ELSEVIER

Have Attitudes Toward Homosexuals

Been Shaped by Natura1 Selection?
Gordon G. Gallup Jr.
State University of New York at Albany

In a series of four surveys administered either to college students or adults, reactions to-
ward homosexuals were found to vary as a function of (1) the homosexual’s likelihood
of having contact with children and (2) the reproductive status (either real or imagined)
of the respondent. These results are consistent with the hypothesis advanced by Gallup
and Suarez (1983) that because parents have a reproductive interest in the sexual orientation
of their offspring, reactions to homosexuals might be expected to vary as a function of
their likeiihood of having contact with children. The streng form of this hypothesis holds
that the expression of homophobia should be context specific and that most people
(including homosexuals) should exhibit homophobic reactions under certain conditions.
KEY WORDS: Homophobia, Homosexuality, Sexual orientation, Parental investment.

A
lthough homosexuality has been the subject of much attention and
interest, from an evolutionary perspective it remains poorly under-
stood. The purpose of this paper is neither to condemn nor to con-
done homosexuality but to examine one particular manifestation of
this phenomenon. An interesting feature of the relationship that exists between
heterosexuals and homosexuals is a phenomenon called homophobia (Weinberg
1972), which involves negative attitudes held by heterosexuals that can result in
discrimination against homosexuals.’ It is curieus that while heterosexuals may
harbor negative attitudes toward homosexuals, the reverse (with the notable ex-

‘Although it is used in this paper for convenience, the term homophobiu is a misnomer. A phobia
is an intense, irrational fear that can be debilitating (e.g., someone who is phobic for dogs might
be afraid to leave the house because of the prospect of encountering a dog and therefore would
not be able to hold down a job or participate in many other normal activities). Rather than being
characterized by overt signs of fear, homophobia typically involves negative attitudes and/or reac-
tions toward homosexuals, which can range from being mildly uncomfortable in the presence of
a homosexual to showing outright contempt and hostility toward homosexuals.

Received March 10, 1993; revised May 5, 1993; accepted October 13, 1994.
Address reprint requests and correspondence to: Cordon G. Gallup Jr., Department of Psychology,
State University of New York at Albany, Albany, NY 12222.

Ethology and Sociobiology 16: 53-70 (1995)

o Elsevier Science Inc., 1995 0162-3095/95/%9.50
655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010 SSDI 0162-3095(94)00028-6
54 G. G. Gattup Jr.

ception of the disdain some lesbians have for males) is not true. For instance,
ahhough homosexual males can continue to relate positively toward male and
female heterosexuals, the converse does not always apply. Even most lesbians
continue to relate comfortably to their heterosexual female counterparts. If
homosexuals are not “heterophobic,” why should heterosexuals be homophobic?
The prevailing view among most social scientists is that discrimination against
homosexuals is a by-product of cultural attitudes that are passed down from one
generation to the next. The present paper explores some implications of an alter-
native account of homophobia based on evolutionary theory. Daly and Wilson
(1983) contend that because parents do nat benefit from caring for children who
are unlikely to reproduce, parents could be expected to terminate or reduce pa-
rental investment as a result of doubtful parenthood or poor offspring quality.
As an extension of this same line of reasoning, Gallup and Suarez (1983) theo-
rized that parents could also be expected to have an interest in the sexual orienta-
tion of their offspring. That is, if offspring who develop homosexual lifestyles
are less likely to reproduce, then parental fitness would be reduced accordingly.
Moreover, much as the prospect of doubtful parenthood has operated to pro-
duce a variety of anticuckoldry tactics, Gallup and Suarez theorized that
homophobia may have evolved as a means of minimizing the likelihood that off-
spring would become homosexual. Specifically, Gallup and Suarez predicted that
so-called homophobic reactions should be proportional to the extent to which
the homosexual was in a position that might provide extended contact with chil-
dren, and/or would allow the person to influence a child’s emerging sexuality.
Although it has not previously been subject to an explicit test, there are scat-
tered data that are consistent with this hypothesis. For example, when asked about
their negative feelings toward homosexuals, many people indicate that they be-
lieve homosexuals wil1 attempt to seduce young children (MacDonald 1976; Mo-
rin and Garfinkle 1978). Consistent with this analysis, homosexual teachers are
more likely to be discriminated against than homosexuals in many other profes-
sions (Dressler 1979; Larsen, Reed, and Hoffman 1980; Levitt and Klassen 1974).
Levitt and Klassen found that while approximately 75010of the persons polled
would object to homosexual teachers, ministers, and doctors, far fewer would
bar homosexuals from becoming beauticians, artists, musicians, or florists. It
can be hypothesized that the reason there is so much public concern focused
on homosexual teachers is that teachers not only have extended contact with chil-
dren, but they are commonly perceived to be in a position to exert an especially
profound and lasting influence on children.
The present paper describes the results of four surveys that were designed
and administered to explore the hypothesis that reactions to homosexuals may
vary as a function of their contact with children and their opportunity (be it
real or imagined) to influence a child’s developing sexuality.

SURVEY 1
The first survey was designed to measure reactions of college students to encoun-
ters with hypothetical homosexuals in different occupations that were chosen
 Attitudes Toward Homosexuals 55

to vary in terms of the extent to which they would entail routine contact with
children.

