Racial Differences in Sexual Prejudice and its Correlates among Heterosexual Men

Abstract

Previous research has consistently found sexual prejudice to be a predictor of anti-gay aggression and has also revealed specific correlates and antecedents of sexual prejudice. However, extant literature reveals mixed findings about potential racial group differences in sexual prejudice, and few studies have examined racial differences in the correlates of sexual prejudice. The aims of this descriptive study were to determine if there are (1) racial group differences in reports of sexual prejudice and (2) racial group differences in previously identified correlates of sexual prejudice. Participants were 195 heterosexual males, ages 18-30 (98 Blacks and 97 Whites), recruited from a large metropolitan city in the southeastern United States. Based on cultural differences in the influence of religion and in attitudes about male sexuality, it was hypothesized that Black participants would report higher sexual prejudice than White participants. Additionally, based on cultural differences in racial views on masculinity and in sociocultural experiences of male gender roles, it was hypothesized that Blacks would report greater endorsement of religious fundamentalism and the traditional male role norm of status than Whites. Results confirmed all of the hypothesized racial differences and revealed additional differences, including a differential effect of the traditional male role norm of status on sexual prejudice, which explains, at least in part, the racial differences found in sexual prejudice. These findings may reflect underlying cultural differences between Black and White males and may aid in the development of future efforts to reduce sexual prejudice and consequently antigay aggression toward sexual minorities.

Aggression based on sexual orientation is an ongoing concern in the United States and abroad. In a recent national probability sample, Herek (2009) found that approximately 1 in 10 adult sexual minority individuals has been victim to a violent crime, while 50% of all gay men and lesbians have experienced being verbally insulted or abused. This type of bias-motivated aggression falls under the category of “hate crimes” or criminal actions done with the intention to hurt or intimidate people because of their minority group status (Herek, Gillis, & Cogan, 1999). Data indicates that victims of hate crimes based on sexual orientation suffer a greater severity of violence (Dunbar, 2006) and greater risk for depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder relative to victims of non-biased assaults (Herek et al., 1999).

Sexual prejudice is defined as “all negative attitudes based on sexual orientation, whether the target is homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual” (Herek, 2000, p. 19). Several studies have established a link between sexual prejudice and anti-gay aggression (e.g., Franklin, 2000; Parrott & Zeichner, 2005; Vincent, Parrott, & Peterson, 2011a). In fact, the robustness of this finding has provided the necessary evidence to support the development of intervention programming for the reduction of sexual prejudice (Parrott & Miller, 2009; Parrott, Peterson, & Bakeman, 2011; Vincent, Parrott, & Peterson, in press).

However, the majority of previous studies examining sexual prejudice as well as its link to anti-gay aggression have been conducted with predominantly White and/or college student samples (e.g., Herek, 1988; Herek & Capitanio, 1996; Hinrichs & Rosenberg, 2002; Parrott, 2009; Vincent et al., 2011a). Given the widespread occurrence of sexual prejudice and the diversity of populations in which it manifests, this sampling limitation raises questions about the generalizability of prior findings and the field’s understanding of this construct. More specifically, by relying on samples of limited diversity, the aforementioned literature is inadequate to address cultural variability in the manifestation of sexual prejudice. Current theories may not adequately reflect how sexual prejudice manifests across various groups or the possible cultural factors that might impact this social phenomenon, which poses concerns for validity and potentially hinders efforts to reduce sexual prejudice in diverse populations. These weaknesses may be addressed by assessing the variability in sexual prejudice and its correlates across diverse groups (e.g., race/ethnicity, gender, social class). Such efforts would inform a richer theoretical framework from which effective interventions may be developed.

Previous analyses published from the same data as the present study (Parrott et al., 2011) did not examine possible differences between racial groups in reported sexual prejudice and correlates of sexual prejudice. The purpose of this descriptive study was to determine if there are racial differences in sexual prejudice and racial differences in previously established correlates of sexual prejudice. This study examined these differences in a community-based sample of Black and White men as a way to extend knowledge on sexual prejudice beyond the prior focus on college samples.

Racial Differences in Sexual Prejudice

Research provides mixed findings on evidence of racial differences in sexual prejudice. Several earlier studies (e.g., Herek & Capitanio, 1995; Irwin & Thompson, 1977) did not find significant racial differences in reports of sexual prejudice or negative attitudes towards non-heterosexuals. However, more recent studies suggest that racial groups vary in their reports of sexual prejudice (e.g., Lewis, 2003; Pew Research Center Forum on Religion & Public Life, 2009; Waldner, Sikka, & Baig, 1999). Additionally, several studies (e.g., Collins, 2003; Harris, 2009; Kennamer, Honnold, Bradford, & Hendricks, 2000) suggest that unique cultural differences may influence Blacks’ perceptions of homosexuality.

