Journal of Homosexuality

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjhm20

Sexualization of Children or Human Rights?

Attitudes Toward Addressing Sexual-Orientation
Diversity in School

Ulrich Klocke

To cite this article: Ulrich Klocke (2022): Sexualization of Children or Human Rights? Attitudes
Toward Addressing Sexual-Orientation Diversity in School, Journal of Homosexuality, DOI:
10.1080/00918369.2022.2122368

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2022.2122368

© 2022 The Author(s). Published with

license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.

Published online: 17 Oct 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1429

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wjhm20
JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY
https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2022.2122368

Sexualization of Children or Human Rights? Attitudes

Toward Addressing Sexual-Orientation Diversity in School
Ulrich Klocke, Dr. rer. nat.
Institut für Psychologie, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) adolescents are more likely to Sex education; school-based
experience mental health problems than their heterosexual intervention; public opinion;
peers because they are victimized more often or fear discrimi­ homosexuality (attitudes
toward); attitude; sexual and
nation. Governmental plans to improve this situation by addres­
gender minorities; surveys
sing sexual diversity in German schools have been accompanied and questionnaires; LGBTQI;
by public resistance and misinformation, e.g., that they aim to sexual orientation; social
sexualize children. The present study assessed how widespread values
negative attitudes toward such plans really are and how they
can be explained. A random sample of 2,013 German residents
was surveyed by phone. Only 10% opposed promoting accep­
tance of LGB in school. Approval of such plans was predomi­
nantly predicted by respondents’ beliefs about sexual
orientation and the plans’ aim, and only marginally by societal
values. Respondents who knew that the plans’ aim was to
promote acceptance of LGB and not to sexualize children and
that children with same-sex parents are just as well off as those
with heterosexual parents showed higher approval, whereas
respondents who believed that homosexuality is affected by
socialization showed higher opposition.

A society without any inhibitions and shame boundaries, where children are to be taught
in school as part of the curriculum that everybody has sexual contacts and practices with
everybody and everything, without any morals and without the transmission of impor­
tant values like love and deep feelings, is in my opinion a lost society that cannot have
a future. (comment on an online petition against addressing sexual-orientation diversity
in school, Stängle, 2013, translated by the author)

In 2013, the new governing coalition of the Green Party and the Social
Democratic Party in Baden-Württemberg—a formerly conservative-governed
federal state in southeastern Germany—announced a plan to teach sexual-
orientation and gender diversity in school (Rhein-Neckar-Zeitung, 2013). This
plan mobilized resistance on a previously unimagined scale. A teacher initiated
an online petition with the title “No 2015 education plan under the rainbow
ideology” (Stängle, 2013, translated by the present author) that was signed by
more than 200,000 people. Organizers and participants in so-called “demonstra­
tions for everybody” expressed fear of “sexualization” and “gender experiments”

CONTACT Ulrich Klocke klocke@hu-berlin.de Institut für Psychologie, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin,

Rudower Chaussee 18, 12489 Berlin.
© 2022 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly
cited.
2 U. KLOCKE

involving children and adolescents as well as of a promotion of “gay lifestyles.”

Often, the implied accusations were unsupported claims about the promotion of
sexual practices or fantasies that were never included in the education plan.
But why should schools deal with sexual orientation and gender at all?
There are two reasons why schools can play an important role in improving
the situation of disadvantaged groups such as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgen­
der or intersex (LGBTI) people. First, because school attendance is compul­
sory in Germany, no child and adolescent can avoid school, hence, schools
must be a safe place for every student and prevent discrimination against
disadvantaged groups. Second, compulsory schooling means that no other
institution has a comparable societal reach. Therefore, the present study’s first
aim was to describe the current situation in schools in Germany regarding how
teachers deal with sexual-orientation diversity and how open LGB students
and teachers are about their sexual orientation. Second, the study aimed to
determine how widespread opposition to addressing sexual-orientation diver­
sity in school really is. Third, and most importantly, the study aimed to answer
the question of how opposition and support for addressing sexual-orientation
diversity in school can be explained: by false beliefs about sexual orientation
and the plans’ aims or by differing societal values with respect to committed
partnerships, family, tradition, and self-determination? Answering these ques­
tions might be helpful in resolving the conflict between opponents and
proponents of addressing sexual-orientation diversity in school—a conflict
that is not restricted to Germany, but also exists in other countries, such as the
USA (Richardson, 2022), the UK (John, 2022), Ireland (O’Donoghue &
Guerin, 2017), and Australia (O’Neill, 2022).
The reason to focus on LGB instead of LGBTI people is that the study’s data
belong to a larger dataset from a survey on the population’s attitudes toward
different sexual orientations, but not toward different gender identities and
sexes (Küpper et al., 2017). However, it is likely that the results presented here
also apply to attitudes toward including gender diversity in school, because
attitudes toward LGB correlate highly with attitudes toward transgender
people (Worthen, 2012).

The situation of sexual-minority adolescents

Why should schools feel responsible for improving the situation of sexual-
minority students? LGB adolescents are more likely to experience mental
health problems than their heterosexual peers (Plöderl & Tremblay, 2015)
because they are victimized more often or fear discrimination if their sexual
orientation were to become public (Burton, Marshal, Chisolm, Sucato, &
Friedman, 2013; Dürrbaum & Sattler, 2020). Compared to their heterosexual
peers, they think about suicide about twice as often, attempt suicide about
three times as often, and these attempts are about four times more likely to be
 JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY 3

serious enough to require medical attention (Marshal et al., 2011).

Victimization due to gender nonconformity increases the risk of suicidality
for both LGB and heterosexual adolescents (Ioerger, Henry, Chen, Cigularov,
& Tomazic, 2015). Terms such as “fagot,” “homo,” “sissy,” or “lesbian” are
often used as swear words (Collier, Bos, & Sandfort, 2013; Klocke, 2012). Even
when they are not addressed toward LGB people, they have discriminatory
effects. The perception of identity-related terms as swear words in
a conversation leads to more negative attitudes toward these groups (e.g.,
Nicolas & Skinner, 2012). Yet, despite these facts, sexual-orientation diversity
has been mostly invisible in school curricula. Only about half of the Council of
Europe member states have developed at least some LGBTQI inclusive curri­
cula (Ávila, 2018). Analyses of English curricula in the United Kingdom
(Sauntson & Simpson, 2011) and English textbooks in Germany (Bittner,
2012) showed that sexual-orientation diversity was not present at all. In the
USA, even though several sexuality education resources include LGBTQ, they
are often depicted as a homogenous group in a separate lesson instead of
including them in the main curriculum (Elia & Tokunaga, 2015). As there is
no representative data on the situation in schools in Germany, the present
study’s first aim was to describe how often teachers include sexual-orientation
diversity in their curricula, how regularly they intervene against discrimina­
tion of LGB students, and how often LGB students and teachers are open
about their sexual orientation.

What can schools do to improve the situation?

The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe has called on the
member states to provide “objective information with respect to sexual orien­
tation and gender identity, for instance in school curricula and educational
materials, and [to provide] pupils and students with the necessary informa­
tion, protection and support to enable them to live in accordance with their
sexual orientation and gender identity,” which may include “access to ade­
quate anti-discrimination training or support and teaching aids” (2010, para­
graph 32). And indeed, there is evidence that different measures of addressing
sexual-orientation diversity in schools can improve the situation for LGB
youth. Gay-straight alliances, i.e., support groups with the aim to create
a welcoming environment for LGBT students, are able to reduce homophobic
bullying and to increase LGBT students’ perceived safety (Ioverno, Belser,
Baiocco, Grossman, & Russell, 2016; Marx & Kettrey, 2016). Teachers who
intervene against homophobic language are likely to reduce discrimination
(Czopp & Ashburn-Nardo, 2012) which might be easier when they can refer to
an antibullying policy that explicitly includes sexual orientation as a relevant
dimension (Kull, Greytak, Kosciw, & Villenas, 2016). Furthermore, schools
can indirectly improve the situation for LGB students by reducing their
4 U. KLOCKE

students’ prejudice toward LGB, which is a predictor of discriminatory beha­

vior toward lesbian and gay individuals (e.g., Mereish & Poteat, 2015). Many
studies have shown that personal contact with LGB individuals reduces pre­
judice toward the group as a whole (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006; Smith, Axelton,
& Saucier, 2009), which also seems to work for LGBT contact interventions in
school (e.g., Eick, Rubinstein, Hertz, & Slater, 2016). Even indirect contact
(Lemmer & Wagner, 2015) and vicarious contact (Cocco et al., 2021) can
improve intergroup attitudes, suggesting that teachers can reduce prejudice by
talking about own LGB friends or family members as well as by using teaching
material, books, stories, or videos that include LGB or gender nonconforming
people (e.g., Shimanoff, Elia, & Yep, 2012). And indeed, curricula inclusive of
gender and sexual-orientation diversity go along with more positive attitudes
toward LGB people (Klocke, 2012), less bullying and more perceived safety
(McKibban & Anderson, 2021). These findings support the education plans of
several German states to include topics related to sexual orientation and
gender diversity in school curricula in order to promote students’ acceptance
and respect for LGBTI people (Dissens – Institut für Bildung und Forschung e.
V., 2019).

