JOURNAL OF SOCIAL ISSUES

VOLUME 34, NUMBER 1, 1978

Male Homophobia
Stephen F. Morin
San Francisco, California

Ellen M. Garfinkle
California School of Professional Psychology, Berkeley
This article explores the meaning and dynamics of male homophobia,
the irrational fear or intolerance of gay men, and relates this phenomenon to the experience of the male role. Literature on homophobia
IS reviewed from both the standpoint of socialized belief systems within
the culture and from the perspective of individual personality characteristics. Issues in defining homophobia are discussed, and the pervasiveness, manifestations, and correlates of homophobia are examined.
Male homophobia is observed to serve the function of keeping men
within the boundaries of traditionally defined roles. The experiences
of gay men are used as a basis to suggest possible creative role violation
for all men.
The fear of homosexuality has been described by several
writers on men's issues as a powerful and central dynamic in
the maintenance of traditional male roles (Lehne, 1976; MacDonald, 1974; Pleck, 1975). It is often assumed in analyses of the
male role that the fear of homosexuality is stronger in men than
in women, and that this fear interferes more with the development
of intimate relationships between men than between women. This
paper examines these assumptions and specifically assesses the
lmk between the fear of homosexuality and the experience of
the male role.

We wish to thank Rodney Karr, Jesse Miller, Steve Schultz, and Anne
Stillwell for their comments and assistance in the preparation of this
manuscript.
Correspondence regarding this article may be addressed to S. F. Morin
4328 Eighteenth Street, San Francisco, CA 94114.

29

30

STEPHEN F. MORIN AND ELLEN M. GARFINKLE

DEFINITIONS

AND CONCEPTUALIZA TIONS OF HOMOPHOBIA

Homophobia bas been conceptualized both from an external

or cultural perspective and from an internal or psycbodynamic
perspective. Eacb perspective offers different insights into its
origins and dynamics.
Cultural Perspectives

From a cultural perspective homophobia is defined as any

belief system wbicb supports negative myths and stereotypes about
bomosexual people. More specifically, it can be used to describe:
(a) belief systems wbicb bold tbat discrimination on tbe basis
of sexual orientation is justifiable; (b) tbe use of language or
slang, e.g., "queer," v/bicb is offensive to gay people; and/or
(c) any belief system wbicb does not value bomosexual life styles
equally witb beterosexual life styles.
Tbe cultural perspective on attitudes toward homosexuality
is evident in tbe origin of tbe term "bomopbobia." Cburcbill
(1967) used tbe word "bomoerotopbobia" to describe tbe fear
of erotic or sexual contact witb members of tbe same sex and
gave particular empbasis to tbe continuum defined by Ford and
Beacb (1953) wbicb described tbe extent to wbicb various cultures
placed restrictions on bomosexual contact. Cburcbill concluded
tbat attempts to repress bomosexuality are tbe direct result of
socialization practices of "sex negative" cultures. He argued tbat
contemporary American society is sucb a sex-negative culture,
and pomted out tbat attitudes toward male bomosexuality bave
reached sucb pbobic levels tbat any bebavior wbicb is suggestive
of bomosexuality is strictly condemned and avoided.
Considerable support for Cburcbill's view bas been found
in recent cross-cultural researcb. For example, Dunbar, Brown,
and Amoroso (1973) found tbat males wbo were rated bigb in
bomopbobia were more constricted tban low-bomopbobia males
in tbeir view on sex-appropriate bebavior for men, and bad a
greater tendency to suspect any male wbo exhibited so-called
"feminine" cbaracteristics of harboring bomosexual tendencies.
Furtber support for Cburcbill's contention tbat bomopbobic
attitudes are related to general cultural values regarding sexappropriate bebavior can be found in studies wbicb compare
attitudes of Brazilians, Canadians, and West Indians (Brown &
Amoroso, 1975; Dunbar, Brown, & Amoroso, 1973). Brazilians,
wbo were found to bave tbe most conservative attitudes toward
sex-appropriate bebavior of tbe tbree cultures studied, showed
tbe most bomopbobic attitudes; West Indians, wbo demonstrated

MALE HOMOPHOBIA

31

moderately conservative attitudes toward sex-appropriate bebavior, were intermediate between tbe bighly sex-negative Brazilians
and tbe less sex-negative Canadians. Similarly, the finding that
attitudes toward homosexuality are more negative among those
people reared in the strongly sex-negative subcultures of the
midwestern and southern regions of the United States than tbose
reared in otber regions of tbe country (Levitt & Klassen, 1974)
is also consistent witb Churchill's view.
Other writers have conceptualized homophobia in terms of
a generalized, cultural belief system regarding the relationship
between the sexes. Lehne (1976) used the term "homosexism"
to describe "sexism between individuals of the same sex (although
they may differ in sexual orientation)." This same general belief
system has been called "heterosexual bias" (Morin, 1977) or
"heterosexism" (Morin, Note 1), in that it specifically argues the
superiority of heterosexual over homosexual life styles.
A number of studies have found that the need to preserve
a double standard between men and women is a more basic
component of homophobia than is sexual conservatism (MacDonald, 1974; MacDonald & Games, 1974; MacDonald, Huggins,
Young, & Swanson, 1973; Morin & Wallace, Note 2). MacDonald
and Games (1974) also noted that negative attitudes toward
homosexuals are associated with the belief that men are more
potent than women. Using a multiple regression analysis, Morin
and Wallace (Note 2) found that the best single predictor of
homophobia is a belief in tbe traditional family ideology, i.e.,
dominant fatber, submissive mother, and obedient cbildren. The
second best predictor of homophobia was found to be agreement
with traditional beliefs about women, e.g., that it is worse for
a woman to tell dirty jokes than it is for a man. In addition,
traditional religious beliefs have been found to be predictive of
both traditional attitudes toward women and negative attitudes
toward homosexuality, particularly in men (Morin & Wallace,
Note 3). Again, this correlational data supports Churchill's (1967)
contention that cultural learning regarding appropriate roles for
each sex is a powerful force associated with fear, dread, and
hatred of homosexuals, particularly male homosexuals.
Personal Perspective

