.12. 5".
$121333, ..

47..
a

I -’
"Tu"

‘ «a
.4"...

—v \vw

n
on
u.

r? n ‘

' 'i‘ 5 -

"Mr-33‘- .3551
33;”: ‘N‘ "hi

V 4.5;: kw:
* ' he:

:33;

 

: ﬁlEStS
(>1
91001

*aéf‘ﬁttmy
,migan State
UniyerSIty

rﬁ

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

Future Teachers’ Attitudes and Anticipated Behaviors Toward
Sexual Minority Youth

presented by
Amanda Jane Hirsch

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Counseling, Educational
Psychology, and Special
Ph.D. degree in Education

 

 

 

erssor’s Signature

{51-07

Date

MSU is an affirmative-action, equal-opportunity employer

 

 

I—I-I-I-D-F‘D-l---l-u-I--l-C- -O-I-l-U-l-‘---¢-I-l-l-l-o-u-

a.--—.—--o----.---—--o--—n- -----_I----o--- -I-f-l-

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE
AUG 1 g 2009

A.

 

 

"U

532.15701

Cw

 

:31:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/07 p:ICIRC/DateDue.indd-p.1

FUTURE TEACHERS’ ATTITUDES AND ANTICIPATED BEHAVIORS TOWARD
SEXUAL MINORITY YOUTH

By

Amanda Jane Hirsch

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology, and Special Education

2007

ABSTRACT

FUTURE TEACHERS’ ATTITUDES AND ANTICIPATED BEHAVIORS TOWARD
SEXUAL MINORITY YOUTH

By
Amanda Jane Hirsch

The current study addressed the lack of research on preservice teacher attitudes
and knowledge about sexual minorities (i.e. gay, lesbian, bisexual, or questioning
[GLBQ]). It examined educators’ attitudes, behaviors, and knowledge; however, the
participant group was preservice teachers, adding information about an overlooked group
of educators who will have signiﬁcant impact on sexual minority students in the future.
Two hundred three future educators completed measures assessing their attitudes toward,
feelings about, and knowledge of sexual minorities and anticipated behaviors toward
sexual minority students. Results indicated that preservice teachers express relatively
positive attitudes and feelings toward sexual minorities but still have limited knowledge
about sexual orientation and homosexuality. Greater knowledge was associated with
more positive attitudes and feelings. Differences in attitudes and feelings were also found
based on participant sex, frequency of religious attendance, and friendship with a person
who identiﬁes as GLBQ. Preservice teachers reported that they would behave differently
toward a sexual minority student than toward a heterosexual student. Also many teachers
reported an unwillingness to discuss, or even raise, age-appropriate topics related to
sexual orientation in the classroom. However, they were signiﬁcantly more willing to
have discussions about race and ethnicity. The implications of these results for school

psychologists are discussed as are next steps for future research.

Copyright by
AMANDA JANE HIRSCH
2007

Acknowledgements

This work could not have been accomplished without the assistance, guidance,
support, and encouragement of many people. I acknowledge the following people for
their contributions to this dissertation and to my development as a researcher, a
practitioner, and a person.

Thank you to my committee: John Carlson, Kristen Renn, Sara Bolt, and Rick
DeShon. I appreciate your working with me and helping me to navigate the paperwork
(with requisite signatures) of graduate school. To John, my advisor during my ﬁve years
in the program, thank you for your insight, feedback, and thought-provoking questions.
You always encouraged me to go a step further in my thinking and writing, even though I
may not have realized the beneﬁt at the time. To Kris, thank you for your expertise in and
feedback on the research design and relevant literature. I could not have done this without
your time, thoughtfulness, and sense of humor. To Sara, thank you for all the thoughtful,
speciﬁc feedback and ideas on the multiple drafts. You were always willing to give of
your time, and for that, I am appreciative. And to Rick, thank you for all the opportunities
to learn more about quantitative data analyses (even those that were not directly needed
in this project). During the six years I have known you, you have allowed me to ask many
questions, and you provided guidance, advice, and expertise on a range of topics.

This research would not have been possible without the ﬁnancial support of the
Michigan State University Graduate School through the Dissertation Completion
Fellowship. This award allowed me to complete this study in a timely manner, and it is

my hope that this award will continue to assist future researchers in their endeavors.

iv

I would also like to recognize the diverse group of faculty and graduate students
who provided information about this study to the students in their classes. In addition,
thank you to all the future educators who received this information and then willingly
gave their time to complete the survey. Without these students, the knowledge gained
from this study would not have been possible.

My friends at Michigan State, some of who I met during my graduate career and
others who were still lurking from my undergraduate days, remain a source of inspiration
and humor. This group of bright, motivated people has provided vital support,
encouragement, humor, and fun. Thanks to Alicia, Anna, Amy, Beth, Cara (and Angus &
Bailey), Casey, Erin (and Mike & Eddie), Glenn, Jane, Jenn, Kacy, Melissa, and Nora for
your company, input, and overall hilariousness. I would also like to express my gratitude
to several others who, although not students, provided support, encouragement, and
insight at various times. Thank you to Rick and Lisa for widening my horizons and
laughing about said horizons. And huge gratitude goes to Gersh. Thanks for being there. I
would not have made it this far without you.

Last, but certainly not least, my family (including the fuzzy feline) has always
been a source of inspiration, motivation, and support. Their unwavering conﬁdence in my
potential has sustained me throughout my life. My parents, sister, and brother have all
played a vital role in my success. I have learned so many things through their example.
Thanks for all your advice and for reminding me that the monetary debt can always,

eventually, be repaid (somehow).

Table of Contents

List of Tables ....................................................................................................... viii
List of Figures ........................................................................................................ ix
Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................ 1
Background to the Problem ......................................................................... 2
Purpose of the Study .................................................................................... 4
Signiﬁcance of the Study ............................................................................ 5
Chapter 2: Review of Literature .............................................................................. 7
Sexual Orientation and Society ................................................................... 7
Sexual Minority Youth .............................................................................. 10
School Climate and Outcomes .................................................................. 15
Present Study ............................................................................................. 21
Research Questions ................................................................................... 22
Chapter 3: Methods ................................................................................................ 25
Participants ................................................................................................ 25
Measures .................................................................................................... 34
Procedures ................................................................................................. 40
Research Design and Analyses .................................................................. 41
Chapter 4: Results .................................................................................................. 42
Research Question One: Attitudes, Feelings, and Knowledge .................. 42
Research Question Two: Student Sexual Orientation and Anticipated
Behaviors ................................................................................................... 51
Research Question Three: Factors Affecting Attitudes, Feelings, and
Behaviors ................................................................................................... 52
Chapter 5: Discussion ............................................................................................ 63
Attitudes, Feelings, and Knowledge .......................................................... 63
Student Sexual Orientation and Anticipated Behaviors ............................ 65
Factors Affecting Attitudes, Feelings, and Behaviors ............................... 67
Limitations ................................................................................................. 69
Implications for Practice and Future Research .......................................... 71
References .............................................................................................................. 74
Appendices
A. Participant Consent ................................................................................... 80

vi

£119.09”

7'1

Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men Scale — Revised (ATLG-R) ...82

Attitudes Regarding Bisexuality Scale (ARBS) ....................................... 85
Index of Homophobia (IHP) ..................................................................... 87
Vignettes ................................................................................................... 9O
Anticipated Behaviors of Future Teachers Toward Sexual Minority

Youth Scale (ABFTS) ............................................................................... 91
Knowledge About Homosexuality Questionnaire .................................... 96
Participant Information ............................................................................. 97

vii

10.

11.

List of Tables

Comparison of Population and Sample Demographics ......................................... 26
Participant Demographics ...................................................................................... 28
Age of Participants ................................................................................................ 29
Direction of sexual, physical, and emotional attractions, fantasies,

preferences, and behaviors ..................................................................................... 31
Sexual Orientation Self-Identiﬁcation ................................................................... 31
Frequency of Religious Service Attendance .......................................................... 32
Supplemental Questions Response Frequency ...................................................... 34
Descriptive Statistics for Measures of Attitudes, Feelings, and Knowledge ......... 43
IHP Score Frequencies .......................................................................................... 47
Percent of Participants Responding for Each KAH Question ............................... 49

Pearson Product-Moment Correlations Between Knowledge, Attitudes,
Feelings, and Anticipated Behaviors ..................................................................... 54

viii

List of Figures

Distribution of attitude scores toward gay men and lesbians as measured

by the ATLG-R ...................................................................................................... 44
Distribution of attitude scores toward bisexual men and women as measured

by the ARBS .......................................................................................................... 45
Distribution of feeling scores toward sexual minorities as measured by

the IHP ................................................................................................................... 46
Distribution of correct responses on the KAH ...................................................... 48
Plot of ATLG-R means by frequency of religious attendance .............................. 57
Plot of IHP means by frequency of religious attendance ...................................... 58
Plot of ABFTS (part 1) means by frequency of religious attendance .................... 59
Plot of ABFTS (part 2) means by frequency of religious attendance .................... 6O

ix

Chapter 1

Introduction

School psychologists are obligated to ensure that all students have an equal
opportunity for personal identity development in an environment free from
discrimination, harassment, violence, and abuse (National Association of School
Psychologists [NASP], 2004). Other professionals within schools, particularly teachers,
are also in a prime position to affect the environment in ways that promote tolerance and
acceptance. According to Coleman (1988) supportive teachers and non-family adult role
models are important for healthy adolescent development. One especially salient factor is
teacher attitudes and values, given the amount of time young people spend with teachers.

One group of students that has been historically overlooked when considering
ways to make the school environment more welcoming is sexual minority youth (i.e. gay,
lesbian, bisexual, or questioning [GLBQ]). Researchers estimate that between ﬁve and
six percent (about 2 million) of youth identify as GLBQ (Human Rights Watch, 2001).
When also considering sexual minority parents, this translates to about 8 to 14 million
school age youth who may currently be dealing with issues relating to sexual orientation,
either their own or that of their caregivers (Casper & Schultz, 1999). According to
- Athanases and Larrabee (2003), denial and silence obscure the reality of GLBQ-
identiﬁed youth in schools. However, more recently, an increasing amount of research
has focused on the mental health, school experiences, and well-being of students who

self-identify as sexual minorities.

Given what is already known about how environment reciprocally impacts people
(Bronfenbrenner, 1977) it is important to examine environmental factors in the school
that may inﬂuence outcomes of sexual minority students. Young people spend more time
in schools than in any other non-home setting. According to Tharinger and Wells (2000),
previous research has demonstrated the relationship between academic achievement and
later accomplishments. Teachers, who may often serve as additional or substitute parental
attachment ﬁgures for adolescents, are often not available to sexual minority youth
(Woog, 1995). The negative attitudes that teachers may hold toward this population affect
the expectations the teacher has for these students, which then may impact students’
academic and social outcomes (Salvia, Clark, & Ysseldyke, 1973).

Background to the Problem

In 1996, Jamie Nabozny successfully won a court case ﬁled against his former
high school (i.e., school district, district administrator, two principals, and an assistant
principal) for failing to respond to his (and his parents’) complaints about and protect him
from anti-gay harassment and violence (Nabozny v. Podlesny, 1995/ 1996). The suit
alleged that this situation was especially problematic in comparison with the protection
afforded to other students faced with other forms of harassment. The school settled with
Nabozny for medical expenses and damages, totaling almost one million dollars. This has
not been the only trial to produce case law directly linked with concerns of sexual
minority youth in schools, and there are a number more being settled, decided, and/or in
progress (Henning-Stout, James, & Macintosh, 2000). This case, and others like it,
exempliﬁes the legal and ethical importance of ensuring a safe and harassment-free

environment for all students. While writing an anti-harassment policy is a positive step

toward improving school climate, schools must also implement and enforce such policies
to ensure the creation of safe climates for all students.

Many times, teachers fail to respond to violence and harassment directed at sexual
minority youth. Teachers are either inadequately prepared to handle such situations or are
merely unwilling to intervene. A survey of 887 GLBQ high school students from 48
states and the District of Columbia conducted by the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight
Education Network (GLSEN; Kosciw, 2004) found that 91.5% of respondents reported
hearing homophobic remarks at school, with 84% reporting being verbally harassed
because of their identiﬁed or perceived sexual orientation. At times, faculty and staff
contributed to the problem by either making homophobic comments themselves or failing
to intervene upon hearing the remarks; in fact, 82.9% of the responding students reported
that faculty or staff never intervened or intervened only some of the time when present
when homophobic remarks were made. A study of 289 teachers and 52 principals from
nine urban, suburban, and rural high schools indicated that teachers were the least willing
group to discuss homosexuality with students (Woog, 1995).

Community members and educators continue to resist attention to concerns
related to this population, often punishing educators who dare to address these issues
(Athanases & Larrabee, 2003). Athanases and Larrabee, in their study focusing on the
role of teachers in advocating for sexual minority youth, noted that teachers have been
disciplined and ﬁred for serving as faculty sponsors of GSAs (gay-straight alliances), for
holding class discussions about sexual minority-related issues in the media, for using
curricular materials that include GLBQ-identiﬁed people, and for openly identifying as

sexual minorities. At the governmental level, anti-gay legislation in many states

continues to be proposed and passed. In California, one community group went further,
organizing a “Take Back the Schools” campaign to remove from schools all references to
homosexuality as anything other than sick or sinful (Athanases & Larrabee).

Purpose of the Study

In teacher training programs, if information about sexual minorities is included at
all, it is often relegated to one topic within a larger course on diversity (Athanases &
Larrabee, 2003). Therefore, teachers often enter school settings lacking knowledge of this
population and what can be done to support them. Research shows that more information
about GLBQ youth among prospective teachers is not only needed but welcomed, and
that increased knowledge leads to increased understanding and support (Athanases &
Larrabee). This indicates a greater need for teacher education, support, and advocacy, so
as to create a more positive school and classroom environment for all students.

Despite the important role that teachers play in sexual minority students’ lives,
very little is actually known about teachers’ attitudes and values, and the degree to which
these are relayed to students, either explicitly or implicitly. One way to learn more is to
explore such beliefs in preservice teachers, who will soon be entering the classroom. This
population is especially relevant, given the potential for implementing more thorough
education and training programs for new teachers before they even enter the classroom.
Therefore, the purpose of this study was to address the dearth of research in this area and
to learn more about preservice teachers’ knowledge about homosexuality and their
attitudes, feelings, and anticipated behaviors toward both sexual minorities in general and
sexual minority students in particular. Also, this study investigated variables that may be

associated with these constructs, including sex, certiﬁcation level, age, experiences in

courses that provide information on sexual minorities, and personal relationships (e. g.
family, friends, acquaintances) with self-identiﬁed GLB people.
Signiﬁcance of the Study

Sexual minority youth face a number of risk factors as they work to develop their
unique identity within a society that still actively condemns people with different sexual
orientations. Such risk factors include low self-esteem and self-hatred, suicidal ideation
or attempt, social isolation, substance use, antigay harassment or mistreatment, negative
family interactions, repeated stress, conﬂicts about or rejection upon coming out,
depression, and negative social attitudes (Friedman & Downey, 1994; Hershberger,
Pilkington, & D’Augelli, 1997; Remafedi, Farrow, & Deisher, 1991; Russell, 2003;
Russell & Joyner, 2001). In interviews with 50 self-identiﬁed GLB students, school-
based homophobia was found to be associated with lower self-esteem and increased
likelihood of self-destructive behavior (Uribe & Harbeck, 1991). However, such
homophobia does not only impact sexual minority students. Poteat and Espelage (2007)
found that homophobic victimization signiﬁcantly predicted increased anxiety and
depression, personal distress, and lower sense of school belonging in males, regardless of
the individual’s actual sexual orientation, and higher levels of withdrawal in females,
again regardless of the individual’s actual sexual orientation. In light of these ﬁndings,
and given the amount of time that students spend interacting with teachers, who can play
a vital role in halting such victimization, the ways that preservice teachers’ attitudes and
feelings may manifest in teacher behaviors (or potentially lack of behaviors) are vital to

examine.

School psychologists are in an ideal position to help teachers be a supportive and
knowledgeable presence in the lives of sexual minority youth. Knowing the impact
(positive and negative) teachers may have on these students, there are many roles school
psychologists may ﬁll, such as conducting professional development trainings, consulting
with teachers and other school staff, strengthening program evaluation and development
for sexual minority youth and paying consistent attention to and interrupting incidents of
harassment toward GLB youth in the schools (Henning-Stout et al., 2000). In addition, by
knowing the attitudes, feelings, and knowledge of preservice teachers, school
psychologists can work to educate teachers on the needs of and ways to provide the

much-needed support to this population and to improve school climate for all students.

