This study investigated heterosexual adolescents' and young adults' beliefs and attitudes about homosexuality using multiple measures to assess different dimensions of sexual prejudice. The study found that middle adolescents (ages 14-16) were more likely than older adolescents (ages 16-18) and young adults (ages 19-26) to exhibit prejudice related to social interactions with gay and lesbian peers. However, no age-related differences were found in beliefs about whether homosexuality was right or wrong. These findings provide evidence that aspects of sexual prejudice may develop differently depending on the context and measure used.
I Have,” I Would,” I Won’t” Hooking Up Among Sexually Dive.docxwilcockiris
“I Have,” “I Would,” “I Won’t”: Hooking Up Among Sexually Diverse
Groups of College Students
Scott S. Hall
Ball State University
David Knox
East Carolina University
Kelsey Shapiro
Ball State University
Incorporating the intention to “hook up” with whether one has hooked up can distinguish groups with
unique sets of background characteristics and experiences pertaining to hooking up within the college
culture. A large, gender-balanced sample of college students (N � 3,893) from 2 universities that
represented sizable numbers of diverse sexual identities was analyzed for the current study. Results
indicated that within each sexual identity, men were more likely than women to have hooked up (“I
have”) and to be willing to hookup if they hadn’t (“I would”). Across sexual identities, gay/lesbian and
bisexual individuals were more likely to have hooked up than were straight individuals. Gay and straight
individuals were more likely than bisexual individuals to intend to avoid hooking up (“I won’t”).
However, multivariate analyses that accounted for various background, attitudinal, and sexual experi-
ences appeared to account for much of the variation by sexual identity.
Public Significance Statement
This study identified that men as a group and individuals identifying as gay, lesbian, or bisexual were
more likely to have “hooked up” and to be willing to hook up if they hadn’t. Such differences among
sexual identities lessened when diverse beliefs and experiences were accounted for.
Keywords: hooking up, sexual identity, intentions
“Hooking up” has become a major focus of research in sexuality
and relationships of emerging adults, especially college students.
Though definitions vary, a hookup is typically understood to be a
sexual encounter that occurs between individuals who have no
relationship commitment, sometimes who are strangers (Garcia,
Reiber, Massey, & Merriwether, 2012; Lewis, Atkins, Blayney,
Dent, & Kaysen, 2013). Motivations for hooking up include not
having a formal dating scene alternative, sexual gratification,
wanting to fit in, fun/adventure, being too busy for a steady
relationship (e.g., demands of a college-student life), and hope for
a transition into a romantic relationship (Uecker et al., 2015). The
college context promotes hooking-up encounters, with an apparent
cultural expectation that hooking up is integral to embracing the
full college experience (Bogle, 2007; Garcia et al., 2012). Re-
searchers continue to investigate the profile of individuals likely to
hook up, their motivations for doing so, and the outcomes of the
experience.
Yet some college students report never having hooked up (Gar-
cia et al., 2012). Such individuals may be categorized as those who
avoid such encounters (e.g., the strongly religious) or those who
have not had the opportunity. Those who have not hooked up could
thus be meaningfully different from one another, depending on
their intentions related to hooking up. Understanding the charac-.
Attitudes toward suicide may influence the
treatment content and outcomes. Hence, this study aimed to
investigate how public attitudes toward suicide were influenced
by (1) their degree of idealism; and (2) their degree of
relativism. A questionnaire survey with Suicide Perception
Scale and Ethic Position Questionnaire was carried out on 50
male and 50 female participants (aged 21 and above) from
Klang Valley, Malaysia to obtain answer. The findings
supported both hypotheses, indicated that (1) higher idealism is
associated with lower level of acceptance toward suicide; and
(2) higher relativism is associated with higher level of
acceptance toward suicide. In sum, variations in public’s
attitude toward suicide were related to individual differences in
personal ethical ideologies and moral philosophies.
I Have,” I Would,” I Won’t” Hooking Up Among Sexually Dive.docxwilcockiris
“I Have,” “I Would,” “I Won’t”: Hooking Up Among Sexually Diverse
Groups of College Students
Scott S. Hall
Ball State University
David Knox
East Carolina University
Kelsey Shapiro
Ball State University
Incorporating the intention to “hook up” with whether one has hooked up can distinguish groups with
unique sets of background characteristics and experiences pertaining to hooking up within the college
culture. A large, gender-balanced sample of college students (N � 3,893) from 2 universities that
represented sizable numbers of diverse sexual identities was analyzed for the current study. Results
indicated that within each sexual identity, men were more likely than women to have hooked up (“I
have”) and to be willing to hookup if they hadn’t (“I would”). Across sexual identities, gay/lesbian and
bisexual individuals were more likely to have hooked up than were straight individuals. Gay and straight
individuals were more likely than bisexual individuals to intend to avoid hooking up (“I won’t”).
However, multivariate analyses that accounted for various background, attitudinal, and sexual experi-
ences appeared to account for much of the variation by sexual identity.
Public Significance Statement
This study identified that men as a group and individuals identifying as gay, lesbian, or bisexual were
more likely to have “hooked up” and to be willing to hook up if they hadn’t. Such differences among
sexual identities lessened when diverse beliefs and experiences were accounted for.
Keywords: hooking up, sexual identity, intentions
“Hooking up” has become a major focus of research in sexuality
and relationships of emerging adults, especially college students.
Though definitions vary, a hookup is typically understood to be a
sexual encounter that occurs between individuals who have no
relationship commitment, sometimes who are strangers (Garcia,
Reiber, Massey, & Merriwether, 2012; Lewis, Atkins, Blayney,
Dent, & Kaysen, 2013). Motivations for hooking up include not
having a formal dating scene alternative, sexual gratification,
wanting to fit in, fun/adventure, being too busy for a steady
relationship (e.g., demands of a college-student life), and hope for
a transition into a romantic relationship (Uecker et al., 2015). The
college context promotes hooking-up encounters, with an apparent
cultural expectation that hooking up is integral to embracing the
full college experience (Bogle, 2007; Garcia et al., 2012). Re-
searchers continue to investigate the profile of individuals likely to
hook up, their motivations for doing so, and the outcomes of the
experience.
Yet some college students report never having hooked up (Gar-
cia et al., 2012). Such individuals may be categorized as those who
avoid such encounters (e.g., the strongly religious) or those who
have not had the opportunity. Those who have not hooked up could
thus be meaningfully different from one another, depending on
their intentions related to hooking up. Understanding the charac-.
Attitudes toward suicide may influence the
treatment content and outcomes. Hence, this study aimed to
investigate how public attitudes toward suicide were influenced
by (1) their degree of idealism; and (2) their degree of
relativism. A questionnaire survey with Suicide Perception
Scale and Ethic Position Questionnaire was carried out on 50
male and 50 female participants (aged 21 and above) from
Klang Valley, Malaysia to obtain answer. The findings
supported both hypotheses, indicated that (1) higher idealism is
associated with lower level of acceptance toward suicide; and
(2) higher relativism is associated with higher level of
acceptance toward suicide. In sum, variations in public’s
attitude toward suicide were related to individual differences in
personal ethical ideologies and moral philosophies.
Corinne Reczek The Ohio State UniversityAmbivalence in GayAlleneMcclendon878
Corinne Reczek The Ohio State University
Ambivalence in Gay and Lesbian Family
Relationships
Intergenerational ambivalence—the simulta-
neous presence of both positive and negative
dimensions of a parent–child tie—is a con-
cept widely used in family studies. Scholars
have clarified the measurement of psycho-
logical ambivalence, or an individual’s own
feelings of ambivalence toward others. Yet
research has yet to demonstrate whether—and,
if so, how—individuals characterize others as
ambivalent. Moreover, relatively little is known
about ambivalence in gay and lesbian families.
In the present study 60 in-depth interviews
were analyzed to identify what the author calls
perceived ambivalence in the parent, sibling,
extended kin, and “in-law” relationships of
gay and lesbian adults. Perceived ambivalence
is revealed through gay and lesbian adults’
characterizations of family members’ simulta-
neous positive and negative overt and covert
beliefs and behavior. In addition, the author
refines the concept of collective ambivalence,
wherein perceived ambivalence typifies an
entire family unit. The findings further revealed
the importance of broader sociological factors,
such as homophobia, in structuring perceived
ambivalence.
Over the past decade, intergenerational ambiva-
lence has emerged as a central concept for
Department of Sociology, 238 Townshend Hall, 1885 Neil
Avenue Mall, Columbus, OH 43202 ([email protected]).
This article was edited by Kevin M. Roy.
Key Words: ambivalence, gay and lesbian families, intergen-
erational relationships, mid- to late life, qualitative research.
understanding relationships between adult chil-
dren and their parents (Lüscher & Pillemer,
1998). Intergenerational ambivalence brings
together psychological ambivalence—the simul-
taneous experience of opposing feelings or
emotions (Bleuler, 1922)—and sociological
ambivalence—incompatible and conflicting
expectations and norms of behavior, beliefs, and
attitudes (Connidis, 2015; Merton & Barber,
1963)—to articulate how parents and adult chil-
dren experience “opposing feelings or emotions
that are due in part to countervailing expec-
tations” for how each generation should act
(Connidis & McMullin, 2002b, p. 558; Lüscher
& Pillemer, 1998). A significant body of work
demonstrates that, much like positive and neg-
ative parent–child relationships, ambivalent
intergenerational relationships are negatively
related to psychological well-being (Kiecolt,
Blieszner, & Savla, 2011; Suitor, Gilligan, &
Pillemer, 2011), which may in turn lead to stress
spillover and proliferation into other domains
of family life (Pearlin, Aneshensel, & LeBlanc,
1997).
Despite important advances in the ambiva-
lence construct, significant gaps remain. First,
the focus has been nearly entirely on indi-
vidual feelings of psychological ambivalence
toward others, with little attention to the pres-
ence and operation of sociological ambivalence
(Connidis, 2015). Second, a focus on individu ...
httpjcc.sagepub.comPsychology Journal of Cross-Cultur.docxwellesleyterresa
http://jcc.sagepub.com
Psychology
Journal of Cross-Cultural
DOI: 10.1177/0022022194252002
1994; 25; 181 Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology
Deborah L. Best, Amy S. House, Anne E. Barnard and Brenda S. Spicker
Effects of Gender and Culture
Parent-Child Interactions in France, Germany, and Italy: The
http://jcc.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/25/2/181
The online version of this article can be found at:
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology
at:
can be foundJournal of Cross-Cultural Psychology Additional services and information for
http://jcc.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:
http://jcc.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
http://jcc.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/25/2/181 Citations
at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on June 8, 2010 http://jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://www.iaccp.org/
http://jcc.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
http://jcc.sagepub.com/subscriptions
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
http://jcc.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/25/2/181
http://jcc.sagepub.com
from the SAGE Social Science Collections. All Rights Reserved.
at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on June 8, 2010 http://jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jcc.sagepub.com
at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on June 8, 2010 http://jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jcc.sagepub.com
at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on June 8, 2010 http://jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jcc.sagepub.com
at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on June 8, 2010 http://jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jcc.sagepub.com
at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on June 8, 2010 http://jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jcc.sagepub.com
at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on June 8, 2010 http://jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jcc.sagepub.com
at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on June 8, 2010 http://jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jcc.sagepub.com
at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on June 8, 2010 http://jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jcc.sagepub.com
at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on June 8, 2010 http://jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jcc.sagepub.com
at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on June 8, 2010 http://jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jcc.sagepub.com
at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on June 8, 2010 http://jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jcc.sagepub.com
at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on June 8, 2010 http://jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jcc.sagepub.com
at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on June 8, 2010 http://jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jcc.sagepub.com
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/pp/01650254.html
Perspectives on gender development
Eleanor E. Maccoby
Stanford University, California, USA
Two traditional perspectives on gender development—the socialisation and cognitive perspectives—
are reviewed. It is noted that although they deal quite well with individual differences within ...
JOURNAL-Last week we discussed the controversial New Family Str.docxssuser47f0be
JOURNAL-
Last week we discussed the controversial “New Family Structures Study” by sociologist Mark Regnerus, and we saw how fundamental differences in values and assumptions about human nature can result in intractable disagreements about how to interpret the facts of human society. In this 1-3 page Journal reflection, analyze the values that influence research bias, as illustrated by the Regnerus case. Explain the differing assumptions that lead Mark Regnerus and his critics to opposing conclusions about the same data, and evaluate the possibility of value-neutral research about such controversial topics.
WEEK 3 ASSIGNMENT FOR REFERENCE
Was Regnerus's research biased?
The research was slightly biased. The study did not acknowledge the timeframe of the childhood of their participants. The participants underwent childhood between 1971 and 1994. This was a period where the same-sex relationships were outlawed and shunned by the society; therefore, the families of the same sex couples could not be stable or integrated at the time (Saletan, 2012). The research also did not have many classifications for their participants. The intact biological families did not factor in the possibility of having broken homes, but this factor was considered in the lesbian mother and gay father families.
Is it possible to do unbiased research on a politically controversial topic like same-sex marriage?
Doing unbiased research on such a controversial topic is hard. This is because of the challenges that the researcher faces during the research process. The researcher will often encounter a relatively small sample size in the society from which they can draw conclusions. Since the sample size is not representative of the entire population, it may yield biased results (Umberson, Thomeer, Kroeger, Lodge, & Xu, 2015). It is also hard to get a comparison group for the research. This is because of the distinct demographic of the people in the same-sex marriage. These individuals tend to be young, educated and not willing to have a family. It is hard to find a group to compare such individuals too, which may make the research biased.
Should liberals take Regnerus's research thoughtfully, even if they disagree with his conclusion?
Yes, they should. The study, even though flawed, exposed a very important fact; the children from broken homes of the gays have the same issues as children from broken heterosexual homes. This shows that family integrity is essential with every type of home (Saletan, 2012). The investigation also revealed that the effect of broken homes was higher in the gay families than in the heterosexual families. Many of the children who grew up in broken same-sex relationships reported a lower quality of their life than their counterparts. The liberals should take these points into consideration as they are vital for the proper growth of the children.
Did Regnerus break any principles of research ethics? What lessons about research can we lea ...
Coding NotesImproving Diagnosis By Jacquie zegan, CCS, w.docxmary772
Coding Notes
Improving
Diagnosis
By Jacquie zegan, CCS, wC
Specificity in ICD-IO Coding
VALID ICD-IO-CM/PCS (ICD-IO) codes have been required for claims reporting since October 1, 2015. But ICD-IO diagnosis coding to the correct level of specificity—a more recent requirement—continues to be a problem for many in the healthcare industry. While diagnosis code specificity has always been the goal, providers were granted a reprieve in order to facilitate implementation of ICD-IO. For the first 12 months of ICD-IO use, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) promised that Medicare review contractors would not deny claims "based solely on the specificity of the ICD-IO diagnosis code as long as the physician/practitioner used a valid code from the right family."l Commonly referred to as the "grace period," this flexibility was intended to help providers implement the ICD-IO-CM code set and was never intended to continue on in perpetuity. In fact, this CMS-granted grace period expired on October 1, 2016.2
Unfortunately, nonspecific documentation and coding persists. This is an ongoing problem, even though the official guidelines for coding and reporting require coding to the highest degree of specificity. Third-party payers are making payment determinations based on the specificity of reported codes, and payment reform efforts are formulating policies based on coded data. The significance of overreporting unspecified diagnosis codes cannot be understated. In the short term, it will increase claim denials, and in the long term it may adversely impact emerging payment models.3•4 Calculating and monitoring unspecified diagnosis code rates is critical to successfully leverage specificity
44/Journal of AHIMA April 18
in the ICD-IO-CM code set.
An ICD-IO-CM code is considered unspecified if either of the terms "unspecified" or "NOS" are used in the code description. The unspecified diagnosis code rate is calculated by dividing the number of unspecified diagnosis codes by the total number of diagnosis codes assigned. Health information management (HIM) professionals should be tracking and trending unspecified diagnosis code rates across the continuum of care.5
Acceptable use of Unspecified Diagnosis Codes Unspecified diagnosis codes have acceptable, even necessary, uses. The unspecified code rate is not an error rate, but rather an indicator of the quality of clinical documentation and a qualitative measure of coder performance and coding results. Even CMS explicitly recognizes that unspecified codes are sometimes necessary. "When sufficient clinical information is not known or available about a particular health condition to assign a more specific code, it is acceptable to report the appropriate unspecified code."6 It's also important that coding professionals use good judgment to avoid unnecessary queries for clarification of unspecified diagnoses. The official coding guidelines provide explicit guidance for appropriate uses of unspec.
CNL-521 Topic 3 Vargas Case StudyBob and Elizabeth arrive.docxmary772
CNL-521 Topic 3: Vargas Case Study
Bob and Elizabeth arrive together for the third session. As planned, you remind the couple that the goal of today’s session is to gather information about their families of origin. Bob begins by telling you about his older sister, Katie, who is 36 and lives nearby with her three children. Katie’s husband, Steve, died suddenly last year at the age of 40 when the car he was driving hit a block wall. Elizabeth speculates that Steve was intoxicated at the time, but Bob vehemently denies this allegation. He warns Elizabeth to “never again” suggest alcohol was involved. You note Bob’s strong response and learn that his own biological father, whom his mother divorced when Bob was 3 and Katie was 5, had been an alcoholic. When asked about his father, Bob says, “His name is Tim, and I haven’t seen him since the divorce.” Bob shares that he only remembers frequently hiding under the bed with Katie to stay safe from his violent rages. He adds that 5 years after the divorce, his mother, Linda, married Noel who has been “the only dad I’ve ever known.” He insists that his sister married “a devout Christian who never touched alcohol” and attributed the 3:00 a.m. tragedy to fatigue. He adds that a few days before the accident, Katie had complained to him that her husband had been working many late nights and “just wasn’t himself.” Bob speaks fondly of his sister and confirms that they have always been “very close.”
From Elizabeth, who is 31 years old, you learn that she was adopted by her parents, Rita and Gary, who were in their late 40s at the time. They were first generation immigrants who had no family in the United States. Their biological daughter, Susan, had died 10 years earlier after Rita accidentally ran over the 5 year old while backing out of the driveway. Elizabeth surmises that her mother never fully recovered from this traumatic incident and remained distant and withdrawn throughout Elizabeth’s life. Elizabeth describes her father, Gary, as “a hard worker, smart, and always serious.” She shares that most of her family memories were of times spent with her dad in his study, surrounded by books. She states, “He could find the answer to all of my questions in one his many books.” Elizabeth describes herself as the “quiet, bookish type” and attributes her love for books to her father. Like her father in his study, Elizabeth remembers spending most of her adolescence alone in her room, reading, so she would not upset her mother. Looking back, Elizabeth tells you she recognizes her mother’s struggle with depression, “but as a kid, I thought it was me.”
You comment on the vastly different childhood experiences and normalize the potential for relationship challenges under these circumstances. Acknowledging the differences, Elizabeth remarks that Bob’s relationship with his family was one of the things that she was attracted to early in their relationship. Bob agrees with her and comments that Katie and Elizabeth.
