preprint.PDF


Pr
e-

Pu
bli

ca
tio

n D
ra

ft

1

The Psychology of Sexual Prejudice

Gregory M. Herek
University of California, Davis

Current Directions in Psychological Science, in press (1999)

Abstract1

Sexual prejudice refers to negative attitudes
toward an individual because of her or his
sexual orientation. In this article, it is used to
characterize heterosexuals’ negative attitudes
toward (a) homosexual behavior; (b) people
with a homosexual or bisexual orientation;
and (c) communities of gay, lesbian, and
bisexual people. Sexual prejudice is a
preferable term to homophobia because it
conveys no assumptions about the motivations
underlying negative attitudes, locates the
study of attitudes concerning sexual
orientation within the broader context of
social psychological research on prejudice,
and avoids value judgments about such
attitudes. Sexual prejudice remains
widespread in the United States, although
moral condemnation has decreased in the
1990s and opposition to antigay
discrimination has increased. The article
reviews current knowledge about the
prevalence of sexual prejudice, its
psychological correlates, its underlying
motivations, and its relationship to hate
crimes and other antigay behaviors.

In a six-month period beginning late in 1998,
Americans were shocked by the brutal murders
of Matthew Shepard and Billy Jack Gaither.
Shepard, a 21-year old Wyoming college student,
and Gaither, a 39-year old factory worker in

                                                
1
Address correspondence to Gregory Herek,

Department of Psychology, University of California,
Davis, CA 95616-8775. Preparation of this paper
was supported in part by an Independent Scientist
Award from the National Institute of Mental Health
(K02 MH01455).

Alabama, had little in common except that each
was targeted for attack because he was gay.
Unfortunately, their slayings were not isolated
events. Lesbians, gay men, and bisexual people
— as well as heterosexuals perceived to be gay
— routinely experience violence, discrimination,
and personal rejection. A total of 1,102 hate
crimes based on sexual orientation were tallied
by law enforcement authorities in 1997. Because
a substantial proportion of such crimes are never
reported to police, that figure represents only the
tip of an iceberg (Herek, Gillis, & Cogan, 1999).

People with homosexual or bisexual
orientations have long been stigmatized. With the
rise of the gay political movement in the late
1960s, however, homosexuality’s condemnation
as immoral, criminal, and sick came under
increasing scrutiny. When the American
Psychiatric Association dropped homosexuality
as a psychiatric diagnosis in 1973, the question of
why some heterosexuals harbor strongly
negative attitudes toward homosexuals began to
receive serious scientific consideration.

Society’s rethinking of sexual orientation was
crystallized in the term homophobia , which
heterosexual psychologist George Weinberg
coined in the late 1960s. The word first appeared
in print in 1969 and was subsequently discussed
at length in a popular book (Weinberg, 1972).2

Around the same time, heterosexism began to
be used as a term analogous to sexism and
racism, describing an ideological system that
casts homosexuality as inferior to

                                                
2Although Weinberg coined the term homophobia, it
was first used in print in 1969 by Jack Nichols and
Lige Clarke in their May 23rd column in Screw
magazine. Personal communications with George
Weinberg (October 30, 1998) and Jack Nichols
(November 5, 1998).



Pr
e-

Pu
bli

ca
tio

n D
ra

ft

2

heterosexuality.3 Although usage of the two
words has not been uniform, homophobia has
typically been employed to describe individual
antigay attitudes and behaviors whereas
heterosexism has referred to societal-level
ideologies and patterns of institutionalized
oppression of non-heterosexual people.

By drawing popular and scientific attention to
antigay hostility, the creation of these terms
marked a watershed. Of the two, homophobia is
probably more widely used and more often
criticized. Its critics note that homophobia
implicitly suggests that antigay attitudes are best
understood as an irrational fear and that they
represent a form of individual psychopathology
rather than a socially reinforced prejudice. As
antigay attitudes have become increasingly
central to conservative political and religious
ideologies since the 1980s, these limitations have
become more problematic. Yet, heterosexism,
with its historic macro-level focus on cultural
ideologies rather than individual attitudes, is not a
satisfactory replacement for homophobia.

Thus, scientific analysis of the psychology of
antigay attitudes will be facilitated by a new
term. I offer sexual prejudice for this purpose.
Broadly conceived, sexual prejudice refers to all
negative attitudes based on sexual orientation,
whether the target is homosexual, bisexual, or
heterosexual. Given the current social
organization of sexuality, however, such
prejudice is almost always directed at people
who engage in homosexual behavior or label
themselves gay, lesbian, or bisexual. Thus, as
used here, sexual prejudice encompasses
heterosexuals’ negative attitudes toward (a)
homosexual behavior; (b) people with a
homosexual or bisexual orientation; and (c)
communities of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people.
Like other types of prejudice, sexual prejudice

                                                
3Heterosexism was used as early as July 10, 1972, in
two separate letters printed in the Great Speckled
Bird, an alternative newspaper published in Atlanta,
Georgia. I thank Joanne Despres of the Merriam
Webster Company for her kind assistance with
researching the origins of this word.

has three principal features: It is an attitude (i.e.,
an evaluation or judgment); it is directed at a
social group and its members; and it is negative,
involving hostility or dislike.

Conceptualizing heterosexuals’ negative
attitudes toward homosexuality and bisexuality as
sexual prejudice — rather than homophobia —
has several advantages. First, sexual prejudice is
a descriptive term. Unlike homophobia, it
conveys no a priori assumptions about the
origins, dynamics, and underlying motivations of
antigay attitudes. Second, the term explicitly links
the study of antigay hostility with the rich
tradition of social psychological research on
prejudice. Third, using the construct of sexual
prejudice does not require value judgments that
antigay attitudes are inherently irrational or evil.

PREVALENCE

Most adults in the United States hold negative
attitudes toward homosexual behavior, regarding
it as wrong and unnatural (Herek & Capitanio,
1996; Yang, 1997). Nevertheless, poll data show
that attitudes have become more favorable over
the past three decades. For example, whereas at
least two-thirds of respondents to the General
Social Survey (GSS) considered homosexual
behavior “always wrong” in the 1970s and
1980s, that figure declined noticeably in the
1990s. By 1996, only 56% of GSS respondents
regarded it as always wrong (Yang, 1997).

Much of the public also holds negative
attitudes toward individuals who are homosexual.
In a 1992 national survey, more than half of the
heterosexual respondents expressed disgust for
lesbians and gay men (Herek, 1994).
Respondents to the ongoing American National
Election Studies have typically rated lesbians and
gay men among the lowest of all groups on a
101-point feeling thermometer, although mean
scores increased by approximately 10 points
between 1984 and 1996 (Yang, 1997).

Despite these examples of negative attitudes,
most Americans believe that a gay person should
not be denied employment or basic civil liberties.
The public is reluctant to treat homosexuality on
a par with heterosexuality, however. Although
most Americans favor giving same-sex domestic



Pr
e-

Pu
bli

ca
tio

n D
ra

ft

3

partners limited recognition (e.g., employee
health benefits, hospital visitation rights), they
generally oppose legalizing same-sex marriages.
Whereas the public generally supports the
employment rights of gay teachers, they do not
believe that lesbians and gay men should be able
to adopt children  (Yang, 1997).

Unfortunately, most studies have not
separately assessed attitudes toward lesbians
and gay men. To the extent that data are
available, attitudes toward gay men appear to be
more negative than attitudes toward lesbians,
especially among heterosexual men (Herek &
Capitanio, 1996; Kite & Whitley, 1998). This
pattern may reflect differences in the underlying
cognitive organization of attitudes toward gay
men and lesbians (Herek & Capitanio, 1999).

CORRELATES

Laboratory and questionnaire studies have
utilized a variety of scales and outcome
measures to assess heterosexuals’ attitudes
toward gay men and lesbians (e.g., Davis,
Yarber, Bauserman, Schreer, & Davis, 1998).
Consistent with findings from public opinion
surveys, they have revealed higher levels of
sexual prejudice among individuals who are
older, less educated, living in the U.S. South or
Midwest, and rural residents (Herek, 1994). The
previously noted sex difference in sexual
prejudice occurs not only in the area of personal
acceptance (Herek & Capitanio, 1999; Kite &
Whitley, 1998) but also in attitudes concerning
civil rights and social policy (Yang, 1998).

