Impact of College
on Student Attitudes Toward Gay and
Lesbian Issues
Discussion -- Major Findings
By Diana Kardia
Copyright 1996, Diana Kardia
Reprinted with author's permission.
In this study, there are five major
findings that contribute to current
theory on students' attitudes toward
sexual diversity and college impact.
First, both the survey and interview
data strongly indicate that, after four
years of college, students' attitudes
toward sexual diversity are significantly
more positive than attitudes held at
entrance to college. While maturation
and other factors not specific to college
cannot be ruled out, students themselves
consistently speak of the increased
exposure and awareness they found on
campus regarding sexual diversity and
of the subsequent broadening of their
perspectives. These reports are confirmed
by statistically significant patterns
of increased acceptance within the student
population. Women students enter college
with higher levels of acceptance and
become more accepting of sexual diversity
than men while at college. The average
level of acceptance did not differ by
race/ethnicity either at entrance to
college or after four years of college
within this student population, however.
Second, contact with lesbian, gay,
and bisexual people is a primary mechanism
through which students' attitudes change.
For students who enter college with
negative attitudes toward sexual diversity,
contact through casual acquaintances,
work settings, and classmates helps
students reexamine the stereotypes and
false assumptions that often serve as
a foundation for these negative attitudes.
For students who enter college with
ambivalent or generally positive attitudes
toward sexual diversity, contact through
close friendships helps to bring meaning
and conviction to students' acceptance
of sexual diversity. The conditions
under which such contact occurs at the
University of Michigan seem to be qualitatively
different than some students' pre-college
contact with lesbian, gay, or bisexual
people which served only to reinforce
stereotypes and negative attitudes toward
sexual diversity.
Third, students who are more empathic,
liberal, willing to change the social
status quo, and inclined toward cognitive
complexity are more likely to be accepting
of sexual diversity. These results provide
evidence of the importance of developmental
processes to the attitudes of college
students. Gender differences in these
developmental indicators explain higher
levels of acceptance of sexual diversity
among women.
Fourth, curricular and co-curricular
attention to sexual diversity establishes
norms of respect and thoughtful consideration
of this issue. These settings also promote
students' acceptance of sexual diversity
by providing accurate information regarding
sexual diversity and encouraging visibility
of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people.
Fifth, students who participate in
religious groups or fraternities are
less likely to be accepting of sexual
diversity than the general student population.
Fraternities discourage acceptance of
sexual diversity while student religious
groups reinforce negative attitudes
toward sexual diversity, thus creating
peer environments of intolerance despite
more general trends toward tolerance
among college students.
Finally, the process of conducting
this research has demonstrated that
creating the alliances necessary for
a community that is inclusive of sexual
diversity requires a commitment to openness,
responsibility, and relationship. While
issues relating to sexual diversity
can be adequately addressed in other
contexts, community requires a willingness
to be fully human and to treat others
with a full awareness of their humanity,
even in the face of profound differences
in values and experience.