Attitudes toward addressing sexual-orientation diversity in school

What do the people in Germany think about the plans to address sexual-
orientation diversity in school? And why should we care about this question?
In interviews in Ireland and the United Kingdom, teachers expressed concerns
about potential negative attitudes of students’ parents toward addressing
sexual-orientation diversity in school (O’Donoghue & Guerin, 2017;
Sauntson & Simpson, 2011). As public attitudes toward lesbian and gay people
in these countries are quite similar to Germany (European Commission, 2019)
and as several newspapers reported on the resistance against the plan in
Baden-Württemberg (e.g., Wetzel, 2014), it is likely that teachers were reluc­
tant to implement it in order to avoid conflicts with students and parents.
Likewise, politicians usually react to public attitudes when developing policies:
After the unexpected resistance, the government of Baden Württemberg
mitigated their ambitious education plan by changing the initial term “accep­
tance of sexual and gender diversity” to “tolerance and acceptance of diver­
sity,” leaving out the controversial term “sexual and gender” and adding the
less ambitious aim of “tolerance” to “acceptance” (Süddeutsche Zeitung,
2014). The more than 200,000 signatures under the petition against the
education plan suggested that opposition might be widespread. However, in
representative surveys conducted prior to the present study, three of four
respondents thought students should learn about different sexual orientations
in school (Change Centre Foundation, 2015; European Commission, 2015).
Yet, some people claim that tolerance must be enough and that the goal of
 JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY 5

acceptance goes too far (Niggemeier, 2014). Therefore, the second aim of the
current study is to describe German residents’ attitudes toward addressing
sexual-orientation diversity in school in more detail by including also evalua­
tive statements such as the explicitly positive term “acceptance.” To increase
the likelihood that teachers include sexual-orientation diversity in their les­
sons, it is important to know how resistance against the education plans can be
explained and possibly modified. Thus, identifying predictors of the attitudes
toward addressing sexual-orientation diversity in school is the third and most
important aim of the present study. This study focused on the reasons that
opponents and supporters of the plans brought to the public discourse,
particularly their beliefs about sexual orientation and the goals of the educa­
tional plans, as well as their societal values. Knowing the effects of beliefs on
attitudes toward addressing sexual-orientation diversity in school might help
to reduce opposition, as specific beliefs can by influenced by providing infor­
mation and correcting misinformation.
Furthermore, the present study took sociodemographic and situational
variables as a basis to analyze the incremental effects of beliefs and values. It
further analyzed whether attitudes similar to the above-mentioned attitudes
had effects that mediated some of the effects of the other predictors. Potentially
relevant beliefs and values were identified by content analyzing the online
petition against the education plan in Baden-Württemberg, supporters’ com­
ments on the petition (Stängle, 2013) and coverage in German media on
sexual-orientation diversity in schools. This analysis was complemented by
the scientific literature on attitudes toward equal rights and inclusion of LGB
people in school. As it was impossible to find research specifically on attitudes
toward sexual-orientation diversity in school, the following literature review
focused on studies on general advocacy for LGBT rights and sometimes also
included studies on general attitudes toward lesbians and gays.

Effects of sociodemographic and situational variables

There is evidence that female gender, education, and intergroup contact have
positive effects on attitudes toward LGBT: An online survey in the United
States showed that women, individuals with a high level of education, and
those with close friends who are gay, lesbian, or bisexual more often reported
to have engaged in six possible activities on behalf of the LGBT community
such as signing a petition to legalize same-sex marriage (Fingerhut, 2011). An
online survey of teachers in Germany showed similar results with regard to
teachers’ self-reported engagement on behalf of LGBTI students in school
(Klocke, Latz, & Scharmacher, 2019). Teachers who had personal contact with
more LGBTI individuals included sexual-orientation and gender diversity in
their lessons more often and intervened more frequently against
6 U. KLOCKE

discrimination of LGBTI students. Moreover, female teachers intervened more

frequently against discrimination. These results led to the following
hypotheses:

H1: (a) A female (vs. male) gender, (b) a high educational level, and (c) the
number of personally known LGB people are positively associated with atti­
tudes toward addressing sexual-orientation diversity in school.

Effects of beliefs

What are the beliefs about sexual orientation or the education plans’ aims that
might influence attitudes? The online petition against the education plan in
Baden-Württemberg falsely claimed that the plan’s aim was to encourage
different sexual practices (Stängle, 2013), a claim that was repeated by some
newspapers and magazines (e.g., Saur, 2014). Opponents misinterpreted the
new curricula, which demand that sexual-orientation and gender diversity
should be addressed in school beyond sex education, usually restricted to
biology lessons. Analyzing supporters’ comments to the petition showed that
this misinformation had an effect. Supporters expressed fear that the plan’s
aim was to teach “that everybody has sexual contacts and practices with
everybody and everything” (translated by the author). Furthermore, the peti­
tion suggested that students’ sexual orientation might be changed by the new
curriculum, that is, by discussing sexual-orientation diversity in a positive way.
The petition stated that the “negative side effects of an LGBTTIQ lifestyle”
were not reflected in the education plan. This argument presupposes that
reflecting on these “negative side effects” would prevent students from becom­
ing LGBT or at least from pursuing an “LGBTTIQ lifestyle.” This allegation
influenced the petition’s supporters who wrote comments such as “one should
not educate people homosexually” (translated by the author). Past surveys
confirm that the more people believe that sexual orientation is affected by
nurture such as parental or peer influence and the less they believe it is affected
by nature such as genetics, the more negative are their attitudes toward lesbian
and gay rights (e.g., Smith, Zanotti, Axelton, & Saucier, 2011). Other com­
ments to the petition denied the existence of discrimination against gay
people: “Who criticizes gays? You have to cheer them on to avoid being put
into pigeonholes . . . . It’s a restriction on freedom of speech!” (translated by
the author). In a survey among students of a Midwestern university in the
USA, witnessing discrimination such as hearing the word “gay” for something
negative increased the likelihood to advocate for LGBT rights (Swank,
Woodford, & Lim, 2013). Thus, it is likely that denying discrimination is
associated with more negative attitudes toward addressing sexual-orientation
diversity in school. Further comments by the plan’s opponents expressed
 JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY 7

reservations about same-sex couples’ raising children: “It has been proven that
a loving family with a father and mother, i.e., with male and female elements in
a committed partnership, is the most beneficial for children’s development”
(translated by the author). These assumptions of the plans’ opponents com­
bined with existing research led to the following hypotheses:

H2: (a) Believing that the plans’ aim was to teach children to engage in
different sexual practices is negatively associated with attitudes toward addres­
sing sexual-orientation diversity in school, whereas (b) knowing that the plans’
aim was to promote the acceptance of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people is
positively associated with these attitudes.

H3: (a) Believing that sexual orientation is a matter of socialization is nega­

tively associated with attitudes toward addressing sexual-orientation diversity
in school, whereas (b) believing that people are homosexual since birth is
positively associated with these attitudes.

H4: (a) Awareness of ongoing discrimination and (b) the belief that children
are well off in same-sex couples is positively associated with attitudes toward
addressing sexual-orientation diversity in school.

Effects of societal values

Whereas beliefs focus on assumptions about what is, societal values focus on
assumptions about what should be or what the ideal society should look like.
The petition, and the comments to it, showed possible value differences
between supporters and opponents of the education plan. The petition
demanded the protection of marriage and family as values expressed by the
German Constitution (Stängle, 2013). One commenter stated that “strength­
ening these groups means weakening the family. I am against this weakening;
the family is the most important foundation of our society.” Another com­
menter criticized that “important values like love and deep feelings” were not
taught to children (both translated by the author). The values expressed in
these statements are part of established psychological theories on fundamental
value dimensions. In Schwartz’s (1992) two-dimensional model, opponents of
the education plan positioned themselves on the conservation end of the
conservation-vs.-openness-to-change dimension by expressing the values of
family security and sense of belonging. Moral foundations theory (Haidt,
Graham, & Joseph, 2009) divided five groups of virtues into binding versus
individualizing foundations with loyalty to the ingroup, e.g., the family, and
respect for authority demonstrating binding foundations. Existing research
has shown that negative attitudes toward equal rights for lesbians and gays are
8 U. KLOCKE

predicted by conservation values and binding moral foundations such as

traditional gender roles and a strict education of children (Callahan &
Vescio, 2011; Rhodebeck, 2018), and more generally by tradition, conformity,
and security (Kuntz, Davidov, Schwartz, & Schmidt, 2015).
Whereas opponents of the education plan based their argumentation on the
values of tradition, family, and a committed partnership, proponents argued
by referring to the values of the autonomy and self-determination of every
human being, including LGBTI adolescents (GEW, 2017). In Schwartz’s
(1992) two-dimensional model, they positioned themselves on the openness-
to-change end of the conservation-vs.-openness-to-change dimension by
expressing the value of self-direction. In moral foundations theory (Haidt
et al., 2009), autonomy and self-determination are individualizing foundations
expressed by fairness and a reduction of individual harm, e.g., by providing
equal rights to members of different groups. In fact, people who base moral
judgments on the individual more than on the group, have less negative
attitudes toward lesbians and gays (Barnett, Öz, & Marsden, 2018; Rosik,
Dinges, & Saavedra, 2013). These results led to the following hypotheses:

H5: Valuing (a) committed partnerships and family as well as (b) tradition is
negatively associated with attitudes toward addressing sexual-orientation
diversity in school, whereas (c) valuing self-determination, is positively asso­
ciated with these attitudes.

Effects of general attitudes toward LGB and sex education

In addition to sociodemographic and situational variables, beliefs, and societal
values, other more general attitudes were expected to predict the specific
attitudes toward addressing sexual-orientation diversity in school. Often,
attitudes toward lesbians and gays have been analyzed as dependent variables,
whereas, in the present study, they were analyzed as predictors. It was expected
that individuals oppose addressing sexual-orientation diversity in school
because they have negative attitudes toward lesbian, gay, and bisexual people.
Existing research has shown that these attitudes predict (a lack of) hetero­
sexual advocacy for LGBT rights (Fingerhut, 2011). It is an open question
which aspects of these attitudes are most relevant: classical homophobia (e.g.,
opposing equal rights), modern homophobia (e.g., rejecting open homosexu­
ality), or affective attitudes toward lesbian and gay individuals (e.g., feeling
comfortable with the gay teacher of their own son).

H6: (a) Classical and (b) modern homophobia are negatively associated with
attitudes toward addressing sexual-orientation diversity in school, whereas (c)
 JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY 9

affective attitudes to lesbian and gay people are positively associated with these
attitudes.

Education about sexual-orientation diversity can also be perceived as part of

sex education, even though the Baden-Württemberg plan’s proponents more
often emphasized its relation to human rights and antidiscrimination.
Therefore, attitudes about sex education were also analyzed as predictors,
more specifically the attitudes about sex education being the responsibility of
the school versus the parents.

