Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Heterosexual Allies? Understanding Heterosexuals’ Alliance with the Gay Community

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Sexuality & Culture Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Prevailing wisdom is that increased visibility of gay men and lesbians reduces levels of sexual prejudice, but less is known about who is more likely to ally with the gay community and how interaction with the gay community influences attitudes toward gay men and lesbians. Using data from 873 heterosexual college students in the US, we examine how alliance with the gay community, a typology which combines measures of personal contact and community contact, relates to attitudes towards gay men and lesbians. Membership in each alliance category differed by gender, race/ethnicity, size of place, traditional gender role and authoritarian attitudes, religiosity, and political conservatism. Approximately one-third of the sample are allies of the gay community with both personal contact and community contact and lower levels of sexual prejudice. By contrast, another 30 % of the sample has no contact (personal or community) and higher levels of sexual prejudice toward the gay community. We conclude that more complex models of heterosexual contact with gay community are more useful than dichotomous models for understanding differences in attitudes towards gay men and lesbians.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We use the term “gay community” as placeholder for a variety of communities inhabited by sexual minorities, although it may not be inclusive to all. Despite the divisions and differences that exist within the gay community (and indeed, all communities), being a part of a larger community brings cohesiveness and sense of belonging for those who participate. Therefore, despite a myriad of differences that exist within the gay community, it is useful to explore the gay community as a singular concept.

  2. Our survey used GLBT to refer to individuals within the gay community and we use this terminology throughout the manuscript, except when referring to existing research or measures which focus on more specific populations.

  3. The length of the survey could have fatigued our participants; however this does not appear to be the case. Over 80 % of the participants started the final module of the survey. The data used here, though, do not emanate from the later survey modules. With the exception of the mother’s traditional gender roles indicator, all other measures were collected in the first half of the questionnaire. Even so, over 95 % of the sample answered the mother’s traditional gender roles question, which appeared on page 20 of the survey.

  4. The sexual prejudice variables evidenced slight degrees of positive skew in histograms. Tests of the skewness were significant, indicating departures from normality. Regression analyses of naturally logged versions of the dependent variables returned substantively similar results. The only difference between the ordinary least squares regression of the unlogged and the logged dependent variables was that the ethnic/racial minority status indicator became significant. All other results are replicated. For ease in interpretation and because normality is the least crucial of regression assumptions (Allison 1998), we report the unlogged results.

  5. Principal components factor analysis identified multiple dimensions of heterosexuals’ contact with the gay community. Three significant factors were identified with eigenvalues of 2.81, 1.27, and 1.14. However, varimax rotation of the three-factor solution did not yield conceptually satisfying results: five of the variables (went to a gay bar, attended gay pride, went to a drag show, attended a private function, and shopped at a business) loaded significantly (i.e., loadings greater than +0.4) on the first factor, while two variables (belonging to an organization and taken a class) loaded on the second and two (purchased a publication and rented a video) loaded on the third. A two-factor solution found six variables (went to a gay bar, attended gay pride, went to a commitment ceremony, went to a drag show, attended a private function, and shopped at a business) loading on the first factor and three (belonging to an organization, purchasing a publication and taken a class) loading on the second. This solution appears to break down on immediate contact with members of the gay community versus indirect contact with the community. Future research may want to explore these differences in gay community contact; however, for our purposes here, we do not seek to differentiate between types of contact with the gay community. We are more interested in the differences between personal and community contact, how that indicates heterosexuals’ alliance patterns, and what that means for sexual prejudice.

  6. Principal components factor analysis identified four primary factors with eigenvalues ranging from 1.31 to 5.05. (Two borderline significant factors with eigenvalues of 1.01 and 1.03 were also identified.) When the factor analysis was restricted to a single factor (eigenvalue = 5.05), most factor loadings ranged between 0.377 and 0.672. The four remaining loadings were for the first, fourth, seventh, and tenth items: −0.222, 0.213, 0.120, −0.144, respectively. For analytic ease, we use this single factor in the analyses to follow.

  7. Principal components factor analysis confirmed the nine items formed a single, unidimensional factor (eigenvalue = 3.13). Eight of the nine items loaded fairly equally onto the single factor, with loadings ranging from a low of 0.492 to a high of 0.715. The lowest loading of 0.331 was for the final item in the scale.

  8. Principal components factor analysis found that the ten ATL items formed a single, unidimensional factor (eigenvalue—5.27) and the ten ATG items also formed a single, unidimensional factor (eigenvalue = 5.63). Combining the twenty items two significant factors were identified with eigenvalues of 10.31 and 1.27. When a single factor solution is forced upon the data, the loadings are relatively equal, with only two of the twenty less than +0.40 (0.342).

  9. We investigated what effect, if any, our choice of alliance reference group had on the results. When Acquaintances served as the reference, Friends and Avoiders showed significant differences; when Tourists served as the reference, Friends showed the most consistent significant differences; and when Avoiders served as the reference, Friends and Acquaintances showed the most consistent significant differences. Friends were the most different from the other alliance groups in terms of their sexual prejudice, Avoiders were the next most different from the other groups, and Acquaintances and Tourists were the least different.

References

  • Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D., & Sanford, N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York, NY: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allison, P. D. (1998). Multiple regression: A primer. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allison, P. D. (2000). Multiple imputation for missing data: A cautionary tale. Sociological Methods and Research, 28, 301–309. doi:10.1177/0049124100028003003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Altemeyer, B. (2001). Changes in attitudes toward homosexuals. Journal of Homosexuality, 42, 63–75. doi:10.1300/J082v42n02_04.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderssen, N. (2002). Does contact with lesbians and gays lead to friendlier attitudes? A two year longitudinal study. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 12, 124–136. doi:10.1002/casp.665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, D. C., & Pollack, L. M. (2005). Whose gay community? Social class, sexual self-expression, and gay community involvement. The Sociological Quarterly, 46, 437–456. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.2005.00021.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barth, J., Overby, L. M., & Huffmon, S. H. (2009). Community context, personal contact, and support for anti-gay rights referendum. Political Research Quarterly, 62, 355–365. doi:10.1177/1065912908317033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barth, J., & Perry, J. (2009). 2 > 1 + 1? The impact of contact with gay and lesbians couples on attitudes about gays/lesbians and gay-related policies. Politics and Policy, 37(1), 31–50. doi:10.1111/j.1747-1346.2007.00160.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baunach, D. M. (2011). Decomposing trends in attitudes toward gay marriage, 1988-2006. Social Science Quarterly, 92(2), 346–363. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2011.00772.x.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baunach, D. M., Burgess, E. O., & Muse, C. S. (2009). Southern (dis)comfort: Sexual prejudice and contact with gay men and lesbians in the South. Sociological Spectrum, 30(1), 30–64. doi:10.1080/02732170903340893

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, D., & Binnie, J. (2004). Authenticating queer space: Citizenship, urbanism and governance. Urban Studies, 9, 1807–1820. doi:10.1080/0042098042000243165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berkowitz, D., Belgrave, L., & Halberstein, R. A. (2007). The interaction of drag queens and gay men in public and private spaces. Journal of Homosexuality, 52(3–4), 11–32. doi:10.1300/J082v52n03_02.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandt, W. R. (2001). Why go to church when you can drink with Mary? Gay male club culture as religion without religion against ethics. Theology and Sexuality, 15, 32–44. doi:10.1177/135583580100801504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broido, E. M. (2000). Development of social justice allies during college: A phenomenological investigation. Journal of College Student Development, 41(1), 3–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown-Saracino, J. (2011). From lesbian ghetto to ambient community: The perceived costs and benefits of integration for community. Social Problems, 58(3), 361–388. doi:10.1525/sp.2011.58.3.361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burn, S. M. (2000). Heterosexuals’ use of “fag” and “queer” to deride one another: A contributor to heterosexism and stigma. Journal of Homosexuality, 40, 1–11. doi:10.1300/J082v40n02_01.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calzo, J. P., & Ward, L. M. (2009). Contributions of parents, peers, and media to attitudes toward homosexuality: Investigating sex and ethnic differences. Journal of Homosexuality, 56, 1101–1116. doi:10.1080/00918360903279338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casey, M. (2004). De-dyking queer space(s): Heterosexual female visibility in gay and lesbian spaces. Sexualities, 7(4), 446–461. doi:10.1177/136346070404706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, M. (2004). Correlates of negative attitudes toward gay men: Sexism, male role norms, and male sexuality. Journal of Sex Research, 41, 259–266. doi:10.1080/00224490409552233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J. A., Smith, T. W., & Marsden, P. V. (2005). General social surveys, 1972–2004 [computer file]. 2nd ICPSR Version. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center [producer], Storrs, CT: Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut/Ann Arbor, MI: Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research/Berkeley, CA: Computer-assisted Survey Methods Program (http://sda.berkeley.edu). University of California [distributors].

  • Doan, P. L. (2007). Queers in the American city: Transgendered perceptions of urban space. Gender, Place and Culture, 14(1), 57–74. doi:10.1080/09663690601122309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duggan, L. (2002). The new homonormativity: The sexual politics of neoliberalism. In R. Castronova & D. Nelson (Eds.), Materializing democracy: Toward a revitalized cultural politics (pp. 175–194). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Duhigg, J. M., Rostosky, S. S., Gray, B. C., & Wimsatt, M. K. (2010). Development of heterosexuals into sexual minority allies: A qualitative exploration. Sex Research and Social Policy, 7, 2–14. doi:10.1007/s13178-010-0005-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fetner, T., & Kush, K. (2008). Gay-straight alliances in high schools: Social predictors of early adoption. Youth and Society, 40(1), 114–130. doi:10.1177/0044118X07308073.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fingerhut, A. M. (2011). Straight allies: What predicts heterosexuals’ alliance with the LGBT community? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(9), 2230–2248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frost, D. M., & Meyer, I. H. (2012). Measuring community connectedness among diverse sexual minority populations. Journal of Sex Research, 49(1), 36–49. doi:10.1080/00224499.2011.565427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallup Poll News Service. (2013). Gay and lesbian rights. http://www.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx. Accessed 12 July 2013.

  • Gamson, J. (1999). Freaks talk back: Tabloid talk shows and sexual nonconformity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimshaw, T. (2006). The gay ‘community:’ Stabilising political construct or oppressive regulatory regime? Critical Studies, 28(1), 315–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gudelunas, D. (2012). There’s an app for that: The uses and gratifications of online social networks for gay men. Sexuality and Culture, 16, 347–365. doi:10.1007/s12119-012-9127-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Herek, G. M. (2000). The psychology of sexual prejudice. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 19–22. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00051.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herek, G. M. (2002). Gender gaps in public opinion about lesbians and gay men. Public Opinion Quarterly, 66, 40–66. doi:10.1086/338409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herek, G. M., & Glunt, E. K. (1993). Interpersonal contact and heterosexuals’ attitudes toward gay men: Results from a national survey. Journal of Sex Research, 30, 239–244. doi:10.1080/00224499309551707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, G. R., & Lee, T. (2006). Public attitudes toward gays and lesbians: Trends and predictors. Journal of Homosexuality, 51, 55–77. doi:10.1300/J082v51n02_04.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holdt, M., & Griffin, C. (2003). Being gay, being straight and being yourself: Local and global reflections on identity, authenticity and the lesbian and gay scene. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 6, 404–425. doi:10.1177/13675494030063008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kite, M. E., & Whitley, B. E. (1996). Sex differences in attitudes toward homosexual persons, behaviors and civil rights: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 336–353. doi:10.1177/0146167296224002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LeBeau, R. T., & Jellison, W. A. (2009). Why get involved? Exploring gay and bisexual men’s experience of the gay community. Journal of Homosexuality, 56, 56–76. doi:10.1080/00918360802551522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, Y., & Israel, T. (2012). Development and validation of a psychological sense of LGBT community scale. Journal of Community Psychology, 40(5), 573–587. doi:10.1002/jcop.21483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsiglio, W. (1993). Attitudes toward homosexual activity and gays as friends: A national survey of heterosexual 15- to 19-year-old males. Journal of Sex Research, 30, 12–17. doi:10.1080/00224499309551673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miceli, M. (2005). Standing out, standing together: The social and political impact of gay-straight alliances. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, S. O. (1996). American gay. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pritchard, A., Morgan, N., & Sedgley, D. (2002). In search of lesbian space? The experience of Manchester’s gay village. Leisure Studies, 21, 105–123. doi:10.1080/02614360110121551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Proescholdbell, R. J., Roosa, M. W., & Nemeroff, C. J. (2006). Component measures of psychological sense of community among gay men. Journal of Community Psychology, 34(1), 9–24. doi:10.1002/jcop.20080.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosser, B. R. S., West, W., & Weinmeyer, R. (2008). Are gay communities dying or just in transition? Results from an international consultation examining possible structural change in gay communities. AIDS Care, 20(5), 588–595. doi:10.1080/09540120701867156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rupp, L. J., & Taylor, V. (2003). Drag queens at the 801 Cabaret. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rushbrook, D. (2002). Cities, queer space, and the metropolitan tourist. GLQ: A Journal of Gay and Lesbian Studies, 8(1), 183–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seidman, S. (2002). Beyond the closet: The transformation of gay and lesbian life. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skipworth, S. A., Garner, A., & Dettrey, B. J. (2010). Limitations of the contact hypothesis: Heterogeneity in the contact effect on attitudes toward gay rights. Politics and Policy, 38(5), 887–906. doi:10.1111/j.1747-1346.2010.00262.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S. J., Axelton, A. M., & Saucier, D. A. (2009). The effects of contact on sexual prejudice: A meta-analysis. Sex Roles, 61, 178–191. doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9627-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stotzer, R. L. (2009). Straight allies: Supportive allies toward lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals in a college sample. Sex Roles, 60, 67–80. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9508-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, E. H, Jr, & Pleck, J. H. (1986). The structure of male role norms. American Behavioral Scientist, 29, 531–543. doi:10.1177/000276486029005003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valentine, G., & Skelton, T. (2003). Finding oneself, losing oneself: The lesbian and gay ‘scene’ as a paradoxical space. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27(4), 849–866.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitley, B. E, Jr, Childs, C. E., & Collins, J. B. (2011). Differences in black and white American college students’ attitudes toward lesbian and gay men. Sex Roles, 64, 299–310. doi:10.1007/s11199-0109892-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful for the assistance of Kristin McMillen on earlier version of this manuscript and Griff Tester for his thoughtful feedback throughout the revision process.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Gerontology Institute, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, 30303, USA

    Elisabeth O. Burgess

  2. Department of Sociology, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, 30303, USA

    Dawn M. Baunach

Authors
  1. Elisabeth O. Burgess
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dawn M. Baunach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elisabeth O. Burgess.

Appendices

Appendix 1

See Table 5.

Table 5 Gender roles attitudes scale items
Full size table

Appendix 2

See Table 6.

Table 6 Authoritarianism scale items
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Burgess, E.O., Baunach, D.M. Heterosexual Allies? Understanding Heterosexuals’ Alliance with the Gay Community. Sexuality & Culture 18, 936–958 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-014-9230-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-014-9230-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation