Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2023 Jun 15.
Published in final edited form as: J Bisex. 2022 Jun 15;22(4):463–484. doi: 10.1080/15299716.2022.2084485

An examination of attitudes toward bisexual people at the intersections of gender and race/ethnicity

Brian A Feinstein 1, Isabel Benjamin 1, Kate Dorrell 1, Sydni E Foley 2, Helena S Blumenau 2, Ryan T Cragun 3, Eric Julian Manalastas 4
PMCID: PMC10035584  NIHMSID: NIHMS1840295  PMID: 36969575

Abstract

People report more negative attitudes toward bisexual than gay/lesbian individuals, but little is known about attitudes at the intersections of gender and race/ethnicity. We examined whether attitudes toward bisexual people differed depending on: 1) target gender identity (man, woman), gender modality (cisgender, transgender), and race/ethnicity (White, Black, Hispanic); and 2) participant gender identity (man, woman) and race/ethnicity (White, person of color). As part of a cross-sectional survey, 552 participants rated their feelings toward 12 bisexual targets who varied in gender identity/modality and race/ethnicity. A repeated-measures ANOVA indicated that participants rated bisexual men more negatively than women, transgender individuals more negatively than cisgender individuals, and Black/Hispanic individuals more negatively than White individuals. However, differences based on target gender identity and race/ethnicity were only observed for cisgender targets, and most effects were only observed for male participants. Efforts to improve attitudes toward bisexual people must account for heterogeneity based on target/participant characteristics.

Keywords: attitudes, bisexual, gender, intersectionality, race/ethnicity

Introduction

Bisexual people are disproportionately affected by adverse mental health outcomes (e.g., depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation) relative to both heterosexual and gay/lesbian individuals (Ross et al., 2018; Salway et al., 2019). Given that bisexual people make up the largest proportion of the broader sexual minority community (Gates, 2011), and that more people are identifying as bisexual over time (Phillips II et al., 2019), the health disparities affecting bisexual people represent a major public health concern. Minority stress theory proposes that the health disparities affecting sexual minorities are due to the unique stressors they experience (e.g., discrimination, victimization), which are rooted in people’s negative attitudes toward them (i.e., prejudice) (V. R. Brooks, 1981; Meyer, 2003). Bisexual people have consistently been subject to more negative attitudes than gay/lesbian people (Dodge et al., 2016; Herek, 2002) and, while attitudes toward gay/lesbian people have been improving over time (Pew Research Center, 2020), attitudes toward bisexual people remain neutral at best, with many people reporting explicitly negative attitudes (Dodge et al., 2016). Still, the bisexual population is heterogeneous, and little is known about whether attitudes toward bisexual people differ as a function of other identities (e.g., gender, race/ethnicity) of the bisexual person or the perceiver. Therefore, the goals of the current study were to examine whether attitudes toward bisexual people differed depending on: 1) the bisexual person’s gender identity (man or woman), gender modality1 (cisgender or transgender), and race/ethnicity (White, Black, or Hispanic); and 2) the participant’s gender identity (man or woman) and race/ethnicity (White or person of color). Examining the heterogeneity in attitudes toward bisexual people has the potential to inform the development of more effective interventions to reduce prejudice (Dyar et al., 2015) and, ultimately, to reduce the health disparities affecting the bisexual population.

For decades, studies have consistently demonstrated that people report more negative attitudes toward bisexual people than toward gay/lesbian people (Dodge et al., 2016; Helms & Waters, 2016; Herek, 2002). Research has also demonstrated a number of unique stereotypes about bisexuality and bisexual people. For example, bisexuality is often perceived as an invalid and unstable sexual orientation, with bisexual people being stereotyped as being uncertain about their sexual orientation, sexually promiscuous, and unfaithful in relationships (Burke & LaFrance, 2018). Not only are these stereotypes pervasive, they are also held by both heterosexual and gay/lesbian people (Mohr & Rochlen, 1999; Yost & Thomas, 2012), contributing to the discrimination that bisexual people face from both groups (Feinstein & Dyar, 2017). Consequently, bisexual people have reported lower levels of connection to and belonging in the LGBTQ+ community compared to gay and lesbian people (McLaren & Castillo, 2021; Salfas et al., 2019). Negative attitudes toward bisexual people are well-documented in the literature, but little is known about whether they differ depending on other identities (e.g., gender, race/ethnicity) of the target (i.e., the bisexual person) or the perceiver.

Based on theories of intersectionality (Collins, 1998; Crenshaw, 1991) and multiple minority stress (Balsam et al., 2011), it is likely that attitudes toward bisexual people differ at the intersections of gender and race/ethnicity. The concept of intersectionality originated in Black feminist scholarship to describe the ways in which interlocking systems of power influence the experiences of people with multiple minoritized identities (Collins, 1998; Crenshaw, 1991). Most research on intersectionality focuses on multiply marginalized individuals themselves, but more recent research has focused on the ways in which intersecting identities impact perceivers’ impressions of multiply marginalized individuals and the stereotypes applied to them (Ghavami & Peplau, 2013; Kang & Bodenhausen, 2015; Salter et al., 2021). As such, perceptions of and attitudes toward bisexual people are likely influenced by their other identities (e.g., gender, race/ethnicity), although few studies have tested this hypothesis. Further, research on multiple minority stress has demonstrated that LGBTQ+ people of color experience unique stressors compared to White LGBTQ+ people, and that these unique stressors contribute to adverse mental health outcomes among LGBTQ+ people of color (Balsam et al., 2011; Zelaya et al., 2021). Given that minority stress (e.g., discrimination) is rooted in people’s negative attitudes toward minoritized groups (i.e., prejudice) (V. R. Brooks, 1981; Meyer, 2003), it is also likely that multiple minority stress is influenced by attitudes toward bisexual people at the intersections of their other identities.

A number of studies have examined whether attitudes toward bisexual people differ as a function of the bisexual person’s gender. These studies have generally found that heterosexual men report more negative attitudes and greater hostility toward bisexual men than toward bisexual women (Herek, 2002; Mohr & Rochlen, 1999; Yost & Thomas, 2012). Based on these findings, scholars have proposed that heterosexual men may have more negative attitudes toward bisexual men because they fear being perceived as gay or bisexual themselves, while they may have more positive attitudes toward bisexual women because they are aroused by female same-sex sexuality (Mohr & Rochlen, 1999; Yost & Thomas, 2012). In contrast, heterosexual women report similar attitudes toward bisexual men and women (Herek, 2002; Mohr & Rochlen, 1999; Morrison et al., 2010; Yost & Thomas, 2012), but perceive bisexual men as less romantically desirable romantically compared to heterosexual men (Gleason et al., 2018). Although gay men and lesbian women do not differ in their hostility toward bisexual people, gay men perceive male bisexuality as less stable than female bisexuality, and lesbian women perceive female bisexuality as less stable than male bisexuality (Matsick & Rubin, 2018; Mohr & Rochlen, 1999). Overall, gay, lesbian, and heterosexual people perceive male bisexuality as less legitimate than female bisexuality (Morgenroth et al., 2021), and bisexual men and women believe non-bisexual people’s perceptions of bisexual women are more positive than their perceptions of bisexual men (Beach et al., 2019). Negative attitudes towards bisexual men seem to be rooted in beliefs that they are gay and unwilling to come out, whereas negative attitudes towards bisexual women seem to be rooted in beliefs that they are heterosexual and expressing same-sex attraction to gain heterosexual men’s attention (Alarie & Gaudet, 2013; Matsick & Conley, 2016; Yost & Thomas, 2012). These studies provide a foundation for understanding differences in attitudes toward bisexual people at the intersection of gender, but they fail to account for the possibility that attitudes may also depend on whether the bisexual person is cisgender or transgender.