METHOD

Subjects
One hundred sixty-seven undergraduate students enrolled in introductory psy-
chology courses at the State University of New York at Albany served as sub-
jects. Students who identified themselves as homosexual (N= 3) were excluded
from the sample. There were 86 females and 81 males in the sample, and the mean
age was 18.9 years. Students were assured of complete anonymity and opted to
voluntarily participate in this survey as a means of partially fulfilling a course
requirement.

Materials
Nine occupational categories were chosen as stimulus items. Three were selected
on the basis of affording a high degree of contact with children (teacher, school
bus driver, medical doctor). The remaining six occupations were chosen to repre-
sent the kinds of activities that would provide moderate to low contact with chil-
dren (lawyer, construction worker, bank teller, airline pilot, automobile mechanic,
sales clerk). An effort was made to include occupations of different socioeco-
nomic status within the set to minimize any effect this might have on subsequent
ratings. It is also worth noting that unlike the Levitt and Klassen (1974) study,
which included occupations that are often stereotyped as being heavily popu-
lated by homosexuals (e.g., artists), the occupational categories in the present
study are relatively neutral with regard to sexual orientation.
The nine occupations were arranged in a paired comparison (al1 possible
pairs) format. The resulting 36 pairs were presented randomly to subjects under
three different instructional sets. In each condition the subjects were told to choose
a person from one of the two occupational categories represented in each pair.
In the control instructional set, subjects were told to choose the person in each
pair they would fee1 the most uncomfortable to interact with. In another set,
subjects were told to choose the person in each pair they would fee1 the most
uncomfortable to interact with if they knew the person was a homosexual. In
the remaining set, subjects were simply asked to choose the occupation in each
pair that would afford the greatest opportunity of having contact with children.
The control condition was included to assess the presence of any preexisting
item bias. Subjects’ ratings of items in this condition provided a baseline of rela-
tive discomfort produced by being in the presence of persons of different occu-
pations.
56 G. G. Gdlup Jr.

Procedure
Subjects individually completed the written questionnaire in group settings. They
were told to read the instructions at the beginning of each of the three sections
of the questionnaire and to always choose one item from each pair within each
instructional set, even if they had to guess. The order of instructional set presen-
tation was counterbalanced across subjects.

RESULTS
Questionnaires were scored by summing the number of times each item was cho-
sen over another across al1 pairs within an instructional set, to derive a rank score
for each occupation. These nine rank scores were summed across al1 subjects,
and the resulting totals were transformed using the variante-stable procedure de-
veloped by Dunn-Rankin (1983; Dunn-Rankin and King, 1%9). Scale values for
each item on each of the three scales were computed from the rank total scores
as follows:
Scale value = (rank total score x lOO)/rank maximum

where rank maximum is the maximum value possible and is defined by N(K- l),
and rank total score is the sum of the values assigned to a given item across sub-
jects. N is the number of subjects, and K is the number of items being scaled.
The resulting scale values are depicted in Figure 1. In the control condition, while
none of the differences were pronounced, ratings produced two apparent sub-
categories, with construction workers, doctors, lawyers, and auto mechanics gener-
ating slightly more discomfort than the remaining occupational categories. Un-
der the other two instructional sets, however, the differences among occupations
were much more pronounced. In the homosexual set, doctors and teachers were
rated as generating more discomfort, while teachers were seen as being far more
likely to have contact with children than any of the rest. Airline pilots anchored
both of these dimensions (i.e., they were rated as being the least likely to have
contact with children, and the prospect of being in the presence of a homosexual
pilot generated the least amount of discomfort).
As a result of nonparametric multiple comparisons (Wilcoxon and Wilcox
1964) among items within a scale, it was determined that scale values had to dif-
fer by ll.6 points or more in order to be statistically significant (P < .05). To
quantify further the subjects’ ability to distinguish among items within a scale,
a scalability index (SI) was computed as the ratio of the number of significantly
different pairs to the total number of possible pairs. These values are also shown
in Figure 1.
Wilcoxon matched-pairs, signed-ranks comparisons indicated no effect of
order of instructional set presentation on the scale values generated. Likewise,
there were no consistent differences between the scale values generated by males
and females. Table 1 shows the Spearman rank-order correlation coefficients be-
tween the three scales. The degree of homosexual discomfort generated by the
 Attitudes Toward Homosexuals 57

DIS1:OMI FORT DIS rAC T w/

(ClmTl 2OLj W2i4 ILCIREN
100. 1y l-

.teacher

-rrchoolbus driver
82 -medical doctor

.medicel doctor

73 - teacher

61 -ccnstruction vorker 61 -whool bus drivsc

58 -medical doctor -aales clerk
56 -1avyer
55 -auto mechanic

49 -amstruction vorker

46 -school bus driver 46 -.lavyer

44 -air111 pltlsales elk
42 -bnk tllr/reacher 42 -.sales clerk
40 -.a"to mechanic

-bank teller
31 -.benk teller
-1avyer
-auto mch/cnatr wkr
25 -.airlinc pilot -airlina pilot

-o-
I SI- .42 -O-. SI- .69 - SI. .69

Critical distance . 11.6

FIGURE 1. Obtained scale values (see text) for different occupations as a function of
three instructional sets.

different occupational categories was significantly correlated with independent

estimates of the likelihood that persons in these categories would come into con-
tact with children.

