Homophobia and Homosociality: An Analysis of Boundary Maintenance

Author(s): Dana M. Britton

Source: The Sociological Quarterly , Summer, 1990, Vol. 31, No. 3 (Summer, 1990), pp.
423-439
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4120971

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4120971?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
The Sociological Quarterly

This content downloaded from

203.131.216.5 on Tue, 28 May 2024 06:24:39 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 HOMOPHOBIA AND HOMOSOCIALITY:
An Analysis of Boundary Maintena

Dana M. Britton*
University of Texas

Past research on the subject of homophobia consists of theoretical generalizations

on its origin or empirical correlations of a multitude of attitudinal and demographic
variables, with very little synthesis of the two. The present study relates homophobia
to the maintenance of powerful sex-segregated institutions. It does so by operational-
izing, for the first time, the concept of homosociality, which refers to social prefer-
ence for members of one's own gender, but does not necessarily imply erotic
attraction. This concept is tested for its relationship with homophobia in a survey
of a large adult sample. Traditional explanations of homophobia (which center
around religious and sex-role conservatism) are similarly explored. All proposed
hypotheses find support.

George Weinberg first coined the term "homophobia" in 1967. He conceives of homo-
phobia as an "irrational revulsion." More specifically, he defines it as the "irrational
condemnation of homosexuals" which results in "violence, deprivation, and separa-
tion" (1972, p. vii). Since Weinberg's definition, other researchers have developed
different labels in an effort to more precisely describe the phenomenon, such as "homo-
sexophobia" (Levitt and Klassen 1974), the fear of homosexuality; and "homonegati-
vism" (Hudson and Ricketts 1980), a general affective and behavioral dislike of
homosexuals. Though these terms' histories are rather short, the feeling described has
existed for thousands of years. The present research uses the more general term "homo-
phobia," taken to mean the fear and dislike of lesbians and gay men.
A dramatic shift in the study of minority/majority relations fostered the relatively
recent research focus on homophobia. Early literature on homosexuality sought the
behavioral "defect" in the personalities of homosexuals that made them "different."
Indeed, homosexuality was the topic of many psychological studies on pathological
deviance. The change from the study of the homosexual minority to the heterosexual
majority represents a fundamental paradigm shift. The "organism deficiency" model
has given way to a "social deficiency" model (MacDonald and Games 1974). Research-
ers are now exploring the effects of the majority on an oppressed minority (Herek
1984b).

*Direct all correspondence to: Dana M. Britton, Department of Sociology, University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712.

The Sociological Quarterly, Volume 31, Number 3, pages 423-439.

Copyright @ 1990 by JAI Press, Inc.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
ISSN: 0038-0253.

This content downloaded from

203.131.216.5 on Tue, 28 May 2024 06:24:39 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
424 THE SOCIOLOGICAL QUARTERLY Vol. 31/No. 3/1990

Although homosexuality has lost the status of a psychological dis

the context of DSM-III), homophobia is still prevalent. In a recent
54% of respondents agree that homosexual relations between consentin
be illegal and 51% believe that the Constitution does not protect pr
acts (in accord with the recent Supreme Court decision in Bowers v. H
Poll 1986). The existence of a phobia takes on new importance in light o
A general population which believes homosexuality somehow "sinf
feel quite justified in fearing homosexuals. Undoubtedly, the AIDS
bates this fear. Since AIDS is always fatal, public identification of the
sexual practices of gay males only increases the level of homophob
population. To begin to understand this fear, research that measur
necessary, as are attempts to delineate its correlates and causes.
The present research empirically explores the utility of the concept
as a sociological explanation of homophobia. This is a relatively n
variable previously only theoretically linked with homophobia. It refers
ence for members of one's own gender, but does not necessarily imply
The concept describes one of the primary ways in which society is str
Blumen (1975, 1976) notes that, in general, powerful social institution
gated (male dominated) and posits that sexual activity within them
troublesome by patriarchal society as a whole. Thus, homophobia h
boundary between social and sexual interaction in a sex-segregated soc
study proposes that homosociality directly affects homophobia and se
vening variable between previously observed correlates and homop

LITERATURE REVIEW

Efforts to understand homophobia have been, at best, sporadic. The first empirical
research did not appear until 1971 (Smith 1971). Subsequent empirical and theoretical
approaches have been discrete entities. As Herek (1984b, p. 4) notes, "Social scientists
attempting to explain why so many people hold negative feelings toward homosexual
persons have tended to offer either theoretical speculations or empirical data, with little
synthesis of the two."