Chapter 2

Review of Literature

In the last decade, research focusing on youth who identify as sexual minorities
(i.e. gay, lesbian, bisexual, and questioning [GLBQ]) has increased. This increase,
combined with a number of social, cultural, and educational factors, has led to greater
attention to (and controversy surrounding) the role and functioning of this population in
schools. Within every school there is an invisible GLBQ population (Mudrey-Camino,
2002). In addition, the needs of these students are often unknown and unmet in
educational settings (Kissen, 1991).
Sexual Orientation and Society

According to Walters and Hayes (1998), “research about homosexuality has
ﬂourished in the past twenty-ﬁve years” (p. 2). Historical and anthropological
investigations have shown that same-gender attraction and behavior have been expressed
in some form throughout history, being reported in nearly all societies and in most non-
human species. Several etiological explanations for the origin of sexual orientation have
been proposed; however, regardless of such explanations, research from the behavioral
and biological sciences has shown that gay, lesbian, and bisexual orientations are “neither
unusual or unnatura ” (Walters & Hayes, p. 2). In fact, current researchers agree that
approximately 6 to 10% of, or between 7 and 15 million, Americans consider themselves
to be GLB (Patterson, 1995). This number does not take into account the network of
people who are affected by an individual’s sexual minority identiﬁcation, including

family and friends (Tharinger & Wells, 2000). When these relationships are considered,

at least 50 million Americans identify as GLB or have a ﬁiend or family member who
does (Tharinger & Wells).

Despite this research, topics related to sexual orientation remain a divisive issue
in the United States (Walters & Hayes, 1998). Research by Herek (2002a) examined
public opinion surveys of heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians, gay men, and a variety
of topics related to homosexuality and showed that heterosexual women tended to hold
more positive attitudes toward both lesbians and gay men than did heterosexual men and
that both men and women tended to hold more negative views toward gay men than
toward lesbians. Overall, research has shown that most Americans believe homosexuality
to be immoral and a threat to societal values (Yang, 1997). As a direct result of these
beliefs, there has been little support among the general population for most gay political
goals, especially for gay representation in the schools (Yang). According to Jenny,
Rustler, and Power (1994), one reason for this lack of support is that many people with
heterosexual identities harbor strong, yet unsubstantiated, fears about gay “recruitment”
and abuse of children.

Homophobia and Heterosexism. Heterosexism, deﬁned as “the ideological system
that denies, denigrates, and stigmatizes any non-heterosexual form of behavior, identity,
relationship, or community” (Herek as cited in Tharinger & Wells, 2000, p. 160), is
becoming a more widely used term because it is more accurate in describing the negative
treatment of and attitudes toward people with non-heterosexual sexual orientations than is
the term homophobia (Tharinger & Wells). Heterosexism manifests as the belief, spoken
or unspoken, that heterosexuality and heterosexual persons are in some way superior to or

more valued than other sexual orientations; in research and practice, such practices are

visible through the failure to recognize the unique developmental processes experienced
by, or even the existence of, sexual minority persons (Tharinger & Wells). Heterosexism
is used to describe a continuum of negative affective responses and attitudes toward
lesbians and gay men and the behaviors based on those prejudices; therefore it reﬂects
such attitudes and feelings more precisely than the also widely-used term homophobia,
which implies clinical levels of fear and physiological response in ways similar to other
phobias (Herek, 1995; Snively, Kreuger, Stretch, Watt, & Chadha, 2004). The author
recognizes that, as a label, “homophobia” is less accurate, with “heterosexism” being the
more precise term (Herek). However, because the term remains more recognizable
among the general population as relating to gay oppression and because it reﬂects one of
this study’s measurement labels, “homophobia” was used in this study.

Homophobia is supported by cultural norms (Herek, 1990) and is manifested
through anxiety, fear, disgust, anger, discomfort, aversion and/or hostile and violent
behaviors directed towards lesbians, gay men and bisexual persons (Herek, 1984; Hudson
& Ricketts, 1980). It operates at both sociocultural and individual levels to maintain
differential power between persons with sexual minority status and the dominant group,
heterosexuals. Several studies have supported the assertion that anti gay attitudes are
highly correlated with antigay behaviors, such as verbal and physical attacks (Franklin,
2000; Roderick, McCammon, Long, & Allred, 1998). In fact, alarming numbers of GLB
people face discrimination, harassment, and violence because of their actual or perceived
sexual orientation (D’Augelli & Grossman, 2001; D’Augelli, Pilkington, & Hershberger,
2002; Thurlow, 2001). The exact extent of this victimization cannot be known for sure

because of underreporting by victims and lack of investigation and follow-up by ofﬁcials.

Sexual Minority Youth

Prevalence. It is difficult to determine how many school-age sexual minority
youth (a term increasingly used to refer to GLBQ adolescents and used in this review)
there are in the United States. Part of this difﬁculty stems ﬁom the variety of deﬁnitions
used for sexual orientation in research with this population (Holmes & Cahill, 2005). For
example, methods including self-identiﬁcation, reported sexual experiences, and
responses about romantic attraction and fantasies have all been used in research on sexual
minority youth (Holmes & Cahill). In addition, self-labeling gay male, lesbian, and
bisexual youth are coming out at younger ages, on average at age sixteen (Human Rights
Watch, 2001). Various studies have reported prevalence ranging from 4% to 11.8% for
students who either identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or questioning or who reported
same-gender sexual fantasies and attractions or anticipated future same-gender
experiences.

The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) is a federally
funded, longitudinal study of adolescents in the United States. In the ﬁrst wave, more
than 11,000 students in 7th to 12th grade, and one parent (usually a mother), participated
in the study. In the Add Health report, Russell, Seif, & Truong (2001) noted that 7.4% of
boys and 5.3% of girls reported same-sex romantic attraction, either exclusively or in
addition to other-sex attraction. More girls than boys reported exclusively same-sex
attraction (1.5% vs. 0.7%), with attraction to both sexes occurring more frequently in
boys than in girls (6.5% vs. 3.8%). Unlike other studies the Add Health study did not
include measures of sexual identity (self-identiﬁcation as gay, lesbian, or bisexual),

instead asking two questions focusing on romantic attraction that are not based only on

10

same-sex versus other-sex orientation (Russell, Seif, & Truong). The researchers instead
used the terms “heterosexual”, “bisexual attractions”, and “exclusively same-sex
attraction” (Russell, Seif, & Truong).

An earlier, self-administered survey of adolescent health included ﬁve items
pertaining to sexual attraction, identity, fantasy, behavior, and afﬁliation, Remafedi,
Resnick, Blum, and Harris (1992) found that, among 34,706 Minnesota students in grades
7 through 12, 10.7% of students reported being "unsure" of their sexual orientation,
88.2% described themselves as predominantly heterosexual, and 1.1% described
themselves as bisexual or predominantly gay or lesbian. Students who said they were
unsure of their sexual orientation were more likely to report same-sex fantasies and
attractions and less likely to have had other-sex sexual experiences. The reported
prevalence of same-sex attractions (4.5%) exceeded same-sex fantasies (2.6%), sexual
behavior (1%), or affiliation (0.4%).

Developmental Processes in Adolescence. Scientiﬁc inquiry into adolescent
development has increased after a period of relative invisibility (Tharinger & Wells,
2000). According to Tharinger and Wells, young adults in this stage are experiencing
biological/pubertal changes, psychological/cognitive changes, and social redeﬁnition.
More speciﬁcally, changes occur in peer and family relationships, in the impact of the
schooling environment, and, in some cases, as the result of the effects of working. In
addition to all these tasks, adolescents also negotiate the developmental tasks of identity,
achievement, sexuality, intimacy, autonomy, and forming new attachments. Change is the
deﬁning characteristic of adolescence, although there is individual variability in the

onset, duration, and intensity of the changes. Unlike past theories and research (e. g.

11

Erikson, 1950), more recent research instead focuses on viewing adolescence as a time of
more intense developmental change, where pathology is not the norm.

Developmental Processes in Sexual Minority Youth. Sexual minority youth are
commonly ﬁrst aware of their same-sex attraction around 10 to 12 years old (D’Augelli
& Dark, 1995); this awareness may be non-speciﬁc in some cases, such as feeling
different from or outside the peer group. By around age 15, they begin to label these
feelings and themselves as lesbian, gay, or bisexual and generally disclose their identities
to someone else for the ﬁrst time around age 16.

In addition to the recognized developmental tasks of adolescence previously
mentioned, sexual minority youth encounter additional, unique challenges related to the
recognition of and response to a gay, lesbian, bisexual, or questioning identity (Tharinger
& Wells, 2000). These consist of exploring and navigating intimate and sexual same-sex
relationships, as well as the reactions of parents, family, peers, school, community, and
society in general following disclosure (Tharinger & Wells). Given the aforementioned
inﬂuence of heterosexism, homophobia, and misunderstanding about homosexuality, the
developmental process for adolescents attempting to recognize, accept, and integrate a
sexual minority identity is a signiﬁcant challenge for most, if not all, of these youth and
from a developmental perspective, these youth are in a “high-risk” context (Anhalt &
Morris, 1998; Tharinger & Wells). Development for this group occurs in the context and
ecology of cultural denial, stereotypes, rejection, harassment, and outright victimization
and abuse. Tharinger and Wells argue that, developmentally, what is most challenging is
the actual and feared reactions and rejections from signiﬁcant others, particularly parents

but also siblings, friends, peers, and teachers. According to Cicchetti and Toth (1998),

12

developmental psychology literature indicates that such high risk contexts have lasting
effects when they damage or negatively affect adaptive systems, including parent-child
attachment, cognition, or self-regulation of attention, emotion, and behavior.

Risk Factors. In addition to the typical developmental processes, sexual minority
youth must navigate a different set of tasks related to identifying as GLBQ. There are
many potential risk factors that sexual minority youth may face throughout this process,
including low self-esteem and self-hatred, suicidal ideation or attempt, social isolation,
substance use, antigay harassment or mistreatment, negative family interactions, repeated
stress, conﬂicts about or rejection upon coming out, depression, and negative social
attitudes (Friedman & Downey, 1994; Hershberger, Pilkington, & D’Augelli, 1997;
Remafedi, Farrow, & Deisher, 1991; Russell, 2003; Russell & Joyner, 2001).

According to McFarland (1998), self-esteem is one of the factors that become
ampliﬁed for GLB young adults due to their unique developmental processes. He points
out that gay youth often internalize a negative image of being wrong or worthless due to
the negative myths and stereotypes held by society (McFarland). No direct causal
relationship has ever been discovered between lesbian, gay, or bisexual orientation and
psychopathology, indicating that being a sexual minority in and of itself does not lead to
psychological problems (Saulnier, 1998). Rather, psychiatric symptoms can only be
explained in social or sociopolitical terms, rather than in psychological terms (Saulnier).

In a study by Grossman and Kerner (1998) of 90 predominantly African
American and Latino/a, self-identiﬁed, urban, gay male and lesbian youth, researchers
found that self-esteem was a predictor of moderate strength for emotional distress in the

total and male samples and was a strong predictor in the female sample. In this study

13

63% of the youth reported using alcohol, 50% reported using drugs, and 56% reported
having had suicidal thoughts in the past month, with 30% reporting having made one or
more suicide attempts.

According to Holmes and Cahill (2005), youth who witness or are victims of
mistreatment or struggle with some of the previously mentioned risk factors are at higher
risk for substance use/abuse, depression, eating disorders, sexually transmitted infections,
suicidal ideation, and suicide attempts or completion. Hetrick and Martin (1987) found
that about 80 percent of sexual minority youth report signiﬁcant depression and isolation
problems, as compared with ﬁfteen to forty percent of their heterosexual peers. In a study
by Proctor and Groze (1994), 276 GLB youth were surveyed as to whether they had ever
made a suicide attempt. Of the youths participating, 66.1 % reported experiencing some
form of suicidal behavior, ranging from ideation to attempting. More speciﬁcally, 40.3%
of these had attempted suicide at least once, while 25.8% admitted seriously
contemplating it.

Additional research has also examined a number of other mental health issues in
GLBQ youth. A report on the results of the 1997 Wisconsin Youth Risk Behavior Survey
noted that youth harassed because they were perceived to be gay were four times as likely
as other youth to have made a serious enough suicide attempt within the previous twelve
months to be treated by medical professionals (Reis & Saewyc, 1999). In addition, these
youth were twice as likely to report having used inhalants, three times as likely to have
been pregnant or gotten someone pregnant, and four times as likely to have vomited or
taken laxatives to lose weight within the last 30 days. Hershberger, Pilkington, and

D’Augelli (1997) note that many gay adolescents who complete a suicide have not come

14

out and disclosed their sexual orientation to anyone else, making it difficult to estimate
the impact of sexual orientation concerns as a factor in suicide in young people. In this
study, Hershberger et al. also surveyed 194 GLB young people from across the nation.
Forty-two percent reported at least one suicide attempt, with the number varying from
one to ﬁfteen total attempts. Of these, 23% were “multiple occasion attempters” (p. 485).
In the week just prior to the data collection, 39% of the participants reported suicidal
thinking. Another study found that GLB young adults, both socially and emotionally,
may end up fearful, withdrawn, chronically depressed, and full of despair about the future
quality of their lives (Gibson, 1989). Additionally, in a study by Remafedi, Farrow, and
Deisher (1991), 30% of the 137 GLB participants reported experiencing depression.
School Climate and Outcomes

Young people spend more time in schools than in any other non-home setting.
According to Tharinger and Wells (2000), previous research has demonstrated the
relationship between academic achievement and later accomplishments. Sexual minority
youth who choose to stay in school despite daily stigmatization do not perform as well as
their peers (Elia, 1993). According to Elia, while a hostile learning environment increases
the difﬁculty of learning for any student, the GLB student without support is at an
increased risk of academic difﬁculties and dropping out. In Elia’s report on sexual
minority youth, 80% had declining school performance, about 40% had problems with
truancy, and 30% had dropped out of school. As D’Augelli (1998) points out, these
ﬁndings demonstrate the signiﬁcant role of schools in our understanding of GLB youths’

transitions into early adulthood.

15

A survey of 887 GLBQ high school students from 48 states and the District of
Columbia was conducted by the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN;
Kosciw, 2004). This survey is the only study to examine school-speciﬁc experiences of
GLBQ-identiﬁed youth nationally. Researchers found that more than 90% of GLBQ
students reported ﬁequently or often hearing homophobic remarks (e. g. “fag” or “dyke”
used in a derogatory manner) at school, with 84% reporting being verbally harassed
because of their identiﬁed or perceived sexual orientation. At times, faculty and staff
contributed to the problem by either making homophobic comments themselves or failing
to intervene upon hearing the remarks; in fact, 82.9% of the responding students reported
that faculty or staff never intervened or intervened only some of the time when present
when homophobic remarks were made. Although homophobic remarks were most
commonly reported, racist and sexist remarks and negative remarks about gender
expression were also heard very often in schools. GLBQ youth reported that other
students more often made homophobic remarks whereas school faculty or staff more
often made sexist remarks. However, in contrast to homophobic remarks, both
faculty/staff and students reportedly intervened more often when racist remarks were
made. Intervention occurred least frequently when homophobic remarks and remarks
about gender expression were made.

In addition to verbal harassment, 39.1% of sexual minority students reported
being physically harassed (e. g. shoved, pushed, etc.) because of their sexual orientation
(Kosciw, 2004). Fifty-eight percent of this population reported having property stolen or
deliberately damaged/defaced at school as compared with just 35% of students surveyed

in a national sample of all high school students that was conducted by the Department of

16

Justice. As a result of the negative school environment and lack of support, 64.3% of
sexual minority students reported feeling unsafe at school because of their sexual
orientation and 28.6% report missing at least one full day of school in the past month due
to feeling unsafe. This rate was even higher (35.1%) among GLBQ students of color,
who reported feeling unsafe for a variety of reasons related to their race, sexual
orientation, or both. These results further demonstrate that verbal and physical
harassment are common experiences for GLBQ students and that a majority feel unsafe,
with many skipping school because they are too afraid to go (Kosciw).

Negative school climate directly impacts school performance, grade-point average
(GPA) and college aspirations (Kosciw, 2004). The GLSEN study found that students
who were frequently harassed had GPAs more than 10% lower than those who were not.
Also, sexual minority students experiencing frequent verbal harassment were less likely
than other sexual minority students to plan to attend college. 13.4% of GLBQ students
reporting verbal harassment had no plans to go to college as compared with only 6.7% of
those GLBQ students reporting rare or less frequent verbal harassment.

However, such negative attitudes, feelings, and behaviors by teachers and peers
do not only impact sexual minority students. Poteat and Espelage (2007) assessed the
effects of homophobic victimization on indicators of psychological and social distress for
all students, regardless of sexual orientation, over a one-year period. They found that
homophobic victimization signiﬁcantly predicted increased anxiety and depression,
personal distress, and lower sense of school belonging in males and higher levels of

withdrawal in females.

17

Teacher Attitudes Toward Minority Youth. The number of culturally and
linguistically diverse (CLD) students in United States schools is increasing. Minorities
overall constitute a growing percentage of the US. population, with predictions that 46%
of the school population by 2020 will be non-White (Banks, 2001). Similar to their lack
of experience with sexual minority youth, many of those entering education have limited
knowledge of the experiences, needs, and resources of CLD student populations,
including the presence of racism and societal inequity (Sleeter, 2001). Schultz, Neyhart,
and Reck (1996) found that preservice student teachers are fairly naive and have
stereotypic beliefs about urban children, such as believing that urban children bring
attitudes that interfere with education. Another study found that the majority of
preservice teachers believed that the home environment and the parents’ lack of value of
education are responsible for CLD students’ low academic achievement (Cho &
DeCastro-Ambrosetti, 2005)

Minority students are aware of their teachers’ stereotyped beliefs. A study by
Rosenbloom and Way (2004) found that Latino and Aﬁican American students perceived
their teachers as implicitly or explicitly racist or discriminatory. Although students did
not necessarily perceive their conﬂicts with teachers as examples of discrimination, they
saw them as unjust and as implicit examples of racism. Participants described their
perception of teachers’ low academic expectations and stereotypes about behavior
problems. They felt that no matter what their actual behavior was in the classroom, they
were typically stereotyped by their teachers as problem students. The teachers were
generally, in the eyes of the Latino and Black students, uncaring and ineffective. Students

felt that a caring teacher would help students when they did not understand the material

18

and maintain high expectations. Yet teachers were perceived by Black and Latino
students as emotionally distant and not committed to education.

Teacher Attitudes Toward Sexual Minority Youth. Currently, the published
research examining currently practicing teachers’ and preservice teachers’ attitudes
toward sexual minority youth is very limited, unlike that of teacher attitudes toward other
student minority groups. Some research has focused on the attitudes and roles of school
counselors in relation to working with and supporting sexual minority youth (Fontaine,
1998; Price & Telljohann, 1991), but similar published research has not occurred with
educators.

The exception is a survey by Sears (1991) of prospective teachers’ attitudes and
feelings about homosexuality, their encounters with homosexuals and homosexuality
while high school students, and their knowledge about homosexuality. Two different
instruments were used: one to measure attitudes and one to measure feelings. He found
that eight out of ten prospective teachers reported negative feelings toward lesbians and
gay men. Of these, one third was classiﬁed as “high grade homophobics,” based on or
Prospective teachers’ cumulative knowledge about homosexuality was minimal; most of
the participants would have failed the knowledge “test” if passing were to be set at 60%
correct. When comparing participants’ knowledge about homosexuality, their attitudes
about homosexuality, and their feelings toward lesbians and gay men, it was discovered
that those teachers who demonstrated the least knowledge harbored the most negative
attitudes and were the most homophobic. In addition, teachers pursuing certiﬁcation in
elementary education were more likely to express homophobic feelings and express

negative attitudes than those planning to teach in secondary schools. Finally, most

19

teachers reported that the information provided about this topic in school was neither
accurate nor adequate. Nevertheless, those who were exposed to the topic during high
school (about 25% of the sample) scored lower on the scales assessing feelings and
attitudes about homosexuality, indicating less homophobic and more positive attitudes.

Teacher Impact. With some notable exceptions, school districts represent an
almost impenetrable arena of heterosexism because of personal, political, and sometimes
legal barriers (Tharinger & Wells, 2000). As previously mentioned, frequently teachers,
who spend the most time with students, fail to respond to violence and harassment
directed at sexual minority youth. Teachers are either inadequately prepared to handle
such situations or are merely unwilling to intervene. A 1995 study of 289 teachers and 52
principals from nine urban, suburban, and rural high schools indicated that teachers were
the least willing group to discuss homosexuality with students (Woog, 1995). Thus
teachers, who may often serve as additional or substitute parental attachment ﬁgures for
adolescents, are often not available to sexual minority youth.

However, according to Coleman (1988) supportive teachers and non-family adult
role models are important for healthy adolescent development. The previously-mentioned
Add Health Study report by Russell and colleagues (2001) noted that sexual minority
youth report less positive attitudes about school and more school troubles. This study
found that relationships with teachers play a leading role in explaining the school troubles
experienced by sexual minority youth, especially those reporting a bisexual orientation.
These results give further indication of the importance of having supportive faculty or

staff in school for sexual minority youth. Adolescents with positive feelings about their

20

teachers were signiﬁcantly less likely than their peers to experience the broad range of
school troubles.

According to Kosciw (2004), GLBQ students who can identify supportive faculty
or staff do better in school than those who cannot, with GPAs more than 10% higher than
their peers. Supportive teachers can help prevent school troubles of sexual minority
youth. This ﬁnding highlights the need for teachers to have awareness and training to
help them be supportive of sexual minority students. The ﬁrst step in this awareness and
training is to ascertain exactly what teachers’ attitudes toward sexual minority youth are.
Present Study

The current study is based on and expanded the Sears (1991) study to address the
lack of research on teacher attitudes and knowledge about sexual minorities. The use of
several outcome variables, including attitudes toward sexual minorities, feelings about
sexual minorities, knowledge about homosexuality, and attitudes speciﬁcally toward
sexual minority students reﬂected Herek’s (1995) broader conceptualization of the
components that constitute homophobia and Sears’s (1991) distinction between personal
feelings and professional beliefs and behavior. The current study continued to examine
educator’s attitudes, behaviors, and knowledge; however, the participant group was
preservice teachers, which added information about an overlooked group of educators
who will have signiﬁcant impacts on sexual minority students in the future. Due to the
nature of the study, the focus was on attitudes, feelings, and behaviors toward only gay,
lesbian, and bisexual populations (GLB). While research into these factors as they relate
to transgender populations is vital, focus on gender identity, in addition to sexual

orientation, was beyond the scope of this study.

21

Research Questions

This study explored the relationships between preservice teacher attitudes,
feelings, and knowledge about sexual minority students and anticipated future
professional behavior with this population and examined three research questions. First,
what are the attitudes, feelings, and knowledge of future teachers about sexual minorities
in general? Also, do attitudes and feelings differ based on the sexual minority group (i.e.
gay, lesbian, or bisexual)? Yang (1997) noted that most Americans believe
homosexuality to be immoral and a threat to societal values. Herek (2002b) found that,
although participants reported negative attitudes toward all sexual minority groups,
respondents’ attitudes toward bisexual men and women were more negative than for all
other groups, with the exception of injecting drug users. Overall ratings for bisexual men
were somewhat lower than for bisexual women. In addition, Sears’s (1991) study found
that eight out of ten prospective teachers reported negative feelings toward lesbians and
gay men. Therefore, it was hypothesized that the preservice teachers in the current study
would hold negative attitudes and feelings toward all sexual minority groups and would
show the most negative response to those who identiﬁed as bisexual.

Second, does student sexual orientation affect prospective teachers’ anticipated
behaviors toward that student? Sears’s (1991) research has shown that the majority of
prospective teachers report negative feelings toward lesbians and gay men in general. His
study also found that future teachers reported that they would behave differently toward a
gay or lesbian student than toward a heterosexual student. Therefore, it was hypothesized
that the prospective teachers in the current study would report less anticipated interaction

with and supportive behaviors toward sexual minority students.

22

Finally, do preservice teacher attitudes, feelings, and/or behaviors vary based on
knowledge of homosexuality, friendship with someone in their life who identiﬁes as
GLB, frequency of attendance at religious services, certiﬁcation level sought, sex or
ethnicity? Previous research has shown that future teachers’ cumulative knowledge about
homosexuality was minimal (Sears, 1991); the majority of the participants answered
fewer than 60% of the questions correctly. Given that sixteen years have elapsed since
Sears’s study, it was hypothesized that knowledge would have increased among pre-
service teachers. When comparing participants’ knowledge about homosexuality, their
attitudes about homosexuality, and their feelings toward lesbians and gay men, it was
discovered that those teachers who demonstrated the least knowledge harbored the most
negative attitudes and were the most homophobic (Sears). Several studies have noted a
strong correlation between religiosity and attitudes toward sexual minorities, with those
participants who score high on measures of antigay attitudes also being those who are
most religious (Hinrichs & Rosenberg, 2002; Snively et al., 2004). In addition,
differences were found based on race and certiﬁcation level sought (Sears). African
American participants expressed more negative attitudes toward homosexuality than
White participants, and teachers pursuing certiﬁcation in elementary education were
more likely to express homophobic feelings and negative attitudes than those planning to
teach in secondary schools. Finally, Sears found that preservice teachers who, as high
school students, knew a GLB student or were ﬁiends with a person they knew or
suspected was GLB reported fewer negative attitudes and feelings than those who did
not. For this study, it was hypothesized that signiﬁcant differences would be found in

attitudes, feelings, and anticipated behaviors toward sexual minorities based on

23

knowledge, familiarity with a GLB-identiﬁed person, frequency of religious attendance,

certiﬁcation level, sex, and ethnicity.

24

Chapter 3

Methods

A multi-page, online survey was used to collect information about participants’
attitudes, feelings, knowledge, and anticipated behaviors. Potential participants were
identiﬁed through their enrollment in Teacher Education courses. They were given
information about the website and survey and were invited to participate in the study.
Participants

Participants in this study were 223 students who were enrolled in Teacher
Education classes during the fall of 2006 in the College of Education at a large
Midwestern university. Seventeen individuals were removed from the ﬁnal data set
because no responses were given for any items. The ﬁnal 206 participants included
students planning to teach a range of ages and subject matter in K-12 schools. Limited
demographic information about the entire College of Education student population was
available. Available information indicated that 92% of all students admitted to the
Teacher Education program for fall 2003 were traditional undergraduates with 8%
admitted as post-baccalaureate students. Ninety-six percent of the students in the program
were from Michigan and 87% were full-time students. Table 1 compares these population
demographics to those of the study sample. There were signiﬁcantly more post-
baccalaureate students represented in the sample for the current study than are in the
population as a whole. Prior to participation, each participant had to consent to

involvement in the study (see Appendix A).

25

Table 1

Comparison of Population and Sample Demographics

 

 

Demographic Population (%) Sample (%)
Undergraduate student 92.0 76.7
Post-baccalaureate student 8.0 17.4
Michigan resident 96.0 93.1

 

Thirty participants completed all or part the surveys but declined to provide
demographic information. Of the ﬁnal participants who provided demographic
information, the majority (n=136) were female, accounting for 78.2% of respondents.
Thirty-eight respondents (21.8%) were male. The majority of participants identiﬁed as
Caucasian/European American/White (n=168), accounting for 81.6% of the sample. Two
participants (1.0%) identiﬁed as African American/Black, four (1.9%) as Asian/Asian
American/Paciﬁc Islander, three (1.5%) as Latino(a)/Hispanic/Puerto Rican, and two
(1.0%) as “Other.” “Other” responses included “human” and “Italian.” Although Native
American was also included as a category, no participants selected this as their racial or
ethnic identity. The racial/ethnic identity categories were not mutually exclusive; that is,
participants could select single or multiple categories of identiﬁcation or none at all.
Relationship status of the sample was: 57.4% (n=101) “single/never married,” 34.7%
(n=61) “committed relationship/signiﬁcant other,” 6.8% (n=12) “married” and 1.1%
(n=2) “divorced.” No participants indicated that they were “widowed.” Information about
the preservice teachers’ current level in the teacher education program was also collected.
Most of the participants (n=69) were in their senior year of undergraduate work, making

up 39.2% of the sample. In addition, 12 participants (6.8%) were freshman, 21 (11.9%)

26

were sophomores, 33 (18.8%) were juniors, and 31 (17.4%) were post-BA teacher
interns. Seven participants (4.0%) reported being graduate students and three (1.6%)
reported being Lifelong Education students (e. g. second Bachelor’s degree).

Participants were asked about the certiﬁcation level they were currently pursuing.
The majority (n=75), or 43.1%, was training in elementary education. An additional 71
participants (40.8%) were training in secondary education. Other certiﬁcation levels were
K-l2 (n=19), making up 10.9% of the sample, and early childhood (n=9), making up
5.1% of the sample. Most of the participants (n=142) were training to be general
education teachers, making up 80.7% of the sample. In addition, 20 participants (11.4%)
were training for special education. Various other certiﬁcation areas were also
represented, including physical education, vocational education, administration, and

support personnel. Table 2 presents complete demographic information for the sample.

27

Table 2

Participant Demographics

 

 

Demographic n Percent
Sex
Female 136 78.2
Male 38 21.8
Race/Ethnicity
African American/Black 2 1.0
Asian American/Asian/Paciﬁc Islander 4 1.9
Caucasian/European-American/ White 1 68 81 .6
Latino(a)/Hispanic/Puerto Rican 3 1.5
American Indian/Native American 0 0.0
Other 2 1.0
Relationship Status
Single/N ever Married 101 57.4
Committed Relationship/Signiﬁcant Other 61 34.7
Married 12 6.8
Divorced 2 1.1
Widowed 0 0.0
Class Level
Freshman 12 6.8
Sophomore 21 1 1.9
Junior 33 1 8.8
Senior 69 39.2
Post-BA/Fiﬁh-year intern 3 1 17.4
Graduate Student 7 4.0
Lifelong Education 3 1.6
Certiﬁcation Level
Elementary Education 75 43.1
Secondary Education 71 40.8
Early Childhood 9 5.1
K-12 19 10.9
Certiﬁcation Area
General Education 142 80.7
Special Education 20 1 1.4
Physical Education 8 4.5
Vocational Education 3 1.7
Administration (e. g. principal, superintendent) l 0.6
Support Position (e.g. counselor, psychologist) 2 1.1

 

28

The participants ranged in age from 17 to 36. The mean age of the total sample
was 21.50 with a standard deviation of 2.82. The median age of the total sample was
21.00 years old. The modal age of the total sample was also 21.00 years old. The 136
female participants had a mean age of 21.49 with a standard deviation of 2.89. The
median age for the female participants was 21 .00 years old, and the modal age was also
21 .00 years old. The 38 male participants had a mean age of 21 .42 with a standard
deviation of 2.62. The median age for the males was 21 .00 years old, and the modal age

was 22.00 years old. Table 3 provides a summary of the age of the participants by sex.

 

 

Table 3
Age of Participants

Sex n M SD Median
Female 136 21.49 2.89 21.00
Male 38 21.42 2.62 21.00
Transgender 0 - - -
Total 174 21.50 2.82 21.00

 

Note. Age range was 17 to 36 years old

To ensure compliance with the Institutional Review Board approval, participants
were asked to identify their university of attendance. All participants (n=206), 100% of
the sample, reported currently attending the university where data collection occurred.
Participants were also asked about their state (if residents of the United States) or country

of legal residence. Most participants (n=163), 93.1%, were residents of Michigan; this is

29

similar to the population (92.0%) from which the sample was selected. Only one
respondent (0.6%) was from another country, Canada. Respondents were also from the
following states: two (1.1%) from Illinois, four (2.3%) from New York, one (0.6%) from
Ohio, and one (0.6%) from Virginia. Three respondents (1.7%) reported being only from
the United States with no state speciﬁed.

As part of the demographic questionnaire, participants were also asked to identify
their sexual orientation in two dimensions. The ﬁrst asked them to select the direction,
along a continuum from “other sex only” to “same sex only,” of their sexual, physical,
and emotional attractions, fantasies, preferences, and behaviors. The second asked how
the participant identiﬁed/labeled his or her sexual orientation. For the ﬁrst area, the
majority (n=124) indicated attractions, fantasies, preferences, and behaviors only for the
other sex, making up 70.5% of the responses. In addition, 31 participants (17.6%)
reported being attracted mostly, but not exclusively, to the other sex, and 4 (2.3%)
reported attraction to the other sex somewhat more. One participant identiﬁed attractions,
fantasies, preferences, and behaviors (0.6%) toward both sexes equally. Also, 6
participants (3.4%) reported attractions mostly to the same sex and 10 (5.7%) reported
exclusively same-sex attractions, fantasies, preferences, and behaviors. For the second
area, the majority of respondents (n=169) identiﬁed as heterosexual, accounting for
96.0% of the sample, with an additional 3 participants (1.7%) identifying as bisexual, 1
(0.6%) as gay/lesbian/homosexual, and 3 (1.7%) as unsure of or questioning their self-
identiﬁcation. Tables 4 and 5 provide summaries of the directions of attractions and the

self-identiﬁcation of sexual orientation of the participants.

30

Table 4

Direction of sexual, physical, and emotional attractions, fantasies, preferences, and

 

 

 

 

 

behaviOrs

Direction n Percent
Other sex only 124 70.5
Other sex mostly 31 17.6
Other sex somewhat more 4 2.3
Both sexes equally 1 0.6
Same sex somewhat more 0 0.0
Same sex mostly 6 3.4
Same sex only 10 5.7
Table 5
Sexual Orientation Self-Identiﬁcation

Direction n Percent
Heterosexual/Straight 1 69 96.0
Homosexual/Gay/Lesbian 1 0.6
Bisexual 3 1.7
Unsure/Questioning 3 1 .7

 

31

Participants were also asked about frequency of attendance at religious services.
Most respondents indicated attending services at least occasionally, although the
frequencies varied. Fifty—nine participants (28.6%) reported attending once a month,
twenty-one (10.2%) attend several times a month, and twenty-nine (14.1%) attend once a
week or more than once a week. Sixty-seven participants (32.5%) reported that they
never attended religious services. Table 6 provides a summary of the frequency of

religious service attendance reported by participants.

Table 6

Frequency of Religious Service Attendance

 

 

Religious Attendance Frequency n Percent
Never 67 38.1
Once a month 59 33.5
Several times a month 21 11.9
Once a week or more than once a week 29 16.5

 

The ﬁnal portion of the demographic survey posed four additional questions to the
participants: 1) “I am friends with someone who is ‘gay male’, ‘lesbian’, or ‘bisexual,”’
2) “I have a family member who is ‘gay male’, ‘lesbian’, or ‘bisexual,”’ 3) “I have had a
college course dealing exclusively with diversity and multicultural issues, including
sexual orientation,” and 4) “I believe that having an understanding of homosexuality is
important in my professional development since I may be working directly with people

who are homosexual.” Questions one, two, and three also included open-ended responses

32

for participants who answered “yes” to each to indicate the approximate number of
ﬁiends and/or family who identify as sexual minorities and the courses taken that
included diversity topics. For question one, 146 participants (83.0%) answered “yes” and
30 participants (17.0%) answered “no.” The number of GLB friends reported by the
participants who answered “yes” ranged from 1 to 40, with a mean of 4.19. The most
frequently reported (mode) number of friends was 2. On question two, 44 participants
(25.1%) answered “yes” and 131 participants (74.9%) answered “no.” Of those
responding in the afﬁrmative, the number of reported GLB family members ranged from
one to four, with a mean of 1.28 family members and a mode of 1 family member. For
question three, 104 participants (59.1%) reported having taken a college course that dealt
exclusively with diversity and multicultural issues, including sexual orientation, while 72
(40.9%) reported having not taken such a class. Of those who reported having taken a
class addressing diversity, the course areas included teacher education, counseling and
educational psychology, English, sociology, family and child ecology, and integrative
studies in social sciences (general education social science courses for non-social science
majors). Finally, on question four, 160 participants (90.9%) reported believing that
having an understanding of homosexuality was important to their professional
development as an educator while 4 participants (2.3%) did not believe this and 12
(6.8%) were unsure of the importance of this area to their professional development.

Table 7 summarizes the responses to these four items.

33

Table 7

Supplemental Questions Response Frequency

 

 

 

Yes No Unsure

Question n P n P n P
“I am friends with someone who is 146 83.0 30 17.0 - -
‘gay male’, ‘lesbian’, or ‘bisexual’.”
“I have a family member who is ‘gay 44 25.1 131 74.9 - -
male’, ‘lesbian’, or ‘bisexual’.”
“I have had a college course dealing 104 59.1 72 40.9 - -
exclusively with diversity and
multicultural issues, including sexual
orientation.”
“I believe that having an understanding 160 90.9 4 2.3 12 6.8

of homosexuality is important in my
professional development since I may
be working directly with people who
are homosexual.”

 

Measures

Multiple measures were used for data collection to obtain more information about

preservice teachers’ attitudes, feelings, and anticipated behaviors toward both sexual

minorities in general and sexual minority youth in schools. Information about each of the

instruments is included below.

Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men Scale-Revised (Herek, 1994). Future

teachers’ attitudes toward sexual minorities were examined using an adaptation of the

Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men Scale - Revised (ATLG-R; Herek, 1994), which

is comprised of two subscales, attitudes toward gay men (ATG-R) and attitudes toward 1

lesbians (ATL-R). To compare participants’ attitudes toward gay men with their attitudes

34

toward lesbians, a parallel form of the ATG-R subscale was used in reference to lesbians,
as suggested by the original author of the ATLG scale (Herek, 1998). This instrument
consists of 20 statements, 10 about gay men and 10 about lesbians (see Appendix B). The
20 items are scored on a seven-point Likert-type scale with anchor points of strongly
disagree and strongly agree. Several items were reverse scored and then the responses
summed to give the participant an overall attitude score, ranging from 20 (extremely
positive attitudes) tol40 (extremely negative attitudes), with ATL-R and ATG—R subscale
scores ranging from 10 to 70.

The ATLG-R has been widely used in research investigations of heterosexuals’
attitudes toward sexual minorities and has consistently shown high reliability (u=.85 for
the subscales to (1 =90 for the full scale) and construct validity (Haslam & Levy, 2006;
Herek 1988, 1994; Herek & Capitanio, 1996). For the current study, Cronbach’s
coefﬁcient alpha was used to measure the scale’s reliability, or the extent to which items
that comprise the scale measure the same underlying construct. The full scale (including
all 20 items) had the strongest reliability ((1 = .959). The reliabilities for the two
individual scales (each having 10 items) were: ATG-R (a = .920) and ATL-R (a = .921).

Attitudes Regarding Bisexuality Scale (Mohr & Rochlen, 1999). Future teachers’
attitudes toward bisexuals were examined using the Attitudes Regarding Bisexuality
Scale (ARBS; Mohr & Rochlen, 1999). The ARBS is designed to assess two dimensions
of attitudes toward bisexual women and men: tolerance and stability. Tolerance, the ﬁrst
dimension, relates to the degree to which bisexuality is viewed as acceptable and morally
tolerable (Mohr & Rochlen). The researchers’ work has indicated that this dimension is

highly correlated with measures of attitudes toward gay men and lesbians. Stability, the

35

second dimension, refers to the degree to which bisexuality is viewed as a legitimate,
stable sexual orientation. Three forms of the ARBS have been developed (Mohr &
Rochlen). The ARBS-Female/Male version (ARBS-FM) targets both female and male
bisexuality in a single measure, whereas the ARES-Female version (ARBS-F) and
ARES-Male version (ARBS-M) target only female or male bisexuality, respectively. The
ARBS-F and ARBS-M are identical, except for the gender of the attitude target. In order
to compare attitudes toward bisexual men with those toward bisexual women, this study
used both the ARBS-M and ARBS-F.

Each instrument consists of 12 statements, and both contain the same questions,
with the difference being the target of male or female bisexuals (see Appendix C). For
this study, the two individual scales were combined into one measure, with all of the
items on the ARBS-M being presented ﬁrst, followed immediately by the items on the
ARBS-F. The 24 total items are scored on a ﬁve-point Likert-type scale with anchor
points of strongly disagree and strongly agree. Necessary item responses were reverse
scored and then the responses summed and averaged for each scale to give the participant
a score on each of the two dimensions, tolerance and stability.

The ARBS has been more recently developed but has shown high reliability
(ranging from (1 =85 to a=.93 for the subscales). Convergent validity was established by
examining correlations of the subscales of all three versions (ARBS-F M, ARBS-M, and
ARBS-F) with a measure of attitudes toward lesbians and gay men (Mohr & Rochlen,
1999). Construct validity has also been established, based on the relationship of all three
versions of the scale to a number of demographic categorical variables shown to be

associated with attitudes toward lesbians and gay men, including political affiliation,

36

race, and religious attendance (Mohr & Rochlen). For the current study, reliability
analyses for the full scale of twenty items (ARBS) showed strong reliability ((1 = .963).
The reliabilities for the two individual scales (each having 10 items) were: ARBS-M (a. =
.922) and ARBS-F (a = .936).

Index of Homophobia (Hudson & Ricketts, 1980). Feelings towards gay and
lesbian persons were examined using the Index of Homophobia (IHP; Hudson &
Ricketts, 1980). The IHP is a scale consisting of 25 questions measuring affective
responses toward persons who are gay (see Appendix D). Respondents endorsed items on
a ﬁve-point Likert-type scale by selecting one of ﬁve response options (5 =strongly
disagree, 4=disagree, 3 =neither agree nor disagree, 2=agree, 1=strongly agree). Areas
of inquiry focus on affective responses (disgust, anxiety, discomfort, fear, and anger)
when in close or distant proximity (physical and social) to persons who are gay, in a
variety of environments. Examples of scale items are “It would not bother me to walk
through a predominantly gay section of town” and “I would feel comfortable working
closely with a female homosexual.” After reverse scoring appropriate questions and
summing all the individual items, the total score is a measure of self-reported
homophobia on a scale from 0-100, with lower scores indicating less homophobia.
Hudson and Ricketts (1980) classiﬁed respondents in four categories: “high grade
homophobic” for those with scores from 76 to 100, “low grade homophobic” for those
with scores from 51 to 75, “low grade non-homophobic” for those with scores from 26 to
50, and “high grade non-homophobic” for those with scores from 0 to 25. Persons with
highly negative affective responses tend to obtain very high scores and vice versa.

Studies have reported that the scale is reliable, with coefﬁcient alphas ranging from 0.90

37

to 0.95 with diverse samples (Hudson & Ricketts, 1980; Pagtolun—An & Clair, 1986). In
the current study, analyses for the IHP also showed strong reliability (0 = .947).
Anticipated Behaviors of Future Teachers Toward Sexual Minority Youth Scale
(ABF T S). Future teacher anticipated behaviors toward sexual minority students in
particular were measured using the Anticipated Behaviors of Future Teachers Toward
Sexual Minority Youth Scale (ABF TS). This instrument, created by the researcher
speciﬁcally for use in this study, consists of two parts: 1) Part A includes 23 statements
relating to a vignette presented to each participant. These statements assess teacher
behavior and are derived from a number of different research instruments and from the
literature on the relationship between attitudes and behavior; and 2) Part B includes 27
statements related to more general classroom behaviors to encourage diversity and
educate students, especially related to sexual minorities (see Appendices E & F). All of
the 50 items (parts A & B combined) are scored on a ﬁve-point Likert-type scale with
anchor points of 5 = very likely and 1 = very unlikely, in reference to the likelihood of
doing each of the behaviors listed. Examples of survey items are: 1) Part A: “I would
reassure this student that this is a phase that will be outgrown” & 2) Part B: “I would
modify my curriculum for diversity by including sexual orientation.” Reverse scored
items were appropriately recoded and responses to each of the statements were summed
to give the subject an overall behavioral likelihood score. Reliability analyses for the
current study showed strong reliability for the combined scale, which included all 50
items (a = .886), as well as acceptable reliabilities for the individual scales: part A (a =

.714) and part B (a = .883)

38

Knowledge about Homosexuality Questionnaire (Harris, 1998). Preservice
teachers’ knowledge about homosexuality was assessed using a slightly-modiﬁed version
of the Knowledge about Homosexuality Questionnaire (KAH; Harris, 1998). This
instrument consists of 18 true-false factual statements and intends to measure factual
knowledge rather than evaluative opinions (see Appendix G). A slightly modiﬁed form of
the original instrument, developed and used by Koch (2000), which removes two
questions, updates some of the language in the questions, and adds a third response
option (“Don’t Know”) was used in this study to more accurately reﬂect participants’ true
knowledge. The total number of correct responses is counted, with omissions scored as
incorrect. This procedure produces possible scores ranging from 0 to 18.

The Knowledge about Homosexuality Questionnaire has been used in research
investigations of the accuracy of nurses’, psychologists’, and social workers’ knowledge
about homosexuality. It has shown high internal consistency with a sample of educators
((1 =86) and construct validity indicating that people with more relevant education score
higher on the instrument (Bliss & Harris, 1999; Koch, 2000). The internal consistency for
the current study was slightly lower than previous studies (a = .663)

Demographic Questionnaire. The ﬁnal part of the survey was a demographic
questionnaire (see Appendix H). Questions assessed participants’ age, sex, race,
relationship status, desired certiﬁcation level and area, class standing, university of
attendance, state of legal residence, sexual orientation and self-identiﬁcation, and
frequency of religious attendance (never, once a month, several times monthly, or weekly
or more than once a week). Additional questions also inquired as to whether participants

had friends or family members who identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, and, if so, the

39

number of friends and family, as well as to whether participants had taken any college
classes that included diversity topics, speciﬁcally relating to sexual orientation.
Procedures

A multiple-page website containing the informed consent, ATLG-R, ARBS,
KAH, ABFTS, IHP, and the participant demographic sheet was created and tested to
prevent any technical problems. Eight courses required as part of the undergraduate
Teacher Education program were identiﬁed. The researcher contacted all sections of
these classes to describe the nature of the study, recruit participants, and provide
information about the web-based format of the study, along with directions about how to
access the survey. Teacher education classes were targeted to ensure that students were
planning to become teachers. Approximately 730 students received information about
this study; however, the exact number of potential participants cannot be known because
some students were enrolled in more than one of the courses, and, in order to maintain
anonymity, the names of students were not collected. Therefore, duplicate names could
not be identiﬁed and removed from the ﬁnal count. All survey data were collected
anonymously online, with participants randomly assigned to one of four vignette groups
for the ABF TS (gay male student, lesbian student, bisexual student, or heterosexual
student) based on the last two digits of their telephone number. It is hoped that the
anonymity encouraged participants to respond honestly to survey questions. Participants
were asked to read the consent form online before beginning and indicated consent to
participate by agreeing to the consent statement and proceeding to the rest of the survey.
Upon completion of the surveys, each participant was given the opportunity to enter his

or her email address to receive a $5 gift card. All email addresses were stored separately

40

from survey data and could not be linked to individual responses. Of the approximately
730 students who received the study information, 226 consented to participate giving a
response rate of about 31%

Research Design and Analyses

This study used a correlational design to examine attitudes, feelings, and
knowledge of future teachers. A correlational design is used for two reasons. Primarily,
the variables in the study (i.e., sex, ethnicity, relationships with sexual minorities,
attitudes toward sexual minorities, feelings about sexual minorities, anticipated behavior
toward sexual minority students, and knowledge of homosexuality) are factors that could
not be immediately manipulated. Many of the outcome variables focus on preservice
teachers’ attitudes, feelings, and anticipated behaviors, making them beyond the control
of the researcher. Therefore, they could best be explored by using a self-report measure
rather than a true experimental design. Correlations, t-tests, and analysis of variance
(ANOVA) were performed to examine the relationship between the variables.

This body of research (i.e., preservice teacher attitudes toward sexual minority
youth) is still developing. While attitudes of the general population and of college
students in particular are more well-known, there is surprisingly little research examining
this population, preservice teachers. As such, it was appropriate to use methods and
research designs (such as correlational designs drawing from surveys) in a newly

developing area to better understand relationships between variables (Schmitt, 1994).

41

Chapter 4

Results

The overarching purpose of this study was to examine future educators’ attitudes,
behaviors, and knowledge with an often-overlooked participant group, preservice
teachers, who will have a signiﬁcant impact on sexual minority students in the future.
Several outcomes were investigated: attitudes, feelings, and behaviors toward gay,
lesbian, and bisexual populations, including youth. Also, this study examined the
relationship between these outcomes and multiple factors, including knowledge of
homosexuality, ﬁiendship or familial relationship with someone who identiﬁes as GLB,
frequency of attendance at religious services, certiﬁcation level sought, sex and ethnicity.
The researcher conducted a series of correlations, t-tests, and ANOVAs to examine the

relationships between these variables. All survey data were analyzed using SPSS.

Research Question One: Attitudes, Feelings, and Knowledge

The ﬁrst research question explored was: what are the attitudes, feelings, and
knowledge of future teachers about sexual minorities in general? And, do attitudes and
feelings differ based on the sexual minority group (i.e. gay, lesbian, or bisexual)? To
answer the ﬁrst part of this question, descriptive statistics were calculated for all three
areas, based on responses on the corresponding surveys (ATLG-R, ARBS, IHP, and
KAH). Table 8 summarizes the descriptive statistics for all four measures. For the second
part of this question, subscales from the surveys were compared to evaluate if signiﬁcant

differences in attitudes existed between sexual minority groups.

Table 8

42

Descriptive Statistics for Measures of Attitudes, Feelings, and Knowledge

 

 

Scale M SD Median
ATLG-R 47.77 25.45 41.50
ATG-R 22.56 12.63 21.00
ATL-R 22.30 12.42 21.00
ARBS 91.51 20.30 94.50
ARBS-M 45.61 10.06 47.00
ARBS-F 45.90 10.57 47.50
IHP 32.07 18.79 31.00
KAH 10.88 3.29 11.00

 

Attitudes toward sexual minorities. To evaluate overall attitudes toward sexual
minorities, ratings on the corresponding surveys were investigated. On the ATLG-R,
which measures degree of acceptance of lesbian- and gay-identiﬁed people, scores can
range from 20 (extremely positive attitudes) to 140 (extremely negative attitudes). When
analyzing this survey information, participants who responded that they identiﬁed as gay,
lesbian, or bisexual were excluded because the ATLG-R was designed to measure the
attitudes of people who identify as heterosexual. To qualify scores, six categories were
created: extremely positive (20-40), moderately positive (41-60), somewhat positive (61-
80), somewhat negative (81-100), moderately negative (101-120), and extremely negative
(121-140). The range of total ATLG-R scores for all participants was from 20 to 140,
with a mean of 47.77 (SD=25.45), indicating that respondents generally reported

~.._._.....-... . ..-..- 1‘”

moderately positive attitudes toward sexual minorities. This ﬁnding is contrary to

bun__.' . .q-‘c. -..

43

previous research and to the hypothesis that participants would hold negative attitudes
toward sexual minorities. Figure 1 shows the distribution of ATLG-R scores. About
13.2% (n=22) of the 172 respondents reported some degree of negative attitudes toward
sexual minorities, while the remaining 86.8% (n=150) expressed some degree of positive

attitudes.

ATLG-R: Total

 

  
  

N u
o o
l 1

Frequency

_.
O
I

 

 

20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00
ATLG-R Total

Figure 1. Distribution of attitude scores toward gay men and lesbians as measured by the
ATLG-R.

The subscales were also analyzed independently of the combined scale. The range
of scores for both the ATL-R and ATG-R was 10 to 70. A paired-samples t-test was
conducted to compare attitudes toward gay men and toward lesbians. There was no
signiﬁcant difference in reported attitudes toward gay men (M=22.56, SD=l2.63) and
lesbians [M=22.30, SD=12.42; t(160)=-.80, p=.42]. The magnitude of the difference in

the means was very small (eta squared = .004).

44

On the ARBS, which assesses participants’ attitudes toward bisexual women and
men, scores can range from 24 (negative attitudes) to 120 (positive attitudes). The range
of scores for current participants was from 36 to 120 with a mean of 91 .51 (SD=20.30),
indicating that respondents generally reported positive attitudes toward people who are

bisexual. Figure 2 shows the distribution of ARBS scores.

ARBS: Total

 

Frequency

o-i

 

 

 

0-
40.00 60.00 00.00 100.00 120.00
ARBS Total

Figure 2. Distribution of attitude scores toward bisexual men and women as measured by
the ARBS.

The male and female versions of the ARBS were examined independently. The
range of scores for both the ARBS-M and ARBS-F was 12 to 60. A paired-samples t-test
was conducted to compare attitudes toward men who identify as bisexual and women
who identify as bisexual. There was no signiﬁcant difference in reported attitudes toward

bisexual males (M=45.61, SD=10.06) and bisexual females [M=45.90, SD=10.57;

45

t(175)=-1.01, p=.3 l ]. The magnitude of the difference in the means was very small (eta
squared =.006).

Feelings about sexual minorities. To evaluate participants’ feelings toward sexual
minorities, responses on the IHP were examined. The IHP measures affective responses
(e.g. anxiety, discomfort, fear, disgust) toward persons who are gay. Total scores can
range from 0-100, with lower scores indicating less homophobia. In this study, scores

ranged from 0 to 96, with a mean of 32.07 (SD=18.79). The distribution of scores is

shown in Figure 3.

IHP: Total

 

Frequency

 

 

 

20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 00.00 . 100.00
IHP Total

Figure 3. Distribution of feeling scores toward sexual minorities as measured by the IHP.

Using Hudson and Ricketts (1980) four-category classiﬁcation for respondents:

99

“high grade homophobic” for those with scores from 76 to 100, “low grade homophobic

46

for those with scores from 51 to 75, “low grade non-homophobic” for those with scores
from 26 to 50, and “high grade non-homophobic” for those with scores from 0 to 25, the
majority of participants reported feelings in the low-grade non-homophobic range. Table

9 shows the frequencies of participant response for each descriptive category.

Table 9

IHP Score Frequencies (N = I 6 7)

 

 

Classiﬁcation
Score Range n Percentage (Hudson & Ricketts, 1980)
0-25 63 37.7 High grade non-homophobic
26-50 79 47.3 Low grade non-homophobic
51-75 23 13.8 Low grade homophobic
76-100 3 1.8 High grade homophobic

 

Knowledge about sexual minorities. To evaluate participants’ knowledge about
homosexuality, responses on the KAH were evaluated. This instrument consists of 18
true-false factual statements and intends to measure factual knowledge rather than
evaluative opinions. Total scores may range from 0 to 18, with higher scores indicating
more correct responses and greater knowledge. Participants’ scores ranged from 1 to 18,
with a mean of 10.88 (SD=3.29). Figure 4 shows the distribution of the number of correct

I'CSpOI'lSCS.

47

Total Correct Responses on the KAH

 

30-

N
o
1

Frequency

 

 

 

0-
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00
Total Correct on KAH

Figure 4. Distribution of correct responses on the KAH.

If 60% correct was set to be the minimum to “pass” the knowledge test, as in
previous research, nearly half of the participant sample (44.2%) would not have passed.
Only 13.3% of the sample answered more than 80% or more of the questions correctly.

Table 10 shows the distribution of participant responses for each question.

48

.00 o: 9 0000030

 

Wow 3% Wm: 230: 8:000: A:0_§:0to 330880: a 32003 3:08.880: 008000: :0m00m < .2
e020 0:00» 3:38 33:0:
v. :V «.09 v.0 £00 0800 05 mo :80: m B 00508—000 E 000208 0003 2038880: mo r3003: < .0
ﬁmm v.0 0.3 23:: ~80c0w 0E :05 0.5.8 E033 me 08:03 09 0: 300:— 0008 000 :05 >00 .w
2.2m was?» 00:08
0. mm nae mo 0: 03 BE: 1038000000: :9: axon wag» 00:000. 9 E00:— 0008 0.8 00:08 33000803 .5
Wm.» «tam N6 0005: :0 ﬂ $338880: .:o:0_00.mm< _00_w0_0:0>mm 90200840. 05 9 wEEooo< .0
06m Q: 9mm 0%: £80 :0 :0 00:02:80.0 ﬂ 00380200 Beam .m
$088860:
m. _ m Wm «.mc magma 00:00::ng 300m 0:: Ew0— 8:800:00 022 30:05:85: 20.550 050m .v
o. 5. Numb m.m x00 058:0 05 m0 £09808 0: 8 :83 20380080: 302 .m
Wm: «HS Qm 0080? 0:0 :08 1308000000: SE 80.000: 330880: wﬁmﬁﬁo ,«0 00:30 000w a m: 0005. .N
v.3 méw : 389:0 5630 £023 000:: 0 2 b=0:x00080: .—
0525 020m 03... 550:0

 

«as 716 notwozm mg «00% ao\m=.~.u:o&u.0- S:o&&ta&\o “200.0%

2 030...

49

.20: :_ 00:00:00: 0: :0380 :00800 0:02.

 

 

000:0:0t:0

0m: 9m :4». 080008080 0: 0008: 0: 08 0020300080: :0:: :38? m0: £80000: 8003: .M:

000080.:

Wm 2 0.00 0:0 .00—08 800 0: 00:00:00: 80:0 80320: 00380 00 0080:0805 0: :00 8:03:35 .5

80300080:

Om 0.: 0.3 :0:: w8w00_30:0_00 E0203: :0: 00: 20880080: :0:: 8:0: 0 m: ..::0 w8800= .0:

:0803 30:08:80:

0.3 ms Na: 00 :0:: 20880080: 0:030: 000850 0:08: 0:08 80:88 0: 0:0: :08 3:500:80: .m:

.8085: m0 :0 20:0: 00 80:: 8:30; 0.0300080:

imm wéu wdv 0:030: 00:80—08: 000800005 000:0030 00: 08:30 b0>0 3.08:0 5:00:92: .3

0.0m mﬁv 0.: x00 _00:w0_05 0&8: 8:3 00:w0 :0: 0000 b_::00: :00:0w 0.0080: 38000080: < .m:

3:500:30: 30302000 0: 0380080: 30302008

0.00 n.— bém 80:“: 8:80:00 0 m0 830:0: 3:080 0388 80:0:0000: :0::0 808 0:0 >080: .N:

0.00 NS 0.3. $0880 808 8 8:000 33:00 3380083: ._ :
080:3 020m 0:: H :0::0000

 

0002:0080 2 2%:

50

Research Question Two: Student Sexual Orientation and Anticipated Behaviors

The second research question addressed in this study was: does student sexual
orientation affect prospective teachers’ anticipated behaviors toward that student? To
evaluate this question, the Anticipated Behaviors of Future Teachers Toward Sexual
Minority Youth Scale (ABFTS) was used. A one-way between-groups analysis of
variance was conducted to explore the impact of sexual minority group on preservice
teachers’ anticipated behaviors, as measured by the ABFTS. Participants were randomly
assigned to one of four groups and presented the corresponding student vignette (Group
1: heterosexual student; Group 2: gay male student; Group 3: lesbian student; Group 4:
bisexual student). There was a statistically signiﬁcant difference in ABFTS scores for the
four groups [F(3, 190)=8.23, p<.0005]. The magnitude of difference in mean scores
between the four groups was medium to large, as indicated by the effect size (eta
squared=. 12). Post-hoe comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean
score for Group 1 (M=85.51, SD=6. 14 ) was signiﬁcantly different from Group 2
(M=91.85, SD=9.02), Group 3 (M=92.83, SD=8.47), and Group. 4 (M=92.88, SD=7.03).
Groups 2, 3, and 4 did not signiﬁcantly differ from each other.

Additional questions on the ABFTS explored future teachers’ anticipated
curriculum inclusion and classroom behaviors surrounding sexual orientation. 30% of the
sample reported that they either disagreed with or were neutral toward the statement, “I
would discuss homosexuality in a positive way if the subject came up in my classroom.”
About 1 in 3 future teachers (32.8%) reported that, regardless of the circumstances, they
would not discuss homosexuality in the classroom. In order to ascertain if this reluctance

may be due to a lack of information, participants were also asked how reluctant they

51

would be to talk about homosexuality in the classroom, even with sufficient training.
Almost half of the sample (49.7%) responded that they were neutral toward or that they
agreed with the statement, “Even if I had sufﬁcient training, I would still be reluctant to
talk about homosexuality in the classroom.” Rather than addressing student questions
about sexual orientation, the majority of participants responded that they would instead
refer the student to the school counselor or psychologist. 92.4% of participants provided
an affrrrnative or neutral response to the statement, “I would refer a student to the
counselor or school psychologist if she/he had questions about sexual orientation.” Even
though they would refer students to another school professional, future teachers also
expressed a willingness to gain more information about supporting sexual minority
students. The majority of the sample (81.3%) responded in the afﬁrmative to the
statement, “I would ask a more knowledgeable person (e. g. school counselor, school
psychologist) for information about supporting gay, lesbian, and bisexual students.”

Finally, participant responses to questions about inclusion of topics of race and
ethnicity and topics of sexual orientation in the classroom were compared to examine
whether differences existed between future teachers’ willingness to discuss such topics in
their future work. There was a signiﬁcant difference in reported inclusion of topics on
race and ethnicity (M=4.20, SD=0.94) and sexual orientation [M=2.66, SD=1.18; t(196)=-
18.41, p<.0005]. Participants reported a greater willingness to include topics of race and
ethnicity in the curriculum than topics of sexual orientation.
Research Question Three: Factors Affecting Attitudes, Feelings, and Behaviors

The ﬁnal research question addressed in this study was: do preservice teacher

attitudes, feelings, and/or behaviors vary based on knowledge of homosexuality,

52

ﬁiendship with someone in their life who identiﬁes as GLB, frequency of attendance at
religious services, certiﬁcation level sought, sex or ethnicity? To evaluate this question,
the demographic information provided was compared with participants’ reported
attitudes, feelings, and anticipated behaviors. The relationship between knowledge (as
measured by the KAH) and attitudes (as measured by the ATLG-R), feelings (as
measured by the IHP), and anticipated behaviors (as measured by the ABF TS) was
investigated using Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients. Preliminary analyses
were performed to ensure no violation of the assumptions of normality, linearity, and
homoscedasticity. There was a strong, negative correlation between knowledge and
attitudes [F-.50, n=178, p<.0005], with greater knowledge associated with less negative
attitudes toward sexual minorities. Also, there was a moderate, negative correlation
between knowledge and feelings [r=-.44, n=167, p<.0005], with greater knowledge
associated with less negative feelings about sexual minorities. Greater knowledge was
also associated with more positive anticipated behaviors toward sexual minority
students[r=.33, n=206, p<.0005] and with more inclusive curriculum practices [r=.3 9,
n=183, p<.0005]. Table 11 shows the correlations between knowledge, attitudes, feelings,

and anticipated behaviors.

53

Table 1 1

Pearson Product-Moment Correlations Between Knowledge, Attitudes, Feelings, and
Anticipated Behaviors

 

 

Measure 1 2 3 4 5
(1) KAH - - - - -
(2) ATLG-R -.50* - - - -
(3) IHP -.44* .84* - - -
(4) ABFTS Part 1 .33* -.45* -.29* - -
(5) ABFTS Part 2 .39* -.74* -.70* .41* -

 

Note. KAH=Knowledge about Homosexuality Questionnaire; ATLG-R=Attitudes
Toward Lesbians and Gay Men - Revised Scale; IHP=Index of Homophobia;
ABFTS=Anticipated Behaviors of Future Teachers Toward Sexual Minority Youth Scale

*p<.0005

Impact of friendship with sexual minorities. A series of independent samples t-
tests were conducted to compare attitudes, feelings, and anticipated behaviors between
participants who have at least one GLB-identiﬁed friend and those who have no GLB-
identiﬁed friends. There was a signiﬁcant difference in reported attitudes of participants
(as measured by the ATLG-R) who have at least one GLB-identiﬁed ﬁiend (M=41.95,
SD=22.24) and of those who do not [M=59.19, SD=31.73; t(160)=-2.65, p=.01].
However, despite the signiﬁcance, the magnitude of the difference in the means was

small (eta squared =.O4).

54

There was also a signiﬁcant difference in reported feelings toward sexual
minorities (as measured by the IHP) of participants who have at least one GLB-identiﬁed
ﬁiend (M=28.98, SD=17.60) and of those who do not [M=46.00, SD=17.78; t(163)=-
4.59, p<.0005]. Participants with at least one sexual minority friend had much more
positive feelings toward sexual minorities than did those with no sexual minority friends.
The magnitude of the difference in the means was moderate to large (eta squared =.11).

Finally, there was a difference in both future teachers’ anticipated behaviors
toward sexual minority students (as measured by part 1 of the ABF TS) and in curriculum
practices (as measured by part 2 of the ABFTS). Participants with at least one GLB-
identiﬁed friend reported more positive anticipated behaviors (M=92.09, SD=10.31) from
those with no GLB friends [M=87.87, SD=8.83; t(174)=2.09, p=.038]. The magnitude of
the difference in the means was small (eta squared =.02). Participants with at least one
GLB-identiﬁed friend also reported more inclusive curriculum practices related to sexual
minorities (M=109.56, SD=11.58) than did those with no GLB friends [M=103.04,
SD=13.56; t(159)=2.63, p<.01]. However, the magnitude of the difference in the means
was small (eta squared =.04).

Impact of frequency of religious attendance. One-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) was used to determine the impact of frequency of attendance at religious
services on attitudes (as measured by the ATLG-R), feelings (as measured by the IHP),
and anticipated behaviors (as measured by the ABFTS). Participants selected how often
they attended religious services and were placed into one of four groups based on their
response (Group 1: never attend religious services; Group 2: attend religious services

once a month; Group 3: attend religious services several times a month; Group 4: attend

55

religious services once a week or more than once a week). In the ﬁrst ANOVA, which
examined the impact of religious attendance on attitudes, the homogeneity of variance
assumption was violated (Levene’s Statistic=7.20, p<.0005). However, using the Welch
test, which accounts for the violation of this assumption, there was still a statistically
signiﬁcant difference in attitude scores for the four groups [F(3, 53)=13.11, p<.0005].
This indicates that participants’ reported frequency of attendance was related to their
attitudes toward sexual minorities. The magnitude of difference in mean scores between
the four groups was large, as indicated by the effect size (eta squared=.28). Post-hoc
comparisons using the Tukey Honestly Signiﬁcant Difference (HSD) test indicated that
the mean score for Group 1 (M=34.27, SD=15.07) was signiﬁcantly different from Group
2 (M=45.67, SD=22.48) and that the mean scores for Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3
(M=40.26, SD=19.60) were all signiﬁcantly different from Group 4 (M=72.80,
SD=31.17). Groups 1 and 3 and Groups 2 and 3 did not signiﬁcantly differ from each
other. Overall, these differences indicate that those participants who reported attending
religious services at least once a week, or more, were signiﬁcantly more likely to hold
negative attitudes toward sexual minorities. Figure 5 shows the ATLG-R means plot for

the four groups.