SURVEY 2
Given the correlation between the ordering of occupations on the contact-with-
children dimension and independent ratings of homosexual discomfort in the

Table 1. Correlatioos Between Discomfort Ratings of Occupations Across

Tbree Instructioaal Sets

Control Homosexual
Homosexual .28
Contact with children - .38 .73*
*p < .05
58 G. G. Gallup Jr.

preceding study, there was one apparent exception to the predicted relationship
between the way occupational categories were ranked on these two scales. As
shown in Figure 1, medical doctors generated the greatest degree of discomfort
under the homosexual instructional set, while in the contact with children in-
structional set doctors were rated as being less likely than either teachers or school
bus drivers to have contact with children.
There are at least two ways to interpret the greater discomfort expressed by
respondents concerning homosexual doctors. One possibility is that medical doc-
tors have privileged access to children’s genitals in the context of conducting rou-
tine physical examinations, and therefore might be perceived as posing a more
serious threat to a child’s developing sexuality. An interesting alternative interpre-
tation concerns the prospect of contracting AIDS from a homosexual doctor
through nonsexual modes of transmission (e.g., blood, hypodermic needles). In
an attempt to separate out and access these two interpretations, a second survey
was conducted in which another sample of college students was asked to give
discomfort ratings about medical doctors specializing in different aspects of
medicine.

METHOD

Subjects
One hundred eighty-three subjects participated in the second survey. Subjects
were undergraduate students at the State University of New York at Albany who
were enrolled in introductory psychology courses. The sample consisted of 108
females and 75 males with a mean age of 18.1 years. Subjects voluntarily partici-
pated in this survey to fulfill a course requirement and were assured complete
anonymity.

Materials and Procedure

Six different categories of medical doctor were selected as scale items (see Figure
2). Doctors with different specialties were chosen on the basis of their probable
contact with children (e.g., pediatrician) or the extent to which they would be
involved in invasive procedures (e.g., surgery).
Using the paired-comparison procedure (al1 possible pairs) and written ques-
tionnaires administered in group settings, the resulting 15 pairs of doctors were
presented to subjects under the same three instructional sets used in Survey 1.

RESULTS
Scale values for each of the six items were computed from the rank total scores
within each of the three instructional sets using the method described in the first
survey, and those data are presented in Figure 2. Not surprisingly, under the con-
trol instructional set, doctors practicing invasive procedures (e.g., brain surgeon,
 Attitudes Toward Homosexuals 59

DIS FORT UIS3 )RT CON

(C ROL) (HOMO! JAL) CH
-.

9 -padiatrlcisn

6 -child psychlatrist

61 pedistrician

6 -**n practitioner
61 genera1 practitioner

5 :hlld psychiatrlst

child Dsyciiatrist

~erontologist
:ardíolqist

3 kain aurgson
3 -cardiologist
pediatrician

genera1 practitioner

2 -brsin surgcon

-gsrontolopfat

SI- .73 SI- .s3 - SI. 1.00

Critical dimtance - ll.2

FIGURJX 2. Obtained scale values (see text) for different medical doctors as a function
of three instructional sets.

cardiologist) generated the highest discomfort ratings. Also as expected, pedi-

atricians and child psychiatrists were rated as being far more likely to have con-
tact with children than cardiologists and brain surgeons. As was true in the first
survey, contact with children was significantly correlated with the degree of dis-
comfort expressed under the homosexual instructional set (see Table 2). Con-
trary to the alternative hypothesis that homosexual doctors generate greater dis-
comfort because of the threat of AIDS transmission, doctors practicing invasive
procedures generated far less discomfort under the homosexual instructional set
than those who were more likely to have contact with children (see Figure 2).

Tnble 2. Correlations Between Discomfort Ratings of Different Doetors

Across Three Instructiowl Sets

Control Homosexual
Homosexual - .94**
Contact with children -.66 .71*
??
?? ?
.05, ??
+p < .Ol
60 G. G. Gallup Jr.

SURVEY 3
In light of the greater concern expressed by subjects in the previous two surveys
about homosexuals who might have contact with children, the third survey fo-
cused on the effect of parenthood on attitudes toward homosexuals. This was
accomplished by having subjects respond along a dimension of concern to eight
multiple-choice items that were embedded in a larger survey about dating and
attitudes toward members of the opposite sex. Each item asked the respondent
to imagine that he/she had either a son or a daughter, who was either 8 or 21
years of age and who had spent the night at a friend’s house. Each question fur-
ther stipulated that either the friend’s father or the friend’s mother was a homo-
sexual.
If subjects respond to homosexuals because of their perceived potential to
influence a child’s emerging sexuality, then one would expect to find a main ef-
fect for age of the respondent’s hypothetical offspring. That is, respondents should
express more concern when their fictitious 8 year old stayed overnight at a friend’s
house in the presence of a homosexual parent than would be the case for their
21 year old offspring. In other words, young children who have yet to develop
a clear sexual orientation should be perceived as both more impressionable and
more vulnerable than their 21-year-old counterparts.
One would also predict an interaction between the sex of the respondent%
offspring and the sex of the friend’s homosexual parent. A homosexual adult
of the same sex as the respondent’s child ought to be perceived as posing a greater
potential to influence the child’s developing sexuality (through coercion, seduc-
tion, and/or modeling) than an opposite-sex homosexual adult. Moreover, be-
cause males (regardless of their specific sexual orientation) are generally seen
as being more promiscuous and more likely to attempt seduction than females,
one would expect respondents to express greater concern about the situation in
which an eight-year-old son was going to stay overnight at a friend’s house and
the friend’s father was a homosexual, than for the situation in which an eight-
year-old daughter was exposed to the friend’s homosexual mother. As shown
by the results of the following survey, al1 of these predictions were confirmed.

METHOD
One hundred twenty-nine undergraduate students (60 females and 69 males) en-
rolled in introductory psychology courses at the State University of New York
at Albany served as subjects. Students who identified themselves as homosexual
were excluded from the sample, as were those who labeled themselves heterosex-
ual but reported homosexual fantasies or had either participated in or consid-
ered participating in homosexual activities (N = 16).
A factorial combination of three repeated variables (see lable 3) were
presented to subjects in the context of a larger written questionnaire on dating
behavior and dating satisfaction that also contained questions about the respon-
dent’s sexuality and attitudes toward homosexuality. On the last page of the ques-
 Attitudes Toward Homosexuals 61

Tnble 3. Degree of Concern (1 = not upset, 4 = very upset) as a Function of the Age
and Sex of the Respondents’ Imaginary Offspring and the Sex of the
Friend’s Homosexual Parent (sec text)
Friend’s homosexual parent
Sex of offspring Age Mother Father
Daughter 8 *2.8/2.4 2.w2.2
21 2.1/1.9 2.0/1.7

Son 8 2.3/2.2 3.3/2.7

21 1.611.6 2.3/2.2
*Mean ratings for male/female respondents

tionnaire, subjects responded to a cluster of eight items in which they were asked
to imagine themselves as the parent of either a son or a daughter who was either
8 or 21 years of age and who had spent the night at a friend’s house. They were
told to indicate, using a four-point scale, how upset they would be (1 = not up-
set, 2 = slightly upset, 3 = moderately upset, 4 = very upset) to learn that either
the friend’s father or the friend’s mother was a homosexual.
Subjects completed the questionnaire in large groups, as part of a course
requirement, and were encouraged to give an immediate response to each ques-
tion indicating their initial reaction. Participation was strictly voluntary, and,
prior to filling out the survey, subjects were assured of complete anonymity.

RESULTS

A summary of the results is provided in Table 3, which gives the mean score on
the four-point scale of concern by males and females in response to each of the
eight items. Males tended to evidente greater concern than females across al1
conditions, except the one in which subjects were asked to imagine that their
21-year-old son stayed overnight at a friend’s house in the presence of his homo-
sexual mother. However, a 2x2~2~2 analysis of variante (sex of the subject,
by sex of the offspring, by age of the offspring, by sex of the friend’s homosex-
ual parent) revealed no statistically significant effect of sex of the respondent
on ratings of concern.
As predicted, there was a statistically significant main effect of age of the
offspring F(1, 127) = 80.70, p < .OOl, with subjects showing more concern for
their hypothetical eight year olds than for older offspring. Also as predicted,
there was a statistically significant interaction between the sex of the respondent’s
hypothetical offspring and the sex of the friend’s homosexual parent, F(1,127) =
69.75, p > .OOl,with same-sex pairings producing greater concern than opposite-
sex cases (see Table 3). There was a significant main effect of the sex of the friend’s
homosexual parent, F(1, 127) = 36.25, p < .OOl,with the homosexual father elicit-
ing greater estimates of concern than the homosexual mother scenario. Likewise
subjects evidenced greater concern for the instance in which their imaginary eight-
year-old son had been exposed to the friend’s homosexual father than was the
case where their imaginary eight-year-old daughter stayed with the friend’s ho-
62 G. G. Gallup Jr.

mosexual mother, t(128) = 5.95, p < .Ol. Finaily, the condition that generated
the least concern was the one depicting an older son in the presence of the friend’s
homosexual mother. In fact, the prospect of an older daughter staying overnight
at a friend’s house in the presence of an adult homosexual male generated signif-
icantly more concern than for the older son in the presence of the friend’s homo-
sexual mother, t(128) = 3.44, p < .Ol.

SURVEY 4
In the final survey of this series an attempt was made to (1) look at homophobic
reactions as a function of the real (as opposed to imagined) reproductive status
of the respondent and (2) to determine if the resuhs obtained from the previous
surveys on college students would generalize to a more heterogeneous popula-
tion of adults. In other words, given the results of the third survey obtained using
a hypothetical parent set, the question arises whether actual parenting would
prime and/or otherwise accentuate the kinds of concerns expressed by nonpar-
ents under imaginary pamnthood conditions. This question was addressed through
a battery of detailed questionnaires that were mailed to a random sample of adults
living in the community who had been contacted by phone and agreed to partici-
pate in a survey of attitudes concerning homosexuality.

METHOD
Approximately 800 people were chosen randomly from the greater Albany (New
York) area telephone directory and asked by phone to participate in a study about
attitudes toward homosexuals. Three hundred forty-two of those who were con-
tacted agreed to complete a set of written anonymous questionnaires. Of the sur-
veys that were mailed out, 215 were returned, and of those, 182 contained com-
plete and usable responses.
At the beginning of the questionnaire, respondents were instructed to pro-
vide demographic information concerning their age, sex, religiosity, education,
and number of homosexual friends. Respondents ranged from 19 to 78 years
of age, with a mean of 39.2 years. One hundred thirteen were female and 69 were
male Education was measured by the number of years of schooi completed (3-6,
7-9,10-12,13-15,16-18,19-21, or more than 21). Years of education ranged from
nine to more than 21, with a mode of 13-15 years. The sample contained 52 child-
less individuals, 35 with one child, 45 with two, 25 with three., 15 with four, and
10 with five children. Forty-seven respondents were single, 118 were married, and
17 reported being divorced at the time the questionnaire was completed. Respon-
dents indicated the strength of their religious convictions using a three-point scale
(not very religious, average, or strongly religious), and they were also asked to
indicate the number of people they knew who were homosexual. One hundred
seventeen respondents reported not knowing any homosexuals, while 65 indi-
cated that they knew one or more.
 Attitudes Toward Homosexuals 63