Theoretical Explanations of Homophobia

One prominent explanation of homophobia focuses on the link between religion and
homosexuality, from the standpoint of Biblical prohibitions. Since Western Christian
theology condemns homosexuality as a sin, homophobia is a reflection of religiosity.
In this vein, Greenberg and Bystyrn suggest that a cornerstone of the development of
the modern church was "the crystallization of a distinctly Christian intolerance of
homosexuality" (1982, p. 517). Indeed, one study finds that "rejection of homosexuality
is an integral part of the American Christian heritage" (Nyberg and Alston 1976).
Psychologists, primarily those of the Freudian school, proffer another position.
Freud holds that while everyone has homoerotic feelings, they are repressed in the
course of "normal" sexual development: those who successfully resolve the Oedipal
conflict become normal adults. Inherent in this position is the belief that homosexuality

This content downloaded from

203.131.216.5 on Tue, 28 May 2024 06:24:39 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Homophobia and Homosociality 425

is an immature, underdeveloped form of adul

explain homophobia as a reaction-formation a
for the same sex (Herek 1984b).
A more sociological explanation of homop
homosexuality "are the result of attempts to
gious, and institutional boundaries" (Davie
threaten the collectivity. In situations whe
mode of social relations, taboos are strong (G
digm suggests homophobia's identity mainten
fear of being labeled deviant unites members.
as a homosexual which keeps men (and women
(Morin and Garfinkle 1978).
Jean Lipman-Blumen expands this paradigm b
ciality on homophobia. She defines homosocia
preference for the company of the same sex.
that it does not necessarily involve an exp
members of the same sex" (Lipman-Blumen 19
can and do "turn to other men for the satisf
physical, emotional, social, and sexual stimu
broad nexus of occupational, political, and eco
440). A stratification system in which mal
exclusive access to major resources reinforces
in outlook prefer other men's company and a
The relationship to homophobia lies in mainta
sexual interaction in a homosocially stratifi
that society, as well as the members of all-mal
interaction in these single-sex milieus (see Gr
evidence). The taboo on homosexuality prev
all-male situations as "a way of protecting val
trap of homosexuality" (Lipman-Blumen 19
While Lipman-Blumen's theory is compelling
homosexual interaction in all-male institution
of societies which viewed such interaction
albeit often in highly sexist and stylized form
Blumen seems to suggest that, in our society,
masculine gender role, an assertion borne out
masculinity. Thompson, Grisanti, and Pleck
dynamic in masculine behavior "may not b
control and power inside personal relations
Rather, a fundamental guide for men's be
anything feminine." Indeed, homophobia does
the rejection of effeminacy (Thompson, Gr
causal sequence is not clear, homophobia in po
to protect our society's masculine gender d
stratification. Certainly, other explanations o
sex-segregated environments may be viable as

This content downloaded from

203.131.216.5 on Tue, 28 May 2024 06:24:39 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
426 THE SOCIOLOGICAL QUARTERLY Vol. 31/No. 3/1990

this. However, this research empirically investigates the complex link

cial preferences and homophobia, toward further untangling their rel

Empirical Studies

The last two decades brought a wealth of empirical research on hom

much of it lacks a solid theoretical framework. The bulk of these studi
by psychologists using a multitude of attitudinal and demograph
following have been correlated with homophobia:

1. Gender. Males are more homophobic than females (Aguero, B

1984; Kite 1984; Millham, San Miguel, and Kellogg 1976; Millh
berger 1977; Patoglun-an and Clair 1986).

2. Age and education. The older and less educated are more hom
and Ricketts 1980; Nyberg and Alston 1976; Thompson, Grisa
1985; West 1979).

3. General religious and sexual conservatism. Homophobia is rela

maintain traditional sex roles and is a manifestation of religi
conservatism (Black and Stevenson 1984; Laner and Laner 19
and Games 1974; Millham and Weinberger 1977; Minnigerod
1971; Thompson, Grisanti, and Pleck 1985; Weinberger and M

4. Perceived similarity and personal threat. Males are more lik

homosexuals, and heterosexuals who feel their identity threatene
ality will be more homophobic (Black and Stevenson 1984; Lev
1974; Millham, San Miguel, and Kellogg 1976; Millham and We
San Miguel and Millham 1976; Weinberger and Millham 1979

5. Interaction. Positive previous interaction with homosexuals

phobia (Millham, San Miguel, and Kellogg 1976; Patoglun-an a

6. Marital status. Those who are single are more homophobic (Hu
etts 1980).

7. Area of residence. Rural residence or upbringing increases homophobia (Levitt

and Klassen 1974; Nyberg and Alston 1976).

Implications for Current Research

Though past research correlates homophobia with many different variables, several
shortcomings are apparent. Most treat homophobia as unidimensional, assessing it with
one or two questions (Alston 1974; Levitt and Klassen 1974; Nyberg and Alston 1976;
West 1979). Only very recently has its multidimensional nature been emphasized and
scales constructed accordingly (Herek 1984a; Millham, San Miguel, and Kellogg 1976;
Weinberger and Millham 1979).