As an individual personality dynamic, homophobia refers

specifically to "tbe irrational fear or intolerance of bomosexuality"
(Lehne, 1976), or to "an irrational, persistent, fear or dread of
homosexuals" (MacDonald, 1976). In this context, the term ho-

32

STEPHEN F. MORIN AND ELLEN M. GARFINKLE

mophobia is used to describe a specific phobic condition, rather

than a generalized cultural attitude.
The use of the term homophobia to describe a personal rather
than a cultural dynamic was first popularized by George Weinberg
(1972). He described the phenomenon of homophobia as an
irrational fear on the part of heterosexuals of being in close
proximity to people they believe to be homosexual. For example,
support of such statements as "I would be uncomfortable if I
knew I were sitting next to a homosexual on a bus" would represent
a homophobic attitude. In an important attempt to clarify the
dynamics of homophobia among homosexuals themselves, Weinberg postulated the nature of this phenomenon as a self-hatred
which results from the internalization of others' irrational fears.
Studies that have investigated attitudes of homosexual men
towards homosexuality have found that homosexual men have
internalized many societal beliefs regarding homosexuality, but
they do not hold these beliefs to the extent found in heterosexual
men (Lumby, 1976; May, 1974).
The personality correlates of homophobia clearly suggest that
those people who are afraid or intolerant of homosexuals are
afraid or intolerant in a great many other social and interpersonal
situations as well. Those who are more negative in their attitudes
toward homosexuality have been found to be more authoritarian
(MacDonald, 1974; Smith, 1971; Morin & Wallace, Note 3), more
dogmatic (Hood, 1973), more cognitively rigid (MacDonald, 1974),
more intolerant of ambiguity (MacDonald, 1974), more statusconscious (Smith, 1971), more sexually rigid (Berry & Marks,
1969; Brown & Amoroso, 1975; Dunbar, Brown, & Amoroso,
1973; Dunbar, Brown, & Vourinen, 1973; Smith, 1971; Morin
& Wallace, Note 3), more guilty and negative about their own
sexual impulses (Berry & Marks, 1969; Dunbar, Brown, & Amoroso, 1973), and less accepting of others in general (Morin & Wallace,
Note 3). All of these personality characteristics might be expected
of any highly prejudiced group of people.
In addition, there is ample evidence that heterosexual men
do, in fact, have classical fear reactions in response to homosexual
men. Ironically, the bulk of this evidence has been supplied by
researchers gathering baseline data in attempts to "cure" men
of their homosexuality by the use of classical conditioning procedures. The basic theoretical assumption underlying such treatment
programs is that male homosexuality represents a learned phobia
to women. The data, however, do not support this assumption.
McConaghy (1967) developed an instrument called the "phal-

MALE HOMOPHOBIA

33

lometer" to measure penile volume changes in response to viewing

pictures of male and female nudes. As hypothesized, both heterosexual and homosexual male participants responded to their
preferred sex pictures with increased penile volume. Homosexual
men, however, responded no differently to female stimulus
pictures than to neutral pictures. The surprising result was that
heterosexual men had decreased penile volume in response to
pictures of nude men. This behavioral manifestation of a specific
aversion was hypothesized but not found among the homosexual
participants.
This aversion response of heterosexual men to pictures of
nude males has been replicated in a series of studies, all of which
fail to find support for the theory that homosexual men fear
women. Using penile volume measures, homosexual men were
found to have no aversion to: (a) pictures of nude, adult females
(Freund, Langevin, Gibiri, & Zajac, 1973); (b) auditory or written
descriptions of heterosexual intercourse (Freund, Langevin,
Chamberlayne, Deosoran, & Zajac, 1974); or (c) pictures of the
vulva, the face, or the breasts of a mature female (Freund,
Langevin, & Zajac, 1974). Langevin, Stanford, and Block (1975)
found that the homosexual participants' verbal ratings of the
experience of arousal and pleasantness were not only significantly
higher for slides of males than for slides of females, but were
also higher for slides of females than for neutral slides. In addition,
all of the homosexual participants' pleasantness ratings were
positive. Heterosexual participants, however, found only the slides
of nude females to be sexually arousing, and rated the slides
of the nude males as unpleasant.
These findings suggest that homosexual men do not fear
women, but that heterosexual men may have some sort of fear
of their own sexual impulses toward men. In order to clarify
the dynamics of the fear of homosexuality it is important to
differentiate between the fear of others and the fear of one's
own impulses.
Fear of Others versus Fear of One's Own Impulses

We conceptualize homophobia as occurring on several levels

with different dynamics associated with each level. The motivations
for homophobia are so many and so individual that all of them
could not possibly be explained with the same interpretation.
With this qualification in mind, a few of the motivations will
be considered.
Superficial fears regarding gay men appear to be rooted

34

STEPHEN F. MORIN AND ELLEN M. GARFINKLE

in the general belief systems by which people are socialized in

our culture. Acceptance of stereotypes which view homosexuals
as sick and dangerous seem to be particularly associated with
negative attitudes, suggesting that a sense of threat is related
to rejection of male homosexuals. Steffensmeier and Steffensmeier
(1974) found that the more a person agreed with the stereotypes
which view homosexuals as sick and dangerous, the more rejecting
he or she was, and male participants were found to be more
rejecting of male homosexuals than were female participants.
We interpret these findings to mean that males are more likely
than females to view the male homosexual as a sexual failure
and more likely to perceive him as personally threatening and
dangerous. Similarly, Milham, San Miguel, and Kellogg (1976)
found that the belief that homosexuals are dangerous and the
belief that homosexuals should be subject to legal and social
restrictions not placed upon the rest of society are the major
factors which account for attitudes toward male homosexuals.
These same beliefs appeared to be secondary in accounting for
attitudes toward lesbians.
Most of the superficial fear regarding male homosexuality
can be attributed to ignorance about or lack of direct experience
with gay men. The stereotype which describes male homosexuals
as sick or psychologically disturbed seems to carry with it the
belief that gay men are unpredictable or untrustworthy. The
"dangerousness" stereotype connotes that male homosexuals are
a threat to others (e.g., male homosexuals are child molesters)
and they are a threat to one's personal safety (e.g., male homosexuals are hypersexual and are sexually aggressive toward unwilling
partners). The evidence that homosexual men average 1.3 orgasms
per week compared to an average of 3.0 for heterosexual men
(Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1947) casts serious doubt on these
stereotypes of hypersexuality.
One approach to understanding fear of homosexuality in
others is to relate this fear to basic species-specific reactions. For
example, ethologists note that many lower species and many young
children have a basic dread of others whom they perceive to
be different from themselves (Evans, 1974). From this perspective,
cultural prohibitions and negative stereotypes may, at least in
part, be rooted in this primitive species characteristic of fear of
difference.
At the level of personal motivation, homophobia may be
regarded as an expression of anxiety regarding one's own sexual
impulses. Some writers (MacDonald, 1976; Weinberg, 1972) feel

MALE HOMOPHOBIA

35

that these feared impulses are homosexual in nature. According

to this hypothesis, a man who is basically afraid of his own latent
homosexual feelings attempts to reassure himself and convince
othei:s that he is really a "healthy, normal heterosexual" by actively
and vigorously suppressing all homosexual impulses. Homosexual
feelings create such great anxiety in these men that their existence
cannot be tolerated. Fear of homosexuality in such persons might
then be understood as the projection of the fear of one's own
homosexual impulses onto the expression of the homosexual
impulses of others.
. Other writers shift the focus away from fear of latent homosexual impulses to anxiety or fear surrounding expression of
sexual impulses of any sort (Berry & Marks, 1969). According
to this view, people who are uncomfortable about their own sexual
feelings express their discomfort in the form of negative attitudes
toward others whom they perceive to be more openly expressive
of their sexual impulses, including homosexuals.
This explanation is in basic agreement with Freud's
(1916/1958) theory which relates paranoia to the projection of
unconscious and unacceptable impulses, and has also found
support in more recent research. For example, Churchill (1967)
concluded from his cross-cultural and cross-species study of
homosexual behavior among males that prejudice against homosexuality in others is a function of one's negative attitudes toward
one's own sexuality, implying that it is an antisexual factor which
accounts for negative attitudes toward homosexuality. Brown and
Amoroso (1975) concluded that antihomosexual subjects were
more disapproving of various sexual practices and reported greater
personal sex guilt than did subjects who were not opposed to
homosexuality, and Smith (1971) found that antihomosexual
attitudes correlate with greater personal rigidity and personal
sex guilt. Similariy, Berry and Marks (1969) found that "antihomosexual prejudice as a social defense is not unlike paranoia
as an individual defense in terms of the motivational dynamics
and life's experiences which give rise to the projection process"
(p. 574).
PER VA SI VENESS A ND MA NIFESTA TIONS

Survey Studies

The most recent data ,on attitudes toward homosexuality

suggest that the majority of Americans (56%) think that homosexuals should have equal rights in terms of job opportunities (Gallup,

36

STEPHEN F. MORIN AND ELLEN M. GARFINKLE

1977a). At the same time, however, this general philosophy of

equal rights was found not to apply to hiring homosexuals in
certain sensitive positions. For example, a significant proportion
of the respondents would deny to a homosexual the right to
be an elementary school teacher (65%), a member of the clergy
(54%), a doctor (44%), or a member of the armed forces (38%).
Althoughthemajority of respondents (53%) felt that a homosexual
could be a good Christian or Jew, fewer (43%) felt that homosexual
relations between consenting adults should be legal, and even
fewer (14%) felt that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt
children (Gallup, 1977b).
These Gallup Poll data suggest considerably more positive
attitudes than were expressed in 1970 in data collected by the
Institute for Sex Research (Levitt & Klassen, 1974). At that time,
the vast majority of respondents (84%) believed that "homosexuality is a social corruption that can cause the downfall of a civilization." Three-quarters of the respondents would deny to a homosexual the right to be a minister (17%), a schoolteacher (77%),
or a judge (7%), and two-thirds would bar the homosexual from
medical practice (68%) or government service (67%).
Other surveys have found similar results, with homosexuals
generally being perceived to be either sinful (Alston, 1974) or
sick (Rooney & Gibbons, 1966). A recent survey conducted by
Psychology Today (Tavris, 1977) on the subject of masculinity
included questions pertaining to attitudes toward homosexuality.
Although this study is based on an unusually large sample, it
should be noted that the respondents were markedly younger,
more affluent, less religious, better educated, and more liberal
than the average American. Despite this liberal bias, 70% of the
heterosexual respondents (both male and female) reported believing that "homosexual men are not fully masculine."
Demographic analyses of attitudes toward homosexuality have
produced some conflicting results. Levitt and Klassen (1974), as
well as Gallup (1977b), found that those who were more negative
in their attitudes were more likely to be rural, white, and male.
While Levitt and Klassen found no significant age or educational
differences, Gallup found both age and education to be significant
factors. Studies conducted on professional samples suggest that
although attitudes are likely to be more favorable in these groups
than in the general population, a significant amount of myth
and stereotyping remains despite high levels of education and
training (Davison & Wilson, 1973; Fort, Steiner, & Conrad, 1971;
Pauly & Goldstein, 1970).

MALE HOMOPHOBIA

37

Behavioral Studies

Direct behavioral measures have generally revealed more

convincing evidence than have survey studies regarding attitudes
toward homosexuals. In one study, Wolfgang and Wolfgang (1971)
explored attitudes using a methodology in which interpersonal
distance was measured by the participants' arrangement of stick
figures. They found that participants placed themselves significantly further from marijuana users, drug addicts, obese persons,
present homosexuals, and past homosexuals, in that order. Participants expressed little optimism about the possibility of a homosexual changing to a heterosexual orientation, and former homosexuals evoked even greater social distance than did current homosexuals. Interestingly enough, former homosexuals were thought
to be less trustworthy than current homosexuals.
Morin, Taylor, and Kielman (Note 4) used chair placement
as a measure of social distance to determine the effects of
perceiving a person to be homosexual on establishing interpersonal
space. Participants were interviewed under two conditions by either
a male or female experimenter regarding their attitudes toward
homosexuality and other issues. They found that in the experimental condition where the experimenter wore a "gay and proud"
button and was introduced as working for the Association of Gay
Psychologists, participants positioned their chairs significantly
further away from the experimenter than in a neutral condition
where the experimenter wore no button and was introduced as
a graduate student. Males reacted with about three times as much
social distance in interaction with a male experimenter who was
perceived to be homosexual than did females in interaction with
a female experimenter who was perceived to be homosexual.
An additional and important finding in the Morin et al. study
was that the participants reported more positive attitudes toward
homosexuals when they perceived the interviewer to be homosexual, while at the same time positioning their chairs at a greater
distance. As we conceptualize it, body language speaks more loudly
than words. In that the bulk of what is currently known regarding
antihomosexual attitudes is based on questionnaire and interview
techniques, these findings must be interpreted cautiously.
In another recent study, San Miguef and Millham (1976)
found a clear relationship between expressed negative attitudes
and aggression toward homosexuals. Using loss of money which
resulted from a participant's negative evaluation of an experimental confederate as a measure of aggression, they found that
heterosexual male participants who scored high on a measure

38

STEPHEN F. MORIN AND ELLEN M. GARFINKLE

of negative attitudes toward homosexuals were: (a) significantly

more aggressive toward homosexual than toward heterosexual
targets; (b) highly aggressive toward target homosexuals regardless
of the type of prior interaction with a target homosexual; and
(c) significantly more aggressive toward homosexual male targets
who were perceived to be similar to, rather than different from,
them in personality. The authors speculated that such aggressive
reactions toward homosexuals are accounted for by the dynamic
of personal threat.
A RE MEN MORE HOMOPHOBIC THAN WOMEN?

Although homophobia is found in both women and men,

it appears to be more exaggerated and more powerful in males
than in females. Research on sex differences in homophobia has
been hampered by the failure of many studies to (a) use females
as well as males as participants, and (b) differentiate between
male homosexuals and female homosexuals as the target group
to be evaluated. Lack of sophistication of both research methodology and the conceptualization of the construct under study have
also contributed to the absence of definitive evidence regarding
sex differences in attitudes toward homosexuals.
Of those studies which have investigated sex differences in
antihomosexual attitudes, eight reported that males are more
negative or threatened by homosexuality than are females (Brown
& Amoroso, 1975;Gallup, 1977b; Millham, San Miguel, &Kellogg,
1976; Minnigerode, 1976; Nutt & Sedlacek, 1974; Steffensmeier
& Steffensmeier, 1974; Morin et al.. Note 4; Morin & Wallace,
Note 2). Six studies have found no significant differences in
antihomosexual attitudes of men and women (Levitt & Klassen,
1974; MacDonald & Games, 1974; MacDonald et al., 1973; Morin,
1974; Rooney & Gibbons, 1966; Smith, 1971).
Those studies which failed to find significant sex differences
in attitudes toward homosexuality have tended to assess the more
general, cultural beliefs about homosexuality, rather than the more
specific, individual attitudes which might relate to the element
of personal threat in an interaction with a homosexual person
of the same sex (Levitt & Klassen, 1974; Rooney & Gibbons,
1966; Smith, 1971). The remaining studies which failed to find
significant sex differences used more sophisticated measures, but
still remained on the level of assessing global, cultural beliefs
rather than specific, personal attitudes (MacDonald & Games,
1974; MacDonald et al., 1973; Morin, 1974).