Table 4. Homosexual Reproductive Tbreat Scale

1. 1 would fee1 uncomfortable if 1 learned that my neighbor was homosexual.
2. 1 would fee1 disappointed if 1 learned that my child was homosexual.
3. 1 would fee1 that I had failed as a parent if 1 learned that my child was homosexual.
4. 1 would fee1 uncomfortable if 1 learned that my daughter’s teacher was a lesbian.
5. 1 would fee1 uncomfortable if 1 leaned that my son’s male teacher was homosexual.
6. 1 would be afraid for my child to have a homosexual teacher.
7. 1 would be afraid for my child to have a homosexual friend.

(Response scale: 1 = strongly agree, 2 = agree, 3 = neither agree or disagree, 4 = disagree, 5 = strongly
disagree)

Negative reactions toward homosexuals were measured using the 15-item

homophobia scale developed by Hansen (1982) and a 7-item Likert-type scale
that was developed for this study. The latter scale was designed to focus on the
potential reproductive threat posed by homosexuals, and the specific questions
are shown in Table 4. Both instruments required subjects to indicate the extent
to which they agreed or disagreed with statements about homosexuality using
a five-point response scale.

RESULTS

Responses were summed across items within each of the two scales. The resulting
scale scores ranged from 15 to 75 on the Hansen scale, and 8 to 35 on the Threat
Scale. The Spearman product moment correlation between scores on the two
scales was .82 (p < .Ol). Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of internal consistency for
our seven-item scale was .75.
Group means and standard deviations for parents and nonparents on both
scales are given in Table 5 as a function of number of offspring. As predicted,
parents scored higher than nonparents on both measures of homophobia. A mul-
tivariate analysis of covariance on the data from the two scales using age,
religiosity, education, number of homosexual friends, and sex of the respondent
as covariates revealed no significant differences among the five parent groups
as a function of the number of offspring, F(8, 240) = 0.86, p < 1.0, and as a
result these five groups were combined for subsequent analyses. An additional
multivariate analysis of covariance comparing parents with nonparents showed
that respondents with children tended to score significantly higher on both scales,

Table 5. Homopkobic Scale Scores as a Function of Number of Offspring

Number of Respondent’s Children
0 1 2 3 4 5
Hansen kale
Mean 25.1 35.2 33.8 36.0 33.1 37.2
S.D. 10.9 14.8 14.3 15.8 ll.9 8.7
Threat kale
Mean 18.1 23.3 21.8 22.4 20.6 22.9
S.D. 6.7 7.2 6.6 6.4 7.4 5.5

N 52 35 45 25 15 10
64 G. G. Gdlnp Jr.

Table 6. Results of Hierarchicnl Regression Analysis

Hansen Scale Threat Scale
Predictor R* Change Beta p R’ Change Beta p
Al1 .305 .Ol .239 .Ol
Parental status .043 .26 .Ol .042 .26 .Ol
Sex .127 .37 .Ol .064 .25 .Ol
Number of homosexual friends .005 - .08 .25 .020 -.15 .05
Religiosity .106 .22 .Ol .043 .22 .Ol
Education .032 -.19 .Ol .018 -.15 .05
Age .002 - .03 .68 .021 -.13 .ll

F(2, 174) = 5.76, p < .004, with univariate results of fll, 175) = 10.84, p < .OOl
and fll, 175) = 9.61, p < .002 for the Hansen and threat scales, respectively.
Hierarchical regression analysis was employed to examine the predictive vahre
of different demographic variables. Using parental status, sex, education, re-
ligiosity, age, and number of homosexual friends as predictors, regression equa-
tions were calculated for the two scales separately, and the results are shown in
Table 6. The predictors with the strongest direct relationship to negative reac-
tions toward homosexuals were sex of the respondent, religiosity, and parental
status, in descending order. While leve1 of education accounted for 2-3070of the
variante in homophobia scores, number of homosexual friends and age of the
respondent appeared unrelated to scores on either of the two scales.
Analyzing the data for males and females separately yielded different sets
of regression coefficients (see l’&ble 7). Not only were males more homophobic
than females, but negative reactions of males to homosexuals were more strongly
related to parental status than was the case for females.