This content downloaded from

203.131.216.5 on Tue, 28 May 2024 06:24:39 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Homophobia and Homosociality 427

Previous research also concentrates heavily on the male

lesbians are thereby included (Aguero, Bloch, and Byrne
Stevenson 1984; Minnigerode 1976; Levitt and Klassen 197
Alston 1976; Patoglun-an and Clair 1986; San Miguel a
Thompson, Grisanti, and Pleck 1985). This exclusion c
may not even consider lesbians when responding. The on
that 73% of male respondents consider only male hom
respondents consider both sexes equally (Black and St
scales specifically differentiate attitudes toward lesbians
homosexuals, the assumption that the same factors pr
both sexes is unsupportable.
The great majority of previous research uses college un
Bloch, and Byrne 1984; Smith 1971; Minnigerode 1976
Herek 1984a; Hudson and Ricketts 1980; Laner and L
Games 1974; Millham, San Miguel, and Kellogg 1976; M
Patoglun-an and Clair 1986; San Miguel and Millham 1
and Millham 1979; Thompson, Grisanti, and Pleck 198
homogeneous in terms of age, socioeconomic status, educ
osity, and social background. Very little work has been d
population as a whole. Thus, what is known about hom
well-educated young segment of the population.
Homosociality has never been assessed in an empiric
Blumen posits that the strongly homosocial are also hom
has never been operationalized. This research incorpor
homosociality into the limited empirical research on h

HYPOTHESES

I investigate homophobia's relationship to a homosocial preference through the use of

the intermediate variable homosociality. In accord with the results of previous studies,
scale items measuring general religious and social conservatism are included. The
following relationships are hypothesized:

1. Support for traditional roles for women increases homophobia.

2. Support for traditional roles for men increases homophobia.

3. Religiosity increases homophobia.

Hypothesis 4 expects respondents who favor the maintenance of sex-segregated

institutions to be more homophobic, as homophobia serves to maintain the boundary
between social and sexual interaction:

4. Homosociality increases homophobia.

This content downloaded from

203.131.216.5 on Tue, 28 May 2024 06:24:39 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
428 THE SOCIOLOGICAL QUARTERLY Vol. 31/No. 3/1990

Finally, homosociality should explain a significant degree of the rela

religious and sex-role conservatism and homophobia because this conse
tains all-male institutions:

5. Homosociality is an intervening factor between sex-role and religious conserva-

tism and homophobia.

METHODS

The data draw from a survey of 332 adults (ages 18 and above) residing in a medium
sized southwestern city. Respondents are randomly selected from the Polk Directo
the most comprehensive sampling frame available for this city. Members of the ta
sample who did not participate are replaced by random selection. The sample's dem
graphic characteristics do not significantly differ from those of the study popula
Items assessing homophobia directed at gay men derive from Herek (1984a)
accordance with his recommendations, items load on his "Condemnation-Toler
factor. A subset of 6 items from his scale are reported in Table 1, recoded, with h
scores indicating a high degree of homophobia.
Only one factor emerges using principal axis factoring on these items. This fact
(eigenvalue = 4.28) accounts for 71.3% of total common variance.2 As all comm
ties are above .58, all items share more than 58% of their variance with the comm
factor. Factor loadings, all above .75, indicate that all items highly correlate with
common factor (Table 1). A summed Z-score scale was created and a reliabili
analysis of the composite reveals an alpha of .96. These results replicate Herek's (19
finding that a single, bipolar condemnation-tolerance factor is appropriate in asses
homophobia.
Items measuring attitudes toward women, reported in Table 2, come from Mac-
Donald (1974), selected from two factors. The first treats sex-appropriate behavior
(masculinity/femininity); the second, roles for women in business and the professions.
Again, responses are recoded, high scores indicating a conservative attitude.

Table 1
Univariate Statistics: Scale Items-Male Homophobia (N = 330)
Standard Factor
Item Mean Deviation Loading**
The growing number of male homosex
decline in American morals.*
Male homosexuality is merely a different kind of lifestyle 2.864 1.083 .773
that should not be condemned.
Male homosexuality is a threat to many of our basic 2.867 1.095 .776
social institutions.*
If a man has homosexual feelings, he should do 3.216 0.955 .878
everything he can to overcome them.*
Male homosexuality is an inferior form of sexuality.* 3.034 1.122 .799
Male homosexuality is a sin.* 3.093 1.168 .866
Notes. * Reverse-coded items.

?*One-factor solution.