56

 

80.00“

70.00“

60.00“

ATLG-R Mean

40.00“

 

 

30.00“

 

1 .00 200 3.100 4.00
Frequency of religious attendance

Figure 5. Plot of ATLG-R means by frequency of religious attendance

In the second AN OVA, which examined the impact of religious attendance on
reported feelings toward sexual minorities, there was a statistically signiﬁcant difference
in feelings scores for the four groups [F(3, 161)=8.93, p<.0005]. The magnitude of
difference in mean scores between the four groups was large, as indicated by the effect
size (eta squared=. 14). Tukey HSD post-hoe comparisons indicated that the mean score
for Group 1 (M=24.92, SD=16.32) was signiﬁcantly different from Group 2 (M=33.79,
SD=18.37) and that the mean scores for Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3 (M=29.80,
SD=16.76) were all signiﬁcantly different from Group 4 (M=45.50, SD=18.61). Groups 1
and 3 and Groups 2 and 3 did not signiﬁcantly differ from each other. Similar to reported

attitudes, those participants who reported attending religious services most frequently

57

were signiﬁcantly more likely to have negative feelings toward sexual minorities. Figure

6 shows the IHP means plot for the four groups.

 

45.00“

40.00“

IHP Mean

35.00“

30.00“

25.00“

 

 

 

l I l l
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00
Frequency of religious attendance

Figure 6. Plot of IHP means by frequency of religious attendance

The ﬁnal ANOVA examined the impact of religious attendance on reported
anticipated behaviors toward sexual minority students (ABFTS part 1) and on curriculum
inclusion of diverse sexual orientations (ABFTS part 2). There was a statistically
signiﬁcant difference in behavior scores for the four groups [F(3, 140)=4.3 8, p<.01]. The
magnitude of difference in mean scores between the four groups was moderate, as
indicated by the effect size (eta squared=.09). Tukey HSD post-hoe comparisons
indicated that the mean scores for Group 1 (M=94.22, SD=6.42) and for Group 2

(M=94.07, SD=6.96) were both signiﬁcantly different from Group 4 (M=88.04,

58

SD=9.68). There were no other signiﬁcant differences between groups. Figure 7 shows

the ABF TS (part 1) means plot for the four groups.

 

 

 

94.00-

C

a

e

E 92.00-

A

F

t

e

a.

v

m

< 90.00-
38.00-

 

1 .00 zinc 3.00 4.00
Frequency of religious attendance

Figure 7. Plot of ABFTS (part 1) means by frequency of religious attendance

There was also a statistically signiﬁcant difference in curriculum inclusion scores
for the four groups [F(3, 157)=7.50, p<.0005]. The magnitude of difference in mean
scores between the four groups was large, as indicated by the effect size (eta
squared=.l3). Tukey HSD post-hoe comparisons indicated that the mean scores for
Group 1 (M=112.20, SD=9.95) and for Group 2 (M=108.69, SD=12.00) were both
signiﬁcantly different from Group 4 (M=99.59, SD=14.70). There were no other
signiﬁcant differences between groups, although the mean difference between Group 3

(M=108.35, SD=9.14) and Group 4 was approaching signiﬁcance with p=.051. Figure 8

59

shows the ABF TS (part 2) means plot for the four groups. Overall participants frequently
attending religious services were signiﬁcantly more likely to report fewer positive
anticipated behaviors toward sexual minority youth and less inclusion of topics of
diversity in sexual orientation than those participants who reported infrequent or no

attendance at religious services.

 

112.00“

110.00“

= 100.00-
6
e
E
A

N 106.00“
1'.’
E.

E 104.00-
0
(

102.00-

100.00-

90.00-

 

 

 

! i f I
1.00 2.00 3.00 400
Frequency of religious attendance

Figure 8. Plot of ABF TS (part 2) means by frequency of religious attendance

Impact of sex. A series of independent samples t-tests were conducted to compare
attitudes, feelings, and anticipated behaviors and curriculum inclusion between male and
female participants. There was a signiﬁcant difference in reported attitudes of male
(M=53.57, SD=25.64) and female participants [M=41.88, SD=23.88; t(158)=2.57, p=.01].

Females reported more positive attitudes toward people who identify as gay or lesbian

60

than males. However, despite the signiﬁcance, the magnitude of the difference in the
means was small (eta squared =.04).

There was also a difference in future teachers’ anticipated behaviors toward
sexual minority students (as measured by part 1 of the ABF TS). Male participants
reported fewer positive behaviors toward sexual minority youth (M=89.53, SD=8.76)
than female participants [M=92.62, SD=7.35; t(172)=-2.20, p=.03]. The magnitude of the
difference in the means was small (eta squared =.03). There was no signiﬁcant difference
in reported feelings toward sexual minorities (as measured by the IHP) of males
(M=35.17, SD=20.27) and females [M=30.86, SD=18.11; t(161)=1.23,p=.22] or in
curriculum practices (as measured by part 2 of the ABFTS) of males (M=105.86,
SD=11.64) and females [M=109.10, SD=12.21; t(157)=-1.43,p=.16].

Impact of certification level. One-way analysis of variance (AN OVA) was also
used to determine the relationship between certiﬁcation level being sought and attitudes
(as measured by the ATLG-R), feelings (as measured by the IHP), and anticipated
behaviors (as measured by the ABFTS part 1) and curriculum inclusion (ABFTS part 2).
Participants were placed into one of ﬁve groups based on their reported level of
certiﬁcation being pursued (Group 1: early childhood; Group 2: elementary education;
Group 3: secondary education; Group 4: K-12; Group 5: other). There were no
statistically signiﬁcant differences between certiﬁcation groups for attitudes [F(3,
156)=.53, p=.66], feelings [F (4, 158)=.71, p=.59], anticipated behaviors [F(4, 138)=.42,
p=.80], or curriculum inclusion [F(4, 154)=1.91, p=.l 1].

Impact of racial/ethnic identity. The ﬁnal relationship examination planned for

this study was between participant racial/ethnic identity and attitudes, feelings, and

61

anticipated behaviors toward sexual minority youth. However, due to a lack of sufﬁcient

sample diversity, these analyses could not be performed.

62

Chapter 5

Discussion

This study explored the attitudes, knowledge, and anticipated behaviors of an
often-overlooked participant group, preservice teachers, who will have a signiﬁcant
impact on school climate and individual students in the future. Several outcomes were
investigated including attitudes, feelings, and future behaviors toward gay, lesbian, and
bisexual populations, including youth. Yang (1997) noted that most Americans believe
homosexuality to be immoral and a threat to societal values. In addition, Sears’s (1991)
study found that eight out of ten prospective teachers reported negative feelings toward
lesbians and gay men. However, such negative attitudes, feelings, and behaviors by
teachers and peers do not only impact sexual minority students. Poteat and Espelage
(2007) assessed the effects of homophobic victimization on indicators of psychological
and social distress for all students, regardless of sexual orientation, over a one-year
period. They found that homophobic victimization signiﬁcantly predicted increased
anxiety and depression, personal distress, and lower sense of school belonging in males
and higher levels of withdrawal in females. In light of these ﬁndings, and given the
amount of time that students spend interacting with teachers, who can play a vital role in
halting such victimization, the ways that preservice teachers’ attitudes and feelings may
manifest in teacher behaviors (or lack of behaviors) are vital to examine.

Attitudes, Feelings, and Knowledge
Prospective teachers surveyed in this study reported moderately positive attitudes

and low-grade non-homophobic feelings toward people who identify as gay, lesbian, and

63

bisexual. There was a lot of variance in reported attitudes, indicating that, despite the
generally positive attitudes of the sample, individual attitudes varied widely. In fact, 22
(13%) participants held some degree of negative attitudes toward sexual minorities. There
were no signiﬁcant differences in attitudes toward the different sexual minority groups.
Previous research (Sears, 1991) had shown that the majority of prospective teachers
report negative attitudes and feelings toward lesbians and gay men in general. However,
this was not the case in the current study, indicating that future teachers may have much
more positive attitudes toward sexual minorities than they did 15 years ago. The ﬁndings
from the current study are promising because the participants are part of the next
generation of teachers who will be directly impacting the school climate for and
experiences of sexual minority youth.

Upon closer examination of responses to attitude and feeling scales, it is clear
that, although respondents generally report positive attitudes and feelings, they reported
more discomfort (more negative feelings) about homosexuality when it was more
personally relevant. For example, over half of the sample reported they would feel
uncomfortable if a same-sex person was romantically interested in them or if they found
themselves attracted to a member of the same-sex, one-third reported they would feel
uncomfortable being seen in a gay establishment, and more than three-fourths of
participants said they would feel uncomfortable if they found out a spouse or partner was
attracted to members of the spouse’s own sex. The negative responses when the questions
involved more personal relevance indicate that, although the more global attitudes may
appear positive and participants may feel they have positive attitudes, there is still a

degree of discomfort when the issue is more immediately personal.

64

Preservice teachers in this study had limited information about sexual orientation.
Most participants in this study correctly answered fewer than 60% of the factual
questions about sexual orientation. For the majority of questions, respondents did not
have incorrect information; instead, they lacked any information, as indicated by the high
response rate for the ‘Unsure’ answer option. More than 20% of the future teachers
surveyed responded that they were unsure of the correct answer to 14 of the 18 (78%)
individual questions on the knowledge questionnaire. When comparing participants’
knowledge about homosexuality, their attitudes about homosexuality, and their feelings
toward lesbians and gay men, it was discovered that those teachers who demonstrated the
least knowledge harbored the most negative attitudes and were the most homophobic.
This relationship indicates the potential power of increasing knowledge among preservice
teachers who, according to this study, have a lot of room for additional knowledge and
growth.
Student Sexual Orientation and Anticipated Behaviors

Despite the reportedly positive attitudes and non-homophobic feelings toward
sexual minorities, participants also still reported signiﬁcantly different behaviors toward
heterosexual and sexual minority students, as well as a reluctance to proactively include
or discuss topics relating to sexual orientation in the classroom. However, participants
also agreed or strongly agreed that they would treat each student (gay, lesbian, bisexual,
and heterosexual) as they would treat any other student at their school. This belief clearly
contradicts the actual reported behaviors. Future teachers reported that they would not
talk to sexual minority or questioning students about issues or questions related to sexual

identity, even if approached for support by such students. Instead, they would refer the

65

student to the guidance counselor or school psychologist. Even when a student simply
shared basic information about his or her sexual orientation with the teacher, without
mention of concerns, issues, or need for additional support, the teacher reported that he or
she would refer the student to a school psychologist or to an outside mental health
professional, which is not the case for a heterosexual student sharing information of a
similar nature. Also, pre-service teachers reported that they would encourage a sexual
minority student to interact with individuals of diverse sexual orientations, which is a
potentially helpful activity for a student who identiﬁes as GLB or is questioning his/her
sexual orientation; however, teachers did not report that they would encourage
heterosexual students to also get to know such diverse individuals. This difference in
responses may reﬂect the idea that only those with minority sexual identities will beneﬁt
from interacting with people with diverse sexual orientations, rather than recognizing the
beneﬁt for all people, regardless of personal sexual identity. In this way, issues and
knowledge of sexual orientation remain limited to those who identify as GLBQ instead of
encouraging all people to interact with diverse individuals and to support all students.
Past research (Sears, 1991) found that future teachers reported that they would behave
differently toward a gay or lesbian student than toward a heterosexual student which,
based on the ﬁndings of the current study, remains true today.

One question raised by these results is: is it desirable to treat sexual minority
students differently from heterosexual students? Of course, the answer is not simple. In
some cases, it may be appropriate to do so, depending on the student needs and

circumstances; however, when the differences may negatively impact youth, such as by

66

refusing to be supportive of sexual minority students while affrrrrring heterosexual
students, such behavioral differences would not be appropriate.

Perhaps reﬂecting the political nature of public schools and the charged issue of
sexual identity, many teachers reported an unwillingness to discuss, or even raise, age-
appropriate topics related to sexual orientation in the classroom. However, they were
signiﬁcantly more willing to have discussions about race and ethnicity. At one time,
educators were reluctant to include race and ethnicity as part of the curriculum; however,
that does not appear to be the case any longer. Ideally, this would also be true of sexual
orientation. According to the results of the current study, another generation of teachers
will enter the classroom reluctant or unwilling to either formally include or informally
discuss sexual identity.

Factors Affecting Attitudes, Feelings, and Behaviors

In this study, participants’ frequency of attendance at religious services, sex, and
friendship with a person who identiﬁes as GLB was associated with attitudes, feelings,
knowledge and anticipated future behaviors. Those participants who reported attending
religious services most frequently also reported less knowledge and more negative
attitudes, feelings, and behaviors toward sexual minorities. This ﬁnding should be
interpreted with caution, as frequency of religious attendance does not necessarily .9
indicate overall religiosity; rather, it is just one indicator of religiosity. However, given
that this is an indicator, it is important to recognize the role of religion in an individual’s
knowledge, attitudes, feelings, and behaviors and to consider this when considering ways
to improve knowledge and to change attitudes and behaviors. Male participants also

reported more negative attitudes and fewer positive behaviors toward sexual minority

67

youth, although males were similar to females on reported curriculum inclusion. The
effect size for the differences between men and women was small, perhaps as a function
of the small number of male participants relative to female participants. These differences
in attitudes, feelings, and anticipated behaviors indicate that some of the people who
belong to the groups reporting more negative attitudes and fewer supportive behaviors
may need additional or different types of interventions to increase knowledge and to
encourage more positive attitudes and supportive behaviors toward future students.

This study also showed that ﬁiendship with a GLB-identiﬁed person impacted
participants’ attitudes, feelings, knowledge, and anticipated behaviors. Those future
teachers who had at least one sexual minority friend had more positive attitudes and
feelings, more knowledge, more positive behaviors toward sexual minority students, and
greater willingness to openly discuss topics of sexual orientation as part of the classroom
curriculum. Interestingly, a much larger effect size was found between having a friend
who is GLB-identiﬁed and feelings toward sexual rrrinorities than between friendship and
the other outcome variables. It may be concluded that, for this sample of pre-service l

.- .
teachers, having a signiﬁcant relationship with a person who identiﬁes as a sexual
minority signiﬁcantly impacts the more personal, affective responses toward sexual
minorities. In this way, getting to know people of diverse sexual orientations could be
another way to improve individuals’ familiarity with and feelings toward all sexual
minorities. While ideally it would be desirable to have all people be friends with
individuals who openly identify as GLB, this situation is dependent upon many
uncontrollable and personal factors, such as the individuals’ personalities, ability to be

open about sexual identity, degree of openness about identity, and compatibility of

68

individuals in order to create a friendship. Instead, promoting familiarity and ﬁiendships
with sexual minority individuals may begin by targeting factors that are more open to
change through less personal methods, such as improving knowledge about
homosexuality. This may lead people to more positive attitudes and more understanding
of all people, opening the door for friendly relationships with more diverse people.
Limitations

As with all research, this study had a number of limitations that will impact the
generalizability of the ﬁndings to wider populations of future educators. Additional
research is needed to gain more information about the attitudes, feelings, knowledge, and
future behaviors of both currently practicing and future teacher teachers.

Restricted Sample. The ﬁrst limitation is the restricted sample. This study targeted
pre-service teachers at one teacher education institution in one part of the country.
Therefore, the reported results may not represent the views and anticipated behaviors of
other future teachers across the country. Also, because the study targeted future teachers,
the participant age range was fairly restricted. However, this limited age range may be
representative of the characteristics of future educators. Additional research is necessary
to determine the degree of representativeness. The study sample also had insufficient
racial and ethnic diversity, to the degree that separate analyses and comparisons of
attitudes, feelings, knowledge, and anticipated behaviors were not possible. Thus, all
respondents were grouped together despite possible differences in these characteristics.
Future research should examine these groups independently to see if any differences exist
in any of the knowledge or outcome variables. Such analyses could potentially increase

the generalizability of the ﬁndings to other demographic groups.

69

Self-report measures. Another limitation of this study is that it relies solely on
self-report measures. With self-report measures, answers to personally sensitive questions
are likely to be inﬂuenced by social desirability, known as social desirability bias
(Spector, 1994). People may report their own attitudes and behaviors in a manner they
feel they “should” or that will make them “look good”. This may be especially true in this
study given the charged nature of discussions about sexual identity.

