Understanding and addressing contemporary racism: From aversive racism to the common ingroup identity model. The Journal of Social Issues, 61 , 615–639. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2005.00424.x. Harris, M., & Bliss, G. (1997). Coming out in a school setting: Former students’ experiences and opinions about disclosure. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 7, 85–100. doi:10.1300/J041v07n04_06. 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. M., & Capitanio, J. P. (1996). Some of my best friends: Intergroup contact, concealable stigma, and heterosexuals’ attitudes toward gay men and lesbians. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 412–424. doi:10.1177/0146167296224007. Horn, S. S. (2006). Heterosexual students’ attitudes and beliefs about same-sex sexuality and the treatment of gay, lesbian, and gender non-conforming youth. Cognitive Development, 21, 420–440. doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2006.06.007. Horn, S. S. (2008). The multifaceted nature of sexual prejudice: What we can learn from studying how adolescents reason about sexual orientation and sexual prejudice. In S. Levy & M. Killen (Eds.), Intergroup attitudes and relations in childhood through adult- hood (pp. 398–437). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Horn, S. S., & Nucci, L. P. (2003). The multidimensionality of adolescents’ beliefs about and attitudes toward gay and lesbian peers in school. Equity and Excellence in Education, 36, 1–12. Special Issue on LGBTQ issues in K-12 schools. Horn, S. S., & Nucci, L. P. (2006). Harassment of gay and lesbian youth and school violence in America: An analysis and directions for intervention. In C. Daiute, L. P. Nucci, Z. Beykont, & C. Higson-Smith (Eds.), Global perspectives on youth conflict (pp. 139–155). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Horn, S. S., & Szalacha, L. A. (2009). School differences in heterosexual students’ attitudes about homosexuality and prejudice based on sexual orientation. European Journal of Developmental Sciences, 3, 66–81. Horn, S. S., Szalacha, L. A., & Drill, K. (2008). Schooling, sexuality and rights: An investigation of heterosexual students’ social cognition regarding sexual orientation and the rights of gay and lesbian peers in school. Journal of Social Issues: Young People’s Perspectives on the Rights of the Child: Implications for Theory, Research, and Practice, 64, 791–813. 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. (2005). Morality in the context of intergroup relationships. In M. Killen & J. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook for moral development (pp. 155–183). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Killen, M., Richardson, C., Kelly, M.C., Crystal, D., & Ruck, M. (2006). European-American students’ evaluations of interracial social exchanges in relation to the ethnic diversity of school environments. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Association for Psychological Science, New York City. Killen, M., & Stangor, C. (2001). Social reasoning about inclusion and exclusion in gender and race peer group contexts. Child Development, 72, 174–186. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00272.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
