In this study, we examined the impact of a course, the Psychology of Homosexuality, on heterosexual students' attitudes toward and knowledge about sexual minorities (i.e., lesbians, gay men, bisexual men and women, and transgendered persons). We investigated who enrolled in a class about sexual diversity and what they most wanted to learn. Enrolled students reported increased exposure to issues of homosexuality since entering college, and many had sexual minority friends. At preclass, students were most interested in knowing why people are homosexual, whereas at postclass they were interested in supporting someone coming out. Students left the class with significantly decreased homophobia. We discuss the most effective teaching strategies and additional recommendations for discussing sexual diversity in the classroom.
One appeal of a liberal arts education, in general, and the field of psychology, in particular, is the opportunity for students to explore and discuss important personal and societal issues. Courses like Prejudice and Stereotyping and The Psychology of Women are increasingly included in college curricula and prove popular with students. Many psychologists agree that allowing time in the classroom for discussion of diversity issues and the development of specialized courses on diversity are important (Simoni, Sexton-Radek, Yescavage, Richard, & Lundquist, 1999). However, the topic of homosexuality is not often discussed in the general psychology classroom (Simoni, 1996).
This lack of open discussion about sexual diversity could contribute to discrimination against sexual minorities on college campuses (Evans & D'Augelli, 1996). D'Augelli (1992) reported that of 121 undergraduate gay men and lesbians responding to a questionnaire, 77% had been verbally harassed, 27% had been threatened with physical violence, 13% had had property damaged, 22% had been chased, and 5% had been physically assaulted. Other researchers (e.g., Herek, 1993) have reported similar findings. Most frequently, the perpetrators of these crimes were other students (D'Augelli, 1992).
Psychoeducational interventions such as peer panels (e.g., Geasler, Croteau, Heineman, & Edlund, 1995; Nelson & Krieger, 1997), seminars (e.g., Anderson, 1981; Martin, 1983), and classroom discussion (e.g., Cerny & Polyson, 1984) have improved attitudes toward sexual minorities (for a review of the early literature in this area, see Stevenson, 1988). Hawkins (1993) reported that 52% of students in a human sexuality class entered the class agreeing with the statement that "homosexuality is unnatural," but, by the end of the semester, student agreement with this statement had decreased to 18%. Wells (1991) assessed students' homophobia during a semester-long sexuality course after lectures, discussion, small group exercises, films, and a gay and lesbian panel. Students' homophobia decreased significantly during the course of the semester, but no single teaching strategy significantly decreased negative attitudes.
Around the country, a small number of faculty have developed courses specific to sexual diversity, such as the Psychology of Sexual Orientation and the Psychology of Homosexuality. Both heterosexual and homosexual students reported that such courses prove valuable in exploring the topic of sexual diversity in society. However, enrollment by heterosexuals into these courses is often very low (Bohan, 1997). Furthermore, few researchers have conducted studies to determine what students are most interested in, find most valuable, and learn the most about in discussions on sexual diversity (but, see McCord & Herzog, 1991).
Determining what students want to know and find most interesting about the topic of sexual diversity will enable educators to include appropriate information in introductory and advanced psychology classes. The four goals of this study were to determine (a) who enrolled into a Psychology of Homosexuality class, (b) what topics about homosexuality were of most interest to the enrolled students, (c) what effect attending a class about homosexuality had on students' homophobia, and (d) what teaching strategies were most valuable for students.
At the beginning of the semester, 114 students (71 women, 43 men) enrolled in the Spring 1997 Psychology of Homosexuality class at a private, midwestern university. All students had completed Introductory Psychology before enrolling in this course. Not all students were in class for both the preclass and postclass questionnaires; therefore, only data from the 71 students (47 women, 24 men) who completed both questionnaires were included in the analyses. Students created a unique code number to link their preclass and postclass questionnaires. Of those completing only the postclass questionnaire, students who dropped the class could not be distinguished from those who were absent from the final class session. However, students completing both questionnaires did not have significantly different preclass demographics or reported homophobia compared with students who completed only the preclass questionnaire. No student who was in class refused to complete the questionnaires.
The majority of students enrolled in the class were sophomores (53%) and psychology majors (65%). Students ranged in age from 18 to 23, with a mean age of 19.5 years. Seventy-three percent of students grew up in suburban communities, 16% in urban communities, and 11% in rural areas. Students lived in the Midwest (45%), the Northeast (20%), the South (13%), the Mid-Atlantic (10%), the West Coast (6%), or in other regions (7%). The majority of the students, 79% of the men and 55% of the women, reported their sexual orientation to be "exclusively heterosexual." Twenty-two students (31%) reported their gender role on the preclass questionnaire as masculine, 42 (59%) as feminine, and 4 (6%) as androgynous. Three students (4%) did not specify their gender role.
Psychology of Homosexuality course content. The Psychology of Homosexuality class has been offered for 5 years and has recently attracted large numbers of students (total enrollment in 1995 was 85 students; in 1996 it was 119 students). The topics in this course included theories explaining why people are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered; gender identity and gender roles; a life span developmental approach to sexual minority identity development; bisexuality; transgendered persons; ethnicity and sexual orientation; community, workplace, and political issues affecting sexual minorities; and the physical and mental health of sexual minorities.
In addition to the required textbooks Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Identities Over the Lifespan (D'Augelli & Patterson, 1995) and The Lives of Lesbians, Gays, and Bisexuals (Savin-Williams & Cohen, 1996), students chose an additional book addressing a specific issue about sexual diversity for an in-class group presentation. Possible topics included suicide and sexual orientation, coming out, transsexuals, bisexuality, lesbian development, and ethnic and cultural diversity. Throughout the semester guest speakers from Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays; bisexuality support groups; Catholic, Jewish, and Protestant religious communities; AIDS service organizations; and community mental health organizations also spoke to the class. Lectures included numerous video presentations describing scholarly research (e.g., Changing Our Minds: The Story of Evelyn Hooker, Harrison & Schmiechen, 1992) and popular films and movies (e.g., The Celluloid Closet, Epstein & Friedman, 1996; Torch Song Trilogy, Gottfried & Bogart, 1989; Paris is Burning, Livingston, 1992; Tongues Untied, Riggs, 1989). The course was rigorous, including two exams and an in-class oral presentation.
Preclass questionnaire. During the first class period, students completed a questionnaire that included student demographic information, questions about the number of openly gay friends and family members each student had, the number of films or presentations students had seen addressing homosexuality before the class, and whether the student had ever been the victim of any verbal or physical attacks based on sexual orientation.
Students then responded to the Index of Homophobia (IHP; Hudson & Ricketts, 1980), which included questions relevant to a college-student sample. The IHP is a 25-item scale measuring homophobia. To complete the IHP, students respond to statements like, "I would feel comfortable working closely with a male homosexual," using a scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). The reliability of the IHP is .90 (Hudson & Ricketts, 1980). Students had the option not to answer any IHP items that made them feel uncomfortable. We calculated the average IHP score for each student. A mean IHP score of 1 indicated low homophobia, whereas a score of 5 indicated high homophobia.
Students also completed a second measure of homophobia, the Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men scale (ATLG; Herek, 1988). The ATLG is a 20-item questionnaire comprised of two 10-item subscales, one measuring attitudes toward lesbians and the other measuring attitudes toward gay men. Students responded to such statements as "Female homosexuality is a threat to many of our basic social institutions," and "Just as in other species, male homosexuality is a natural expression of sexuality in human men" using a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 9 (strongly agree). The ATLG's reliability is .90 (Herek, 1994). We calculated students' mean ATLG score with higher numbers indicating higher homophobia.
We asked students about their sexual attraction, sexual activity, and sexual orientation (Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948). Students indicated their sexual attraction by responding to the question, "Have you ever had an erotic attraction to a same-sex person" using a scale ranging from 0 (I am only attracted to opposite-sex partners) to 6 (I am only attracted to same-sex partners). Students reported their sexual activity using a scale ranging from 0 (I have had sex with opposite-sex partners only) to 6 (I have had sex with same-sex partners only). Students could also indicate that they had not had sex. Finally, students reported their sexual orientation along a scale developed by Kinsey et al. (1948) ranging from 0 (exclusively heterosexual) to 6 (exclusively homosexual).
The final portion of the preclass questionnaire asked students to rate their interest in discussing 26 possible class topics relating to sexual diversity using a scale ranging from 0 (I have no interest in exploring this topic) to 3 (this is one of the most interesting topics to me). Possible topics included theories of why people are gay, bisexuality, developmental issues (e.g., adolescent dating, suicide), biological differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals, and homosexuality and AIDS.
Postclass questionnaire. During the final class period, students completed a questionnaire that repeated the questions about students' reported sexual attraction, activity, and orientation and reassessed the student's attitudes about homosexuality using the previously administered homophobia questionnaires. Students chose the 10 most interesting and important topics of the course from the 26 topics in the preclass questionnaire. Students then rated how much they learned about all 26 topics using a scale from 0 (I didn't learn anything new) to 2 (after class, I learned a lot). Participants also rated the effectiveness of various teaching methods including lectures, book presentations, movies, and textbook readings in increasing their knowledge about the class topics using a scale ranging from 0 (poor) to 7 (exceptional).
To ensure anonymity, students returned their signed informed consent forms separately from their experimental packets. Human Studies approval also required that students had the option to leave any questions blank that they did not want to answer. Students received no course credit or money for participating.
Students took 20 min in class to complete the preclass questionnaire. They took 10 min to complete the postclass questionnaire, administered 4 months after the preclass questionnaire.
Students reported that they knew, on average, seven gay men, four lesbian women, and five bisexual individuals before the class began. Thirty-nine students (55%) had close friends who were bisexual, 34 students (48%) had gay male friends, and 15 students (21%) had friends who were lesbian. In addition, 8 students (11%) reported having gay male family members, 4 students (6%) had lesbian family members, and 2 students (3%) had bisexual family members. Students had seen, on average, five films (M = 5.08, SD = 3.69) and had attended two talks (M = 2.12, SD = 3.49) with homosexual themes before taking the class. Finally, using a scale ranging from 0 (no exposure) to 7 (daily exposure), students reported that their exposure to the topic of homosexuality had significantly increased from when they were growing up (M = 2.63, SD = 1.62) to when they entered college (M = 4.67, SD = 1.41), t(
We also asked students if they had ever been the victims of antihomosexual verbal harassment or physical assault. Fourteen percent of students had been victims of verbal harassment, but no student reported being physically assaulted.
At the beginning of class, the majority of students described themselves as being attracted only to opposite-sex partners (69%), having sex only with opposite-sex partners (59%), and having a sexual orientation of "exclusively heterosexual" (63%). Twenty-four percent defined themselves as being equally attracted to both sexes; however, only 10% of these students had had sex with men and women, and only 1 student (1%) defined herself as "equal heterosexual-homosexual." Finally, 4% of students reported that they were attracted only to same-sex partners, with only 1 student (1%) reporting that he had sex only with men and was "exclusively homosexual."
At the end of class, the number of students reporting that they were attracted only to opposite-sex partners increased from 69% to 75%. Similarly, the number of students reporting that their sexual activity occurred only with opposite-sex partners also increased from 59% to 69%. The percentage of students who reported their sexual orientation as homosexual remained identical at 1%. The reported increases were not significant, ps > .05.
In examining sexual orientation by gender (see Table 1), men in the course reported identical patterns of sexual activity and orientation preclass and postclass and, in general, reported their sexual orientation to be exclusively heterosexual (79%). Preclass, women reported their sexual orientation to be exclusively heterosexual (55%) or bisexual (30%). Postclass, the percentage of women who reported their sexual orientation as being exclusively heterosexual remained virtually the same (53%), whereas the percentage of women reporting their sexual orientation to be bisexual slightly increased (40%). Their reported sexual activity, however, remained primarily with men (66%). None of the reported changes were significant, ps > .05.
Students had the option of skipping any questions that made them uncomfortable. When completing the preclass questionnaires, 3% of students did not report their sexual attraction, 4% did not report their sexual activity, and 10% did not give their sexual orientation. All 71 students reported their erotic attraction and activity on the postclass questionnaire, with only 3 students (4%) not answering the question about their sexual orientation. From preclass to postclass, the percentage of students who reported that they had not had sex decreased from 25% to 18%.
From preclass to postclass, students' average IHP score decreased from 2.32 (SD = 0.60) to 1.98 (SD = 0.43), paired t(
Table 2 shows the percentage of students who rated 20 class topics most interesting preclass and postclass. To determine the preclass topic interest, we calculated the percentage of students who rated the topic a 3, indicating that they had the most interest in the topic. To calculate postclass interest, we calculated the percentage of students who chose that topic as one of the 10 most interesting topics in the class. We then rank-ordered the percentage of interest in each topic from highest to lowest.
To determine how much students learned about each topic postclass, we calculated the percentage of students who rated the topic a 2, indicating that they had learned the most about the topic. Again, we rank-ordered the percentages from highest to lowest.
Students ranked 7 class topics as one of the 10 most interesting topics both preclass and postclass. These topics were (a) theories of why people are gay, (b) bisexuality, (c) legal issues (e.g., marriage, adoption), (d) media portrayal of homosexuals, (e) developmental issues (e.g., adolescent dating, suicide), (f) biological differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals, and (g) romantic relationships of heterosexuals and homosexuals.
Students lowered their rankings of some of their top 10 preclass topics when they repeated their ratings postclass. The topics that the students thought were less interesting postclass were (a) recognizing other sexual minorities, or "gay-dar"; (b) how sexual minorities want to be treated by heterosexuals; (c) how to know if you are a sexual minority; and (d) dating and relationship patterns of sexual minorities.
Students also discovered that some topics were more interesting than originally expected. New topics they rated in the top i0 at postclass included (a) how to support someone coming out; (b) the process of coming out; (c) discrimination, prejudice, and violence against sexual minorities; and (d) myths about sexual minorities.
Students rated guest speakers as being the most effective teaching method (M = 6.25, SD = 0.94), followed by movies (M = 5.73, SD = 1.36), lectures (M = 5.69, SD = 1.06), and giving a book presentation (M = 5.07, SD = 1.50). Students rated reading the textbooks (M = 4.57, SD = 1.71) and watching other students' book presentations (M = 4.17, SD = 1.37) as being less effective.
This study determined who enrolled in a class on homosexuality, how such a class impacted students' homophobia, what they most wanted to learn, and what they found most valuable. Students enrolling in our course on homosexuality were predominantly heterosexual and had previous exposure to issues of sexual diversity prior to the class. Between 21% and 55% of students in this class had friends who were lesbian, gay, or bisexual. Students also reported a significant increase in their exposure to the topic of homosexuality since they had entered college. Students' homophobia decreased significantly from preclass to postclass.
There are many possible explanations for the observed decrease in students' homophobia. First, students might have overcome their awkwardness about the topic by asking questions in a safe classroom environment. Second, listening to the guest speakers might have helped to dispel some myths and stereotypes about sexual minorities. A third possibility is that a heightened awareness of heterosexism and prejudice against sexual minorities might have increased students' empathy for sexual minorities by the end of the course (Geasler et al., 1995). Finally, a fourth possibility is that the observed decrease in homophobia following the course may simply be a demand characteristic in which students held a positive evaluation of the instructor and the course and felt uncomfortable reporting that they held homophobic attitudes at the end of the course. We attempted to decrease this possibility, however, by having students complete the study anonymously.
The changes in student interest in specific topics were consistent with their decreased homophobia. When the course began, students expressed the most interest in understanding why people are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered and how these individuals are different from heterosexual individuals. The most valuable topic for students by the end of the course, however, was "how best to support someone coming out," an interest that points to an increased compassion and awareness of the difficulties sexual minorities face in society.
Research on sexual diversity and on reducing homophobia in the classroom is still relatively new. A much-needed area of research is how to reach students who do not enroll in courses discussing sexual diversity. Research comparing students in a Psychology of Homosexuality course to students not enrolled in a course would be valuable to determine key differences in attitudes between the groups. If courses like this do lead to long-term decreases in homophobia, future research is also needed to determine which components of the course were most effective in reducing homophobia.
Because most universities do not have courses specifically about sexual diversity, there are other ways to discuss the topic. Specifically, we recommend discussing sexual diversity through individual lectures in introductory or more advanced psychology classes and through campus presentations. Based on our research, discussions about sexual diversity should provide information about the theories about why people are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered; prejudice and discrimination in society against sexual minorities; and how heterosexual students could support someone who is coming out. Including guest speakers or movies is another powerful way to incorporate sexual diversity issues into the classroom. The Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (1997) provides in-class educational materials such as videos and seminars for teachers. We believe that open discussion in the classroom about sexual diversity issues will increase tolerance of sexual minorities on college campuses and will help decrease violence against sexual minorities in society.
Send correspondence to Amy D. Waterman, Department of Psychology, Washington University, Campus Box 1125, 1 Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130; e-mail: aldogget@artsci.wusd.edu.
a n = 24.
b n = 47.
Note. Preclass "most interest" percentages were calculated by determining the percentage of students who chose 3 (this is one of the most interesting topics to me). Postclass "most learned" percentages were calculated by determining the percentage of students who chose 2 (I have learned a lot about the topic). Postclass "most interest" percentages were formed by determining the number of students who chose that topic as 1 of the 10 most important topics in the class. GLB = gay, lesbian, or bisexual.
a Order of each topic out of the 20 topics listed.
Anderson, C. L. (1981). The effect of a workshop on attitudes of female nursing students toward male homosexuality. Journal of Homosexuality, 7, 57-69.
Bohan, J. S. (1997). Teaching on the edge: The psychology of sexual orientation. Teaching of Psychology, 24, 27-32.
Cerny, J. A., & Polyson, J. (1984). Changing homonegative attitudes. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 2, 366-371.
D'Augelli, A. R. (1992). Lesbian and gay male undergraduates' experiences of harassment and fear on campus. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7, 383-395.
D'Augelli, A. R., & Patterson, C. J. (Eds.). (1995). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities over the lifespan: Psychological perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press.
Epstein, R. (Producer & Director), & Friedman, J. (Producer & Director). (1996). The celluloid closet [Film]. (Available from Telling Pictures, 121 Ninth Street, San Francisco, CA 94103)
Evans, N. J., & D'Augelli, A. R. (1996). Lesbians, gay men, and bisexual people in college. In R. C. Savin-Williams & K. M. Cohen (Eds.), The lives of lesbians, gays, and bisexuals: Children to adults (pp. 201-226). Ft. Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network. (1997). GLSEN: Teaching respect for all in our schools [Brochure]. New York: Author. (Available:
Geasler, M. J., Croteau, J. M., Heineman, C. J., & Edlund, C. J. (1995). A qualitative study of students' expression of change after attending panel presentations by lesbian, gay, and bisexual speakers. Journal of College Student Development, 36, 483-492.
Gottfried, H. (Producer), & Bogart, P. (Director). (1989). Torch song trilogy [Film]. (Available from RCA/Columbia Home Video, 3500 West Olive Avenue, Burbank, CA 91505)
Harrison, J. (Producer), & Schmiechen, R. (Director). (1992). Changing our minds: The story of Evelyn Hooker [Film]. (Available from Changing Our Minds, Inc., 170 West End Avenue, Suite 25R, New York, NY 10023)
Hawkins, R. M. (1993). How does the study of a course in "the psychology of human sexuality" affect one's values? Australian Journal of Marriage & Family, 14, 2-9.
Herek, G. M. (1988). Heterosexuals' attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: Correlates and gender differences. The Journal of Sex Research, 25, 451-477.
Herek, G. M. (1993). Documenting prejudice against lesbians and gay men on campus: The Yale Sexual Orientation Survey. Journal of Homosexuality, 25, 15-30.
Herek, G. M. (1994). Assessing heterosexuals' attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: A review of empirical research with the ATLG scale. In B. Greene & G. M. Herek (Eds.), Lesbian and gay psychology: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 206-228). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hudson, W. W., & Ricketts, W. A. (1980). A strategy for the measurement of homophobia. Journal of Homosexuality, 5, 357-372.
Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male. Philadelphia: Saunders.
Livingston, J. (Producer & Director). (1992). Paris is burning [Film]. (Available from Wolfe Video, P. O. Box 685195, Austin, TX 78768)
Martin, C. V. (1983). Treatment of homophobia: I. Corrective and Social Psychiatry and Journal of Behavior Technology, Methods and Therapy, 29, 70-73.
McCord, D. M., & Herzog, H. A. (1991). What undergraduates want to know about homosexuality. Teaching of Psychology, 18, 243-244.
Nelson, E. S., & Krieger, S. L. (1997). Changes in attitudes toward homosexuality in college students: Implementation of a gay men and lesbian peer panel. Journal of Homosexuality, 33, 63-81.
Riggs, M. (Producer & Director). (1989). Tongues untied [Film]. (Available from Frameline Distribution, 346 Ninth Street, San Francisco, CA 94103)
Savin-Williams, R. C., & Cohen, K. M. (Eds.). (1996). The lives of lesbians, gays, and bisexuals: Children to adults. Ft. Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
Simoni, J. M. (1996). Confronting heterosexism in the teaching of psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 23, 220-226.
Simoni, J. M., Sexton-Radek, K., Yescavage, K., Richard, H., & Lundquist, A. (1999). Teaching diversity: Experiences and recommendations of American Psychological Association Division 2 members. Teaching of Psychology, 26, 89-95.
Stevenson, M. R. (1988). Promoting tolerance for homosexuality: An evaluation of intervention strategies. Journal of Sex Research, 25, 500-511.
Wells, J. W. (1991). What makes a difference? Various teaching strategies to reduce homophobia in university students. Annals of Sex Research, 4, 229-238.
By Amy D. Waterman, Washington University in St. Louis; James D. Reid, Washington University in St. Louis; Lauren D. Garfield, Carnegie Mellon University and Sandra J. Hoy, Washington University in St. Louis