This content downloaded from

203.131.216.5 on Tue, 28 May 2024 06:24:39 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Homophobia and Homosociality 429

Table 2
Univariate Statistics: Scale Items--Attitudes toward Women (N = 329)
Standard Factor
Item Mean Deviation Loading*
On the average women are less capable o
economic production than are men.*
Women should be concerned with their duties of 2.176 1.135 .805
child-rearing and house-tending, rather than with
desires for business and professional careers.*
Men are naturally more capable than women in financial 1.709 0.916 .732
matters.*
A woman who refuses to bear children has failed in her 1.800 1.009 .593
duty to her husband.*
There is hardly anything more revolting than seeing a 3.124 1.089
woman dress, act, and cuss like a man.*
A woman on the average needs protection and guidance.* 2.419 1.088 .721
Notes: * Reverse-coded items.
*One-factor solution.

Upon factor analysis, one factor (eigenvalue = 2.93) emerges and explains 58.6%
the total common variance. It accounts for more than 30% of the variance in each of
the items, as communalities range from .30 to .51. Factor loadings, all above .59,
indicate good correlation with the common factor (Table 2). The items have high
internal consistency; after one item, which deals with gender-inappropriate behavior,
is excluded, the scale alpha is .82. Results of this analysis are used to create a summed
Z-score scale.
Table 3 reports items assessing attitudes toward men, drawn from Brannon and Juni
(1983). In accordance with their results items load on the "avoiding feminity" and the
"toughness/violence" factors. Scale items are recoded, with high scores indicating
conservative attitudes.
As expected, factor analysis of these items reveals two factors. The first, "anti-
femininity," accounts for 40% of total common variance (eigenvalue = 2.4); the sec-
ond, "violence," for 23% (eigenvalue = 1.4). As all items have communalties above
.18, more than 18% of their variance is shared with the factors. Results of rotations
utilizing both Varimax and Oblimin methods are very similar, so the former are
reported here. Three items load on the anti-femininity factor at .4 or above, indicat-
ing their high correlation with the factor. Three items also load on the violence fac-
tor from .6 to .8 (Table 3). Two summed Z-score scales are used and the items are
also assessed for reliability. After testing the items loading on Brannon's "anti-femi-
ninity" factor separately for internal consistency, three items remain, with an alpha
of .63. Similar analysis of the items assessing violence derives three items kept for
analysis, with an alpha of .76. These results show less internal consistency for the
scale than that demonstrated by its creators, who studied a highly homogeneous
population.
Items measuring religiosity focus on personal religious commitment, rather than
denominational conservatism. High scores on the recoded scale indicate high religi-
osity.

This content downloaded from

203.131.216.5 on Tue, 28 May 2024 06:24:39 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
430 THE SOCIOLOGICAL QUARTERLY Vol. 31/No. 3/1990

Table 3
Univariate Statistics: Scale Items-Attitudes toward Men (N = 330)
Standard Factor
Item Mean Deviation Loading**
1 2

I think it's very good for a boy to be taught how to 1.421 0.720
cook, sew, clean the house, and take care of younger
children.
I don't think a husband should usually have to wash the 2.285 1.096 .041 .574
dishes, unless his wife is busy and he wants to help
out.*
A young man who was not interested in sports would 1.645 0.867 .193 .387
be a little odd in my opinion.*
As a general rule, a man should not have to do the 2.121 1.056 .124 .860
family laundry.*
It annoys me a little to see a man sitting with his legs 1.745 0.918 - -
crossed like a woman.*
A man must never let anyone push him around no 2.570 1.047 -
matter who they are.*
Fists are sometimes the only way to get out of a bad 1.858 0.974 .578 .148
situation. *
In some kinds of situations, a man should be ready to 2.273 1.042 .765 .138
use his fists, even if his wife or girlfriend objects.*
A man must sometimes be willing to use violence.* 2.336 1.085 .791 .097
Noters * Reverse-coded items.

?*Two-factor solution-Varimax rotation.

Factor analysis results appear in Table 4. As expected, one factor emerges from the
six items (eigenvalue = 3.56), accounting for 59.3% of total common variance. Upo
a reliability analysis, two items were excluded; the resulting composite has high interna
consistency (alpha = .87). A final factor analysis is conclusive, as the remaining items
all have communalities above .5, sharing more than 50% of their variance with t
common factor. All factor loadings exceed .75, indicating high correlation with t
common factor. A summed Z-score scale was created for use in the analysis.
Finally, items assessing homosociality, reported in Table 5, accord with the theoret
cal implications of Lipman-Blumen (1976). The scale measures two aspects: strict
social preference for members of one's own gender and preference for the maintenanc
of sex-segregated institutions. The four-category Likert scale is used, high scores in-
dicating high homosociality.
Factor analysis reveals the two expected dimensions. The first factor (eigen-
value = 2.24) explains 37.3% of total common variance; the second (eigen
value = 1.58) explains 26.4%. Communalities range from .18 to .58, so all items sha
18% or more variance with the factors. Results using both Varimax and Oblimin fact
rotation are similar, so the former are reported. Three items load on the "interpersona
factor at .71 or above, indicating high correlation with the factor. Three load on the
"institutional" factor at .43 or above, also showing significant correlation. Table
depicts the final loadings. The three items measuring interpersonal preference f
members of one's own sex are reliable, with high internal consistency (alpha = .7

This content downloaded from

203.131.216.5 on Tue, 28 May 2024 06:24:39 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Homophobia and Homosociality 431

Table 4
Univariate Statistics: Scale Items-Religiosity (N = 329)
Standard Factor
Item Mean Deviation Loading**
Religion is a very important part of my life.* 3.367 0.852 .874
I would describe myself as very religious.* 2.830 0.978 .790
I believe a commitment to traditional values is important 3.497 0.694 -
in one's life.*
I believe in obeying the decisions of religious leaders 2.561 1.021 -
concerning moral issues.*
I believe it is important for me to attend religious services 2.942 1.097 .782
frequently.*
Religion should influence how I live my life.* 3.261 0.941 .759
Notes: * Reverse-coded items.
?*One-factor solution.

Table 5
Univariate Statistics: Scale Items-Homosociality (N = 329)
Standard Factor
Item Mean Deviation Loading**
1 2

In general, I feel most comfortable with members of 2.669 0.977 .753 .137
my own sex.*
I prefer to have close friends who are members of my 2.766 0.945 .762 .076
own sex.*
In general, I feel that my own sex understands me 2.711 0.962 .717 -.001
better.*
It is wrong to have girls in the Boy Scouts.* 2.791 1.123 .067 .727
It is good to have little boys in the Girl Scouts. 2.918 1.063 .029 .432
I have no objection to all-male organizations such as 3.045 1.014 .069 .514
lodges and clubs which purposely exclude women.*
Notes: * Reverse-coded items.
**Two-factor solution-Varimax rotation.

Table 6
Univariate Statistics: Demographic Variables (N = 327)
Standard
Item Mean Deviation

Gender (1 = female, 0 = male) 0.544 0.499

Age 46.783 17.425
Education 13.844 3.054

Items assessing preference for

summed Z-score scales are thu
Means and standard deviatio
Gender is recoded into a dumm
years, ascertained by asking the
with those completing technic

This content downloaded from

203.131.216.5 on Tue, 28 May 2024 06:24:39 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
432 THE SOCIOLOGICAL QUARTERLY Vol. 31/No. 3/1990

ANALYSIS

Correlations

Table 7 reports the correlations between the homophobia scale and all independent
variables. All correlations, with the exception of gender, are statistically significant
(p < .05). Several aspects of this table are important. First, the largest correlations
are between homophobia and religiosity (.485) and homophobia and institutional
homosociality (.485). Attitudinal variables (attitudes toward women, both factors of the
attitudes toward men scale) also positively correlate. The "anti-feminity" factor, as
expected, is more strongly correlated with homophobia than is the violence factor.
Among demographic variables, age is positively correlated (.272); education, negatively
(-.296). Homophobia's smallest significant correlation is with the interpersonal
homosociality factor (.134), though in the anticipated direction.
Item correlations with the homosociality scales are also in the anticipated directions.
All items, with the exception of gender and the "violence" factor of the attitudes toward
men scale, correlate significantly with the "interpersonal" homosociality factor. The
other scale factor, "institutional" homosociality, correlates significantly, but at a weak
level (. 137). The strongest positive correlation is with attitudes on women (.334). Other
variables correlate positively in varying degrees, excepting education (-.177).
All items correlate significantly with the "institutional" factor of the homosociality
scale. All attitudinal scales positively correlate, attitudes toward women most strongly
(.393). Among the demographic variables age correlates with the factor positively

(.210); and education and "femaleness" negatively (--.140 and -.190, respectively).
Correlations between other attitudinal and demographic variables, on the whole
significant and in the anticipated directions, are reported in Table 7.

Path Analysis

Results of multivariate path analysis on all variables in the model serve to test the
hypotheses and are reported in Table 8 and Figure 1.

Hypothesis 7

Analysis affirms the first hypothesis, that support for traditional roles for women
increases homophobia. The correlation between attitudes toward women and homo-
phobia (Table 7) is strong, positive (.449), and in fact the second largest of any in the
model. This scale also has a significant direct effect on homophobia, reported in Table
8 (.159), and an indirect effect through the institutional homophobia factor
[(.153)(.264) = .040].

Hypothesis 2

Analysis also supports the second hypothesis, that support for traditional roles for
men increases homophobia. The correlation of homophobia with the "anti-femininity"
scale is significant and positive (.388), as is that with the "violence" factor (.184). In
view of the general identification of homosexual men as effeminate, this difference in

This content downloaded from

203.131.216.5 on Tue, 28 May 2024 06:24:39 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Table 7
Bivariate Correlation Matrix (N = 316)
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 Homo-
phobia
2 Homsoc- .134
Intrprs (.001)
3 Homsoc- .485 .137
Instit (.001) (.01)
4 Att- .449 .334 .393
Women (.001) (.001) (.001)
5 Men- .388 .214 .374 .581
Antifem (.001) (.001) (.001) (.001)
6 Men- .184 .035 .239 .221 .264
Violence (.01) (ns) (.001) (.001) (.001)
7 Relig .485 .176 .286 .261 .111 -.037
(.001) (.01) (.001) (.001) (.05) (ns)
8 Age .272 .180 .210 .401 .256 .025 .2
(.001) (.01) (.001) (.001) (.001) (ns) (.0
9 Educ -.296 -.177 -.140 -.291 -.247 -.171 -.1
(.001) (.01) (.01) (.001) (.001) (.01) (.
10 Fem- .017 .017 -.190 -.182 -.111 -.267 .0
ness (ns) (ns) (.001) (.01) (.05) (.001) (n

This content downloaded from

203.131.216.5 on Tue, 28 May 2024 06:24:39 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Table 8
Path Analysis: All Variables (N = 316)
Dependent Variables

Homo- Homsoc- Homsoc- Art on Men

Indep phobia Intrprs Inst Women
Variables b Beta b Beta b Beta b Beta b Beta
Homsoc- -0.152 - .076
Intrprs (ns)
Homsoc- 0.592 .264
Instit (.001)
Att on 0.211 .159 0.183 .275 0.091 .153
Women (.01) (.001) (.05)
Men- 0.283 .125 0.035 .031 0.206 .205
Antifem (.05) (ns) (.001)
Men- 0.140 .068 -0.033 -.032 0.114 .125
Violence (ns) (ns) (.05)
Relig 0.509 .340 0.059 .078 0.154 .231
(.001) (ns) (.001)
Age 0.009 .031 0.005 .036 0.00
(ns) (ns) (ns) (.001) (.001
Educ -0.232 -.136 -0.066 -.078 -0.007 -.009 -0.3
(.01) (ns) (ns) (.01) (.01
Femness 0.942 .093 0.261 .051 -0.556 -
(.01) (ns) (ns) (.01) (.05
R 0.466 0.133 0.261 0.255 0.123 0.

This content downloaded from

203.131.216.5 on Tue, 28 May 2024 06:24:39 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Homophobia and Homosociality 435

Attitudes
on Women
Femaleness

's Homosociality-
Interpersonal

SAnti-femininity
1b _.o'h Attitudes on Men- .25 -.io3S Homophobia-

Educatione Male Target

Violence

Ae-.123 Homosociality--
Age - Institutional

Religiosity
Figure 7. Path diagram: All variables.
Note: Only significant paths shown.

strength of correlation is not surprising: Only the "anti-femininity" factor of the scale
significantly directly affects homophobia (.125). This factor also has an indirect effect
through institutional homosociality [(.205)(.264) = .054]. The "violence" factor,
though its direct effect on homophobia is insignificant (.068), indirectly affects it
through institutional homosociality [(. 125)(.264) = .033].

Hypothesis 3

Analysis also supports the hypothesis that religiosity increases homophobia. The
correlation coefficient between religiosity and homophobia (Table 7) is significant,
positive, and at .485 the largest of any in the matrix. Religiosity also produces the
greatest direct effect on homophobia (.340) and has an indirect effect through institu-
tional homosociality [(.231)(.264) = .061]. As expected, religiosity is a prime determi-
nant of homophobia.

Hypothesis 4

The fourth hypothesis, that homosociality increases homophobia, also finds sup-
port. The "interpersonal" factor is significantly positively correlated with homo-
phobia (.134). It has an insignificant direct effect on homophobia, which is not in
the anticipated direction (-.076). Due to that insignificance, indirect effects are not
assessed. The only variable significantly related to this factor is attitudes toward
women (.275).
Results for the "institutional" factor are more definitive. The scale correlates posi-
tively with homophobia (.485) at a level matched only by religiosity and has the
second-largest direct effect (.264). This result establishes that homosociality, at least
the "institutional" variety, is an important concept in explaining homophobia.

This content downloaded from

203.131.216.5 on Tue, 28 May 2024 06:24:39 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
436 THE SOCIOLOGICAL QUARTERLY Vol. 31/No. 3/1990

Hypothesis 5

The final hypothesis, that homosociality serves as an intervenin

sex-role and religious conservatism and homophobia, is also suppor
above, "interpersonal" homosociality is not an intervening variable. Th
homosociality factor is very important in this regard, however, medi
of attitudes toward women, both factors of the attitudes toward men
osity (see above for the magnitude of these effects). While three of t
(excepting "violence") also have direct effects, homosociality expl
degree of their correlations with homophobia, a degree ascertained by
scale and the homosociality variables, with homophobia as the depende
homosociality variables explain from 61% (for the "violence" fac
religiosity) of these variables' original correlations with homophobia.

A Note on Gender and Homosociality

As implied earlier, the theory of homosociality seems to have the gr
tory power in terms of homophobia directed at males. Since powerful
male-dominated, the taboo on homosexual behavior should in this rega
among males. The main analysis of this study is thus restricted to ma
However, since parallel questions were asked concerning lesbians, this
assumption could be examined. If the argument holds, the effect of h
greatest regarding homophobia directed by men at men. Homosoc
little role in explaining homophobia directed by men at women,
examine this, the sample is split by gender and the regressions discusse
the male-targeted homophobia scale as the dependent variable and
targeted scale. Even though only the subject of the questions is chang
chance for variation, some differences appear. In terms of the cor
significant at the same levels reported in Table 7. However, in the regr
of institutional homosociality is not significant in predicting homoph
males at females, but remains significant regarding that directed at ma
and women). Thus, analysis seems to support the assumption that
power of the theory lies in the realm of the male homosexual.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Overall, all proposed hypotheses are supported in this research investigating the
petuation of homophobia. As expected, general religious and social conservatism
to homophobia. Conservatism about the proper roles of men and women seem
the source of this relationship. This is borne out by the finding that the "anti-fem
ity" factor of the attitudes toward men scale engenders a stronger direct effect t
"violence" factor. Respondents' fear of homosexual males appears to reflect c
for the maintenance of "proper" male and female roles. Unlike in many pr
studies, which only deal with the attitudes of college students, these relationshi
support in a survey of an adult sample.
The second major finding of the research is based on the introduction of t
variable, homosociality. Of the two dimensions of this concept tested, only the "in

This content downloaded from

203.131.216.5 on Tue, 28 May 2024 06:24:39 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Homophobia and Homosociality 437

tional" factor has a significant direct effect

with the theoretical implications of Lipman-
maintenance of sex-segregated institutions
phobia may thus serve as a boundary bet
homosocially stratified society. Finally, as h
other, previously investigated variables' corr
the homophobia of the socially conservative
all-male institutions which place a taboo o
This research suggests two basic directions
nations, which center on religious and soc
standing homophobia. Second, and more imp
important variable to consider. This concept
directed at males) to a larger issue, the maint
tions. This paradigm provides a more integr
phobia in the broader context of gender dif

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

A version of this article was presented at the annual meetings of the Southw
Social Science Association, Little Rock, Arkansas, March 29-April 1, 1989. The aut
thanks the College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma, for fundi
survey from which these data were taken, and Professors Robert Bursik and Ha
Grasmick for directing the survey. Thanks also to Dr. Carolyn Morgan, Dr. Gras
Dr. Christine Williams, and three anonymous reviewers for their comments on
drafts of this article.

NOTES

1. Parallel questions directed specifically at lesbians were asked but excluded from the present
report. While the theory of homosociality has great explanatory power for homophobia in
all-male institutions, it does little to explain homophobia directed at lesbians. The results from
those items are retained for future analysis.
2. I performed factor analysis on the entire scale to investigate whether two factors might
exist, one measuring homophobia directed at males, one at females. This was not the case.
However, only the male-targeted items are included for analysis due to the constraints implied
by the theory of homosociality.

REFERENCES

Aguero, J.E., L. Bloch, and D. Byrne. 1984. "The Relationships among Sexual Beliefs, Attitudes,
Experience, and Homophobia." Journal of Homosexuality 10(1/2): 95-107.
Alston, J.P. 1974. "Attitudes toward Extramarital and Homosexual Relations." Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion 13: 479-481.
Black, K.N., and M.R. Stevenson. 1984. "The Relationship of Self-reported Sex-role Characteris-
tics and Attitudes toward Homosexuality." Journal of Homosexuality 10(2): 83-93.

This content downloaded from

203.131.216.5 on Tue, 28 May 2024 06:24:39 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
438 THE SOCIOLOGICAL QUARTERLY Vol. 31/No. 3/1990

Brannon, R., and S. Juni. 1983. "A Scale for Measuring Attitudes about Mascul
ical Documents 14(1): 6.
Bullough, V. 1976. Sexual Variance in Society and History. New York: Wil
Davies, C. 1982. "Sexual Taboos and Social Boundaries." American Journal of
1032-1063.