Although sexual prejudice may manifest among all racial/ethnic groups, Rosario, Schrimshaw, and Hunter (2004) argued that racial minority individuals may differ from Whites in “stronger cultural pressures in their ethnic/racial communities favoring heterosexuality and discouraging or punishing homosexuality” (p.216). It has been theorized that negative attitudes toward homosexuality are more prevalent among Black than White populations due to religious and political forces of Black culture (Kennamer et al., 2000). While more religiously observant Americans are most likely to discourage homosexuality, regardless of race, findings from a recent survey of a nationally representative sample of over 35,000 American adults show that the differences between the most and least religiously observant are more pronounced in the population overall than among African-Americans, which suggests greater opposition toward homosexuality among Blacks than Whites (Pew Research Center Forum on Religion & Public Life, 2009).

In addition to these religious influences, several authors (e.g., Collins, 2003; Harris, 2009) have theorized that the Black community’s history of slavery may have led to distorted views of Black sexuality such that, in an attempt to counter these stereotypes, heterosexual Black males might feel more strongly compelled to uphold heterosexist values. Such ideas suggest that there may be differences between the cultural contexts of White and Black men that provide a basis for potential racial differences in sexual prejudice. Therefore, while the extant literature shows mixed evidence of racial difference in sexual prejudice, there is a well-conceptualized cultural rationale for hypothesizing racial differences in sexual prejudice. As such, the purpose of this study was to examine these potential differences among White and Black heterosexual males.

Several other demographic and psychosocial factors have been linked to sexual prejudice (for a review, see Herek, 2000). Although these correlates of sexual prejudice are not race-specific, their manifestation may differ between racial groups and may have a differential association with sexual prejudice across groups. As will be reviewed in more depth below, racial differences in some correlates of sexual prejudice raise the potential as the basis for racial differences in sexual prejudice.

Correlates of Sexual Prejudice

Theorists have suggested that sexual prejudice and aggression toward sexual minorities serve to reduce threats to masculinity, maintain clear boundaries between the male and female gender roles, and enforce a social order which devalues departures from heterosexuality (e.g., Franklin, 1998; Kimmel, 1997). Furthermore, an adherence to traditional gender roles has been found to be strongly associated with sexual prejudice (e.g., Kilianski, 2003; Sinn, 1997; Whitley, 2001), specifically the three traditional masculine norms of status, anti-femininity, and toughness (Thompson and Pleck (1986). Status refers to the belief that men must gain the respect of others, anti-femininity refers to the belief that men should not engage in stereotypically feminine activities, and toughness refers to the belief that men should be physically tough and inclined to be aggressive. Studies using this tripartite conceptualization of male role norms have found that these norms are associated with prejudice toward sexual minorities (e.g., Kilianski, 2003; Sinn, 1997).

Evidence suggests that each of these traditional male role norms has a differential effect on violence against sexual minorities. For instance, Parrott (2009) found that only anti-femininity significantly predicted physical anti-gay aggression, while, Vincent et al. (2011b) found all three norms were independently correlated with aggression toward gay men and lesbians but to varying degrees (anti-femininity and toughness were both moderately and directly correlated with aggression toward sexual minorities while status was only weakly and indirectly correlated with this outcome).

Individual differences exist in men’s tendency to experience negative psychological and physiological effects from their attempts to meet gender-relevant standards (Eisler & Skidmore, 1987). This tendency refers to masculine gender-role stress and has been identified as an important trigger for both anti-gay anger and aggression (Vincent et al., 2011a) as well as significantly associated with sexual prejudice (Parrott et al., 2011). Research also suggests that religious fundamentalism, defined as an authoritarian set of beliefs that identify one set of religious teachings as the fundamental truth that is “opposed by forces of evil which must be vigorously fought” (Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 2004), is positively associated with sexual prejudice (Dudley & Mulvey, 2009; Hunsberger & Jackson, 2005; Keiller, 2010; Schwartz & Lindley, 2005). Furthermore, individuals who are high in religious fundamentalism have also been found to endorse traditional norms and values and to be more accepting of aggression toward people who violate these norms (Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 1992).

Racial Differences in the Correlates of Sexual Prejudice

Masculinity and gender role stress.

Literature on race and masculinity offers several explanations for possible racial differences in the link between masculinity and attitudes about sexual orientation. Harris (1995) argued that some Black men may feel unable to meet European American standards of masculinity (i.e., men as providers, protectors, and disciplinarians) due to inequities in earning potential, employment, and education. Although this conflicting experience may not be entirely specific to Black men, it differs from that of low-income White men because of historical and ongoing racial discrimination and prejudice (Harris, 1995). Slavery and subsequent years of discrimination have denied Black men the opportunity to fulfill the stereotypical role of head of the family and primary breadwinner (Harris, 2009). As a result, Black men may feel the need to prove their masculinity in other ways, including physical strength, athletic prowess, and high rates of sexual behavior (Collins, 2003).

Similarly, Roberts-Douglass and Curtis-Boles (2013) found several themes in African American men’s development of masculinity in adolescence including an emphasis on hyper-masculinity (as expressed through toughness, athleticism, sexual prowess, violence, and wealth), academic success as an expression of masculinity, and pressure to conform to peers’ standards of appropriate male behavior. The authors argued that these results were an indication that “African American male adolescents are capable of holding beliefs consistent with traditional European definitions of masculinity while selectively and intentionally embracing alternative definitions of masculinity” (p.12).

Two additional studies found racial group differences in men’s views about masculinity and the male role. Levant and Majors (1997) found that Black men endorse a more traditional perspective of masculinity overall than White men, with significantly higher scores than Whites on specific subscales including fear and hatred of homosexuals and status. Similarly, using the Thompson and Pleck (1986) tripartite conceptualization of masculinity, Lease et al. (2010) found that Black men perceived the status norm as more important to their conceptualization of masculinity than White men. In the present study, given these prior findings, it was hypothesized that Blacks would report greater adherence to the status norm than Whites but comparable adherence to the toughness and anti-femininity norms.

Although Whites and Blacks may differ in their views on masculinity and evidence suggests that Blacks experience unique sociocultural pressures related to their experience of the masculine gender role, research has yet to examine racial differences in men’s reports of masculine gender role stress. There is no evidence to suggest that one racial group may experience more or less masculine gender role stress, but rather that there may be different contributing factors that result in comparable levels of gender role stress for Black and White heterosexual men. In the current study, we expected that both racial groups would endorse comparable masculine gender role stress. We hypothesized this based on the assumption that while there may be racial differences in men’s experience of masculinity, these experiences do not necessarily result in differential masculine gender role stress.

Religious fundamentalism.

Theorists (Hunsberger & Jackson, 2005) posit that all followers of religion are regularly exposed to societal heterosexism but depending on whether that heterosexism is legitimized or not by their religious institution, lower or higher sexual prejudice may result. To the extent that religious teachings condone or prohibit gay intolerance, individuals’ acceptance of their church teachings may promote or diminish sexual prejudice toward sexual minorities. Studies to date have not reported racial differences in religious fundamentalism. However, the impact of religion on one’s daily, secular life has been found to be more prevalent in Blacks than in Whites (Hunt & Hunt, 2001; Taylor, Chatters, & Levin, 2004). In view of this evidence, we hypothesized that Blacks would endorse higher religious fundamentalism than Whites.

The Present Study

Given the mixed evidence on racial differences in sexual prejudice and its correlates, the aims of the present descriptive study were determine if there are: (1) racial group differences in reports of sexual prejudice between Whites and Blacks, and (2) racial differences in reports of traditional male role norms and religious fundamentalism. This study examines these differences in a community-based sample as a way to extend knowledge on sexual prejudice beyond the prior focus on college samples. We pursued this study to help provide more information about the cultural influences surrounding the manifestation of sexual prejudice that may possibly inform the development of effective intervention and prevention efforts for antigay aggression.

Hypothesis 1. Based on cultural differences in the influence of religion and in attitudes about masculinity, we expect that Black participants will report higher sexual prejudice against both lesbians and gay men than White participants.

Hypothesis 2. Based on evidence of cultural differences in racial views on masculinity and in sociocultural experiences of male gender roles, we expect that Black participants will report higher endorsement of the traditional male role norm of status than White participants; and given the greater impact of religion in the secular life of Blacks than Whites, we expect Black participants will report higher religious fundamentalism than White participants.

Hypothesis 3. Although we expect experiences of masculinity to differ between these racial groups, given the absence of evidence of racial differences in masculine gender role stress, we expect Black and White participants will report comparable experiences of masculine gender role stress.

Method

Participants

This study derived data from a larger investigation on the effects of alcohol on aggression toward sexual minorities (Parrott, Gallagher, Vincent, & Bakeman, 2010). Therefore, although the focus of the present study did not examine alcohol-related effects, all participants reported consuming alcohol on at least one occasion during the past year. Approval was granted for this study by a university institutional review board.