To our knowledge, no prior study has examined whether attitudes toward cisgender bisexual people differ from attitudes toward transgender bisexual people. Given that transgender people are particularly likely to identify as bisexual (Movement Advancement Project, 2017), it is important to examine whether people report different attitudes toward cisgender versus transgender bisexual people. Previous research has found that transgender people are perceived as highly different from cisgender people (Gazzola & Morrison, 2014), and that transgender people are stereotyped as morally wrong and deceitful about their real identities (Hill & Willoughby, 2005). In addition, people are generally less accepting of transgender people than they are of gay and lesbian people (Lewis et al., 2017). Based on these prior findings, it is likely that people’s attitudes toward transgender bisexual people will be more negative than their attitudes toward cisgender bisexual people.

We are also not aware of any prior studies that have examined whether attitudes toward bisexual people differ depending on their race/ethnicity. However, one prior study found that Multiracial bisexual people perceived others as having more negative attitudes towards them compared to White bisexual people (Beach et al., 2019). In addition, numerous studies have found that sexual minority people of color experience more prejudice and discrimination than White sexual minorities, both within the LGBTQ+ community (L. D. Garnets, 2002; Han, 2007; Sung et al., 2015) and outside of the LGBTQ+ community (Bostwick et al., 2014; K. D. Brooks et al., 2010). Therefore, it is possible that people will report more negative attitudes toward bisexual people of color than toward White bisexual people.

Finally, several studies have examined perceiver characteristics (e.g., gender, race/ethnicity) in relation to attitudes toward bisexuality. These studies have generally found that women report more favorable attitudes toward bisexual people than men do (Dodge et al., 2016; Friedman et al., 2014; Yost & Thomas, 2012), although one study found that this was only the case for attitudes toward bisexual women (Dodge et al., 2016). In addition, several U.S. studies have found that Black participants report more negative attitudes toward bisexual people than White participants (Dodge et al., 2016; Elias et al., 2017; Jaffee et al., 2016; Worthen, 2018). Although very few studies have included participants of other races in these comparisons, there is some evidence that Black participants also report more negative attitudes toward bisexual people than Hispanic and Native American/Alaskan Native participants do (Worthen, 2018). These findings provide a strong foundation for understanding individual differences in attitudes toward bisexuality, but additional research is needed to understand whether perceiver and target characteristics interact to influence attitudes toward bisexual people.

The Current Study

In sum, previous research has clearly demonstrated that many people hold negative attitudes toward bisexuality, but few studies have examined attitudes toward bisexual people at the intersections of multiple identities (Ghabrial & Ross, 2018). As noted, the results of prior studies suggest that attitudes toward bisexual men tend to be more negative than attitudes toward bisexual women (at least for heterosexual men), but no prior studies have examined whether attitudes toward bisexual people differ as a function of gender modality (cisgender or transgender), race/ethnicity, or the interactions between these identities. Examining the heterogeneity in attitudes toward bisexual people has the potential to inform the development of more effective interventions to reduce prejudice (Dyar et al., 2015). Therefore, the goals of the current study were to examine whether attitudes toward bisexual people differed depending on: 1) the bisexual person’s gender identity (man or woman), gender modality (cisgender or transgender), and race/ethnicity (White, Black, or Hispanic); and 2) the participant’s gender identity (man or woman) and race/ethnicity (White or person of color). Based on the limited prior research in this area, we hypothesized that participants would rate bisexual men, bisexual transgender people, and bisexual people of color more negatively than bisexual women, bisexual cisgender people, and White bisexual people, respectively. In addition, we hypothesized that men and participants of color would rate bisexual people more negatively than women and White participants, respectively. Given the multitude of combinations of target and perceiver characteristics, we did not make specific hypotheses about the interactions among them.

Of note, participants were asked to rate the degree to which they would feel comfortable or uncomfortable being around each group of bisexual people (at the intersections of gender identity, gender modality, and race/ethnicity). Our operationalization of attitudes toward bisexual people as comfort being around them is consistent with prior research, which has acknowledged the multidimensional nature of attitudes toward sexual minorities (Adolfsen et al., 2010; LaMar & Kite, 1998), and distinguished between cognition dimensions (e.g., beliefs about sexual minorities) and affective dimensions (e.g., the affect or comfort an individual feels in the presence of sexual minorities) (Adolfsen et al., 2010). Some studies have specifically operationalized negative attitudes toward sexual minorities as the degree to which individuals would feel comfortable or uncomfortable in the presence of sexual minorities (Monto & Supinski, 2014), while other studies have included items that reflect affect (e.g., discomfort, disgust, upset) as part of broader measures of negative attitudes toward sexual minorities (Helms & Waters, 2016; Herek, 1988; Mohr & Rochlen, 1999).

Methods

The current study used data from a larger project focused on attitudes toward different social groups (Cragun & Sumerau, 2017). The primary goal of the larger project was to compare attitudes toward different social groups at the intersection of religious identity (Christian, Jewish, Muslim, atheist, and nonreligious) and sexual/gender identity (heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, and transgender). The results of those analyses are reported in a prior article (Cragun & Sumerau, 2017). The current analyses used data that were collected as part of that same project, but that were not included in the prior article.

Participants

Participants were recruited by having students in two undergraduate sociology courses (taught by the fifth author) recruit at least 10 friends and family members to complete an anonymous online survey. Recruiting participants for the study was part of a class assignment. As such, students who recruited participants receive credit for the class assignment (as opposed to extra credit). Participants were required to be at least 18 years old and they could not be college students. The majority of prior research on attitudes toward social groups has relied on samples of college students, and important differences have been identified between American college students and American non-student adults (e.g., American college students are generally more liberal and they are more motivated to mask negative intergroup attitudes) (Henry, 2008). Therefore, participants were not allowed to be college students in an effort to move beyond the commonly used participant pool of college students and to obtain a sample that was likely more reflective of adults in the US. Of note, we make no claims about the representativeness of our sample; rather, we believe that it is likely more reflective of adults in the US than is a sample of college students. Participants did not receive compensation for completing the survey.

The initial sample included 618 participants. Responses were examined for duplicate demographic information across participants, but no duplicates were identified. We excluded 66 from the analytic sample. First, we excluded participants who identified as bisexual (n = 19) because our analyses focused on ratings of bisexual targets. Next, we excluded participants who did not identify as men or women (n = 7), or who did not report their gender (n = 5), because we included participant gender as a between-subjects factor in our analyses and there were too few participants who did not identify as men or women to include them as a separate group. Finally, we excluded participants who did not report their race (n = 35), because we included participant race as a between-subjects factor in our analyses.

The resulting analytic sample included 552 participants. Participants ranged in age from 17-86 years (M = 39.9, SD = 15.9).2 Approximately two-thirds of participants were cisgender women (n = 351, 63.6%) and approximately one-third of participants were cisgender men (n = 201, 36.4%).3 The majority of participants were heterosexual (n = 528, 95.7%), followed by gay/lesbian (n = 20, 3.6%), asexual (n = 2, 0.4%), and queer (n = 1, 0.2%), and one participant (0.2%) did not report their sexual orientation. The majority of participants were also non-Hispanic White (n = 404, 73.2%), followed by Hispanic (n = 85, 15.4%), non-Hispanic Black (n = 36, 6.5%), and additional races (n = 28, 5.0%).

Procedures

Participants were provided with a link to access an anonymous online survey. As part of the survey, participants rated their attitudes toward 12 groups of bisexual people using a 100-point thermometer scale. Specifically, they were asked: “On a scale of 0 to 100, where 0 indicates you would feel really uncomfortable being around people with these characteristics and 100 indicates you would feel really comfortable being around people with these characteristics, how comfortable or uncomfortable would you feel being around people with the following characteristics?” The 12 groups of bisexual people varied in gender identity (man or woman), gender modality (cisgender or transgender), and race (White, Black, or Hispanic). Specifically, the 12 groups included: 1) White bisexual cisgender women; 2) Black bisexual cisgender women; 3) Hispanic bisexual cisgender women; 4) White bisexual cisgender men; 5) Black bisexual cisgender men; 6) Hispanic bisexual cisgender men; 7) White bisexual transgender women; 8) Black bisexual transgender women; 9) Hispanic bisexual transgender women; 10) White bisexual transgender men; 11) Black bisexual transgender men; and 12) Hispanic bisexual transgender men. Participants were provided with definitions of terms (e.g., cisgender, transgender) to ensure consistency in their understanding of terminology.

Participants were asked to indicate their sex (male, female, intersex, or not listed [with a text box to specify]) and whether they were cisgender, transgender, or another gender modality (with a text box to specify). Responses were used to categorize participants as cisgender men or cisgender women. As noted above, we excluded participants who did not identify as men or women (n = 7), or who did not report their gender (n = 5), because we included participant gender as a between-subjects factor in our analyses and there were too few participants who did not identify as men or women to include them as a separate group. Participants were also asked to indicate their race/ethnicity. Response options included non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic White, Hispanic Black, Asian, and not listed (with a text box to specify). Race/ethnicity was dichotomized (0 = non-Hispanic White, 1 = person of color) for data analysis because there were too few Hispanic White, Hispanic Black, Asian, and other participants to include them as separate groups. Participants could only select one response option for each of the demographic questions.

Data Analysis

Data analysis was conducted in SPSS Version 28. The data were analyzed using a repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) with three within-subjects factors and two between-subjects factors. The within-subjects factors included target gender identity (man or woman), target gender modality (cisgender or transgender), and target race/ethnicity (White, Black, or Hispanic). The between-subjects factors included participant gender (man or woman) and participant race/ethnicity (White or person of color). We tested the main effects of each within- and between-subjects factor and all possible interaction effects. Significant effects were followed with post hoc pairwise comparisons using a standard Bonferroni correction. Given that 95.7% of participants were heterosexual, we were unable to examine participant sexual orientation as a between-subjects factor. Therefore, to ensure the robustness of our results, we conducted a sensitivity analysis where we re-ran our analysis after excluding the small subset of sexual minority participants.

Results

Main Effects of Target Characteristics

Results, including effect sizes, are presented in Table 1 (main effects) and Table 2 (pairwise comparisons). There was a significant main effect of target gender identity, such that participants rated bisexual men more negatively than bisexual women. There was also a significant main effect of target gender modality, such that participants rated transgender bisexual targets more negatively than cisgender bisexual targets. Finally, there was a significant main effect of target race, such that participants rated Black and Hispanic bisexual targets more negatively than White bisexual targets; their ratings of Black and Hispanic bisexual targets did not differ.

Table 1.

Main and Interaction Effects of Target and Participant Characteristics.

F df 1 p η p 2
Target Characteristics
Gender Identity 26.37 1, 548 < .001 .05
Gender Modality 128.15 1, 548 < .001 .19
Race1 11.00 1.84, 1007.41 < .001 .02
Gender Identity*Modality 35.67 1, 548 < .001 .06
Race*Gender Identity 1.31 2, 1096 .27 .002
Race*Gender Modality 9.26 2, 1096 < .001 .02
Race*Gender Identity*Modality2 3.21 1.86, 1020.90 .04 .01
Participant Characteristics
Gender 1.18 1, 548 .28 .002
Race 1.20 1, 548 .28 .002
Gender*Race 3.80 1, 548 .05 .01
Open in a new tab
1

Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of sphericity had been violated for the main effect of race, χ2(2) = 56.02, p < .001, and the interaction effect between race, gender identity, and gender modality, χ2(2) = 47.35, p < .001. Degrees of freedom were corrected using Huynh-Feldt estimates of sphericity (ε = .92 for the main effect of race and .93 for the interaction effect between race, gender identity, and gender modality).

Table 2.

Pairwise Comparisons for Main Effects of Target Characteristics.

M SD 95% CI p
Target Gender Identity
  Men 69.13 35.55 66.16, 72.11 -
  Women 71.19 34.58 68.30, 74.08 < .001
Target Gender Modality
  Transgender 64.68 38.91 61.43, 67.94 -
  Cisgender 75.64 34.07 72.79, 78.49 < .001
Target Race
  White 70.90 34.58 68.01, 73.79 -
  Black1 69.99 35.03 67.06, 72.92 .003
  Hispanic 69.59 35.34 66.64, 72.54 < .001
Open in a new tab
1

Participants’ ratings of Black and Hispanic targets did not differ (p = .33).

Interaction Effects of Target Characteristics

Results, including effect sizes, are presented in Table 1 (interaction effects) and Table 3 (pairwise comparisons). There was a significant interaction between target gender identity and modality, such that participants rated cisgender bisexual men more negatively than cisgender bisexual women, whereas their ratings of transgender bisexual men and transgender bisexual women did not differ. There was also a significant interaction between target race and gender modality, such that participants rated Black and Hispanic cisgender bisexual targets more negatively than White cisgender bisexual targets; their ratings of Black and Hispanic cisgender bisexual targets did not differ. Further, their ratings of White, Black, and Hispanic transgender bisexual targets did not differ. There was no significant interaction between target race and gender identity.

Table 3.

Pairwise Comparisons for Interaction Effects of Target Characteristics.

M SD 95% CI p
Gender Identity*Modality
Cisgender men 73.68 35.55 70.71, 76.65 -
Cisgender women 77.60 34.14 74.74, 80.45 < .001
Transgender men 64.59 39.05 61.33, 67.85 -
Transgender women 64.78 39.24 61.50, 68.06 .61
Race*Gender Modality
White cisgender 76.86 33.79 74.03, 79.68 -
Black cisgender1 75.42 34.54 72.53, 78.31 .002
Hispanic cisgender 74.64 35.29 71.69, 77.59 < .001
White transgender 64.95 39.12 61.67, 68.22 -
Black transgender2 64.56 39.19 61.28, 67.84 .437
Hispanic transgender 64.54 39.00 61.28, 67.80 .663
Race*Gender Identity*Modality
White cisgender women 79.22 34.09 76.37, 82.07 -
Black cisgender women3 77.29 34.73 74.39, 80.20 .003
Hispanic cisgender women 76.29 35.90 73.29, 79.29 < .001
White cisgender men 74.50 35.48 71.53, 77.46 -
Black cisgender men4 73.55 36.39 70.51, 76.59 .130
Hispanic cisgender men 72.99 36.56 69.93, 76.04 .006
White transgender women 64.99 39.59 61.68, 68.30 -
Black transgender women5 64.59 39.47 61.29, 67.89 .60
Hispanic transgender women 64.75 39.40 61.45, 68.04 1.00
White transgender men 64.90 39.38 61.61, 68.19 -
Black transgender men6 64.53 39.42 61.24, 67.83 .84
Hispanic transgender men 64.34 39.33 61.05, 67.63 .55
Open in a new tab
1

Participants’ ratings of Black and Hispanic cisgender targets did not differ (p = .12).

2

Participants’ ratings of Black and Hispanic transgender targets did not differ (p = 1.00).

3

Participants’ ratings of Black and Hispanic cisgender women did not differ (p = .07).

4

Participants’ ratings of Black and Hispanic cisgender men did not differ (p = .75).

5

Participants’ ratings of Black and Hispanic transgender women did not differ (p = 1.00).

6

Participants’ ratings of Black and Hispanic transgender men did not differ (p = 1.00).

Finally, there was a significant three-way interaction effect between target race, gender identity, and gender modality. Contrasts revealed that participants rated Black and Hispanic cisgender bisexual women more negatively than White cisgender bisexual women, but their ratings of Black and Hispanic cisgender bisexual women did not differ. In addition, participants rated Hispanic cisgender bisexual men more negatively than White cisgender bisexual men, but their ratings of White and Black cisgender bisexual men did not differ (nor did their ratings of Black and Hispanic cisgender bisexual men). Participants’ ratings of White, Black, and Hispanic transgender bisexual women did not differ, nor did their ratings of White, Black, and Hispanic transgender bisexual men.

Main and Interaction Effects of Participants Characteristics

Results, including effect sizes, are presented in Table 1. None of the between-subjects effects (participant gender, race, and their interaction) were significant.

Interaction Effects of Target and Participant Characteristics

Interaction effects are presented in Table 4, pairwise comparisons for interactions with participant gender are presented in Table 5, and pairwise comparisons for interactions with participant race are presented in-text. Only significant interactions are described in-text.

Table 4.

Interaction Effects between Participant and Target Characteristics.

F df 1 p ηp2
Interactions with Participant Gender
Gender Identity 21.27 1, 548 < .001 .04
Gender Modality 5.80 1, 548 .02 .01
Race 0.65 1.84, 1007.41 .51 .001
Gender Identity*Modality 28.44 1, 548 < .001 .05
Race*Gender Identity 2.08 2, 1096 .13 .004
Race*Gender Modality 2.38 2, 1096 .09 .004
Race*Gender Identity*Modality 5.90 1.86, 1020.90 .004 .01
Interactions with Participant Race
Gender Identity 0.22 1, 548 .64 < .001
Gender Modality 4.35 1, 548 .04 .01
Race 2.44 1.84, 1007.41 .09 .004
Gender Identity*Modality 0.79 1, 548 .38 .001
Race*Gender Identity 0.95 2, 1096 .39 .002
Race*Gender Modality 2.08 2, 1096 .13 .004
Race*Gender Identity*Modality 0.05 1.86, 1020.90 .94 < .001
Interactions with Participant Gender and Race
Gender Identity 0.15 1, 548 .70 < .001
Gender Modality 0.72 1, 548 .40 .001
Race 0.07 1.84, 1007.41 .92 < .001
Gender Identity*Modality 0.001 1, 548 .97 < .001
Race*Gender Identity 1.40 2, 1096 .25 .003
Race*Gender Modality 1.45 2, 1096 .24 .003
Race*Gender Identity*Modality 1.68 1.86, 1020.90 .19 .003
Open in a new tab
1

Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of sphericity had been violated for the main effect of race, χ2(2) = 56.02, p < .001, and the interaction effect between race, gender identity, and gender modality, χ2(2) = 47.35, p < .001. Degrees of freedom were corrected using Huynh-Feldt estimates of sphericity (ε = .92 for the main effect of race and .93 for the interaction effect between race, gender identity, and gender modality).

Table 5.

Pairwise Comparisons for Interaction Effects between Participant Gender and Target Characteristics.

Male Participants Female Participants
M SD 95% CI p M SD 95% CI p
Men 66.60 33.87 61.91, 71.30 - 71.66 34.83 68.01, 75.32 -
Women 70.50 32.95 65.94, 75.07 < .001 71.87 33.89 68.32, 75.43 .67
Cisgender 75.20 32.45 70.70, 79.69 - 76.08 33.39 72.58, 79.58 -
Transgender 61.91 37.06 56.78, 67.04 < .001 67.46 38.11 63.46, 71.45 < .001
Cisgender men 71.48 33.86 66.79, 76.17 - 75.88 34.81 72.23, 79.53 -
Cisgender women 78.91 32.52 74.41, 83.42 < .001 76.29 33.44 72.78, 79.79 .59
Transgender men 61.73 37.19 56.58, 66.88 - 67.45 38.24 63.44, 71.46 -
Transgender women 62.09 37.37 56.91, 67.27 .52 67.46 38.43 63.43, 71.49 .98
White cisgender women 81.53 32.47 77.03, 86.03 - 76.91 33.40 73.41, 80.41 -
Black cisgender women1,2 78.01 33.08 73.42, 82.59 < .001 76.58 34.02 73.01, 80.14 1.00
Hispanic cisgender women 77.21 34.18 72.47, 81.94 < .001 75.37 35.17 71.68, 79.06 .09
White cisgender men 72.21 33.77 67.53, 76.89 - 76.79 34.73 73.15, 80.43 -
Black cisgender men3,4 71.43 34.66 66.63, 76.23 .88 75.67 35.65 71.93, 79.41 .33
Hispanic cisgender men 70.80 34.82 65.98, 75.63 .21 75.17 35.82 71.41, 78.92 .36
White transgender women 62.08 37.70 56.86, 67.30 - 67.90 38.78 63.83, 71.96 -
Black transgender women5,6 61.89 37.60 56.58, 67.10 1.00 67.29 38.67 63.23, 71.34 .33
Hispanic transgender women 62.30 37.53 57.10, 67.50 1.00 67.20 38.59 63.15, 71.24 .36
White transgender men 62.10 37.50 56.90, 67.29 - 67.71 38.58 63.66, 71.75 -
Black transgender men7,8 61.69 37.54 56.49, 66.89 1.00 67.37 38.61 63.32, 71.42 1.00
Hispanic transgender men 61.40 37.46 56.21, 66.59 .89 67.28 38.52 63.24, 71.31 1.00
Open in a new tab
1

Men’s ratings of Black and Hispanic cisgender women did not differ (p = .76).

2

Women’s ratings of Black and Hispanic cisgender women did not differ (p = .08).

3

Men’s ratings of Black and Hispanic cisgender men did not differ (p = 1.00).

4

Women’s ratings of Black and Hispanic cisgender men did not differ (p = 1.00).

5

Men’s ratings of Black and Hispanic transgender women did not differ (p = 1.00).

6

Women’s ratings of Black and Hispanic transgender women did not differ (p = 1.00).

7

Men’s ratings of Black and Hispanic transgender men did not differ (p = 1.00).

8

Women’s ratings of Black and Hispanic transgender men did not differ (p = 1.00).

First, there was a significant interaction between participant gender and target gender identity, such that men rated bisexual men more negative than bisexual women, whereas women’s ratings of bisexual men and bisexual women did not differ. Second, there was a significant interaction between participant gender and target gender modality. Both men and women rated transgender bisexual targets more negatively than cisgender bisexual targets, but the effect was larger for men. Third, there was a significant three-way interaction effect between participant gender, target gender identity, and target gender modality. Men rated cisgender bisexual men more negatively than cisgender bisexual women, whereas their ratings of transgender bisexual men and transgender bisexual women did not differ. Women’s ratings of cisgender bisexual women and men did not differ, nor did their ratings of transgender bisexual women and men. Fourth, there was a significant four-way interaction between participant gender, target race, target gender identity, and target gender modality. Men rated Black and Hispanic cisgender bisexual women more negatively than White cisgender bisexual women. None of the other pairwise comparisons were significant for men, and none of the pairwise comparisons were significant for women.

Finally, there was a significant interaction between participant race and target gender modality. Non-Hispanic White participants rated transgender bisexual targets more negatively than cisgender bisexual targets. Participants of color also rated transgender bisexual targets more negatively than cisgender bisexual targets, but the effect was smaller.

Sensitivity Analysis

To ensure the robustness of our results, we conducted a sensitivity analysis where we re-ran our analysis after excluding the small subset of sexual minority participants. Results are presented in a supplement (Tables S1-S6). The pattern of results was largely unchanged with two exceptions. In the full sample, participants’ ratings of Black and Hispanic cisgender bisexual women did not differ (see Table 3), but in the heterosexual-only subsample, participants rated Hispanic cisgender bisexual women more negatively than Black cisgender bisexual women (see Table S3). In addition, women’s ratings of White and Hispanic cisgender bisexual men did not differ (see Table 3), but in the heterosexual-only subsample, women rated Hispanic cisgender bisexual men more negatively than White cisgender bisexual men (see Table S3).

Discussion

Negative attitudes toward bisexual people are well-documented in the literature (Dodge et al., 2016; Herek, 2002), but little is known about whether these attitudes differ as a function of other identities such as gender and race/ethnicity of the target (i.e., the bisexual person) or of the perceiver. To address these gaps, we examined whether attitudes toward bisexual people differed as a function of the bisexual person’s gender identity (man or woman), gender modality (cisgender or transgender), and race/ethnicity (White, Black, or Hispanic), as well as the participant’s gender identity (man or woman) and race/ethnicity (White or person of color). Consistent with scholarship on intersectionality as it relates to people’s impressions of multiply marginalized individuals and the stereotypes they apply to them (Ghavami & Peplau, 2013; Kang & Bodenhausen, 2015; Salter et al., 2021), findings revealed important sources of heterogeneity in attitudes toward bisexual people. These findings illustrate the particular need for interventions to improve attitudes toward specific subgroups of bisexual people.

Target Characteristics

First, consistent with prior research (Herek, 2002; Mohr & Rochlen, 1999; Morrison et al., 2010; Yost & Thomas, 2012), we found that participants reported more negative attitudes toward bisexual men than women. However, this effect depended on whether the bisexual target was cisgender or transgender. When the target was cisgender, participants reported more negative attitudes toward bisexual men than women. In contrast, when the target was transgender, participants’ attitudes toward bisexual men and women did not differ. In fact, participants reported more negative attitudes toward transgender bisexual targets than cisgender bisexual targets regardless of the target’s gender identity or race/ethnicity, and this was the largest effect observed in the current study. We are not aware of any prior studies that have directly compared attitudes toward transgender versus cisgender people, but our findings are consistent with evidence that transgender people are subject to prejudice and negative stereotypes (Gazzola & Morrison, 2014; Hill & Willoughby, 2005). Further, although male and female participants both reported more negative attitudes toward transgender bisexual targets than cisgender bisexual targets, this effect was larger for male participants. This is consistent with evidence that men report higher levels of gender essentialism (i.e., the belief that gender is determined at birth and defined by biological characteristics) than women, and that gender essentialism is associated with opposition to transgender people’s rights (Wilton et al., 2019). We also found that participants reported more negative attitudes toward Black and Hispanic bisexual targets than White bisexual targets. However, again, this was only the case when the target was cisgender. These findings are consistent with evidence that sexual minority people of color experience more discrimination than White sexual minorities, both within the LGBTQ+ community (L. D. [Ed] Garnets & Kimmel, 2003; Han, 2007) and outside of the LGBTQ+ community (Bostwick et al., 2014).

Perceiver Characteristics

Although we did not find any significant main effects of participant characteristics on attitudes toward bisexual people, we did find that participant and target characteristics interacted. Consistent with prior research (Herek, 2002; Mohr & Rochlen, 1999; Yost & Thomas, 2012), male participants rated cisgender bisexual men more negatively than cisgender bisexual women. In contrast, but their ratings of transgender bisexual men and women did not differ (nor did female participants’ ratings of bisexual people at the intersections of gender identity and gender modality). In addition, we found that male participants rated Black and Hispanic cisgender bisexual women more negatively than White cisgender bisexual women, but their ratings of other gender identity/modality groups did not differ as a function of target’s race. These findings suggest that the target’s race does not have an influence on men’s attitudes toward cisgender bisexual men (who they rate more negatively than cisgender bisexual women) nor on men’s attitudes toward transgender bisexual people (who they rate more negatively than cisgender bisexual people). However, in the case of cisgender bisexual women, who men generally rate the most positively, target race does have an influence (reflective of racist attitudes toward Black and Hispanic targets).

Limitations

The current findings should be considered in light of several limitations. First, our sample only included cisgender participants, 95.7% of whom were heterosexual. Previous research has found that heterosexual people report more negative attitudes toward bisexual people than gay/lesbian people do (Dodge et al., 2016; Friedman et al., 2014; Hertlein et al., 2016). To our knowledge, no prior studies have examined whether attitudes toward bisexual people differ between cisgender and transgender people. As such, it will be important for future research to continue to examine whether attitudes toward bisexual people differ as a function of participant demographic characteristics, including gender modality and sexual orientation. Second, 73.2% of our participants were non-Hispanic White, which required us to combine all participants of color for analyses. This may have contributed to our lack of significant findings related to participant race/ethnicity. Future studies could do targeted oversampling of racial/ethnic subgroups to permit comparisons. Third, attitudes were assessed with a single item that focused on the affective dimension of attitudes. Although single-item feeling thermometers are commonly used in general attitude surveys (Lewis et al., 2017), it will be important for future research to replicate the current findings using multi-item measures of attitudes toward bisexuality that are also inclusive of the cognitive dimension of attitudes (e.g., beliefs). Fourth, we did not assess attitudes toward bisexual nonbinary people or bisexual people of other races (e.g., Asian), and we did not distinguish targets’ race and ethnicity (i.e., targets were described as White, Black, or Hispanic, despite the fact that they are not mutually exclusive). As noted, we used data from a larger project focused on attitudes toward different social groups (Cragun & Sumerau, 2017), and the primary goal of the larger project was to compare attitudes toward different social groups at the intersection of religious identity (Christian, Jewish, Muslim, atheist, and nonreligious) and sexual/gender identity (heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, and transgender). Therefore, participants were rating a large number of targets and difficult decisions had to be made as to which categories to include and exclude to limit participant burden. Finally, participants were recruited by having each student in a class invite at least 10 friends and family members to complete the survey, potentially limiting the generalizability of the findings.