MALE HOMOPHOBIA

39

The element of same-sex interaction is a crucial variable in

negative attitudes toward homosexuals. Millham etal. (1976) found
"a pattern of more negative descriptions of same-sexed homosexuals than of opposite-sexed homosexuals." In addition, participants
expressed both significantly more personal anxiety with respect
to same-sexed homosexuals than with respect to opposite-sexed
homosexuals, and also greater preference for opposite-sexed (as
opposed to same-sexed) homosexuals.
Morin et al. (Note 4) found behavioral confirmation of the
hypothesis that same-sex interaction is crucial to the presence
of negative attitudes toward homosexuals. Using chair placement
as a measure of social distance, they found that male participants
reacted with approximately three times more social distance when
being interviewed by a homosexually-labeled male experimenter
than did females who were interviewed by a homosexually-labeled
female experimenter.
Other authors have emphasized the male homosexual's violation of the male sex role as a crucial element in the finding
that men appear to hold more negative attitudes toward homosexuals than do women. Steffensmeier and Steffensmeier (1974)
found that male subjects are significantly more rejecting of
homosexuals than are female subjects, and that male subjects
are "especially rejecting" of male, as compared to female, homosexuals. The authors argued that male homosexuality is defined
as being more incongruent with the culturally sanctioned sex
role than is female homosexuality, and that male homosexuals
are thus more susceptible to censure and rejection than are their
female counterparts. In other studies, a direct correlation between
the degree of sex-role stereotyping and antihomosexual attitudes
among male subjects was found (Brown & Amoroso, 1975; Dunbar,
Brown, & Amoroso, 1973; Dunbar, Brown, & Vuorinen, 1973).
MacDonald et al. (1973) and MacDonald (1974) found that
antihomosexual attitudes correlate with the need to maintain
traditional masculine and feminine sex roles and with the need
to preserve double standards between the sexes. Minnigerode
(1976) found that men were significantly more negative in their
attitudes toward homosexuals than were women. Also, those
subjects who were classified as antihomosexual showed significantly greater sexual conservatism and were significantly more
antifeminist than those subjects who were classified as prohomosexual. Minnigerode interpreted these findings to indicate that
both antifeminist attitudes and sexual conservatism, i.e., attitudes
which do not depart from or challenge the traditional definitions

40

STEPHEN F. MORIN AND ELLEN M. GARFINKLE

of sex roles, independently contribute to antihomosexual attitudes.

Support for the theory that violation of sex-role norms is
a more salient factor in contributing to negative attitudes toward
male homosexuals than toward female homosexuals can be found
in the feminist analysis of the different values placed on the
male and female roles in American culture. Many have argued
that American culture clearly values the male over the female
role (Bardwick, 1971; Bardwick & Douvan, 1971; Broverman,
Broverman, Clarkson, Rosenkrantz, & Vogel, 1970; Horner,
1972). Thus, women who break with the traditional sex-role
expectations may not be judged as harshly as men who break
with a more valued role. This hypothesis is consistent with the
observation that female homosexuals are less likely to be defined
as a social problem, less likely to be negatively stereotyped, and
less likely to be rejected than are male homosexuals (Steffensmeier
& Steffensmeier, 1974).
HOMOPHOBIA

AND THE MALE

ROLE

It is commonly believed that gay men do not fit the cultural

criteria for masculinity, and being gay is strongly associated with
the violation of sex-role stereotypes in American society. Research
on attitudes toward male homosexuality and beliefs concerning
the male role reveals that the typical male homosexual is seen
to be quite different from the typical male heterosexual in
consistently negative ways. Using a semantic differential technique,
Karr (1975) found that a sample of 100 men rated the "typical
male homosexual" on an evaluative factor as less good, less honest,
less fair, less positive, less valuable, less stable, less intellectual,
less friendly, and less clean, as well as more shallow and unhealthy
than the "typical male heterosexual." On a masculinity factor,
homosexuals were rated as more delicate, more passive, more
womanly, smaller, softer, and more yielding than heterosexual
men. These data indicate that the male role is a distinct and
powerful one, and that gay men are seen to deviate from this
role in significant ways. It is apparent from these findings that
the fear of being labeled a homosexual can operate as a powerful
force in keeping men within the boundaries of their traditional
roles.
Behavioral validation of the way in which fear of the homosexual label operates to maintain traditional role behavior supports
the attribution studies. Karr (1975) arranged an Asch-type experiment in which one experimental confederate was labeled as a

MALE HOMOPHOBIA

41

homosexual by a second confederate in the experimental condition, and not so labeled in the neutral condition. Participants
performed a nonverbal communication task and then were asked
to rate the other members of their group, including the confederates, on a number of dimensions. On a masculinity factor, the
homosexually-labeled confederate was rated as significantly less
masculine, smaller, weaker, softer, more passive, more yielding,
more delicate and less powerful than the same confederate when
not labeled. It is interesting to note in this context that many
gay men have described their own self-concept as neither stereotypically masculine nor feminine, but rather as more typically
androgynous, or expressive of characteristics of both sexes (McDonald, Note 5). The perceived homosexual in the Karr study
was also rated as less friendly, less happy, less funny, more
unpleasant, more tense, and less handsome than the same confederate when not labeled.
Karr's participants also ranked the confederates on a scale
of "most preferred" to "least preferred." The same man was
rated as among the most preferred when not labeled but among
the least preferred when labeled as homosexual. Additionally,
there was clear evidence that participants perceived their groups
less positively and group problem solving was less effective when
a homosexually-labeled person was present.
A surprising and extremely interesting finding in Karr's study
was that the confederates who actually performed the labeling
were all perceived as significantly more masculine and more
sociable when they labeled someone homosexual than when they
did not. The author suggested that men who demonstrate ability
to simply identify another man as a homosexual are rewarded
and reinforced by other men in our culture for possessing that
"skill."
^
^
Homophobia thus appears to be functional in the dynamics
of maintaining the traditional male role. The fear of being labeled
homosexual serves to keep men within the confines of what the
culture defines as sex-role appropriate behavior, and it interferes
with the development of intimacy between men. Homophobia
limits options and deprives men of the potentially rewarding
experiences of learning from and being close to one another.
CAN HOMOPHOBIC A TTITUDES BE

CHANGED?

There is a great deal of controversy over the extent to which

attitudes toward homosexuality can be changed. Again, this is

42

STEPHEN F. MORIN AND ELLEN M. GARFINKLE

a complex issue, related to the variety and intensity of the

motivations supporting homophobic belief systems. Lumby (1976)
has suggested that "many middle-class heterosexual (college age)
males have not adopted firm attitudinal decisions about alternative
life-styles" (p. 46). It would appear that for the vast majority
of people beliefs about homosexuals are simply an unchallenged
part of their socialization experiences.
Few people have systematically tried to change people's
attitudes toward homosexuality, but in those few cases where
it has been attempted, change has been surprisingly rapid and
rather extensive. Morin (1974) reported dramatic changes in
attitudes resulting from a single course on homosexuality offered
to graduate and undergraduate students in psychology. Consistent
with Weinberg's (1972) predictions, improvements in attitudes
toward homosexuality showed a significant positive correlation
with independent measures of the student's own self-esteem.
Subsequent research has indicated that exposure to as little as
one article can significantly change a person's reported attitudes
toward homosexuality in either a positive or a negative direction,
depending on the content of the article (Morin & Van Shaik,
Note 6). The relative ease with which homophobic attitudes can
be altered has come as a surprise to many. It is important to
note, however, that these are changes of surface attitudes, and
have not been subjected to tests of behavioral validation.
Sex education in the United States does not seem to have
eased the public's prejudiced attitudes toward homosexuals. Of
the respondents in the Levitt and Klassen (1974) sample who
had received sex education (27%), only 40% had homosexuality
even mentioned in that training. Of that 40%, two-thirds were
told that homosexuality was always wrong, and only 1.5% were
told that it was not wrong at all. If sex education is to have
any impact on attitudes toward homosexuals, it would appear
that significant changes will have to be made both in the curriculum
and in the attitudes of the sex educators.
One type of behavioral change in attitudes toward homosexuality has been noted by the present authors in training psychotherapists to work with gay clients. Part of the training process
has involved providing experiences in which individual therapists
may begin to challenge their own homophobic attitudes. For
example, when the male therapists went on an excursion to several
gay bars, many reported significant changes in their perception
and attitudes. Typical observations were: "I felt like such an
outsider, there were so many of them and so few of us"; "I

MALE HOMOPHOBIA

43

initially felt uncomfortable watching two men dance . . . but later,

after a few drinks, it didn't upset me at all"; "I was amazed
at how many of the men appeared more masculine than myself";
and "During the night, I moved from feeling like a voyeur to
feeling like a participant."
Many of the men had to deal with being asked to dance.
Most said yes, but some said no. For most, it was a major decision.
Few men reported receiving sexual advances, and many expressed
disappointment and surprise that they were ignored. Most reported, with some amazement, an appreciation of what women must
experience in heterosexual bars. Some expressed the recognition
that being looked at as a sex object was not a totally pleasant
experience. Many of the women in the training classes have been
overwhelmed by the men's lack of insight into women's experiences.
At the end of the evening of bar-going, it was not unusual
for the men to embrace when saying goodnight. Almost all
reported that this single venture into the gay subculture broke
down more of their homophobic attitudes than did all of their
reading and discussion on the subject. Similar changes in attitudes
have been reported in the experience of men's groups (Clark
1972; Keith, 1974; Pleck, 1975).
Close personal interaction with gay men of similar social status
appears to be a crucial experience in altering homophobic attitudes
and behavior. Further, people consistently report feeling better
about themselves as their homophobic attitudes decrease.
WHAT

HETEROSEXUAL

MEN

CAN LEARN FROM THE

EXPERIENCES OF GAY

MEN

It is clear that heterosexual men can learn a great deal about

their own internalized sex-role stereotypes from becoming familiar
with the experiences of gay men who have creatively violated
the traditional sex-role stereotypes. Further, much can be learned
about improving and/or expanding heterosexual relationships
from the experiences of nonrole-stereotyped relationships which
have evolved among gay men and women. For example, gay
couples have the advantage of beginning their relationships on
an equal biological status. Many of these relationships are worthy
of the attention of those who are interested in developing relationships which incorporate more equality and more satisfaction for
both partners (Morin & Alexander, Note 7).
Recently, one of the authors was involved in a training session

44

STEPHEN F. MORIN AND ELLEN M. GARFINKLE

for counselors in which two men from the group were asked
to role play being lovers. Specifically, they were to role play going
to see the author as a therapist because of severe anxiety over
losing their heterosexual friends if their relationship were discovered. Fortunately, one of the most outspoken homophobic men
volunteered for the exercise. When the couple was asked in therapy
why they had chosen to be lovers in light of all the persecution
they would experience, the homophobic man replied, "Because
we love one another and because I'm gay." Later, this man reported
that he felt a sense of great relief and exhilaration in saying
that he was gay. It was like admitting to the worst possibilities
and finding that nothing bad happened to him. Similar experiences
have been reported by women in the feminist movement as they
have come to terms with lesbianism.
It would appear that as the men's "consciousness focusing"
movement progresses, those who desire more intimate and more
rewarding relationships both with other men and with women
are going to have to challenge their own male homophobia. The
irrational fear of being close to other men and of the label
"homosexual" has been a long-standing dynamic which has kept
many men imprisoned in traditional roles. Acceptance and appreciation of gay men within the men's movement is essential to
its growth. Gay men have a vital part to play in the development
of new definitions of the male role.
REFERENCE NOTES
1. Morin, S. F. The past, present, and future of heterosexism in psychological
research. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological
Association, Chicago, August 1975.
2. Morin, S. F., & Wallace, S. Traditional values, sex-role stereotyping, and.
attitudes toward homosexuality. Paper presented at the meeting of the Western
Psychological Association, Los Angeles, April 1976.
3. Morin, S. F., & Wallace, S. F. Religiosity, sexism, and attitudes toward
homosexuality. Paper presented at the meeting of the California State
Psychological Association, March 1975.
4. Morin, S. F., Taylor, K., & Kielman, S. Gay is beautiful at a distance.
Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association,
Chicago, August 1975.
5. McDonald, G. J. The relationship between sex-role stereotypes, attitudes toward
women and male homosexuality in a non-clinical sample of homosexual men.
Paper presented at the meeting of the Canadian Psychological Association,
Toronto, June 1976.
6. Morin, S. F., & Van Shaik, B. Don't ask David Rubin: Changing attitudes
toward homosexuality through reading. Unpublished manuscript, California
State College, San Bernardino, 1975.

MALE HOMOPHOBIA

45

7. Morin, S. F., & Alexander, R. The male sex role and gay male couples
Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association
San Francisco, August 1977.

REFERENCES
Alston, J. P. Attitudes toward extramarital and homosexual relations Journal
of the Scientific Study of Religion, 1974, 13, 479-481.
Bardwick, J. M. Psychology of women: A study of biocultural conflict New YorkHarper and Row, 1971.
Bardwick, J. M., & Douvan, E. Ambivalence: The socialization of women.
In V. Gornick & B. K. Moran (Eds.), Woman in sexist society. New YorkBasic Books, 1971.
Berry, D. F., & Marks, F. Antihomosexual prejudice as a function of attitudes
toward own sexuality. Proceedings of the 77th Annual Convention of the
American Psychological Association, 1969, 4, 573-574. (Summary)
Broverman, I. K., Broverman, D. M., Clarkson, F. E., Rosenkrantz, P. S
& Vogel, S. R. Sex role stereotypes and clinical judgments of mental
health, youma/ of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1970, 34, 1-7.
Brown, M., & Amoroso, D. M. Attitudes toward homosexuality among West
Indian male and female college students. Journal of Social Psychology,
Churchill, W. Homosexual behavior among males. New York: Hawthorn Books,
Clark, D. Homosexual encounter in all-male groups. In L. Solomon & B
Berzon (Eds.), New perspectives on encounter groups. San Francisco: lossevBass, 1972.
Davison, G., & Wilson, G. T. Attitudes of behavior therapists toward
homosexuality. Behavior Therapy, 1973, 4, 686-696.
Dunbar, J., Brown, M., & Amoroso, D. Some correlates of attitudes toward
nomosexuzXiiy. Journal of Social Psychology, \913, 89 271-279
Dunbar, J. Brown, M., & Vuorinen, S. Attitudes toward homosexuality
among Brazilian and Canadian college students.Journal of Social Psychology, 1973, 90, 173-183.
^ ^ conversation with Konrad Lorenz. Psychology Today, June
}

PP

Ford, C , & Beach, F. Patterns of sexual behavior. New York: Harper, 1953
Fort, J., Steiner, C., & Conrad, F. Attitudes of mental health professionals
toward homosexuality and its treatment. Psychological Reports, 1971, 29,
^^ ^ 7^
^ Schreber. In The complete works of Sigmund Freud
(Vol. 12). London: Hogarton Press, 1958. (Originally published, 1916)
1-reund, K., Langevin, R. Ghamberlayne, R., Deosoran, A., & Zajac Y The
phobic theroy of male homosexuality. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1974,
J i , 490499.

Freund, K., Langevin, R., Gibiri, S., & Zajac, Y. Heterosexual aversion in
nomo5exua\ maXe^s. British Journal of Psychiatry, 1973 122 163-169
Freund K., Langevin, R., & Zajac, Y. Heterosexual aversion in homosexual
males: A second experiment. British Journal of Psychiatry, 1974, 125
177180.

'

46

STEPHEN F. MORIN AND ELLEN M. GARFINKLE

Gallup, G. Gallup poll on gay rights; Approval with reservations. The San
Francisco Chronicle, July 18, 1977, pp. 1;18. (a)
Gallup, G. Gallup poll on the attitudes homosexuals face today. The San
Francisco Chronicle, July 20, 1977, p.4. (b)
Hood, R. W. Dogmatism and opinions about mental illness. Psychological
Reports, 1973,32, 1283-1290.
Horner, M. The motive to avoid success and changing aspirations of college
women. In J. M. Bardwick (Ed.), Readings on the psychology of women.
New York: Harper and Row, 1972.
Karr, R. Homosexual labeling: An experimental analysis. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation. University of Washington, 1975.
Keith, J. My own men's liberation. In J. Pleck & J. Sawyer (Eds.), Men
and masculinity. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974.
Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, G. E. Sexual behavior in the human
male. Philadelphia, PA.; W. B. Saunders, 1948.
Langevin, R., Stanford, A., & Block, R. The effect of relaxation instructions
on erotic arousal in homosexual and heterosexual males. Behavior
Therapy, 1975, 6, 453-458.
Lehne, G. K. Homophobia among men. In D. David & R. Brannon, (Eds.),
The forty nine percent majority: The male sex rote. New York; AddisonWesley, 1976.
Levitt, E., & Klassen, A. Public attitudes toward homosexuality; Part of
the 1970 national survey by the Institute for Sex Research. Journal
of Homosexuality, 1974, 1, 29-43.
Lumby, M. E. Homophobia; The quest for a valid sca.\e.fournal of Homosexuality, 1976, 2, 39-47.
MacDonald, A. P. The importance of sex-role to gay liberation. Homosexual
Counseling Journal, 1974, i, 169-180.
MacDonald, A. P. Homophobia; Its roots and meanings. Homosexual Counseling Journal, 1976, 3, 23-33.
MacDonald, A. P., & Games, R. G. Some characteristics of those who hold
positive and negative attitudes toward homosexuals. Jouma/ of Homosexuality, 1974, 1, 9-28.
MacDonald, A. P., Huggins, J., Young, S., & Swanson, R. A. Attitudes
toward homosexuality; Preservation of sex morality or the double
standard, yowrna/ of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1973, 40, 161.
McGonaghy, N. Penile volume changes to moving pictures of male and
female nudes in heterosexual and homosexual males. Behavior Research
and Therapy, 1967, 5, 43-48.
May, E. P. Counselors', psychologists', and homosexuals' philosophies of
human nature and attitudes toward homosexual behavior. Homosexual
Counseling Journal, 1974, 1, 3-25.
Miilham, J., San Miguel, C. G., & Kellogg, R. A. factor analytic conceptualization of attitudes toward male and female homosexuals. Journal of
Homosexuality, 1976, 2, 3-10.
Minnigerode, F. A. Attitudes toward homosexuality; Feminist attitudes and
social conservatism. Sex Roles, 1976, 2, 347-352.
Morin, S. F. Educational programs as a means of changing attitudes toward
gay people. Homosexual Counseling Journal, 1974, ], 160-165.

MALE HOMOPHOBIA

47

Morin, S. F. Heterosexual bias in research on lesbianism and male homosexuality. American Psychologist, t977, 32, 629-637.
Nutt, R. L., & Sedlacek, VV. E. Freshman sexual attitudes and behaviors.
Journal of College Student Personnel, 1974, 15, 346-351.
Pauly, I., & Goldstein, S. G. Physicians attitudes In treating male homosexuals.
Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, 1970, 4, 26-45.
Pleck, J. H. Man to man: Is brotherhood possible? In N. Glazer-Malbin
(Ed.), Old family/new family: Interpersonal relationships. New York: Van
Nostrand Reinhold, 1975.
Rooney, E., & Gibbons, D. Social reactions to crimes without victims Social
Problems, t966, 13, 400-410.
San Miguel, C. C , & Millham, J. The role of cognitive and situational
variables in aggression toward homosexuals. Journal of Homosexuality
1976,2, 11-27.
^
J
J',
Smith, K. Homophobia: A tentative personality profile. Psychological Retorts
1971,29, 1091-1094.
Steffensmeier, D., & Steffensmeier, R. Sex differences In reactions to
homosexuals: Research continuities and further developments. The
Journal of Sex Research, 1974, 10, 52-67.
Tavris, C. Men and women report their views on masculinity. Psychology
Today, January 1977, 35.
Weinberg, G. Society and the healthy homosexual New York: St Martin's Press
1972.
Wolfgang, A., & Wolfgang, J. Exploration of attitudes via physical interpersonal distance toward the obese, drug users, homosexuals, police and
other marginal ^'igur&s. Journal of' Clinical Psychology, 1971, 27, 510-512.