More Related Content
Similar to Cognitive Development 21 (2006) 420–440Heterosexual adoles.docx
Corinne Reczek The Ohio State UniversityAmbivalence in GayAlleneMcclendon878
Corinne Reczek The Ohio State University
Ambivalence in Gay and Lesbian Family
Relationships
Intergenerational ambivalence—the simulta-
neous presence of both positive and negative
dimensions of a parent–child tie—is a con-
cept widely used in family studies. Scholars
have clarified the measurement of psycho-
logical ambivalence, or an individual’s own
feelings of ambivalence toward others. Yet
research has yet to demonstrate whether—and,
if so, how—individuals characterize others as
ambivalent. Moreover, relatively little is known
about ambivalence in gay and lesbian families.
In the present study 60 in-depth interviews
were analyzed to identify what the author calls
perceived ambivalence in the parent, sibling,
extended kin, and “in-law” relationships of
gay and lesbian adults. Perceived ambivalence
is revealed through gay and lesbian adults’
characterizations of family members’ simulta-
neous positive and negative overt and covert
beliefs and behavior. In addition, the author
refines the concept of collective ambivalence,
wherein perceived ambivalence typifies an
entire family unit. The findings further revealed
the importance of broader sociological factors,
such as homophobia, in structuring perceived
ambivalence.
Over the past decade, intergenerational ambiva-
lence has emerged as a central concept for
Department of Sociology, 238 Townshend Hall, 1885 Neil
Avenue Mall, Columbus, OH 43202 ([email protected]).
This article was edited by Kevin M. Roy.
Key Words: ambivalence, gay and lesbian families, intergen-
erational relationships, mid- to late life, qualitative research.
understanding relationships between adult chil-
dren and their parents (Lüscher & Pillemer,
1998). Intergenerational ambivalence brings
together psychological ambivalence—the simul-
taneous experience of opposing feelings or
emotions (Bleuler, 1922)—and sociological
ambivalence—incompatible and conflicting
expectations and norms of behavior, beliefs, and
attitudes (Connidis, 2015; Merton & Barber,
1963)—to articulate how parents and adult chil-
dren experience “opposing feelings or emotions
that are due in part to countervailing expec-
tations” for how each generation should act
(Connidis & McMullin, 2002b, p. 558; Lüscher
& Pillemer, 1998). A significant body of work
demonstrates that, much like positive and neg-
ative parent–child relationships, ambivalent
intergenerational relationships are negatively
related to psychological well-being (Kiecolt,
Blieszner, & Savla, 2011; Suitor, Gilligan, &
Pillemer, 2011), which may in turn lead to stress
spillover and proliferation into other domains
of family life (Pearlin, Aneshensel, & LeBlanc,
1997).
Despite important advances in the ambiva-
lence construct, significant gaps remain. First,
the focus has been nearly entirely on indi-
vidual feelings of psychological ambivalence
toward others, with little attention to the pres-
ence and operation of sociological ambivalence
(Connidis, 2015). Second, a focus on individu ...
httpjcc.sagepub.comPsychology Journal of Cross-Cultur.docxwellesleyterresa
http://jcc.sagepub.com
Psychology
Journal of Cross-Cultural
DOI: 10.1177/0022022194252002
1994; 25; 181 Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology
Deborah L. Best, Amy S. House, Anne E. Barnard and Brenda S. Spicker
Effects of Gender and Culture
Parent-Child Interactions in France, Germany, and Italy: The
http://jcc.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/25/2/181
The online version of this article can be found at:
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology
at:
can be foundJournal of Cross-Cultural Psychology Additional services and information for
http://jcc.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:
http://jcc.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
http://jcc.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/25/2/181 Citations
at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on June 8, 2010 http://jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://www.iaccp.org/
http://jcc.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
http://jcc.sagepub.com/subscriptions
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
http://jcc.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/25/2/181
http://jcc.sagepub.com
from the SAGE Social Science Collections. All Rights Reserved.
at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on June 8, 2010 http://jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jcc.sagepub.com
at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on June 8, 2010 http://jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jcc.sagepub.com
at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on June 8, 2010 http://jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jcc.sagepub.com
at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on June 8, 2010 http://jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jcc.sagepub.com
at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on June 8, 2010 http://jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jcc.sagepub.com
at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on June 8, 2010 http://jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jcc.sagepub.com
at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on June 8, 2010 http://jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jcc.sagepub.com
at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on June 8, 2010 http://jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jcc.sagepub.com
at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on June 8, 2010 http://jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jcc.sagepub.com
at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on June 8, 2010 http://jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jcc.sagepub.com
at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on June 8, 2010 http://jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jcc.sagepub.com
at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on June 8, 2010 http://jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jcc.sagepub.com
at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on June 8, 2010 http://jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jcc.sagepub.com
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/pp/01650254.html
Perspectives on gender development
Eleanor E. Maccoby
Stanford University, California, USA
Two traditional perspectives on gender development—the socialisation and cognitive perspectives—
are reviewed. It is noted that although they deal quite well with individual differences within ...
JOURNAL-Last week we discussed the controversial New Family Str.docxssuser47f0be
JOURNAL-
Last week we discussed the controversial “New Family Structures Study” by sociologist Mark Regnerus, and we saw how fundamental differences in values and assumptions about human nature can result in intractable disagreements about how to interpret the facts of human society. In this 1-3 page Journal reflection, analyze the values that influence research bias, as illustrated by the Regnerus case. Explain the differing assumptions that lead Mark Regnerus and his critics to opposing conclusions about the same data, and evaluate the possibility of value-neutral research about such controversial topics.
WEEK 3 ASSIGNMENT FOR REFERENCE
Was Regnerus's research biased?
The research was slightly biased. The study did not acknowledge the timeframe of the childhood of their participants. The participants underwent childhood between 1971 and 1994. This was a period where the same-sex relationships were outlawed and shunned by the society; therefore, the families of the same sex couples could not be stable or integrated at the time (Saletan, 2012). The research also did not have many classifications for their participants. The intact biological families did not factor in the possibility of having broken homes, but this factor was considered in the lesbian mother and gay father families.
Is it possible to do unbiased research on a politically controversial topic like same-sex marriage?
Doing unbiased research on such a controversial topic is hard. This is because of the challenges that the researcher faces during the research process. The researcher will often encounter a relatively small sample size in the society from which they can draw conclusions. Since the sample size is not representative of the entire population, it may yield biased results (Umberson, Thomeer, Kroeger, Lodge, & Xu, 2015). It is also hard to get a comparison group for the research. This is because of the distinct demographic of the people in the same-sex marriage. These individuals tend to be young, educated and not willing to have a family. It is hard to find a group to compare such individuals too, which may make the research biased.
Should liberals take Regnerus's research thoughtfully, even if they disagree with his conclusion?
Yes, they should. The study, even though flawed, exposed a very important fact; the children from broken homes of the gays have the same issues as children from broken heterosexual homes. This shows that family integrity is essential with every type of home (Saletan, 2012). The investigation also revealed that the effect of broken homes was higher in the gay families than in the heterosexual families. Many of the children who grew up in broken same-sex relationships reported a lower quality of their life than their counterparts. The liberals should take these points into consideration as they are vital for the proper growth of the children.
Did Regnerus break any principles of research ethics? What lessons about research can we lea ...
Coding NotesImproving Diagnosis By Jacquie zegan, CCS, w.docxmary772
Coding Notes
Improving
Diagnosis
By Jacquie zegan, CCS, wC
Specificity in ICD-IO Coding
VALID ICD-IO-CM/PCS (ICD-IO) codes have been required for claims reporting since October 1, 2015. But ICD-IO diagnosis coding to the correct level of specificity—a more recent requirement—continues to be a problem for many in the healthcare industry. While diagnosis code specificity has always been the goal, providers were granted a reprieve in order to facilitate implementation of ICD-IO. For the first 12 months of ICD-IO use, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) promised that Medicare review contractors would not deny claims "based solely on the specificity of the ICD-IO diagnosis code as long as the physician/practitioner used a valid code from the right family."l Commonly referred to as the "grace period," this flexibility was intended to help providers implement the ICD-IO-CM code set and was never intended to continue on in perpetuity. In fact, this CMS-granted grace period expired on October 1, 2016.2
Unfortunately, nonspecific documentation and coding persists. This is an ongoing problem, even though the official guidelines for coding and reporting require coding to the highest degree of specificity. Third-party payers are making payment determinations based on the specificity of reported codes, and payment reform efforts are formulating policies based on coded data. The significance of overreporting unspecified diagnosis codes cannot be understated. In the short term, it will increase claim denials, and in the long term it may adversely impact emerging payment models.3•4 Calculating and monitoring unspecified diagnosis code rates is critical to successfully leverage specificity
44/Journal of AHIMA April 18
in the ICD-IO-CM code set.
An ICD-IO-CM code is considered unspecified if either of the terms "unspecified" or "NOS" are used in the code description. The unspecified diagnosis code rate is calculated by dividing the number of unspecified diagnosis codes by the total number of diagnosis codes assigned. Health information management (HIM) professionals should be tracking and trending unspecified diagnosis code rates across the continuum of care.5
Acceptable use of Unspecified Diagnosis Codes Unspecified diagnosis codes have acceptable, even necessary, uses. The unspecified code rate is not an error rate, but rather an indicator of the quality of clinical documentation and a qualitative measure of coder performance and coding results. Even CMS explicitly recognizes that unspecified codes are sometimes necessary. "When sufficient clinical information is not known or available about a particular health condition to assign a more specific code, it is acceptable to report the appropriate unspecified code."6 It's also important that coding professionals use good judgment to avoid unnecessary queries for clarification of unspecified diagnoses. The official coding guidelines provide explicit guidance for appropriate uses of unspec.
CNL-521 Topic 3 Vargas Case StudyBob and Elizabeth arrive.docxmary772
CNL-521 Topic 3: Vargas Case Study
Bob and Elizabeth arrive together for the third session. As planned, you remind the couple that the goal of today’s session is to gather information about their families of origin. Bob begins by telling you about his older sister, Katie, who is 36 and lives nearby with her three children. Katie’s husband, Steve, died suddenly last year at the age of 40 when the car he was driving hit a block wall. Elizabeth speculates that Steve was intoxicated at the time, but Bob vehemently denies this allegation. He warns Elizabeth to “never again” suggest alcohol was involved. You note Bob’s strong response and learn that his own biological father, whom his mother divorced when Bob was 3 and Katie was 5, had been an alcoholic. When asked about his father, Bob says, “His name is Tim, and I haven’t seen him since the divorce.” Bob shares that he only remembers frequently hiding under the bed with Katie to stay safe from his violent rages. He adds that 5 years after the divorce, his mother, Linda, married Noel who has been “the only dad I’ve ever known.” He insists that his sister married “a devout Christian who never touched alcohol” and attributed the 3:00 a.m. tragedy to fatigue. He adds that a few days before the accident, Katie had complained to him that her husband had been working many late nights and “just wasn’t himself.” Bob speaks fondly of his sister and confirms that they have always been “very close.”
From Elizabeth, who is 31 years old, you learn that she was adopted by her parents, Rita and Gary, who were in their late 40s at the time. They were first generation immigrants who had no family in the United States. Their biological daughter, Susan, had died 10 years earlier after Rita accidentally ran over the 5 year old while backing out of the driveway. Elizabeth surmises that her mother never fully recovered from this traumatic incident and remained distant and withdrawn throughout Elizabeth’s life. Elizabeth describes her father, Gary, as “a hard worker, smart, and always serious.” She shares that most of her family memories were of times spent with her dad in his study, surrounded by books. She states, “He could find the answer to all of my questions in one his many books.” Elizabeth describes herself as the “quiet, bookish type” and attributes her love for books to her father. Like her father in his study, Elizabeth remembers spending most of her adolescence alone in her room, reading, so she would not upset her mother. Looking back, Elizabeth tells you she recognizes her mother’s struggle with depression, “but as a kid, I thought it was me.”
You comment on the vastly different childhood experiences and normalize the potential for relationship challenges under these circumstances. Acknowledging the differences, Elizabeth remarks that Bob’s relationship with his family was one of the things that she was attracted to early in their relationship. Bob agrees with her and comments that Katie and Elizabeth.
Cognitive and Language Development Milestones Picture Book[WLO .docxmary772
Cognitive and Language Development Milestones Picture Book
[WLO: 1] [CLO: 1]
Prior to beginning work on this assignment,
Review Chapters 6, 7, and 9 of your text.
Review the cognition and language development milestones from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on the web page
Basic Information (Links to an external site.)
.
Identify one age-group that you will discuss:
Infancy: Birth to 12 months
Toddler: 1 to 3 years
Early childhood: 4 to 8 years
Review and download the
Cognitive and Language Development Milestones Picture Book Template.
The purpose of this assignment is to creatively demonstrate an understanding of developmental milestones as they pertain to cognition and language development.
Part 1:
Based on the required resources above, create a children’s picture book using
StoryJumper (Links to an external site.)
that tells a story about a child’s typical day. Your story must incorporate at least four cognitive and four language development milestones for the age-group you have selected. Your story can be about a fictional child or can be based on a real child. Watch the video,
StoryJumper Tutorial (Links to an external site.)
, for assistance in using StoryJumper.
To complete this assignment, you must
Create a children’s picture book using StoryJumper.
Identify at least four cognitive development milestones appropriate to the age-group selected.
Distinguish at least four language development milestones appropriate to the age-group selected.
Discuss a typical day appropriate to the age-group selected.
Part 2:
Open the
Cognitive and Language Development Milestones Picture Book Template
and complete the following items:
Provide the link to the StoryJumper picture book you created in Part 1.
Indicate which age-group your picture book will discuss.
List at least four cognitive development milestones that are included in your picture book.
List at least four language development milestones that are included in your picture book.
Submit your Word document to Waypoint.
The Cognitive and Language Development Milestones Picture Book:
Must be eight to 10 pages of text in length (not including title page, images, and references page) and formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center’s
APA Style (Links to an external site.)
Must include a separate title page with the following:
Title of picture book
Student’s name
Course name and number
Instructor’s name
Date submitted
Must document any information used from sources in APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center’s
Citing Within Your Paper (Links to an external site.)
Must include a separate references page or slide that is formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center. See the
Formatting Your References List (Links to an external site.)
resource in the Ashford Writing Center for specifications.
CHAPTER 6 SUMMARY
Piaget’s Cognitive-Developmental Theory.
Codes of (un)dress and gender constructs from the Greek to t.docxmary772
Codes of (un)dress and gender constructs
from the Greek to the Roman world
he
By 6th c. BC: Greek male and female dress codes firmly established
Archaic kouros
and kore statues
demonstrate how
the body was
used in the
naturalization of
gender
constructs
The naked male
body in the
classical period:
the Doryphoros as
a heroic athlete-
warrior citizen
Male sexuality: conditions by the patriarchal ideology of
domination, it restricted sexual expression and freedom
in homosexual
relations
and heterosexual
relations
In the classical
period,
while the naked
male body was
idealized and
heroized,
the female naked
body was always
sexualized and
objectified.
Centauromachy (late 5th c.
Bassae): the Greek female is
defenseless and sexualized
(must be defended by Greek
men).
Gendered
nakedness in
mythological
scenes:
the Greek
male is
always
heroized
Amazonomachy (4th c.
Halikarnassos): the non-
Greek female is wild and
sexualized (must be
dominated by Greek men).
Aphrodite (Roman Venus): at first fully dressed
The gradual disrobing of Aphrodite in monumental statues, late 5th to
4th c. BC (Roman copies)
“Venus Genetrix”,
original late 5th c. BC
“Venus of Capua”,
original 4th c. BC
Aphrodite of Knidos,
original 4th c. BC
Late 5th c. onwards: minor goddesses were also represented sexualized in
statues, but only Aphrodite appeared entirely naked by the 4th c. BC.
Nike (Victory), late
5th c., Olympia.
Aphrodite of Knidos by
Praxiteles, 4th c. (Roman copy)
Aphrodite “Beautiful
Buttocks”, Roman
copy (Greek ca. 300).
Doryphoros and
Aphrodite of Knidos
(Knidia or Knidian
Aphrodite), Roman
copies.
What main
differences do you
observe?
Was her nakedness
really threatening to
patriarchy (Andrew
Stewart)?
Or, in what ways
was her nakedness
aligned with
patriarchal ideology?
Could she have been
empowering for
women?
The traditional visual
presence of a divine
statue at the far end of
a rectangular temple
was very different
(Olympian Zeus)
Aphrodite of Knidos was displayed in an unusual temple (round plan), so as to
be seen from all sides, like a beautiful object.
The original
Aphrodite of
Knidos is lost.
Numerous
Roman copies
of the Knidian
Aphrodite exist
(with variations
in details).
“Colonna
Venus” Vatican
Museums.
“Ludovisi
Venus”,
Palazzo
Altemps, Rome
(only the torso
is ancient, the
rest is 17th-c,
restoration.)
Capitoline Venus, Rome
Medici Venus, Florence
Variations on the
“Venus pudica” type,
Greek Hellenistic
originals, Roman
copies.
Are they more modest
or also more shamed?
Latin pudore: modesty,
chastity, shame.
Greek aidos: shame,
modesty
(aidion=vagina)
There is no male “pudicus”
type in Greco-Roman
sculpture.
These unequal gender
constructs are still around
today,
to the detriment of all of us!
There is no male
“pudicus” type in Greco-
Roman sculpture.
An effec.
Coding Assignment 3CSC 330 Advanced Data Structures, Spri.docxmary772
Coding Assignment 3
CSC 330: Advanced Data Structures, Spring 2019
Released Monday, April 15, 2019
Due on Canvas on Wednesday, May 1, at 11:59pm
Overview
In this assignment, you’ll implement another variant of a height-balancing tree known as a
splay tree. The assignment will also give you an opportunity to work with Java inheritance;
in particular, the base code that you’ll amend is structured so that your SplayTree class
extends from an abstract class called HeightBalancingTree, which gives a general template
for how a height-balancing tree should be defined.
As always, please carefully read the entire write-up before you begin coding your submission.
Splay Trees
As mentioned above, a splay tree is another example of a height-balancing tree — a binary
search tree that, upon either an insertion or deletion, modifies the tree through a sequence
of rotations in order to reduce the overall height of the tree.
However, splay trees differ from the other height-balancing trees we’ve seen (AVL trees,
red-black trees) in terms of the type of guarantees that they provide. In particular, recall
that both AVL trees and red-black trees maintain the property that after any insertion or
deletion, the height of the tree is O(log n), where n is the number of elements in the tree.
Splay trees unfortunately do not provide this (fairly strong) guarantee; namely, it is possible
for the height of a splay tree to become greater than O(log n) over a sequence of insertions
and deletions.
Instead, splay trees provide a slightly weaker (though still meaningful) guarantee known as
an amortized bound, which is essentially just a bound on the average time of a single opera-
tion over the course of several operations. In the context of splay trees, one can show that
over the course of, say, n insertions to build a tree with n elements, the average time of each
of these operations is O(log n) (but again, keeping in mind it is possible for any single one
of these operations to take much longer than this).
Showing this guarantee is beyond the scope of this course (although the details of the analy-
sis can be found in your textbook). Instead, in this assignment, we will just be in interested
1
r splay:
N
root
root
2
1
1
2
l splay:
N
1
2
rr splay:
N
N
N
ll splay:
rl splay:
1
2
N
lr splay:
Figure 1: Illustration of the six possible cases for on a given step of a splay operation.
in writing an implementation of a splay tree in Java that is structured using inheritance.
Splay Tree Insertions and Deletions
To insert or delete an element from the tree, splay trees use the same approach as the other
height-balancing trees we’ve discussed in class — first we insert/deletion an element using
standard BST procedures, and then perform a “height-fixing” procedure that rebalances the
tree. Thus, what distinguishes each of these height-balancing trees from one another is how
they define their height-fixing procedures.
To fix the tree after both inser.
CodeZipButtonDemo.javaCodeZipButtonDemo.java Demonstrate a p.docxmary772
CodeZip/ButtonDemo.javaCodeZip/ButtonDemo.java// Demonstrate a push button and handle action events.
import java.awt.*;
import java.awt.event.*;
import javax.swing.*;
publicclassButtonDemoimplementsActionListener{
JLabel jlab;
JTextField jtf;
ButtonDemo(){
// Create a new JFrame container.
JFrame jfrm =newJFrame("A Button Example");
// Specify FlowLayout for the layout manager.
jfrm.setLayout(newFlowLayout());
// Give the frame an initial size.
jfrm.setSize(220,90);
// Terminate the program when the user closes the application.
jfrm.setDefaultCloseOperation(JFrame.EXIT_ON_CLOSE);
// Make two buttons.
JButton jbtnUp =newJButton("Up");
JButton jbtnDown =newJButton("Down");
// Create a text field.
jtf =newJTextField(10);
// Add action listeners.
jbtnUp.addActionListener(this);
jbtnDown.addActionListener(this);
// Add the buttons to the content pane.
jfrm.add(jbtnUp);
jfrm.add(jbtnDown);
jfrm.add(jtf);
// Create a label.
jlab =newJLabel("Press a button.");
// Add the label to the frame.
jfrm.add(jlab);
// Display the frame.
jfrm.setVisible(true);
}
// Handle button events.
publicvoid actionPerformed(ActionEvent ae){
if(ae.getActionCommand().equals("Up")){
jlab.setText("You pressed Up.");
FileClock clock1=newFileClock(jtf);
Thread thread1=newThread(clock1);
thread1.start();
}
else
jlab.setText("You pressed down. ");
}
publicstaticvoid main(String args[]){
// Create the frame on the event dispatching thread.
SwingUtilities.invokeLater(newRunnable(){
publicvoid run(){
newButtonDemo();
}
});
}
}
CodeZip/CBDemo.javaCodeZip/CBDemo.java// Demonstrate check boxes.
import java.awt.*;
import java.awt.event.*;
import javax.swing.*;
publicclassCBDemoimplementsItemListener{
JLabel jlabSelected;
JLabel jlabChanged;
JCheckBox jcbAlpha;
JCheckBox jcbBeta;
JCheckBox jcbGamma;
CBDemo(){
// Create a new JFrame container.
JFrame jfrm =newJFrame("Demonstrate Check Boxes");
// Specify FlowLayout for the layout manager.
jfrm.setLayout(newFlowLayout());
// Give the frame an initial size.
jfrm.setSize(280,120);
// Terminate the program when the user closes the application.
jfrm.setDefaultCloseOperation(JFrame.EXIT_ON_CLOSE);
// Create empty labels.
jlabSelected =newJLabel("");
jlabChanged =newJLabel("");
// Make check boxes.
jcbAlpha =newJCheckBox("Alpha");
jcbBeta =newJCheckBox("Beta");
jcbGamma =newJCheckBox("Gamma");
// Events generated by the check boxes
// are handled in common by the itemStateChanged()
// method implemented by CBDemo.
jcbAlpha.addItemListener(this);
jcbBeta.addItemListener(this);
jcbGamma.addItemListener(this);
// Add checkboxes and labels to the content pane.
jfrm.add(jcbAlpha);
jfrm.add(jcbBeta);
jfrm.add(jcbGamma);
jfrm.add(jlabChanged);
jfrm.add(jlabSelected);
// Display the frame.
jfrm.setVisible(true);
}
// This is the handler for the check boxes..
CoevolutionOver the ages, many species have become irremediably .docxmary772
Coevolution
Over the ages, many species have become irremediably linked. Whether in the context of an arms race or cooperation to conquer new ecosystems, they have no choice but to evolve together . According to Paul Ehrlich and Peter Raven, who introduced the term in 1964, "Coevolution is the evolution of two or more entities caused by the action between these entities of reciprocal selective factors. Organizations must therefore influence each other (Thompson, 1989). Coevolution relates to this week’s theme by the how natural selection affects the ecosystem. The book compares coevolution to an ecological arm race (Bensel & Turk, 2014). One example is a case of bats as stated in the book and their use of echolocation to be able to find insects. One insect that tries to outsmart it is a tiger moth which blocks out and jam’s the bats signal with a high frequency clicks and the bat fly’s erratically to confuse the moth. This is important in adaptation and of evolution of any new biological species. There are two kinds of interactions that happen that can lead to competitive coevolution. One interactions is predation in which one organism kills another organism. The second one is parasitism in which one organism benefits by damaging but not killing another organism.
This term affects living things and the physical world because if we didn’t have the natural selection all our ecosystem who would be extinct including human beings. Many recent studies state that environmental changes have messed with the balance between interacting species and leading to their extinction. When we use the three models of coevolution such as competition, predation, mutualism in organizing and synthesizing ways to modify species interaction when there is climate change in favoring one species over another. Coevolution reduces the effects of climate change and leads to lowering chances in extinction. By getting an understanding of our nature of coevolution in how they interact with different species and our communities interact and respond to the changing climate.
We as human kind must take action and not let our natural system and ecosystem suffer because of our greed for economic growth (Cairns, 2007). We must also be careful of our matriac consumption and forget about ecological and sustainability ethics. (Cairns, 2007). Humans need to take action to better take care of our ecosystem and environment. Morowitz (1992) stated in this journal, “Sustained life is a property of an ecological system rather than a single organism or species.” There are no species that can exist without the ecological life support system even humans (Cairns, 2007). We need to put more effort in taking care of our environment by creating more organizations in getting our communities involved. In achieving sustainability they must guide through ecological and sustainability ethics. There are many challenges that will come but with achieving sustainable use of our planet our environment will .
Coding Component (50)Weve provided you with an implementation .docxmary772
Coding Component (50%)
We've provided you with an implementation of an unbalanced binary search tree. The tree implements an ordered dynamic set over a generic comparable type T. Supported operations include insertion, deletion, min, max, and testing whether a value is in the set (via the exists method). Because it's a set, duplicates are not allowed, and the insert operation will not insert a value if it is already present.
We have implemented the BST operations in a recursive style. For example, inserting a value into a tree recurses down the tree seeking the correct place to add a new leaf. Each recursive call returns the root of the subtree on which it was called, after making any modifications needed to the subtree to perform the insertion. Deletion is implemented similarly.
Your job is to add the functionality needed to keep the tree balanced using the AVL property. In particular, you will need to
· augment the tree to maintain the height of each of its subtrees, as discussed in Studio;
· compute the balance at the root of a subtree (which is the height of the root's left subtree minus that of its right subtree);
· implement the AVL rebalancing operation, along with the supporting rotation operations; and
· call the height maintenance and rebalancing operations at the appropriate times during insertion and deletion.
Code Outline
There are two main source code files you need to consider, both in the avl package:
· TreeNode.java implements a class TreeNode that represents a node of a binary search tree. It holds a value (the key of the node) along with child and parent pointers. It has a height data member that is currently not used for anything. You should not modify this file, but you need to understand its contents.
· AVLTree.java implements an ordered set as a binary search tree made out of TreeNode objects.
The AVLTree class provides an interface that includes element insertion and deletion, as well as an exists() method that tests whether a value is present in the set. It also offers min() and max() methods. These methods all work as given for (unbalanced) BSTs, using the algorithms we discussed in lecture.
To implement the AVL balancing method, you will need to fill in some missing code to maintain the height of each subtree and perform rebalancing. Look for the 'FIXME' tags in AVLTree.java to see which methods you must modify.
Height Maintenance
You'll need to set the height data member each time a new leaf is allocated in the tree. You can then maintain the height as part of insertion or deletion using the incremental updating strategy you worked out in Studio 10, Part C.
The update procedure updateHeight() takes in a node and updates its height using the heights of its two subtrees. It should run in constant time.
You'll need to call updateHeight() wherever it is needed – in insertion, deletion, and perhaps elsewhere.
Rebalancing
You must implement four methods as part of AVL rebalancing:
· getBalance() computes the balance fact.
Codes of Ethics Guides Not Prescriptions A set of rules and di.docxmary772
Codes of Ethics: Guides Not Prescriptions A set of rules and directives that would result in efficient and ethical professional practice would be something clearly welcomed by student and professional alike. However, as should be clear by now, such prescriptions or recipes for professional practice do not exist, nor does every client and every professional condition provide clear-cut avenues for progress. Professional practice is both complex and complicated. The issues presented are often confounded and conflicting. The process of making sense of the options available and engaging in the path that leads to effective, ethical practice cannot be preprogrammed but rather needs to be fluid, flexible, and responsive to the uniqueness of the client and the context of helping. The very dynamic and fluid nature of our work with clients prohibits the use of rigid, formulaic prescriptions or directions. Never is this so obvious as when first confronted with an ethical dilemma. Consider the subtle challenges to practice decisions presented in Case Illustration 7.1. The case reflects a decision regarding the release of information and the potential breach of confidentiality. The element confounding the decision, as you will see, is that the client was deceased and it was the executrix of the estate providing permission to release the information to a third party.
Case Illustration 7.1 Conditions for Maintaining Confidentiality While all clinicians have been schooled in the issue of confidentiality and the various conditions under which confidentiality must be breached (e.g., prevention of harm to self or another), the conditions of maintenance of confidentiality can be somewhat blurred when the material under consideration is that of a client who is now deceased. Consider the case of Dr. Martin Orne, MD, PhD. Dr. Orne was a psychotherapist who worked with Anne Sexton, a Pulitzer Prize winner. Following the death of Ms. Sexton, an author, Ms. Middlebrook, set out to write her biography. In doing her research, Ms. Middlebrook discovered that Dr. Orne had tape-recorded a number of sessions with Ms. Sexton in order to allow her to review the sessions, and he had not destroyed the tapes following her death. Ms. Middlebrook approached Linda Gray Sexton, the daughter of the client and the executrix of the estate, seeking permission to access these tapes of the confidential therapy sessions as an aid to her writing. The daughter granted permission for release of the therapeutic tapes. A number of questions could be raised around this case, including the ethics of tape-recording or the ethics of maintenance of the tapes following the death of the client. However, the most pressing issue involves the conditions under which confidentiality should be maintained. The challenge here is, should Dr. Orne release the tapes in response to the daughter’s granting of permission, or does his client have the right to confidentiality even beyond the grave? As noted, t.
Codecademy Monetizing a Movement 815-093 815-093 Codecademy.docxmary772
Codecademy: Monetizing a Movement? 815-093
815-093 Codecademy: Monetizing a Movement?
Codecademy: Monetizing a Movement? 815-093
9-815-093
RE V : OCT OB E R 1 4 , 2 0 1 5
JEFFREY J. BU SSGANG
LISA C. MA ZZANTI
Codecademy: Monetizing a Movement?
We’re a movement to make education more of a commodity. We’re not just a for-profit company. Our mission would get tainted if we charged consumers for content. We need to be authentic.
— Zach Sims, Cofounder and CEO
Zach Sims and Ryan Bubinski sat in the Codecademy headquarters, an exposed-brick fourth-floor office near Madison Square Park in New York City. In 2011, while in their early twenties, the two had founded Codecademy, an open-platform, online community to teach users to code. By 2014, they had a total of 24 million unique users and a library of over 100,000 lessons. The company had raised a total of $12.5 million in funding and was, on many fronts, an overwhelming success. However, there were still no revenues. The company’s website stated, “Codecademy is free and always will be.”1
The founders, along with the board, had decided that 2014 would be a year of experimentation with different monetization strategies. By June, the cofounders had preliminarily tested two monetization models. The first charged companies for training employees offline on coding skills, a service that the training departments of these companies paid an annual fee to receive. The second monetization model focused on a labor marketplace to match Codecademy users with jobs that corporations and recruiters were seeking to fill.
But 2014 had also been busy in other arenas for the 25-employee company. In April, the company launched a redesign of its website, because, as the Codecademy blog announced, “it quickly became apparent that if we wanted to grow and mature as a brand, we required a thorough redesign of our entire product.”2 The next month, the company announced that they were opening an office in London to work with the British education system and also had forged partnerships with foundations and government bodies in Estonia, Argentina, and France.
As Sims and Bubinski huddled in their glass-walled conference room, they tried to focus on the task at hand—to narrow down their ideas and eventually decide on a viable business model. The two reviewed early results from both experiments to prepare for the upcoming board meeting where they planned to present their findings and propose next steps. The employee-training experiments had yielded promising initial results but would require hiring a sales force, offline instructors, and some content customization to scale. The labor marketplace model promised less friction in scaling but represented a more crowded market opportunity.
Senior Lecturer Jeffrey J. Bussgang and Case Researcher Lisa C. Mazzanti (Case Research & Writing Group) prepared this case. It was reviewed and approved before publication by a company designate. Funding for the develo.
Code switching involves using 1 language or nonstandard versions of .docxmary772
Code switching involves using 1 language or nonstandard versions of a language instead of another language due to setting, conversational partner, topic, and other factors.
Respond to the following in a minimum of 175 words:
When was a time that you engaged in code switching?
Why did you engage in code switching?
What were the potential benefits and potential consequences of code switching in that scenario?
What was the result of your actions?
.
Code of Ethics for the Nutrition and Dietetics Pr.docxmary772
Code of Ethics
for the Nutrition and Dietetics Profession
Effective Date: June 1, 2018
Preamble:
When providing services the nutrition and dietetics practitioner adheres to the core values of customer focus,
integrity, innovation, social responsibility, and diversity. Science-based decisions, derived from the best available research
and evidence, are the underpinnings of ethical conduct and practice.
This Code applies to nutrition and dietetics practitioners who act in a wide variety of capacities, provides general
principles and specific ethical standards for situations frequently encountered in daily practice. The primary goal is the
protection of the individuals, groups, organizations, communities, or populations with whom the practitioner works and
interacts.
The nutrition and dietetics practitioner supports and promotes high standards of professional practice, accepting
the obligation to protect clients, the public and the profession; upholds the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (Academy)
and its credentialing agency the Commission on Dietetic Registration (CDR) Code of Ethics for the Nutrition and Dietetics
Profession; and shall report perceived violations of the Code through established processes.
The Academy/CDR Code of Ethics for the Nutrition and Dietetics Profession establishes the principles and ethical
standards that underlie the nutrition and dietetics practitioner’s roles and conduct. All individuals to whom the Code
applies are referred to as “nutrition and dietetics practitioners”. By accepting membership in the Academy and/or accepting
and maintaining CDR credentials, all nutrition and dietetics practitioners agree to abide by the Code.
Principles and Standards:
1. Competence and professional development in practice (Non-maleficence)
Nutrition and dietetics practitioners shall:
a. Practice using an evidence-based approach within areas of competence, continuously develop and enhance
expertise, and recognize limitations.
b. Demonstrate in depth scientific knowledge of food, human nutrition and behavior.
c. Assess the validity and applicability of scientific evidence without personal bias.
d. Interpret, apply, participate in and/or generate research to enhance practice, innovation, and discovery.
e. Make evidence-based practice decisions, taking into account the unique values and circumstances of the
patient/client and community, in combination with the practitioner’s expertise and judgment.
f. Recognize and exercise professional judgment within the limits of individual qualifications and collaborate
with others, seek counsel, and make referrals as appropriate.
g. Act in a caring and respectful manner, mindful of individual differences, cultural, and ethnic diversity.
h. Practice within the limits of their scope and collaborate with the inter-professional team.
2. Integrity in personal and organizational behaviors and practices (Autonomy)
N.
Code of Ethics for Engineers 4. Engineers shall act .docxmary772
Code of Ethics for Engineers
4. Engineers shall act for each employer or client as faithful agents or
trustees.
a. Engineers shall disclose all known or potential conflicts of interest
that could influence or appear to influence their judgment or the
quality of their services.
b. Engineers shall not accept compensation, financial or otherwise,
from more than one party for services on the same project, or for
services pertaining to the same project, unless the circumstances are
fully disclosed and agreed to by all interested parties.
c. Engineers shall not solicit or accept financial or other valuable
consideration, directly or indirectly, from outside agents in
connection with the work for which they are responsible.
d. Engineers in public service as members, advisors, or employees
of a governmental or quasi-governmental body or department shall
not participate in decisions with respect to services solicited or
provided by them or their organizations in private or public
engineering practice.
e. Engineers shall not solicit or accept a contract from a governmental
body on which a principal or officer of their organization serves as
a member.
5. Engineers shall avoid deceptive acts.
a. Engineers shall not falsify their qualifications or permit
misrepresentation of their or their associates’ qualifications. They
shall not misrepresent or exaggerate their responsibility in or for the
subject matter of prior assignments. Brochures or other
presentations incident to the solicitation of employment shall not
misrepresent pertinent facts concerning employers, employees,
associates, joint venturers, or past accomplishments.
b. Engineers shall not offer, give, solicit, or receive, either directly or
indirectly, any contribution to influence the award of a contract by
public authority, or which may be reasonably construed by the
public as having the effect or intent of influencing the awarding of a
contract. They shall not offer any gift or other valuable
consideration in order to secure work. They shall not pay a
commission, percentage, or brokerage fee in order to secure work,
except to a bona fide employee or bona fide established commercial
or marketing agencies retained by them.
III. Professional Obligations
1. Engineers shall be guided in all their relations by the highest standards
of honesty and integrity.
a. Engineers shall acknowledge their errors and shall not distort or
alter the facts.
b. Engineers shall advise their clients or employers when they believe
a project will not be successful.
c. Engineers shall not accept outside employment to the detriment of
their regular work or interest. Before accepting any outside
engineering employment, they will notify their employers.
d. Engineers shall not attempt to attract an engineer from another
employer by false or misleading pretenses.
e. Engineers shall not promote their own interest at the expense of the
dignity and integr.
Coder Name: Rebecca Oquendo
Coding Categories:
Episode
Aggressive Behavior
Neutral Behavior
Virtuous Behavior
Aggressive Gaming
Neutral Gaming
Virtuous Gaming
An older peer began using slurs or derogatory language
An older peer suggested that the team should cheat
The child witnessed an older peer intentionally leave out another player
An older player suggested that they play a different game
The child lost the game with older players on their team
The child witnessed an older player curse every time a mistake was made
Index:
· In this case aggressive behavior would constitute as mimicking older members undesired behaviors or becoming especially angry or agitated in game. A neutral behavior would be playing as they usually would not mimicking older player’s behaviors or trying to fit in to their more aggressive styles. A virtuous behavior would be steering the game away from aggression, voicing an opinion about the excessive aggression, or finding a way to express their gaming experience in a positive way. The same can be applied for the similar categories in “gaming”.
· Each category can be scaled from 1-7 in which way the child’s dialogue tended to be behavior and gaming wise with a 1 indicating little to no effort in that direction and a 7 indicating extreme effort in that category.
1. What are the different types of attributes? Provide examples of each attribute.
2. Describe the components of a decision tree. Give an example problem and provide an example of each component in your decision making tree
3. Conduct research over the Internet and find an article on data mining. The article has to be less than 5 years old. Summarize the article in your own words. Make sure that you use APA formatting for this assignment.
Questions from attached files
1. Obtain one of the data sets available at the UCI Machine Learning Repository and apply as many of the different visualization techniques described in the chapter as possible. The bibliographic notes and book Web site provide pointers to visualization software.
2. Identify at least two advantages and two disadvantages of using color to visually represent information.
3. What are the arrangement issues that arise with respect to three-dimensional plots?
4. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of using sampling to reduce the number of data objects that need to be displayed. Would simple random sampling (without replacement) be a good approach to sampling? Why or why not?
5. Describe how you would create visualizations to display information that describes the following types of systems.
a) Computer networks. Be sure to include both the static aspects of the network, such as connectivity, and the dynamic aspects, such as traffic.
b) The distribution of specific plant and animal species around the world fora specific moment in time.
c) The use of computer resources, such as processor time, main me.
Codes of Ethical Conduct A Bottom-Up ApproachRonald Paul .docxmary772
Codes of Ethical Conduct: A Bottom-Up Approach
Ronald Paul Hill • Justine M. Rapp
Received: 18 January 2013 / Accepted: 12 December 2013 / Published online: 1 January 2014
� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013
Abstract Developing and implementing a meaningful
code of conduct by managers or consultants may require a
change in orientation that modifies the way these precepts
are determined. The position advocated herein is for a
different approach to understanding and organizing the
guiding parameters of the firm that requires individual
reflection and empowerment of the entire organization to
advance their shared values. The processes involved are
discussed using four discrete stages that move from the
personal to the work team and to the unit to the full
company, followed by the board of directors’ evaluation.
The hoped-for end product is dynamic, employee-driven,
codes of conduct that recognize the systemic and far-
reaching impact of organizational activities across internal
and external stakeholders. Operational details for and some
issues associated with its implementation are also provided.
Keywords Code of conduct � Employee-driven
approaches � Bottom-up development
Corporation, Be Good! Frederick (2006)
That managers and employees are capable of both ethical
and unethical behaviors due to individual and internal
corporate culture factors cannot be denied (Ashforth and
Anand 2003; Treviño and Weaver 2003; Treviño et al.
2006). Over the last decade, as diverse organizational
stakeholders began exerting more pressure on firms to
eliminate unethical conduct, the field of management has
witnessed a proliferation of research on ethics and ethical
behavior in organizations (Elango et al. 2010; Gopala-
krishnan et al. 2008; O’Fallon and Butterfield 2005; Tre-
viño et al. 2006).
However, recent ethical failures, as well as continuous
ethical challenges that organizations face, have led scholars
to conclude that predicting ethical dilemmas is difficult a
priori: ‘‘It is only, when we look back on our conduct over
the long run that we may find ourselves guilty of moral
laxity’’ (Geva 2006, p. 138). What underlies this particular
situation is the inability of organizational elites to monitor
and implement initiatives within today’s complex business
entities (Martin and Eisenhardt 2010; Uhl-Bien et al.
2007). Accordingly, more dynamic approaches to business
ethics is needed, one that spans ‘‘both the individual and
organizational levels’’ of concern (Gopalakrishnan et al.
2008, p. 757).
As a consequence and in reaction to neoclassical eco-
nomics, managers and their employees are expected to go
beyond dictates imposed by the law and marketplace to
fulfill larger responsibilities (Stark 1993). This expectation
is accomplished through adoption of a stakeholder per-
spective that is infused with empathy for people, groups,
and communities that may be impacted by the actions of
business.
Code#RE00200012002020MN2DGHEType of Service.docxmary772
Code#RE00200012002020MN2DGHE
*****************
Type of Service
Presentation task- Attack Vector
Solution
s Step 14: Submit the Presentation
Project Title/Subject
Attack Vector
.
CODE OF ETHICSReview the following case study and address the qu.docxmary772
CODE OF ETHICS
Review the following case study and address the questions that follow:
General Hospital’s staff aggregated its infection rate data for comparison purposes with four other hospitals in the community. The staff members were aware that the data was flawed. They presented a false perception that General Hospital’s postoperative infection rates were lower than those of peer hospitals. The comparison data was published in the local newspaper. The Jones family, believing the data to be correct and concerned about the number of deaths related to hospital-acquired infections, relied on the data in selecting General Hospital as their preferred hospital.
Tasks:
Describe how organizational and professional codes of ethics were violated in this case.
Describe what role an organization’s ethics committee could play in addressing this or similar issues.
400 words APA format
.
cocaine, conspiracy theories and the cia in central america by Craig.docxmary772
cocaine, conspiracy theories and the cia in central america by Craig Delaval
Delaval is a freelance writer and filmmaker and was a production assistant for "Drug Wars." This article was edited by Lowell Bergman, series reporter for "Drug Wars."
Since its creation in 1947 under President Harry Truman, the CIA has been credited with a number of far-fetched operations. While some were proven - the infamous LSD mind-control experiments of the 1950s - others, like the assassination of John F. Kennedy and the crash of the Savings and Loans industry, have little or no merit.
In 1996 the agency was accused of being a crack dealer.
A series of expose articles in the San Jose Mercury-News by reporter Gary Webb told tales of a drug triangle during the 1980s that linked CIA officials in Central America, a San Francisco drug ring and a Los Angeles drug dealer. According to the stories, the CIA and its operatives used crack cocaine--sold via the Los Angeles African-American community--to raise millions to support the agency's clandestine operations in Central America.
The CIA's suspect past made the sensational articles an easy sell. Talk radio switchboards lit up, as did African-American leaders like U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Los Angeles, who pointed to Webb's articles as proof of a mastermind plot to destroy inner-city black America.
One of the people who was accused in the San Jose Mercury-News of being in the midst of the CIA cocaine conspiracy is one of the most respected, now retired, veteran D.E.A. agents, Robert "Bobby" Nieves.
"You have to understand Central America at that time was a haven for the conspiracy theorists. Christic Institute, people like Gary Webb, others down there, looking to dig up some story for political advantage," Nieves said. "No sexier story than to create the notion in people's minds that these people are drug traffickers."
But in the weeks following publication, Webb's peers doubted the merit of the articles. Fellow journalists at the Washington Post, New York Times and Webb's own editor accused him of blowing a few truths up into a massive conspiracy.
Amongst Webb's fundamental problems was his implication that the CIA lit the crack cocaine fuse. It was conspiracy theory: a neat presentation of reality that simply didn't jibe with real life. Webb later agreed in an interview that there is no hard evidence that the CIA as an institution or any of its agent-employees carried out or profited from drug trafficking.
Still, the fantastic story of the CIA injecting crack into ghettos had taken hold. In response to the public outcry following Webb's allegations--which were ultimately published in book form under the title Dark Alliance--the CIA conducted an internal investigation of its role in Central America related to the drug trade. Frederick Hitz, as the CIA Inspector General-- an independent watchdog approved by Congress--conducted the investigation. In October 1998, the CIA released a declassifie.
How to Make a Field invisible in Odoo 17Celine George
It is possible to hide or invisible some fields in odoo. Commonly using “invisible” attribute in the field definition to invisible the fields. This slide will show how to make a field invisible in odoo 17.
Synthetic Fiber Construction in lab .pptxPavel ( NSTU)
Synthetic fiber production is a fascinating and complex field that blends chemistry, engineering, and environmental science. By understanding these aspects, students can gain a comprehensive view of synthetic fiber production, its impact on society and the environment, and the potential for future innovations. Synthetic fibers play a crucial role in modern society, impacting various aspects of daily life, industry, and the environment. ynthetic fibers are integral to modern life, offering a range of benefits from cost-effectiveness and versatility to innovative applications and performance characteristics. While they pose environmental challenges, ongoing research and development aim to create more sustainable and eco-friendly alternatives. Understanding the importance of synthetic fibers helps in appreciating their role in the economy, industry, and daily life, while also emphasizing the need for sustainable practices and innovation.
A Strategic Approach: GenAI in EducationPeter Windle
Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies such as Generative AI, Image Generators and Large Language Models have had a dramatic impact on teaching, learning and assessment over the past 18 months. The most immediate threat AI posed was to Academic Integrity with Higher Education Institutes (HEIs) focusing their efforts on combating the use of GenAI in assessment. Guidelines were developed for staff and students, policies put in place too. Innovative educators have forged paths in the use of Generative AI for teaching, learning and assessments leading to pockets of transformation springing up across HEIs, often with little or no top-down guidance, support or direction.
This Gasta posits a strategic approach to integrating AI into HEIs to prepare staff, students and the curriculum for an evolving world and workplace. We will highlight the advantages of working with these technologies beyond the realm of teaching, learning and assessment by considering prompt engineering skills, industry impact, curriculum changes, and the need for staff upskilling. In contrast, not engaging strategically with Generative AI poses risks, including falling behind peers, missed opportunities and failing to ensure our graduates remain employable. The rapid evolution of AI technologies necessitates a proactive and strategic approach if we are to remain relevant.
Operation “Blue Star” is the only event in the history of Independent India where the state went into war with its own people. Even after about 40 years it is not clear if it was culmination of states anger over people of the region, a political game of power or start of dictatorial chapter in the democratic setup.
The people of Punjab felt alienated from main stream due to denial of their just demands during a long democratic struggle since independence. As it happen all over the word, it led to militant struggle with great loss of lives of military, police and civilian personnel. Killing of Indira Gandhi and massacre of innocent Sikhs in Delhi and other India cities was also associated with this movement.
Model Attribute Check Company Auto PropertyCeline George
In Odoo, the multi-company feature allows you to manage multiple companies within a single Odoo database instance. Each company can have its own configurations while still sharing common resources such as products, customers, and suppliers.
Acetabularia Information For Class 9 .docxvaibhavrinwa19
Acetabularia acetabulum is a single-celled green alga that in its vegetative state is morphologically differentiated into a basal rhizoid and an axially elongated stalk, which bears whorls of branching hairs. The single diploid nucleus resides in the rhizoid.
2024.06.01 Introducing a competency framework for languag learning materials ...Sandy Millin
http://sandymillin.wordpress.com/iateflwebinar2024
Published classroom materials form the basis of syllabuses, drive teacher professional development, and have a potentially huge influence on learners, teachers and education systems. All teachers also create their own materials, whether a few sentences on a blackboard, a highly-structured fully-realised online course, or anything in between. Despite this, the knowledge and skills needed to create effective language learning materials are rarely part of teacher training, and are mostly learnt by trial and error.
Knowledge and skills frameworks, generally called competency frameworks, for ELT teachers, trainers and managers have existed for a few years now. However, until I created one for my MA dissertation, there wasn’t one drawing together what we need to know and do to be able to effectively produce language learning materials.
This webinar will introduce you to my framework, highlighting the key competencies I identified from my research. It will also show how anybody involved in language teaching (any language, not just English!), teacher training, managing schools or developing language learning materials can benefit from using the framework.
Welcome to TechSoup New Member Orientation and Q&A (May 2024).pdfTechSoup
In this webinar you will learn how your organization can access TechSoup's wide variety of product discount and donation programs. From hardware to software, we'll give you a tour of the tools available to help your nonprofit with productivity, collaboration, financial management, donor tracking, security, and more.
Biological screening of herbal drugs: Introduction and Need for
Phyto-Pharmacological Screening, New Strategies for evaluating
Natural Products, In vitro evaluation techniques for Antioxidants, Antimicrobial and Anticancer drugs. In vivo evaluation techniques
for Anti-inflammatory, Antiulcer, Anticancer, Wound healing, Antidiabetic, Hepatoprotective, Cardio protective, Diuretics and
Antifertility, Toxicity studies as per OECD guidelines
Honest Reviews of Tim Han LMA Course Program.pptxtimhan337
Personal development courses are widely available today, with each one promising life-changing outcomes. Tim Han’s Life Mastery Achievers (LMA) Course has drawn a lot of interest. In addition to offering my frank assessment of Success Insider’s LMA Course, this piece examines the course’s effects via a variety of Tim Han LMA course reviews and Success Insider comments.
Cognitive Development 21 (2006) 420–440Heterosexual adoles.docx
1. Cognitive Development 21 (2006) 420–440
Heterosexual adolescents’ and young adults’
beliefs and attitudes about homosexuality
and gay and lesbian peers
Stacey S. Horn ∗
University of Illinois at Chicago, Department of Educational
Psychology, College of Education (mc 147),
1040 W. Harrison St., Chicago, IL, United States
Abstract
Reports on the school climate for gay and lesbian students in
the United States suggest that negative
attitudes toward gay and lesbian individuals are quite common
in adolescence. Very little research, however,
has investigated adolescents’ sexual prejudice from a
developmental perspective. In this study, 10th- (N = 119)
and 12th- (N = 145) grade adolescents and college-aged young
adults (N = 86) completed a questionnaire
assessing their beliefs and attitudes about homosexuality, their
comfort with gay and lesbian students, and
their judgments and reasoning regarding the treatment of gay or
lesbian peers in school. Results indicate
that middle adolescents (14–16) are more likely than older
adolescents (16–18) and young adults (19–26)
to exhibit sexual prejudice related to social interaction with gay
and lesbian peers. Interestingly, however,
age-related differences in beliefs about whether homosexuality
3. S.S. Horn / Cognitive Development 21 (2006) 420–440 421
factors (Altemeyer, 2003; Haddock & Zanna, 1998; Haslam &
Levy, 2006; Haslam, Rothschild,
& Ernst, 2000; Hegarty, 2002; Hegarty & Pratto, 2001; Kite &
Whitley, 1998). Very little research,
however, has investigated these same issues in school-aged
adolescents and virtually no research
has investigated sexual prejudice from a developmental
perspective (Herek, 2000). Reports indi-
cate, however, that the climate for gay and lesbian youth in
school is negative (Bochenek & Brown,
2001; Nairn & Smith, 2003; Rivers & D’Augelli, 2001).
Students frequently report hearing nega-
tive or homophobic comments from other students and school
staff and a high number of students
report that they are harassed on a daily basis by other students
because of their sexual orientation
(Bochenek & Brown, 2001; Rivers & D’Augelli, 2001; Russell,
Franz, & Driscoll, 2001; Savin-
Williams, 1994). Further, there is evidence to suggest that this
type of victimization can lead to
multiple negative developmental outcomes for youth such as
school absence, depression, anxiety,
and suicide (D’Augelli, 1998). This research would suggest that
adolescents hold very negative
attitudes toward homosexuality, generally, and toward their gay
and lesbian peers specifically,
and that these attitudes can have severe consequences for youth.
Yet, we know very little about
the development of adolescents’ beliefs and attitudes about
homosexuality or their evaluations
and reasoning regarding the treatment of gay and lesbian peers.
The purpose of this study was to
investigate age-related differences in adolescents’ and young
adults’ beliefs and attitudes about
4. homosexuality and the treatment of gay and lesbian peers.
The few studies that have been conducted on adolescents’
beliefs and attitudes about homosex-
uality present conflicting results. In some studies, the results
suggest that, with age, adolescents
become more prejudiced against gay and lesbian people (Baker
& Fishbein, 1998). In other stud-
ies, however, the results suggest that there are no age-related
differences in adolescents’ sexual
prejudice (Morrison, McLeod, Morrison, & Anderson, 1997;
Nairn & Smith, 2003; Price, 1982)
or that adolescents become less prejudiced of gay and lesbian
people with age (Marsiglio, 1993;
Van de Ven, 1994; Van de Ven, Bornholt, & Bailey, 1996). One
reason for these discrepant results
is that studies investigating sexual prejudice amongst
adolescents have used varied measures and
as such, they may be tapping into different dimensions of sexual
prejudice, some of which may be
sensitive to age-related or developmental differences and others
not. For example, in some studies,
the investigators obtained a single sexual prejudice score
comprised of averaging participants’
responses across a number of items ranging from beliefs about
the nature of homosexuality, to
stereotypes about gay and lesbian people, to attitudes toward
gay and lesbian rights (see Baker &
Fishbein, 1998; Morrison et al., 1997; Price, 1982). In other
studies, however, the investigators
have used more focused indicators such as willingness to be
friends with a gay or lesbian person
or affective reactions to same-sex sexual behavior (see
Marsiglio, 1993).
Researchers have argued that using a single score from a multi-
5. item measure of sexual prejudice
limits our understanding of individuals’ beliefs and attitudes
because it treats sexual prejudice
as a single structure rather than as a multifaceted and
multidimensional construct (Hegarty &
Pratto, 2001; Van de Ven, 1994). Recent research on intergroup
relations, more generally, pro-
vides evidence that discrimination and prejudice based on
gender and race are multifaceted and
involves multiple dimensions or domains of social reasoning
(Horn, 2006; Horn & Nucci, 2003;
Killen, Margie, & Sinno, 2006). In fact, Killen et al. argue that
“children’s prejudicial attitudes
are a product of their reflection on their social experiences,
which includes a wide array of social
influences, and that these judgments manifest in different ways,
depending on the context, target,
and meaning attributed to the . . . situation” (Killen et al., 2006,
p. 166). Thus, it could be the case
then that an individual could hold the belief that homosexuality
is wrong because of religious
prescription or sanction but also hold the belief that it is wrong
to discriminate against gay and
lesbian people because it is unfair or hurtful to the person.
Further, if these divergent attitudes or
422 S.S. Horn / Cognitive Development 21 (2006) 420–440
beliefs about homosexuality arise out of different domains of
social reasoning that are influenced
by different types of social interactions and social knowledge
we might expect age-related dif-
ferences on some measures of sexual prejudice but not others.
The purpose of this study, then,
6. was to explore the multidimensional nature of sexual prejudice,
as well as, age-related differ-
ences in adolescents’ and young adults’ judgments and
reasoning about homosexuality and the
treatment of gay and lesbian peers in a school. To do this, we
employed social cognitive domain
theory, a developmental theory of social reasoning, as the
primary theoretical framework for the
study.
1. Social cognitive domain theory
Because social cognitive domain theory provides a
developmental framework for investigat-
ing heterogeneity in individuals’ reasoning, research employing
this method is inherently suited
to studying complex social issues. By providing a systematic
and internally coherent account
of the elements that enter into socio-moral judgments, domain
theory affords a basis for under-
standing differences in beliefs about homosexuality and the
treatment of lesbian, gay, bisexual,
and transgender (LGBT) individuals’ and the factors that are
related to variation in people’s
judgments and reasoning about these issues. The central premise
of social cognitive domain the-
ory (herein referred to as domain theory) is that evaluative
social judgments are multifaceted
and draw from several conceptual frameworks or domains of
social reasoning (Nucci, 2001;
Smetana, 2006; Turiel, 1983, 1998). That is, within domain
theory, issues pertaining to human
welfare, rights, and fairness (termed morality), are
distinguished from concepts of social conven-
tions, which are the consensually determined standards of
conduct particular to a given social
7. group that promote group functioning and group identity (such
as gender roles). Further, while
morality and convention deal with aspects of interpersonal
regulation and issues of right and
wrong, a third domain of personal issues refer to actions that
comprise the private aspects of
one’s life (e.g., contents of a diary) and matters of preference
and choice (e.g., friends, music,
hairstyle). Numerous studies have documented that individuals’
understanding of these differ-
ent types of social knowledge arise out of different kinds of
social experiences and interactions
and that individuals (even young children) make distinctions
among these different domains
of social knowledge (Killen et al., 2006). Domain theory posits
that when making judgments
in everyday contexts, then, individuals must coordinate the
personal, conventional, and moral
issues involved in the judgment and bring their knowledge
about these issues to bear on the
situation.
For example, in a study utilizing domain theory to investigate
young adults’ beliefs about homo-
sexuality, Turiel, Hildebrant, & Wainryb (1991) found that
variation in social judgments regarding
homosexuality were related to individuals’ factual assumptions
regarding homosexuality as a nat-
ural form of sexuality. That is, some individuals viewed
homosexuality as psychologically deviant
and unnatural while others viewed homosexuality as a natural
form of sexual expression. Further,
they found that these beliefs were based on culturally mediated
information (such as religious
prescription) rather than empirical science. Thus, many
individuals held assumptions about the
8. “normality” or “naturalness” of homosexuality that were related
to their judgments about the
acceptability of homosexuality. They also found, however, that
individuals’ evaluations of the
psychological “normalcy” of same-sex sexuality were not
perfectly correlated with, nor determi-
native of their judgments about the acceptability of
homosexuality, nor their judgments regarding
the legal regulation of same-sex sexuality suggesting that these
are distinct components of sexual
prejudice. That is, while most individuals viewed sexuality as
inherent to the individual and a pri-
S.S. Horn / Cognitive Development 21 (2006) 420–440 423
vate and personal aspect of one’s life, individuals’ differed in
their beliefs about what constitutes
a “normal” or “healthy” form of sexuality. Moreover, while
some individuals’ judged homosex-
uality to be wrong, they also felt that it should not be regulated
or sanctioned by law because
that would be an infringement on an individuals’ rights (to
freedom of expression, privacy, etc.).
Turiel and co-workers, however, did not investigate age-related
differences in individuals’ rea-
soning about homosexuality, nor did they investigate reasoning
about the intergroup interactions
involving gay and lesbian peers.
Research investigating children and adolescents judgments
about intergroup interactions pro-
vides evidence, however, that one of the factors that influences
how individuals’ coordinate
different domains of knowledge when making decisions about
9. social interactions is age (Horn,
2003, 2004; Killen et al., 2006). Domain theory posits different
developmental pathways within
each domain that may be related to age-related differences in
sexual prejudice. While adolescents’
understanding of the moral domain (issues of fairness, human
welfare, and individual rights) is
fairly developed and stable by middle adolescence,
developmental shifts in the conventional and
personal domains occur during this developmental period
(Nucci et al., 2004; Smetana, 2006;
Turiel, 1983). As children move into adolescence and begin to
establish an individual identity,
they have an expanded understanding of what is within their
legitimate jurisdiction (personal
domain) (Nucci, 2001), as well as a developing understanding
of the nature and purpose of soci-
etal conventions, norms, and authority (societal domain).
Development within the conventional domain moves through
cycles of affirming and negat-
ing social conventions and norms. Early adolescence (ages 12–
14) is a negation phase in which
conventions are seen as “the arbitrary dictates of authority”
(Turiel, 1983). Middle adolescence
(ages 14–16) is marked by an increased understanding of
conventions as important elements of
social systems that serve to structure social relations and
coordinate social interactions among
individuals in a group or institution (Nucci et al., 2004; Turiel,
1983). During this affirmation
period, young people tend to be invested in rigid adherence to
the conventions of their particular
normative reference group (Horn, 2003). In later adolescence
(ages 16–18) and young adulthood
(ages 19–26), while understanding the importance of shared
10. agreements and norms to the func-
tioning of social groups, individuals achieve a perspective on
social systems as being somewhat
arbitrary collections of conventions that are normatively
relative to one another. As a result older
adolescents are less likely to be rigidly invested in adherence to
particular conventions of their
social system than are middle adolescents (Turiel, 1983).
Coupled with these shifts in conventional knowledge are
developmental changes in adoles-
cents’ understanding of the personal domain and identity. That
is, during middle adolescence,
just when students are at the peak of trying on and testing out
different identities for them-
selves they are also at a point where conformity to peer norms
and conventions is seen as crucial
(Clasen & Brown, 1985; Horn, 2006). These developmental
shifts in the conventional and per-
sonal domain affect adolescents’ understanding of different
social issues and types of social
interactions in that at different ages, adolescents will coordinate
and prioritize the domains dif-
ferently in rendering social judgments (Horn, 2003, 2006;
Killen et al., 2006). In relation to
issues of sexual prejudice, given the heteronormative bias
(Nairn & Smith, 2003; Stein, 1995)
present in most schools, the prevailing normative assumptions
regarding sexuality would be het-
erosexuality and students identifying as other than heterosexual
would likely be perceived by
many middle adolescents as not adhering to the predominant
societal conventions or norms
and as such, open to legitimate social sanction (Horn, 2004). In
older adolescence, however,
as individuals become more secure with issues related to
11. sexuality and stable in their own
identity (sexual and otherwise) and as they become les invested
and rigid regarding their under-
424 S.S. Horn / Cognitive Development 21 (2006) 420–440
standing of societal conventions and norms they may be more
able to tolerate views different
than their own and express more tolerance in interacting with
others who do not identify as
heterosexual.
1.1. The current study
To investigate these issues, middle (14–16) and older
adolescents (16–18), as well as young
adults’ (18–26) beliefs and attitudes about same-sex sexuality
were assessed using a self-report
questionnaire. The questionnaire included a number of measures
regarding adolescents’ beliefs,
attitudes, and reasoning about homosexuality and the treatment
of gay and lesbian peers. One set
of measures asked adolescents to render judgments regarding
different types of social interactions
with gay and lesbian peers. The other set of measures asked
adolescents about their individual
beliefs and attitudes regarding homosexuality. While both types
of measures have been used in
research to determine individuals’ levels of sexual prejudice, we
hypothesized that adolescents
would think differently about these different types of questions
because they would potentially
draw upon adolescents’ domain specific knowledge in different
ways and that this would lead to
12. age-related differences in responses to some measures and not
others.
Based on previous research on sexual prejudice (Baker &
Fishbein, 1998; Herek, 1994; Horn
& Nucci, 2003; Morrison et al., 1997; Price, 1982), as well as
developmental research on social
reasoning about sexuality and intergroup relationships (Horn,
2006; Killen et al., 2006; Nucci,
1996, 2001; Smetana, 2006; Turiel, 1983) we hypothesized that
on measures related to social
interaction with gay and lesbian peers, middle adolescents’
would exhibit the most sexual prejudice
and be the least tolerant due to the increased salience of
normative representations of gender
and sexuality to adolescent identities coupled with their rigid
adherence to conventional norms
during this developmental period. Specifically, middle
adolescents would be less comfortable
interacting with gay and lesbian peers in school contexts and
would be more likely to judge the
unfair treatment (e.g., exclusion, teasing) of a same-gendered
sexual minority peers as acceptable.
Further, we hypothesized that middle adolescents would
prioritize their conventional reasoning
(e.g., goes against norms of society) over their moral (e.g., it is
unfair) or personal (e.g., you can
be friends with who you want) reasoning in justifying their
judgments about the treatment of gay
and lesbian peers.
On the other hand, we did not expect age-related differences in
adolescents’ beliefs and attitudes
about homosexuality that did not involve elements of social
interaction. Individuals’ beliefs about
the acceptability of homosexuality (right or wrong), as well as
13. the origins of homosexuality do not
inherently involve the elements of social interaction which draw
upon moral concepts of fairness
and the welfare of others and thus, adolescents would not have
to coordinate these aspects of
their social knowledge with their individual beliefs and
attitudes. Given that individuals’ beliefs
and attitudes regarding homosexuality are likely to based on
culturally mediated information
informed by factual assumptions and stereotypes related to the
normality of homosexuality that
may be more resistant to change, we did not expect age-related
differences on these measures
related to social cognitive development.
Finally, given the robust evidence that men have higher levels
of sexual prejudice than women
(Herek, 1994, 2000; Kite & Whitley, 1998), as well as evidence
that girls are more likely than
boys to judge negative intergroup interactions (e.g., exclusion,
teasing) as wrong because they
are unfair or hurtful (Killen et al., 2006), we also expected that
boys would exhibit greater levels
of sexual prejudice (more negative attitudes and beliefs
regarding same-sex sexuality) than girls
across all the measures.
S.S. Horn / Cognitive Development 21 (2006) 420–440 425
Table 1
Demographic distribution of the sample
Demographic category Middle adolescents Older adolescents
Young adults
14. Age (M) 15.6 17.6 24.6
Gender
Female 75 (63) 80 (55) 57 (66)
Male 44 (37) 65 (45) 29 (34)
Ethnicity
African American 33 (28) 28 (19) 7 (8)
Asian American 3 (3) 8 (6) 10 (12)
European American 61 (51) 84 (58) 48 (56)
Latino/a 7 (6) 6 (4) 17 (20)
Other 10 (8) 19 (13) 4 (5)
Religious denomination
Catholic 16 (13) 30 (21) 38 (44)
Baptist 4 (3) 11 (8) 6 (7)
Protestant 18 (15) 19 (13) 5 (6)
Non-denominational Christian 31 (26) 18 (12) 4 (5)
Jewish 9 (8) 21 (15) 3 (4)
Other 11 (9) 19 (13) 16 (19)
None 30 (25) 27 (19) 14 (16)
N 119 145 86
Values are n (%).
2. Method
2.1. Participants and procedures
Tenth- (44 male, 75 female, M age = 15.6) and 12th-grade (65
male, 80 female, M age = 17.6)
students attending a large suburban high school in the Midwest
and 29 male and 57 female
college-aged students (predominantly juniors and seniors, M age
15. = 24.6) from a medium-sized
urban university participated in the study. The schools from
which the sample was drawn were both
economically and ethnically diverse. For more information on
the demographics of the sample
(see Table 1).
The high school from which the adolescents were recruited was
located in an economically and
ethnically diverse suburb adjacent to a large city in the
Midwest. The median family income was
US $56, 338 with 26% of students from low-income families as
determined by the 2002 Illinois
state school report card (data were collected during the 2001–
2002 school year). The school was
chosen for the study because of its diversity and its willingness
to participate in research regarding
harassment based on sexual orientation. It should be noted that
while the school was fairly pro-
gressive regarding issues related to sexual orientation and
contained a number of the factors that
have been shown to improve the climate for LGBT students (had
an active gay-straight alliance,
anti-discrimination policy that included sexual orientation;
same-sex sexuality was discussed
in the curriculum in a positive manner, and there were out
visible gay and lesbian teachers
on the faculty), there were also teachers and students within this
environment who expressed
homophobic and heterosexist attitudes and comments. Further,
at the time of data collection, the
school had not had any staff development on creating safe
schools for LGBT students, one of
the strongest predictors of a safe school climate for LGBT
students (Szalacha, 2005).
16. 426 S.S. Horn / Cognitive Development 21 (2006) 420–440
Participants were recruited from the required 10th-grade health
or 12th-grade social studies
classes (psychology, sociology, philosophy). Within each grade
the classes were randomly chosen
for participation to ensure a representative sample of students
from each grade level. Approxi-
mately 35% of the students in each grade were asked to
participate in the study and provided
with parental consent and student assent forms. Students were
asked to return the forms to their
teacher regardless of whether they would participate in the
project or not. Of the students asked to
participate, only those students receiving affirmative parental
permission and providing their own
assent were surveyed (58%). Those students who were not given
permission to participate (1%)
or who did not return the parental permission form (41%)2
completed an alternate questionnaire
comprised of educational games during administration to protect
the anonymity of those students
participating in the study.
The university was located in a large Midwestern city and
enrolled students from the surround-
ing city and suburban communities. The university was chosen
because of its diverse population,
as well as its similarity to the high school in terms of student
aptitude. The composite ACT scores
for the high school were 22, while the composite scores for
entering freshman at the univer-
sity were 23. The university had an active gay and lesbian
student group; an office specifically
17. for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender concerns; as well as
a non-discrimination policy that
included sexual orientation and gender identity. Again, while
the University was fairly progressive
in its policies and programs related to same-sex sexuality, bias
motivated crimes against LGBT
identified students and faculty occurred on campus. Participants
were recruited from two classes
offered by the College of Education (one required and one
elective). All of the students consented
to participating in the study. One student chose not to complete
the survey due to the content. The
participation rate was 99%.
2.2. Design
All participants responded to the demographic questions, as
well as questions about their
beliefs and attitudes about homosexuality. Given that research
has suggested that individuals are
more biased and hold more negative attitudes toward gay or
lesbian individuals of their same
gender (Herek, 1994) for the purposes of this initial study, we
chose to investigate evaluations
of exclusion, teasing, and inclusion toward same-gender peers
only. For the measures regarding
comfort with gay and lesbian peers in school contexts
participants were asked about both gay and
lesbian peers.
2.3. Measures
2.3.1. Social interaction measures
We measured participants’ judgments and reasoning about
social interaction in two ways. First,
18. we measured their comfort interacting with gay and lesbian
peers in various school contexts (com-
2 Because we were not allowed to obtain any demographic
information on the students who did not return permission
forms we were unable to compare this group to the participants
in the study. Additionally, we do not know if the students
not returning their forms simply forgot to return the form or
selected themselves out of the study for some other reason. In
classes in which teachers required that students return the form
as part of their course participation the response rate was
close to 100%. Students were asked to return the form
regardless of whether their parents consented to their
participation
in the study or not. In classes where this was not the case the
response rate was typically lower than 30%. While this
may suggest that a majority of students simply neglected to
return their form, it is possible that some students selected
themselves out for other reasons, thus, our sample may be
biased toward individual students and families who are more
accepting of same-sex sexualities.
S.S. Horn / Cognitive Development 21 (2006) 420–440 427
fort judgments). Participants were asked to respond to 10
questions about their attitudes toward
having gay and lesbian peers in a variety of school contexts. For
example, students responded
to questions such as “Having a gay or lesbian student in my
English class would be . . .”. They
could respond using a five-point Likert scale (1 = okay, it
would not bother me at all; 5 = really
bad, it would bother me a lot). A mean comfort score was then
determined by averaging partic-
19. ipants’ ratings across the 10 questions. Scores could range from
1 (extremely comfortable) to 5
(extremely uncomfortable).
We also asked participants to render judgments regarding
different types of intergroup interac-
tions with gay and lesbian peers. Participants were presented
with three scenarios depicting either
a gay or lesbian character who was excluded, teased, or
included by his/her peers. Although all the
characters were gay or lesbian they varied in terms of their
conformity to gender norms regarding
both appearance/mannerisms and choice of activities.3 For
example, “George is a gay male high
school student. He plays on the school baseball team. He is a
“B” student. He dresses and acts
like most of the other guys at school. To all outward
appearances, he seems just like any other
male at the school”. Participants were asked to evaluate whether
or not they thought it was right
or wrong (treatment judgments) for the students to exclude,
tease, or include the target individual.
Judgments were assessed on a five-point Likert scale (1 =
completely wrong; 3 = neither right nor
wrong; 5 = completely all right).
Additionally, for each story we asked participants to choose,
from a set of nine responses,
the reasons that best reflected their opinion for why they
thought the action (exclusion, teasing,
inclusion) was right or wrong. For example, “It is unfair/hurtful
to him”. The responses used
were developed from pilot interviews and informed by the
theoretical framework for the study
(Turiel, 1983; Turiel et al., 1991), and prior work on sexual
prejudice (Herek, 1994). Interestingly,
20. based on these pilot interviews, we determined that two
classifications of religious responses were
necessary: conventional and moral. Conventional religious
responses were those that related to
religious rules, conventions, or dictates of authority (e.g., He is
going against God’s law and
the laws of my religion). Moral religious responses were those
that related to the welfare or
fair treatment of others (e.g., We should treat others as we wish
to be treated ourselves). There
is precedent for this distinction in that research by Nucci
(Nucci, 2001) has documented that
religious adolescents make distinctions between religious
principles that are moral in nature
(regarding fairness, welfare, and justice) and religious
principals that are conventional in nature
(modes of dress, dietary restriction and laws, and prescriptions
regarding certain behaviors). (For
a complete list of justification responses see Table 2.)
Participants could choose more than one
response. While most participants chose only one response, a
number of participants did choose
more than one. Scores were calculated as the proportion of a
participants’ response that fell into
each justification type. Log-linear transformations were
conducted on the proportional scores to
adjust for non-normality (see Winer, 1971; Winer, Brown, &
Michels, 1991).
2.3.2. Beliefs measures
We also asked participants two different types of questions
regarding their beliefs about homo-
sexuality: origins and acceptability. To measure students’
beliefs about how someone becomes
gay or lesbian (origins) they were asked “How do you think
21. someone becomes gay or lesbian?”
and provided with a list of 8 possible reasons from which they
could choose all those that fit their
beliefs (for a list of reasons, see Table 2). As with the social
interaction measures, the reasons
3 For a discussion of results related to gender conformity please
contact the first author.
428 S.S. Horn / Cognitive Development 21 (2006) 420–440
Table 2
Justification response categories for origins of homosexuality,
beliefs about homosexuality, and treatment judgments
Measure Category Justification response
Originsa Biological “Born that way”.
Parental socialization “How the person was raised by their
parents”.
Contagion “Hanging around other gay people”.
Cross-gender friends “Hanging around primarily with people of
the opposite sex”.
Childhood trauma “Victim of sexual abuse”.
Cross-gender activities “Participating in activities that are not
typical of people of the
person’s own sex”.
Choice “Person chooses to be gay or lesbian”.
Other “Please answer in one or two sentences”.
Acceptability
justficationb
22. Religious human equality Gay and lesbian people are also God’s
children.
Contribute to society Gay and lesbian people contribute a lot to
society.
Individual rights People should be allowed to love whomever
they wish; being
gay or lesbian is not a matter of choice, you are who you are;
people who are old enough should be allowed to have
consensual sex with whomever they wish; gay and lesbian
people are just like anyone else.
Religious opposition Against God’s law; goes against the
beliefs of my religion.
Social norms It goes against the norms of society.
Natural order It is unnatural, it is disgusting.
Biological/genetic People are born gay or lesbian.
Danger to society Gay and lesbian people are more likely than
others to engage in
sexual abuse or rape; gay and lesbian people caused AIDS to
exist; gay and lesbian people try to seduce or recruit children
into becoming gay or lesbian.
Other Other (please answer in one or two sentences)
Religious human equality Gay and lesbian people are also God’s
children.
Contribute to society Gay and lesbian people contribute a lot to
society.
Treatment
justificationsc
Fairness/welfare “It is unfair/hurtful to him.”
23. Religious human equality “God teaches us that we should treat
others as we wish to be
treated ourselves.”
Affirms norms “He dresses or acts the way a guy in our society
should.”
Negates norms “He doesn’t dress or act the way a guy in our
society should.”
God’s law “He is going against God’s law or the laws of my
religion.”
Personal choice “Who you hang out with is a matter of personal
choice.”
Unnatural “He is being unnatural/disgusting.”
Hit on “He might hit on them/be attracted to them.”
Accused gay “People might think they are gay if they don’t.”
Fairness/welfare “It is unfair/hurtful to him.”
a How do you think someone becomes gay or lesbian? Circle as
many as apply.
b Based on your answer to question 13, choose the reason(s)
that come(s) closest to why you think being gay or lesbian
is all right, wrong, or neither right nor wrong. Circle as many
reason as apply.
c Why do you think it would be al right or wrong for these
students to (exclude, tease, include) the target?
given were developed from pilot interviews with college
students and informed by the theoretical
model, as well as research on sexual prejudice. Participants
could choose more than one response.
Their origins score was calculated based on the proportion of
their response that fell into each
origins category.
24. S.S. Horn / Cognitive Development 21 (2006) 420–440 429
Finally, to measure students’ attitudes regarding homosexuality
(acceptability judgments) they
were asked “Do you think homosexuality is all right or wrong?”
Responses were given on a five-
point Likert scale response (1 = completely wrong, 3 = neither
right nor wrong, 5 = completely
all right). We also asked participants to choose from a list of 18
statements the reasons for why
they thought homosexuality was right or wrong (acceptability
justification). The reasons given
for this question were also developed from pilot work and
informed by the theoretical model
(social cognitive domain theory) as well as available research
on sexual prejudice and stereotypes.
Participants could choose more than one response. The eighteen
reasons were collapsed into nine
conceptual categories (see Table 2). Participants’ acceptability
justification scores were calculated
based on the proportion of their response that fell into each
category.
3. Results
3.1. Data analysis plan
Findings are first provided for age- and gender-related
differences in participants’ attitudes
about different types of social interactions with gay and lesbian
people (comfort, treatment judg-
ments, treatment justifications). Then, findings related to
differences in adolescents’ beliefs about
homosexuality (origins, acceptability judgments, and
acceptability justifications) are reported.
25. Follow-up tests of simple effects were conducted using
Bonferroni tests or a Bonferroni adjust-
ment was made (pair-wise tests) to maintain a family-wise error
rate of p < .05. Due to the small
number of students who identified their sexual orientation as
gay, lesbian, or bisexual, as well
as the fact that we were interested in heterosexual adolescents’
attitudes and beliefs, we did not
include sexual orientation as a factor in the analyses. Thus, only
those students identifying as
straight were included in the analyses (N = 332).
Due to the demographic differences in the sample, we
investigated the relationships between
ethnicity and religious denomination and the outcome measures
using separate analysis of variance
(ANOVA) tests. These analyses revealed significant differences
related to self reported ethnic-
ity on the following measures: comfort interacting with gay and
lesbian peer, F (4, 253) = 8.07;
p < .01, judgments about teasing F (4, 339) = 6.31; p < .01, and
including F (4, 338) = 5.43; p < .01
a gay or lesbian peer, beliefs about the origins of
homosexuality, F (28, 2373) = 2.10; p < .01, as
well as acceptability judgments, F (4, 338) = 11.835; p < .01,
and justifications for those judg-
ments, F (32, 2712) = 3.25; p < .01. Differences based on
religious denomination were obtained
on the following measures: comfort interacting with gay and
lesbian peer, F (6, 256) = 6.34;
p < .01, as well as acceptability judgments about whether
homosexuality was right or wrong, F
(6, 341) = 6.46; p < .01, and justifications, F (48, 2736) = 2.58;
p < .01. We controlled for these
demographic variables in the subsequent analyses for measures
on which there were significant
26. differences by dummy coding the variables and including them
as covariates.4
3.2. Attitudes regarding interacting with lesbian and gay peers
Overall, we expected that younger adolescents and boys would
exhibit higher levels of sexual
prejudice than older adolescents or young adults and girls
across all of the measures having to
do with social interaction. Younger adolescents and boys would
report being less comfortable
4 For a report on ethnicity and religion differences in
adolescents’ beliefs and attitudes please contact the first author.
430 S.S. Horn / Cognitive Development 21 (2006) 420–440
interacting with gay and lesbian and would be less likely to
judge excluding and teasing a gay or
lesbian peer as wrong, and also less likely to judge including a
gay or lesbian peer as acceptable.
Younger adolescents and boys would use more conventional and
less moral or personal reasoning
in justifying their judgments regarding the treatment of gay and
lesbian peers.
3.2.1. Comfort interacting with gay and lesbian peers in school
A 3 (grade: 10th, 12th, college) × 2 (gender: male, female)
univariate ANCOVA on partici-
pants’ mean comfort score with religion and ethnicity as the
covariate revealed a significant main
effects for grade, F (2, 316) = 9.11, p < .001, and gender, F (1,
316) = 5.35, p < .02. As expected,
27. 10th-graders (M = 1.82) were more uncomfortable interacting
with gay and lesbian peers than
either 12th-graders (M = 1.49), p < .01, or college students (M
= 1.29), p < .001. Additionally, boys
(M = 1.62) were more uncomfortable interacting with a gay or
lesbian peer in school than girls
(M = 1.43). The interaction between gender and grade was not
significant, F (2, 316) = .366, p < .1.
3.2.2. Judgments regarding the treatment of others
To investigate the relationships among age and gender and
adolescents’ judgments regarding
the treatment of others a 3 (treatment context: exclusion,
teasing, and inclusion) × 3 (grade: 10th,
12th, college) × 2 (gender: male, female) ANCOVA with
repeated measures on the first factor was
preformed on adolescents’ judgments. This analysis revealed a
significant main effect for treatment
context, F (2, 650) = 1273.30, p < .001. (M’s inclusion = 4.63,
exclusion = 2.29, and teasing = 1.31).
Additionally, there was a significant main effect for gender, F
(1, 325) = 5.4, p < .001, and a
significant interactions between treatment context and gender, F
(2, 650) = 8.86, p < .001 and
treatment context and grade, F (4, 650) = 6.42, p < .01 (see
Table 3 for means comparisons). The
three-way interaction amongst treatment context, gender, and
grade was not significant, F (4,
650) = 1.88, p > .05.
Follow-up tests of simple effects (Bonferroni t-tests) of the
grade by treatment context interac-
tion revealed that 10th-graders exhibited higher levels of sexual
prejudice in that judged exclusion
and teasing as more acceptable than college students and were
28. also more likely than 12th-graders
and college students to judge including a same-gendered sexual
minority peer as wrong. Across
all grades, however, including a gay or lesbian peer was judged
as the least wrong, followed by
exclusion and then teasing. Follow-up tests of simple effects of
the gender and treatment context
interaction revealed that as expected males were more likely
than females to judge excluding
Table 3
Mean evaluative judgments for excluding, teasing, or accepting
a same-gendered sexual minority peer by grade and gender
Treatment Grade Gender
Tentha Twelfthb Collegec Femaled Malee
Excluding 2.49a (1.14) 2.33 (1.02) 2.02b (1.00) 2.04a (1.03)
2.53b (1.04)
Teasing 1.45a (.75) 1.38 (.57) 1.17b (.35) 1.22a (.49) 1.48b
(.72)
Accepting 4.40a (.99) 4.75b (.56) 4.73b (.63) 4.66 (.75) 4.59
(.78)
Note: Standard deviations in parentheses; means with different
subscripts within grade or gender differ significantly at
p < .01.
a n = 107.
b n = 137.
c n = 82.
d n = 196.
e n = 130.
29. S.S. Horn / Cognitive Development 21 (2006) 420–440 431
or teasing a same-gendered sexual minority peer as acceptable,
however, they were not more
likely to judge including a same-gender sexual minority peer as
wrong (see Table 3 for means
comparisons).
3.2.3. Justifications regarding the treatment of others
In regard to adolescents’ reasoning about the treatment of gay
or lesbian peers a 3 (treatment
context: exclusion, teasing, inclusion) × 9 (justification: affirms
norms, fairness, hit on them,
negates norms, choice, God’s law, unnatural, religious human
equality, think they are gay) × 3
(grade: 10th, 12th, college) × 2 (gender: male, female) ANOVA
with repeated measures on the first
two factors revealed a significant main effect for justification
type, F (8, 2608) = 456.68, p < .001;
significant two-way interactions between grade and justification
type, F (16,2608) = 2.72, p < .01,
gender and justification type, F (8, 2608) = 12.18, p < .001,
treatment context and justification type,
F (16, 5216) = 300.86, p < .001; and significant three-way
interactions amongst treatment context,
grade, and justification type, F (32, 5216) = 4.07, p < .001, and
treatment context, gender, and
justification type, F (16, 5216) = 3.6, p < .001. No other
significant effects were obtained, ps > .1.
Overall, adolescents used moral reasoning (fairness, religious
human equality) most frequently
for the teasing context followed by the exclusion context.
Conversely, adolescents used personal
choice reasoning most frequently for the inclusion context
30. followed by the exclusion context.
Finally, social norms reasoning was used most frequently for
the inclusion context, followed by
the exclusion context (see Table 4 for means).
Additionally, follow-up tests of the grade, treatment context,
and justification interaction par-
tially confirmed our expectations (see Tables 5 and 6 for means
and comparisons). In regard to
societal or conventional reasoning, 10th-graders used “affirms
norms” college students as reasons
for why it was acceptable or wrong to exclude or include, but
not tease, a same-gender sexual
minority peer. Tenth-graders also used “negates norms”
justifications more frequently than college
students across all three treatment contexts and more frequently
than 12th-graders for excluding
and including but not teasing. Additionally, 10th-graders used
“God’s law” justifications more
frequently than either 12th-graders or college students for all
three treatment contexts. In regard
to moral justifications, 10th-graders used “fairness/harm”
justifications less frequently than 12th-
graders and college students, as expected, but only for
justifying why it was acceptable or wrong
to tease a same-gender sexual minority peer. The expected grade
differences in the use of “fair-
ness/harm” justifications for excluding and including were not
obtained nor were the expected
Table 4
Percentage of adolescents’ justifications for exclusion, teasing,
and acceptance judgments
Justification category Treatment
31. Excluding Teasing Accepting
Affirm norms .03a (.07) .02b (.07) .03b (.09)
Fairness/harm .29a (.31) .56b (.31) .06c (.16)
Hit on them .02a (.07) .01b (.06) .00b (.04)
Negate norms .02a (.06) .02a (.07) .01b (.04)
Choice .43a (.36) .09b (.16) .68c (.40)
God’s law .01 (.06) .01 (.06) .01 (.04)
Unnatural .01a (.04) .01b (.06) .00a (.02)
Religious human equality .15a (.20) .24b (.24) .18b (.24)
Think gay .01 (.07) .01 (.06) .01 (.06)
Note: Standard deviations in parentheses; N = 332; means with
different subscripts differ significantly at p < .01.
432 S.S. Horn / Cognitive Development 21 (2006) 420–440
Table 5
Age-related differences in adolescents’ justifications for
exclusion, teasing, and acceptance judgments
Justification Treatment and grade
Excluding Teasing Accepting
Tenth Twelfth College Tenth Twelfth College Tenth Twelfth
College
Affirm norms .04a (.06) .02 (.06) .01b (.06) .03 (.07) .02 (.07)
.02 (.07) .05a (.07) .04 (.08) .02b (.09)
Fairness/harm .27 (.30) .30 (.29) .32 (.31) .50a (.30) .61b (.29)
.57b (.31) .10 (.16) .04 (.15) .04 (.26)
Hit on them .04 (.07) .02 (.07) .01 (.07) .01 (.05) .01 (.07) .01
(.05) .02a (.04) .01b (.05) .00b (.05)
32. Negate norms .03a (.06) .01b (.06) .01b (.06) .03a (.06) .01
(.06) .00b (.06) .02a (.03) .00b (.04) .00b (.04)
Choice .38 (.36) .45 (.35) .46 (.37) .10 (.06) .07 (.15) .09 (.16)
.56a (.38) .72b (.37) .75b (.40)
God’s law .02a (.05) .01b (.05) .00b (.05) .02a (.05) .01b (.05)
.00b (.05) .01 (.04) .01 (.04) .00 (.05)
Unnatural .01 (.04) .01 (.04) .00 (.05) .02 (.06) .01 (.06) .00
(.06) .01 (.02) .00 (.02) .00 (.02)
RHQ .16 (.19) .13 (.19) .16 (.20) .24 (.23) .21 (.22) .27 (.24) .19
(.24) .15 (.23) .19 (.25)
Think gay .02 (.06) .01 (.06) .01 (.06) .02 (.06) .01 (.06) .01
(.06) .02 (.04) .01 (.05) .00 (.05)
Note: Standard deviations in parenthesis. Tenth n = 107; 12th n
= 137; college n = 83; means with different subscripts
within treatment different at p < .01.
differences in the use of “religious human equality”
justifications. The expected grade differences
in the frequency of use of “personal choice” justifications, as
well as in the frequency of use
of stereotypes were obtained. That is, 12th-graders and college
students used “personal choice”
justification more frequently and ”hit on them“justifications
less frequently in response to why it
was all right or not all right to include a same-gendered sexual
minority peer.
Finally, follow-up tests of simple effects of the gender,
treatment context, and justification
interaction revealed that, as expected, girls used “religious
human equality” justifications more
frequently than boys across the treatment contexts. Boys, on the
other hand, used “personal
choice” justifications more frequently than girls across the
treatment contexts. Partially confirming
33. expectations, girls also used “fairness/harm” justifications more
frequently than boys but only for
the exclusion context. The expected gender difference in social
norms reasoning was not obtained
(see Table 6 for means comparisons).
Table 6
Gender differences in adolescents’ justifications for exclusion,
teasing, and acceptance judgments
Justification category Treatment and gender
Excluding Teasing Accepting
Female Male Female Male Female Male
Affirm norms .03 (.06) .02 (.07) .03 (.07) .02 (.07) .04 (.08) .03
(.09)
Fairness/harm .36a (.29) .23b (.31) .57 (.29) .55 (.31) .06 (.15)
.05 (.16)
Hit on them .02 (.07) .03 (.08) .01 (.04) .01 (.05) .01 (.04) .01
(.05)
Negate norms .01 (.06) .02 (.06) .01 (.07) .02 (.07) .01 (.03) .01
(.03)
Choice .35a (.35) .51b (.36) .06a (.15) .12b (.16) .62a (.38) .73b
(.40)
God’s law .01 (.06) .01 (.06) .01 (.04) .00 (.05) .01 (.04) .01
(.05)
Unnatural .01 (.04) .01 (.05) .01 (.06) .01 (.06) .00 (.01) .00
(.02)
RHQ .18a (.18) .12b (.19) .27a (.22) .21b (.24) .22a (.22) .13b
(.24)
Think gay .01 (.06) .02 (.07) .01 (.06) .01 (.06) .01 (.04) .01
(.05)
Note: Standard deviations in parenthesis; females n = 197;
34. males n = 130; means with different subscripts within treatment
different at p < .01.
S.S. Horn / Cognitive Development 21 (2006) 420–440 433
3.3. Beliefs about homosexuality
In contrast to measures regarding reasoning about social
interaction, age- or gender-related
differences in participants’ beliefs about homosexuality were
not expected.
3.3.1. Acceptability judgments
A 3 (grade: 10th, 12th, college) × 2 (gender: male, female)
ANCOVA performed on ado-
lescents’ mean acceptability judgments (with ethnicity and
religious denomination as covariates)
revealed no significant main effects for grade, F (2, 314) =
1.79, p > .05, or gender F (1, 314) = 1.38,
p > .05, as well as no interaction effect between gender and
grade, F (2, 314) = 1.12, p > .05. As
expected participants’ acceptability judgments did not
significantly differ across grades (12th
M = 3.5; 12th M = 3.88; college M = 3.62) or gender (male M =
3.64; female M = 3.69).
3.3.2. Acceptability justifications
In regard to the reasons why participants felt that homosexuality
was wrong or not wrong, we
did not expect age- or gender-related differences. A 3 (grade:
10th, 12th, college) × 2 (gender:
male, female) × 9 (acceptability justification: religious
35. opposition, unnatural, biological, danger,
individual rights, social norms, religious human equality,
contribute to society, other) ANCOVA
with repeated measures on the last factor and ethnicity and
religious denomination as covariates
revealed a significant main effect for acceptability justification,
F (8, 2520) = 8.26, p < .001 but,
as expected, the two-way interaction between grade and
acceptability justification was not sig-
nificant, F (16, 2520) = 1.61, p > .05, nor were the interactions
between gender and acceptability
justification, F (8, 2520) = 1.3, p > .05, or grade, gender, and
acceptability justification, F (16,
2520) = 1.39, p > .05.
Overall, participants used significantly more individual rights
justifications (M = .35) than any
other justification. Participants also used more biological
justifications (M = .20) than any other
except individual rights and used more religious human equality
justifications (M = .15) than
any of the others but individual rights and biological. Finally,
participants used more religious
opposition (M = .09), contributes to society (M = .08) and
natural order justifications (M = .07)
than social norms (M = .02) or danger to society justifications
(M = .01).
3.3.3. Origins
Age- and gender-related differences in participants’ beliefs
about the origins of homosexuality
were not expected. A 3 (grade: 10th, 12th, college) × 2 (gender:
male, female) × 7 (origins: biolog-
ical, parents, hanging out with gay or lesbian people, cross-
gender playmates, sexual abuse, gender
36. atypical activities, choice) ANCOVA with repeated measures on
origins and ethnicity and reli-
gious denomination as covariates revealed a main effect for
origins, F (6, 1890) = 4.162, p < .001,
a significant two-way interaction between grade and origins, F
(12, 1890) = 5.81, p < .0001, and a
significant three-way interaction between grade, gender, and
origins, F (12, 1890) = 2.59, p < .01.
Follow-up tests of simple effects of the three-way interaction
revealed that, contrary to expec-
tations, male and female college students were more likely than
10th-graders to endorse the
belief that the origins of homosexuality were biological (college
males: M = .51; 10th males:
M = .13; college females: M = .41; 10th female: M = .25).
Additionally, college males were more
likely to endorse this belief than 12th-graders males (M = .27).
This difference was not obtained
for females. Further, 10th-grade males were also more likely to
endorse the belief than people
become gay or lesbian as the result of parental socialization
(10th M = .24; 12th M = .06; college
M = .02), whereas, college-aged males were less likely than
10th- or 12th-grade males to believe
434 S.S. Horn / Cognitive Development 21 (2006) 420–440
someone becomes gay or lesbian as the result of childhood
abuse (10th M = .13; 12th M = .14;
college M = .02). No age-related differences in participants’
beliefs that people choose to be gay or
lesbian were obtained. Very few participants, of any age,
endorsed the beliefs that people become
37. gay or lesbian through hanging out with gay or lesbian people
or though engaging in gender
atypical activity.