Tnble 7. Hiemchical Regression Andysis Broken Down by Sex of Respondent

Hansen Scale Threat Scale
Males
Predictor R* Change Beta p R* Change Beta p
Al1 .225 .Ol .173 .03
Parental status .057 .35 .03 .081 .41 .02
Number of homosexual friends .003 - .07 .60 .024 - .18 .18
Religiosity .030 .19 .12 .006 .09 .49
Education .015 -.13 .27 .Oll -.ll .37
Age .005 - .02 .89 .027 - .20 .23

Hansen Scale Threat Scale

Females
Predictor R’ Change Beta p R’ Change Beta p
Al1 .276 .Ol .260 .Ol
Parental status .026 .20 .06 .021 .18 .09
Number of homosexual friends .Oll -.ll .21 .024 -.17 .06
Religiosity .068 .22 .Ol .09l .31 .Ol
Education .060 - .26 $01 .098 -.19 .03
Age .004 -.06 .56 .022 -.15 .l4
 Attitudes Toward Homosexuals 65

DISCUSSION
The results of al1 four surveys are consistent with the evolutionary model ad-
vanced by Gallup and Suarez (1983). In terms of maximizing their inclusive fit-
ness, people,may have an interest in the sexual orientation of their offspring.
If homophobic reactions have been shaped by natura1 selection, then these reac-
tions would be expected to vary as a function of the perceived impact that a ho-
mosexual might have on a child’s emerging sexuality. The data presented here
provide tentative support for such an analysis.
In the first survey, reactions by college students to hypothetical homosex-
uals in different occupations were correlated with independent estimates of the
extent to which people in these occupations would have routine contact with chil-
dren (see Figure 1 and I&ble 1). Although contact with children predicted feel-
ings of discomfort about being in the presence of a homosexual, that was not
true of the reactions to people in different occupations without the homosexual
qualifier; that is, while ratings of construction workers, lawyers, and auto
mechanics received some of the highest discomfort ratings in the control instruc-
tional set, that was not the case when students were told to assume that these
same people were homosexual (see Figure 1).
On the other hand, medical doctors received higher discomfort ratings un-
der the homosexual instructional set than did school teachers. In an attempt to
pinpoint the source of the concern expressed by college students about being
in the presence of a homosexual doctor, a second survey was administered to
another independent sample of students who were asked to rate doctors accord-
ing to their area of specialization (e.g., brain surgeon versus general practitioner).
To determine whether the discomfort expressed might be due to the fear of con-
tracting AIDS, the different specialties were chosen to include a range of those
likely to be involved in invasive procedures that might email blood exchange (such
as surgery), as wel1as those who might be expected to have contact with children.
An analysis of the results (see Table 3) showed that ratings of discomfort under
the homosexual instructional set were highly correlated with the extent to which
different doctors were independently rated as being likely to have contact with
children and not with intrinsic differences in invasiveness. The extent to which
different doctors might be involved in invasive procedures only predicted the de-
gree of discomfort expressed in the control condition, and these ratings were com-
pleted inverted (r = .94) when subjects were asked to imagine that the same
doctors were homosexual (see Figure 2).
It would appear, therefore, that the reason doctors generate feelings of more
intense homophobia than teachers is not because of more extensive contact with
children (i.e., teachers obviously spend more time with children), but rather be-
cause doctors may be likely to have more intensive contact with children (e.g.,
access to children’s genitals in the context of routine physical examinations). The
fact that child psychiatrists were rated as being about the same as pediatricians
in terms of their likelihood of having contact with children but generated ap-
preciably lower discomfort ratings under the homosexual instructional set (see
66 G. G. Gdlup Jr.

Figure 2) is consistent with this analysis. Unlike pediatricians and genera1 practi-
tioners, child psychiatrists rarely (if ever) have occasion to make genital contact
with clients.
In an attempt to conduct a more direct test of the hypothesis that reactions
to homosexuals may vary as a function of the perceived influence they might
have on a child’s sexuality, the third survey incorporated a hypothetical parent-
hood scenario. College students were asked to imagine that they were the parent
of a son or a daughter, who was 8 or 21 years of age and was planning to spend
the night at a friend’s house in the presence of the friend’s homosexual parent.
As predicted, ratings of concern varied as a function of the sex of the child and
the sex of the friend’s homosexual parent (same sex combinations produced sig-
nificantly greater estimates of concern than did opposite sex combinations). Sub-
jects also expressed greater concern about the prospect of a younger child being
exposed to an adult homosexual than was true for older offspring, and more
concern about a child’s contact with a homosexual man than a homosexual
woman.
While the results of the first three surveys were derived from college stu-
dents in response to hypothetical questions, the final survey was conducted in
an attempt to replicate and elaborate these findings, and to see if they could be
extended to a more heterogeneous population of adults. Using two separate
homophobia scales administered by mail to an urban sample of adults of differ-
ent backgrounds (eg., age, education, religiosity), as predicted, people with chil-
dren were found to be more likely to react negatively toward homosexuals than
those who were childless. Indeed, based on a regression analysis incorporating
different demographic variables, the best predictors of homophobic reactions
by adults were sex of the respondent, strength of the person’s religious convic-
tions, and parental status, in that order.
Males were more likely to express negative reactions toward homosexuals
than females in both the third and fourth survey, which is consistent with other
studies that show that males tend to be more homophobic than females (e.g.,
Aguero, Bloch, and Byrne 1984; Kite 1984). While one can only speculate as to
why this is the case, one possibility is that it may be a by-product of selection
for the use of anticuckoldry strategies. From the standpoint of inclusive fitness,
having a homosexual offspring could be thought of as tantamount to being cuck-
olded (i.e., caring for and provisioning a child other than your own), in the sense
that in either case there is likely to be little or no tangible return on the invest-
ment in terms of achieving greater genetic representation in subsequent genera-
tions. Therefore, since human males, but not females, have evolved under condi-
tions where there was the ever present threat of cuckoldry (as a consequente of
infidelity or rape), men may be more sensitive than women to the consequences
of having homosexual offspring.
Another possibility suggested by R. Thornhill (personal communication,
1991) is that men are more homophobic than women because men are more likely
to use coercive techniques to obtain sexual gratification, and as a result they may
 Attitudes Toward Homosexuals 67

be inclined to see homosexual males as more prone to force their intentions on

others and thus pose a greater risk of homosexual assault. The high incidence
of homosexual rape among males in prison populations is consistent with this
suggestion (e.g., Groth and Burgess 1980; Wooden and Parker 1982).
That people with strong religious convictions are more homophobic may
seem difficult to reconcile with an evolutionary analysis. However, practically
al1 forma1 religious groups attempt to regulate, through relatively explicit reli-
gious sanctions, the reproductive behavior of their members. For instance, most
religious groups adopt and promulgate rules that prohibit or restrict the expres-
sion of sexual behavior in a variety of different contexts (e.g., masturbation, pre-
marital sex, extramarital sex, sex during menstruation, abortion, birth control,
religious inbreeding sanctions), and therefore religious practices can also be
thought of as expressions of different fïtness maximization strategies (see Reynolds
and Tanner 1983).
The fact that parents were more homophobic than childless respondents is
consistent with the results of the third survey in this series. Indeed, it is tempting
to speculate based on these findings that becoming a parent may somehow prime
or otherwise accentuate the tendency to respond to homosexuals as threats to
fitness maximization. The fact that parenthood predicted greater homophobia
in the fourth survey, but that the actual number of children did not, indicates
that parenting may merely exert a priming influence. However, as shown by the
results of the third survey, homophobic reactions can stil1 be elicited in childless
college students through an instructional set that simply asked the subject to
imagine that he/she was a parent.
There are three assumptions built into this model of homophobia. First,
the theory assumes that homosexuality was present during a substantial period
of human evolution (i.e., if homosexuality emerged only recently, then there would
not have been sufficient time for the effects of selection to have influenced how
people respond to homosexuals). At present there is no evicience to confirm or
disconfirm this assumption. The second assumption is that a person’s sexual orien-
tation can be affected by modeling and/or seduction effects. In support of this
assumption, and as evidente for a primacy-like imprinting effect on the develop-
ment of sex-object choices in males, work by Van Wyk and Geist (1984) shows
that boys whose initial experiences with masturbation occurred directly or in-
directly in the presence of other males are more likely to become homosexual
as adults than are those who learn about masturbation in other ways. Effects
such as these are also consistent with those of Bell, Weinberg, and Hammer-
smith (1981), which show (contrary to popular opinion) that homosexual sex-
object choices develop during adolescence, not during childhood. Finally, is there
any basis for the apparent heterosexual concern about homosexual seduction
of children? In a survey of promiscuous homosexual males, Goode and Troiden
(1980) found that over 80 percent of the respondents admitted to having had sex
with minors. Unfortunately Goode and Troiden did not partition their data on
minors into different age categories. Many of these episodes may have been be-
68 G. G. Gallup Jr.

tween children. To the extent that seduction may be involved in the development
of a homosexual lifestyle, seduction by peers as opposed to pedophiles is proba-
bly at least, if not more important than enticement by adults (see Gallup 1986).
Is it possible that the data presented in this paper merely reflect a larger
societal concern about child sexual abuse, and as such have no particular bear-
ing on homophobia? It is certainly true that children can be subject to sexual
abuse from heterosexuals as wel1 as homosexuals. Yet the reaction respondents
gave to al1 of the questionnaires in these surveys shows a greater degree of con-
cern for homosexuals (eg., recall that the ratings of concern in the control con-
ditions of the first two studies did not vary as a function of the likelihood of
contact with children). Moreover, in the third study, subjects expressed more con-
cern about the prospect of their hypothetical offspring staying overnight at a
friend’s house in the presence of the friend’s same-sex homosexual parent than
in the presence of the friend’s opposite-sex heterosexual parent. It is important
to note that the presence of an opposite-sex heterosexual parent not only carries
the potential for child sexual abuse, but in the case of a girl, sexual involvement
with an adult male could (unlike a homosexual encounter) eventuate in preg-
nancy. Yet in spite of this added biological risk, people expressed greater concern
about children coming into contact with homosexuals. When it comes to the pros-
pect of child sexual abuse, the central question posed by these data is why should
people react differentially to an adult’s sexual orientation? One account of this
differente is that while child sexual abuse of any kind can have serious and pro-
found consequences, abuse arising from a homosexual has the potential to im-
pact and eventually change a child’s sexual orientation.
Are the results reported in this paper representative of the population at
large? The data from the first three surveys were derived exclusively from college
students, which constitute a relatively smal1 and select subpopulation. However,
the fourth survey in this series was specifically designed and conducted to over-
come this limitation and as such was based on a much more heterogeneous sam-
ple of adults. As evidente that these surveys produced generalizable data, the
correspondence between the results obtained from college students and those
derived from adults was quite high in spite of the fact that very different survey
materials were used with these two groups. It should also be noted that rather
than being a design flaw, the use of college students, who typically have more
liberal attitudes concerning most aspects of sexuality than the genera1 popula-
tion, provides an even more conservative test of the present hypothesis.
Returning to the question posed at the beginning of this paper, if homosex-
uals are not “heterophobic,” why are heterosexuals homophobic? One possibil-
ity that is consistent with the results of these surveys is that natural selection
may have operated on reactions toward homosexuals because of their potential
to influence the development of sexual orientation in children (i.e., parents who
showed a concern for the sexual orientation of their offspring left more descen-
dants in succeeding generations than parents who were indifferent). Thus, a strong
version of this model would hold that most people should exhibit homophobic
reactions under certain conditions. Indeed, one would predict that even homosex-
 Attitudes Towwd Homosexuals 69

uals, given an appropriate hypothetical parenthood instructional set, should re-

spond in much the same way as their heterosexual counterparts to the kinds of
items contained in the third survey of this series. G. Weisfeld (personal commu-
nication, 1993) points out that the same prediction would apply if one were to
pose these kinds of questions to homosexuals with reference to their nietes and
nephews (i.e., the children of their siblings) as a more unobtrusive technique.
A variety of other interesting questions follow from this analysis. Does
homophobia emerge early in life, at puberty, or during adulthood? Is homopho-
bia universal? While some cultures appear relatively indifferent to sexual orien-
tation, it is important to note that there are none which favor lifelong homosexu-
ality. Indeed, in some cultures homosexual behavior is far more seriously
condemned than in our own and is often punishable by beatings and even death
(see Ford and Beach 1951). Why should anyone be concerned about somebody
else’s sexual orientation? Why is this concern expressed almost exclusively by
heterosexuals and not homosexuals? This paper attempts to provide a prelimi-
nary account of these phenomena from an evolutionary perspective.
In closing, it is important to emphasize that the present data do not pre-
clude other interpretations. For example, the fact that males are typically more
homophobic than females and the fact that people with strong religious convic-
tions are more likely to exhibit homophobic reactions is consistent with the view
of homophobia as a cultural phenomenon. The unique feature of the present
model based on an evolutionary approach is in terms of its heuristic value (i.e.,
ability to generate a number of testable hypotheses). For the time being, how-
ever, the source of homophobic reactions remains an open question.

The author thanks Jason W. Beckstead, Dawn R. Rager, LeeAnne Green, Timothy J. Eddy, Lori
Marino, and Kim M. Scheuerman for assistance during various phases of this project. Leslie Buckle,
Delbert D. Thiessen, Randy Thornhill, Charles B. Crawford, and Glenn Weisfeld made helpful com-
ments on earlier drafts of this paper.

REFERENCES

Aguero, J.E., Bloch, L., and Byrne, D. The relationship among sexual beliefs, attitudes, experience,
and homophobia. Journal of Homosexuality 10~95-107,1984.
Bell, A.P., Weinberg, M.S., and Hammersmith, S.K. Sexual Preferente: Its Development in Men
and Women, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981.
Daly, M., and Wilson, M. %x, Ebolution, andBehavior (2nd ed.). Boston: Willard Grant Press, 1983.
Dressler, J. Study of law student attitudes regarding the rights of gay people to be teachers. Journal
of Homosexuality 4:315-329, 1979.
Dunn-Rankin, P. Staling Methods, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1983.
Dunn-Rankin, P., and King, F.J. Multiple comparisons in a simplified rank method of staling. Edu-
cation and Psychological Measutwnent 29~315-329, 1%9.
Ford, C.S. and Beach, F.A. Patterns of Sexual Behavior, North Scituate, Mass: Duxbury Press, 1951.
Gallup, G.G. Jr. Unique features of human sexuality in the context of evolution. In Alternative
Approaches to the Study of Sexual Behavior, D. Byrne and K. Kelly (Eds.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum, 1986, pp. 13-42.
Gallup, G.G. Jr., and Suarez, S.D. Homosexuality as a byproduct of selection for optimal heter-
osexual strategies. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 26:315-321, 1983.
70 G. G. Gallup Jr.

Goode, E., and Troiden, R.R. Correlates and accompaniments of promiscuous sex among male
homosexuals. Psychiutry 43:51-59, 1980.
Groth, A.N., and Burgess, A.W. Male rape: Offenders and victims. American Journal of Psychiatry
137:806-810, 1980.
Hansen, G.L. Measuring prejudice against homosexuality (homosexism) among college students:
A new scale. Journal of Social Psychology 117:233-236, 1982.
Kite, M.E. Sex differences in attitudes toward homosexuals: A meta-analytic review. Journal of
Homosexuality 10~69-81, 1984.
Larsen, K.S., Reed, M., and Hoffman. S. Attitudes of heterosexuals toward homosexuality: A Likert-
type scale and construct validity. Journal of Sex Research 16245-257, 1980.
Levitt, E.E., and Klassen, A.D. Jr. Public attitudes toward homosexuality: Part of the 1970 National
Survey by the Institute for Sex Research. Journal of Homosexuality 1:29-43, 1974.
MacDonald, A.P. Jr. Homophobia: Its roots and meanings. Homosexual Counseling 3:23-33, 1976.
Morin, SF., and Garfinkle, E.M. Male homophobia. Journal of Social Issues 34:29-47, 1978.
Reynolds, V., and Tanner, R.E.S. The Biology of Religion, New York: Longman, 1983.
Van Wyk, P.H., and Geist, C.S. Psychosocial development of heterosexual, bisexual, and homosex-
ual behavior. Archives of Sexual Behavior 13:505-544, 1984.
Weinberg, G. Society and the Healthy Homosexual, New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1972.
Wilcoxon, F., and Wilcox, R.A. Some Rapid Approximate Statistical Procedures. New York: Lederle
Laboratories, 1964.
Wooden, W., and Parker, J. Men Behind Bars: Sexual Exploitation in Prison. New York: Plenum, 1982.