However, participant self-report methods should not be completely discounted. Self-
report measures generally reﬂect participants’ affective reactions and feelings about the
topic(s) under investigation (Spector, 1994), which are the target variables in the study.
These methods explore participants’ perceptions of such things as their attitudes, feelings,
and anticipated future behaviors toward sexual minority students. While the use of self-
report is a limitation, it is also important to recognize that this research area (i.e., current
and future teachers’ attitudes, feelings, and behaviors toward sexual minority students) is
still in an early stage of development. Also, some of the variables (i.e. attitudes and
feelings) do not lend themselves to being evaluated through observational or other
methods. Additional research is needed to explore how accurately self-ratings via survey
methods capture individuals’ attitudes and feelings. In addition, investigations of how
well attitudes and feelings link to actual behavior are also necessary.

New Scale Introduction. A ﬁnal limitation of this study is the use of a newly-
developed measure to examine future teachers’ anticipated behaviors toward sexual
minority students and willingness to include diversity topics in classroom curriculum
(ABFTS). Since this is the ﬁrst time the scale has been used in any formal research,

additional analyses of its reliability and validity are warranted. This measure was

70

included for all participants, regardless of the level of school they plan to teach, leaving
room for respondents to interpret the vignettes in different ways.
Implications for Practice and Future Research

According to the National Association of School Psychologists (2004), school
psychologists are obligated to ensure that all students have an equal opportunity for
personal identity development in an environment free from discrimination, harassment,
violence, and abuse. Other professionals within schools, particularly teachers, are also in
a prime position to affect the environment in ways that promote tolerance and acceptance.
According to Coleman (1988) supportive teachers and non-family adult role models are
important for healthy adolescent development. Thus, school psychologists can use the
results of this study to better understand new teachers’ attitudes and feelings toward and
understanding of sexual minority youth. This information can be a starting point for
promoting collaboration and information sharing between school psychologists and
educators of all experience levels that focuses on promoting positive school climate and
outcomes for all students.

School psychologists have the advantage of working with numerous stakeholders,
including parents, teachers/staff, and community agencies and programs. For example,
school psychologists are trained to serve as interventionists and consultants at all levels.
In addition to providing individual services to sexual minority or questioning students,
they may also provide consultation and training on building- and district-wide levels.
Using these consultation skills, school psychologists can work with other school
professionals to increase knowledge and understanding of the nature of sexual identity,

the needs of sexual minority youth, and the role and impact of homophobic victimization

71

on creating an unwelcoming climate for all students. The current study shows the need
for providing basic information about sexual minorities and the impact such knowledge
may have on improving attitudes and creating more afﬁrming classroom environments
for all students. Consultation may take the form of a professional development session,
library of resources such as books, articles, and videos, or school-based consultation team
for teachers to contact with questions or concerns related to issues of sexual orientation.
Based on the results of the present study, increasing the knowledge base and personal
understanding of new teachers, and potentially of current teachers, related to sexual
orientation and identity development may be an initial step toward more positive
attitudes, feelings, and behaviors and more inclusive curriculum. Professional
development workshops provide a safe arena for educators to ask questions and discuss
concerns related to working with sexual minority students, to intervening when
witnessing victimization, and to including topics of sexual orientation and identity in

developmentally-appropriate forms in the classroom.

Finally, future research should examine the current attitudes, feelings, and
behaviors of larger, more diverse populations, as well as other groups, such as currently
practicing teachers with a range of experiences. This study may be used as a starting
point for conceptualizing ways to integrate training seminars or modules into teacher
education program curricula and to evaluate their impact. By further examining and
considering the factors that impact the attitudes, feelings, knowledge, and behaviors of
future teachers, and the link between attitudes and behaviors, it will be possible to design

and implement intervention programs to increase knowledge and improve attitudes. Such

72

programs will help to make teachers more prepared to serve, support, and, hopefully,

afﬁrm all students, before they even enter the classroom.

73

10.

Appendix A

Future Teachers’ Opinions and Knowledge Survey
Participant Consent

. The researcher in this study is interested in your opinions and knowledge. You will be

asked to complete ﬁve surveys about your attitudes, beliefs, feelings, and knowledge
about sexual minority (i.e. gay male, lesbian, bisexual) persons, including students, as
well as to provide some information about yourself.

Participants will complete the ﬁve surveys and provide demographic information.
The entire process will take approximately 20-30 minutes.

. Conﬁdentiality is assured to you on the part of the researcher. Once your responses

are received, the data will be treated and stored as anonymous responses. Computer
IP addresses will not be tracked by the researcher.

After completing all the surveys, you will be asked to voluntarily enter your email
address in order to receive a $5 Amazon.com gift certiﬁcate for your participation.
You will also be entered into a random drawing for one of four larger Amazon.com
gift cards ($25 each), as appreciation of your participation. Your email address will
not be linked to your speciﬁc survey responses. Email addresses will be kept in a
separate database and will be deleted as soon as the drawing is complete.

. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law.

Participation is voluntary; you may choose not to participate at all, or you may refuse
to participate in certain procedures or answer certain questions or discontinue your
participation at any time without penalty. In order to receive a $5 gift certiﬁcate, you
must participate in the study.

Participation in studies like this one will provide researchers with results that can be
used to help understand the attitudes of future teachers and to potentially create or
improve training opportunities for working with sexual minority youth .

When you are done reading this page, you will be asked to consent to participate. If
you choose to participate, you will be asked to complete ﬁve surveys regarding your
attitudes, beliefs, feelings, and knowledge about sexual minority persons, including
students. After you complete these surveys, you will answer some questions about
yourself such as your race/ethnicity, age, certiﬁcation area, sex, and experiences with
coursework.

Investigators will not attempt to link your opinions back to your name or other
identifying information.

By continuing after this page, you agree to participate in the study and have data
collected from your responses included in the study's results.

74

l 1. If you have any questions regarding the study, please contact the researcher (Amanda
Hirsch) by phone: (517) 432-0843, email: hirscham@msu.edu, or USPS mail: 401E
Erickson Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824. You may also contact Dr. John Carlson,
Dissertation Chair, by phone: 517-432-4856, email: carlsoj @msu.edu, or mail: 431
Erickson Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824.

If you have questions or concerns about your rights as a research participant, please
feel free to contact Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Director of the Human Subject Protection
Programs at Michigan State University: (517) 355-2180, fax: (517) 432-4503, email:
irb@msu.edu, or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824.

75

ﬂ
0

Appendix B
Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men Scale — Revised (ATLG-R)

Gay male couples should be allowed to adopt children the same as heterosexual

couples.*

Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I think gay men are disgusting.

Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Gay men should r_r_o§ be allowed to teach school.

Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Male homosexuality is a perversion.

Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Male homosexuality is a natural expression of sexuality in men.*

Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

If a man has homosexual feelings, he should do everything he can to overcome

them.

Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I would 92; be too upset if I learned that my son were a homosexual.*

Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Sex between two men is just plain wrong.

Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

76

9. The idea of male homosexual marriages seems ridiculous to me.

Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10. Male homosexuality is merely a different kind of lifestyle that should not be
condemned.*
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
11. Lesbian couples should be allowed to adopt children the same as heterosexual
couples.*
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
12. I think lesbians are disgusting.
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
l3. Lesbians should M be allowed to teach school.
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
14. Female homosexuality is a perversion.
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
15. Female homosexuality is a natural expression of sexuality in women.*
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

16. If a woman has homosexual feelings, she should do everything she can to

overcome them.

Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
17. I would y_o_t_ be too upset if I learned that my daughter were a homosexual.*
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

77

18. Sex between two women is just plain wrong.

Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
19. The idea of female homosexual marriages seems ridiculous to me.
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
20. Female homosexuality is merely a different kind of lifestyle that should not be
condemned.*
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

* indicates reverse score

78

Appendix C
Attitudes Regarding Bisexuality Scale (ARBS)

Please read each of the following statements and rate them according to how accurately
they describe your attitudes and beliefs. Please respond honestly and answer every
question according to the rating scale below.

 

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree

1. Most men who claim to be bisexual are in denial about their true sexual
orientation.

2. Male bisexuality is harmful to society because it breaks down the natural

divisions between the sexes.

Gay men are less confused about their sexuality than bisexual men.

Bisexuality in men is immoral.

Just like homosexuality and heterosexuality, bisexuality is a stable sexual

orientation for men.

Bisexual men are sick.

Most men who identify as bisexual have not yet discovered their true sexual

orientation. .

Male bisexuality is not a perversion.

Most men who call themselves bisexual are temporarily experimenting with

their sexuality.

10. As far as I’m concerned, male bisexuality is unnatural.

11. Male bisexuals are afraid to commit to one lifestyle.

12. The growing acceptance of male bisexuality indicates a decline in American
values.

SAP.“

90.09

\0

13. Most women who identify as bisexual have not yet discovered their true sexual
orientation.

14. Female bisexuality is not a perversion.

15. Most women who call themselves bisexual are temporarily experimenting with
their sexuality.

16. As far as I’m concerned, female bisexuality is unnatural.

17. Female bisexuals are afraid to commit to one lifestyle.

18. The growing acceptance of female bisexuality indicates a decline in American
values.

19. Most women who claim to be bisexual are in denial about their true sexual
orientation.

20. Female bisexuality is harmful to society because it breaks down the natural
divisions between the sexes.

_ 21. Lesbians are less confused about their sexuality than bisexual women.

_ 22. Bisexuality in women is immoral.

79

23. Just like homosexuality and heterosexuality, bisexuality is a stable sexual

orientation for women.

24. Bisexual women are sick.

80

H

Appendix D

Index of Homophobia (IHP)

. I would feel comfortable working closely with a male homosexual.

Strongly Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5
. I would enjoy attending social functions at which homosexuals were present.
Strongly Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5
. I would feel uncomfortable if I learned that my neighbor was homosexual.*
Strongly Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5
If a member of my sex made a sexual advance toward me, I would feel angry.*
Strongly Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5
I would feel comfortable knowing that I was attractive to members of my sex.
Strongly Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5

I would feel uncomfortable being seen in a gay establishment, such as a

restaurant or bar.*

Strongly Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5
I would feel comfortable if a member of my sex made an advance toward me.
Strongly Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5
I would be comfortable if] found myself attracted to a member of my sex.
Strongly Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5
I would feel disappointed if I learned that my child was homosexual.*
Strongly Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5

81

10. I would feel nervous being in a group of homosexuals.*

Strongly Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5
11. I would feel comfortable knowing that my clergyman was homosexual.
Strongly Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5
12. I would be upset if I learned that my brother or sister was homosexual.*
Strongly Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5
13. I would feel that I had failed as a parent if I learned that my child was gay.*
Strongly Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5
14. If I saw two men holding hands in public, I would feel disgusted.*
Strongly Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5
15. If a member of my sex made an advance toward me, I would be offended.*
Strongly Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5
16. I would feel comfortable if I learned that my daughter’s teacher was a lesbian.
Strongly Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5

17. I would feel uncomfortable if I learned that my spouse or partner was attracted

to members of his or her sex.*

Strongly Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5
18. I would feel at ease talking with a homosexual person at a party.
Strongly Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5
19. I would feel uncomfortable if I learned that my boss was homosexual.*
Strongly Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5

82

20. It would not bother me to walk through a predominantly gay section of town.

Strongly Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5
21. It would disturb me to find out that my doctor was homosexual.*
Strongly Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5
22. I would feel comfortable if I learned that my best friend of my sex was
homosexual.
Strongly Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5
23. If a member of my sex made an advance toward me, I would feel ﬂattered.
Strongly Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5
24. I would feel uncomfortable knowing that my son’s male teacher was
homosexual.*
Strongly Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5
25. I would feel comfortable working closely with a female homosexual.
Strongly Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5

* indicates reverse score

83

Appendix E
Vignettes
As a future service provider of children’s needs, you will come into contact with diverse

individuals of all ages. Please read the following vignette and respond honestly to the
questions that follow.

Heterosexual student (sex unspeciﬁed):
A I6-year-old student has recently told you he/she is dating a person of the opposite sex.

Gay male student:
A I 6-year-old male student has recently told you he is gay

Lesbian female student:
A 1 6-year-old female student has recently told you she is a lesbian.

Bisexual (sex unspeciﬁed) student:
A 16-year-old student has recently told you he/she is bisexual.

84

Appendix F

Anticipated Behaviors of Future Teachers Toward Sexual Minority Youth (ABF TS)

 

1 2 3 4 5
Very Very
Unlikely Likely

Part 1: Please indicate how likely you would be to do the following things as a
teacher, based on the student information presented above.

1. I would show this student the same respect I show other students.

2. I would refer this student to the counselor or school psychologist to talk about
the situation.

_ 3. I would correct and discipline teasing directed toward this student.

_ 4. I would talk with this student about his/her sexual orientation.

_ 5. I would tell other teachers of my information about this student.*

_ 6. I would notify the student’s parents/ guardians about his/her revelation.*
_ 7. I would refer this student for psychological testing.*

_ 8. I would keep this student from physically interacting too closely with peers.*
_ 9. I would encourage other students to be friends with this student.

10. I would tell this student that his/her behavior is a sin.*

11. I would treat this student as I would treat any other child at my school.
12. I would encourage this student to work to overcome his/her problem.*
13. I would encourage the student to choose another way of life.*

14. I would reassure this student that this is a phase that will be outgrown.*

15. I would encourage this student to interact with individuals of diverse sexual
orientations.

16. I would help the student ﬁnd information about sexual orientation if he/she
wished to do so.

85

17. I would get information about referring this student to a mental health care
worker who could help the student to change his/her sexual orientation.*

18. I would encourage this student to speak with a religious ﬁgure (e. g. priest,
rabbi, imam, etc.).*

19. I would encourage this student to join a club or group for youth in similar
situations.

20. I would reassure the student that his/her sexual orientation is normal.

21. I would not discuss the situation with the student, beyond what he/she has told
me.*

22. I would get information about referring this student to a mental health care
worker who could talk to the student about his/her situation.

23. I would let the student know that his/her sexual orientation may change once
he/she gets older.*

Part 2: Please indicate how likely you would be to do the following things as a
teacher, using the above numbered scale.

1. I would discuss homosexuality in a positive way if the subject came up in my
classroom.

2. I would teach students that homosexuality is immoral.*

3. I would encourage students to treat gay, lesbian, and bisexual peers as they
would treat any other peer.

4. I would encourage students to help classmates overcome their homosexuality.*

5. If I knew I had a gay, lesbian, or bisexual student in my class, I would be sure to
include this topic in my curriculum.

6. If the subject came up, I would teach students that gay, lesbian, and bisexual
orientations were unnatural.*

7. I would teach students that having a gay, lesbian, or bisexual orientation is a
sin.*

8. I would teach students that gay, lesbian, and bisexual orientations can be
changed, with help and support.*

86

9. If my students were engaging in name-calling, I would implement plans for

managing name-calling, including homophobic names.

10. I would not discuss homosexuality in the classroom, regardless of the
circumstances.*

11. If a student approached me about sexual orientation concerns, I would ensure
the student received positive information and support about different sexual
orientations (e. g. lesbian, gay, bisexual), if he/she wanted it.

12. I would initiate discussions of homosexuality in the classroom, even if I did not
knowingly have any gay, lesbian, or bisexual students.

13. I would stop a same-sex attracted student from showing physical affection to a
same-sex peer.*

14. I would discipline a student for verbally or physically harassing another student
about his/her race or ethnic identity.

15. I would be sure that my students understood the dangers of non-heterosexual
sexual orientations.*

16. I would refer a student to the counselor or school psychologist if she/he had
questions about sexual orientation.*

17. Even if I had sufﬁcient training, I would still be reluctant to talk about
homosexuality in the classroom.*

18. I would discipline a student for verbally or physically harassing another student
about his/her actual or perceived sexual orientation.

19. Assuming I felt knowledgeable, I would respond positively to a student’s
questions about sexual orientation.

20. I would initiate discussions of race in the classroom, even if I did not have any

students of color.

21. I would teach students that being gay, lesbian, or bisexual is as normal as being

heterosexual.

22. I would modify my curriculum for diversity by including sexual orientation.

23. I would encourage all students to get to know people of diverse sexual

orientations, such as gay, lesbian, or bisexual people.

87

24. I would stop a male and female student from showing physical affection to
each other.*

25. I would teach students the value of diversity in sexual orientation.

26. I would ask a more knowledgeable person (e. g. school counselor, school
psychologist) for information about supporting gay, lesbian, and bisexual

students.

27. If I overheard students using negative terms in a conversation (e. g. fag, dyke,
homo), I would intervene immediately to stop the use of the terms.

* indicates reverse score

88

Appendix G
Knowledge About Homosexuality Questionnaire

Please respond to each of the following statements by circling ‘True’ if you think that it is
true and ‘False’ if you think that it is false. If you do not know the answer, select ‘Don’t
Know’.
1. Homosexuality is a phase which children outgrow.

A. True B. False C. Don’t Know

2. There is a good chance of changing homosexual persons into heterosexual men

and women.