Method
Data collection

The data presented here were collected between October 4th and
November 29th, 2016 via a telephone survey by a company specialized in
survey research (Küpper et al., 2017) commissioned by the Federal Anti-
Discrimination Agency of Germany. A simple random sample of landline
and mobile household telephone numbers in Germany was collected (using
the design by Gabler & Häder, 1997). In each household, the member who was
over 16 years old with the most recent birthday was interviewed by one of 64
trained interviewers. Interviewers attempted to reach the target household
member 10 times. Interviewers contacted 15,295 telephone numbers and
finished the interview with 2,013 respondents, 71.8% on landline and 28.2%
on mobile telephones, resulting in a response rate of 13.2%.
To minimize self-selection bias, the survey was described as concerning
marriage, family, and partnership, and about people’s attitudes about issues
currently discussed in society. The focus on lesbian, gay, and bisexual people
was not mentioned. Respondents were informed that the study was performed
by the Hochschule Niederrhein (a university of applied science), participation
was voluntary, and data was stored anonymously. Participants who agreed to
participate were asked about the following issues (in the order presentation):
(a) societal values, (b) trait empathy, (c) attitudes toward sex education, (d)
political attitudes (e.g., toward political parties or immigration), (e) perception
of discrimination of groups the respondent belonged to, (f) attitudes toward
different social groups, (g) modern homophobia, (h) attitudes toward trans­
gender people, (i) beliefs about LGB, (j) beliefs and attitudes toward education
plans addressing sexual-orientation diversity in school, (k) classical homo­
phobia, (l) affective attitudes toward lesbians and gays, (m) own behavior
toward LGB as well as behavior of friends and family members, (n) personal
contact with LGB, and (o) sociodemographic variables. Respondents younger
than 30 years old were also asked four questions about how sexual-orientation
diversity was dealt with in their school. To keep the interview to a reasonable
10 U. KLOCKE

length, respondents were randomly split into two groups of equal size (A and
B) and some questions were only presented to group A, others only to group
B. However, in the present study, except for societal values, only questions that
were presented to all respondents were included. On average, interviews took
27.6 minutes (SD = 7.7 minutes).

Sample, weighting, and measurement of sociodemographic variables

Of the 2,013 respondents, 1,024 were asked about their societal values and
thus could be included in the regression analyses about attitudes toward
addressing sexual-orientation diversity in school. Respondents’ age ranged
from 16 to 92 years (M = 50.0, SD = 17.3); 54.5% identified as women, 45.3%
as men; and one respondent each (four total) answered intersex, undefined,
don’t know, and no answer. To measure education level, participants were
asked about their highest level of school qualification or (for students) for
their intended school qualification. Most (55.1%) reported Abitur (gradua­
tion certificate of an academic high school) or Fachabitur (vocational bacca­
laureate, coded as 3), 31.4% reported Realschulabschluss (graduation
certificate of a middle school, coded as 2), and 13.5% a lower or no certificate
(coded as 1). Some respondents reported to have an immigrant background
(18.7%), meaning that they did not have German citizenship or that they or
at least one of their parents were born outside Germany. Most respondents
lived in West Germany, i.e., the area of the former Federal Republic or in
Berlin (85.0%), and the rest in East Germany, i.e., the area of the former
Democratic Republic (15.0%). For sexual orientation, 93.9% reported to be
heterosexual, 2.3% bisexual, 1.5% lesbian or gay, and 0.3% other; 1.3% gave
no answer and 0.6% answered “don’t know.” Respondents were asked
whether they had personal contact with people who they knew to be lesbian,
gay, or bisexual. Only 19.3% reported no contact at all (coded as 0), 6.2%
with one person (coded as 1), 41.1% two to four people (coded as 2), 19.6%
five to nine people (coded as 3), 12.8% more than ten (coded as 4), and 1.1%
gave no answer.
For the analyses presented in the results, the sample was weighted to corre­
spond to the distribution of gender, age, and education level of the German
population (based on the Microcensus of 2014, Forschungsdatenzentrum der
Statistischen Ämter der Länder, 2020). The data were weighted to reach the
expected proportion for 24 categories, created by a combination of two gender
categories (men and women), four age categories (16–29, 30–44, 45–59, and
60 years or older), and three education categories (Abitur or Fachabitur,
Realschulabschluss, and lower or no certificate).
 JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY 11

Measures

The study has the applied focus to analyze which specific beliefs, values, and
attitudes could explain why people approve or disapprove of the plans to
address sexual-orientation diversity in school. Focusing on context-specific
variables made it easier to derive possible interventions from the results.
Existing measures were too long for a telephone survey and/or did not fit
the current German context. Therefore, they were adapted by a content
analysis of 535 reader comments from 12 German newspaper articles (Welt,
Zeit Online, Bild at Facebook) about addressing sexual diversity in school,
celebrities’ public coming-outs, and LGB rights. Ten items were developed
based on the most frequently mentioned categories. Furthermore, six items
were derived from statements in the petition against the education plan
(Stängle, 2013) and supporters’ comments to the petition. The complete
questionnaire was pretested in 30 telephone interviews and adapted to increase
comprehensibility and acceptance. Scales were developed based on a principal-
component analysis of beliefs and societal values and a separate principal-
component analysis of attitudes. For participants who answered at least half of
the items of a scale, item scores were averaged to determine scale scores.
Beliefs were assessed by ten items asking participants about the correctness
of statements on four-point rating scales from (1) not correct at all to (4) fully
correct (see Appendix A for all items). The 408 respondents who had already
heard about the education plans were asked two questions about the aims of
the plans. The belief Education Plans: Acceptance of LGB (the real aim) was
measured by the item “According to the plans, the students should be led to
accept homosexual and bisexual people.” The belief Education Plans: Engage in
Different Sexual Practices (the most repeated misperception in the petition and
comments to it) was measured by the item “According to the plans, the
students should be encouraged to engage in as many different sexual practices
as possible.” All respondents were asked eight questions measuring five dif­
ferent beliefs about lesbian, gay, and bisexual people. Four items were adapted
from a knowledge test developed for a student survey in 20 Berlin schools
(Klocke, 2012); two of them translated from a knowledge test for healthcare
professionals (Harris, Nightengale, & Owen, 1995). The validity of the knowl­
edge test was shown by positive relationships with teachers’ addressing of
sexual-orientation diversity, students’ school grade (ninth and tenth versus
sixth), as well as students’ attitudes and behavior toward LGBT people
(Klocke, 2012). The belief Homosexual by Socialization was measured by
four items, e.g., “A person is homosexual because their parents raised them
differently than most parents“ (Cronbach’s α = .68). The belief Homosexual
Since Birth was measured by the item “A person is homosexual because they
were born that way, e.g., because of her genes or hormones during pregnancy.“
The belief LGB Are Discriminated was measured by two items, e.g.,
12 U. KLOCKE

“Homosexuals and bisexuals are still discriminated against or disadvantaged in

Germany today” (Cronbach’s α = .68). The belief Children Well off With Same-
Sex Couples was measured the item “Children who grow up with same-sex
couples develop as well as children who grow up with father and mother.“
Societal values were assessed by eight items (see Appendix B). Respondents
were asked how much they agree with the presented value statements on four-
point rating scales from (1) don’t agree at all to (4) fully agree. Four items
measured the value Committed Partnerships and Family, e.g., “It is beneficial
for society when people enter into a marriage or partnership that lasts until the
end of their life” (Cronbach’s α = .60). Four items measured the values of self-
determination and tradition, based on a modified German version (Iser &
Schmidt, 2003) of the Portrait Value Questionnaire (Schwartz et al., 2001). The
validity of the German version was shown by correlations with different forms
of prejudice, especially classical sexism and racism. The value Self-
Determination was measured by two items, e.g., “It is beneficial for society
when people can decide for themselves what they want to do” (Cronbach’s α =
.64). The value Tradition was measured by two items, e.g., “It is beneficial for
society when people maintain the customs they have learned” (Cronbach’s
α = .70).
The attitude measures comprised the dependent variable and five predictor
variables (see Appendix C). Respondents answered on the same four-point
scale as for the measurement of societal values. Five items measured Attitudes
Toward Addressing Sexual-Orientation Diversity in School and were mostly
based on the aims of the education plan (Rhein-Neckar-Zeitung, 2013), e.g.,
“It should be one of the school’s goals to convey the acceptance of homosexual
and bisexual persons to students” (Cronbach’s α = .72). Classical Homophobia
was measured by seven items, e.g., “Homosexuality is a disease” (Cronbach’s
α = .85). Three items were based on the well-established Attitudes Toward
Lesbians and Gay Men scale (ATLG, Herek, 1988). To enable comparisons
with former surveys, two items from past German representative population
surveys on group-focused enmity were included (Heitmeyer & Mansel, 2008).
Validity was shown by a strong and continuous decline between 2005 and
2019 that can be expected of measures of classical homophobia (Zick, Küpper,
& Berghan, 2019). Two items were based on recent developments in German
society: one on attitudes toward gay pride parades and one on laws against
discrimination against gay and lesbian people. Modern Homophobia was
measured by six items, e.g., “Homosexuals should stop making such a fuss
about their sexuality” (Cronbach’s α = .83). Three items were based on the
well-established Modern Homonegativity Scale (MHS, Morrison & Morrison,
2002). Affective Attitudes to Lesbian and Gay People was measured by six
items, four of them from an existing affective-attitude scale (Banse, Seise, &
Zerbes, 2001; Seise, Banse, & Neyer, 2002), e.g., “You learn that a colleague at
work is lesbian” (Cronbach’s α = .91). Respondents could answer on four-
 JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY 13

point scales from (1) very unpleasant to (4) very pleasant. Validity was shown
by differences between heterosexual, gay, and lesbian participants; differences
between men and women; and correlations with implicit attitudes toward
lesbians and gays. The attitude that Sex Education is a Responsibility of the
School was measured by five items, e.g., “Sex education is the task of the
school” (Cronbach’s α = .71). The attitude that Sex Education is
a Responsibility of Parents was measured the item, e.g., “Sex education is the
task of parents.”
The 307 respondents between 16 and 29 years old were also asked four
questions about their experiences at the schools they currently attended or had
attended in the past. They were asked how often (a) teachers used teaching
examples or materials in which lesbian, gay, or bisexual people were present,
(b) teachers showed disapproval when words such as “faggot,” “homo,” or
“lesbian” were used in a derogatory way, and whether there are or were any
openly lesbian, gay, or bisexual (c) teachers and (d) students in the schools that
respondents attended or had attended.

Results
The statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics Version 25.
Hypotheses were tested with a significance level of p < .05. To achieve the first
aim of the study, descriptive results about sexual-orientation diversity in
schools in Germany will be presented. For the second aim, descriptive results
about the population attitudes toward addressing sexual-orientation diversity
in school are presented. Regression analyses were employed to address the
third and most important aim: to explain individual differences in these
attitudes. A correlation table with all variables is presented in the supporting
information (Table 1).

Is sexual orientation diversity an issue in school?

