The attitudes of 52 counselors and trainees toward homosexuality showed respondents were less likely to accept homosexual persons in eroticized contexts, more likely in noneroticized contexts, with mixed acceptance for homosexuals in sensitive professional positions. Respondents generally accepted homosexuals' civil rights and saw homosexuality as nonpathological and unrelated to morality per se. Social distance theory may explain these results.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllportG. W. (1954) The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
2.
BellA. P.WeinbergM. S. (1978) Homosexualities: a study of diversity among men and women. New York: Simon & Schuster.
3.
BogardusE. S. (1925) Measuring social distances. Journal of Applied Sociology, 9, 299–308.
4.
BogardusE. S. (1931) Contemporary sociology. Los Angeles, CA: Univer. of Southern California.
5.
HudsonW. W.RickettsW. A. (1980) A strategy for the measurement of homophobia. Journal of Homosexuality, 5, 357–372.
6.
JayK.YoungA. (1979) The gay report. New York: Summit.
7.
MilhamJ.MiguelC. L. SanKellogR. (1976) A factor-analytic conceptualization of attitudes toward male and female homosexuals. Journal of Homosexuality, 2, 3–10.
8.
RudolphJ. (1988) Impact of contemporary ideology and AIDS upon the counseling of gay clients. In AtkinsonD. R.HackettG. (Eds.), Counseling non-ethnic minorities. Springfield, IL: Thomas. Pp. 279–292.
9.
SelznickG. J.SteinbergS. (1969) The tenacity of prejudice. New York: Harper & Row.
10.
Vander ZandenJ. W. (1984) Social psychology. New York: Random House.