Participants were recruited through newspaper advertisements requesting males aged 18-30 years, because assailants of sexual minorities are typically men in their 20s (NCAVP, 2011). Furthermore, because the metropolitan catchment area of Atlanta is compromised of a high African-American population (i.e., 57% per 2006 Census), we sought to obtain a sample with approximately equal representation of White and Black men. Of the 241 men who were initially recruited, 8 participants were excluded upon arrival to the laboratory because they did not meet the age criteria and five did not identify as Black or White. In addition, participants’ heterosexual orientation was confirmed via self-report and the Kinsey Heterosexuality-Homosexuality Rating Scales (Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948). Specifically, among participants who self-identified as heterosexual, a heterosexual orientation was further confirmed by endorsement of exclusive arousal to women and sexual experiences that occurred mostly with women. Using these criteria, another 33 participants were excluded from subsequent analyses. Thus, the final sample (n = 195) consisted of 98 non-Hispanic Blacks, and 97 non-Hispanic Whites. The mean age was 24.16 years (SD = 3.28) and most participants were single and never married (80.5%) and had at least completed a high school education (91.8%). See Table 1 for the demographic characteristics of the overall sample and by participants’ race.

Table 1.

Sample Means (SD) and Percentages for Age, Education, Relationship Status, and Income

Demographic variable	Overall Sample (N = 195)	Blacks (N = 98)	Whites (N = 97)	Anti-gay Perpetrators (N = 82)	Non- Perpetrators (N = 113)
Age	24.16 (3.28)	25.22 (3.04)	23.09 (3.18)	24.20 (3.39)	24.14 (3.22)
Years of education	14.32 (2.49)	13.82 (2.29)	14.82 (2.60)	13.74 (2.40)	14.73 (2.49)
Relationship status (%)
Single, never married	80.5	77.6	83.5	80.5	80.5
Married	7.7	11.2	4.1	7.3	8
Not married but living with intimate partner	9.2	8.2	10.3	9.8	8.8
Divorced	4	2	2.1	2.4	1.8
Separated	1	1	0	0	0.9
Average yearly income	$26,692.31 (20,216.81)	$20,790.82 (15,228.49)	$32,654.64 (22,806.98)	$24,603.66 (19,489.91)	$28.207.96 (20,681.66)

Measures

Demographics form.

This self-report measure obtained information such as age, self-identified sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, relationship status, years of formal education, and approximate yearly income.

Kinsey Heterosexual-Homosexual Rating Scale (Kinsey et al., 1948).

A modified version of this instrument was used in order to assess prior sexual arousal and experiences. This 2-item, 7-point scale asks participants to rate their sexual arousal and behavioral experiences (overt actions) on a scale from (1) exclusively heterosexual to (7) exclusively homosexual. As was previously noted, only participants who reported exclusively heterosexual arousal and behavioral experiences that occurred mostly with women were included in the analyses for the present study. In the current study, the internal consistency for this scale was .95 for Black participants and .81 for White participants (.92 for the full sample).

Attitudes Towards Gay Men and Lesbians Scale (ATGLS; Herek, 1988).

This 20-item scale assesses participants’ sexual prejudice toward lesbians (10 items) and gay men (10 items). Participants are asked to rate each item on a 9-point Likert-scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (9) strongly agree. Sample items include: “Homosexual behavior between two men is just plain wrong” and “Female homosexuality is an inferior form of sexuality.” Internal consistency for these subscales typically exceeds .90. In the present sample, internal consistency coefficients for the overall sample were high for the attitudes towards gay men (α = .91; overall; α = .87 for Blacks, α = .93 for Whites) and attitudes towards lesbians subscales (α = .87; overall, α = .82 for Blacks, α = .89 for Whites).

Religious Fundamentalism Scale (Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 1992).

This 20-item scale measures participants’ adherence to religiously fundamentalist doctrine. Participants are asked to rate each item on a 9-point Likert-scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (9) strongly agree, with higher scores representing greater religious fundamentalism. Sample items from this scale include “There is a religion on this earth that teaches, without error, God’s Truth” and “God’s true followers must remember that he requires them to constantly fight Satan and Satan’s allies on this earth.” Internal consistency for this scale typically exceeds .90, which was consistent with the present sample (α = .93 overall; .87 for Blacks and .95 for Whites).

Antigay Behaviors Inventory (ABI; Franklin, 2000).

This 89-item structured interview assesses participants’ self-reported lifetime frequency of aggression toward gay men and lesbians, as well as their descriptions of specific incidents, and their motivations for engaging (or not) in anti-gay assaults. Of interest to the present study, 26 items of this scale ask participants to report the frequency in which they have engaged in any of 13 aggressive acts (physical and non-physical) toward either female (13 items) or male homosexuals (13 items). Examples include “How many times have you called a male/female homosexual an insulting name?” and “How many times have you hit, kicked or beaten up a male/female homosexual?” For each item, participants were asked to answer on a scale ranging from (0) never, to (3) three or more times. Internal consistency for this measure typically exceeds .80, which was consistent with the present study (α = .91 overall; .92 for Blacks, .86 for Whites). In this study, participants who reported engaging in at least one act of aggression (physical or non-physical) against sexual minorities during their lifetime were categorized as perpetrators of anti-gay aggression, and those who reported no prior acts of aggression against sexual minorities were categorized as non-perpetrators. This approach follows theoretical (e.g., Parrott & Giancola, 2007) and empirical precedents (e.g., Carlson et al., 1989) which conceptualize aggression as a multifaceted construct with multiple expressions that are correlated with a common underlying trait. Studies show that individuals tend to engage in multiple forms of anti-gay aggression throughout their lifetimes (Franklin, 2000).

Masculine Gender Role Stress Scale (MGRSS; Eisler & Skidmore, 1987).

This 40-item scale was used to assess participants’ tendency to appraise situations that conflict with the traditional idea of the male gender role as stressful. Participants were asked to rate items on a scale ranging from (0) not at all stressful, to (5) extremely stressful, with higher scores reflecting higher masculine gender role stress. Internal consistency was high (α = 0.93 overall; .92 for Blacks, and .93 for Whites).

Male Role Norms Scale (Thompson & Pleck, 1986).

This 26-tem Likert-type inventory was used to assess participants’ endorsement of three dimensions of masculine ideology: Status (11 items), Anti-femininity (7 items), and Toughness (8 items). Participants were asked to rate items on a scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree, to (7) strongly agree, with higher scores reflecting stronger adherence to the target dimension of traditional male gender role norms. Sample items include: “A good motto for a man would be ‘When the going gets tough, the tough get going’” (Toughness), “A man must stand on his own two feet and never depend on other people to help him do things” (Status), and “It bothers me when a man does something that I consider ‘feminine’” (Anti-femininity). Typically, internal consistency for these subscales range from .74 to .81 in standardization samples, which is consistent with the present sample (Status: .78, Anti-femininity: .72, and Toughness: .65). However, when computed by racial group, generally lower internal consistency coefficients were observed for Status (Blacks: .79, Whites: .73), Toughness (Blacks: .56, Whites: .68), and Anti-femininity (Blacks: .59, Whites: .66). While these reliability coefficients are somewhat low, particularly for Black participants, the low quantity of items per subscale greatly contributes to these. Furthermore, several previous studies have found this scale to have adequate reliability for both White and Black samples (e.g.: Abreu et al., 2000; Gillen & Lefkowitz, 2006; Lease at al., 2010) and a confirmatory factor analysis (Sinn,1997) has provided support for the three factor structure of this scale as well as its discriminative and predictive validity.

Procedure

Upon arrival to the laboratory, participants were informed that the aim of the study was to learn about people’s thoughts and actions in regards to various social issues, including homosexuality, gender roles, and alcohol use. All participants were provided informed consent and were told that they could refuse to answer any question without penalty. With the exception of the Antigay Behaviors Inventory (ABI; Franklin, 2000), all measures were self-administered on a computer via MediaLab 2000 (Jarvis, 2006).

For both Black and White participants, a trained Black male interviewer administered the ABI in the form of a structured interview. While it could be argued that respondents tend to feel more comfortable with interviewers of their same race/ethnicity, research findings indicate that the race/ethnicity of the interviewer tends to only significantly impact respondents’ reports on overtly racial- or ethnic-attitude items and not for items where a connection to race or ethnicity is absent (Davis, Couper, Janz, Caldwell & Resnicow, 2010). Given the nature of the items included in this interview, there was no concern about a race/ethnicity interviewer effect in this study. After completion of the study’s measures, participants were debriefed and compensated.

Results

Data Analytic Plan

The aims of the present study were to determine if there are: (1) racial group differences in reports of sexual prejudice between Whites and Blacks, and (2) racial group differences in reports of traditional male role norms and religious fundamentalism. To address these two primary aims, we had to also examine possible differences between perpetrators and non-perpetrators of anti-gay aggression. This analysis was necessary to contextualize any potential racial differences in sexual prejudice and its correlates, grounding any relevant findings within the broader theoretical framework pertaining to sexual prejudice and aggression towards sexual minorities. Consequently, a series of 2 × 2 (Race × Perpetrator Status) analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) were selected as the method of analysis. Also, a series of preliminary analyses were performed to provide descriptive data about the study sample.

Preliminary Analyses

Descriptive analyses examined the demographic characteristics of the sample overall and of participants as grouped by race and perpetrator status (see Table 1 for results). Furthermore, two separate independent-samples Mann-Whitney tests examined whether the distribution of participants across the six different categories of relationship status (single, never married, married, not married but living with an intimate partner, divorced, and separated) was the same for both racial groups and for both perpetrators and non-perpetrators of anti-gay aggression. As shown in Table 1, the distribution of relationship status did not different significantly between racial groups, or for perpetrators and non-perpetrators of anti-gay aggression.

Preliminary analyses also examined possible racial differences in frequency of anti-gay aggression. An independent samples t-test showed that relative to Whites (M = 2.34, SD = 3.21), African American participants (M = 3.30, SD = 3.36) reported a higher frequency of non-physical anti-gay aggression, t (188) = 2.016, p < .05. No racial group differences were found in participants’ reports of physical anti-gay aggression. As was mentioned earlier, participants in this study were classified as either perpetrators or non-perpetrators based on their reports of physical and non-physical aggression. All perpetrators reported engaging in non-physical aggression, while only a portion of perpetrators (18.5%) reported engaging in physical aggression, which is consistent with the rates of physical and non-physical aggression reported by sexual minority victims (Herek, 2009).

Preliminary analyses also examined possible differences by race and perpetrator status in the demographic variables of age, years of education, and average yearly income. Three separate 2 (Race) × 2 (Perpetrator Status) analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were performed with age, years of education, and average yearly income as dependent variables. No interaction effects were found for any of these dependent variables. However, there was a significant main effect of race on all three variables and also a significant main effect of perpetrator status on years of education. As shown in Table 2, relative to White participants, Black participants were older, less educated, and earned less income. Furthermore, relative to non-perpetrators, perpetrators of anti-gay aggression were less educated

Table 2.

Main Effects of Race and Perpetrator Status on Age, Education, and Income

Variable	Race		Perpetrator Status
	F	η2	F (p)	η2
Age	26.24*	.12	.45	.00
Education	6.24*	.03	5.90*	.03
Income	14.94*	.07	.57	.00

Note. Degrees of freedom for all effects = 1, 194;

^*indicates statistical significance (α < .05).

Primary and Secondary Analyses

As mentioned earlier, parallel to examining potential racial group differences in the reports of sexual prejudice and its correlates, analyses were conducted in order to confirm previously established differences between perpetrators and non-perpetrators of anti-gay aggression. Separate 2 (Race) × 2 (Perpetrator Status) analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) were performed with each of the following seven dependent variables: sexual prejudice against gay men, sexual prejudice against lesbians, masculine gender role stress, religious fundamentalism, and traditional male role norms of status, toughness, and anti-femininity. In each of these analyses, age, education, and income were included as covariates. No interaction effects were detected for any of these seven dependent variables. However, numerous main effects were detected for both perpetrator status and race.

Table 3 shows the results for tests of the main effect of perpetrator status on each of the seven dependent variables. Relative to non-perpetrators, perpetrators of anti-gay aggression reported higher levels of masculine gender role stress (η² = .03), toughness (η² = .03), anti-femininity (η² = .15), religious fundamentalism (η² = .03), and sexual prejudice against both lesbians (η² = .04) and gay men (η² = .12). Thus, these comparisons revealed small to moderate effect sizes, with the exception of comparisons for antifemininity and sexual prejudice against gay men, which yielded large effects (Cohen, 1988).

Table 3.

Perpetrators’ and Non-Perpetrators’ Mean Scores (SD) on Sexual Prejudice and its Correlates

	Anti-gay Perpetrators (N = 82)	Non-Perpetrators (N = 113)	F	η2
Variable
Masculine Gender Role Stress	91.22 (32.92)	81.50 (30.44)	4.89*	.03
TMRN Status	54.09 (11.37)	51.49 (12.19)	.09	.00
TMRN Toughness	36.22 (8.05)	32.63 (8.60)	6.36*	.03
TMRN Anti-femininity	25.59 (8.15)	19.86 (7.25)	33.42*	.15
Religious Fundamentalism	88.89 (32.06)	74.94 (34.82)	5.78*	.03
Sexual prejudice against Gay men	55.38 (21.12)	38.56 (21.15)	25.31*	.12
Sexual prejudice against Lesbians	40.78 (20.10)	31.60 (18.04)	8.50*	.04

Note. TMRN = traditional male role norm. Degrees of freedom for all effects = 1, 194;

^*indicates statistical significance (α < .05).

Table 4 shows the results for tests of the main effect of race on each of the seven dependent variables. As hypothesized, compared to Whites, Blacks reported stronger adherence to the status norm (η² = .09) as well as higher levels of religious fundamentalism (η² = .12) and sexual prejudice against both lesbians (η² = .12) and gay men (η² = .09). However, contrary to hypotheses, a significant main effect of race on the traditional male role norm of toughness was also detected. Specifically, Blacks reported stronger adherence to the toughness norm than Whites (η² = .03). Thus, these comparisons revealed moderate to large effect sizes, with the exception of the detected racial difference for toughness which yielded a small to moderate effect (Cohen, 1988)

Table 4.

Participants’ Mean Scores (SD) on Sexual Prejudice and its Correlates by Race

Variable (Range)	Blacks (N = 98)	Whites (N = 97)	F	η2
Masculine Gender Role Stress	86.72 (32.60)	84.44 (31.07)	1.23	.01
TMRN Status	57.05 (12.51)	48.06 (9.30)	17.81*	.09
TMRN Toughness	35.78 (8.46)	32.48 (8.34)	4.78*	.03
TMRN Anti-femininity	21.80 (8.13)	22.74 (8.15)	.031	.00
Religious Fundamentalism	94.93 (28.39)	66.74 (34.03)	25.28*	.12
Sexual prejudice against Gay men	53.47 (21.36)	37.71 (21.24)	19.49*	.09
Sexual prejudice against Lesbians	42.70 (19.27)	28.14 (16.72)	25.20*	.12

Note. TMRN = traditional male role norm. Degrees of freedom for all effects = 1, 194;

^*indicates statistical significance (α < .05).

Additional Analyses

We conducted a series of regression analyses to examine how each of the correlates predicted sexual prejudice across White and Black participants in our sample. Although supplemental to our primary analyses, these analyses were thought to be necessary to describe racial differences in sexual prejudice and to provide information to guide future efforts in the area of sexual prejudice reduction and the prevention of aggression against sexual minorities. Specifically, a series of hierarchical multiple regression analyses were performed to determine whether race moderated the association between each of the correlates of sexual prejudice and sexual prejudice towards lesbians and gay men. Results showed that the association between adherence to the status norm and sexual prejudice towards gay men was significantly moderated by race (see Table 5). Explication of this interaction indicated that status was more positively associated with sexual prejudice towards gay men among Black (β = .62, p < .05), relative to White (β = .21, p < .05), participants.

Table 5.

Multiple Regression Analysis of Sexual Prejudice towards Gay Men on Race, Status and their Interaction

Predictor	B	SE	β	t	R2
					.27*
Race	8.93	3.09	.20	2.89*
Status	1.19	.22	.62	5.48*
Race × Status	−.79	.27	−.32	−2.91*

Note. Status was mean centered by subtracting the mean score of the variable from the raw score of the variable. Dummy coding was employed to standardize the categorical variable (i.e., Whites = 0, Blacks = 1);

^*p <.01.

Discussion

The aims of this descriptive study were to determine if: (1) racial groups differed in their reports of sexual prejudice against lesbians and gay men in a community-based sample, and (2) determine whether reports of established correlates of sexual prejudice (i.e., traditional male role norms and religious fundamentalism) differed between White and Black males. As mentioned in prior sections of this report, we pursued this study because of its potential for informing more effective and better-tailored efforts to reduce sexual prejudice and prevent aggression against sexual minorities. Prior research in this area has relied on predominantly White, college samples and has not examined sociocultural context. The present study attempted to help address this gap in the extant literature, to advance our field’s understanding of sexual prejudice as it manifests across groups, and to inform more effective future practical applications.

Parallel to addressing the two primary aims of this study, analyses were also conducted to confirm previously established differences between perpetrators and non-perpetrators of anti-gay aggression. Parenthetically, this focus on confirming the previously established differences between perpetrators and non-perpetrators of anti-gay aggression was a necessary step to examine potential racial group differences in reports of sexual prejudice and its correlates. For this secondary analysis, results confirmed previously known differences between perpetrators and non-perpetrators (e.g.: Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 1992; Dudley & Mulvey, 2009; Kilianski, 2003; Parrott et al., 2011; Sinn, 1997; Whitley, 2001).