Gallup Poll. 1986. "Sharp Decline Found in Support for Legalizing Gay Relations." The Gallup
Report 254.
Grahn, J. 1984. Another Mother Tongue: Gay Words, Gay Worlds. Boston: Beacon Press.
Greenberg, D.F., and M.H. Bystyrn. 1982. "Christian Intolerance of Homosexuality." American
Journal of Sociology 88(3): 515-548.
Herek, G.M. 1984a. "Attitudes toward Lesbians and Gay Men: A Factor-analytic Study."
Journal of Homosexuality 10(1/2): 39-51.
- . 1984b. "Beyond Homophobia: A Social Psychological Perspective on Attitudes toward
Lesbians and Gay Men." Journal of Homosexuality 10(1/2): 1-21.
Hudson, W.W., and W.A. Ricketts. 1980. "A Strategy for the Measurement of Homophobia."
Journal of Homosexuality 5(4): 357-372.
Kite, M.E. 1984. "Sex Differences in Attitudes toward Homosexuals: A Meta-analytic Review."
Journal of Homosexuality 10(1/2): 69-81.
Laner, M.R., and R.H. Laner. 1980. "Sexual Preference or Personal Style? Why Lesbians are
Disliked." Journal of Homosexuality 5(4): 339-356.
Levitt, E.E., and A.D. Klassen. 1974. "Public Attitudes toward Homosexuality: Part of the 1970
National Survey by the Institute for Sex Research." Journal of Homosexuality 1(1):
29-43.
Lipman-Blumen, J. 1975. "Changing Sex Roles in American Culture: Future Directions for
Research." Archives of Sexual Behavior 4(4): 433-446.

-- . 1976.
tion"Toward
of Sociala Institutions."
Homosocial Theory of 15-31.
Signs 1(3): Sex Roles: An Explanation of the Sex Segrega-
Lumby, M.E. 1976. "Homophobia: The Quest for a Valid Scale." Journal ofHomosexuality 2(1):
39-47.
MacDonald, A.P., Jr. 1974. "Identification and Measurement of Multidimensional Attitudes
toward Equality Between the Sexes." Journal of Homosexuality 1(2): 165-182.
MacDonald, A.P., Jr., and R.G. Games. 1974. "Some Characteristics of Those Who Hold
Positive and Negative Attitudes toward Homosexuals." Journal of Homosexuality 1(1):
9-27.
Millham, J., C.L. San Miguel, and R. Kellogg. 1976. "A Factor-analytic Conceptualization of
Attitudes toward Male and Female Homosexuals." Journal of Homosexuality 2(1): 3-10.
Millham, J., and L.E. Weinberger. 1977. "Sexual Preference, Sex-role Appropriateness and
Restriction of Social Access." Journal of Homosexuality 3(2): 343-357.
Minnigerode, F.A. 1976. "Attitudes toward Homosexuality: Feminist Attitudes and Sexual
Conservatism." Sex Roles 2(4): 347-352.
Morin, S.F., and E.M. Garfinkle. 1978. "Male Homophobia." Journal of Social Issues 34(1):
29-47.
Nyberg, K.L., and J.P. Alston. 1976. "Analysis of Public Attitudes toward Homosexual Behav-
ior." Journal of Homosexuality 2(2): 99-107.
Patoglun-an, I., and J.M. Clair. 1986. "An Experimental Study of Attitudes toward Homosexu-
als." Deviant Behavior 7: 121-135.
Plasek, J.W., and J. Allard. 1984. "Misconceptions of Homophobia." Journal of Homosexuality
10(1/2): 23-37.
San Miguel, C., and J. Millham. 1976. "The Role of Cognitive and Situational Variables in
Aggression toward Homosexuals." Journal of Homosexuality 2(1): 11-27.

This content downloaded from

203.131.216.5 on Tue, 28 May 2024 06:24:39 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Homophobia and Homosociality 439

Serdaheley, W.J., and G.J. Ziemba. 1984. "Changing Homo

Sexuality Education." Journal of Homosexuality 10(1/
Smith, K.T. 1971. "Homophobia: A Tentative Personality Pr
1091-1094.

Staats, G.R. 1978. "Stereotype Content and Social Distance: Changing Views of Homosexual-
ity." Journal of Homosexuality 4(1): 15-27.
Thompson, E.H., C. Grisanti, and J.H. Pleck. 1985. "Attitudes toward the Male Role and Their
Correlates." Sex Roles 13(7/8): 413-427.
Weinberg, G. 1972. Society and the Healthy Homosexual. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Weinberger, L.E., and J. Millham. 1979. "Attitudinal Homophobia and Support of Traditional
Sex Roles." Journal of Homosexuality 4(3): 237-246.
West, W. 1979. "Public Tolerance of Homosexual Behavior." Cornell Journal ofSocial Relations
12: 25-36.

This content downloaded from

203.131.216.5 on Tue, 28 May 2024 06:24:39 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms