Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2026 Mar 1.
Published in final edited form as: Psychol Sex Orientat Gend Divers. 2023 Mar 23;12(1):42–55. doi: 10.1037/sgd0000624

Gender Differences in Attitudes Toward Bisexual People and Bisexuality: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Eric Julian Manalastas 1, Helena S Blumenau 2, Brian A Feinstein 3
PMCID: PMC12119080  NIHMSID: NIHMS1892453  PMID: 40443790

Abstract

Previous meta-analyses have examined gender differences in people’s attitudes toward lesbian/gay sexualities, finding that, overall, men hold more homonegative attitudes than women (Kite et al., 2021; Petersen & Hyde, 2011). Bisexuality scholars have suggested a similar gender difference in attitudes toward bisexuality (Dyar & Feinstein, 2018). This study is the first meta-analysis to provide a comprehensive quantitative synthesis of gender differences in attitudes toward bisexual people and bisexuality. We synthesized findings from 61 studies (including 10 unpublished papers) from 1999 to 2022 that reported on 77 samples of 32,010 participants (14,359 men and 17,651 women). Overall, men held more binegative attitudes than women, g = 0.19 (95% CI = 0.14, 0.25). This effect was moderated by target gender: men were more binegative than women when considering male bisexuality, g = 0.27 (95% CI = 0.20, 0.35); the effect was substantially smaller when considering female bisexuality, g = 0.10 (95% CI = 0.03, 0.16). In addition, heterosexual men were more binegative than heterosexual women, g = 0.26 (95% CI = 0.19, 0.33), while gay men’s and lesbian women’s attitudes toward bisexuality were similar, g = 0.04 (95% CI = −0.09, 0.16). Overall, these meta-analytic findings indicate that men, particularly heterosexual men, hold more binegative attitudes than women, especially toward male bisexuality. Given the pervasiveness of binegativity, interventions are needed to improve attitudes toward bisexuality, particularly men’s attitudes toward bisexuality.

Research has shown that there is a small but consistent gender difference in people’s attitudes toward sexual minority groups. Meta-analyses, for example, have shown that compared to women, men in Western societies hold more negative attitudes toward lesbian women, gay men, and lesbian/gay sexualities (Kite, 1984; Kite & Whitley, 1996; Kite et al., 2021). Early meta-analytic estimates of this gender difference indicated a small but significant overall effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.21; Kite, 1984). Later meta-analytic work showed this difference to hold true for different dimensions of homonegativity (Kite & Whitley, 1996; Kite et al., 2021). Men, more than women, were found to hold more negative attitudes toward lesbian and gay people as a social group (Hedges’ g = 0.37), toward same-sex sexual behavior (g = 0.22), and toward civil rights for lesbian women and gay men (g = 0.16). These findings have been interpreted as evidence for the so-called gender differences hypothesis (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974; see also Eagly, 1987).

In contrast, proponents of the gender similarities hypothesis (Hyde, 2005, 2014; see also Zell et al., 2015) have argued that women and men are similar, not different, on most psychological variables, including attitudes related to sexuality. According to this view, effect sizes less than or equal to 0.10 are trivial and indicative of gender similarity. In an earlier meta-analysis, Oliver and Hyde (1993) found no differences between women and men in attitudes toward lesbian women and gay men (d = −0.01) or in attitudes toward gay rights (d = −0.00). In a later meta-analysis, Petersen and Hyde (2010) found no difference between women and men in their attitudes toward lesbian women (d = −0.02). However, the authors observed significant but small differences in attitudes toward gay men (d = −0.18), toward homosexuality in general (d = −0.13), toward gay rights (d = −0.20), and toward same-sex marriage (d= −0.29), with men holding more negative attitudes than women.

Because these previous studies have focused on attitudes toward lesbian women and gay men or lesbian/gay sexualities, it is unknown how different or similar women and men are in their attitudes toward bisexual people and bisexuality (Kite et al., 2021). Bisexuality scholars have suggested a similar gender difference, with men holding more binegative attitudes than women (Dyar & Feinstein, 2018). However, this claim has not been examined meta-analytically. Previous systematic reviews on binegativity have focused on the psychometric properties of measures of anti-bisexual prejudice (Bishop & Pynoo, 2020) and measures of experienced binegativity (Morrison et al., 2019), without consideration of gender differences or similarities. Hence, this study contributes to the literature by examining gender differences in attitudes toward bisexual people and bisexuality using meta-analysis.

Gender Differences in Attitudes toward Bisexuality

Primary empirical studies that report on attitudes toward bisexuality by gender of participants are equivocal and present varying, sometimes conflicting, findings. Earlier studies from the USA (e.g., Mulick & Wright, 2002) found no gender differences in attitudes toward bisexual people and bisexuality, in support of the gender similarities hypothesis. However, other studies from the USA (Yost & Thomas, 2012) and Germany (Steffens & Wagner, 2004) have found men to hold more binegative attitudes than women, in support of the gender differences hypothesis. In the current study, therefore, we employ meta-analysis as an approach to quantitatively synthesize these divergent findings.

Furthermore, primary studies suggest that the gender of the attitude target could be an important moderator of any gender differences in attitudes toward bisexual people and bisexuality (Herek, 2002; Mohr & Rochlen, 1999; Morrison et al., 2010; Yost & Thomas, 2012). That is, men and women may hold differing attitudes when considering male bisexuality versus female bisexuality. However, the evidence from primary studies is again mixed. Some studies (e.g., Helms & Waters, 2016) find that men hold more negative attitudes than women when the attitude target is male bisexuality (a gender difference), but similar attitudes when the attitude target is female bisexuality (a gender similarity). Other studies (e.g., Dodge et al., 2016) have documented the opposite pattern: men and women did not differ in their attitudes toward male bisexuality (a gender similarity), but they differed in their attitudes toward female bisexuality (a gender difference). Given these mixed findings, we also sought to investigate the gender of the attitude target (i.e., attitudes toward male bisexuality versus female bisexuality) as a moderator of any gender differences in attitudes toward bisexual people and bisexuality.

In addition to the gender of the attitude target, the sexual orientation of perceivers has been suggested as another potential moderator of any gender differences in attitudes toward bisexual people and bisexuality (Dyar & Feinstein, 2018). One earlier USA study (Mohr & Rochlen, 1999) found that lesbian women and gay men held similar, rather than different, levels of hostility toward bisexual individuals. A more recent study using a large community sample of attendees at lesbian and gay events in New York City (Cox et al., 2013) found the same pattern of gender similarity. In contrast, one study that directly compared attitudes toward bisexuality among heterosexual men, heterosexual women, gay men, and lesbian women found only a main effect for sexual orientation (more binegative attitudes in heterosexual men and women) but no significant gender differences across the sexual orientation groups (Hertlein et al., 2016).

These initial findings suggest that observed gender differences in attitudes toward bisexuality may be driven by heterosexual samples. We therefore investigate the sexual orientation of perceivers (i.e., heterosexual men/women versus lesbian women/gay men) as a moderator of any gender differences in attitudes toward bisexuality.

Research Aims

The overall goal of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to provide a comprehensive, quantitative summary of findings on differences or similarities in women’s versus men’s attitudes toward bisexual people and bisexuality. To this end, the review had the following aims:

  1. To quantitatively summarize any gender differences/similarities in attitudes toward bisexual people and bisexuality;

  2. To examine moderators of any gender differences in attitudes toward bisexual people and bisexuality (i.e., gender of targets, sexual orientation of perceivers).

Method

Protocol and Search Strategies

The protocol was pre-registered on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/s3cd6/) on May 6, 2021. The search spanned the following sources of evidence. First, we searched six electronic databases (Web of Science, Scopus, PsycINFO, PubMed, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, and PsyArXiv) for empirical studies on attitudes toward bisexual people or bisexuality. Second, we conducted a back citation search by examining the reference lists of included papers to identify any additional records. Third, we made a public call for additional papers through the mailing lists of professional organisations such as the American Psychological Association’s Division 44 (Society for the Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity).

We consulted an information specialist who provided feedback on our search strategy. We pilot-tested a number of search term variations to develop a search string optimized for sensitivity (i.e., captures potentially relevant records) and specificity (i.e., does not capture irrelevant records). The pilot-testing exercise indicated that an optimal search string included two components combined using the OR operator. The first component included terms relating to binegativity, biphobia, or bipositivity as the focal outcome: binegativ* OR biphobi* OR bipositiv*1. The second component was designed to be more granular and was composed of two subclauses combined using the AND operator. The first subclause included terms relating to attitudes and biases as the focal outcome variable: attitude OR belief OR bias OR perception OR prejudice OR stereotyp* OR stigma. The second subclause included a term relating to bisexuality and bisexual people as the focal target of those attitudes and biases: bisexual*. The combined search string was thus: (binegativ* OR biphobi* OR bipositiv*) OR ((attitude OR belief OR bias OR perception OR prejudice OR stereotyp* OR stigma) AND (bisexual*)). We also pilot-tested other search terms for possible inclusion in the search string, including: non-monosexual, bi+, pansexual, and plurisexual. Results of the pilot testing, however, suggested that these search terms (e.g., non-monosexual) did not capture any additional relevant records and in some cases (e.g., bi+) yielded a large amount of non-relevant records. More details on the search string development can be found here: https://osf.io/ptj6r.

Eligibility Criteria

We included empirical studies (observational, correlational, and experimental designs) that measured attitudes toward bisexual people or bisexuality as an outcome and that reported or could potentially provide results disaggregated by participant gender. Qualitative studies and non-empirical papers (e.g., commentaries, editorials) were excluded. We were interested in studies of attitudes toward bisexual people or bisexuality held by non-bisexual populations (i.e., heterosexual and/or lesbian/gay participants). We excluded studies that focused on bisexual samples only. Though the review was not focused on interventions, we also included studies that examined interventions to reduce binegativity (e.g., social psychological experiments that apply intergroup contact theory; Smith et al., 2009) if they reported baseline (i.e., pre-intervention) levels of attitudes toward bisexual peole or bisexuality.

The primary comparison of interest was gender of participants2. We excluded studies that collected data from only one gender group. The focal outcome of interest was attitudes toward bisexual people or bisexuality. We included studies employing self-report measures of attitudes toward bisexual people as a social group (including attitudes toward bisexual people in general or toward bisexual men and bisexual women separately), toward bisexuality as a sexual orientation (including male and female bisexualities), and toward bisexual rights and civil liberties. We also included studies that measured other individual expressions of bias toward bisexual people and bisexuality, such as stereotype beliefs, intentions to behave positively or negatively toward a bisexual person, or emotion (e.g., affect thermometers), where bisexual people and/or bisexuality were the relevant targets. We excluded studies that examined lived experiences of binegativity (i.e., studies focusing on the perspective of bisexual people themselves) and studies of internalized binegativity (i.e., binegative attitudes held by bisexual people themselves). We also excluded studies that employed composite measures of attitudes toward sexual minorities as a whole or toward LGBT people where attitudes toward bisexual people or bisexuality could not be parceled out. We included both published and unpublished papers, with no date or language restrictions.

Study Selection

Study selection was conducted in two stages, as shown in the PRISMA flow diagram (Figure 1). Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts against the inclusion and exclusion criteria. To ensure consistency across reviewers, we conducted a training exercise using the title-abstract screening form on an initial subset of 100 records before proceeding to double-screening the rest of the title-abstracts. We resolved disagreements by discussion, and a third reviewer adjudicated unresolved disagreements. Records with title-abstracts that met the inclusion criteria were carried over for full-text retrieval and assessment. Two reviewers independently screened full-text records against the inclusion and exclusion criteria. To ensure consistency across reviewers, we conducted a training exercise using the full-text screening form on an initial subset of the records (10%) before proceeding to double-screening the rest of the retrieved full texts. We resolved disagreements by discussion, and a third reviewer adjudicated unresolved disagreements.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

PRISMA flow diagram

Data Extraction and Coding

A standardized extraction form was developed. To ensure consistency across reviewers, we conducted a training exercise on an initial subset of the records before proceeding with the extraction of the rest of the data. Each eligible paper was extracted by one member of the team. Afterwards, a second reviewer validated the first reviewer’s data extraction against the full text of the paper.

The following information was extracted. First, we extracted publication details, i.e., author(s), publication year, title of the study, publication status (published or unpublished), journal name (for published articles), language, and DOI. Second, we extracted statistical information on attitude toward bisexual people and bisexuality from each study for each gender subgroup, i.e., sample size, mean of attitude scores, and standard deviation of attitude scores. Third, we extracted study characteristics: gender of attitude target (male bisexuality, female bisexuality, or bisexuality in general), type of measure (psychometrically developed scales such as the ARBS [Mohr & Rochlen, 1999]; researcher-created evaluative items that tapped into direct judgments of bisexual targets in terms of warmth, comfort, dislike, or negativity; or ratings of vignette characters who were presented to be bisexual), specific name of measure (for scales), dimensions of binegativity measured (tolerance or stability), and year of data collection (if reported). Finally, we extracted participant characteristics, namely: sexual orientation of sample (heterosexual, gay/lesbian, or mixed), mean age, type of participant population (students, professional/pre-professional, MTurk/Prolific, or mixed), country of origin, and race/ethnicity in terms of proportion of White participants (for samples from the USA).

Effect Size and Moderators

The first focal outcome of interest in the review was the overall gender difference or similarity in attitudes toward bisexual people and bisexuality, in magnitude, direction, and statistical significance. The second focal outcomes were moderators of any gender differences or similarities. We examined two moderators of interest: (1) the gender of attitude targets, in order to assess any gender differences in attitudes toward male bisexuality versus female bisexuality; and (2) the sexual orientation of perceivers, in order to compare any gender differences in the attitudes held by heterosexual people versus those held by lesbian women and gay men. In addition, moderator variables related to study characteristics (type of measure, dimension of binegativity, publication year) and participant characteristics (mean age of sample, type of participant population, country, race/ethnicity) were evaluated as exploratory outcomes.

Analysis

Because we expected studies to be based on a range of measures, designs, and populations, we conducted meta-analysis using a random-effects model. We used standardized mean difference (Hedges’ g) as our effect size metric. Hedges’ g is similar to the standardized mean difference metric, Cohen’s d, with a correction for bias in estimating population effect size in small samples (Lakens, 2013). Effect sizes were computed such that a g > 0 indicated that men held more negative attitudes than women. If a study used more than one measure of attitudes toward bisexual people or bisexuality, effect sizes were averaged to create the Hedge’s’ g used in the analysis. If there were sample size variations due to missing data, weighted effect sizes were computed and averaged.

To interpret our meta-analytic findings, we followed the following guidelines. First, we employed conventional benchmarks in interpreting standardized mean differences in psychology (Cohen, 1992): g ≥ .20 (small), g ≥ .50 (medium), and g ≥ .80 (large). Second, we interpreted effect sizes with respect to findings from the literature on meta-analyses of gender differences and similarities (Kite, 1984; Kite & Whitley, 1996; Oliver & Hyde, 1993; Petersen & Hyde, 2010). In particular, we interpreted effect sizes of g ≤ .10 as indicative of a gender similarity, following Hyde (2005, 2014). We examined 95% confidence intervals of overall effect sizes and computed the I2 statistic as well as 95% prediction intervals to assess heterogeneity. To examine the effect of moderators, we conducted subgroup analyses using a rule of a minimum of k = 3 samples per subgroup. To assess any possible publication bias across the dataset of studies, we inspected the funnel plot for any asymmetry and applied Egger’s regression test (Egger et al., 1997). We conducted sensitivity analysis by assessing the overall meta-analytic gender difference in the published versus unpublished studies.

To address incomplete or selective outcome reporting within studies, we adopted the following guidelines. When gender group means and SDs were not reported, we computed Hedges’ g from available statistical information (e.g., t-test values). When this information was missing, we contacted authors for further details. All quantitative synthesis, including publication bias assessment and moderator analyses (subgroup analysis and meta-regression), were conducted using Meta-Essentials (Suurmond et al., 2017). As this review was not focused on interventions, no formal assessment of risk of bias was conducted. However, we present critical observations of the body of evidence in narrative form.

Results

Study Characteristics

Figure 1 presents the flow of the search process. The final dataset (see Table 1) consisted of 61 papers (including 10 unpublished papers) that reported on 77 unique samples and 253 effect sizes from 32,010 participants (17,651 women and 14,359 men). Studies varied considerably in sample size. The smallest sample (5 women and 9 men) was obtained from the control condition of an experiment on biphobia (Morrison et al., 2016). The largest samples were from two nationally representative surveys conducted in the USA: N = 2,281 (1,277 women, 1,004 men; Norton & Herek, 2005) and N = 2,730 (1,282 women, 1,448 men; Dodge et al., 2016).

Table 1.

Included Samples in Overall Effect Size Analysis

Sample N (women) N (men) Hedges’ g
Arena (2017) 97 95 0.054
Baams (2014) 280 214 0.371
Belanger (2005) 82 26 0.130
Bronson (2005) 55 21 0.560
Bunting (2021) 143 60 0.640
Burke (2016) 137 99 0.170
Chen (2016) 359 425 0.420
Coulter (2021) 85 12 0.230
Cox (2013) 226 1156 −0.132
Cragun (2015) 974 427 0.271
Cragun (2017) 371 218 0.080
Crossway (2019) 367 208 0.797
Dengel (2006) heterosexual sample 702 636 0.182
Dengel (2006) lesbian/gay sample 140 167 0.112
Dillon (2003) 61 15 −0.590
Dodge (2016) 1282 1448 0.060
Dyar (2019) 336 302 0.140
Ensign (2011) 485 479 0.335
Feinstein (2016) 265 172 0.030
Feinstein, Benjamin (2022) 351 201 0.190
Feinstein, Chang (2022) 403 247 0.270
Garelick (2017) 176 111 0.332
Helms (2016) 191 71 0.150
Hertlein (2016) 234 128 0.000
Hinrichs (2002) 422 270 0.290
Hubbard (2015) 146 91 −0.140
Huo (2017) 69 40 0.440
Johansen (2021) control group 74 112 0.185
Knight (2012) heterosexual sample 98 83 0.300
Knight (2012) lesbian/gay sample 61 21 0.300
Kwon (2012) 127 59 0.050
López-Sáez (2020) 471 120 0.417
Lytle (2017) sample 1 306 112 0.180
Lytle (2017) sample 2 102 61 0.070
Lytle (2017) sample 3 210 129 0.230
Matsick (2018) study 1 bisexual male target condition 35 29 0.498
Matsick (2018) study 1 bisexual female target condition 27 29 −0.619
Matsick (2018) study 2 bisexual male target condition 36 40 −0.005
Matsick (2018) study 2 bisexual female target condition 49 40 −0.455
Miller (2021) Australian sample 121 119 0.170
Miller (2021) Indian sample 97 135 0.190
Mohr (1999) study 1 110 141 0.300
Mohr (1999) study 2 166 120 0.250
Mohr (1999) study 3 199 106 0.275
Mohr (1999) study 4 127 188 0.071
Monceaux (2020) 134 42 −0.020
Morrison (2016) lesbian/gay sample 5 9 0.184
Morrison (2016) heterosexual sample 57 27 0.251
Morrison (2020) 46 18 −0.140
Morrison (2010) 170 38 0.556
Mulick (2002) phase 3 lesbian/gay sample 6 18 −0.334
Mulick (2002) phase 3 heterosexual sample 144 49 0.557
Nielsen (2018) 283 151 0.195
Norton (2013) 1277 1004 0.039
Nye (2019) 507 370 −0.208
Olvera (2014a) 6 48 0.483
Olvera (2014b) 261 218 −0.097
Olvera (2017) 187 207 0.192
Oswald (2020) study 1a 150 144 0.420
Oswalt (2013) 119 141 0.250
Pirlott (2013) 43 47 0.870
Pirlott (2014) study 2 78 70 −0.160
Pirlott (2014) study 3 159 124 −0.020
Sharma (2019) 81 32 −0.001
Shaw (2019) 227 328 0.238
Stebing (2018) 44 68 0.000
Steffens (2004) 852 797 0.130
Toews (2020) 44 11 1.180
Worthen (2014) 463 296 0.220
Worthen (2018) lesbian/gay sample 36 59 0.140
Worthen (2018) heterosexual sample 862 689 0.220
Worthen (2017) Italy sample 132 84 0.094
Worthen (2017) Texas sample 85 58 0.507
Worthen (2017) Spain sample 62 32 0.141
Yost (2012) 164 89 0.570
Zivony (2014) 58 30 0.250
Zivony (2018) 54 78 0.310
Open in a new tab

Note. Multiple rows for the same paper contribute more than one sample. N = number of participants; g = Hedges’ standardized mean difference, with positive values indicating men held more negative attitudes than women.

The majority of papers (53 of 61, 87%) were published from 2011 onwards, suggesting attitudes toward bisexual people and bisexuality to be a relatively recent research area. The earliest published paper was the original scale development and validation study by Mohr and Rochlen (1999) for the Attitudes Regarding Bisexuality Scale (ARBS). Unlike other meta-analyses of gender differences in sexuality-related attitudes (e.g., Kite et al., 2021), no language restrictions were applied in the current review. This led to the inclusion of three papers in Spanish; the rest (58 of 61 papers, 95%) were in English. Additionally, 10 of the 61 included papers (16%) were unpublished. Of the 51 published papers included, 11 articles (18% of the entire dataset) were published in the Journal of Bisexuality. Other journals that were the source of more than one paper were: Archives of Sexual Behavior (5 papers), Journal of Homosexuality (3 papers), Journal of Athletic Training (3 papers), Journal of Counseling Psychology (2 papers), Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity (2 papers), and Journal of Sex Research (2 papers). Notably, 19 papers (32% of the entire dataset) were published in unique journals, indicating the spread of the literature on the topic across various peer-reviewed publication outlets.

Participant Characteristics

The majority of the samples included in the dataset came from North America: USA (52 samples, 67% of the dataset), Canada (4 samples, 5%), and Mexico (3 samples, 4%). Six studies (7%) included participants from multiple countries and 11 had participants from other individual countries. Very few countries outside WEIRD (Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic; Henrich et al., 2010) nations were represented in the dataset: China (Huo, 2017), India (Miller, 2021), Mexico (Olvera, 2014a, 2014b, 2017), and Taiwan (Chen & Chang, 2016). This points to a gap in the evidence base for this literature, which is limited primarily to Westernized regions of the world.

The type of participant population was reported in 75 of 77 samples; most studies relied on either students only (32 samples, 42%) or a mix of students and non-students (24 samples, 29%). Some samples were obtained via MTurk or Prolific (7 samples, 9%), while other studies examined professional (5 samples, 6%) or pre-professional groups (4 samples, 5%) such as clinicians or medical trainees.

Information regarding mean age was available in 70 of 77 samples (91%). Overall, mean age across the dataset was 28.78 years (SD = 9.05). The youngest participants (M = 15.80 years) were reported in a study of Dutch high schoolers (Baams, 2014), while the oldest participants (M = 54.36 years) were reported in a study employing an Australian sample (Miller, 2021).

In terms of gender, studies typically recruited more women than men. Overall, the binary gender ratio for the entire dataset was: 1 man to 1.22 women. Samples varied in their M:F ratio: the lowest (0.14; 12 men, 85 women) was reported in Coulter (2021), and the highest (8.0; 48 men, 6 women) in Olvera (2014a). Samples also varied in terms of the sexual orientation of participants: 33 of 77 samples (43%) were heterosexual-only participants, 16 samples (21%) were gay and lesbian only, and 28 samples (36%) reported on a mix of gay, lesbian, and heterosexual participants.

Apart from age, gender, and sexual orientation, we also extracted race/ethnicity in terms of proportion of White participants in the samples from the USA. Studies in this subset consisted of samples that were predominantly White (overall mean % White = 71.41, SD = 12.83). The sample with the lowest proportion of White participants (38.7%) was reported by Lytle et al. (2017), while the highest (92.9%) was reported by Sharma et al. (2019). Eight of the 52 USA samples did not provide participant race/ethnicity information.

Attitudes Toward Bisexual People and Bisexuality

Overall, men held more negative attitudes toward bisexual people and bisexuality than did women, g = 0.19 (95% CI = 0.14, 0.25), p < .001. This meta-analytic finding was based on 77 effects, with an overall sample size of 32,010 participants (see Figure 2). This indicates that there is a significant, small gender difference in people’s attitudes toward bisexual people and bisexuality, with men, on average, holding more binegative views.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of included studies representing gender differences in attitudes toward bisexual people and bisexuality

Note. Studies are shown from lowest to highest effect sizes (Hedges’ g, with 95% CIs). The overall effect size, with 95% CIs, is shown at the bottom. Positive values (i.e., right of the midline) indicate that men have more negative attitudes than women.

There was evidence of significant heterogeneity in effect sizes, Q = 279.65, p < .001. The value of I2 was 72.82%, suggesting a substantial amount of variation in the studies. The 95% prediction interval was −0.15 to 0.53, which indicates that, in the universe of populations represented by these studies, the true effect sizes in 95% of cases will fall somewhere within this range.

Key Moderator Analyses

Attitudes Toward Male Bisexuality Versus Female Bisexuality

We examined gender differences in people’s attitudes toward bisexual men or male bisexuality among men (henceforth, male bisexuality) versus their attitudes toward bisexual women or bisexuality among women (henceforth, female bisexuality). Subgroup analysis (Table 2) indicated a significant moderator effect for target gender, Q = 15.64, df = 1, p < .001. When considering male bisexuality, men were considerably more binegative than were women, g = 0.27 (95% CI = 0.20, 0.35; a small gender difference). In contrast, when considering female bisexuality, the effect was substantially smaller in magnitude, g = 0.10 (95% CI = 0.03, 0.16; more suggestive of a gender similarity, following a cutoff of g ≤ .10 [Hyde, 2005, 2014]).