A. True B. False C. Don’t Know
3. Most homosexuals want to be members of the opposite sex.
A. True B. False C. Don’t Know

4. Some church denominations have condemned legal and social discrimination
against homosexuals.
A. True B. False C. Don’t Know
5. Sexual orientation is established at an early age.
A. True B. False C. Don’t Know
6. According to the American Psychological Association, homosexuality is an
illness.
A. True B. False C. Don’t Know
7. Homosexual males are more likely to seduce young boys than heterosexual males

are to seduce young girls.

A. True B. False C. Don’t Know
8. Gay men are more likely to be victims of violent crime than the general public.
A. True B. False C. Don’t Know

9. A majority of homosexuals were seduced in adolescence by a person of the same
sex, usually several years older.
A. True B. False C. Don’t Know
10. A person becomes homosexual (develops a homosexual orientation) because
he/she chooses to do so.

A. True B. False C. Don’t Know

89

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

Homosexual activity occurs in many animals

A. True B. False C. Don’t Know
Kinsey and many other researchers consider sexual behavior as a continuum
from exclusively homosexual to exclusively heterosexual.

A. True B. False C. Don’t Know
A homosexual person’s gender identity does not agree with his/her biological sex.

A. True B. False C. Don’t Know
Historically, almost every culture has evidenced widespread intolerance toward
homosexuals, viewing them as “sick” or as “sinners”

A. True B. False C. Don’t Know
Heterosexual men tend to express more hostile attitudes toward homosexuals
than do heterosexual women.

A. True B. False C. Don’t Know
“Coming out” is a term that homosexuals use for publicly acknowledging their
homosexuality.

A. True B. False C. Don’t Know
Bisexuality can be characterized as sexual behaviors and/or responses to both
males and females.

A. True B. False C. Don’t Know

Recent research has shown that homosexuality may be linked to chromosomal
differences
A. True B. False C. Don’t Know

90

Appendix H

Participant Information

 

 

 

5.225
M Male Female Trans
Ethnicity: 01 African American/Black
02 Asian/Asian American/Paciﬁc Islander
03 Caucasian/European American/White; not Hispanic
04 Latino/a; Hispanic; Puerto Rican
05 Native American/American Indian/Alaskan Native
06 Other (please specify):
Relationship Status: 01 Single/N ever Married
(check one) 02 Married
03 Divorced
04 Widowed
05 Committed Relationship/Signiﬁcant Other
Certiﬁcation Level Sought: 01 Early Childhood
(check one) 02 Elementary Education
03 Secondary Education
04 K-12
05 Other:
Teaching Area: 01 General Education
(e.g. math, science, elementary, social studies, history,
English, etc.)
02 Special Education (e.g. LD, CI, El, BD, etc.)
03 Physical Education (e.g. coach, P.E., etc.)
04 Vocational Education (e.g. Agricultural Ed.,
Technical Training, etc.)
05 Administration (e.g. principal, superintendent, etc.)
06 Support Personnel (e.g. counselor, psychologist,
speech pathology, etc.)
Classification: 01 Freshman 02 Sophomore
03 Junior 04 Senior
05 Fifth Year Intern 06 Graduate Student
07 Lifelong Ed 08 Other:

 

91

Sexual Orientation:
Select the number that best represents your sexual, physical, and emotional
attractions, fantasies, preferences, and behaviors. Are they for...

 

 

Other sex Other sex Other sex Both Same sex Same sex Same sex
only mostly somewhat sexes somewhat mostly only
more equally more
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 

Please write number here:

Identity: (please choose the one category that best represents how you identify your
sexual orientation)

01 Bisexual

02 Gay/Lesbian

03 Heterosexual

04 Unsure/Questioning
05 Other (please specify):

 

 

Religious Attendance:
About how often do you attend religious services/activities (i.e. church, synagogue,

etc.)?

1 Never

2 Once a month

3 Several times a month

4 Once a week or more than once a week

I am friends with someone who is “gay male”, “lesbian”, or “bisexual”.
1 Yes
1a. If yes, number of friends who identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual:

N

No

I have a family member who is “gay male”, “lesbian”, or “bisexual”.
1 Yes
1a. If yes, number of family members who identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual: _

2 No

92

 

I have had a college course dealing exclusively with diversity and multicultural
issues, including sexual orientation.

 

1 Yes
1a. If yes, what course have you taken (please specify):
2 No

I believe that having an understanding of homosexuality is important in my
professional development since I may be working directly with people who are
homosexual.

I Yes
2 No

State (if US.) or Country of Legal Residence:

 

Name of University currently attending:

 

93

References

Anhalt, K., & Morris, T. L. (1998). Developmental and adjustment issues of gay, lesbian,
and bisexual adolescents: A review of the empirical literature. Clinical Child and
Family Psychology Review, I, 215-230.

Athanases, S. Z., & Larrabee, T. G. (2003). Toward a consistent stance in teaching for
equity: Learning to advocate for lesbian- and gay-identiﬁed youth. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 19, 23 7-26 1.

Banks, J .A. (2001). Cultural diversity and education: Foundations, curriculum, and
teaching. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Bliss, G. K., & Harris, M. B. (1999). Teachers’ view of students with gay or lesbian
parents. Journal of Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Identity, 4, 149-171.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development.
American Psychologist, 32, 513-531.

Casper, V., & Schultz, SB. (1999). Gay parents/straight schools: Building
communication and trust. New York: Teachers College Press.

Cho, 6., & DeCastro-Ambrosetti, D. (2005). Is ignorance bliss? Pre-service teachers’
attitudes toward multicultural education. High School Journal, 89(2), 24-28.

Choate, K.T. (2003). The underlying structure of attitudes towards gay and lesbian youth
in pre-service teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Oklahoma State
University, Stillwater.

Cicchetti, D., & Toth, S. L. (1998). The development of depression in children and
adolescents. American Psychologist, 53, 221-242.

Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal
of Sociology, 94, 895—8120.

D’Augelli, A. R. (1998). Developmental implications of victimization of lesbian, gay,
and bisexual youths. In G. M. Herek (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on lesbian and
gay issues. Vol. 4: Stigma and sexual orientation: Understanding prejudice against
lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals (pp. 187-210). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

D’Augelli, A. R., & Dark, L. J. (1995). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths. In L. D. Eron,
J. Gentry, & P. Schlegel (Eds), Reason to hope: A psychosocial perspective on
violence and youth (pp. 177-196). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.

94

D’Augelli, A. R., & Grossman, A. H. (2001). Disclosure of sexual orientation,
victimization, and mental health among lesbian, gay, and bisexual older adults.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16, 1008-1027.

D’Augelli, A. R., Pilkington, N. W., & Hershberger, S. L. (2002). Incidence and mental
health impact of sexual orientation victimization of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths
in high school. School Psychology Quarterly, 1 7, 148-167.

Elia, J. P. (1993). Homophobia in the high school: A problem in need of a resolution. The
High School Journal, 77, 177-185.

Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Fontaine, J. H. (1998). Evidencing a need: School counselor’s experience with gay and
lesbian students. Professional School Counseling, 1, 8-14.

Franklin, K. (2000). Antigay behaviors among young adults. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 15, 339-362.

Friedman, R. C., & Downey, J. I. (1994). Homosexuality. The New England Journal of
Medicine, 331, 923-930.

Gibson, P. (1989). Gay male and lesbian youth suicide. In M.R. Feinleib (Ed.), Report of
the Secretary's Task Force on Youth Suicide, Volume 3: Preventions and
Interventions in Youth Suicide (pp. 110-142). (DHHS Publication No. ADM 89-
1623). Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Ofﬁce.

Grossman, A. H., & Kemer, M. S. (1998). Self-esteem and supportiveness as predictors
of emotional distress in gay male and lesbian youth. Journal of Homosexuality, 35(2),
25-38.

Harris, MB. (1998). Knowledge about homosexuality questionnaire. In C. M. Davis, W.
L. Yarber, R. Bauserrnan, G. Schreer, & S. L. Davis (Eds), Handbook of sexuality-
related measures (pp. 383-3 84). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Haslam, N., & Levy, S. R. (2006). Essentialist beliefs about homosexuality: Structure and
implications for prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 471 -485.

Henning-Stout, M., James, S., & Macintosh, S. (2000). Reducing harassment of lesbian,
gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning youth in schools. School Psychology
Review, 29, 180-191

Herek, G. M. (1984). Beyond “homophobia”: A social psychological perspective on
attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. Journal of Homosexuality, 10 (1-2), 1-21.

95

Herek, G. M. (1988). Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: Correlates
and gender differences. The Journal of Sex Research, 25 , 451-477.

Herek, G. M. (1990). Homophobia. In W. R. Dynes (Ed.), Encyclopedia of homosexuality
(pp. 552-555). New York: Garland.

Herek, G. M. (1994). Assessing attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: A review of
empirical research with the ATLG scale. In B. Greene & G. M. Herek (Eds), Lesbian
and gay psychology: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 206-228).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Herek, G. M. (1995). Psychological heterosexism in the United States. In A. R. D’Augelli
& C. J. Patterson (Eds), Lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities over the lifespan:
Psychological perspectives (pp. 321-346). New York: Oxford University Press.

Herek, G. M. (1998). Attitudes toward lesbians and gay men scale. In C. M. Davis, W. L.
Yarber, R. Bauserrnan, G. Schreer, & S. L. Davis (Eds), Handbook of sexuality-
related measures (pp. 392-394). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Herek, G. M. (2002a). Gender gaps in public opinion about lesbians and gay men. Public
Opinion Quarterly, 66, 40-66.

Herek, G. M. (2002b). Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward bisexual men and women in the
United States. Journal of Sex Research, 39, 264-274.

Herek, G. M., & Capitanio, J. P. (1996). “Some of my best friends”: Intergroup contact,
concealable stigma, and heterosexuals’ attitudes toward gay men and lesbians.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 412-424.

Hershberger, S.L., Pilkington, A.R., & D’Augelli, AR. (1997). Predictors of suicide
attempts among gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12,
477-497.

Hetrick, E. S., & Martin, A. D. (1987). Developmental issues and their resolution for gay
and lesbian adolescents. Journal of Homosexuality, 14, 25-43.

Hinrichs, D. W., & Rosenberg, P. J. (2002). Attitudes toward gay, lesbian, and bisexual

persons among heterosexual liberal arts college students. Journal of Homosexuality,
43, 61-84.

Holmes, S. E., & Cahill, S. (2005). School experiences of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and
transgender youth. In J .T. Sears (Ed.), Gay, lesbian, and transgender issues in
education: Programs, policies, and practices (pp. 63-76). Binghamton, NY: Haworth
Press.

96

Hudson, W. W., & Ricketts, W. A. (1980). A strategy for the measurement of
homophobia. Journal of Homosexuality, 3(2), 107-121.

Human Rights Watch. (2001). Hatred in the hallways. New York: Human Rights Watch.

Jenny, C., Rustler, T. A., & Power, K. L. (1994). Are children at risk for sexual abuse by
homosexuals? Pediatrics, 94, 41-44.

Kissen, R. M. (1991). Listening to gay and lesbian teenagers. Seattle, WA: Annual
Meeting of the National Council of Teachers of English. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED344220).

Koch, C. A. (2000). Attitudes, knowledge, and anticipated behaviors of preservice
teachers toward individuals with different sexual orientations. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 61 (05), 1797A. (UMI No. 9973083)

Kosciw, J. G. (2004). The 2003 national school climate survey: The school-related

experiences of our nation ’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth. New York:
GLSEN.

McFarland, W. P. (1998). Gay, lesbian, and bisexual student suicide. Professional School
Counseling, 1(3), 26-29.

Mohr, J. J ., & Rochlen, A. B. (1999). Measuring attitudes regarding bisexuality in
lesbian, gay male, and heterosexual populations. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
46, 353-369.

Mudrey-Camino, R. (2002). The educational isolation of sexual minority youth.
Columbus, OH: Annual Meeting of the Mid-Westem Educational Research
Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED477540)

Nabozny v. Podlesny. (W. D. Wisconsin, 1995). (7th Cir., 1996). [On-line]. Available:
http://www.kentlaw.edu/7circuit/1996/ju1/95-3634.htm1.

National Association of School Psychologists (NASP). (2004, July 18). Position
Statement on Sexual Minority Youth. Retrieved November 10, 2005 from
http://www.nasponline.org/information/pospaper_glb.html.

Pagtolun-An, I. G., & Clair, J. M. (1986). An experimental study of attitudes toward
homosexuals. Deviant Behavior, 7, 121-135.

Patterson, C. J. (1995). Sexual orientation and human development: An overview.
Developmental Psychology, 31, 3-11.

97

Poteat, V. P., & Espelage, D. L. (2007). Predicting psychosocial consequences of
homophobic victimization in middle school students. Journal of Early Adolescence,
27, 175-191.

Price, J. H., & Telljoharm, S. K. (1991). School counselors’ perceptions of adolescent
homosexuals. Journal of School Health, 61, 433-438.

Proctor, C.D., & Groze, V.K. (1994). Risk factors for suicide among gay, lesbian, and
bisexual youths. Social Work, 39, 504-513.

Reis, B., & Saewyc, E. (1999). Eighty-three thousand youth: Selected ﬁndings of eight
population-based studies as they pertain to anti-gay harassment and the safety and
well-being of sexual minority students. Seattle, WA: Safe Schools Coalition.

Remafedi, G., Farrow, J. A., & Deisher, R. W. (1991). Risk factors for attempted suicide
in gay and bisexual youth. Pediatrics, 87, 869-875.

Remafedi, G., Resnick, M., Blum, R., & Harris, L. (1992). Demography of sexual
orientation in adolescents. Pediatrics, 89, 714-721.

Roderick, T., McCammon, S. L., Long, T. E., & Allred, L. J. (1998). Behavioral aspects
of homonegativity. Journal of Homosexuality, 36, 79-88.

Rosenbloom, S.R., & Way, N. (2004). Experiences of discrimination among African
American, Asian American, and Latino adolescents in an urban high school. Youth
and Society, 35, 420-451.

Russell, S. T. (2003). Sexual minority youth an suicide risk. American Behavioral
Scientist, 46, 1241-1257.

Russell, S. T., & Joyner, K. (2001). Adolescent sexual orientation and suicide risk:
Evidence from a national study. American Journal of Public Health, 91, 1276-1281 .

Russell, S. T., Seif, H. & Truong, N. L. (2001). School outcomes of sexual minority
youth in the United States: evidence from a national study. Journal of Adolescence,
24, 111—127.

Salvia, J ., Clark, G. M., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (1973). Teacher retention of stereotypes of
exceptionality. Exceptional Children, 39, 651-652.

Saulnier, C. F. (1998). Prevalence of suicide attempts and suicidal ideation among lesbian
and gay youth. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 8(3), 51-68.

Schmitt, N. (1994). Method bias: The importance of theory and measurement. Journal of
Organizational Behavior. 15, 393-398.

98

Schultz, E.L., Neyhart, K., & Reck, U.M. (1996). Swimming against the tide: A study of
prospective teachers’ attitudes regarding cultural diversity and urban teaching.
Western Journal of Black Studies, 20, 1-7.

Sears, J. T. (1991). Educators, homosexuality, and homosexual students: Are personal
feelings related to professional beliefs? Journal of Homosexuality, 22(3-4), 29-79.

Sleeter, C. (2001). Preparing teachers for culturally diverse schools: Research and the
overwhelming presence of whiteness. Journal of Teacher Education, 52, 94-106.

Snively, C. A., Kreuger, L., Stretch, J. J ., Watt, J. W., & Chadha, J. (2004).
Understanding homophobia: Preparing for practice realities in urban and rural
settings. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 1 7(1), 59-81.

Spector, PE. (1994). Using self-report questionnaires in organizational behavior
research: A comment on the use of a controversial method. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 15(5), 385-392.

Tharinger, D., & Wells, G. (2000). An attachment perspective on the developmental
challenges of gay and lesbian adolescents: The need for continuity of caregiving from
family and schools. School Psychology Review, 29, 158-172.

Thurlow, C. (2001). Naming the “outsider within”: Homophobic pejoratives and the
verbal abuse of lesbian, gay and bisexual high school pupils. Journal of Adolescence,
24, 25-38.

Uribe, V., & Harbeck, K. M. (1991). Addressing the needs of lesbian, gay, and bisexual

youth: The origins of Project 10 and school-based intervention. Journal of
Homosexuality, 22, 9—28.

Walters, A. S., & Hayes, D. M. (1998). Homophobia within schools: Challenging the
culturally sanctioned dismissal of gay students and colleagues. Journal of
Homosexuality, 35(2), 1-21.

Woog, D. (1995). School '3 out: The impact of gay and lesbian issues on America ’s
schools. Boston: Alyson.

Yang, A. S. (1997). Trends: Attitudes toward homosexuality. Public Opinion Quarterly,
61 , 477-507.

99

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIOIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII