USING the E3 MODEL of GENDER TYPE PERCEPTION to UNDERSTAND CHANGES in ATTITUDES ABOUT HOMOSEXUALS in the USA a Thesis by RACHEL

USING THE E3 MODEL OF GENDER TYPE PERCEPTION TO UNDERSTAND CHANGES

IN ATTITUDES ABOUT HOMOSEXUALS IN THE USA

A Thesis

RACHEL SUMRALL

Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University-Commerce in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE August 2018 USING THE E3 MODEL OF GENDER TYPE PERCEPTION TO UNDERSTAND CHANGES

IN ATTITUDES ABOUT HOMOSEXUALS IN THE USA

A Thesis

RACHEL SUMRALL

Approved by:

Advisor: Raymond Green

Committee: Maria Carlson Tracy Henley

Head of Department: Tracy Henley

Dean of the College: Timothy Letzring

Dean of Graduate Studies: Matt Wood

iii

Rachel Michelle Amerson Sumrall

ABSTRACT USING THE E3 MODEL OF GENDER TYPE PERCEPTIONTO UNDERSTAND CHANGES IN ATTITUDES ABOUT HOMOSEXUALS IN THE USA

Rachel Sumrall, MS Texas A&M University-Commerce, 2018

Advisor: Raymond Green, PhD

In the late 1990s research was conducted on gender types (e.g., housewife, nerd) in an attempt to understand how people organized these types in their mind (Green, Ashmore, &

Manzi, 2005). One of the types investigated was the homosexual. Homosexual targets were generally evaluated negatively and were organized together with other “bad people.” Many things have changed in the last 20 years. The military changed their policy towards homosexuality, the Federal Courts legalized gay marriage, along with many other victories of the

LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer or Questioning) community. I investigated if there is still a tendency to evaluate homosexual targets negatively and to organize them with other negative targets holds true today. The purpose of this study was to identify whether there have been any changes in the stereotype perception of homosexuals.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This thesis would not have been possible without the support of my husband Michael

Sumrall, my son Thaddeus Sumrall, and my parents Gene and Josie Amerson, Jamie and Taran

Banschbach as well as Linda and Gene Sumrall. I would also like to thank Dr. Raymond Green, my advisor for being helpful and patient during this process. Thank you for all of your support and encouragement.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ...... viii

CHAPTER

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

Statement of the Problem ...... 1

Purpose of the Study ...... 1

Significance of the Study ...... 2

2. LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 3

3. METHOD OF PROCEDURE ...... 13

Sample Selection ...... 13

Data Gathering ...... 14

Gender Type Stimuli ...... 15

Procedures and Materials ...... 15

4. PRESENATION OF DATA ...... 17

Computation of Dimensional and Categorical Representations ...... 17

Interpretation of MDS and HC Analyses ...... 18

Multidimensional Scaling ...... 19

Comparison of Male and Female Perceivers ...... 19

Determining the Number of Dimensions ...... 19

Hierarchical Clustering ...... 20

Computation of HC Representation ...... 20

Interpretation of the 11-Cluster HC Solution ...... 21

5. DISCUSSION ...... 24

vii

Suggestions for Future Research ...... 26

REFERENCES ...... 28

APPENDICES ...... 34

Appendix

A. Terms from Current Study ...... 35

B. Terms from Original Study ...... 39

C. Words Removed from Original Study ...... 44

VITA ...... 47

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE

1. Two-dimensional, 11-cluster representation of gender type perceptions cluster labels

(.g., #1-11) will be used to guide reader in text...... 20

2. Three-dimensional scaling solution with embedded hierarchical clustering output...... 21

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

Statement of the Problem

In the late 1990s Green, Ashmore, and Manzi (2005) took a sample of Northeastern college students and evaluated their opinion of a large number of gender types including homosexual targets. The results of this study indicated that homosexual targets were considered to be highly negative, not typical of male or female behavior, and that they violated expected male and female gender roles. There have been societal changes that have occurred since then

(e.g., removing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell from the armed forces, Defense of Marriages Act (DOMA) ruling in 2016, change in census, etc.). Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation

(GLAAD), a website that was created by the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered, and Queer or Questioning (LGTBQ) community conducted a survey and found that 4.8% of characters on television shows in 2016-2017 were LGBTQ (The Guardian, 2016). This figure represents the largest amount of LGBTQ individuals on television in the last 20 years (The Guardian, 2016).

Purpose of the Study

In regard to the societal changes within the laws and the acceptance of LGBTQ within the media, it seems valid to question whether individuals’ thoughts and attitudes about homosexuality have changed. Additionally, society’s vocabulary has changed, with new terminology becoming more inclusive to reflect society’s more nuanced understanding of sexuality and gender. I proposed to investigate perceptions of these newer and more precise labels commonly associated with homosexuality.

Significance of the Study

In the past, across societies males and females traditionally had distinct roles (Bowers,

1971). In a traditional American household the female was the nurturing person making sure everyone was taken care of and the house kept in order — everything from clothing to dishes to clean rooms. The traditional female was also expected to take care of the children and to be warm and expressive, something stereotypically missing from men (Broverman, Vogel,

Broverman, Clarkson, & Rosenkrantz, 1972). The traditional male was the breadwinner of the household. His main job was to make the majority of the money, if not all of it. His household responsibilities consisted of repairing various items around the house, as well as maintaining the yard and any vehicles. Women were expected to be interested in fashion, beauty, decorating, etc.

Men were expected to be interested in sports and repairing cars, homes, gadgets, etc. In 1972

Broverman et al., found that women were seen as less competent, dependent, and not as objective or as logical as men. Rosenkrantz, Bee, Vogel, Broverman, and Broverman (1968) also found there was a greater tendency to value masculine traits over feminine traits. According to

Broverman et al. (1972), in American society both men and women perceived masculine traits to be more desirable than feminine traits.

Traditional male and female roles have endured change throughout the years. Women can work outside of the home and men may stay home. The views and perceptions of men and women have drastically changed over the years, so with changes in society’s perceptions, it is possible society has changed their views on the acceptance of homosexuality.

Chapter 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

In order to know what changes have occurred within the past few years it is important to know the makeup of American gender role history. Broverman et al. (1972) found that gender- role stereotypes are a part of how men and women see themselves and indicates how imbedded these attitudes are in men and women in American society. In her 1974 study, Bem introduced the instrumentality and expressiveness (I/E) scale, which was used to measure stereotypical male and female personality characteristics. Bem (1974) believed that each individual possessed both instrumental and expressive traits, but the amount each person had was relative. Through her scale it was found that stereotypically, men have more instrumental characteristics such as assertiveness, competitiveness, and aggression while women were more likely to have expressive traits such as sensitivity, tenderness, anxiety, and sociability (Fernández, Castro, Otero, Foltz, and Fernández, 2007). Fernández et al. (2007) found this belief continues to appear through relatively modern research using instrumental and expressive traits stereotypically associated with men and women.

Blashill and Powlishta (2009) reported stereotypes that people have about LGBTQs are in fact linked to their beliefs about heterosexuals. Gay men are typically viewed to have the same behaviors and interests as heterosexual women, and lesbians are typically associated with the traditional aspects of heterosexual men (Kite & Deaux, 1987). This idea is associated with inversion theory, which states that young men and women will strongly identify with the parent of the opposite sex causing that individual to become sexually attracted to same-sex individuals as well as display mannerisms and characteristics typically associated with individuals of the opposite sex (Kite & Deaux, 1987). It is also believed that within gay and lesbian relationships,

4 one person will take on the masculine role and the other will take on the feminine role (Brown &

Groscup, 2009).

In today’s society we still have access to overarching gender stereotypes about males and females. However, the full complexity of social perception is not captured within these categories. Since humans use gender types to capture the complexity of social interaction there is a need to break down the element of perception. Green, Ashmore, and Manzi (2005) introduced the elaboration, encapsulation, and evaluation (E3) model in order to explain the structure of gender type perception. The E3 model is based on subtyping in stereotype maintenance, an idea stemming from research (Weber & Crocker, 1983; Maurer, Park, & Rothbart, 1995; Osgood,

1969; Rosenberg, 1977). This framework incorporates the work and ideas from three areas: attitude and attitude changes, social perception, and stereotyping (Green et al., 2005).

Elaboration consists of developing gender stereotypes that identify socially appropriate roles for both men and women. Encapsulation allows individuals to observe the behavior of others and determine the violations of the role and the stereotypes according to the different experiences one has had. For evaluation, the final portion of this model, groups will evaluate what is culturally acceptable and what is contradictory to society’s values. If an individual’s behavior violates the expectations of the cultural norms then that gender type is more likely to be evaluated negatively.

Green et al. (2005) conducted the original study concerning the structure of gender type perception. There were 60 participants. Each participant was given 89 gender type labels on slips of paper and asked to sort them into piles according to similarity. After each participant completed the sorting process, participants were asked to rate each pile on 11 psychological properties using a 7-point scale. These properties consisted of: (a) respectable-not respectable,

(b) good-bad, (c) typical adult man- not typical adult man, (d) typical adult woman-not typical

5 adult woman, (e) traditional female stereotype-not-traditional female stereotype, (f) traditional male stereotype-not traditional male stereotype, (g) violates female role- does not violate female role, (h) violates male role-does not violate male role, (i) communal-agentic, (j) like traditional female-not like traditional female, (k) like traditional male-not like traditional male. The sorting data were used to create distance scores between each of the gender targets. The distance scores were used as input for multidimensional scaling and hierarchical clustering analyses. The ratings of each pile were used as input for multiple regression analyses that were then fit onto the multidimensional space, allowing the meaning of the spaces to be defined.

In their original study, Green et al. (2005) found that perceptions of homosexuality were driven by the evaluation component of social perception. Homosexuals, both gay and lesbian, were perceived to be negative. Therefore, anyone who fell into the categories of being either gay or lesbian were perceived negatively, assumedly because those actions violated normative expectations.

In the past 10 years there have been societal changes that are believed to impact the views of homosexuality. On January 2, 1996, Congress passed the Defense of Marriages Act (DOMA) ostensibly to protect the sanctity of marriage. With this act Congress defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman (House of Representatives, 1996). According to the Supreme

Court on June 26, 2013, DOMA was determined to be unconstitutional because of the infringement of rights on the Fifth Amendment. The court ruled that individual states could make the decision to recognize same-sex marriages. If a state chooses to recognize that union, the couple will have the same rights as a traditional married couple. On June 26, 2015, in the case of

Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court decided that it is the right of any individual, regardless of sexual orientation, to partake in one of civilization’s oldest institutions. The LGBTQ

6 community requested “equal dignity” and the Supreme Court granted it to them. Recognizing same-sex marriage in some states is a major change that is believed to impact the opinions and acceptance of homosexuality.

According to The National Survey from Family Growth (2002), 4.1% of 18-25 year olds identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual(Chonody, Siebert, &Rutledge, 2009). Gates

(2006) believes this number might be incorrect because of the privacy some people wish to maintain when dealing with their personal life. The most recent census reported that .773%

(593,324) of the U.S. population (total population 308,745,538) consisted of same-sex couple households (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013). Of these same-sex couples, 115,000 of these homes are raising children, which is a slight decrease from the 2000 census data. The census data also includes same-sex marriage for the first time ever. It seems there has been a shift in society’s beliefs since the census is changing and adopting new categories.

Although the census shows a change in the data, it is important to see if this information is reflective of the entire country. The National Health Statistics report looks at trends in attitudes about marriage, childbearing, and sexual behaviors within the United States. The data represent men and women between the ages of 15-44. In 2011-2013, 60.2% of women and 48.9% of men agreed that sexual relationships between same-sex adults are acceptable (Daugherty & Copen,

2016). Despite all of these changes, Norton and Herek (2013) still have reason to believe that the attitudes of Americans do not reflect the decisions of the court. A national survey provided results stating that U.S. residents have negative views of individuals labeled LGBTQ.

According to Avery et al. (2007), many Americans believe that gays and lesbians should not have children or be able to adopt children because they are fearful that the children might not

“develop” correctly, although research has shown that same-sex couples are just as nurturing and

7 qualified parents as heterosexual parents. However, in 2011-2013, Americans were asked whether or not gay or lesbian adults should have the right to adopt children. Daugherty and

Copen (2016) found 74.8% of women and 67.5% of men agreed that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children. This is a 19.4% increase in females and 20.6% increase for men since

2002. According to Smith, Son, and Kim (2014), public opinion concerning homosexual behavior is divided but is constantly changing. From 1973-1991, 69%-72% of the public’s opinion regarding homosexual behavior changed by only 3%. In 2010, only 43.5% believed same-sex relationships were always wrong.

There are many reasons one can speculate as to why people have prejudiced views towards homosexuals. Chonody et al. (2009) discuss that individuals who have not been exposed to homosexuals tend to be more prejudiced toward homosexuals than those exposed to homosexuals. Social psychologists refer to this as Contact Theory (Chonody et al., 2009). It simply means individuals become more comfortable with things in life through exposure.

Individuals can have unrealistic expectations of people if they do not take the time to get to know them. Barth and Overby (2003) reported an individual’s geographic location and even origin is considered to have an impact on an individual’s behavior towards homosexuals. For example, individuals from the Southern regions in the United States typically have more conservative views than individuals from the Northern regions (Barth & Overby, 2003). If the individual’s geographic region is accepting of homosexuals, then it is assumed one would in turn be more accepting of them as well. Barth and Overby (2003), used the contact theory to explain when individuals of a minority group interact with individuals of a majority, the majority will become more tolerant. The more time spent with individuals that view things differently, the more open

8 minded people become. This interaction reduces American prejudices and helps adjust schemes

(what people see as normal).

Barth and Overby (2003) conducted a survey asking individuals to rate their feelings towards homosexuals using a feeling thermometer. The scale ranged from 0 indicating a very cold response towards homosexuals to 100 indicating a very warm response towards homosexuals. The mean score from participants of the Southern portion of the United States was

30.21, n=331, compared to a mean score of 38.57, n=618, for non-southerners. It is believed that this resistance or exclusion comes from the lack of meaningful exposure to members of different groups. The South tends to have more conservative views towards homosexuality (Barth &

Overby, 2003). Individuals with more formal education (in the non-South) and those that have positive views towards feminism (South and non-South) are considerably warmer towards gays and lesbians (Barth & Overby, 2003). Barth and Overby (2003) also found that married

Southerners tend to have more traditional views when it comes to intimate relationships than married couples in other areas.

While the region where people live can impact societies’ viewpoints it is believed that the contact theory can impact an individual’s opinions in shorter accounts. Using the index of attitudes towards homosexuals, Chonody et al. (2009) took 112 undergraduate and graduate students who had a moderately negative attitude toward gays and lesbians. This study indicated college students’ negative attitudes towards gays and lesbians can be addressed and adjusted by their college professor’s teaching style. The instructor’s perception towards homosexuality within the class seemed to have an impact on the students’ perception of homosexuality, regardless of the instructors’ sexual orientation. The instructors then were asked to alter their perception of homosexuality (either support homosexuality or oppose it throughout the class).

The results of this study showed that with exposure to gays and lesbians, peoples’ negative attitudes were more likely to soften towards homosexuals.

Avery et al. (2007) report Americans’ attitudes towards homosexuality, civil unions, and even same-sex marriages are becoming more definite, creating a new pattern for acceptable relationships. In 1999, it was reported that two-thirds of Americans (61%) believed married heterosexual couples should have different rights than homosexual couples (Avery et. al, 2007).

From 1997-2004, Americans’ views of gays and lesbians have become more positive and are believed to reflect a dramatic legal and cultural shift for the rights of the LGBTQ community.

According to Pew Research Center (2016), the number of Americans opposed to same-sex marriage has steadily decreased. Based on a poll in 2016, 55% of Americans supported same-sex marriage compared to the 37% who opposed it (Pew Research Center, 2016).

In 2003, the Supreme Court overturned 13 state laws concerning sodomy. Wright (2004) believed the changes with the laws of sodomy were likely to have an impact on the legalization of same-sex marriages. In 2004, another study was conducted by Gallop to see if Americans’ views had shifted concerning civil unions and same-sex marriages. Forty nine percent of

Americans believed homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples

(Avery et al., 2007, Moore & Carroll, 2004). In 2015, 52% of Americans supported the law to legalize same-sex marriage in all 50 states, as opposed to 43% in 1977. While there has been several changes supporting the LGBTQ community, there are still many Americans that continue to oppose policies and specific rights for homosexuals. When looking at various polls, different conclusions seem to surface concerning attitudes towards homosexuality. I believe the different conclusions depend on the questions asked. For example, many individuals do not concern themselves with who a gay individual dates, but may have concerns about them raising a child.

A recent survey showed that same-sex marriage is accepted and supported by 77% of people between the ages of 18-34 (Pew Research Center, 2016). Smith et al. (2014) found this is true internationally as well. Ratliff, Lassiter, Markman, and Snyder (2006) believe despite results from the polls, the data collected might not be accurate because individuals are fearful of being honest in order to avoid appearing prejudiced. While it seems that prejudice towards the LGBTQ community might be a thing of the past, because of greater acceptance towards civil rights for individuals, Kite and Bryant-Lees (2016) seem to disagree. Herek (2016) found evidence that the most negative attitudes towards LGBTQs would be authoritarian, traditional males with strong religious beliefs. Even though there are conflicting ideas present in public opinion research, there does appear to be a trend toward more positive views of homosexuality.

In 1952, homosexuality was included in the first edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical

Method of Mental Disorders (DSM). It was not until 1973, in the second edition of the DSM that the view of homosexuality was starting to change. Eventually, homosexuality was not seen as a mental disorder and was finally removed from the DSM in the 3rd edition (Spitzer, 1981). Even though homosexuality was no longer considered a mental disorder, the military still did not want to allow homosexuals to be a part of the armed forces. This required the Department of Defense to present a nonmedical reason for exclusion of homosexuals in the military (Johnson,

Rosenstein, Buhrke, & Haldeman, 2015). The military believed the presence of individuals from the LGBT (Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, and Transgendered) community would disband the cohesiveness of the unit, jeopardize successful missions, and could increase breaches in security

(Department of Denfense, 1982, Johnson et al., 2015). Since society was changing their attitudes to being more accepting of LGBTQ inclusions within the military, Congress enacted the National

Defense Authorization Act of 1994, which was known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” (DADT).

With this policy in place anyone could be in the military as long as there were no signs or communication about an individual’s sexual orientation. If there was any discussion going on about a soldier’s sexual orientation, then discharge would be an option (Burks, 2011; Johnson et al., 2015). In 2010, the DADT act was repealed and replaced with a new policy stating that an individual’s sexual orientation cannot deter an individual from being a part of the military. While this was a major victory for the LGBTQ community, there were still potential issues these individuals could face. In 2011, there was speculation that the military might see a rise in the victimization of LGBTQ service members, since there had been a rise within the general population (Ciarlante & Fountain, 2010).

Moving from the military to the workplace, Kulik, Bainbridge, and Cregan (2008) conducted research on whether or not employees were stigmatized according to the company they kept, whether it was homosexuals, minorities, or individuals with disabilities. The results from this study indicated employees may be stigmatized because of the associations of particular groups. Kulik et al. (2008) found people have a heuristic that automatically connects individuals with the company one chooses to surround themselves, rather than taking the time to get to know one another. Instead, society sees who the individual is around and assumes the entire group possesses the same qualities. The saying, “Birds of a feather flock together,” proves to be true when it comes to the way people evaluate one another, regardless of sexual orientation, race, and disability. The findings derived from this study indicate it is possible to reduce American prejudice if society will look at the individual’s personal characteristics rather than sexual orientation, minority status, or disability and engage in a valued relationship (Kulik et al. 2008).

While there still may be a stigma in the workplace, there have also been major changes in the work environment providing gay men and lesbians more equality. In New Hampshire, the

Lebanon school board signed a three-year contract with the teachers’ union to extend coverage of their health care to provide benefits for partners of gay and lesbian employees. There were also five other companies and two other schools in New Hampshire that extended their coverage to same-sex couples. A bill in Annapolis, Maryland created a state wide registry of domestic partners with the Department of Health granting them the right to make medical decisions for each other, a right that was formerly denied to same-sex couples (Avery et al., 2007). As for nonmedical issues, in Georgia a law was passed giving surviving partners of same sex couples the same inheritance rights as a spouse from a married heterosexual couple (Avery et al., 2007).

Overall changes in U.S. laws and opinion polls suggest the current study should show a more positive view of homosexual targets. However, since this partial replication is taking place in a more conservative region, the south, it is possible some of the changes will not be reflected in the responses of our participants. If these types of changes are taking place in the South then it is possible to deduct that the changes in attitude will be even greater in the North.

Chapter 3

METHOD OF PROCEDURE

In the Green et al. (2005) study terms such as gay, lesbian, butch, fag, and homo were used. Today’s terminology has changed a bit. Therefore, it is important to add more current terms to the study while maintaining and removing some of the original terms. In a pre-survey,

26 students were asked to listen to a list of words and categorize them as words that are currently used today or are outdated. Students reported that queer, bisexual, and transsexual should be added to the current study. The original study used 11 psychological properties; however, six of these properties have been removed because the various properties correlated so highly with each other that it became clear that five properties could provide as much interpretation as 11, while easing the work required of participants. The psychological properties removed consisted of (a) good-bad, (b) traditional female stereotype-not-traditional female stereotype, (c) traditional male stereotype-not traditional male stereotype, (d) communal-agentic, (e) like traditional female-not like traditional female, (f) like traditional male-not like traditional male. The property good-bad highly correlated with respectable-not respectable, therefore it was decided respectable-not respectable might give participants a better understanding of the question. Traditional male stereotype- not traditional male stereotype was similar to typical male-not typical male, so typical male-not typical male and violates male role- does not violate male role was used. The same terminology was used for females.

Sample Selection

The current study consisted of 46 students (18 males, 28 females) from Grayson College

Texas government, social psychology, general psychology, and learning frameworks who took part in the main part of this study. They received bonus points for their participation. Participants

14 mean age was 23.4. The range of the participants’ age was 18-65. Of the participants 28 were

Caucasian, six were African American, six were Hispanic, two were Asian, one was Native

American and two were biracial. Participants also shared their sexual orientation. Forty of the participants were heterosexuals, two were homosexuals, one identified as bisexual, one participant answered none, and two participants left it blank. Religious affiliation was shared by participants. Of the 46 participants, 29 consider themselves to be Protestants, three were

Catholic, one Hindu, two were Agnostic, one Atheist, one Omnist, and nine indicated no religious affiliation.

Data Gathering

Participants were given 67 gender type labels on slips of paper and asked to sort the labels into piles according to similarity. After each participant completed the sorting process the second set of instructions were to rate each pile based on a 7-point scale using five psychological properties. With the 7-point scale one represents positive (a) respectable, (b) does not violate male/female role, and (c) typical male/female role ratings. The seven on the Likert scale represents negative (a) not respectable, (b) violates male/female role, and (c) not a typical male/female role) rating. These properties consist of (a) respectable-not respectable, (b) violates female role- does not violate female role, (c) violates male role-does not violate male role, (d) typical female-not typical female, and (e) typical male-not typical male. Students were also asked a series of questions about their lives (political affiliation, gender, age, sexual orientation, place of birth, interaction with the LGBTQ community, religion, and parents’ education level).

The sorted data were used to create a distance between each of the gender targets. The distance scores were used as input for multidimensional scaling and hierarchal clustering analysis. A map of gender (Figure 1) targets was created using multidimensional scaling and hierarchal clustering

15 analyses. The ratings of each pile were used to calculate property means for each cluster in the solution. These means helped the meaning of the space to be defined.

Gender Type Stimuli

The stimuli were 67 gender type labels arrived by the following steps. In the original study Green et al. (2005), conducted an investigation of the gender type literature and uncovered

234 gender type labels. A subsequent pilot study reduced the gender type labels from 234 to 89 consisting of 35 female, 36 male, and 18 gender-neutral types (e.g., short). Since the current study took place several years later it made sense to conduct a new pilot study to make sure the terms used in the original study were still meaningful to participants. In the pilot, study some students did not understand some terms but as a whole enough knew the terms so the majority of the terms remained. Twenty five terms were removed because the original study found them to be too similar and did not provide information for the purposes that we were looking at for the current study. Three words were added to be list in order to keep it current with modern lingo

(bisexual, transsexual, and LGBTQ). This resulted in a list of 67 gender type labels.

Procedures and Materials

Each gender type label was printed on a separate slip of paper. Participants were asked to sort the label types into piles of similarity based on each participant’s own opinion. Each participant was told the definition of similarity was for them to decide. Participants were told there was not a time limit. The only restriction was to have a minimum of two labels in each pile.

After sorting the targets into piles, participants were provided with a set of worksheets on which they were asked to rate on a 7-point scale, the sorted piles into five psychological properties. Evaluation was assessed by one property respectable-not respectable. Two properties were included to assess elaboration: typical female-not at all typical female and typical male-not

16 at all typical male. Encapsulation was assessed by means of two properties: does not violate female role- violates female role and does not violate male role- violates male role.

Participants were also asked to fill out a form with their personal information: gender, race, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, age, place of birth, military experience, political affiliation, parent’s education level, and integration with LGBTQ community.

Chapter 4

PRESENATION OF DATA

Computation of Dimensional and Categorical Representations

The sorting data were converted into a half matrix of distances between each possible pairs of targets. The distance measure was computed as described by Rosenberg, Nelson, and

Vivekananthan (1968) and used in Green, Ashmore, and Manzi (2005):

2 δij =Ʃ (sik-sjk) kεT This derived distance score is based on the assumption that targets frequently paired together were considered psychologically similar and vice a versa targets rarely sorted together are considered psychologically dissimilar.

The psychological distance matrix was used as input for two similar yet different multivariate statistical techniques: multidimensional scaling and hierarchical clustering.

According to Eckes (1994), Kruskal and Wish (1978), Rosenberg and Sedlak (1972), and Green et al. (2005), these two techniques have proven to be robust and valid methods for uncovering cognitive structures. Multidimensional scaling provides researchers with a configuration that spatially depicts how people think and categorize a particular set of objects in an n-dimensional space. The scaling algorithm creates a “map” positioning each target in a Euclidean space revealing that pairs of gender types that have small distance scores in the input matrix are close in the scaling configuration, and gender types that have a large input disassociation scores are far from each other within the output map. A badness-of-fit score was computed for every solution.

In this study, four through one-dimensional solutions were calculated. We used the stress score to determine the two-dimensional representation was optimal due to the “elbow” in the data where the improvement rate in the stress levels out at the second dimension.

Hierarchal clustering (Johnson, 1967; Green et al., 2005) is a multivariate statistic that separates the gender type labels (objects in study) into homogeneous groups or clusters that are gathered together to form higher-order categorization. Once the algorithm comes to a conclusion, the items are collapsed into one cluster (Aldenderfer & Blashfield, 1984; Green et al., 2005).

This is different than multidimensional scaling, which highlights the global structure of thinking about gender types (because of the impact the large distance input has on the positioning of the points within the scaling configuration). Hierarchal clustering highlights the local structure, grouping pairs within the small input distances (Green et al., 2005). Calinski’s and Harabasz’s

(1974) pseudo F and Duda’s and Hart’s (1973) t2 scores were used in order to find the optimal number of clusters, providing stop rules that have proven to be reliable in assessing the correct number of clusters within the data known for categorical structure (Milligan and Cooper, 1985;

Green et al., 2005).

Interpretation of MDS and HC Analyses

In order to interpret the multidimensional scaling and hierarchal clustering analyses with ease, five property scores were derived for each cluster from the ratings of the sorted piles. For each participant all targets in a given pile received the same score; the mean score for each target across all participants was then calculated.

The psychological properties were fit to the clustering output by computing univariate one-way ANOVAs at the cut point suggested as optimal by the stop rules described above.

Referring back to the typical female-not typical female property, a statistically significant F for this property would mean that not only did the clusters differ optimally in terms of the input scores (determined by the stop rules), but also that they differed in terms of how typically female they were perceived to be.

The results are presented in the following order. First, the male and female distance matrices (representing the sorting task) are compared. Second, the optimal multidimensional scaling configuration is identified. Next, the optimal hierarchal clustering solution is identified, and then the clustering solution is superimposed onto the multidimensional configuration.

Finally, the rated properties are used to aid the interpretation of the clustering solution.

Multidimensional Scaling

Comparison of Male and Female Perceivers

Using the XLSTAT statistical package, a Mantel test was used to compare the male and female distance matrices. A Mantel test computes the correlation between parallel elements in two matrices. The matrix correlation of .849, p < .001, suggests male and female perceivers sorted the type labels similarly and thus, mentally organized the gender type perception the same way. This finding fits with other studies about gender type perception research showing males and females have similar views when categorizing or understanding males and females (e.g.

Edwards, 1992; Green & Ashmore, 1998; Green et al., 2005). The similarity between the matrices allowed us to only look at the data as a whole rather than separating it between participant genders.

Determining the Number of Dimensions

The next task was to determine how many dimensions were required to adequately account for the psychological distances among the gender types. The stress .0968 was used as one indicator in determining which dimensional configuration is the optimal representation of the input data. There was a considerable reduction in stress from one to two dimensions but only slight improvements in the quality of fit in higher dimensions (i.e., from one-to-four dimensional solutions, the stress values were: .2674, .0968, .0516, .0298). We chose the two dimensional

representation as the improvements in fit between the input and output data in dimensions three

and four were relatively small. With minimal improvement in fit, the more parsimonious two-

dimensional solution is optimal.

Hierarchical Clustering

Computation of HC Representation

For the average linkage method of clustering the Pseudo F (Calinksi & Harabasz, 1974)

and Pseudo t2 (Duda & Hart, 1973) stopping rules indicated an 11-cluster solution provided the

best categorical representation of the data. Thus this solution is superimposed over the

multidimensional scaling results in Figure 1. Note the clusters are spatially concentrated and

clearly separated, not intertwined and spread out, implying this solution reflects distinct and

specific categorical distinctions (Aldenderfer & Blashfiled, 1984; Green et al., 2005).

FIGURE 1. Tw o-Dimensional, 11-cluster representation of gender type perceptions cluster labels (e.g., # 1-11) will be used to guide reader in text.

Figure 2. Three-dimensional scaling solution with embedded hierarchical clustering output. Note. Normal type= Female targets. Italic type = Male targets. Bold type = Gender neutral targets. Green et al. (2005).

Interpretation of the 11-Cluster HC Solution

To assess whether the properties meaningfully distinguished among the clusters, one-way

ANOVAs were calculated for each property. All five ANOVAs were significant at p < .001; the

Fs (df=10,67) ranged from 43.577 (typical male) to 110.217 (violates male). Thus the 11 groupings of gender types differed significantly from one another. To identify which cluster means differed significantly from one another within each dimension, Tukey’s Honestly

Significant Different (HSD) post hoc comparisons were computed for each property. The mean scores for each cluster on each property are reported in Table 1; those means that do not share a superscript are different at p = .05.

The clusters appear to reflect that homosexuals are their own category, which are not similar to any other group and are not seen as typical (M= 5.011, F= 5.033) for their gender but are still perceived negatively. These targets are Encapsulated, as reflected by their mean ratings suggesting they violate expectations of males (4.929) and females (4.774), and as a result of violating these expectations are negatively evaluated. To look at this and other clusters more specifically, we can review the property means for the various clusters located in Table 1.

Table 1.

Average Property Rating for Clusters 1-11 in the Hierarchical Clustering Scale

Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster

Property 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Respectable 5.114ef 5.424ef 4.570de 5.37ef 5.696f 2.663ab 3.036abc 3.93cd 3.686bcd 2.794ab 2.27a

Violates Female Role 4.774ef 5.141f 4.074de 4.941ef 5.418f 2.435ab 2.724abc 3.622cd 3.291bcd 2.272a 2.152a

Violates Male Role 4.929e 4.609de 4.009cd 4.947e 5.277e 2.315ab 2.618ab 3.561c 3.163bc 2.337ab 1.949a

Typical Female 5.033e 4.750de 4.500cd 4.795de 4.875de 3.739ab 3.792ab 4.04bc 4.047bc 3.5a 3.55a

Typical Male 5.011e 4.957e 4.391bcde 4.699cde 4.864de 3.804ab 3.95ab 4.257bcd 4.142bc 3.815ab 3.403a

Note. Cluster numbers refer to the cluster labels in Figure 1. A score closer to 1 is viewed as positive (respectable, does not violate male/female role, and typical male/female role) ratings. A score closer to 7 is negative (not respectable, violates male/female role, and not a typical male/female role) rating. Superscript letters are based on Tukey’s HSD. Those not sharing a letter are significantly different at p =.05.

When reviewing the data homosexuals targets were clustered together. People were defined by their sexual orientation. In Figure 1, Cluster one contains homosexual terms as well as non-traditional views in relationships. This cluster is seen as highly negative (5.114). Further, targets in this cluster are generally viewed as violating both male (4.929) and female (4.774) gender roles as well as not typical for both genders (5.033, 5.011).

Clusters two, three, four, and five are primarily defined by a lack of respectability and is also viewed as violating the male role and female role of not being typical of males and females.

Cluster two contains two targets linked to illicit sexual behavior. Cluster three is gender neutral, containing personal attributes (i.e. nerd, redneck). Cluster five consists of derogatory expletives

(i.e. whore, bitch) and cluster four consists of terms that are typically negative (i.e. jerk, wimps, ugly).

Clusters six and 11 are highly respectability and considered to be a typical male and female, not violating males or females. Hard work is valued in America. Cluster six consists of positive terms representing hard working individuals. Cluster 11 is the second largest cluster and most respectable cluster. This cluster consists of different types of professions (i.e. professor, police officer, waitress, etc.).

Cluster seven is the largest group consisting of ways of relating to others as well as physical characteristics. Cluster seven is viewed as neutral in terms of respectability as well as typical male and female. Both males and females are not perceived to violate gender roles within cluster seven.

Clusters eight and nine consist of terms that are perceived as neutral when determining respectability, violating males or females. Cluster eight and nine are also viewed not being typical male and female. Cluster eight (i.e. short, skinny, etc.) and nine (black, white, brunette, etc.) consist of gender neutral terms used to describe an individual’s physical characteristics.

Cluster 10 consists of personal attributes (i.e. athlete). Cluster 10 is the most respectable cluster, and is not perceived as violating either male or female gender roles. Males and females are considered to be neither typical nor not typical within this cluster.

Chapter 5

DISCUSSION

Homosexuality has been a source of discussion in the media. Society has seen changes in governmental laws concerning legal rights to marry, homosexuality on television shows, as well as support groups, and protection for individuals with a different sexual orientation.

The goal of this study was to replicate Green et al. (2005) study using the E3 framework to determine if the structure of gender type perception has changed within the last few years, focusing on acceptance of homosexuality. In Green et al.’s (2005) original study the E3 model supported the idea that gender types emerge and are mentally organized in three categories: elaboration, encapsulation, and evaluation which are based on underlying cognitive-social motives.

According to Fiske (1992) elaboration serves a pragmatic function and assists perceivers in being “accurate enough” within social perception. Using this mechanism provides divisions of superordinate gender categories into specific subcategories within the entire group. This process allows perceivers to analyze numerous acceptable ways in which individuals execute the roles and stereotypes associated with two superordinate categories (Green et al., 2005; Ashmore, et al.,

1984). In this study we did not find as much elaboration due to the fact that several of the traditional terms were removed (i.e. wife, husband, etc.). However, we found clusters of men and women together seen as fulfilling societal expectations of men and women (i.e. clusters 6-10).

The presence of multiple clusters with a wide range of scores indicated there is evidence of elaboration of qualities that people possess across genders which are considered traditional.

Encapsulation is led by cognitive simplicity and consistency motives (Green et al., 2005).

Using this mechanism individuals are able to simplify and preserve superordinate category

25 stereotypes by psychologically grouping them and mentally segregating exceptions (Allport,

1954; Taylor, 1981; Weber & Crocker, 1983; Green et al., 2005). With this in mind, individuals are able to maintain their stereotypes for individuals and create a new group for those that violate the expectations of the superordinate gender categories (Green et al., 2005). As projected there was a change in attitude toward homosexuality, but it was not a vast as originally predicted.

Homosexuality is still considered negative because it violates the male (4.929) and female

(4.774) role and is not viewed as a typical male (5.033) or female (5.011), even though it is perceived as somewhat more likely to violate the male role compared to the female role. Even though homosexuality is still perceived as negative, it was not the worst cluster (4.929). It is the

4th least respectable group. Other groups that were considered less respectable were prostitutes and pimps (5.424), groups with expletives and derogatory terms used to describe individuals.

Respectability was the highest ranking negative view for the cluster of homosexuality.

Homosexuality surprisingly received the most negative view of all the clusters when comparing it to other clusters in the category of typical males (5.033) and females (5.011). Homosexuality was considered the 3rd rated cluster to violate the male role (4.292) and the 4th ranked cluster to violate the female role (4.774). This shows that society is not as accepting of homosexuality as one would perceive.

Society still perceives homosexuality as a negative trait but it is more acceptable for females to possess than males. Which is what Stoever and Morera (2007) ultimately found using the Attitude Towards Lesbians and Gay men (ATLG). In Green et al. (2005) original study, homosexuality was considered negative and paired with terms such as SOB, ugly, dumb, and wimp. In this current study, homosexuality was paired with terms such as bisexual, gay, fag,

LGBTQ. Even though it is still perceived as negative, the cluster it was paired with changed.

Cluster one consisted of terms that were synonyms to the term homosexual, some were negative and others were politically correct terms.

Evaluation directs behavior by informing individuals about which types to approach and avoid, what is good and bad. It was predicted that attitudes towards homosexuals would be seen more positively and not considered to be breaking a social norm. The research shows homosexuality is negatively evaluated with the status quo because it is viewed as violating the roles of both males and females.

With all of the changes happening across the nation (same sex marriage recognition, adjustments to health insurance, new data collected in the census, and the vast number of homosexuals represented in the media) society does not seem to accept it as much as portrayed.

Even though it is still negative, it appears that acceptance is slowly approaching.

Suggestions for Future Research

One important direction for the future would be to look at a wider population of ages.

The younger generations appear to be more accepting of sexual orientations, so it would be interesting to see if their views line up with societies. Also, it would be important to look at students as they mature and complete college to see if their views change about sexual orientation (if their views were a fad, or an intrinsic belief). It would also be interesting to see if

Chonody et al. (2009) study concerning the professors’ attitudes towards homosexuals had an impact on helping shape their beliefs.

Checking to see if these views on sexual orientation hold true cross culturally would be beneficial as well. America is more accepting of homosexuality compared to other countries (i.e.

Russia) and vice versa (i.e. Netherlands). The views of these countries could lead to different stresses on the evaluation mechanisms within this E3 framework.

Also, reintroducing some of the original terms in a study would be interesting to see if more changes have occurred in encapsulation and see if that has an impact on the views towards homosexuality. In the current study, homosexuals had their own group. Quite possibly, if the original terms were reintroduced, heterosexuals might appear in the first cluster since it was involving relationships. On the flip side, heterosexuals may appear in another cluster “fitting the expectations of typical male and female roles.”

Furthermore, it would be interesting to look at race. This would help to determine if one race would be more accepting or disapproving of homosexuals than other races. Having a better insight into different subgroups of people would ultimately give us a better understanding of people.

REFERENCES

Aldenderfer, M. S., & Blashfield, R. K. (1984). Cluster Analysis. Sage University Paper Series

on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Allport, G. W. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.

Avery, A., Chase, J., Johansson, L., Litvak, S., Montero, D. & Wydra, M. (2007). America’s

changing attitudes toward homosexuality, civil unions, and same-gender marriage: 1977-

2004. Social Work, 52(1), 71-79.

Barth, J., & Overby, L. M. (2003). Are gay men and lesbians in the South the new “threat”?:

Regional comparisons of the contact theory. Politics and Policy, 31, 452-470.

Bem, S. L., (1974), The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and

Clinical Psychology, 42, 155-162.

Blashill, A. J., & Powlishta, K.K. (2009). Gay stereotypes:The use of sexual orientation as a cue

for gender-related attributes. Sex Roles, 61, 783-793. doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9684-7

Brown, M. J., & Groscup, J.L. (2009). Homophobia and acceptance of stereotypes about gays

and lesbians. Individual Differences Research, 7, 159-167.

Bowers, F. (1971). The sexes: Getting it all together. Saturday Review, 54, 16-19.

Broverman, I. K., Vogel, S. R. Broverman, D. M., Clarkson, F. E., & Rosenkrantz, P. S. (1972).

Sex-role stereptypes:A current appraisal. Journal of Social Issues, 28(2), 59-78.

Burks, D. J. (2011). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual victimization in the military: An unintended

consequence of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell?” American Psychologists, 66, 604-613.

doi:10.1037/a0024609

{[1U.S. Census Bureau. (2013, August). Frequently Asked Questions About Same-Sex Couple

}/Households. Retrieved from

www.census.gov/hhes/samesex/files/SScplfactsheet_final.pdf

Calinski, R. B., &Harabasz, J. (1974). A dendrite method for cluster analysis. Communication in

Statistics, 3, 1-27.

Chonody, J. M., Siebert, D. C., & Rutledge, S. E. (2009). College students’ attitudes towards

gays and lesbians. Journal of Social Work Education, 45(3), 499-513.

Ciarlante, M., & Fountain, K. (2010). Why It Matters: Rethinking Victim Assistance for Lesbian,

Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Victims of Hate Violence and Intimate Partner

Violence. Washington, DC: National Center for Victims of Crime and the National

Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs.

Daugherty, J., & Copen, C. (2016). Trends in attitudes about marriage, childbearing, and sexual

behavior: United States, 2002, 2006-2010, and 2011-2013. National Health Statistics

Reports, 92, 1-10.

Department of Defense (1982). Enlisted administrative separations (DOD directive 1332.14).

Washington, DC: Author.

Duda, R. O., & Hart, P. E. (1973). Validity studies in clustering methodologies. Pattern

Recognition, 11, 235-254.

Eckes (1994) in green with kruskal/wish rosenber/sedlak1972 pg. 17 my paper

Fernández, M. L., Castro, Y. R., Otero, M. C., Foltz, M. L., & Fernández, M. V. C. (2007).

Expressive-instrumental traits and sexist attitudes among Spanish university

professors. Social Indicators Research, 80(3), 583-599.

Fiske, S. T. (1992). Thinking is for doing: Portraits of social cognition from daguerreotype to

laserphoto. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 877-889.

Fiske, S. T. (1995). Social cognition. In A.Tesser (Ed), Advanced social psychology (pp.149-

194). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill

Gates, G. J. (2006). Same-sex couples and gay, lesbian, bisexual population; New estimates from

the American Community Survey. Publications:Williams Institute Census 2000 and

Demographic Studies. Retrieved May 27, 2016, from

http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/publications/SameSexCouplesandGLBPOPAC

S.pdf

Green, R. J., & Ashmore, R. D. (1998). Taking and developing pictures in the head: Assessing

the physical stereotypes of eight gender types. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28,

1609-1636.

Green, R. J., Ashmore, R. D., & Manzi, R. (2005). The structure of gender type perception:

testing the elaboration, encapsulation, and evaluation framework. Social Cognition, 5,

429-464.

Herek, G. M. (2016). The social psychology of sexual prejudice. In T. D. Nelson (Ed.)

Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, ad discrimination (2nd ed., pp.355-384). New York,

NY: Psychology Press.

House of Representatives (1996, September 21). Defense of Marriage Act. Retrieved from

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ199/html/PLAW-104publ199.htm

Johnson, S. C. (1967). Hierarchical clustering schemes. Psychometrika, 32, 241-254.

Johnson, W. B., Rosenstein, J. E., Buhrke, R. A., & Haldeman, D. C. (2015). After “Don’t Ask

Don’t Tell”; competent care of lesbian, gay and bisexual military personnel during the

DoD policy transition. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 46(2), 107-115.

Kite, M. E. & Bryant-Lees, K. B. (2016). Historical and contemporary attitudes toward

homosexuality. Teaching of Psychology, 43(2), 164-170.

doi:10.1177/0098628316636297

Kite, M. E. & Deaux, K., (1987). Gender belief systems: Homosexuality and the implicit

inversion theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11, 83-96.

Korman, J., Voikils, J., & Malle, B. F. (2015). The Social life of cognition. Cognition, 135, 30-

35.

Kruskal, J. B. & Wish, M. (1978). Multidimensional scaling. Sage University Paper series on

Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Kulik, C. T., Bainbridge, H. T. J., and Cregan, C., (2008). Known by the company we keep:

Stigma-by-association effects in the workplace. Academy of Management Review. 33(1),

216-230.

Maurer, K. L., Park, B., & Rothbart, M. (1995). Subtyping versus subgroup processes in

stereotype representation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 812-824.

Milligan, G. W. & Cooper, M. C. (1985). An examination of procedures for determining the

number of clusters in a data set. Psychometerika, 50, 159-179.

Moore, D. W., & Carroll, J. (2004, May 17). Support for gay marriage/civil unions edges

upward: Public remains divided on constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

Retrieved 2016, March 1, 2016, from http://www.gallup.com/content/default. aspx?ci=

1689&pg= 1

Newton, A. (2001, June 4). American attitudes toward homosexuality continue to become more

tolerant. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/4432/american-attitudes-toward-

h/*+-+-omosexuality-continue-become-more-tolerant.aspx

Norton, A. T. & Herek, G. M. (2013). Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward transgendered

people:Findings from a national probability sample of U.S. adults. Sex Roles, 68, 738-

753.

Obergerfell et al. v Hodges, 576 U.S. (2015, June 26). Retrieved from

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Osgood, C. E. (1969). On the whys and wherefores of E, P, and A. Journal of Personality &

Social Psychology, 12, 194-199.

Pew Research Center. (2016, May 12). Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage. Retrieved from

http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/

Ratliff, J. J., Lassiter, G. D., Markman, K. D., and Snyder, C. J., (2006). Gender differences in

attitudes toward gay men and lesbians: The role of motivation to respond without

prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(10), 1325-1388.

Rohlf, F. J. (1990). NT-SYS-pc: Users Guide. Applied Biostatistics Inc. New York

Rosenberg, S. & Sedlak A. (1972). Structural representations of implicit personality theory. In L.

Berkowitz (Ed.) Advances in experimental social psychology 6, 235- 297. New York:

Academic Press.

Rosenkrantz, P., Bee, H., Vogel, S., Broverman, I., & Broverman, D.M. (1968). Sex-role

stereotypes and self-concepts in college students. Journal of Counseling and Clinical

Psychology, 32(2), 287-295.

Rosenberg, S. (1977). New approaches to the analysis of personal constructs in person

perception. In A.L. Land & J.K. Cole (Eds.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Vol.

33 (pp. 267-307). Lincoln:University of Nebraska Press.

Rosenberg, S. Nelson, C. & Vivekananthan, P.S. (1968). A multidimensional approach to the

structure of personality impressions. Journal of Personality And Social Psychology, 9(4),

283-294. doi:10.1037/h0026086

Spitzer, R.L. (1981). The diagnostic status of homosexuality in DSM-III: A reformation of the

issues. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 138(2), 210-215.

http://dx.doi.org.proxy.tamuc.edu/10.1176/ajp.138.2.210

Smith, T. W., Son, J., & Kim, J. (2014). Public attitudes toward homosexuality and gay rights

across time and countries. The Williams Institute, 1-29.

Stoever, C. J. & Morera, O. F.(2007). A Confirmatory factor analysis of the attitudes towards

lesbians and gay men (ATLG) measure. Journal of Homosexuality, 52(3/4), 189-209.

Taylor, S. E. (1981). A categorization approach to stereotyping. In D.L. Hamilton (Ed.),

Cognitive processes in stereotyping and intergroup behavior (pp. 83-114). Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum.

The Guardian. (2016, November 03). LGBT characters on TV will make up larger percentage

than ever, study finds. Retrieved from www.theguardian.com/tv-and-

radio/2016/nov/03/lgbt-characters-tv-largest-percent-glaad-study

Weber, R., & Crocker, J. (1983). Cognitive process in the revision of stereotypic beliefs. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 961-977.

Wright, E. (2004, January). The gaying of America: 2003 in review. Lesbian News, p. 21.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

TERMS FROM CURRENT STUDY

1. Teacher

2. Professor

3. Doctor

4. Police officer

5. Farmer

6. Soldier

7. Athlete

8. Hardworker

9. Priest

10. Model

11. Masculine

12. Strong

13. Leader

14. Rich

15. Prostitute

16. Intelligent

17. Outgoing

18. Tall

19. Handsome

20. White

21. Black

22. Poor

23. Single

24. Hippy

25. Flirt

26. Independent

27. Lover

28. Young

29. Shy

30. Aggressive

31. Fat

32. Butch

33. Short

34. Sexy

35. Redneck

36. Jerk

37. Prick

38. Homo

39. Fag

40. Drunk

41. Ugly

42. Skinny

43. Pimp

44. Gay

45. Wimp

46. Nerd

47. Dumb

48. Kind

49. Sweetheart

50. Whore

51. Bitch

52. Witch

53. Lesbian

54. Blonde

55. Brunette

56. Honey

57. Caring

58. Beautiful

59. Princess

60. Nurse

61. Waiter

62. Cheerleader

63. Dependent

64. Queer

65. Transsexual

66. Bisexual

67. LGBTQ

APPENDIX B

TERMS FROM ORIGINAL STUDY

1. Teacher

2. Professor

3. Doctor

4. Policeman

5. Farmer

6. Soldier

7. Athlete

8. Hardworker

9. Priest

10. Model

11. Masculine

12. Strong

13. Leader

14. Rich

15. Prostitute

16. Intelligent

17. Outgoing

18. Tall

19. Handsome

20. White

21. Black

22. Poor

23. Single

24. Hippy

25. Flirt

26. Independent

27. Lover

28. Young

29. Shy

30. Aggressive

31. Fat

32. Butch

33. Short

34. Sexy

35. Redneck

36. Jerk

37. Prick

38. Homo

39. Fag

40. Drunk

41. Ugly

42. Skinny

43. Pimp

44. Gay

45. Wimp

46. Nerd

47. Dumb

48. Kind

49. Sweetheart

50. Whore

51. Bitch

52. Witch

53. Lesbian

54. Blonde

55. Brunette

56. Honey

57. Caring

58. Beautiful

59. Princess

60. Nurse

61. Waiter

62. Cheerleader

63. Dependent

64. Girlfriend

65. Sister

66. Woman

67. Old lady

68. Grandmother

69. Mother

70. Wife

71. Housewife

72. Widow

73. Waitress

74. Businessman

75. SOB

76. Mistress

77. Feminist

78. Motherly

79. Chick

80. Career woman

81. Boyfriend

82. Man

83. Bother

84. Gentleman

85. Ladies man

86. Construction worker

87. Comedian

88. Stud

89. Boy

APPENDIX C

WORDS REMOVED FROM ORIGINAL STUDY

1. Career woman

2. House wife

3. Wife

4. Mother

5. Grandmother

6. Old lady

7. Motherly

8. Chick

9. Girlfriend

10. Widow

11. Mistress

12. Feminist

13. Construction worker

14. Comedian

15. Businessman

16. Tomboy

17. SOB

18. Masculine

19. Stud

20. Ladies man

21. Boy

22. Boyfriend

23. Man

24. Brother

25. Gentleman

VITAE

Rachel Sumrall received her Bachelor of Science in Human Development and Family

Studies from Texas Tech University in 2005. In 2007, she received her Master of Science

Elementary Education with an emphasis of Math and Science from Texas Tech University and her Masters of Science in Psychology from Texas A &M-Commerce in 2018. In 2007, she began teaching for Victory Life Academy. In 2008, she taught abroad in the Dominican

Republic. In 2009, she worked for Sherman ISD and St. Luke’s Episcopal School. In 2011, she began working for Grayson College. In 2012, she was accepted into the PhD program in

Educational Psychology at Texas A&M University-Commerce. Her research interests are gender typing and changes of acceptance in society.

Rachel Sumrall can be reached at the Psychology Department at Grayson College,

Denison, TX 75020. Her email is [email protected].

6101 Grayson, Dr, Denison, TX 75020

[email protected]