Table 2.

Summary of Primary Moderator Analyses

Moderator k g 95% CI
 I2 (%) 95% PI
 Q p
LL UL LL UL
Gender of attitude target 15.64 < .001
 Male bisexuality 33 0.27 0.20 0.35 69.50 −0.03 0.58
 Female bisexuality 35 0.10 0.03 0.16 63.24 −0.16 0.36
Sexual orientation of perceivers 9.74 .002
 Heterosexual 32 0.26 0.19 0.33 66.64 −0.03 0.54
 Gay/lesbian 16 0.04 −0.09 0.16 47.13 −0.31 0.39
Open in a new tab

Note. k = number of observations; g = Hedges’ standardized mean difference, with positive values indicating that men had more negative attitudes than women; 95% CI = confidence intervals of g; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit; I2 = Higgins and Thompson’s (2002) index of heterogeneity; 95% PI = prediction intervals of g; Q = Cochran’s (1952) Q statistic.

Attitudes Toward Bisexuality by Perceivers’ Sexual Orientation

We also examined gender differences in attitudes toward bisexual people and bisexuality in heterosexual versus gay/lesbian participants. Subgroup analysis (Table 2) indicated a significant moderator effect for perceiver sexual orientation, Q = 9.74, df = 1, p = 0.002. Heterosexual men were more binegative than were heterosexual women, g = 0.26 (95% CI = 0.19, 0.33; a small gender difference). In contrast, gay men’s and lesbian women’s attitudes toward bisexuality did not differ, g = 0.04 (95% CI = −0.09, 0.16; a gender similarity).

Exploratory Moderator Analyses

Attitudes Toward Male Bisexuality Versus Female Bisexuality by Perceivers’ Sexual Orientation

Building on the observational finding that perceiver sexual orientation had a significant moderating effect, we conducted further exploratory analyses not originally prespecified in the protocol (Table 3). First, we examined views toward male bisexuality versus female bisexuality in studies of heterosexual participants only. Subgroup analysis indicated a significant moderator effect for target gender, Q = 9.88, df = 1, p = .002. When considering male bisexuality, heterosexual men were considerably more binegative than were heterosexual women, g = 0.35 (95% CI = 0.24, 0.46; a small gender difference). When considering female bisexuality, the difference between heterosexual men’s and women’s attitudes toward bisexuality was still significant, albeit smaller, in magnitude, g = 0.14 (95% CI = 0.03, 0.25; a small gender difference), with heterosexual men reporting more binegative attitudes. This exploratory analysis indicated that men, particularly heterosexual men, hold consistently more binegative views than do women, especially toward male bisexuality.

Table 3.

Exploratory Subgroup Analysis of Attitudes Toward Male Bisexuality Versus Female Bisexuality by Sexual Orientation of Perceivers

Attitude target k g 95% CI
 I2 (%) 95% PI
 Q p
LL UL LL UL
Among heterosexual perceivers 9.88 .002
 Male bisexuality 17 0.35 0.24 0.46 75.01 0.00 0.71
 Female bisexuality 18 0.14 0.03 0.25 76.49 −0.22 0.50
Among gay/lesbian perceivers 1.67 .1.96
 Male bisexuality 7 0.15 −0.04 0.34 45.15 −0.34 0.64
 Female bisexuality 7 −0.04 −0.28 0.19 57.26 −0.66 0.57
Open in a new tab

Note. k = number of observations; g = Hedges’ standardized mean difference, with positive values indicating that men had more negative attitudes than women; 95% CI = confidence intervals of g; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit; I2 = Higgins and Thompson’s (2002) index of heterogeneity; 95% PI = prediction intervals of g; Q = Cochran’s (1952) Q statistic.

Second, we examined attitudes toward male bisexuality versus female bisexuality in studies of lesbian and gay participants only. Subgroup analysis did not detect a moderating effect for target gender in this subset, Q = 1.67, df = 1, p = .196. This finding suggests that, overall, lesbian women and gay men had similar attitudes toward female and male bisexuality.

Study Characteristics

Type of Measure.

Sufficient studies were available to allow for an examination of gender differences in binegative attitudes as a function of the type of measure used (Table 4). These types were: (1) psychometrically developed scales such as the ARBS (Mohr & Rochlen, 1999), (2) researcher-created evaluative items that tapped into direct judgments of bisexual targets in terms of warmth, comfort, dislike, or negativity, and (3) ratings of vignette characters who were presented to be bisexual. Subgroup analysis found no moderator effect for type of measure, Q = 2.19, df = 2, p = .334. Overall, men viewed bisexuality more negatively than women, regardless of how their binegative attitudes were measured.

Table 4.

Exploratory Subgroup Analyses

Moderator k g 95% CI
 I2 (%) 95% PI
 Q p
LL UL LL UL
Type of measure 2.19 .334
 Scale 64 0.21 0.16 0.26 60.88 −0.08 0.50
 Evaluative items 17 0.12 −0.03 0.27 88.22 −0.40 0.63
 Vignette ratings 3 0.24 0.03 0.45 12.23 −0.31 0.79
ARBS subscale 0.03 .870
 Tolerance 19 0.17 0.06 0.28 53.92 −0.18 0.52
 Stability 20 0.18 0.07 0.29 55.44 −0.17 0.54
Type of participant population 21.27 .001
 Students only 33 0.30 0.22 0.38 67.07 −0.04 0.64
 Mixed 24 0.08 0.01 0.15 47.90 −0.12 0.28
 Professionals 9 0.21 0.03 0.39 84.60 −0.44 0.85
 MTurk/Prolific participants 7 0.18 0.13 0.23 00.00 0.12 0.24
Country of sample 0.94 .332
 USA 53 0.17 0.11 0.23 69.20 −0.13 0.47
 Non-USA 18 0.23 0.11 0.34 67.30 −0.15 0.61
Publication status 1.60 .207
 Published 66 0.18 0.12 0.24 74.84 −0.18 0.54
 Unpublished 11 0.25 0.14 0.36 42.37 −0.01 0.51
Open in a new tab

Note. k = number of observations; g = Hedges’ standardized mean difference, with positive values indicating that men had more negative attitudes than women; 95% CI = confidence intervals of g; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit; I2 = Higgins and Thompson’s (2002) index of heterogeneity; 95% PI = prediction intervals of g; Q = Cochran’s (1952) Q statistic.

Dimension of Binegativity: Tolerance versus Stability.

Sufficient studies were available to compare gender differences in binegative attitudes along two dimensions of binegativity, as assessed by the ARBS (Mohr & Rochlen, 1999). These dimensions contrast the degree to which bisexuality is viewed as a tolerable, moral sexual orientation (ARBS Tolerance) and as a legitimate, stable sexual orientation (ARBS Stability). Subgroup analysis (Table 4) found no moderator effect for the tolerance versus stability distinction, Q = 0.03, df = 1, p = .870. That is, overall, men still viewed bisexuality more negatively than women, whether in terms of perceiving it as an intolerable or an unstable sexual orientation.

Publication Year.

We examined whether gender differences in binegative attitudes varied by publication year. Few studies reported information on year of data collection and, when they did, it was typically close in time to publication year; therefore we used publication year as a moderator for this analysis. Meta-regression analysis, however, found no relationship between publication year and the size of the gender difference, Q = 0.01, df = 1, p = 0.927. That is, overall, men have been more binegative than women from the late 1990s to the present day.

Participant Characteristics

Age.

We examined whether gender differences in binegative attitudes varied by the mean age of participants in each sample. Meta-regression found a significant negative association between the size of the gender difference and the mean age of the sample, Q = 10.52, df = 1, p = 0.001. This finding suggested that the gender difference in binegativity was smaller in older samples, B = −0.008 (95% CI = −0.013, −0.003). That is, in younger samples, men were more binegative than women; the older the samples were, men and women were more similar in their attitudes toward bisexuality. However, this age association is observational and relies on averaging participants’ ages in each sample, rather than on individual-level participant age. As such, this finding is subject to some degree of ecological bias (i.e., deducing effects for individual participants based on effects at the group level; Thompson & Higgins, 2002) and should be interpreted with caution.

Type of Participant Population.

Sufficient studies were available to allow for an examination of gender differences in binegative attitudes as a function of the type of sample in the included studies. Samples were classified as: students only, MTurk/Prolific participants, professionals/pre-professionals, or mixed samples. Subgroup analysis (Table 4) found a significant moderator effect for type of sample, Q = 16.02, df = 3, p = 0.001. Overall, the observed gender difference was largest in the student-only samples, followed by professionals/pre-professionals and MTurk/Profilic participants; mixed samples had the smallest effect. Overall, male students viewed bisexuality more negatively than their female counterparts, compared to men from other participant groups. This may be accounted for by differences in mean age. The student-only samples tended to be significantly younger (M = 20.8, SD = 2.77) compared to the other participant populations (Mage ranging from 33.3 to 37.8, SD ranging from 7.00 to 9.99), F(3,63) = 26.16, p < .001. Post hoc comparisons using Tukey’s HSD test indicated that student-only samples were indeed younger than all the other groups (p’s < .001); the three non-student groups did not differ from each other in terms of mean age (p’s > 0.3) .

Sample Country.

Sufficient studies were available to allow for an examination of gender differences in binegative attitudes in USA versus non-USA samples. Subgroup analysis (Table 4) found no moderator effect for sample country, Q = 0.94, df = 1, p = 0.332. Overall, men viewed bisexuality more negatively than did women, whether in USA- or non-USA samples.

Race/Ethnicity.

Among studies reporting on participants from the USA only, we examined whether gender differences in binegative attitudes varied by race/ethnicity composition in terms of the proportion of White participants in each sample. Meta-regression analysis, however, found no relationship between the proportion of White participants in USA samples and the size of the gender difference, Q = 1.31, df = 1, p = 0.252. That is, in studies reporting on participants from the USA, men still viewed bisexuality more negatively than women, regardless of how predominantly White the study samples were.

Publication Bias Assessment

Examination of the funnel plot (see Figure 3) suggested that effect sizes were symmetrically distributed. This impression was confirmed by Egger’s regression test, t = 0.03, p = .975. These indicate that publication bias was unlikely to be present in the dataset. Notably, our systematic review included 10 papers (16%) that were previously unpublished. To determine whether the overall meta-analytic findings were robust to the influence of publication status, we conducted a subgroup analysis (Table 4) comparing the gender difference in published versus unpublished papers. No moderator effect was detected, Q = 1.60, df = 1, p = 0.207. Overall, the meta-analytic findings were consistent whether considering the evidence from published versus unpublished studies: there was a significant, small gender difference in attitudes toward bisexual people and bisexuality, such that men, on average, held more binegative views than did women.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Funnel plot

Note. Studies are represented by individual points. Overall effect size with 95% CIs is shown at the bottom.

Discussion

Overall, men held more negative attitudes toward bisexual people and bisexuality than did women. This significant, small difference was moderated by the gender of the target: men were more binegative than women when considering male bisexuality, whereas men and women were substantially less different in their attitudes toward female bisexuality. Furthermore, the overall gender difference was also moderated by the sexual orientation of perceivers: heterosexual men were more binegative than heterosexual women. In contrast, gay men’s and lesbian women’s attitudes toward bisexuality were similar. Overall, the meta-analytic findings indicate that men, particularly heterosexual men, hold more binegative views than do women, especially toward male bisexuality.

Theoretical Implications

Our finding that men express more negative attitudes toward bisexuality than do women is consistent with recent meta-analytic findings on gender differences in prejudice toward gay and lesbian people (Kite et al., 2021). Kite et al. suggested that the gender difference in prejudice toward gay and lesbian people may be attributable to men being more likely to endorse traditional gender role beliefs compared to women. They provided support for that hypothesis, demonstrating that controlling for gender differences in traditional gender role beliefs reduced the overall gender difference in prejudice toward gay and lesbian people. Given that prejudice toward gay and lesbian people is positively correlated with prejudice toward bisexual people (Eliason, 1997; Helms & Waters, 2016; Mohr & Rochlen, 1999), gender differences in traditional gender role beliefs may also help to explain the gender difference we observed in negative attitudes toward bisexual people.

Our more exploratory findings also raise the question as to why heterosexual men, compared to heterosexual women, appear to express more negative attitudes toward bisexuality, especially male bisexuality. One potential explanation for this observation could be heterosexual men’s eroticization of female same-gender sexuality, which may contribute to their more positive attitudes toward female bisexuality (Yost & Thomas, 2012). Another potential explanation is that heterosexual men may fear sexual advances from gay and bisexual men (Bortolin, 2010; Eliason, 1997) and could be concerned about being perceived as gay or bisexual (Glotfelter & Anderson, 2017; Marsiglio, 1993), which likely contributes to their negative attitudes toward male bisexuality.

It is also worth considering why heterosexual women are less binegative than are heterosexual men. This may be explained by prior findings that, compared to heterosexual men, heterosexual women are less likely to endorse traditional gender role beliefs (Berkel, 2004; Grollman, 2019) and hostile sexism (Glick et al., 2000). It is possible that heterosexual women may be less concerned about gender role violation (Allen & Smith, 2011) or being incorrectly assumed to be non-heterosexual (Bosson et al., 2005; Buck et al., 2013; Falomir-Pichastor & Mugny, 2009) compared to heterosexual men, on the whole. Finally, compared to heterosexual men, heterosexual women may have more diverse social networks (Baiocco et al., 2014; Ueno, 2010) including friends of diverse gender and sexual orientations such as bisexual people, which is a correlate of greater tolerance of bisexuality and perceptions of bisexuality as a stable sexual orientation (de Bruin & Arndt, 2010; Lytle et al., 2017; Mohr & Rochlen, 1999).

In addition, we found that the gender difference in attitudes toward bisexuality varied by the mean age of the participants in each sample. Specifically, men were more binegative than women in younger samples, but men’s and women’s attitudes toward bisexuality were more similar in older samples. That said, this association should be interpreted with caution because it relies on averaging participants’ ages in each sample, rather than on individual-level participant age. We also found that the gender difference in attitudes toward bisexuality varied by the type of participant population. Specifically, the observed gender difference (i.e., that men were more binegative than women) was largest in student-only samples, followed by samples of professionals/pre-professionals and MTurk/Prolific users, and it was smallest in mixed samples. This is consistent with recent meta-analytic evidence that the gender differences in attitudes toward same-gender sexual behavior and gay civil rights were larger for high school students than for other populations (Kite et al., 2021). However, this effect is likely confounded by age, given that the student-only samples in our study were significantly younger than the other samples and, as noted, men were more binegative than women in younger samples.

In contrast, the gender difference in attitudes toward bisexuality was not moderated by type of measure (scales, evaluative items, or vignette ratings), dimension of binegativity (tolerance or stability), publication year, sample country (USA or non-USA), race/ethnicity (in USA samples), or publications (published or unpublished). These exploratory findings suggest that men were more binegative than women, regardless of these study and sample characteristics.

Practical Implications

Given the pervasiveness of negative attitudes toward bisexuality (Dodge et al., 2016), interventions are needed to improve such attitudes. Scholars have suggested that interventions to reduce negative attitudes toward bisexual people could be tailored for specific populations, because the strength and content of negative attitudes toward bisexual people can differ across populations (Israel & Mohr, 2004). Consistent with their suggestion, our meta-analytic findings suggest that it may be particularly important for interventions to address binegative attitudes held by men. Still, given that the gender difference in binegative attitudes was small, broad efforts to reduce binegativity are needed.

Two of the primary approaches for reducing negative attitudes toward minoritized populations are intergroup contact and multicultural education (Dyar et al., 2015), both of which are effective at reducing prejudice against sexual minority individuals in general (Bartoş et al., 2014; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). Intergroup contact interventions reduce negative attitudes toward minoritized populations by promoting positive contact between members of majority and minoritized groups (Pettigrew, 1998), whereas multicultural education interventions do so by providing accurate information about the minoritized population (Banks & Banks, 2013).

Few studies have tested intergroup contact interventions to reduce prejudice against bisexual people. In an exception, Toews (2020) tested an imagined intergroup contact intervention, and found that participants who read a vignette that depicted a positive interaction with a bisexual individual reported more positive attitudes toward bisexuality compared to those who read a similar vignette where the sexuality of the individual was not made salient. In addition, several correlational studies have found that knowing a bisexual person is associated with greater tolerance of bisexuality and perceptions of bisexuality as a stable sexual orientation (de Bruin & Arndt, 2010; Lytle et al., 2017; Mohr & Rochlen, 1999) and with lower anxiety when interacting with bisexual people (Lytle et al., 2017). Therefore, promoting positive contact may have the potential to reduce negative attitudes toward bisexuality.

Preliminary evidence also suggests that multicultural education interventions may be effective at reducing prejudice against bisexual people. For example, Morrison et al. (2016) found that reading an article that provided support for the existence of male bisexuality was associated with reductions in negative attitudes toward bisexual men for gay participants, but not for heterosexual participants. Additional research, however, is needed to understand why this multicultural education intervention was ineffective for heterosexual participants.

Finally, some studies have combined elements of intergroup contact and multicultural education interventions. For example, Kwon and Hugelshofer (2006) found that observing an LGB speaker panel that included a bisexual member and had speakers describe their personal experiences and feelings related to their sexual orientation was associated with increased tolerance of bisexuality. Likewise, Dessel (2010) found that teachers who participated in intergroup dialogues with LGB community members focused on LGB-related topics experienced increases in positive feelings toward LGB people (including bisexual people).

In sum, research on intergroup contact and multicultural education interventions suggests that they may have the potential to reduce binegative attitudes. Meta-analytic research is needed to determine to what extent these interventions are effective and if they may be more or less effective for certain subgroups (e.g., for women versus men, for gay/lesbian versus heterosexual participants) and to identify strategies for enhancing their effectiveness across these subgroups.

Strengths, Limitations, and Future Research Directions

The current study had several noteworthy strengths. First, we pre-registered our protocol in line with current recommendations for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (Moreau & Gamble, 2020; Shamseer et al., 2015). Second, we used a range of search strategies, including searching multiple databases (including ones that were specifically for unpublished dissertations, theses, and pre-prints), reviewing the reference lists of included studies, and distributing calls for unpublished data. As a result, our dataset included 10 unpublished studies, three studies written in Spanish, and 17 studies of participants from countries outside of North America or participants from multiple countries. Third, we optimized our search strategy by systematically testing different combinations of search terms, resulting in a final search strategy that maximized the identification of potentially eligible studies. Of note, our search strategy followed recommendations outlined by Lee et al. (2016) for identifying LGBT search terminology: consultation with an information specialist, use of more than one academic database, searching the reference lists of included studies, reporting a complete specific search string, and dual-screening by independent reviewers.

However, our findings should be considered in light of several limitations related to the current evidence base. First, most of the studies included in our meta-analysis utilized non-representative samples (for exceptions, see Dodge et al., 2016; Norton & Herek, 2013) and were from WEIRD countries particularly the USA. More primary studies outside these geographic limitations, using representative samples, are needed to address this bias in the evidence base. Second, all of the studies included in our meta-analysis operationalized participant gender as binary (i.e., none reported on gender groups beyond presumably cisgender women and men). We did not exclude, a priori, any studies that examined attitudes in gender groups beyond this binary, but our systematic search did not identify any studies of attitudes toward bisexuality that reported on gender groups beyond (presumably cisgender) men and women. It will be important for future studies to include participants from a variety of gender/sex groups (e.g., cisgender men and women, transgender men and women, nonbinary individuals) to further advance our understanding of gender differences in attitudes toward bisexuality and bisexual people. Future meta-analysis could then examine whether and to what extent there are gender differences across multiple gender/sex groups (including transgender and nonbinary individuals).

Third, when studies assessed attitudes toward bisexuality separated by target gender, they also did so in a binary manner (for an exception, see Feinstein, Benjamin, et al., 2022). Given that bisexual and other plurisexual identities (e.g., pansexual, fluid) are especially common among transgender and nonbinary individuals (Galupo et al., 2017; Grant et al., 2011; Morandini et al., 2017; Movement Advancement Project, 2017), it will also be important for future studies to examine gender differences in attitudes toward bisexual people from a variety of gender/sex groups. Preliminary evidence suggests that gender differences in attitudes toward bisexual people depend on the bisexual person’s gender identity (woman or man) and gender modality (transgender or cisgender). People generally hold more negative attitudes toward transgender bisexual individuals than toward cisgender bisexual individuals; however, men hold more negative attitudes toward cisgender bisexual men than toward cisgender bisexual women, whereas their attitudes toward transgender bisexual men and transgender bisexual women do not differ (Feinstein, Benjamin, et al., 2022). These findings highlight the complex interactions between attitudes toward bisexual people and attitudes toward transgender people, which represents an important area for continued inquiry.

Fourth, our review focused on attitudes toward bisexual people and bisexuality; more primary studies are needed to expand the current findings to people’s attitudes toward other plurisexual targets. This will require, in part, the development of validated instruments that measure prejudice against plurisexual people more broadly. Finally, although we demonstrated that men tend to express more negative attitudes toward bisexual people than do women, we do not know to what extent our findings translate from attitudes to actions (e.g., microaggressions, discrimination, allyship). However, Kite et al. (2021) found that, compared to heterosexual women, heterosexual men held more negative attitudes toward gay people and they were also more likely to engage in anti-gay behavior. Therefore, it is likely that the gender difference we observed in negative attitudes toward bisexual people may extend to engaging in anti-bisexual discrimination, although that remains an empirical question.

Conclusions

In sum, this is the first meta-analysis to provide a comprehensive quantitative synthesis of the evidence base for gender differences in attitudes toward bisexual people and bisexuality. We found a small but significant gender difference: men hold more binegative attitudes than do women. The overall effect was robust across a range of study and participant characteristics except for age, wherein the gender difference was larger in younger samples. There are several potential explanations for this gender difference, but additional research is needed to determine which factors play the strongest roles as they may be the most important factors to target in interventions to reduce binegativity.

Public significance statement:

We combined the results of previous studies on men’s and women’s attitudes toward bisexuality (the sexual orientation of being attracted to both men and women). Overall, men hold slightly more negative attitudes toward bisexuality than women do, especially when considering male bisexuality. This suggests that interventions are needed to improve attitudes toward bisexuality, especially how men think and feel about bisexuality.

Acknowledgments

This study was registered on OSF (https://osf.io/s3cd6/?viewonly=7ce875427ef745b7a8b865429f45a2b9). Brian Feinstein’s time was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (K08DA045575). We have no conflicts of interest to disclose. Portions of the findings were presented at the 2022 British Psychological Society’s Psychology of Sexualities Section Annual Conference in London, UK. We thank KatieRose McEneely for feedback on the search strategy. Acknowledgments also go out to the authors who kindly responded to requests for additional statistical information.

Footnotes

1

Though we expected studies of attitudes toward bisexual people and bisexuality to focus on negative attitudes (binegativity), we acknowledge that positively valenced views (bipositivity) would be possible (Dyar & London, 2018; Israel & Mohr, 2004). We therefore included this search term.

2

We acknowledge that researchers often conflate sex and gender, and that when studies report on sex/gender differences, they typically conceptualize the construct in a binary way (Hyde et al., 2019). We therefore expected that studies would report on differences between presumably cisgender women and men. Nevertheless, we did not exclude, a priori, any studies that examined attitudes in gender groups beyond this binary. Additionally, we did not necessarily limit our review to studies of cisgender participants. However, our systematic search did not identify any existing quantitative studies of attitudes toward bisexuality that reported on gender groupings beyond presumably cisgender women and men. Likewise, identified studies rarely explicitly reported what proportions of men and women were cisgender or transgender.

References

References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analysis.

  1. Allen J, & Smith JL (2011). The influence of sexuality stereotypes on men’s experience of gender-role incongruence. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 12(1), 77–96. 10.1037/a0019678 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. *Arena DF, & Jones KP (2017). To “B” or not to “B”: Assessing the disclosure dilemma of bisexual individuals at work. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 103, 86–98. 10.1016/j.jvb.2017.08.009 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. *Baams L (2014). Unpublished raw data on attitudes toward bisexuality. University of Groningen. [Google Scholar]
  4. Baiocco R, Santamaria F, Lonigro A, Ioverno S, Baumgartner E, & Laghi F (2014). Beyond similarities: Cross-gender and cross-orientation best friendship in a sample of sexual minority and heterosexual young adults. Sex Roles, 70(3), 110–121. 10.1007/s11199-014-0343-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Banks JA, & Banks CAM (2013). Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (8th ed.). Wiley. [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. *Belanger J (2005). Training, knowledge, and attitudes about bisexuals among clinical psychology doctoral students (Publication No. 305378166) [Doctoral dissertation, Pacific Graduate School of Psychology]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I. https://search.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/training-knowledge-attitudes-about-bisexuals/docview/305378166/se-2?accountid=13828 [Google Scholar]
  8. Berkel LA (2004). A psychometric evaluation of the sex-role egalitarianism scale with African Americans. Sex Roles, 50, 737–742. 10.1023/B:SERS.0000027836.51374.a3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Bishop CJ, & Pynoo E (2020). How well are outgroup attitudes and behaviours toward bisexual individuals measured? A systematic review of the psychometric properties of binegativity measures. Psychology & Sexuality. 10.1080/19419899.2020.1756390 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Bortolin S (2010). “I don’t want him hitting on me”: The role of masculinities in creating a chilly climate. Journal of LGBT Youth, 7, 200–223. 10.1080/19361653.2010.486116 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Bosson JK, Prewitt-Freilino JL, & Taylor JN (2005). Role rigidity: A problem of identity misclassification? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(4), 552–565. 10.1037/0022-3514.89.4.552 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. *Bronson JC (2005). Examining the efficacy of fact-based and personal -story-based information on attitudes towards bisexuality (Publication No. 304993817) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I. https://search.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/examining-efficacy-fact-based-personal-story/docview/304993817/se-2?accountid=13828 [Google Scholar]
  13. Buck DM, Plant EA, Ratcliff J, Zielaskowski K, & Boerner P (2013). Concern over the misidentification of sexual orientation: Social contagion and the avoidance of sexual minorities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 941–960. 10.1037/a0034145 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. *Bunting SR, Chirica MG, Ritchie TD, Garber SS, & Batteson TJ (2021). A national study of medical students’ attitudes toward sexual and gender minority populations: Evaluating the effects of demographics and training. LGBT Health, 8(1), 79–87. 10.1089/lgbt.2020.0288 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. *Burke SE, & LaFrance M (2016). Lay conceptions of sexual minority groups. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45(3), 635–650. 10.1007/s10508-015-0655-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. *Chen C-W, & Chang T-S (2016). Social relationship attitudes toward bisexuals among heterosexual university students in Taiwan. International Journal of Psychology, 51, 1005–1005. 10.9734/BJESBS/2016/26239 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. *Coulter RWS, Colvin S, Onufer LR, Arnold G, Akiva T, D’Ambrogi E, & Davis V (2021). Training pre-service teachers to better serve LGBTQ high school students. Journal of Education for Teaching, 47(2), 234–254. 10.1080/02607476.2020.1851137 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. *Cox S, Bimbi DS, & Parsons JT (2013). Examination of social contact on binegativity among lesbians and gay men. Journal of Bisexuality, 13(2), 215–228. 10.1080/15299716.2013.782596 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. *Cragun RT, & Sumerau JE (2015). The last bastion of sexual and gender prejudice? sexualities, race, gender, religiosity, and spirituality in the examination of prejudice toward sexual and gender minorities. Journal of Sex Research, 52(7), 821–834. 10.1080/00224499.2014.925534 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. *Cragun RT, & Sumerau JE (2017). No one expects a transgender Jew: Religious, sexual and gendered intersections in the evaluation of religious and nonreligious others. Secularism & Nonreligion, 6, 1. 10.5334/snr.82 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. *Crossway A, Rogers SM, Nye EA, Games KE, & Eberman LE (2019). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer athletic trainers: Collegiate student-athletes’ perceptions. Journal of Athletic Training, 54(3), 324–333. 10.4085/1062-6050-259-17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. 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]
  23. *Dengel DW (2007). Examining biphobia in heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual men and women [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Temple University. [Google Scholar]
  24. Dessel AB (2010). Effects of intergroup dialogue: Public school teachers and sexual orientation prejudice. Small Group Research, 41(5), 556–592. 10.1177/1046496410369560 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. *Dillon FR, & Worthington RL (2003). The lesbian, gay, and bisexual affirmative counseling self-efficacy inventory (LGB-CSI): Development, validation, and training implications. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50(2), 235–251. 10.1037/0022-0167.50.2.235 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. *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), e0164430. 10.1371/journal.pone.0164430 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. *Dyar C, Feinstein BA, & Anderson RE (2019). An experimental investigation of victim blaming in sexual assault: The roles of victim sexual orientation, coercion type, and stereotypes about bisexual women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(21-22), 10793–10816. 10.1177/0886260519888209 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. 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]
  29. Eagly AH. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  30. Eliason MJ (1997). The prevalence and nature of biphobia in heterosexual undergraduate students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 26, 317–326. 10.1023/A:1024527032040 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. *Ensign KA, Yiamouyiannis A, White KM, & Ridpath BD (2011). Athletic trainers’ attitudes toward lesbian, gay, and bisexual National Collegiate Athletic Association student-athletes. Journal of Athletic Training, 46(1), 69–75. 10.4085/1062-6050-46.1.69 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Falomir-Pichastor JM, & Mugny G (2009). “I’m not gay. … I’m a real man!”: Heterosexual men’s gender self-esteem and sexual prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(9), 1233–1243. 10.1177/0146167209338072 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. *Feinstein BA, Benjamin I, Dorrell KD, Foley SE, Blumenau HS, Cragun RT, & Manalastas EJ. (2022). An examination of attitudes toward bisexual people at the intersections of gender and race/ethnicity. Journal of Bisexuality. 10.1080/15299716.2022.2084485 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. *Feinstein BA, Chang CJ, Bunting SR, Bahrke J, Hazra A, & Garber SS (2022). Willingness to prescribe PrEP to bisexual men depends on genders of their past partners: A study of medical students in the USA. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 10.1007/s10508-022-02337-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. *Feinstein BA, Dyar C, Bhatia V, Latack JA, & Davila J (2016). Conservative beliefs, attitudes toward bisexuality, and willingness to engage in romantic and sexual activities with a bisexual partner. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45(6), 1535–1550. 10.1007/s10508-015-0642-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Galupo MP, Ramirez JL, & Pulice-Farrow L (2017). “Regardless of their gender”: Descriptions of sexual identity among bisexual, pansexual, and queer identified individuals. Journal of Bisexuality, 17, 108–124. 10.1080/15299716.2016.1228491 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. *Garelick AS, Filip-Crawford G, Varley AH, Nagoshi CT, Nagoshi JL, & Evans R (2017). Beyond the binary: Exploring the role of ambiguity in biphobia and transphobia. Journal of Bisexuality, 17(2), 172–189. 10.1080/15299716.2017.1319890 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Glick P, Fiske ST, Mladinic A, Saiz JL, Abrams D, Masser B, & Lopez WL (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 763–775. 10.1037/00223514.79.5.763 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Glotfelter MA, & Anderson VN (2017). Relationships between gender self-esteem, sexual prejudice, and trans prejudice in cisgender heterosexual college students. International Journal of Transgenderism, 18(2), 182–198. 10.1080/15532739.2016.1274932 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Grant JM, Mottet LA, Tanis J, Harrison J, Herman JL, & Keisling M (2011). Injustice at every turn: A report of the National Transgender Discrimination Survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Transgender Equality and National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. [Google Scholar]
  41. Grollman EA. (2019). Americans’ gender attitudes at the intersection of sexual orientation and gender. Journal of Homosexuality, 66(2), 141–172. 10.1080/00918369.2017.1398022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. 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]
  43. *Henrich J, Heine SJ, & Norenzayan A. (2010). Most people are not WEIRD. Nature, 466(7302), 29. 10.1038/466029a [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. *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]
  45. *Hinrichs DW, & Rosenberg PJ (2002). Attitudes toward gay, lesbian, and bisexual persons among heterosexual liberal arts college students. Journal of Homosexuality, 43(1), 61–84. 10.1300/J082v43n01_04 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. *Hubbard K, & de Visser RO (2015). Not just bi the bi: the relationship between essentialist beliefs and attitudes about bisexuality. Psychology and Sexuality, 6(3), 258–274. 10.1080/19419899.2014.987682 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. *Huo Y (2017). The predictors of negative attitudes toward lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals in heterosexual youth in Chongqing, Southwest China: A cross-sectional study (Publication No. 1907669450) [Master’s thesis, Duke University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I. https://search.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/predictors-negative-attitudes-toward-lesbians-gay/docview/1907669450/se-2?accountid=13828 [Google Scholar]
  48. Israel T, & Mohr JJ (2004). Attitudes toward bisexual women and men: Current research, future directions. Journal of Bisexuality, 4(1–2), 117–134. 10.1300/J159v04n01_09 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. *Johansen J (2021). Effects of queer-theory-driven online-video Igbtq awareness training on employed individuals’ attitudes toward LGBTQ issues (Publication No. 2515666928) [Doctoral dissertation, Keiser University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I. https://search.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/effects-queer-theory-driven-online-video-lgbtq/docview/2515666928/se-2?accountid=13828 [Google Scholar]
  50. Kite ME (1984). Sex differences in attitudes toward homosexuals: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Homosexuality, 10(1–2), 69–81. 10.1300/J082v10n01_05 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Kite ME, & Whitley BE Jr. (1996). Sex differences in attitudes toward homosexual persons, behaviors, and civil rights: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(4), 336–353. 10.1177/0146167296224002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. Kite ME, Whitley BE Jr., Buxton K, & Ballas H (2021). Gender differences in anti-gay prejudice: Evidence for stability and change. Sex Roles, 85(11–12), 721–750. 10.1007/s11199-021-01227-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  53. *Knight LFM, & Hope DA (2012). Correlates of same-sex attractions and behaviors among self-identified heterosexual university students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41(5), 1199–1208. 10.1007/s10508-012-9927-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. *Kwon P, & Hugelshofer DS (2012). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual speaker panels lead to attitude change among heterosexual college students. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services, 24(1), 62–79. 10.1080/10538720.2012.643285 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Lee JGL, Ylioja T, & Lackey M (2016). Identifying lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender search terminology: A systematic review of health systematic reviews. PLOS ONE, 11(5), e0156210. 10.1371/journal.pone.0156210 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. *López-Sáez MÁ, García-Dauder D, & Montero I (2020). Correlate attitudes toward LGBT and sexism in Spanish psychology students. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 2063 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02063 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Lytle A, Dyar C, Levy SR, & London B (2017a). 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]
  58. Lytle A, Dyar C, Levy SR, & London B (2017b). Contact with bisexual individuals reduces binegativity among heterosexuals and lesbian women and gay men. European Journal of Social Psychology, 47(5), 580–599. 10.1002/ejsp.2241 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  59. *Maccoby EE, & Jacklin CN. (1974). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  60. Manalastas EJ, & Feinstein BA (2021, May 6). Gender differences in attitudes toward bisexual people and bisexuality: Protocol. OSF. https://osf.io/s3cd6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Marsiglio W (1993). Attitudes toward homosexual activity and gays as friends: A national survey of heterosexual 15- to 19-year-old males. Journal of Sex Research, 30, 12–17. 10.1080/00224499309551673 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  62. *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]
  63. *Miller RK, O’Neill D, Pua YK, Atkinson CM, & Martin FH (2022). Mental health literacy in India and Australia and its relationship to attitudes towards LGBT people. Psychology & Sexuality. 10.1080/19419899.2022.2049630 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  64. *Miller RK, & O’Neill D (2021). Sex differences in the attitudes of Australian and Indian heterosexual individuals toward gay men, lesbians, bisexual men and bisexual women. Journal of Bisexuality, 21(3), 332–356. 10.1080/15299716.2021.1992328 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  65. *Mohr JJ, & Rochlen AB (1999). Measuring attitudes regarding bisexuality in lesbian, gay male, and heterosexual populations. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46(3), 353–369. 10.1037/0022-0167.46.3.353 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  66. *Monceaux CP, Wilcox MM, & Abbott DM (2020). The role of moral reasoning and attitudes regarding bisexuality in the development of bisexual counseling competence. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 8(4), 472–486. 10.1037/sgd0000433 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  67. Morandini JS, Blaszczynski A, & Dar-Nimrod I (2017). Who adopts queer and pansexual sexual identities? Journal of Sex Research, 54, 911–922. 10.1080/00224499.2016.1249332 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Moreau D, & Gamble B (2020). Conducting a meta-analysis in the age of open science: Tools, tips, and practical recommendations. Psychological Methods. Advance online publication. 10.1037/met0000351 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. *Morrison KE, Gruenhage JM, & Pedersen CL (2016). Challenging binaries by saying good bi: Perceptions of bisexual men’s identity legitimacy. Journal of Bisexuality, 16(3), 361377. 10.1080/15299716.2016.1183157 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  70. *Morrison KE, & Pedersen CL (2020). The influence of sexual orientation on attributions of blame toward victims of sexual assault. Journal of Homosexuality, 67(2), 189–205. 10.1080/00918369.2018.1534412 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Morrison MA, Kiss MJ, Parker K, Hamp T, & Morrison TG (2019). A systematic review of the psychometric properties of binegativity scales. Journal of Bisexuality, 19(1), 2350. 10.1080/15299716.2019.1576153 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  72. *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]
  73. Movement Advancement Project. (2017). A closer look: Bisexual transgender people. https://www.lgbtmap.org/bisexual-transgender [Google Scholar]
  74. *Mulick PS, & Wright LW Jr. (2002). Examining the existence of biphobia in the hetrosexual and homosexual populations. Journal of Bisexuality, 2(4), 45–64. 10.1300/J159v02n04_03 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  75. Nielsen SE (2018). Understanding and Measuring Binegativity: A Scale Development Project (Publication No. 2172440728) [Masters thesis, Western Illinois University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I. https://search.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/understanding-measuring-binegativity-scale/docview/2172440728/se-2?accountid=13828 [Google Scholar]
  76. *Norton AT, & Herek GM (2013). Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward transgender people: findings from a national probability sample of U.S. adults. Sex Roles, 68(11–12), 738–753. 10.1007/s11199-011-0110-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  77. *Nye EA, Crossway A, Rogers SM, Games KE, & Eberman LE (2019). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer patients: Collegiate athletic trainers’ perceptions. Journal of Athletic Training, 54(3), 334–344. 10.4085/1062-6050-260-17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. *Olvera-Muñoz O (2014a). Las actitudes de homosexuales hacia la bisexualidad. VERTIENTES Revista Especializada en Ciencias de la Salud, número especial, memoria in extenso, 243–244. [Google Scholar]
  79. *Olvera-Muñoz O (2014b). Propiedades psicometricas de la Escala de Actitudes hacia la Bisexualidad. Revista Electronica en Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades, 3(2), 35–46. [Google Scholar]
  80. *Olvera-Muñoz O (2017). Confiabilidad y validez de la Escala de Actitudes hacia la Bisexualidad en estudiantes de pregrado. Revista Trazos, 1(1), 1–18. [Google Scholar]
  81. *Oswald F, & Matsick JL (2020). Examining responses to women’s same-sex performativity: Perceptions of sexual orientation and implications for bisexual prejudice. Journal of Bisexuality, 20(4), 417–455. 10.1080/15299716.2020.1820420 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  82. *Oswalt SB, & Vargas TM (2013). How safe is the playing field? Collegiate coaches’ attitudes towards gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals. Sport in Society, 16(1), 120–132. 10.1080/17430437.2012.690407 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  83. Pettigrew TF (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65–85. 10.1146/annurev.psych.49.165 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  84. 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]
  85. *Pirlott A (2012). Sexual prejudices fluctuate according to active fundamental life goals (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Arizona State University. [Google Scholar]
  86. *Pirlott AG, & Neuberg SL (2014). Sexual prejudice: Avoiding unwanted sexual interest? Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5(1), 92–101. 10.1177/1948550613486674 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  87. Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: Elaboration and explanation. BMJ, 349, g7647–g7647. 10.1136/bmj.g7647 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  88. *Sharma A, Shaver JC, & Stephenson RB (2019). Rural primary care providers’ attitudes towards sexual and gender minorities in a midwestern state in the USA. Rural and Remote Health, 19(4), 5476. 10.22605/RRH5476 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  89. *Shaw J (2019). Trustworthiness and stability in same and different sex relationships: heterosexuals’ attitudes toward bisexuality (Publication No. 2302019324) [Doctoral dissertation, West Virginia University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I. https://search.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/trustworthiness-stability-same-different-sex/docview/2302019324/se-2?accountid=13828 [Google Scholar]
  90. *Stebing CE (2018). Perceived unwanted sexual interest and binegativity among gay men and lesbian women (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Indiana State University. [Google Scholar]
  91. *Steffens MC, & Wagner C (2004). Attitudes toward lesbians, gay men, bisexual women, and bisexual men in Germany. Journal of Sex Research, 41(2), 137–149. 10.1080/00224490409552222 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  92. Suurmond R, van Rhee H, & Hak T (2017). Introduction, comparison, and validation of Meta-Essentials: a free and simple tool for meta-analysis. Research Synthesis Methods, 8(4), 537–553. 10.1002/jrsm.1260 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  93. *Toews JB (2020). The effect of imagined intergroup contact and need for closure on attitudes toward bisexuality. Journal of Bisexuality, 20(1), 19–39. 10.1080/15299716.2020.1732257 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  94. Ueno K (2010). Patterns of cross-orientation friendships in high schools. Social Science Research, 39(3), 444–458. 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.10.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  95. *Worthen MGF (2014). The interactive impacts of high school gay-straight alliances (GSAs) on college student attitudes toward LGBT individuals: An investigation of high school characteristics. Journal of Homosexuality, 61(2), 217–250. 10.1080/00918369.2013.839906 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  96. *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]
  97. *Worthen MGF, Lingiardi V, & Caristo C (2017). The roles of politics, feminism, and religion in attitudes toward LGBT individuals: A cross-cultural study of college students in the USA, Italy, and Spain. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 14(3), 241–258. 10.1007/s13178-016-0244-y [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  98. *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]
  99. Zell E, Krizan Z, & Teeter SR (2015). Evaluating gender similarities and differences using metasynthesis. American Psychologist, 70(1), 10–20. 10.1037/a0038208 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  100. *Zivony A, & Lobel T (2014). The invisible stereotypes of bisexual men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43(6), 1165–1176. 10.1007/s10508-014-0263-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  101. *Zivony A, & Saguy T (2018). Stereotype deduction about bisexual women. Journal of Sex Research, 55(4–5), 666–678. 10.1080/00224499.2018.1437116 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES