|
|
|
|||||||
Keywords:: Public Opinion, Homophobia, Demographics, Politics, Science | ||||||||
Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people are perpetual minorities. As such, the public opinion of every society, currently and through history, about GLBT issues has been the deciding factor on their rights, to love or to even live. This article will look at the past present and future of public opinion, as well as the factors that affect that opinion, along with homophobia in general.
Contents:
- Past, Present and Future - Where public opinion is, was and may go.
- Gay Rights - A figure showing opinion of GLBT rights.
- Causes of Homosexuality - A figure showing opinion on nurture verses nature.
- The Nature of Public Opinion - The items that characterize and change people's opinions on GLBT rights.
- Etiology - The effect of the nature verses nurture debate on public opinion.
- Miscellaneous Traits - Various other traits that correlate or cause support.
- Genetic Basis for Anti-Gay Bias - The nature and nurture of homophobia.
- Implicit Verses Explicit - Sometimes people say only what they want to feel.
- Homophobic Homosexuals - Some truth behind the taunt.
- Conclusions
- References
In another isocrat.org article we outlined the fall of public opinion, from ancient Greece up to the Inquisitions, in regards to homosexuality. Since those dark times public opinion has been improving and polls also show this trend. Figure 1 shows the result of Gallup polls on GLBT issues over many years (1).
Figure 1: Public Opinion Regarding the Rights of Homosexuals. Data are from the Gallup organization (2). A linear fit is shown on each category and extrapolated from 2008 out to 2012.
As Figure 1 shows, the majority of Americans currently think homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle, their unions should be legal, and they should not be fired from their jobs for their sexual orientation. If the trends continue, then a slim majority of the american public should even support equal marriage rights for gay and lesbian-headed families by 2012, the next US presidential election.
On controversial political issues it is typical to apply an "age-stability hypothesis" where people form these opinions at a young age and change little through time, thereby limiting the speed at which social change can occur. While much of the change on gay issues seen in opinion polls is generational (3), it is also important to keep in mind, as found by Andersen and Fetner (4), that attitudes towards homosexuals are changing more quickly than an age-stability hypothesis could account for, suggesting even change in long-held ideas about homosexuality are a significant factor. As one of the best ways to change a person's mind is for them to know someone who is gay or lesbian (3, 5), this acceleration seems to be primarily due to friends and family coming out of the closet.
One other notable change through recent history has been seen in the attribution of homosexuality. Figure 2 shows that the American public has been turning away from seeing choice, environment, and upbringing as the cause of sexual orientation.
Figure 2: Public Opinion Regarding the Origins of Homosexuality. Data are from the Gallup organization (1). A linear fit is shown on each category and extrapolated from 2008 out to 2012.
Clearly, more and more people are seeing homosexuality as an innate part of humanity. For information on the current science on the causes of sexual orientation see the related isocrat.org article.
Etiology - One of the strongest predictors of support for GLBT rights seems to be the views people have regarding the causes of human sexual orientation. This is not a surprising find, as people in general are less tolerant of human characteristics they see as chosen (6). Several studies, representing thousands of respondents, have found that if a person sees homosexuality as something that is genetic, inborn, or biological, they are also much more likely to support equal rights for GLBT headed-families (3, 7, 8, 9, 10). People are more likely to see homosexuality as biological if they have higher levels of education, personally know gay people, and are older, highlighting the importance of life learning in this area (3). These finding, of course, also highlight the importance of educating the public on the research regarding the nurture and nature of homosexuality (See the related isocrat.org article). Of course, such views do not always correlate, and some people who see homosexuality as inborn may regard such a position as justifying eugenics in order to eliminate homosexuality (11).
Miscellaneous Traits - There are many traits that correlate with and may cause support for equal rights for gays and lesbian people and their families.
| Trait | Description | Regression Coefficients from (3) |
| Religiosity | People with high involvement in religious organizations are less likely to support gay rights (3, 10). | -0.399 |
| Race | Caucasians are more likely to support gay rights (3). | 0.066 |
| Sex | Females are more likely to support gay rights (9, 7, 12, 3, 13). | 0.391 |
| Politics | Liberals are more likely to support gay rights (3) . | 0.802 |
| Education | Highly educated individuals are more likely to support gay rights (3). | 0.285 |
| Age | Older individuals are less likely to support gay rights (3, 4). | -0.170 |
| Associations | Those with gay friends are more likely to support gay rights (3, 5). | 0.641 |
| Marriage | Those who have not been married are more likely to support gay rights (3). | 0.685 |
| Children | Those with children are more likely to support gay rights (3). | 0.065 |
| Gender Roles | Those who support or exhibit hypermasculine forms of gender behaviors are less likely to support gay rights (14, 15). | --- |
| Economics | Those who live in countries with higher economic disparities and are in their lower class are less likely to support gay rights (16). | --- |
Genetic Basis for Anti-Gay Bias - While it may seem difficult to imagine a mechanism, there is evidence to suggest some people are genetically predisposed to hold prejudice against homosexuals. Homophobia is tied to some of traits, such as traditionalism, educational level, religiosity, and authoritarianism that may more clearly be seen to be seated in genetic causes. In fact, prejudices towards all "out groups" (e.g. women, certain races and homosexuals) have been found to strongly correlate and be associated with certain simpler personality traits, such as resistance to new experiences and disagreeableness (17, 18). Using twin studies, genetic influence on such traits are pretty well established (19, 20). The genetically influenced traits that may lead to a personality prone to prejudice may also, of course, lead to anti-gay prejudice, even if there is no genes to code specifically for homophobia.
So what exactly is the genetic influence? In 2008, Verweij et al. conducted a study of 4,904 individuals from a twin registry, questioning them on their attitudes about homosexuals and limiting gay citizens' rights (21). It was found in twins that about 36% of the variation in homophobia could be attributed to genetic causes,18% to shared environment and 46% to unique environmental factors. These results partially confirmed the 2005 findings of Alford et al., which looked at a wide range of political attitudes (of which attitudes towards gay rights were only a small part). Their study found, on a separate group of twins, a 28% genetic influence in homophobia (20).
Despite the fact that the genetic influence seems to be significant, it should again be kept in mind that this prejudice is likely part of general prejudice towards whoever the holder of it perceives as a group outside their group. Again, those who are homophobic are much more likely to be sexist and racist as well. Thus addressing such prejudice may also be a matter of affecting a person's perception of who is in their group, rather than affecting their genetic code.
Implicit vs. Explicit - Once the tide turn in favor of minority groups, people will often tell pollsters they hold less bigotry than they actually do. To attempt to get around this problem researchers have used Implicit Association Tests, which are meant to measure a person's subconscious bias towards certain groups by measuring the speeds at which they can sort such groups into the same categories as positive or negative concepts. For more information, these tests are explained and sample tests may be taken at Harvard's Project Implicit (22).
Steffens, in 2005, found that German college student revealed more negative associations in Implicit Association Tests with gay men than they admitted to openly (23). Women in the study showed no subconscious favoring of heterosexual or lesbian women. The extent to which negative associations shown by such tests translate into actions is a matter of debate.
It has also been found that men who do explicitly admit to anti-gay bias show a distinct startle response when viewing images of male homosexuality, which is not present when they view lesbian images (13). Women were not found to show a similar startle response to either male or female homosexuality, suggesting homophobia in the average male and female may be significantly different.
Homophobic Homosexuals - It is a worn thin tactic to accuse anyone holding anti-gay opinions of being closeted homosexuals. Certainly, this is not true or supported by research for the majority of those fighting against gay rights. On the other hand, anecdotally, many gay man do go through a significant phase of strident homophobia before finally admitting their orientation.
It has been shown that humans tend to distance themselves from people who hold traits they both see as negative and fear they hold themselves, such as a short temper or dishonesty (24). Adams et al. set out to see if the same holds true for homosexuality (25). Ostensibly heterosexual men were split into two groups: those who expressed a high degree of anti-gay feelings (n=35) and those who expressed a low level (n=29). They then measured the sexual arousal of the individuals while viewing gay male, lesbian, and heterosexual pornography, by measuring the penile volume. To be blunt, they essentially measured erections, in order to bypass conscious suppression of homosexual feelings. Their correlations between pornography type and sexual arousal are shown in the following table:
Group |
Video Type | ||
Gay Male |
Lesbian |
Heterosexual |
|
Non-Homophobic |
78% |
94% |
93% |
Homophobic |
90% |
95% |
91% |
As can be seen, 12% more of the homophobic men experienced sexual arousal when viewing homosexual pornography, compared to non-homophobic men. Such evidence does suggest homophobic men may be more likely to be homosexual or bisexual, and thus their homophobia may be an unfortunate product of their low self esteem or inner struggle. Of course, though, such findings could not be extrapolated to all strident gay-rights opponents.
GLBT rights hang on the opinions of those who are not GLB or T. It should be heartening for today's generation of gays and lesbians, though, to know in a matter of decades they should be democratically approaching equal rights. That mark will be reached thanks to significant moves in public opinion. To move that opinion, the research seems to show it is important to, first and foremost, come out of the closet, so that friends and family may see homosexuals and their relationships for who and what they are. The research also seems to show it is important to disseminate the facts on the causes of human sexual orientation, and the reasons equal treatment is impotent for same-sex couples and their families. Fortunately, gays and lesbians are not walking a path in the United States too dissimilar from the Irish or even the left-handed (see related isocrat.org article). If the trends continue, this perpetual minority could soon hold the same unremarkable place in society as any other.
REFERENCES ::
1. Gallup. Gallup. http:www.gallup.com.
2. Gallup. Gallup. http:www.gallup.com.
3. Haider-Markel, D.P.; Joslyn, M.R. Beliefs About the Origins of Homosexuality and Support For Gay Rights. Public Opinion Quarterly. vol. 72 (2), pp. 291-310, (2008).
4. Andersen, R.; Fetner, T. Cohort Differences in Tolerance of Homosexuality. Public Opinion Quarterly. vol. 72 (2), pp. 311-330, (2008).
5. Guth, L.J.; Lopez, D.F.; Rojas, J.; Clements, K.D.; Tyler, J.M. Experiential versus rational training: a comparison of student attitudes toward homosexuality. Journal of Homosexuality. vol. 48 (2), pp. 83-102, (2004).
6. Weiner, B. An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review. vol. 92 (4), pp. 548-573, (1985).
7. Sakalli N. Application of the attribution-value model of prejudice to homosexuality. The Journal of social psychology. vol. 142 (2), pp. 264-271, (2002).
8. Tygart C.E. Genetic causation attribution and public support for gay rights. International Journal of Public Opinion Research. vol. 12 (3), pp. 259-275, (2000).
9. Whitley, B.E. The Relationship of Heterosexuals' Attributions for the Causes of Homosexuality to Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. vol. 16 (2), pp. 369-377, (1990).
10. Wood, P.B.; Bartkowski, J.P. Attribution Style and Public Policy Attitudes Toward Gay Rights. Social science quarterly. vol. 85 (1), pp. 58-74, (2004).
11. Sheldon, J.P.; Pfeffer, C.A.; Jayaratne, T.E.; Feldbaum, M.; Petty, E.M. Beliefs about the etiology of homosexuality and about the ramifications of discovering its possible genetic origin. Journal of Homosexuality. vol. 52, pp. 111-150, (2007).
12. Herek, G.M. Gender gaps in public opinion about lesbians and gay men. Public opinion quarterly. vol. 66 (1), pp. 40-66, (2002).
13. Mahaffey, A.L.; Bryan, A.; Hutchison, K.E. Sex differences in affective responses to homoerotic stimuli: evidence for an unconscious bias among heterosexual men, but not heterosexual women. Archives of Sexual Behavior. vol. 34 (5), pp. 537-545, (2005).
14. Schope, R.D.; Eliason, M.J. Sissies and Tomboys: Gender Role Behaviors and Homophobia. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services. vol. 16 (2), pp. 73-97, (2004).
15. Parrott, D.J.; Zeichner, A. Determinants of anger and physical aggression based on sexual orientation: an experimental examination of hypermasculinity and exposure to male gender role violations. Archives of Sexual Behavior. vol. 37 (6), pp. 891-901, (2008).
16. Andersen, R.; Fetner, T. Economic Inequality and Intolerance: Attitudes toward Homosexuality in 35 Democracies. American Journal of Political Science. vol. 52 (4), pp. None, (2008).
17. Ekehammar, B.; Akrami, N. The relation between personality and prejudice: a variable- and a person-centred approach. European Journal of Personality. vol. 17 (6), pp. 449 - 464, (2003).
18. Bierly, M.M. Prejudice Toward Contemporary Outgroups as a Generalized Attitude. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. vol. 15 (2), pp. 189 - 199, (1985).
19. Olson, J. M.; Vernon, P. A.; Harris, J. A. The Heritability of Attitudes: A Study of Twins. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. vol. 80 (6), pp. 845-860, (2001).
20. Alford, J. R.; Funk, C. L.; Hibbing, J. R. Are Political Orientations Genetically Transmitted?. American Political Science Review. vol. 99 (2), pp. 153-167, (2005).
21. Verweij, K.J.; Shekar, S.N.; Zietsch, B.P.; Eaves, L.J.; Bailey, J.M.; Boomsma, D.I.; Martin, N.G. Genetic and environmental influences on individual differences in attitudes toward homosexuality: an Australian twin study.vol. 38 (3), pp. 257-265, (2008).
22. Project Implicit. Project Implicit. https:implicit.harvard.eduimplicit.
23. Steffens, M.C. Implicit and explicit attitudes towards lesbians and gay men. Journal of Homosexuality. vol. 49 (2), pp. 39-66, (2005).
24. Schimel, J.; Psyszczynski, T.; Greenberg, J.; O'Mahen, H.; Arndt, J. Running from the shadow: psychological distancing from others to deny characteristics people fear in themselves. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. vol. 78 (3), pp. 446-462, (2000).
25. Adams, H.E.; Wright, L.W.; Lohr B.A. Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal?. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. vol. 105 (3), pp. 440-445, (1996).
| Comment on this page in the forum |
 Comment on this page here
|
isocrat > science > demog > pub_opin
Created: 2009-01-26; Last Edited: 2009-01-26; (ID602)