4. Discussion
The primary purpose of the present study was to begin to
explore possible age-related differ-
ences in sexual prejudice, as well as the multifaceted nature of
this type of social reasoning among
a small sample of adolescents. The study contributes to our
understanding of sexual prejudice
by suggesting that developmental differences in social cognition
may be related to differences in
some components of sexual prejudice but not others. One of the
more provocative implications
of the results of this study is that age-related differences in
adolescents’ social concepts would
appear to be interacting with more general efforts at identity
formation to account for the observed
age-related differences regarding distinct dimensions of sexual
prejudice. Finally, the results of
this study suggest that some dimensions of sexual prejudice,
particularly around aspects of social
interaction, may be related to developmental changes in social
cognition while other dimensions
are tied to individuals’ assumption and beliefs about the nature
of sexuality (both as a normal
component of human sexuality and as a private and personal
aspect of an individual’s life).
4.1. Age-related differences in adolescents’ sexual prejudice
Interestingly, most of the participants in this study exhibited
fairly positive or tolerant attitudes
regarding interacting with gay and lesbian peers, which seems
38. counter to the extreme negative or
hostile climates for gay and lesbian youth described in the
extant literature (Bochenek and Brown,
2001; Nairn & Smith, 2003; Russell et al., 2001). It is likely
that this is a product of the generally
positive climates at the schools at which the data were
collected. Research provides evidence that
schools such as those included in this study have more positive
sexual diversity climates than
schools with less support systems (support group, policies, staff
development) in place for LGBT
students (Szalacha, 2005). Despite this, however, we did find
age-related differences on some
measures of sexual prejudice suggesting that social cognitive
development is related to some
components of this complex phenomenon.
4.1.1. Evaluations of interactions with and tolerance for gay and
lesbian peers
Overall, the results suggest age-related differences in
adolescents’ comfort with and tolerance
for gay and lesbian peers. That is, similar to the other research
we found that older adolescents
and young adults were also more likely than younger
adolescents to feel comfortable interacting
with gay and lesbian peers in various school contexts and
judged excluding or teasing a gay
or lesbian peer as less acceptable than younger adolescents. Not
only do these results provide
additional support for research suggesting that sexual prejudice
decreases through early adulthood,
the current study also extend this research by examining the
types of reasoning that individuals
apply to situations involving social interaction with gay and
lesbian peers.
39. It could be the case that adolescents simply become more
accepting or tolerant of others
who differ from them in beliefs, attitudes, or behaviors.
Available evidence does suggest that
adolescents and young adults become more tolerant of
dissenting views of others, particularly in
relation to issues that are conventional and personal in nature,
and more likely to maintain that a
S.S. Horn / Cognitive Development 21 (2006) 420–440 435
number of views could be correct (Wainryb, Shaw, & Maianu,
1998; Wainryb, Shaw, Laupa, &
Smith, 2001). Thus, it could be that adolescents’ tolerance
regarding sexual minority individuals
is related overall to their social cognitive development within
different domains, as well as the
ability to coordinate multiple dimensions of a situation. This
view is supported by other work
on prejudice and discrimination in which similar patterns
regarding heightened prejudice during
middle adolescence have been found and attributed to social
cognitive limitations during this
developmental period (for a review, see Fishbein, 2002).
It seems likely, that overall tolerance of gay and lesbian peers
may be most directly related
to development within the conventional and personal domains of
social reasoning and the
coordination of these domains of knowledge with issues related
to fairness and harm more
generally. Research on the development of conventional
knowledge suggests that older ado-
40. lescents and young adults achieve a perspective on social
systems that recognizes the importance
of conventions but also recognizes that the normative systems
themselves are somewhat arbi-
trary and relative to one another (Nucci, 2001; Turiel, 1983).
Thus, in evaluating interacting
with others who are perceived as different, older adolescents
and young adults may be less
invested in their peers’ strict adherence to conventions or norms
around sexuality and gen-
der than middle adolescents, and thus, less likely sanction or
rebuke individuals who fall
outside of the normative boundaries of these dimensions of
identity as prescribed the social
group.
Interestingly, conventional reasoning was used much less
frequently than expected by partic-
ipants in this study to justify their judgments. This could be the
result of the type of schools
from which the participants were recruited. Nucci (2001)
suggests that development within the
conventional domain is facilitated by contexts that promote a
diversity of viewpoints and views
and facilitate students understanding of these divergent
viewpoints. Thus, in more homogeneous
schools or schools with less progressive policies and practices
regarding sexual orientation, we
might expect adolescents to rely on conventional reasoning
more in rendering judgments about
interactions with gay and lesbian peers. In fact, recent research
does suggest that the gay and les-
bian students in homogeneous school environments report
feeling less safe than their counterparts
in more heterogeneous environments (Goodnow, Szalacha, &
Westheimer, 2006).
41. The data reported here also suggest, however, that older
adolescent may also be more likely
to view social interactions related to who one hangs out with as
a matter of personal choice or
prerogative rather than as a context open to legitimate societal
sanction. Interestingly, participants
used personal reasoning much more frequently regarding the
exclusion and inclusion contexts, but
were not likely to use this type of reasoning in relation to
teasing. It seems then, that adolescents are
less likely to endorse social interactions as personal in
situations in which harm and unfairness
are more salient (such as teasing) providing additional support
for developmental research on
intergroup relationships which suggests that the complexity or
ambiguity of the social context is
important to understanding how adolescents come to understand
how to treat one another (Horn,
2003, 2006; Killen et al., 2006; Killen, Lee-Kim, McGlothlin, &
Stangor, 2002).
One limitation of this study is that we did not assess
individuals’ understanding of the conven-
tional and personal domains independently of their judgments
and reasoning about the treatment
of others nor did we assess intra-individual changes in
reasoning. Additionally, results regarding
social reasoning may have been influenced by providing
adolescents with a set of responses from
which to choose, rather than eliciting their spontaneous
reasoning about the situations. To fur-
ther understand the development of sexual prejudice, future
studies should include longitudinal
research that elicits adolescents’ reasoning through open ended
questions and that investigates
42. the relationships among the social context (school policies and
practices), development within
436 S.S. Horn / Cognitive Development 21 (2006) 420–440
distinct domains of social knowledge, and developmental
changes in individuals’ judgments and
reasoning about gay and lesbian peers.
4.1.2. Beliefs about homosexuality
Despite finding age-related differences in participants’
judgments regarding different types of
social interactions with gay and lesbian peers, we did not find
age-related differences in ado-
lescents’ beliefs about whether homosexuality was right or
wrong, nor their reasons for why
they believed homosexuality was right or wrong. These results
provide additional support for the
assertion that sexual prejudice is a multifaceted construct
(Hegarty and Pratto, 2001; Van de Ven,
1994) and extend this research by suggesting that different
dimensions of sexual prejudice draw
on different domains of social reasoning. The results of the
current study reveal that individuals’
reasoning about the fair treatment of persons is distinct from
(but potentially related to) their
beliefs about the nature and acceptability of homosexuality.
Contrary to our expectations, however, we did find age-related
differences in adolescents’
beliefs about the origins of homosexuality. These results
provide some evidence that with age
(whether due to developmental or contextual factors),
43. individuals come to view sexual orienta-
tion as something that is inherent to the biological or genetic
make up of the individual rather
than as something that is “caused” by environmental factors.
For the adolescent sample in this
study, this could be the result of information about human
sexuality provided to students in
their required health classes in which homosexuality was
presented as a natural form of human
sexuality. Information about the nature of sexuality education
among the college sample was
not obtained, however, so definitive statements about the
relationship between formal education
regarding sexuality and beliefs about origins of sexuality cannot
be made. It is likely that factors
beyond formal education, such as media coverage of the issue or
more frequent interaction with
age with gay or lesbian individuals (having a friend who is gay
or lesbian), also lead to changes
in adolescents’ understanding of the origins of homosexuality.
Social psychological research provides evidence that both of
these factors (reading scientific
accounts of the biological origins of homosexuality and
knowing a gay or lesbian person) are
related to having more essentialist beliefs about homosexuality
(that it is innate and unchangeable)
(Ernulf, Innala, & Whitman, 1989; Hegarty & Pratto, 2001;
Piskur & Delegman, 1992) Further,
given that research on adults’ sexual prejudice has revealed that
essentialist beliefs about the
origins of homosexuality are related to sexual prejudice (Ernulf
et al., 1989; Whitley, 1990) it
could be that the age-related differences in adolescents ‘and
adults’ sexual prejudice on measures
related to social interaction were also related to age-related
44. differences in beliefs about the origins
of sexuality. Given these relationships future research should
investigate the development of
adolescents’ concepts of the origins of homosexuality and how
these are related to age-related
differences in sexual prejudice.
4.1.3. Summary
While the age-related results regarding adolescents’ and young
adults’ judgments and reasoning
about excluding, teasing, and including someone who is gay or
lesbian parallel the age-related
differences in adolescents’ and young adults’ tolerance for or
comfort with gay and lesbian peers,
they are uniquely important because they suggest that with age
individuals not only become more
tolerant of gay and lesbian people but also that they become less
likely to endorse unfairness toward
others who are gay or lesbian, particularly related to social
interactions such as social exclusion and
teasing. Thus, while assessments of comfort or tolerance may
measure individuals’ homophobia
or prejudice, assessing adolescents’ judgments and reasoning
about the treatment of others is a
S.S. Horn / Cognitive Development 21 (2006) 420–440 437
closer proxy for measuring discriminatory behavior toward gay
and lesbian individuals. These
results, taken together with the lack of age-related differences
in attitudes about homosexuality,
provide additional support for the idea that prejudice and
discrimination are distinct constructs that
45. are mediated by different things and have different
developmental patterns (Fishbein, 2002; Killen
et al., 2006). Due to the cross-sectional design of the current
study, however, it was not possible
to definitively determine if these age-related differences are due
to developmental differences in
adolescents’ social cognition or to some other factor such as
context or cohort effects. Further,
given the particular nature of the schools at which the study was
conducted, the results of this
study should not be generalized to adolescents as a whole.
While we know a great deal about the
correlates of sexual prejudice among adults, we know very little
about the relationship between the
school context/climate and differences in adolescents’ sexual
prejudice. It could be the case that
the school contexts in which these data were collected were
related to the age-related differences
in attitudes and judgments regarding gay and lesbian peers and
that the pattern of results would
be very different at schools with less supportive climates.
4.2. Gender-related differences in sexual prejudice
We also found that girls exhibited less sexual prejudice than
boys across most measures.
This is similar to other research on prejudice related to
sexuality, as well as the development of
prejudice more generally. Numerous studies provide evidence
that women are less prejudiced
toward gay and lesbian people than men (see Herek, 1994).
Further, research on the development
of racial and gender prejudice also provides evidence that girls
are generally less prejudiced than
boys (Fishbein, 2002). The results of this study also extend this
work and provide support for
46. research on reasoning about intergroup relationships (Killen et
al., 2006), more generally, in that
we also found gender differences in participants’ reasoning
regarding the treatment of gay and
lesbian peers. Interpreting these results, however, is limited for
two reasons. First, the sample was
significantly skewed toward females, particularly in the college
sample. Second, girls responded
to scenarios only about lesbian peers and boys responded to
scenarios only about gay male peers. It
could be the case, as in other research, that girls are generally
more sensitive to issues of tolerance
and peer harassment than boys (Killen & Stangor, 2001). Given
the strong evidence that people
have differential attitudes toward gay men and lesbians (Herek,
1994; Nairn & Smith, 2003),
however, it could also be the case that the gender differences
resulted from differences in how
individuals view treating gay men versus lesbians. Research on
the construction of masculinity
suggests that a part of being seen as male in our society is being
heterosexual (Kimmel & Mahler,
2003) suggesting that adherence to normative sexuality may be
more important for boys than girls
(Nairn & Smith, 2003). Future research must assess boys’ and
girls’ reasoning regarding both gay
male and lesbian peers in order to overcome this limitation.
4.3. Religious and ethnic differences in sexual prejudice
While not the focus of the current investigation, the results of
this study provide some interest-
ing data on the relationship between both religious affiliation
and ethnicity and adolescents’ sexual
prejudice. Based on the preliminary analyses investigating these
factors, it appears that religious
47. denomination and ethnicity were related to some measures of
sexual prejudice and not others.
Another intriguing finding related to this was that adolescents
and young adults, in these particu-
lar schools, used religious justifications to support fairness and
human welfare (religious human
equality) more frequently than religious justifications regarding
prescriptive or conventional rules
438 S.S. Horn / Cognitive Development 21 (2006) 420–440
about homosexuality. These results suggest that the relationship
between religious beliefs and
sexual prejudice is also complex and multifaceted. Similar to
the work done by Nucci (1996) on
adolescents’ understanding of religious norms, this study
provides evidence that religion informs
both individuals’ understanding of fairness and human welfare
in relation to interpersonal inter-
actions, as well as their beliefs and assumptions regarding the
nature of homosexuality and has
important implications for future investigations on the
relationships between sexual prejudice and
religion.
5. Conclusion
The results of this study point to the need for more research on
sexual prejudice from a devel-
opmental perspective as well as the need for all investigations
of sexual prejudice to use multiple
measures in order to better understand the heterogeneity of this
complex construct. The study pro-
vides evidence that sexual prejudice is a multifaceted construct
48. that draws upon multiple domains
of social knowledge (moral, conventional, and personal). This
study has important implications
for research and theory on sexual prejudice by contributing to
our understanding of the multiple
dimensions of sexual prejudice and the ways in which
individuals’ socio-moral knowledge is dif-
ferentially related to these dimensions. By studying sexual
prejudice as a multifaceted construct
that is impacted by individuals’ domain related knowledge and
understandings of the issues we
will be better equipped to understand the development of this
form of prejudice, as well as the
relationships amongst individuals’ attitudes and beliefs about
homosexuality and their treatment
of gay and lesbian people.
Acknowledgements
The research reported in this article was supported, in part, by
grants from the Wayne F. Placek
Fund of the American Psychological Foundation and a
University of Illinois at Chicago Campus
Research Board awarded to the author and Larry Nucci. The
author would like to thank Sharon
Grimm, Larry Nucci, the Junior Faculty Writing Group at UIC
and the anonymous reviewers for
valuable feedback on the manuscript.
References
Altemeyer, B. (2003). Why do religious fundamentalists tend to
be prejudiced? The International Journal for the Psy-
chology of Religion, 13, 17–28.
Baker, J., & Fishbein, H. (1998). The development of prejudice
49. towards gays and lesbians by adolescents. Journal of
Homosexuality, 36, 89–100.
Bochenek, M., & Brown, A. (2001). Hatred in the hallways:
Violence and discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual,
and transgender students in U.S. schools. New York: Human
Rights Watch.
Clasen, D. R., & Brown, B. B. (1985). The multidimensionality
of peer pressure in adolescence. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 14, 451–468.
D’Augelli, A. (1998). Developmental implications of
victimization of lesbian, gay and bisexual youths. In G. Herek
(Ed.),
Stigma and sexual orientation: Understanding prejudice against
lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals (pp. 187–210).
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Ernulf, K. E., Innala, S. M., & Whitman, F. L. (1989).
Biological explanation, psychological explanation, and
tolerance
of homosexuals: A cross-national analysis of beliefs and
attitudes. Psychological Reports, 65, 1003–1010.
Fishbein, H. (2002). Peer prejudice and discrimination: The
origins of prejudice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
S.S. Horn / Cognitive Development 21 (2006) 420–440 439
Goodnow, C., Szalacha, L., & Westheimer, K. (2006). School
support groups, other school factors, and the safety of sexual
minority adolescents. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 573–589.
50. Haddock, G., & Zanna, M. P. (1998). Authoritarianism, values,
and the favorability and structure of anti-gay attitudes.
In G. Herek (Ed.), Stigma and sexual orientation: Understanding
prejudice against lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals
(pp. 82–107). Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage.
Haslam, N., & Levy, S. R. (2006). Essentialist beliefs about
homosexuality: Structure and implications for prejudice.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 471–485.
Haslam, N., Rothschild, L., & Ernst, D. (2000). Essentialist
beliefs about social categories. British Journal of Social
Psychology, 39, 113–127.
Hegarty, P. (2002). It’s not a choice, it’s the way we’re build:
Symbolic beliefs about sexual orientation in the US and
Britain. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology,
12, 153–166.
Hegarty, P., & Pratto, F. (2001). Sexual orientation beliefs: The
relationship to anti-gay attitudes and biological determinist
arguments. Journal of Homosexuality, 41, 121–135.
Herek, G. M. (1987). Religion and prejudice: A comparison of
racial and sexual attitudes. Personality and Social Psy-
chology Bulletin, 13, 56–65.
Herek, G. M. (1988). Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians
and gay men: Correlates and gender differences. Journal
of Sex Research, 25, 451–477.
Herek, G. (1994). Assessing heterosexuals’ attitudes toward
lesbians and gay men: A review of empirical research with the
ATLG scale. In B. Greene & G. Herek (Eds.), Lesbian and gay
psychology: Theory, research and clinical applications
51. (pp. 206–228). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Herek, G. (2000). Sexual prejudice. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9, 19–22.
Horn, S. S. (2003). Adolescents’ reasoning about exclusion
from social groups. Developmental Psychology, 39,
71–84.
Horn, S. S. (2004). Adolescents’ peer interactions: Conflict and
coordination between personal expression, social norms,
and moral reasoning. In L. Nucci (Ed.), Conflict, contradiction
and contrarian elements in moral development and
education. New York: Erlbaum.
Horn, S. S. (2006). Group status, group bias, and adolescents’
reasoning about the treatment of others in school contexts.
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 30, 208–218.
Horn, S.S., & Nucci, L.P. (2003). The multidimensionality of
adolescents’ beliefs about and attitudes toward gay and
lesbian peers in school. In Equity and Excellence in Education
(vol. 36, pp. 1–12). Special Issue on LGBTQ issues in
K-12 schools.
Killen, M., Lee-Kim, J., McGlothlin, H., & Stangor, C. (2002).
How children and adolescents evaluate gender and racial
exclusion. Monograph of the Society for Research in Child
Development, 67, 4 (Serial No. 271).
Killen, M., Margie, N. G., & Sinno, S. (2006). Morality in the
context of intergroup relationships. In M. Killen & J. Smetana
(Eds.), Handbook for moral development (pp. 155–183).
Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Killen, M., & Stangor, C. (2001). Social reasoning about
52. inclusion and exclusion in gender and race peer group contexts.
Child Development, 72, 174–186.
Kimmel, M. S., & Mahler, M. (2003). Adolescent masculinity,
homophobia, and violence. American Behavioral Scientist,
46, 1439–1458.
Kite, M. E. (1994). When perceptions meet reality: Individual
differences in reactions to lesbians and gay men. In B.
Greene & G. Herek (Eds.), Lesbian and gay psychology:
Theory, research and clinical applications (pp. 25–53).
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Kite, M. E., & Whitley, B. E. (1998). Do heterosexual women
and men differ in their attitudes toward homosexuality? A
conceptual and methodological analysis. In G. Herek (Ed.),
Stigma and sexual orientation: Understanding prejudice
against lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals (pp. 39–61). Thousand
Oakes, CA: Sage.
Marsiglio, W. (1993). Attitudes toward homosexual activity and
gays as friends: A national survey of heterosexual 15- to
19-year-old males. The Journal of Sex Research, 30, 12–17.
Morrison, T., McLeod, L., Morrison, M., & Anderson, D.
(1997). Gender stereotyping, homonegativity and
misconceptions
about sexually coercive behavior among adolescents. Youth &
Society, 28, 351–382.
Nairn, K., & Smith, A. (2003). Taking students seriously: Their
rights to be safe at school. Gender & Equity, 15, 133–149.
Nucci, L. (1996). Morality and the personal sphere of actions.
In Edward. Reed, Elliot. Turiel, & Terrance. Brown (Eds.),
Knowledge and values. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
53. Nucci, L. (2001). Education in the moral domain. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Nucci, L., Becker, K., & Horn, S. (June 2004). Assessing the
development of adolescent concepts of social convention.
In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Jean Piaget
Society. Toronto, CA.
Price, J. (1982). High school students’ attitudes toward
homosexuality. Journal of School Health, 52, 469–474.
440 S.S. Horn / Cognitive Development 21 (2006) 420–440
Piskur, J., & Delegman, D. (1992). Effect of reading a summary
of research about biological bases of homosexual
orientation on attitudes toward homosexuals. Psychological
Reports, 71, 1219–1225.
Rivers, I., & D’Augelli, A. (2001). The victimization of lesbian,
gay and bisexual youths. In A. D’Augelli & C. Patterson
(Eds.), Lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities and youth (pp.
199–223). New York: Oxford University Press.
Russell, S., Franz, B., & Driscoll, A. (2001). Same-sex romantic
attraction and experiences of violence in adolescence.
American Journal of Public Health, 91, 903–906.
Savin-Williams, R. C. (1994). Verbal and physical abuse as
stressors in the lives of lesbian, gay male, and bisexual youths:
Associations with school problems, running away, substance
abuse, prostitution, and suicide. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 62, 261–269.
Smetana, J. G. (2006). Social domain theory and social justice.
In M. Killen & J. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook for moral
54. development (pp. 117–153). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Stein, N. (1995). Sexual harassment in school: The public
performance of gendered violence. Harvard Educational
Review, 65, 145–162.
Szalacha, L. (2005). Safer sexual diversity climates: Lessons
learned from an evaluation of Massachusetts Safe Schools
Program for gay and lesbian students. American Journal of
Education, 110, 58–88.
Turiel, E. (1983). The development of social knowledge:
Morality and convention. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Turiel, E. (1998). The development of morality. In W. Damon
(Series Ed.), & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child
psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality
development (5th ed., pp. 863–932). New York: Wiley.
Turiel, E., Hildebrant, C., & Wainryb, C. (1991). Judging social
issues: Difficulties, inconsistencies, and consistencies.
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development,
56 (Serial No. 224).
Van de Ven, P. (1994). Comparisons among homophobic
reactions of undergraduates, high school students, and young
offenders. The Journal of Sex Research, 31, 117–124.
Van de Ven, P., Bornholt, L., & Bailey, M. (1996). Measuring
cognitive, affective and behavioral components of homo-
phobic reaction. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 25, 155–179.
Wainryb, C., Shaw, L., Laupa, M., & Smith, K. R. (2001).
Children’s, adolescents’, and young adults’ thinking about
55. different types of disagreements. Developmental Psychology,
37, 373–386.
Wainryb, C., Shaw, L., & Maianu, C. (1998). Tolerance and
intolerance: Children’s and adolescents’ judgments of
dissenting beliefs, speech, persons, and conduct. Child
Development, 69, 1541–1555.
Whitley, B. (1990). The relationship of heterosexuals’
attributions for the causes of homosexuality to attitudes toward
lesbians and gay men. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 16, 369–377.
Winer, B. J. (1971). Statistical principles in experimental
design. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Winer, B. J., Brown, D. R., & Michels, K. M. (1991). Statistical
principles in empirical design. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Heterosexual adolescents' and young adults' beliefs and
attitudes about homosexuality and gay and lesbian peersSocial
cognitive domain theoryThe current studyMethodParticipants
and proceduresDesignMeasuresSocial interaction
measuresBeliefs measuresResultsData analysis planAttitudes
regarding interacting with lesbian and gay peersComfort
interacting with gay and lesbian peers in schoolJudgments
regarding the treatment of othersJustifications regarding the
treatment of othersBeliefs about homosexualityAcceptability
judgmentsAcceptability justificationsOriginsDiscussionAge-
related differences in adolescents' sexual prejudiceEvaluations
of interactions with and tolerance for gay and lesbian
peersBeliefs about homosexualitySummaryGender-related
differences in sexual prejudiceReligious and ethnic differences
in sexual prejudiceConclusionAcknowledgementsReferences
Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 6:80–97, 2010
57. Het-
erosexuals; GLB-KASH). Participants reporting high
adaptability in
their families reported having more contact with the GLBT
family
member and more GLBT acquaintances than participants
reporting
low adaptability in their families. Participants from more
cohesive
families reported more GLBT friends and family members, more
knowledge about GLBT issues, and more internalized
affirmative-
ness than participants reporting unbalanced cohesion.
Participants
from families high in both cohesion and adaptability reported
more
contact with GLBT family members, more GLBT friends and
fam-
ily members, more GLBT acquaintances, more knowledge about
GLBT issues, and more internalized affirmativeness than
partici-
pants reporting either unbalanced cohesion or adaptability in
their
families. Implications for counseling are discussed.
Address correspondence to Teresa Reeves, University of
Memphis, Memphis, 325 Watkins
St., Memphis, TN 38104. E-mail: [email protected]
80
Family Environment and Support for GLBT Issues 81
KEYWORDS gay, lesbian, bisexual, family, adaptability,
cohesion
58. INTRODUCTION
Coming out to family of origin is one of the most challenging
developmental
tasks for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT)
individuals (Savin-
Williams, 2001; Willoughby, Malik, & Lindahl, 2006).
However, despite the
challenge of self-disclosing to family members, many GLBT
individuals ap-
pear to be out to their families of origin about their GLBT
identities (Schope,
2002). Once self-disclosure has occurred, the family members
of a GLBT
individual often have a range of initial responses, including
feelings of loss
and disappointment (Robinson, Walters, & Skeen, 1989),
anxiety about being
excluded from the GLBT person’s life (Savin-Williams & Dubé,
1998) as well
as guilt, anger, and sadness (Herdt & Koff, 2000). Family
members of GLBT
individuals then appear to go through their own process of
identifying as
family members of a GLBT person (LaSala, 1998; Mohr &
Fassinger, 2003).
This process varies depending on the family member’s desire
and ability to
integrate their family member’s sexual or gender identity;
common reactions
include rejection, denial, tacit acknowledgement, tolerance, and
complete
acceptance of the GLBT family member (LaSala, 1998).
Family systems that are connected and flexible, or adaptable,
59. prior to
disclosure appear to be less negative toward their GLBT family
members
than families reported to be disconnected, rigid, or authoritarian
in their
relationships with one another (Willoughby et al., 2006).
Therefore, a family
climate that is connected and flexible may be best prepared for
the onset
of stressors and may protect against the impact of challenging
events on
a family system. Such a family climate may also enable family
members
to better integrate their GLBT family member once the family
system has
responded to the initial disclosure of GLBT identity. These
flexible family
environments may allow members to take risks to understand
and appreciate
GLBT issues once they learn they have a GLBT family member.
The current
study explores how family environment (cohesion and
adaptability) may
be associated with connection to GLBT issues, including GLBT-
affirmative
attitudes and interaction with GLBT community among family
members of
GLBT individuals.
Family systems that are cohesive and adaptable in their
relationship
dynamics tend to be more functional compared to families that
report a
lack of cohesion or adaptability (Olson, 2000). The Circumplex
Model of
marital and family systems was developed to explain how
60. families function
in a healthy or dysfunctional manner; it includes two major
components of
family functioning: family cohesion and family adaptability
(Olson & Gorall,
2003). Family cohesion is the degree to which family members
experience
an emotional bond with one another. This dimension includes
how well
82 T. Reeves et al.
families maintain boundaries and form coalitions, engage in
decision making,
and share interests, as well as use time and space for family
connection
(Olson, 1996, 2000; Olson & Gorall, 2003). Conceptually, this
aspect of the
Circumplex Model captures how families balance their
separateness and
their togetherness. In contrast, family adaptability refers to the
amount of
flexibility in family leadership and the degree to which family
roles fluctuate
and alter to meet family needs and changing family
circumstances. This
dimension reflects contemporary family systems theories that
emphasize the
importance of family change with respect to rules and
leadership (Carter &
McGoldrick, 1988; Olson & Gorall, 2003). Conceptually, family
adaptability
captures how families balance stability versus change.
61. According to Olson (1996), balanced family systems function in
the cen-
ter of the poles of these two dimensions. For example, a family
considered
balanced in cohesion would effectively maneuver between
spending time
together as a family and engaging in separate activities as
individuals or in
subsystems of the family. On the other hand, a family
considered balanced
in adaptability would respond to change with flexibility while
maintaining
family equilibrium. When family cohesion is unbalanced, or at
the extremes,
the family is either disconnected or enmeshed. In terms of
adaptability, an
unbalanced family would either be too rigid or too flexible in
its rules and
functioning when confronted with systemic changes. Combining
the two di-
mensions, a balanced family would be both separated and
connected (i.e.,
cohesive) as well as structured and flexible (i.e., adaptable).
Families with balanced types have been found to generally
function
more effectively, particularly during times of stress, than
unbalanced types
(Cumsille & Epstein, 1994; Friedman, Nelson, Smith, &
Dworkin, 1988;
Kouneski, 2001; Olson, 1996, 2000). The curvilinear model of
family co-
hesion and adaptability (i.e., balanced cohesion and adaptability
are found
in the center between disconnected and enmeshed and rigid and
too flex-
62. ible, respectively), however, has been re-examined; increasingly
empirical
research has found a linear relationship existing between
cohesion and
adaptability with positive family functioning (Anderson &
Gavazzi, 1990;
Cumsille & Epstein, 1994; Green, Harris, Forte, & Robinson,
1991). In particu-
lar within the GLBT family literature (Willoughby et al., 2006;
Zacks, Green, &
Morrow, 1988), cohesion and adaptability have been found to
have a positive
relationship to healthy family functioning. Family stress theory
has usually
been offered as an explanation for the role of cohesion and
adaptability
in healthy family functioning (McKenry & Price, 2000).
Families that have
relational resources available prior to experiencing a stressor
may be able
to effectively respond, thus lessening the negative impact of the
stressor.
Therefore, the degree of intra-family strain during stressful
periods can be
associated with the level of adaptability and cohesion exhibited
(Lavee &
Olson, 1991). More cohesive families may experience less
disruption due to
stressors and more adaptable families may be better able to
recover from
Family Environment and Support for GLBT Issues 83
stressors (McCubbin & Patterson, 1983). Therefore, cohesion
63. and adaptabil-
ity may be considered protective factors when families
experience stressful
events (McKenry & Price, 2000).
Disclosure of GLBT identity by a family member within a
family system
is generally experienced as a major stressor within the family
unit (Ben-Ari,
1995; LaSala, 1998; Mohr & Fassinger, 2003). Reactions range
from overt
hostility toward the GLBT individual, to avoidance or
disengagement of
family members, to active support of the GLBT family member
(LaSala, 1998;
Muller, 1987). Family dynamics may change after disclosure
(Savin-Williams,
2001) and family responses typically improve with time after
the disclosure
(Savin-Williams & Dubé, 1998). However, most heterosexual
family members
must adapt to having a GLBT family member, and this
developmental process
often involves self-examination of attitudes toward
homosexuality and their
own coming-out process in identifying as a family member with
a GLBT
relative (Gallor, 2006; Worthington, Dillon, & Becker-Schutte,
2005).
In a study of 72 gay men who came out to their parents, it was
found
that high family cohesion and adaptability prior to coming out
was related
to more positive reactions from parents when compared with
gay men who
64. reported having families with low cohesion and adaptability
(Willoughby
et al., 2006). The authors concluded that families with systems
that are high in
cohesion and adaptability may prioritize the family system over
social norms
and reject social attitudes that are negative toward
homosexuality when
integrating the knowledge of having a GLBT family member.
Therefore, we
expect more cohesive and adaptable family systems to exhibit
more favorable
attitudes toward homosexuality, to be more knowledgeable of
GLBT issues,
and to be more connected to GLBT community than family
members with
less cohesive and adaptable families.
Research exploring the relationship of cohesion and adaptability
beyond
initial self-disclosure within GLBT individuals’ families of
origin is limited.
Gallor (2006) found that positive attitudes toward
homosexuality were as-
sociated with better parent-child relationship functioning among
parents of
GLBT individuals. These parents were all attending PFLAG
(Parents and
Friends of Lesbians and Gays), a support and advocacy group
for family and
friends of GLBT individuals, and reported that their
involvement with this
organization increased their positive attitudes. If highly
cohesive and adapt-
able families are more likely to disallow negative social
stigmatization of gays
65. and lesbians to impact their family systems than families low in
cohesion and
adaptability, then it is likely that this rejection of social
stigmatization would
be evident in a range of attitudes toward homosexuality.
Research on attitudes toward homosexuality has advanced
beyond initial
assessments that explored a continuum from condemnation to
tolerance, pri-
marily focused on gay and lesbian individuals and their access
to civil rights
(Herek, 1984; Worthington, Savoy, Dillon, & Vernaglia, 2002).
For example,
new conceptualizations describe affirmativeness of GLBT
individuals to not
84 T. Reeves et al.
merely represent an absence of heterosexism, but to include
knowledge of
GLBT community history and symbols, full endorsement of the
civil rights of
GLBT individuals, as well as acknowledgement of heterosexual
privilege that
goes beyond tolerance (Worthington, Dillon, & Becker-Schutte,
2005). These
affirmative attitudes include a lack of religious conflict with
GLBT identities
and an internal sense of acceptance that recognizes one’s own
heterosex-
ual privilege. Cohesive and adaptable families would be
expected to have
moved beyond superficial support for GLBT issues to active
66. affirmativeness
of GLBT individuals and their rights, and to be more
knowledgeable of GLBT
history and symbols.
As well, family members from cohesive and adaptable family
systems
may be more likely to engage with the GLBT community in
comparison to
less cohesive and adaptable family systems. For example,
families that are
better able to change their family system to adapt to changing
situations may
be more likely to increase their support system with other GLBT
friends and
family members than less flexible families. Similarly, family
members from
connected families may be more likely to reach out and create
emotional
bonds with GLBT acquaintances. This connection may extend to
their own
GLBT family member, as well, with greater family contact with
the GLBT
family member exhibited by family members from cohesive and
adaptable
family systems.
Existing research on family systems has considered cohesion
and adapt-
ability either jointly or as separate variables. While some
researchers indicate
that cohesion and adaptability work together (Olson, 2000),
other research
has identified that cohesion and adaptability may affect various
areas of life
to different extents (Cumsille & Epstein, 1994; Vandeleur,
67. Perrez, & Schoebi,
2007). For example, Cumsille and Epstein (1994) found an
inverse significant
relationship between adolescent depression and family
cohesion, but no sig-
nificant relationship for family adaptability and depression.
Vandeleur and
colleagues (2007) found greater self-esteem and greater
perspective taking of
mothers was related to higher adaptability but not cohesion. For
daughters
both cohesion and adaptability were related to perspective
taking and adapt-
ability alone was related to emotional state. For sons,
adaptability was related
to perspective taking and cohesion was related to self-esteem.
Because co-
hesion and adaptability may differ in their relationships to
GLBT attitudes
and connection, we explored each dimension to determine how
it might
associate with attitudes toward GLBT issues and connection to
GLBT com-
munity for family members of GLBT individuals. We also
explored whether
family members who reported having families high in both
adaptability and
cohesion with these factors were more likely to be more
connected and
affirmative.
Research has found that stress for GLBT individuals can be
buffered by
social support and personal resilience (Diaz, Ayala, & Bein,
2004; Diplacido,
1998; Meyer, 2003), but few studies have considered the
68. experience of family
Family Environment and Support for GLBT Issues 85
members of GLBT individuals beyond self-disclosure and
coming-out pro-
cesses (D’Augelli, 2005). Willoughby and his colleagues (2006)
speculated
that families with high cohesion and adaptability may value the
family’s
needs over the societal message of homonegativity. Therefore,
we explored
whether family members who are high in either cohesion or
adaptability,
or both cohesion and adaptability, would report more GLBT-
affirmative atti-
tudes, greater knowledge, and more connection to GLBT
community.
Hypothesis
Family members who report belonging to families high in
adaptability or
cohesion, or high in both, will have more contact with their
GLBT family
member, report more GLBT friends and family members, report
more GLBT
acquaintances, and have more favorable attitudes toward GLBT
issues than
family members reporting families that are less adaptable or
less cohesive.
METHOD
69. Participants
One hundred thirty-six family members of GLBT individuals
participated
in this study. Seventy-six percent were women and 23% were
men. The
average age was 47, ranging from 19 to 76 years old. Family
members
reported knowing their GLBT family member’s sexual
orientation on average
for 14 years. Ninety-three percent of the participants identified
as European-
American, 2% as Hispanic/Latino/Chicano, 2% as
Biracial/Multiracial, and
less than 1% as African American. Seventy-eight percent had an
undergrad-
uate or graduate degree. Fifty-eight percent reported full-time
employment,
11% were employed part-time, and 13% were retired. The
median annual
personal income was $40,000 and median annual household
income was
$80,000. Sixty-one percent of the sample reported being
married, 15% were
living with their other-sex partner, 11% were single, and 10%
were divorced.
Forty-eight percent of our participants were parents, 29% were
siblings, 7%
were aunts or uncles, 4.4% were children, 8.1% were extended
family, 2.9%
were spouses or partners, and 2.9% were nieces or nephews.
Participants
reported that of their GLBT family members, 51.5% identified
as lesbian,
38.2% identified as gay, 4.4% identified as bisexual women,
2.9% identified
70. as bisexual men, .7% identified as transgender, and 2.2% chose
“other” as
the GLBT individual’s identity.
Measures
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Participants were asked relevant demographic information,
including age,
gender, education, ethnicity, relationship status, income,
relationship to the
86 T. Reeves et al.
GLBT family member, years known of GLBT family member’s
sexual and
gender identity, and sexual and gender identity of the GLBT
family member.
FAMILY ADAPTABILITY AND COHESION EVALUATION
SCALES (FACES)
FACES III (Olson, Portner, & Lavee, 1985) is a 20-item self-
report inventory
that assesses family functioning, which is defined by the degree
of reported
adaptability and cohesion. The 10-item adaptability subscale
includes disci-
pline, leadership, roles, and rules. The cohesion subscale
includes emotional
bonding, family boundaries, interests and recreation, as well as
supportive-
ness. Participants’ responses are based on a 5-point Likert-type