The 307 respondents who were between 16 and 29 years old indicated that
sexual-orientation diversity was a rather neglected issue in school.
Regarding the schools that they currently attended or had attended, 64%
of young respondents reported that teachers never used teaching examples
or materials in which lesbian, gay, or bisexual people were present; 28%
reported that teachers did this rarely, 6% sometimes, and 2% frequently.
Furthermore, 21% reported that teachers never showed disapproval when
words as “faggot,” “homo,” or “lesbian” were used in a derogatory way;
22% reported that teachers did this rarely, 7% in about half the cases, 25%
mostly, and 10% each time. Another 15% reported that such words had
never been used in a derogatory way in the presence of their teachers.
With regard to the behavior of LGB people in the schools they attended
14 U. KLOCKE

or had attended, 74% of young respondents indicated that there are or

were no openly lesbian, gay, or bisexual teachers; 18% answered there was
one, 7% there were some, and 1% many openly lesbian, gay, or bisexual
teachers. With regard to students, numbers were not much higher: 50%
said there were none, 23% one, 25% some, and 2% many openly lesbian,
gay, or bisexual students in their schools.

How widespread is the opposition to addressing sexual-orientation diversity in

school?
All 2,013 participants were asked about their attitudes toward addressing
sexual-orientation diversity in school. On the one hand, opposition was
lower than expected (see Figure 1). Only about one out of four respondents
disagreed with the statement that school materials should also include homo­
sexual or bisexual people, and surprisingly, nine out of ten respondents were in
favor of schools promoting the acceptance of homosexual and bisexual people
to students. Agreement in favor of the prevention of homophobic slurs by
schools was a near consensus as well. On the other hand, more than one out of
four respondents agreed that addressing sexual diversity in school confuses
children in the development of their sexuality and that only heterosexual
couples should appear in school when it comes to the topics of love and
partnership.

School materials (e.g. books, films or assignments)

11 13 29 43
should also include homosexual or bisexual people.

It should be one of the school's goals to convey the

acceptance of homosexual and bisexual people to 5 5 22 66
pupils.

Schools should do something to prevent students from

using terms such as ´faggot´, ´homo´, ´sissy´ or 7 8 20 63
´lesbian´ as swear words.

Addressing sexual diversity in school confuses

39 26 16 11
children in the development of their sexuality.

When it comes to the topics of love and partnership,

only heterosexual couples of men and women should 46 24 13 13
appear in school.

Don't agree at all Somewhat not agree [No answer] [Don't know] Somewhat agree Fully agree

Figure 1. Attitudes toward addressing sexual-orientation diversity in school (percentages).

 JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY 15

How can attitudes toward addressing sexual-orientation diversity in school be

explained?

In order to answer this question, two hierarchical regression analyses were

performed. The first analyzed data from the 944 respondents who had been
asked about their societal values and had answered enough questions to have
scores on all predictor variables (see the second, fourth, and sixth column of
Table 1). Only one fifth of the respondents had already heard about the
education plans and were also asked two questions about the aims of the
plans. Thus, the effects of beliefs about the education plans’ aims could only be
analyzed by this subsample (see the third, fifth, and seventh column of
Table 1). For the β-coefficients that seemed to differ between the two analyses,
a third hierarchical regression analysis was performed to test whether aware­
ness of the education plans was a significant moderator. This was done by
including the product terms of awareness and each of these predictors (both
z-standardizes) in the regression analysis. Multicollinearity was not an issue as
the variance inflation factors never surpassed 5 (the highest scores resulted for
classical and modern homophobia which correlated by .78 for the subsample
of respondents who had heard about the education plans; all other variance
inflation factors were below 2.6).
Step 1 of the hierarchical regression analyzed the effects of six sociodemo­
graphic variables and personal contact with lesbian, gay and bisexual people
on the attitudes toward addressing sexual-orientation diversity in school.
Supporting H1b and H1c, respondents who had personal contact with more
people whom they knew to be LGB and respondents who had a higher
education level were more frequently in favor of addressing sexual-
orientation diversity in school. The moderator analysis showed that these
effects were larger in the subsample of the respondents who had already
heard about the education plans. The β-coefficients of the product terms
were .09 for personal contact, t(930) = 2.82, p = .005, and .08 for educational
level, t(930) = 2.50, p = .013. Effects of participants’ gender, immigrant back­
ground, and sexual orientation were only significant (p< .001) in the total
sample. Supporting H1a, men had less positive attitudes toward addressing
sexual-orientation diversity in school. The product term showed that the effect
did not differ significantly depending on awareness of the education plans, β =
−.01, t(930) = −0.20, p = .842. Participants with an immigrant background and
heterosexual participants had less positive attitudes as well. These effects were
(marginally) stronger for respondents who had not heard about the education
plans before. The β-coefficients of the product terms were .07 for immigrant
background, t(930) = 2.36, p = .018, and −.07 for non-heterosexual orienta­
tion, t(930) = −1.94, p = .052.
Step 2 of the hierarchical regression was relevant for answering the third
and main question of this study: Was it predominantly beliefs about sexual
16 U. KLOCKE

Table 1. Hierarchical regression of attitudes toward addressing sexual-orientation diversity in

school.
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
Aware of
plans Aware of Aware of
All particip. (N = All particip. plans All particip. plans
Predictor (N = 944) 202) (N = 944) (N = 202) (N = 944) (N = 202)
Male (vs. female) gender −.10*** −.12 −.01 −.01 −.01 −.04
Age −.03 −.01 .00 .08 .09*** .15**
Education level .11** .27*** .03 .01 .01 .01
Immigrant background −.18*** −.05 −.09** −.01 −.03 −.01
(vs. no imm. backgr.)
Living in east Germany −.03 −.09 −.02 −.07 −.04 −.10*
(vs. west or Berlin)
Non-heterosexual orientation .08** .00 .04 .01 .02 .04
Personal contact to LGB .19*** .33*** .07* .21*** −.03 .12*
(number of people)
B: Education plans: engage in −.14** −.12**
different sexual practices
B: Education plans: acceptance of .29*** .23***
LGB
B: Homosexual by socialization −.22*** −.17** −.09*** .02
B: Homosexual since birth .07* .01 .02 −.01
B: LGB are discriminated .11*** .01 .03 −.09*
B: Children well off with same-sex .36*** .33*** .10*** .16**
couples
V: Committed partnership and −.10*** −.14* −.02 −.01
family
V: Tradition .01 −.08 .01 −.12**
V: Self-determination .04 .02 −.01 .00
A: Classical homophobia −.33*** −.43***
A: Modern homophobia −.17*** .02
A: Affective attitudes to lesbian .13*** .07
and gay people
A: Sex education responsibility of .18*** .19**
school
A: Sex education responsibility of .01 −.01
parents
∆R2 .27 .35 .18 .12
∆F 60.32*** 18.16*** 75.76*** 16.04***
Total R2 .12 .25 .40 .60 .57 .73
Total F 18.96*** 9.32 43.85*** 17.55*** 65.25*** 22.64***
The table shows standardized β coefficients. B = belief, V = societal value, A = attitude. Only participants who had
heard about the education plans of making sexual diversity an issue in schools were asked about the education
plans’ content. Thus, the effects of the beliefs of the education plans’ content could only be analyzed in this
subsample and are shown in separate columns. *p< .05, **p< .01, ***p < .001

orientation and the education plans’ aims that predicted approval or was it
predominantly different basic societal values with respect to self-
determination, committed relationships, and tradition? Results showed that
beliefs were more responsible than values. To analyze the effects of the beliefs
about the education plans, respondents who had already heard about these
plans were asked about the plan’s aims. However, despite their coverage in the
media, only 20% of the respondents were aware of the education plans. On
average, these respondents seemed to be closer to the LGB community than
respondents who had not heard about the education plans. They more often
 JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY 17

had a non-heterosexual orientation, 7.1% vs. 3.8%, χ2(1) = 8.27, p = .004, knew
more LGB people personally, M = 2.17, SD = 1.28 vs. M = 1.72, SD = 1.26, t
(1,979) = −6.36, p < .001, and had a higher education level, M = 2.28, SD = 0.82
vs. M = 1.87, SD = 0.81, t(1,994) = −9.08, p < .001. Furthermore, they believed
less that homosexuality is affected by socialization M = 1.79, SD = 0.62 vs. M =
1.89, SD = 0.62, t(2,011) = 3.01, p = .003, more that LGB people are still
discriminated, M = 3.29, SD = 0.70 vs. M = 3.19, SD = 0.71, t(2,011) = −2.51,
p = .012, and put less value on tradition, M = 3.27, SD = 0.70 vs. M = 3.37, SD =
0.66, t(1,025) = 1.99, p = .047. For the other analyzed variables, there were no
significant differences (all p’s > .050). Only 15% of the respondents who had
already heard about the education plans believed these plans were aimed at
encouraging students to engage in as many different sexual practices as
possible, whereas 91% knew they were aimed at improving acceptance of
homosexual and bisexual people. Supporting H2a and b, respondents were
more in favor of the plans when they knew that their aim was to increase the
acceptance of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people and not to encourage students
to engage in different sexual practices.
Regarding the other beliefs, 73% of the respondents believed that children
who grow up with same-sex parents develop just as well as children in
heterosexual couples. In particular, this belief was positively associated with
attitudes toward addressing sexual-orientation diversity in school, supporting
hypothesis H4b. On average, respondents believed that a person is homosexual
since birth (M = 2.8, SD = 1.0, scales from 1 to 4) and that homosexuality is
hardly affected by socialization (i.e., by experiences with parents or potential
sexual partners, M = 1.9, SD = 0.6). Furthermore, most respondents believed
that LGB are still discriminated against (M = 3.2, SD = 0.7). In line with H3a,
believing that sexual orientation is determined by socialization led to opposi­
tion to addressing sexual-orientation diversity in school. Partly in line with
H3b and H4a, believing that homosexual people are born that way and that
they are still discriminated against in Germany had small positive effects on
attitudes, but only for the analysis of the whole sample. The product terms
showed that the effects did not differ significantly depending on awareness of
the education plans, β = −.02, t(921) = −0.60, p = .547 for homosexual since
birth and β = −.04, t(921) = −1.31, p = .190 for LGB are still discriminated.
Considering different societal values, on average respondents agreed that all
of them are beneficial for society, especially self-determination (M = 3.7, SD =
0.5, scales from 1 to 4), but also tradition (M = 3.3, SD = 0.7) as well as
committed partnership and family (M = 3.3, SD = 0.5. In line with H5a, the
hierarchical regressions showed a small negative effect of valuing committed
partnerships and family on support for the education plan. The more respon­
dents considered it beneficial for society that people marry and have reliable,
long-term relationships that produce children, the less they were in favor of
addressing sexual-orientation diversity in school. However, opposing H5b and
18 U. KLOCKE