Implications and Conclusions

Limitations notwithstanding, the current findings have important implications for our understanding of attitudes toward bisexual people and for efforts to improve such attitudes. Our findings suggest a particular need to improve attitudes toward bisexual men, transgender bisexual people, and Black and Hispanic bisexual people, and a particular need to target cisgender men in efforts to improve attitudes toward bisexual people. Although we only measured the affective dimension of attitudes toward bisexual people, Monto and Supinski (2014) found that their measure of attitudes toward gay/lesbian individuals, which specifically focused on the degree to which individuals would feel comfortable or uncomfortable in the presence of gay/lesbian individuals, was highly correlated with a broader measure of negative attitudes toward gay/lesbian individuals (the Homonegativity Scale; Morrison et al., 1997). As such, factors that contribute to prejudice reduction, such as positive intergroup contact (Davies et al., 2011; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006) and accurate knowledge about outgroups (Banks & Banks, 2020), may reduce multiple dimensions of negative attitudes (e.g., beliefs, affect). Although very few studies have specifically focused on reducing prejudice toward bisexual people, the available evidence suggests that intergroup contact and multicultural education are both effective at reducing prejudice against sexual minorities in general (Bartoş et al., 2014).

Intergroup contact interventions may be particularly well-suited to increasing comfort being around bisexual people. They promote positive contact between members of different groups to reduce negative attitudes toward the stigmatized group (Pettigrew, 1998). Research indicates that intergroup contact reduces prejudice against stigmatized groups, including sexual minority individuals (Bartoş et al., 2014; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). Although no studies have tested intergroup contact interventions to reduce prejudice against bisexual people, there is some evidence that knowing a bisexual individual is associated with greater tolerance of bisexuality (de Bruin & Arndt, 2010; Lytle et al., 2017; Mohr & Rochlen, 1999) and lower anxiety when interacting with bisexual individuals (Lytle et al., 2017).

Our findings suggest that efforts to reduce prejudice toward bisexual people need to account for differences in attitudes toward bisexual people at the intersection of gender and race/ethnicity. For example, intergroup contact interventions could be developed to promote positive contact with bisexual people who vary in other identities (e.g., gender identity, gender modality, race/ethnicity), and multicultural education interventions could address the unique stereotypes about bisexual men as well as other prejudicial attitudes that can intersect with biphobia (e.g., transphobia, racism). This has the potential to reduce negative beliefs about bisexual people and to increase comfort interacting them. Efforts to improve attitudes toward transgender bisexual people may also benefit from targeting traditional gender beliefs, given evidence that more traditional beliefs about gender are associated with more negative attitudes toward transgender people (Hackimer et al., 2021). Finally, given that attitudes toward bisexual people differed as a function of their other, intersecting identities (e.g., gender, race/ethnicity) in the current study, it is likely that bisexual people’s experiences of discrimination also depend on their other identities. This possibility is consistent with prior research, which has demonstrated that LGBTQ+ people of color experience unique stressors compared to White LGBTQ+ people, and that these unique stressors contribute to adverse mental health outcomes among LGBTQ+ people of color (Balsam et al., 2011; Zelaya et al., 2021). As such, future research on discrimination and its impact on health among bisexual people should consider the potential for differences based on bisexual people’s intersecting identities.

Supplementary Material

Supp 1

Table 6.

Pairwise Comparisons for Interaction Effects between Participant Race and Target Gender Modality.

Non-Hispanic White Participants Participants of Color
M SD 95% CI p M SD 95% CI p
Cisgender 75.03 30.55 72.04, 78.01 - 76.25 30.06 71.39, 81.10 -
Transgender 62.06 34.87 58.65, 65.46 < .001 67.31 34.32 61.77, 72.85 < .001
Open in a new tab

Biographies

Dr. Brian Feinstein received his PhD in Clinical Psychology from Stony Brook University in 2015. He is currently an Associate Professor in the Department of Psychology at Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science. His program of research focuses on understanding and reducing the health disparities affecting sexual and gender minority (SGM) populations, especially bisexual and other non-monosexual individuals. He is interested in understanding how different types of stress (e.g., discrimination, internalized stigma, rejection sensitivity) influence mental health, substance use, sexual risk behavior, and relationship functioning among SGM individuals and couples. He is also interested in developing and testing interventions to improve health and relationships in these populations.

Isabel Benjamin is a clinical psychology PhD student at Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science. She received her Bachelor’s degree in Psychology and Theatre from Williams College in 2019. Broadly, her research interests include stigmatizing experiences contributing to sexual and gender minority (SGM) mental health, with a particular interest in bi+ populations and targeted psychotherapy interventions.

Kate Dorrell is a clinical psychology PhD student at Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science and received a BS in psychology from the University of Pittsburgh in 2019. Her research focuses on interpersonal influences (e.g. peer, family, and romantic relationships) on mental health disparities in sexual and gender minority individuals, with a focus on bisexual+ youth and suicidal thoughts and behaviors.

Sydni Foley is an undergraduate student at Lake Forest College. She will receive her Bachelor’s of Science in Psychology and Neuroscience in May of 2022. She is currently the Social Media Marketing and Public Relations Intern for Bravo! Waukegan, as she makes a professional transition into fashion styling and marketing.

Helena Blumenau is an undergraduate student at Lake Forest College. She will be graduating in May of 2023 with her Bachelor's degrees in Neuroscience and Psychology.

Dr. Ryan T. Cragun is a husband, father, and sociologist of worldviews. The focus of his scholarship is Mormonism and nonreligion. His research has been published in a variety of academic journals, like: Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Sociology of Religion, and Social Science and Medicine. He's the author or editor of numerous books, including, Organized Secularism in the US. For more about his work, you can visit his website: www.ryantcragun.com. Originally from Utah, he now lives in Florida and works at The University of Tampa.

Eric Julian Manalastas has a PhD in social psychology from the University of Sheffield, United Kingdom, an MSc in gender and sexuality studies from the University of Amsterdam, Netherlands, and a postgraduate specialisation in LGBT health from the George Washington University, USA. He is currently an associate systematic reviewer for an independent research consulting firm specialising in evidence synthesis based in Oxford, UK. His research interests are in collective action, meta-analysis, and LGBTQ psychology as a means to advance the human rights and well-being of sexual and gender minorities.

Footnotes

1

The term “gender modality” was coined by a transgender scholar to describe how a person’s gender identity stands in relation to their gender assigned at birth (e.g., whether they are cisgender or transgender) (Ashley, 2021). Of note, the scholar who coined the term acknowledged that, “It is an open-ended category which includes being trans and being cis and welcomes the elaboration of further terms which speak to the diverse experiences people may have of the relationship between their gender identity and gender assigned at birth: the cis-trans binary is challenged by some non-binary people—especially agender people—some intersex people, some gender creative youth, and some people who were raised in a fully gender neutral manner” (Ashley, 2021, p. 1).

2

Age was calculated as year of birth minus year of data collection. Although participants were recruited to be at least 18-years-old, one participant’s calculated age was 17. We retained this participant in the dataset because our formula for calculating age may have resulted in imprecise estimates.

3

The sample included one participant who reported that their sex assigned at birth was male and that they were transgender, but they were excluded from the analytic sample because they did not report their race.

References

  1. Adolfsen A, Iedema J, & Keuzenkamp S (2010). Multiple dimensions of attitudes about homosexuality: Development of a multifaceted scale measuring attitudes toward homosexuality. Journal of Homosexuality, 57(10), 1237–1257. 10.1080/00918369.2010.517069 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Alarie M, & Gaudet S (2013). “I don’t know if she is bisexual or if she just wants to get attention”: Analyzing the various mechanisms through which emerging adults invisibilize bisexuality. Journal of Bisexuality, 13(2), 191–214. 10.1080/15299716.2013.780004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Ashley F (2021). “Trans” is my gender modality: A modest terminological proposal. In Erickson-Schroth L (Ed.), Trans Bodies, Trans Selves (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  4. Balsam KF, Molina Y, Beadnell B, Simoni J, & Walters K (2011). Measuring multiple minority stress: The LGBT People of Color Microaggressions Scale. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 17(2), 163–174. 10.1037/a0023244 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Banks JA, & Banks CAM (2020). Multicultural Education: Issues and Perspectives, 10th Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Indianapolis, IN. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bartoş SE, Berger I, & Hegarty P (2014). Interventions to reduce sexual prejudice: A study-space analysis and meta-analytic review. Journal of Sex Research, 51(4), 363–382. 10.1080/00224499.2013.871625 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Beach L, Bartelt E, Dodge B, Bostwick W, Schick V, Fu T.-C. (Jane), Friedman MR, & Herbenick D (2019). Meta-Perceptions of Others’ Attitudes Toward Bisexual Men and Women Among a Nationally Representative Probability Sample. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 48(1), 191–197. 10.1007/s10508-018-1347-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Bostwick WB, Boyd CJ, Hughes TL, & West B (2014). Discrimination and Mental Health Among Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Adults in the United States. The American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 84(1), 35–45. 10.1037/h0098851 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Brooks KD, Bowleg L, & Quina K (2010). Minority Sexual Status Among Minorities. In Loue S (Ed.), Sexualities and Identities of Minority Women (pp. 41–63). Springer New York. 10.1007/978-0-387-75657-8_3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Brooks VR (1981). Minority stress and lesbian women. Lexington Books. [Google Scholar]
  11. Burke SE, & LaFrance M (2018). Perceptions of instability and choice across sexual orientation groups. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 21(2), 257–279. 10.1177/1368430216663019 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Collins PH (1998). It’s All in the Family: Intersections of Gender, Race, and Nation. Hypatia, 13(3), 62–82. [Google Scholar]
  13. Crenshaw K (1991). Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299. 10.2307/1229039 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Davies K, Tropp LR, Aron A, Pettigrew TF, & Wright SC (2011). Cross-group friendships and intergroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15(4), 332–351. 10.1177/1088868311411103 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. de Bruin K, & Arndt M (2010). Attitudes Toward Bisexual Men and Women in a University Context: Relations with Race, Gender, Knowing a Bisexual Man or Woman and Sexual Orientation. Journal of Bisexuality, 10(3), 233–252. 10.1080/15299716.2010.500955 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Dodge B, Herbenick D, Friedman MR, Schick V, Fu T-C, Bostwick W, Bartelt E, Muñoz-Laboy M, Pletta D, Reece M, & Sandfort TGM (2016). Attitudes toward bisexual men and women among a nationally representative probability sample of adults in the United States. PLoS ONE, 11(10). 10.1371/journal.pone.0164430 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Dyar C, Lytle A, London B, & Levy SR (2015). Application of bisexuality research to the development of a set of guidelines for intervention efforts to reduce binegativity. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 1(4), 352–362. 10.1037/tps0000045 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Elias T, Jaisle A, & Morton-Padovano C (2017). Ethnic Identity as a Predictor of Microaggressions Toward Blacks, Whites, and Hispanic LGBs by Blacks, Whites, and Hispanics. Journal of Homosexuality, 64(1), 1–31. 10.1080/00918369.2016.1172888 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Feinstein BA, & Dyar C (2017). Bisexuality, minority stress, and health. Current Sexual Health Reports, 9(1), 42–49. 10.1007/s11930-017-0096-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Friedman MR, Dodge B, Schick V, Herbenick D, Hubach RD, Bowling J, Goncalves G, Krier S, & Reece M (2014). From bias to bisexual health disparities: Attitudes toward bisexual men and women in the United States. LGBT Health, 1(4), 309–318. 10.1089/lgbt.2014.0005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Garnets LD (2002). Sexual orientations in perspective. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 8(2), 115–129. 10.1037/1099-9809.8.2.115 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Garnets LD, & Kimmel DC (2003). Psychological perspectives on lesbian, gay, and bisexual experiences, 2nd edition. Columbia University Press. [Google Scholar]
  23. Gates G (2011). How Many People are Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender? https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/how-many-people-lgbt/ [Google Scholar]
  24. Gazzola SB, & Morrison MA (2014). Cultural and Personally Endorsed Stereotypes of Transgender Men and Transgender Women: Notable Correspondence or Disjunction? International Journal of Transgenderism, 15(2), 76–99. 10.1080/15532739.2014.937041 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Ghabrial MA, & Ross LE (2018). Representation and erasure of bisexual people of color: A content analysis of quantitative bisexual mental health research. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 5(2), 132–142. 10.1037/sgd0000286 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Ghavami N, & Peplau LA (2013). An intersectional analysis of gender and ethnic stereotypes: Testing three hypotheses. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37(1), 113–127. 10.1177/0361684312464203 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Gleason N, Vencill JA, & Sprankle E (2018). Swipe Left on the Bi Guys: Examining Attitudes toward Dating and Being Sexual with Bisexual Individuals. Journal of Bisexuality, 18(4), 516–534. 10.1080/15299716.2018.1563935 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Hackimer L, Chen CY-C, & Verkuilen J (2021). Individual factors and cisgender college students’ attitudes and behaviors toward transgender individuals. Journal of Community Psychology, 49(6), 2023–2039. 10.1002/jcop.22546 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Han C (2007). They Don’t Want To Cruise Your Type: Gay Men of Color and the Racial Politics of Exclusion. Social Identities, 13(1), 51–67. 10.1080/13504630601163379 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Helms JL, & Waters AM (2016). Attitudes Toward Bisexual Men and Women. Journal of Bisexuality, 16(4), 454–467. 10.1080/15299716.2016.1242104 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Henry PJ (2008). College sophomores in the laboratory redux: Influences of a narrow data base on social psychology’s view of the nature of prejudice. Psychological Inquiry, 19(2), 49–71. 10.1080/10478400802049936 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Herek GM (1988). Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: Correlates and gender differences. The Journal of Sex Research, 25(4), 451–477. 10.1080/00224498809551476 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Herek GM (2002). Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward bisexual men and women in the United States. Journal of Sex Research, 39(4), 264–274. 10.1080/00224490209552150 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Hertlein KM, Hartwell EE, & Munns ME (2016). Attitudes Toward Bisexuality According to Sexual Orientation and Gender. Journal of Bisexuality, 16(3), 339–360. 10.1080/15299716.2016.1200510 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Hill DB, & Willoughby BLB (2005). The Development and Validation of the Genderism and Transphobia Scale. Sex Roles, 53(7), 531–544. 10.1007/s11199-005-7140-x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Jaffee KD, Dessel AB, & Woodford MR (2016). The nature of incoming graduate social work students’ attitudes toward sexual minorities. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 28(4), 255–276. 10.1080/10538720.2016.1224210 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Kang SK, & Bodenhausen GV (2015). Multiple Identities in Social Perception and Interaction: Challenges and Opportunities. Annual Review of Psychology, 66(1), 547–574. 10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. LaMar L, & Kite M (1998). Sex differences in attitudes toward gay men and lesbians: A multidimensional perspective. The Journal of Sex Research, 35(2), 189–196. 10.1080/00224499809551932 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Lewis DC, Flores AR, Haider-Markel DP, Miller PR, Tadlock BL, & Taylor JK (2017). Degrees of Acceptance: Variation in Public Attitudes toward Segments of the LGBT Community. Political Research Quarterly, 70(4), 861–875. 10.1177/1065912917717352 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Lytle A, Dyar C, Levy SR, & London B (2017). Essentialist beliefs: Understanding contact with and attitudes towards lesbian and gay individuals. British Journal of Social Psychology, 56(1), 64–88. 10.1111/bjso.12154 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Matsick JL, & Conley TD (2016). Cultural stereotypes and personal beliefs: Perceptions of heterosexual men, women, and people. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 3(1), 113–128. 10.1037/sgd0000143 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Matsick JL, & Rubin JD (2018). Bisexual prejudice among lesbian and gay people: Examining the roles of gender and perceived sexual orientation. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 5(2), 143–155. 10.1037/sgd0000283 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. McLaren S, & Castillo P (2021). The Relationship between a Sense of Belonging to the LGBTIQ + Community, Internalized Heterosexism, and Depressive Symptoms among Bisexual and Lesbian Women. Journal of Bisexuality, 21(1), 1–23. 10.1080/15299716.2020.1862726 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Meyer IH (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5), 674–697. 10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Mohr JJ, & Rochlen AB (1999). Measuring attitudes regarding bisexuality in lesbian, gay male, and heterosexual populations. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46(3), 353–369. Scopus. 10.1037/0022-0167.46.3.353 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Monto MA, & Supinski J (2014). Discomfort with homosexuality: A new measure captures differences in attitudes toward gay men and lesbians. Journal of Homosexuality, 61(6), 899–916. 10.1080/00918369.2014.870816 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Morgenroth T, Kirby TA, Cuthbert MJ, Evje J, & Anderson AE (2021). Bisexual erasure: Perceived attraction patterns of bisexual women and men. European Journal of Social Psychology. 10.1002/ejsp.2773 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Morrison TG, Harrington R, & Mcdermott DT (2010). Bi now, gay later: Implicit and explicit binegativity among Irish University students. Journal of Bisexuality, 10(3), 211–232. 10.1080/15299716.2010.500952 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Movement Advancement Project. (2017). A Closer Look: Bisexual Transgender People. https://www.lgbtmap.org/bisexual-transgender
  50. Pettigrew TF (1998). Intergroup Contact Theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49(1), 65–85. 10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.65 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Pettigrew TF, & Tropp LR (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783. 10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Pew Research Center. (2020). The Global Divide on Homosexuality Persists.
  53. Phillips II G, Beach LB, Turner B, Feinstein BA, Marro R, Philbin MM, Salamanca P, Felt D, & Birkett M (2019). Sexual identity and behavior among U.S. high school students, 2005–2015. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 48(5), 1463–1479. 10.1007/s10508-019-1404-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Remedios JD, Chasteen AL, Rule NO, & Plaks JE (2011). Impressions at the intersection of ambiguous and obvious social categories: Does gay+Black=likable? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(6), 1312–1315. 10.1016/j.jesp.2011.05.015 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Ross LE, Salway T, Tarasoff LA, MacKay JM, Hawkins BW, & Fehr CP (2018). Prevalence of Depression and Anxiety Among Bisexual People Compared to Gay, Lesbian, and Heterosexual Individuals: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. The Journal of Sex Research, 55(4–5), 435–456. 10.1080/00224499.2017.1387755 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Salfas B, Rendina HJ, & Parsons JT (2019). What is the Role of the Community? Examining Minority Stress Processes among Gay and Bisexual Men. Stigma and Health, 4(3), 300–309. 10.1037/sah0000143 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Salter NP, Sawyer K, & Gebhardt ST (2021). How Does Intersectionality Impact Work Attitudes? The Effect of Layered Group Memberships in a Field Sample. Journal of Business and Psychology, 36(6), 1035–1052. 10.1007/s10869-020-09718-z [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  58. Salway T, Ross LE, Fehr CP, Burley J, Asadi S, Hawkins B, & Tarasoff LA (2019). A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Disparities in the Prevalence of Suicide Ideation and Attempt Among Bisexual Populations. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 48(1), 89–111. 10.1007/s10508-018-1150-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Sung MR, Szymanski DM, & Henrichs-Beck C (2015). Challenges, coping, and benefits of being an Asian American lesbian or bisexual woman. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 2(1), 52–64. 10.1037/sgd0000085 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  60. Wilton LS, Bell AN, Carpinella CM, Young DM, Meyers C, & Clapham R (2019). Lay Theories of Gender Influence Support for Women and Transgender People’s Legal Rights. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10(7), 883–894. 10.1177/1948550618803608 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  61. Worthen MGF (2018). “Gay Equals White”? Racial, Ethnic, and Sexual Identities and Attitudes Toward LGBT Individuals Among College Students at a Bible Belt University. Journal of Sex Research, 55(8), 995–1011. 10.1080/00224499.2017.1378309 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Yost MR, & Thomas GD (2012). Gender and Binegativity: Men’s and Women’s Attitudes Toward Male and Female Bisexuals. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41(3), 691–702. 10.1007/s10508-011-9767-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Zelaya DG, DeBlaere C, & Velez BL (2021). Psychometric validation and extension of the LGBT people of Color Microaggressions Scale with a sample of sexual minority BIPOC college students. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity. 10.1037/sgd0000553 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supp 1
NIHMS1840295-supplement-Supp_1.docx (25.2KB, docx)

RESOURCES