Evidence of College Impact on Students'
Attitudes Toward Sexual Diversity
While there can be no doubt that college
and university campuses are the setting
for a significant amount of negative
attitudes and violence toward lesbians,
gay men, and bisexual people (National
Gay and Lesbian Task Force, 1984; University
of Michigan, 1991), the analysis of
survey and interview data indicates
that the four year time period in which
this group of students attended the
University of Michigan is strongly associated
with the development of positive attitudes
toward sexual diversity in the majority
of students. This conclusion is demonstrated
by: 1) the significant increases in
the population averages for women and
men on the College Sexual Diversity
Acceptance Index as compared to the
Pre-College Sexual Diversity Acceptance
Index, and 2) the increased respect
for diversity among those with negative
attitudes and increased commitment to
acceptance among those with positive
attitudes evidenced in the interview
data. This finding confirms earlier
research in which education level was
a predictor of attitudes toward sexual
diversity both within a college student
population (D'Augelli and Rose, 1990)
and within the adult U.S. population
(Dejowski, 1992; Jenson, Gambles, and
Olsen, 1988)
Because these results cannot currently
be compared either across institutions
or with individuals who did not attend
college, it is inappropriate to assume
that these observed attitudinal changes
were caused solely by attendance at
the University of Michigan. Furthermore,
given that national economic and security
conditions are associated with rates
of prejudice within the U.S. population
(Aronson, 1992), one might expect that
attitudes toward marginalized groups
in U.S. would become more tolerant during
the time period being studied here,
1990 to 1994. While the unemployment
rate increased from 5.5 in 1990, the
lowest point this economic indicator
had reached since the early 1970s, to
7.4 in 1992, it decreased again to 6.1
in 1994 (The President of the United
States, 1991, 1995). Furthermore, the
general national picture was much more
optimistic in 1994 than in 1990. During
1994, the United States experienced
"robust growth" through an expanding
economy. This is in stark contrast to
the fall of 1990 when the economy in
the U.S. was entering a recession while
the country prepared for what was to
become known as the Persian Gulf War
(The President of the United States,
1991, 1995). However, despite this more
positive national profile in 1994, hate
crimes against lesbians, gay men, and
bisexual people continued to increase
during this time period (NGLTF, 1994),
particularly in regions of the country
where public policy debates regarding
sexual diversity were highly visible
(Singer and Deschamps, 1994). Thus,
the larger societal context for this
time period is conflicting and does
not suggest uniform external influences
on students' attitudes.
This context and related literature
suggest that changes in students' attitudes
may be attributable, at least in part,
to the college experience. This interpretation
is suggested by: 1) the stark contrast
expressed by students in the interviews
between pre-college experiences, where
sexual diversity was either a non-issue
or phrased negatively and stereotypically,
and college experiences where the topic
was addressed openly and many individuals
found opportunity to confront and examine
their own assumptions, 2) the finding
that a large amount of the variance
in students' attitudes was explained
by college experiences, and 3) the indication
that student development may have an
impact on students' acceptance of sexual
diversity since student development
has been strongly associated with college
attendance (Chickering and Reisser,
1993). These conclusions are further
supported by literature indicating that
campus settings do tend to provide greater
opportunity for substantial contact
with lesbians, gay men, and bisexual
people than most environments outside
of higher education (Grayson, 1987;
Sherril, 1994).
In keeping with the bulk of research
on attitudes toward sexual diversity
(D'Augelli and Rose, 1991; Herek, 1984;
Kite, 1984), women were significantly
more accepting of sexual diversity,
on average, than men. Furthermore, women
became more accepting of sexual diversity
on average than men while at college.
In contrast to the existing literature
on racial/ethnic differences in attitudes
toward sexual diversity (Chan, 1993;
Dejowski, 1992; Ernst, Francis, Nevels,
and Lemeh, 1991; Garcia, 1994), racial/ethnic
differences were not found in the average
level of acceptance of sexual diversity
within this student population.
Both gender and racial/ethnic identity
were experienced by some individuals
as relevant to their perspectives regarding
sexual diversity. For example, negative
attitudes regarding sexual diversity
were supported for some by a belief
that homosexuality is in conflict with
appropriate gender role definition in
the U.S. Acceptance of sexual diversity
was explained for one respondent through
her location on the social periphery
in terms of her gender and race which,
she felt, constituted a set of experiences
that helped her understand the experiences
of others on the social periphery. The
importance of social identity and location
was also reflected through concerns
that lesbians, gay men, and bisexual
people seek "special privileges;" such
concerns may be most likely to occur
among individuals existing at a more
centralized, and thus more privileged,
social location in terms of gender (i.e.
males) or race/ethnicity (i.e. those
who identify as white/ European American).
This pattern of gender and racial/ethnic
differences and similarities in acceptance
of sexual diversity may be a function
of the specific ways in which acceptance
was measured in this study. However,
there were several limitations in interpreting
gender and race/ethnicity effects that
should be noted. A different pattern
of responses might be observed if sexual
diversity issues were defined differently:
specifically, gender differences might
be less pronounced and racial/ethnic
differences might be more apparent with
a measure primarily designed to address
sexual diversity issues in the public
policy arena. The amount of attitudinal
change in this population is also a
reflection of the way acceptance was
measured. A ceiling effect in the Sexual
Diversity Acceptance Index limited the
ability of this scale to investigate
attitude change in students who entered
college with generally positive attitudes
toward sexual diversity. This scale
also does not reflect the ways in which
students' respect for sexual diversity
may change independently from changes
in an individuals' basic belief system
about the morality of homosexuality
and bisexuality.
The Meaning and Scope of Contact
with Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexual
People
Contact with lesbians, gay men, and
bisexual people was a key predictor
of attitudes held after four years of
college. This is evidenced by: 1) the
finding that both distant and personal
contact were strongly associated with
attitudes toward sexual diversity among
women and men, and 2) the fact that
contact with a lesbian, gay, or bisexual
person was voluntarily cited by interview
participants as centrally important
to their attitude development process.
The relationship between contact and
attitudes toward sexual diversity may
arise, in part, because students with
more positive attitudes are more likely
to voluntarily engage in contact with
lesbians, gay men, or bisexual people.
However, this research and the existing
literature provide strong support for
the conclusion that such contact plays
a powerful role in promoting more positive
attitudes regarding sexual diversity
as well. Each of the interview respondents
who had not experienced contact with
lesbians, gay men, or bisexual people
did not report substantial shifts in
their attitudes. Interview respondents
whose attitudes had become more positive
identified seeing or knowing lesbians,
gay men, or bisexual people as being
a mechanism through which their attitudes
changed. These findings support other
research that has associated direct
contact with sexual diversity with the
development of more accepting attitudes
(Herek and Glunt, 1994; Myers and Kardia,
1996).
The relationship between contact with
lesbians, gay men, and bisexual people
and students' attitudes toward sexual
diversity is complex. Both the interview
and the survey data support the conclusion
that the type and proximity of such
contact has different meanings for different
individuals. Distant contact may be
most available and most meaningful to
individuals whose negative attitudes
are based on false information and lack
of experience with sexual diversity.
For individuals with more positive or
ambivalent attitudes, personal contact
seems to play a significant role in
increasing the salience and meaning
of these attitudes. These results also
provide evidence that the relevance
of contact with lesbians, gay men, and
bisexual people is likely to be tied
to an historical context. As lesbians,
gay men, and bisexual people become
increasingly more visible participants
in U.S. society, and general levels
of acceptance increase, contact, particularly
distant contact, may do little to transform
attitudes toward sexual diversity.
It is not clear from the survey data
whether students' contact with lesbians,
gay men, and bisexual people was directly
related to the college experience. Such
contact may occur prior to college or
through mechanisms that are not based
in college, such as family relationships.
However, the college environment provides
opportunities for contact that are often
not as readily available outside of
the college context. This is evidenced
in this study by the fact that higher
levels of contact were associa ted with
participation in classes and co-curricular
programs relating to sexual diversity
or racial/ethnic diversity, campus political
activities, arts performances, and courses
and departments relating to the Humanities
and the Social Sciences. Recognition
of sexual diversity through institutional
policies and educational norms relating
to academic freedom may also serve to
create an environment in which lesbians,
gay men, and bisexual people are more
willing and able to be visible participants
(University of Michigan, 1991).
Research on the effects of contact
on prejudice suggests that the conditions
under which contact occurs have a significant
impact on the outcomes of such contact
(Allport, 1952). In addition to creating
opportunity for contact, attendance
at college may also impact student attitudes
toward sexual diversity by providing
conditions under which contact with
lesbians, gay men, and bisexual people
is more likely to result in positive
attitudes. This may occur in at least
three ways: 1) contact that occurs through
curricular or extra-curricular educational
programming is likely to actively challenge
and disconfirm false information and
stereotypes which serve as the underpinnings
of negative attitudes toward sexual
diversity, 2) students and faculty who
identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual
within classroom and extracurricular
contexts are likely to be seen through
more than just the lens of their sexual
orientation as they actively engage
with others in learning and other college
endeavors, and 3) contact that occurs
in a normative context that implies
explicit recognition of and/or respect
for sexual diversity is likely to be
informed by this context. However, as
evidenced through the interview responses,
this third factor may be experienced
differently when individuals perceive
institutional recognition as threatening
to their own well being (e.g. concerns
that lesbians, gay men, and bisexual
people might receive "special privileges").
In this case, contact with lesbians,
gay men, and bisexual people may serve
to reinforce or justify negative opinions.
Student Development as a Context
for Student Attitudes Toward Sexual
Diversity
While student development was not directly
measured in this study, the findings
of this study provide evidence that
developmental processes relating to
students' overall identity (e.g. "who
am I?"), autonomy, interdependence,
and social/political identity (e.g.
"how do I see myself in the context
of social norms and structures?") may
be associated with students' acceptance
of sexual diversity. These findings
are important for three primary reasons:
1) previous research on attitudes toward
sexual diversity has not incorporated
an understanding of student or young
adult development despite a propensity
for using college students as convenience
samples, 2) consideration of developmental
indicators provides a more dynamic,
and thus more realistic, picture of
the attitude formation and development
process than has previously been considered,
and 3) the impact of college on the
developmental processes typical of young
adults has been consistently demonstrated
in other research (Chickering and Reisser,
1993; Pascarella and Terenzini, 1991).
Results suggestive of the relevance
of developmental processes to student
attitudes were found in analyses of
both survey and interview data. Students
who were more inclined toward empathy
were more likely to be accepting of
sexual diversity both prior to college
and at the end of four years of college.
Students also experienced empathy as
a central component of their own acceptance
of sexual diversity and demonstrated
the importance of perspective-taking
to this acceptance as they responded
to interview questions. Furthermore,
empathic consideration of the experiences
of lesbians, gay men, and bisexual people
seemed to be central to the capacity
of students with negative attitudes
to nonetheless demonstrate humane respect
for sexual diversity. Empathy, a capacity
for non-egocentric thought, is considered
a primary area of competence that develops
in young adulthood (Chickering and Reisser,
1993; Davis, 1984; Gilligan, 1981);
empathy is a key component of moral
development (Gilligan, 1981). The specific
relevance of college to these changes
can only be speculated in this study
based on the association found in other
research between college and the development
of empathy (Chickering and Reisser,
1993; Gilligan, 1981). However, this
speculation is supported by the finding
that changes in empathy during college
were significantly associated with students'
acceptance of sexual diversity. The
ability to infer complex attributions
to the behavior of others and to develop
independent opinions based on an internalized
sense of authority were also demonstrated
as foundations for acceptance of sexual
diversity within the interview responses.
These skills are indicators of cognitive
development (Baxter Magolda, 1990; Chickering
and Reisser, 1993; Fletcher, et. al.,
1986; Perry, 1981).
A relationship between developmental
processes and student attitudes toward
sexual diversity is also suggested by
the fact that students who identified
as liberal were significantly more likely
to accept sexual diversity. A developmental
interpretation of this result is made
with caution for two reasons: 1) both
male and female students were as likely
to become more conservative during four
years of college as they were to become
more liberal, and 2) parental and social
influence are viable alternative explanations
of an individuals' political views.
However, developmental considerations
cannot be ruled out as a relevant context
for interpreting this finding. The strong
relationship between college liberalism
and college attitudes toward sexual
diversity was responsible for significant
decreases in the predictive strength
of students' inclination to change the
social status quo, their degree of cognitive
complexity, and measures relating to
students' sexual orientation. This set
of associations suggests that liberal
attitudes are associated with a greater
degree of acceptance of sexual diversity
in part because liberal students are
1) more likely to resist the status
quo (which is largely heterosexist and
homophobic), 2) more likely to consider
complex social influences on individuals'
behavior, and 3) more likely to have
incorporated a sense of sexual diversity
within their own individual identity.
Developmental theories regarding social
identity (Jackson and Hardiman, 1982),
cognitive development (Baxter Magolda,
1993; Gilligan, 1982; Loevenger, 1976;
Perry, 1981), and sexual identity development
(Chickering and Reisser, 1993; Erikson,
1968) suggest that these attributes
may be outcomes of developmental processes,
thus suggesting that student liberalism
is related to developmental processes.
Finally, interviews demonstrated increases
in the maturity of student responses
and provided examples of the ways in
which complex thought processes support
more positive attitudes regarding sexual
diversity. One student, who entered
college with positive attitudes toward
sexual diversity, came to own these
attitudes more fully while at college,
working through her own internal discrepancies
regarding her attitudes on this issue.
Another student had a strong negative
response to sexual diversity both prior
to college and four years later, but
also conveyed an underlying sense of
respect for the right of individuals
to not fit the heterosexual norm. This
sense of respect, which was clear as
he discussed the hypothetical situation
of having a gay roommate, was not apparent
in his description of his high school
attitudes toward this topic.
Because gender differences were present
at entrance to college, these differences
cannot be attributed to college. Rather,
gender differences in attitudes toward
sexual diversity are explained by gender
differences at entrance to college in
empathy and liberalism (as well as cognitive
complexity although the significance
of this cognitive state seems to be
confounded with empathy and liberalism).
This interpretation is consistent with
the finding that, after four years of
college, acceptance of sexual diversity,
empathy, cognitive complexity, and liberalism
among men were either equal to or lower
than the levels of these cognitive states
expressed by women at entrance to college.
In other words, changes in men's attitudes
regarding sexual diversity during college
are consistent with changes in men's
cognitive states during college, with
the resulting outcome that men's attitudes
and cognitions at the end of college
approximate the attitudes and cognitions
held by women at entrance to college.
This finding further underscores the
importance of exploring student development
when considering student attitudes toward
sexual diversity.
The relevance of gender differences
in cognitive states to gender differences
in attitudes toward sexual diversity
is further emphasized by findings that
indicate similarities in women's and
men's attitudes. While slight differences
were found in the predictors relating
to women's and men's college attitudes
toward sexual diversity, the attitudinal
change process for women and men seems
to be much more similar than different.
This finding strongly supports the conclusion
that the processes by which attitudes
toward sexual diversity develop are
similar for women and men. Thus, even
though women enter college expressing
a higher degree of acceptance toward
sexual diversity than men and become
more accepting than men while at college,
the same types of college-based experiences
are associated with college attitudes
for women and men.
While additional research is needed
to establish the specific links between
student development and student attitudes
regarding sexual diversity, these results
indicate that research on college students'
attitudes toward sexual diversity is
incomplete without due attention given
to student development processes. Additionally,
previous research exploring gender differences
in these attitudes has not distinguished
between the content of attitudes regarding
sexual diversity and the processes by
which these attitudes are formed. Thus,
it is a new contribution to this field
to find that gender differences exist
primarily with respect to the degree
of acceptance expressed by students
while the processes which form this
acceptance tend to be similar across
gender. Future research should explore
why these developmental processes seem
to operate earlier for women than for
men.
Curricular and Co-Curricular Attention
to Sexual Diversity
The interview data provided strong
evidence of the importance of curricular
and co-curricular attention to sexual
diversity. For many students, class
discussions offered the first opportunity
they had ever encountered to consider
sexual diversity in an open, non-derogatory,
and non-reactive environment. The experience
of such a discussion may play a primary
role in increasing students' capacity
to approach issues relating to sexual
diversity with respect and tolerance,
even among students who do not feel
accepting of such diversity. Furthermore,
these formal normative contexts offset
false information and negative stereotypes
with accurate information and more realistic
and contextualized portrayals of lesbian,
gay, and bisexual lives. In this way,
such experiences may promote student
development and assist students in examining
and reconsidering prior assumptions
regarding sexual diversity.
Within the analyses of survey data,
curricular and co-curricular attention
to sexual diversity were predictors
of college attitudes toward sexual diversity
but did not uniquely contribute to the
variance in college attitudes in the
context of other significant predictors.
However, associations between these
formal normative contexts and other
college experiences shed light on the
mechanisms through which curricular
and co-curricular experiences may promote
more positive attitudes toward sexual
diversity. Most notably, curricular
and co-curricular attention to sexual
diversity provide positive (non-threatening)
conditions for contact with lesbians,
gay men, and bisexual people. Additionally,
because curricular and co-curricular
programming represent the formal and
institutionally supported norms of the
university, these are likely to be powerful
settings for conveying an expectation
of general appreciation and respect
for sexual diversity.
Peer Environments of Intolerance
While the general picture of attitude
change presented in this study relates
to the development of more positive
attitudes, this is not the experience
of all students, nor are all aspects
of the college experience associated
with positive attitudes. Some students
who entered college with negative attitudes
continued to display a consistent lack
of acceptance for sexual diversity at
the end of four years of college. Furthermore,
a small percentage of this population
became more negative toward sexual diversity
during these four years at college.
Negative college attitudes regarding
sexual diversity can be attributed to
negative entrance attitudes toward sexual
diversity, lack of contact with lesbians,
gay men, and bisexual people, conservative
political views, and a disinclination
toward empathic thinking, cognitive
complexity, changing the status quo,
or questioning of one's own sexual orientation.
Many of these characteristics and experiences
may be mutually reinforcing given, for
example, evidence of significant associations
between students' political views and
other cognitive states. Specific college
environments in which contact with lesbians,
gay men, and bisexual people is less
likely, such as Science, Business, and
Engineering departments as well as the
Athletic Department, may promote or
reinforce students' negative attitudes
by not providing the conditions under
which stereotypes and assumptions can
be challenged and changed.
In addition to these considerations,
this study identified two environments
that are directly associated with more
negative attitudes toward sexual diversity:
men's involvement in fraternities and
students' involvement in campus-based
religious groups. These two peer environments
seem to promote negative attitudes in
different ways: fraternities discourage
acceptance of sexual diversity among
men who express ambivalent or positive
attitudes toward sexual diversity while
student religious groups reinforce negative
attitudes toward sexual diversity among
those students who enter college with
negative attitudes. This difference
suggests that religion may be used to
justify intolerance of sexual diversity
but does not necessarily promote such
intolerance. Evidence of this conclusion
was provided through the interview data.
For students with negative attitudes
toward sexual diversity, religion was
used as a mechanism for expressing these
attitudes. Students who expressed more
acceptance of sexual diversity either
actively struggled with or distanced
themselves from negative religious norms
regarding sexual diversity.
Fraternities, however, may actively
promote negative attitudes on campus
through peer pressure to conform to
homophobic assumptions and norms. This
conclusion is consistent with research
on fraternity norms regarding sexualized
violence and gender roles (Kalof, 1993;
Sanday, 1990). A similar conclusion
has also been reached through other
single-institution studies: "While most
organizations on campus now pay at least
lip service to the idea of inclusivity,
ROTC and the fraternity system remain
bastions of homophobic resistance" (Michigan
State University, 1992, p. 88).
Openness, Responsibility, and Relationship
This research endeavor provides significant
hope for the feasibility of a community
that includes lesbians, gay men, and
bisexual people and all the various
perspectives, beliefs, and reactions
that exist in response to this minority
group. The results of this study are
indicative of the dynamic nature of
attitudes and the capacity of human
beings for growth and change. Furthermore,
while the interviews did not take place
as direct conversations about the meanings
of sexual diversity and student attitudes,
this document is evidence of the potential
for individuals to engage in discourse
about sexual diversity even across substantial
differences in identity, experience,
and perspective.
This study also provides strong evidence
that the creation of an inclusive community
is not an easy undertaking. My experience
through this research has taught me
that at least three conditions are necessary
for the existence of such community.
First, individuals who are jointly involved
in the creation and maintenance of community
must be willing to impact, and be impacted
by, each other. Barriers, defenses,
and invisibilities negate the possibility
of community. Second, individuals involved
in co mmunity must own and jointly share
the responsibility for confronting the
oppressive structures that threaten
our individual and collective existence.
We each must accept the responsibility
for recognizing humanity in each other
and be willing to work toward eliminating
dehumanizing assumptions and behaviors.
Third, interdependent relationships
motivate and sustain our ability to
connect across difference. By acknowledging
our need and appreciation for each other,
we become able to survive the difficult
dialogues and willing to do the work
that our growth requires.
This piece has been excerpted from
"Diversity's Closet: Student Attitudes
Toward Lesbians, Gay Men, And Bisexual
People on a Multicultural Campus" by
Diana Kardia. If you would like more
information on this study you may email
the author at: dbk@umich.edu.
|