H5c, agreement with the societal values of self-determination and tradition

had no significant effects on attitudes.
Step 3 of the hierarchical regression included attitudes toward sex education
and toward lesbians and gays because these attitudes are theoretically closer to
the dependent variable and might mediate some of the effects of the Step 1 and
2 predictors. Supporting H6a, the most important predictor of attitudes
toward addressing sexual-orientation diversity in school was classical homo­
phobia. Respondents who perceived homosexuality as something negative and
who rejected equal rights for lesbian and gay people were the ones most critical
of increasing acceptance of homosexual and bisexual people (e.g., by including
them in school materials). Respondents who did not perceive sex education as
the responsibility of the school were also more critical. Partly supporting H6b
and H6c, more modern homophobia and less-positive affective attitudes
toward lesbians and gays only increased opposition in the total sample. The
product terms showed that the effects of all three attitudes toward lesbians and
gays did not differ significantly depending on awareness of the education
plans, β = −.04, t(913) = −1.02, p = .308 for classical homophobia, β = .06, t
(913) = 1.40, p = .162 for modern homophobia, and β = −.02, t(913) = −0.81,
p = .417 for affective attitudes to lesbian and gay people.
Integrating these theoretically closer attitude predictors into the regression
did not cancel out the effects of beliefs about the plans’ aims and about
children’s wellbeing with same-sex parents. Whereas in Step 2 affirming the
societal value of committed partnerships and family had a negative effect on
attitudes toward addressing sexual-orientation diversity in school, in Step 3
this effect vanished, and instead affirming the societal value of tradition had
a negative effect. Whereas age had no effect in Steps 1 and 2, in Step 3 it had
a positive effect. Older people with similar attitudes toward sex education,
lesbians, and gays were even more in favor of increasing acceptance of lesbians
and gays in school than younger people.

Discussion
Even though population attitudes and laws relevant for LGB people have
continuously improved in Germany over the past decades, the situation in
schools is still characterized by invisibility, discrimination, and high vulner­
ability of LGB students. The present study showed that only one out of three
respondents under 30 years of age recalled teachers mentioning lesbian, gay,
or bisexual people at least once during their time in school. Only one out of
two respondents were aware of openly LGB students, and only one out of
four were aware of openly LGB teachers. Existing research demonstrates
a high prevalence of homophobic swear words (Collier et al., 2013; Klocke,
2012) as well as increased victimization (Ioerger et al., 2015), depression,
anxiety, and suicidality (Plöderl & Tremblay, 2015) of LGB adolescents. The
 JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY 19

situation can be improved by policies encouraging teachers to address sexual

orientation diversity in school (McKibban & Anderson, 2021). As politicians
and teachers are affected by population attitudes (O’Donoghue & Guerin,
2017), the present study’s most important aim was to analyze whether and
why people support or oppose addressing sexual-orientation diversity in
school, especially to answer whether opposition is better predicted by beliefs
or by societal values.
The results show that most German residents support addressing sexual-
orientation diversity in school and that beliefs are the more important pre­
dictor of this support. Opponents of sexual-orientation diversity less often
believed that the plans’ aim was to promote the acceptance of LGB and more
often believed that the aim was to encourage students to engage in different
sexual practices. Furthermore, they less often believed that children of same-
sex couples develop just as well as children of heterosexual couples and more
often believed that sexual orientation is affected by socialization. That means,
opponents of the education plan more often attributed a false aim to it and
more often held false assumptions about sexual orientation and LGB people.
There is much more evidence for biological determinants of sexual orientation
than for socialization factors (Bailey et al., 2016). There is also evidence that
children of same-sex couples develop just as well as children of heterosexual
couples (Fedewa, Black, & Ahn, 2015; Miller, Kors, & Macfie, 2017).
Regarding value differences, opponents more often preferred a society
where people get married, have children, and stay with their partner until
the end of their life. Proponents of the education plans often focused on self-
determination, in this case the individual right to live in accordance with one’s
own sexual orientation. A focus on self-determination might trigger the fear in
people who value a committed partnership and family that addressing sexual-
orientation diversity in school will strengthen selfish motives at the cost of
responsibility to the family. A supporter of the petition against the plan
(Stängle, 2013) criticized that “important values like love and deep feelings”
were not taught to children. This illustrates that a great number of people
might have a married heterosexual couple with biological children in mind
when thinking about such values, even though these “values of love and deep
feelings” are not restricted to heterosexual couples.
Comparable to other research on contact and prejudice, personal contact
with LGB people has an impact on attitudes toward addressing sexual-
orientation diversity in school. Having acquaintances who are openly LGB
increases knowledge about sexual orientation (Klocke, 2012) and leads to
more positive attitudes toward LGB people (Smith et al., 2009), which makes
it more likely to empathize with LGB students in school who are almost
exclusively confronted with heterosexuality, even in today’s school system.
Similarly, for education level and gender, the same effects as in former research
on predictors of attitudes toward LGB people emerged (e.g., Herek &
20 U. KLOCKE

Gonzalez-Rivera, 2006; Kite & Whitley, 1996). Furthermore, respondents who

immigrated to Germany or whose parents did were less in favor of addressing
sexual-orientation diversity in school than respondents with no immigrant
background. This is also comparable with earlier research in Germany (e.g.,
Zick et al., 2019). Interestingly, this effect did not emerge for respondents who
had heard about the education plans before the survey. People with an
immigrant background who were more involved in the issue of sexual-
orientation diversity in school did not differ from people without an immi­
grant background in their opinion on the topic.
Not surprisingly, attitudes toward addressing sexual-orientation diversity in
school were predicted by general attitudes toward LGB people and toward sex
education in general. Classical homophobia in particular was an important
predictor, which was surprising because the issue of sexual-orientation diver­
sity in school is rather new, whereas classical homophobia focuses on issues
debated for decades such as whether homosexuality is a disease or whether
same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. It could be assumed that
modern homophobia (i.e., the dislike of being involved with homosexuality
in everyday life) might have a greater impact than classical homophobia.
However, people in Germany seemed to perceive the issue of addressing
sexual-orientation diversity in school predominantly as an issue of equal rights
and protection against discrimination (the opposite of classical homophobia).
Furthermore, the attitude that multifaceted sex education (including repro­
duction, dangers, pleasant sides, as well as sexual orientations) is
a responsibility of the school goes hand in hand with support for including
sexual-orientation diversity outside clearly defined sex education lessons.
Whereas most predictors produced similar effects in the whole sample and
in the subsample of respondents who had already heard about the education
plans, some effects were different. On the one hand, the positive effects of
personal contact to LGB people and education level were significantly stronger
for respondents who were aware of the education plans. On the other hand,
the negative effect of immigrant background and the positive effect of a non-
heterosexual orientation were only present for respondents who had not been
aware of the plans. Probably, when people hear about the plans in the media,
some of them try to get information about its aims and content. Being more
educated makes it easier to receive information from reputable media that are
less likely to spread misinformation. Having LGB friends, family members, or
acquaintances makes it easier to receive information from people personally
affected by the plans and to feel empathy with LGB students experiencing
discrimination in school. Reliable information and empathy lead to more
positive attitudes toward addressing sexual-orientation diversity in school.
On the other hand, people who were unaware of the plans before being
asked about them in a survey might quickly base their spontaneous judgment
on own personal attributes like cultural background or sexual orientation.
 JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY 21

Even though the effects of gender, the belief that people are homosexual
because they were born this way, and the belief that LGB people are still
discriminated were only significant in the whole sample, the effects did not
significantly differ between groups. Thus, the non-significant effects in the
subsample are likely be due to reduced statistical power.
The second aim of the current study was to describe German residents’
attitudes toward addressing sexual-orientation diversity in school in more
detail. A surprisingly clear majority of nine out of ten respondents of the
whole sample was in favor of schools promoting the acceptance of LGB people
to students. This is remarkable because opponents of the education plan
sometimes argued that promoting the acceptance of LGB to students was
“brainwashing” (Stuttgarter Zeitung, 2015). They preferred the term “toler­
ance” to clarify that everybody is free to reject what they called a homosexual
“life style” (Niggemeier, 2014). Furthermore, 83% of the respondents were in
favor of preventing homophobic swear words in schools. A majority was also
in favor of addressing sexual-orientation diversity by inclusive school materi­
als depicting LGB people; however, the approval was lower. About one out of
three respondents agreed with or were ambiguous toward the assumption that
addressing sexual diversity in school confuses children in the development of
their sexuality. Probably, some people think that acceptance of LGB should
just be taught when a suitable opportunity arises, e.g., a public coming-out of
a classmate or a student using “gay” as a swear word, but not by discussing
sexual orientation as part of the curriculum or presenting LGB people in
everyday teaching material.

Limitations and future research

The data for this study were collected as part of a survey on population
attitudes toward lesbian, gay, and bisexual people in Germany. Thus, the
school-related questions were restricted to sexual-orientation diversity and
the sample was restricted to Germany. It is likely that peoples’ attitudes toward
addressing sexual-orientation diversity in school are highly correlated with
attitudes toward including a broader diversity of sex and gender in school
(Worthen, 2012). Future studies should add questions on whether and how
teachers talk about transgender, intersex or gender-nonconforming people
and what respondents think about including these groups in the curricula. In
a survey of a random sample of schools in Berlin, teachers reported that they
addressed transgender and intersex people even less than LGB people (Klocke,
Salden, & Watzlawik, 2020). Furthermore, the current results from Germany
can be helpful to derive well-founded hypotheses on how to explain and
change attitudes in other countries facing opposition to state policies of
addressing sexual-orientation and gender diversity in school, such as the
USA (Richardson, 2022), the UK (John, 2022), Ireland (O’Donoghue &
22 U. KLOCKE

Guerin, 2017), and Australia (O’Neill, 2022). Administrations might learn

from these results and researchers might consider significant predictors of
this study in their own research.
As the results come from a cross-sectional survey, it is not possible to
draw causal inferences. The relation between the attitudes toward addres­
sing sexual-orientation diversity in school and the beliefs about the aims of
the education plans might also be explained by post hoc rationalization:
People who feel repelled when they imagine teachers talking about gay
issues in school legitimate their opposition by stating that the real aim of
the education plan is to sexualize children and not to promote human
rights. Thus, to identify the causes of attitudes more clearly, this cross-
sectional correlational research should be extended by longitudinal or
experimental studies.
Beyond attitudes as dependent measure, a behavioral measure would pro­
vide additional insights. Attitudes that are never expressed in any behavior are
of little practical relevance for reducing discrimination and improving the
situation of LGBTI people. Respondents might therefore be asked if they have
participated in demonstrations, signed petitions, argued with other people, or
complained in school in favor of or against sexual-orientation diversity. This
approach should be combined with a longitudinal design to predict future
behavior by present beliefs, values, and attitudes.

