Correspondence regarding this paper should be addressed to Samantha Callahan, Danielle Patrick, Sara Roderick, and Kahla Stygar, Department of Psychology, Lindenwood University, 209 South Kingshighway, St. Charles, Mo, 63301
Party being interviewed in this article is Angela Lee Duckwork Ph.D. Dr, Duckwork is an Associate Professor in Department of Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania
*Publication manual of the American psychological association (6th ed.) (2009). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Please see note below regarding this edition of the APA manual.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Christina McElroy, Department of Psychology, Introduction to Research, Liberty University, 1971 Liberty University Drive, Lynchburg, VA 24515. E-mail: email@example.com
The materials used for this study included PsychMate Student Version 2.0 (St. James, Walter Schneider and Amy Eschman.) Psychology Software Tools, Inc. Along with the PsychMate software, a computer provided by Queens College was used in order to successfully complete the study.
This article addresses the way people view homosexuality. It mentions how society has had to “add on” identities in order to satisfy the different labels that have been added to acknowledge the unique features of those within the realm of homosexuality. It expresses the many different ways people define homosexuality before stating the author’s stance on the issue. The author goes more in depth when she mentions the Civil Rights movement and how we had to give people equal opportunities based on race. She ties that into treating homosexuals as equals because regardless of their sexual orientation, they, too, are humans.
Garner (2013) hypothesized that while the contact hypothesis may not erase prejudice within groups with deeply ingrained beliefs, it is possible that it would increase ambivalence. Similarly, they wondered if contact increased or decreased ambivalence for more liberal-minded participants. To conduct this study, Garner (2013) received data from a large and random survey conducted by the Pew Research Institute that included questions about whether or not the participant has a gay “friend, colleague, or family member”, asked about how strongly they supported gay marriage and accepted gay people. After analyzing results, Garner (2013) found that conservative participants who had a gay member of their social circle showed increased ambivalence compared to those who did not cite a relationship with a gay person. This was true for participants who identified as strong conservatives, evangelical Christians, and republicans.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Langeda Bontemps, Department of Psychology, Longwood University, Farmville, VA 23909. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Social attitudes toward homosexuals have both negative and positive perceptions. Using the category labels homosexual and heterosexual, researchers found that heterosexual male and female participants had more negative implicit attitudes toward homosexuals relative to heterosexual (Breen). Participants have completed an Implicit Association Test (IAT) which is gay men vs. straight men which is made up of good words and bad words (Breen). In regards to positive attitudes, many things have changed over time and a rise in positive attitudes toward homosexuals has grown (Breen). “The right of gay men and lesbians to marry, one might believe that, on average, Americans hold
Heteronormativity is known as the belief that “heterosexuality is the only normal and natural expression of sexuality (Merriam-Webster).” While homosexuality is becoming more accepted in today’s society, heteronormativity is still a prominent issue in the media and life at home. There are various opinions on heteronormativity, some believing that it is not an issue and others believing it is alienating gay individuals. Although it does not affect the majority of households and individuals in the U.S, a solution to heteronormativity would benefit LGBTQ individuals who feel isolated from the rest of society.
Americans receive many messages about support for gay rights ranging from clergy to gay men; however, some are “ambivalent,” or undecided on the issue because of the numerous messages that they are given (Garner 2013: 243). Andrew Garner wanted to test if contact with gays and lesbians would elevate or decline levels of ambivalence among American’s opinions about gay rights (241). While this research question could be discovered in the abstract, the author never states the research question clearly. Garner does provide immense detail about previous studies; however, he lacks clear justification for the study, and the support he provided had to be collectively assumed rather than explained. Assumingly, he argues that by understanding how gay
There are many situations in today’s society where individuals will face the gender role and sex dispute. Homosexuals are frequently associated within this dispute. A male homosexual often possesses feminine qualities and maybe seen as less masculine than a heterosexual male. Some female homosexuals are seen as more masculine and less relational compared to other heterosexual females. Homosexuality has become a very controversial topic in today’s society. The acceptance of homosexuality has grown since previous decades. What are some of the reasons for the growing acceptance of this lifestyle? Results from previous research done by Vincent, Parrot, and Peterson (2011) provided evidence that aggression towards gay men is motivated by gender role enforcement. Participants in this study completed several assessments before viewing a video of intimate behaviors between 2 gay men. Results concluded that the participants did not think the couples were not in compliance with the anti-femininity norm; causing sexual prejudice and aggression. The results confirm that when analyzing the acceptance of homosexuals there are multiple factors that must be analyzed.