For the primary aims of this study, results confirmed all of the hypothesized differences between Black and White males, but also revealed an unexpected, small-to-moderate racial difference between Black and White men in their reports of toughness. These findings suggest that acceptance of the traditional male role norms of status and toughness, religious fundamentalism, and sexual prejudice against lesbians and gay men is higher among Black heterosexual men than among White heterosexual men. The effect of race on these variables was present after accounting for age, education, and income, which suggests that these racial differences may reflect cultural and contextual influences.

Furthermore, results showed that the traditional male role norm of status is more positively associated with sexual prejudice towards gay men among Black heterosexual men than among White heterosexual men. This finding may provide an explanation for the racial differences in sexual prejudice between Blacks and Whites in this study. In addition, this finding might potentially explain why prior studies have resulted in mixed findings on racial differences in sexual prejudice. It may be likely that the traditional male role norm of status is particularly salient for Black men in certain regions of the United States or that Black men’s endorsement of this notion of masculinity has shifted over time. Further research is needed to elucidate the significance of this finding and to connect it to prior findings regarding racial differences in sexual prejudice. Nonetheless, this finding clearly highlights the importance of examining the mechanisms of sexual prejudice while better considering social and cultural context. Future research should seek to ground theories on sexual prejudice within a broader sociocultural context to better advance our understanding of this phenomenon.

In addition to racial differences in reports of sexual prejudice, racial differences were also found in reports of the correlates of sexual prejudice (traditional male role norms of status and toughness, and religious fundamentalism). Moreover, Black heterosexual men who endorsed high beliefs in the male role norm of status were more prejudiced toward gays and lesbians, in comparison to White heterosexual men. These racial differences in reported correlates of sexual prejudice suggest that several factors may differentially influence the development of sexual prejudice between Black and White heterosexual men.

As was mentioned earlier, it has been theorized that negative attitudes toward homosexuality may be more prevalent among Black than White populations due to religious and political forces of Black culture (Kennamer et al., 2000). These cultural differences may suggest, at least in part, why Blacks in the present study endorsed higher rates of sexual prejudice against both gay men and lesbians. It has also been argued that the Black community’s history of slavery (e.g., Collins, 2003; Harris, 2009) and subsequent years of discrimination (Harris, 2009) has led to Black men having an idea of masculinity that differs from that of White men (Roberts-Douglass & Curtis-Boles, 2013). These potential cultural differences could explain why Blacks reported higher traditional male role norms of status and toughness than Whites in the present study.

Regarding the basis of religious influences within the Black community, Rhue and Rhue (1997) discussed how aspects of Black culture, like religiosity, may explain racial differences in attitudes toward sexual minorities. The present study revealed significant differences in religious fundamentalism between Blacks and Whites men. This finding is supported by prior studies that have shown more intolerance of homosexuality among religious Blacks than religious Whites (Pew Research Center Forum on Religion & Public Life, 2009).

Other previously documented aspects of Black culture also appear to support the present findings. Black culture appears to promote strong patriarchical assumptions and expectations about the male role (Rhue & Rhue, 1997). This could potentially explain why Black heterosexual males reported greater sexual prejudice against lesbians than White heterosexual males, as same-sex relationships among women might potentially be perceived as threatening traditional male role norms in the Black family.

Overall, these findings may reflect underlying cultural differences between Black and White males that influence the factors previously established as associated with sexual prejudice toward sexual minorities. Given that these racial group differences have important practical implications for future prevention and intervention efforts, we suggest that further research is needed to identify and clarify how sociocultural context may differentially influence reports of sexual prejudice and its correlates between Black and White heterosexual men.

While the present study provides evidence of racial differences in reports of established correlates of sexual prejudice, important caveats should be noted. Because the present study relied on a convenience community sample of men from the southeastern United States, the generalizability of these results is weaker than if a probability-based sample had been recruited. Furthermore, the present study was not able to examine how men’s attitudes towards sexual minorities may be affected by the target’s race. Also, the present study made no distinction between perpetrators of physical aggression and verbal aggression and relied on a male role norms scale that was not specifically developed to reflect race-specific cultural notions of masculinity. Future studies should consider methodological approaches that could address these limitations.

In conclusion, the current study provides evidence of racial differences between Black and White men in both sexual prejudice and its correlates. These findings suggest the need for future studies to examine specific contextual influences of culture that may be underlying racial differences in the correlates of sexual prejudice. Understanding these contextual influences and how they affect those antecedents may significantly inform future attempts to reduce discrimination and violence toward sexual minorities.

Figure 1.

The association between the traditional male role norm of status and sexual prejudice towards gay men among Black participants vs. White participants