Practical implications
The results of this study might help to reduce opposition to sexual-orientation
diversity in school and to solve the conflict between opponents and supporters
of the education plans. First of all, it is important to note that opposition to the
plans should not be overestimated. Even though the petition against the
education plan in Baden-Württemberg was signed by more than 200,000
people (Stängle, 2013), only one out of ten respondents in Germany rejected
the goal to promote pupils’ acceptance of LGB people. However, a few com­
plaining parents, or the fear that these parents might exist, can deter teachers
from talking openly about diverse sexual orientations, sexes, and genders
(Sauntson & Simpson, 2011). Thus, it is important for activists, politicians,
school administration, and teachers to know the reasons why people oppose
this issue in school.
The present results suggest that opposition might be reduced by providing
simple facts about how the education plans are to be implemented, i.e., what
specific content will be talked about. At parent teacher meetings teachers could
present the actual content of the curriculum and examples of books or media
they will use. They should be careful when repeating false information on the
education plans because this might strengthen belief in the false information
(Lewandowsky, Ecker, Seifert, Schwarz, & Cook, 2012). Instead teachers might
 JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY 23

provide reasons why this information has been spread, e.g., that some people
base their career on scandalizing gender issues (e.g., Kelle, 2020) or that media
can increase their sales when they present a story in an emotional and
scandalizing way. Additionally, scientific information on the wellbeing of
children with same-sex parents might be presented to parents, as well as
information that there is no evidence that sexual orientation can be influenced
by the behavior of parents or teachers.
Compared to beliefs, societal values had only a small impact on attitudes
about addressing sexual-orientation diversity in school. However, this does
not mean that they should be ignored. Often, LGBTI activists predomi­
nantly base their argumentation on the value of self-determination: People
should be free to live in accordance with their own sexual orientation, sex,
and gender, and this freedom should also be ensured by institutions as
schools. The present results suggest that opponents of the education plan
were also motivated by the value of committed partnerships and family.
Opponents might feel threatened by the view of a society they perceive as
simply focusing on individual freedom, e.g., the freedom to leave one’s
partner and family behind. Besides the effect of misinformation, there is
also a value conflict. In order to bridge this gap, supporters of LGBTI
rights might complement their value basis by more explicitly mentioning
the values of community and social responsibility and by stressing that
these values include responsibility to family and relatives. They might
explain that enabling students to live in accordance with their sexual
orientation also means fewer divorces due to a late and complicated
coming-out of one spouse and a higher likelihood of LGBTI living in
stable and caring relationships (Doyle & Molix, 2015). In doing so, they
would address the fear mentioned in the comment at the beginning of this
article and show that addressing sexual-orientation diversity in school does
not contradict “important values such as love and deep feelings” but
supports them.

Acknowledgments
The author thanks Hannah Meudt and Ursula Hess, who provided valuable feedback.
The survey was conducted in line with local ethical regulations; respondents were informed
that participation was voluntary, and data was stored anonymously. The data that support the
findings of this study are available from the Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency of Germany
(poststelle@ads.bund.de) upon reasonable request.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
24 U. KLOCKE

Funding
The author acknowledges support by the Open Access Publication Fund of Humboldt-
Universität zu Berlin.
The survey was commissioned by the Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency of Germany.
Descriptive results presented in this article were also published in the following research
report: Küpper, B., Klocke, U., & Hoffmann, L.-C. (2017). Einstellungen gegenüber lesbischen,
schwulen und bisexuellen Menschen in Deutschland. Ergebnisse einer
bevölkerungsrepräsentativen Umfrage. Hg. v. Antidiskriminierungsstelle des Bundes
[Attitudes toward lesbian, gay, and bisexual people in Germany. Results of a national repre­
sentative survey. Edited by the Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency]. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

ORCID
Ulrich Klocke http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9022-1920

References
Ávila, R. (2018). LGBTQI inclusive education report. IGLYO. Retrieved from https://web.
unican.es/unidades/igualdad/SiteAssets/guia-de-recursos/acoso/IE-Full-Report-May-18.
pdf
Bailey, J. M., Vasey, P. L., Diamond, L. M., Breedlove, S. M., Vilain, E., & Epprecht, M.
(2016). Sexual orientation, Controversy, and Science. Psychological Science in the Public
Interest, 17(2), 45–101. doi:10.1177/1529100616637616
Banse, R., Seise, J., & Zerbes, N. (2001). Implicit attitudes towards homosexuality: Reliability,
validity, and controllability of the IAT. Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie, 48(2),
145–160. doi:10.1026//0949-3946.48.2.145
Barnett, M. D., Öz, H. C. M., & Marsden, A. D., III. (2018). Economic and social political
ideology and homophobia: The mediating role of binding and individualizing moral
foundations. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 47(4), 1183–1194. doi:10.1007/s10508-017-
0989-2
Bittner, M. (2012). Geschlechterkonstruktionen und die Darstellung von Lesben, Schwulen,
Bisexuellen, Trans* und Inter* (LSBTI) in Schulbüchern: Eine gleichstellungsorientierte
Analyse [Gender constructions and the representation of lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans* and
inter* (LGBTI) people in textbooks: An equality-oriented analysis]. Gewerkschaft Erziehung
und Wissenschaft. Retrieved from https://www.gew.de/fileadmin/media/publikationen/hv/
Gleichstellung/Lesben__Schwule__Bisexuelle__Trans_und_Inter/Schulbuchanalyse_web.
pdf
Burton, C. M., Marshal, M. P., Chisolm, D. J., Sucato, G. S., & Friedman, M. S. (2013). Sexual
minority-related victimization as a mediator of mental health disparities in sexual minority
youth: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(42), 394–402. doi:10.
1007/s10964-012-9901-5
Callahan, M. P., & Vescio, T. K. (2011). Core American values and the structure of antigay
prejudice. Journal of Homosexuality, 58(2), 248–262. doi:10.1080/00918369.2011.540180
Change Centre Foundation. (2015). Queeres Deutschland 2015: Zwischen Wertschätzung und
Vorbehalten [Queer Germany 2015: Between Appreciation and Reservations]. Retrieved
from https://www.lsvd.de/fileadmin/pics/Dokumente/Bildung/CCF_Queeres_
Deutschland_31.12.2015.pdf
 JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY 25

Cocco, V. M., Bisagno, E., Di Bernardo, G. A., Cadamuro, A., Riboldi, S. D.,
Crapolicchio, E., . . . Vezzali, L. (2021). Comparing story reading and video watching as
two distinct forms of vicarious contact: An experimental intervention among elementary
school children. British Journal of Social Psychology, 60(1), 74–94. doi:10.1111/bjso.12404
Collier, K. L., Bos, H. M. W., & Sandfort, T. G. M. (2013). Homophobic name-calling among
secondary school students and its implications for mental health. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 42(3), 363–375. doi:10.1007/s10964-012-9823-2
Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. (2010). Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)5 of
the Committee of Ministers to member states on measures to combat discrimination on
grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity. Retrieved from https://search.coe.int/cm/
Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectID=09000016805cf40a
Czopp, A. M., & Ashburn-Nardo, L. (2012). Interpersonal confrontations of prejudice. In
D. W. Russell & C. A. Russell (Eds.), The psychology of prejudice: Interdisciplinary perspec­
tives on contemporary issues (pp. 175–201). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
Dissens - Institut für Bildung und Forschung e.V. (2019). Interventionen für geschlechtliche und
sexuelle Vielfalt: Rechtliche Rahmenbedingungen [Interventions for gender and sexual diver­
sity: Legal framework]. Retrieved from https://interventionen.dissens.de/materialien/
rechtliche-rahmenbedingungen
Doyle, D. M., & Molix, L. (2015). Social stigma and sexual minorities’ romantic relationship
functioning: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psycholgy Bulletin, 41(10),
1363–1381. doi:10.1177/0146167215594592
Dürrbaum, T., & Sattler, F. A. (2020). Minority stress and mental health in lesbian, gay male,
and bisexual youths: A meta-analysis. Journal of LGBT Youth, 17(3), 298–314. doi:10.1080/
19361653.2019.1586615
Eick, U., Rubinstein, T., Hertz, S., & Slater, A. (2016). Changing attitudes of high school
students in Israel toward homosexuality. Journal of LGBT Youth, 13(1–2), 192–206. doi:10.
1080/19361653.2015.1087930
Elia, J. P., & Tokunaga, J. (2015). Sexuality education: Implications for health, equity, and social
justice in the United States. Health Education, 115(1), 105–120. doi:10.1108/HE-01-2014-
0001
European Commission. (2015). Special Eurobarometer 437. Discrimination in the EU in 2015:
Report. [Author]. Retrieved from www.equineteurope.org/IMG/pdf/ebs_437_en.pdf
European Commission. (2019). Eurobarometer on discrimination 2019: The social acceptance of
LGBTI people in the EU. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/ebs_493_
data_fact_lgbti_eu_en-1.pdf
Fedewa, A. L., Black, W. W., & Ahn, S. (2015). Children and adolescents with same-gender
parents: A meta-analytic approach in assessing outcomes. Journal of GLBT Family Studies,
11(1), 1–34. doi:10.1080/1550428X.2013.869486
Fingerhut, A. W. (2011). Straight allies: What predicts heterosexuals’ alliance with the LGBT
community? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(9), 2230–2248. doi:10.1111/j.1559-
1816.2011.00807.x
Forschungsdatenzentrum der Statistischen Ämter der Länder. (2020). Mikrozensus
[Microcensus]. Retrieved from https://www.forschungsdatenzentrum.de/de/haushalte/
mikrozensus
Gabler, S., & Häder, S. (1997). Überlegungen zu einem Stichprobendesign für Telefonumfragen
in Deutschland [Considerations on a sample design for telephone surveys in Germany].
ZUMA Nachrichten, 21(41), 7–18. Retrieved from https://www.gesis.org/angebot/publikatio
nen/archiv/zuma-und-za-publikationen/zuma-nachrichten/gesamtverzeichnis#c3460
Gewerkschaft Erziehung und Wissenschaft. (2017). Handreichung für Pädagog_innen: Lesbisch,
schwul, trans, hetero . . . Lebensweisen als Thema für die Schule (Herausgegeben vom AK
26 U. KLOCKE

Lesbenpolitik im Vorstandsbereich Frauenpolitik der Gewerkschaft Erziehung und Wissenschaft

(GEW) Baden-Württemberg, 8. völlig überarbeitete Auflage) [Handouts for teachers: Lesbian, gay,
trans, hetero . . . Lifestyles as a topic for school (published by the working group on lesbian politics
in the Women’s Policy Section of the Education and Science Union (GEW) Baden-Württemberg
(8th completely revised ed.)]. Kirchheim unter Teck: Süddeutscher Pädagogischer Verlag (SPV).
Retrieved from https://www.gew-bw.de/:/%3FeID%3DdumpFile%26t%3Df%26f%3D29158%
26token%3D9e7e9e2e4f34d7503273658e3a9a234477321f96%26sdownload%3D
Haidt, J., Graham, J., & Joseph, C. (2009). Above and below left–right: Ideological narratives and
moral foundations. Psychological Inquiry, 20(2–3), 110–119. doi:10.1080/10478400903028573
Harris, M. B., Nightengale, J., & Owen, N. (1995). Health care professionals’ experience,
knowledge, and attitudes concerning homosexuality. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social
Services, 2(2), 91–107. doi:10.1300/J041v02n02_06
Heitmeyer, W., & Mansel, J. (2008). Gesellschaftliche Entwicklung und Gruppenbezogene
Menschenfeindlichkeit: Unübersichtliche Perspektiven [Social development and group-
focused enmity: Confusing perspectives]. In W. Heitmeyer (Ed.), Deutsche Zustände (Vol.
6, pp. 13–35). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Herek, G. M. (1988). Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: Correlates and
gender differences. Journal of Sex Research, 25(4), 451–477. doi:10.1080/00224498809551476
Herek, G. M., & Gonzalez-Rivera, M. (2006). Attitudes toward homosexuality among U.S.
Residents of Mexican descent. Journal of Sex Research, 43(2), 122–135. doi:10.1080/
00224490609552307
Ioerger, M., Henry, K. L., Chen, P. Y., Cigularov, K. P., & Tomazic, R. G. (2015). Beyond
same-sex attraction: Gender-variant-based victimization is associated with suicidal behavior
and substance use for other-sex attracted adolescents. PLoS ONE, 10(6), e0129976. doi:10.
1371/journal.pone.0129976
Ioverno, S., Belser, A. B., Baiocco, R., Grossman, A. H., & Russell, S. T. (2016). The protective
role of gay–straight alliances for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and questioning students:
A prospective analysis. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 3(4),
397–406. doi:10.1037/sgd0000193
Iser, J., & Schmidt, P. (2003). Gefährliche Werte? Was Tradition und Konformität anrichten
können [Dangerous values? What tradition and conformity can do]. In W. Heitmeyer (Ed.),
Deutsche Zustände. Folge 2 (pp. 61–77). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
John, T. (2022, August, 4). Drag queen storytime in England promotes compassion and
inclusion. British far-right extremists are importing US hate against them. CNN. Retrieved
from https://edition.cnn.com/2022/08/04/europe/lgbtq-drag-queen-far-right-protests-intl
/index.html
Kelle, B. (2020). Volle Kelle [Full trowel]. Retrieved from http://vollekelle.de/
Kite, M. E., & Whitley, B. E., Jr. (1996). Sex differences in attitudes toward homosexual persons,
behaviors, and civil rights: A meta-analysis. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(4),
336–353. doi:10.1177/0146167296224002
Klocke, U. (2012). Akzeptanz sexueller Vielfalt an Berliner Schulen: Eine Befragung zu
Verhalten, Einstellungen und Wissen zu LSBT und deren Einflussvariablen [Acceptance of
sexual diversity in Berlin schools: A survey on behaviour, attitudes and knowledge about
LGBT and its predicting variables]. Berlin: Senatsverwaltung für Bildung, Jugend und
Wissenschaft. Retrieved from https://www.psychologie.hu-berlin.de/de/prof/org/down
load/klocke2012_1
Klocke, U., Latz, S., & Scharmacher, J. (2019). Schule unterm Regenbogen? Einflüsse auf die
Berücksichtigung sexueller und geschlechtlicher Vielfalt durch Lehrkräfte [School under the
rainbow? Predictors of teachers’ consideration of sexual and gender diversity]. Psychologie in
Erziehung und Unterricht, 66(2), 131–156. doi:10.2378/peu2019.art12d
 JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY 27

Klocke, U., Salden, S., & Watzlawik, M. (2020). Lsbti* Jugendliche in Berlin: Wie nehmen
pädagogische Fachkräfte ihre Situation wahr und was bewegt sie zum Handeln? [LGBTI
adolescents in Berlin: How do educational professionals perceive their situation and what
motivates them to act?]. Berlin: Senatsverwaltung für Bildung, Jugend und Familie.
Retrieved from https://bit.ly/3cLe0Iu
Kull, R. M., Greytak, E. A., Kosciw, J. G., & Villenas, C. (2016). Effectiveness of school district
antibullying policies in improving LGBT youths’ school climate. Psychology of Sexual
Orientation and Gender Diversity, 3(4), 407–415. doi:10.1037/sgd0000196
Kuntz, A., Davidov, E., Schwartz, S. H., & Schmidt, P. (2015). Human values, legal regulation,
and approval of homosexuality in Europe: A cross-country comparison. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 45(1), 120–134. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2068
Küpper, B., Klocke, U., & Hoffmann, L.-C. (2017). Einstellungen gegenüber lesbischen, schwulen
und bisexuellen Menschen in Deutschland. Ergebnisse einer bevölkerungsrepräsentativen
Umfrage. Hg. v. Antidiskriminierungsstelle des Bundes [Attitudes toward lesbian, gay, and
bisexual people in Germany. Results of a national representative survey. Edited by the
Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency]. Nomos. Retrieved from https://www.antidiskriminier
ungsstelle.de/SharedDocs/downloads/DE/publikationen/Umfragen/umfrage_einstellun
gen_geg_lesb_schwulen_und_bisex_menschen_de.html
Lemmer, G., & Wagner, U. (2015). Can we really reduce ethnic prejudice outside the lab? A
meta-analysis of direct and indirect contact interventions. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 45(2), 152–168. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2079
Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012).
Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing.
Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(3), 106–131. doi:10.1177/1529100612451018
Marshal, M. P., Dietz, L. J., Friedman, M. S., Stall, R., Smith, H. A., McGinley, J., . . . Brent, D. A.
(2011). Suicidality and depression disparities between sexual minority and heterosexual
youth: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Adolescent Health, 49(2), 115–123. doi:10.1016/j.
jadohealth.2011.02.005
Marx, R. A., & Kettrey, H. H. (2016). Gay-straight alliances are associated with lower levels of
school-based victimization of LGBTQ+ youth: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(7), 1269–1282. doi:10.1007/s10964-016-0501-7
McKibban, A. R., & Anderson, A. R. (2021). Addressing gender and sexual orientation diversity
within youth populations: An evaluation of health disparities and recommendations on
affirmative school policy. In M. C. Lytle & R. A. Sprott (Eds.), Supporting gender identity and
sexual orientation diversity in K-12 schools (pp. 163–179). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/0000211-009
Mereish, E., & Poteat, V. P. (2015). Effects of heterosexuals’ direct and extended friendships
with sexual minorities on their attitudes and behaviors: Intergroup anxiety and attitude
strength as mediators and moderators. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 45(3), 147–157.
doi:10.1111/jasp.12284
Miller, B. G., Kors, S., & Macfie, J. (2017). No differences? Meta-analytic comparisons of
psychological adjustment in children of gay fathers and heterosexual parents. Psychology
of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 4(1), 14–22. doi:10.1037/sgd0000203
Morrison, M. A., & Morrison, T. G. (2002). Development and validation of a scale measuring
modern prejudice toward gay men and lesbian women. Journal of Homosexuality, 43(2),
15–37. doi:10.1300/j082v43n02_02
Nicolas, G., & Skinner, A. L. (2012). “That’s so gay!” Priming the general negative usage of the
word gay increases implicit anti-gay bias [Article]. Journal of Social Psychology, 152(5),
654–658. doi:10.1080/00224545.2012.661803
28 U. KLOCKE

Niggemeier, S. (2014, February 15). Sexualität und Gesellschaft: Das Ende der Toleranz
[Sexuality and society: The end of tolerance]. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Retrieved
from https://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/sexualitaet-und-gesellschaft-das-ende-der-
toleranz-12803599.html
O’Donoghue, K., & Guerin, S. (2017). Homophobic and transphobic bullying: Barriers and
supports to school intervention. Sex Education, 17(2), 220–234. doi:10.1080/14681811.2016.
1267003
O’Neill, B. (2022, April 26). The parental revolt against woke indoctrination: Mums and dads
are rising up against the politicisation of education. spiked. Retrieved from https://www.
spiked-online.com/2022/04/26/the-parental-revolt-against-woke-indoctrination/
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751
Plöderl, M., & Tremblay, P. (2015). Mental health of sexual minorities. A systematic review.
International Review of Psychiatry, 27(5), 367–385. doi:10.3109/09540261.2015.1083949
Rhein-Neckar-Zeitung. (2013, August 10). Homosexualität als Schulthema? Land will
Bildungsplan ändern [Homosexuality as a school topic? State wants to change education
plan]. Retrieved from https://www.rnz.de/politik/suedwest_artikel,-Suedwest-
Homosexualitaet-als-Schulthema-_arid,29554.html
Rhodebeck, L. (2018). Issue-relevant values and opinions about gay rights: Beyond equality and
morality. Journal of Homosexuality, 65(3), 379–405. doi:10.1080/00918369.2017.1317476
Richardson, S. (2022). Groups opposed to gay rights rake in millions as states debate
anti-LGBTQ bills. NBC News. Retrieved from https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-
news/groups-opposed-gay-rights-rake-millions-states-debate-anti-lgbtq-bills-rcna21016
Rosik, C. H., Dinges, L. J., & Saavedra, N. (2013). Moral intuitions and attitudes toward gay
men: Can moral psychology add to our understanding of homonegativity? Journal of
Psychology and Theology, 41(4), 315–326. doi:10.1177/009164711304100404
Sauntson, H., & Simpson, K. (2011). Investigating sexuality discourses in the U.K. secondary
English curriculum. Journal of Homosexuality, 58(6–7), 953–973. doi:10.1080/00918369.
2011.581955
Saur, B. (2014). Schamlos im Klassenzimmer [Shameless in the classroom]. FOCUS Magazin.
Retrieved from https://www.focus.de/familie/schule/ein-kommentar-von-bernd-saur-
schamlos-im-klassenzimmer_id_4212076.html
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances
and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. P. Zanna & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Advances in
experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). San Diego, CA, US: Academic Press.
doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60281-6
Schwartz, S. H., Melech, G., Lehmann, A., Burgess, S., Harris, M., & Owens, V. (2001).
Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different
method of measurement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(5), 519–542. doi:10.1177/
0022022101032005001
Seise, J., Banse, R., & Neyer, F. J. (2002). Individuelle Unterschiede in impliziten und expliziten
Einstellungen zur Homosexualität: Eine empirische Studie [Individual differences in implicit
and explicit attitudes towards homosexuality: An empirical study]. Zeitschrift für
Sexualforschung, 15(1), 21–42. doi:10.1055/s-2002-25178
Shimanoff, S. B., Elia, J. P., & Yep, G. A. (2012). Queering the politics of Lambda picture book
finalists: Challenging creeping neoliberalism through curricular innovations. Journal of
Homosexuality, 59(7), 1005–1030. doi:10.1080/00918369.2012.699840
Smith, S. J., Axelton, A. M., & Saucier, D. A. (2009). The effects of contact on sexual prejudice:
A meta-analysis. Sex Roles, 61(3–4), 178–191. doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9627-3
 JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY 29

Smith, S. J., Zanotti, D. C., Axelton, A. M., & Saucier, D. A. (2011). Individuals’ beliefs about
the etiology of same-sex sexual orientation. Journal of Homosexuality, 58(8), 1110–1131.
doi:10.1080/00918369.2011.598417
Stängle, G. (2013). Zukunft – Verantwortung – Lernen: Kein Bildungsplan 2015 unter der
Ideologie des Regenbogens [Future - Responsibility - Learning: No education plan 2015
under the ideology of the rainbow]. Retrieved from https://www.openpetition.de/petition/
online/zukunft-verantwortung-lernen-kein-bildungsplan-2015-unter-der-ideologie-des-
regenbogens
Swank, E., Woodford, M. R., & Lim, C. (2013). Antecedents of Pro-LGBT advocacy
among sexual minority and heterosexual college students. Sexuality Research and
Social Policy, 10(4), 317–332. doi:10.1007/s13178-013-0136-3
Wetzel, M. (2014, January 27). Petition gegen Bildungsplan: Wie viel sexuelle Vielfalt verträgt
der Unterricht? [Petition against education plan: How much sexual diversity should be
tolerated in the classroom?]. Stuttgarter Nachrichten. Retrieved from https://www.stuttgar
ter-nachrichten.de/inhalt.petition-gegen-bildungsplan-wie-viel-sexuelle-vielfalt-vertraegt-
der-unterricht.cd0775d3-e8fc-4c1a-8161-f1d419bcd984.html
Worthen, M. G. F. (2012). Understanding college student attitudes toward LGBT individuals.
Sociological Focus, 45(4), 285–305. doi:10.1080/00380237.2012.712857
Zeitung, S. (2014, April 9). Grün-Rot streicht “sexuelle Vielfalt” aus dem Bildungsplan [Green-
red [government] removes “sexual diversity” from the education plan]. Retrieved from
https://www.sueddeutsche.de/bildung/baden-wuerttemberg-gruen-rot-streicht-sexuelle-
vielfalt-aus-dem-bildungsplan-1.1933026
Zeitung, S. (2015, June 21). Proteste begleiten “Demo für alle” [Protests accompany “Demo for
all”]. Retrieved from https://www.stuttgarter-zeitung.de/inhalt.stuttgart-proteste-begleiten-
demo-fuer-alle.1a1f2e39-f3c5-4448-be53-5871b3b50dbc.html
Zick, A., Küpper, B., & Berghan, W. (2019). Verlorene Mitte – Feindselige Zustände:
Rechtsextreme Einstellungen in Deutschland 2018/19 [Lost Centre - Hostile Conditions:
Right-wing extremist attitudes in Germany 2018/19]. Bonn: H. W. Dietz Nachf. GmbH.
30 U. KLOCKE

Appendix A
Measurement of Beliefs
All items were translated from German to English by the author. Original German items are
available by the author.
Instructions and Response Options
“Do you consider the following statements to be correct?”
(1) Not correct at all, (2) somewhat not correct, (3) somewhat correct, (4) fully correct
An open answer “don’t know” or no answer was coded with 2.5.
Education Plan: Engage in Different Sexual Practices (M = 1.6, SD = 0.9)
“Recently, some federal states have been revising their guidelines on what topics should be
covered in school. Among other things, it is planned that homosexuality should be addressed
more frequently and that school materials should include lesbian, gay or bisexual persons in
addition to heterosexual persons. The aim is therefore to take better account of sexual diversity
in school than has been the case to date. . . .
We would like to know what you have heard or read about these plans. To what extent do the
following statements apply to the plans to include sexual diversity in school?”
“According to the plans, the students should be encouraged to engage in as many different
sexual practices as possible.”
Education Plan: Acceptance of LGB (M = 3.5, SD = 0.7)
“According to the plans, the students should be led to accept homosexual and bisexual
people.”
Homosexual by Socialization (M = 1.9, SD = 0.6)
“A person is homosexual because . . . ”
“ . . . they have had bad experiences with the opposite sex.”
“ . . . they were seduced by someone else.”
“ . . . their parents raised them differently than most parents.”
“In Germany more and more people are becoming homosexual.”
Homosexual Since Birth (M = 2.8, SD = 1.0)
“A person is homosexual because they were born that way, e.g., because of her genes or
hormones during pregnancy.”
LGB Are Discriminated (M = 3.2, SD = 0.7)
“Homosexuals and bisexuals are still discriminated against or disadvantaged in Germany
today.”
“Homosexual and bisexual adolescents are more often victims of mobbing and discrimina­
tion than heterosexual adolescents.”
Children Well off With Same-Sex Couples (M = 3.0, SD = 1.0)
“Children who grow up with same-sex couples develop as well as children who grow up with
father and mother.”

Appendix B
Measurement of Societal Values
All items were translated from German to English by the author. Original German items are
available by the author.
Instructions and Response Options
“We would like to know how you think society in Germany should develop, i.e. which values
you consider important for society. To what extent do you agree with the following statements?
It is beneficial for society when people . . . ”
 JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY 31

(1) Don’t agree at all, (2) somewhat not agree, (3) somewhat agree, (4) fully agree
Committed Partnership and Family (M = 3.3, SD = 0.5)
“ . . . get married and live in a marriage.”
“ . . . enter into a marriage or partnership that lasts until the end of their life.”
“ . . . have and raise children.”
“ . . . are there for their partner, even if they have to put their own needs aside.”
Tradition (M = 3.3, SD = 0.7)
“ . . . respect traditions.”
“ . . . maintain the customs they have learned.”
Self-Determination (M = 3.7, SD = 0.5)
“ . . . can decide for themselves what they want to do.”
“ . . . are able to plan and select their activities themselves.”

Appendix C
Measurement of Attitudes
All items were translated from German to English by the author. Original German items are
available by the author.
Instructions and Response Options of the First Five Scales
“To what extent do you agree with the following statements?”
(1) Don’t agree at all, (2) somewhat not agree, (3) somewhat agree, (4) fully agree
Classical Homophobia (M = 1.6, SD = 0.7)
“Homosexuality is immoral.”
“It is good that homosexual people are legally protected against discrimination.” (reversed)
“Homosexuality is a disease.”
“Lesbian and gay couples should be allowed to adopt children just like heterosexual couples.”
(reversed)
“Marriages between two women or two men should be allowed.” (reversed)
“Demonstrations and parades of lesbians, gays and bisexuals such as Christopher Street Day,
are a good thing.” (reversed)”
“Homosexuality is unnatural.”
Modern Homophobia (M = 2.0, SD = 0.8)
“Homosexuals should stop making such a fuss about their sexuality.”
“In the media, the subject of homosexuality takes up too much space.”
“I would like to hear about the topic homosexuality as little as possible.”
“It is inappropriate for people to make their homosexuality public.”
“In Germany many people exaggerate their tolerance towards lesbians and gays.”
“Homosexuals make too many demands.”
To compare the effects of different wordings, in the last item for half of the respondents, the
term “homosexuals” was used. For the other half, the following terms were used and averaged:
“homosexual women”/“homosexual men,” “same-sex loving women”/“same-sex loving men,”
“lesbian women”/“gay men” and “lesbians”/“gay.” A one-way analysis of variance showed no
differences between wordings, F(4,1812) = 1.12, p = .345.
Affective Attitudes to Lesbian and Gay People (M = 2.6, SD = 0.5)
Instructions and Response Options
“In the following, I will read some situations to you. Please tell me in each case how these feel
for you. You learn that . . . ”
(1) Very unpleasant, (2) somewhat unpleasant, (3) somewhat pleasant, (4) very pleasant
32 U. KLOCKE

Ambivalent answers (e.g., “both”) or neutral answers (e.g., “I do not care”) were coded with
2.5.
Items
“ . . . a colleague at work is gay.”
“ . . . a colleague at work is lesbian”
“ . . . your son’s teacher is gay.”
“ . . . your daughter’s teacher is lesbian.”
“ . . . your son is gay.”
“ . . . your daughter is lesbian.”
Sex Education Responsibility of School (M = 3.4, SD = 0.6)
“Sex education is the task of the school.”
“The following topics should be dealt with in the context of sex education in schools:”
“Reproduction.”
“Dangers that may be associated with the subject, e.g., communicable diseases or unwanted
pregnancies.”
“The pleasant sides of sexuality.”
“Different sexual orientations, i.e., heterosexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality.”
Sex Education Responsibility of Parents (M = 3.5, SD = 0.7)
“Sex education is the task of parents.”
Addressing Sexual-Orientation Diversity in school (M = 3.2, SD = 0.7)
“School materials (e.g., books, films or assignments) should also include homosexual or
bisexual persons.”
“It should be one of the school’s goals to convey the acceptance of homosexual and bisexual
persons to students.”
“Schools should do something to prevent students from using terms such as ‘fagot,’ ´homo,’
´sissy,’ or ‘lesbian’ as swear words.”
“Addressing sexual diversity in school confuses children in the development of their
sexuality.” (reversed)
“When it comes to the topics of love and partnership, only heterosexual couples of men and
women should appear in school.” (reversed)