Sexual prejudice is also reliably correlated
with several psychological and social variables.
Heterosexuals with high levels of sexual
prejudice tend to score higher than others on
authoritarianism (Altemeyer, 1996; Haddock &
Zanna, 1998). In addition, heterosexuals who
identify with a fundamentalist religious
denomination and frequently attend religious
services typically manifest higher levels of sexual
prejudice than do the nonreligious and members
of liberal denominations (Herek & Capitanio,
1996). Since the 1980s, political ideology and
party affiliation have also come to be strongly
associated with sexual prejudice, with

conservatives and Republicans expressing the
highest levels (Yang, 1998).

Sexual prejudice is strongly related to
whether or not a heterosexual knows gay people
personally. The lowest levels of prejudice are
manifested by heterosexuals with gay friends or
family members who describe their relationships
with those individuals as close and report having
directly discussed the gay or lesbian person’s
sexual orientation with him or her. Interpersonal
contact and prejudice are reciprocally related.
Not only are heterosexuals with gay friends or
relatives less prejudiced, but heterosexuals from
demographic groups with low levels of sexual
prejudice (e.g., women, highly educated people)
are more likely to experience personal contact
with an openly gay person (Herek & Capitanio,
1996).

Relatively little empirical research has
examined racial and ethnic differences. Sexual
prejudice may be somewhat greater among
heterosexual African Americans than among
Whites, mainly because of White women’s
relatively favorable attitudes toward lesbians and
gay men. The correlates of sexual prejudice may
vary by race and ethnicity. Interpersonal contact
experiences may be more important in shaping
the attitudes of Whites than of Blacks, for
example, whereas the belief that homosexuality
is a choice may be a more influential predictor of
heterosexual Blacks’ sexual prejudice (Herek &
Capitanio, 1995).

UNDERLYING MOTIVATIONS

As with other forms of prejudice, sexual
prejudice has multiple motivations. For some
heterosexuals, it results from unpleasant
interactions with gay individuals, which are then
generalized to attitudes toward the entire group.
This explanation probably applies mainly to cases
in which interpersonal contact has been
superficial and minimal. For others, sexual
prejudice is rooted in fears associated with
homosexuality, perhaps reflecting discomfort
with one’s own sexual impulses or gender
conformity. For still others, sexual prejudice
reflects influences of in-group norms that are
hostile to homosexual and bisexual people. Yet



Pr
e-

Pu
bli

ca
tio

n D
ra

ft

4

another source of prejudice is the perception that
gay people and the gay community represent
values that are directly in conflict with one’s
personal value system.

These different motivations can be
understood as deriving from the psychological
functions that sexual prejudice serves, which
vary from one individual to another. One
heterosexual’s sexual prejudice, for example,
may reduce anxiety associated with his fears
about sexuality and gender, whereas another’s
prejudice might reinforce a positive sense of
herself as a member of the social group “good
Christians.” Such attitudes are functional only
when they are consistent with cultural and
situational cues, for example, when
homosexuality is defined as inconsistent with a
masculine identity or when a religious
congregation defines hostility to homosexuality as
a criterion for being a good Christian (Herek,
1987).

PREJUDICE AND BEHAVIOR

Hate crimes and discrimination are inevitably
influenced by complex situational factors
(Franklin, 1998). Nevertheless, sexual prejudice
contributes to antigay behaviors. In experimental
studies, sexual prejudice is correlated with
antigay behaviors, although other factors often
moderate this relationship (Haddock & Zanna,
1998; Kite & Whitley, 1998). Voting patterns on
gay-related ballot measures have been generally
consistent with the demographic correlates of
sexual prejudice described above (Strand, 1998).
Recognizing the complex relationship between
sexual prejudice and antigay behavior further
underscores the value of anchoring this
phenomenon in the scientific literature on
prejudice, which offers multiple models for
understanding the links between attitudes and
behavior.

CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS FOR
RESEARCH

Although more than a quarter century has
passed since George Weinberg first presented a
scholarly discussion of the psychology of
homophobia, empirical research on sexual

prejudice is still in its early stages. To date, the
prevalence and correlates of sexual prejudice
have received the most attention. Relatively little
research has been devoted as yet to
understanding the dynamic cognitive processes
associated with antigay attitudes and stereotypes,
that is, how heterosexuals think about lesbians
and gay men. Nor has extensive systematic
inquiry been devoted to the underlying
motivations for sexual prejudice or the
effectiveness of different interventions for
reducing sexual prejudice. These represent
promising areas for future research.

In addition, descriptive studies of sexual
prejudice are needed within different subsets of
the population, including ethnic and age groups.
Given the tendency for antigay behaviors to be
perpetrated by adolescents and young adults,
studies are especially needed of the development
of sexual prejudice early in the life span. Finally,
study is needed of commonalities and
convergences in the psychology of sexual
prejudice according to whether the target is men
or women, homosexuals or bisexuals. Much of
the empirical research in this area to date has
been limited because it focused (implicitly or
explicitly) on heterosexuals’ attitudes toward gay
men.

Stigma based on sexual orientation has been
commonplace throughout the twentieth century.
Conceptualizing such hostility as sexual prejudice
represents a step toward achieving a scientific
understanding of its origins, dynamics, and
functions. Perhaps most important, such an
understanding may help to prevent the behavioral
expression of sexual prejudice through violence,
discrimination, and harassment.

References

Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian specter.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Davis, C.M., Yarber, W.L., Bauserman, R., Schreer,
G., & Davis, S.L. (Eds.). (1998). Handbook of
sexuality-related measures. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.

Franklin, K. (1998). Unassuming motivations:
Contextualizing the narratives of antigay assailants. In
G. M. Herek (Ed.), Stigma and sexual orientation (pp.



Pr
e-

Pu
bli

ca
tio

n D
ra

ft

5

1-23). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Haddock, G., & Zanna, M. (1998).
Authoritarianism values, and the favorability and
structure of antigay attitudes. In G. M. Herek (Ed.),
Stigma and sexual orientation (pp. 82-107). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.

Herek, G. M. (1987). Can functions be measured?
A new perspective on the functional approach to
attitudes. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50, 285-303.

Herek, G. M. (1994). Assessing attitudes toward
lesbians and gay men: A review of empirical research
with the ATLG scale. In B. Greene, & G. M. Herek
(Eds.), Lesbian and gay psychology (pp. 206-228).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Herek, G. M., & Capitanio, J. (1995). Black
heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men
in the United States. Journal of Sex Research, 32, 95-
105.

Herek, G. M., & Capitanio, J. (1996). “Some of my
best friends”: Intergroup contact, concealable stigma,
and heterosexuals’ attitudes toward gay men and
lesbians. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 22, 412-424.

Herek, G. M., & Capitanio, J. P. (1999). Sex
differences in how heterosexuals think about lesbians
and gay men: Evidence from survey context effects.
Journal of Sex Research, in press.

Herek, G. M., Gillis, J., & Cogan, J. (1999).
Psychological sequelae of hate crime victimization
among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, in press.

Kite, M. E., & Whitley, B. E., Jr. (1998). Do
heterosexual women and men differ in their attitudes
toward homosexuality? A conceptual and
methodological analysis. In G. M. Herek (Ed.), Stigma
and sexual orientation (pp. 39-61). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.

Strand, D. (1998). Civil liberties, civil rights, and
stigma: Voter attitudes and behavior in the politics of
homosexuality. In G. M. Herek (Ed.), Stigma and
sexual orientation (pp. 108-137). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.

Weinberg, G. (1972). Society and the healthy
homosexual. New York: St. Martin’s.

Yang, A. (1997). Trends: Attitudes toward
homosexuality. Public Opinion Quarterly, 61, 477-
507.

Yang, A. (1998). From wrongs to rights: Public
opinion on gay and lesbian Americans moves toward
equality. Washington, DC: National Gay and Lesbian
Task Force Policy Institute.

Recommended Readings

Herek, G.M. (Ed.).(1998). Stigma and sexual
orientation: Understanding prejudice against
lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.

Herek, G. M., & Berrill, K. (Eds.) (1992). Hate
crimes: Confronting violence against lesbians and
gay men. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Herek, G. M., Kimmel, D. C., Amaro, H., & Melton,
G. B. (1991). Avoiding heterosexist bias in
psychological research. American Psychologist, 46,
957-963.

Herman, D. (1997). The antigay agenda: Orthodox
vision and the Christian Right. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.

Rothblum, E., & Bond, L. (Eds.).(1996). Preventing
heterosexism and homophobia. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.



Pr
e-

Pu
bli

ca
tio

n D
ra

ft

6