J
Homosex. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 Aug 21. Published in final edited form as: PMCID: PMC4545255 NIHMSID: NIHMS521882 Jane P. Sheldon, PhD, Associate Professor of Psychology,
Carla A. Pfeffer, MSW, currently a graduate student, Toby Epstein Jayaratne, PhD, Assistant Research Scientist,
Merle Feldbaum, BA, research associate, and Elizabeth M. Petty, MD, Associate Professor Homosexuality
is viewed by many as a social problem. As such, there has been keen interest in elucidating the origins of homosexuality among many scholars, from anthropologists to zoologists, psychologists to theologians. Research has shown that those who believe sexual orientation is inborn are more likely to have tolerant attitudes toward gay men and lesbians, whereas those who believe it is a choice have less tolerant attitudes. The current qualitative study used in-depth, open-ended telephone interviews
with 42 White and 44 Black Americans to gain insight into the public's beliefs about the possible genetic origins of homosexuality. Along with etiological beliefs (and the sources of information used to develop those beliefs), we asked respondents to describe the benefits and dangers of scientists discovering the possible genetic basis for homosexuality. We found that although limited understanding and biased perspectives likely led to simplistic reasoning concerning the origins and genetic
basis of homosexuality, many individuals appreciated complex and interactive etiological perspectives. These interactive perspectives often included recognition of some type of inherent aspect, such as a genetic factor(s), that served as an underlying predisposition that would be manifested after being influenced by other factors such as choice or environmental exposures. We also found that beliefs in a genetic basis for homosexuality could be used to support very diverse opinions, including
those in accordance with negative eugenic agendas. Keywords: Homosexuality, Etiology, Origins, Genetics, Choice, Public Opinion, Lay Beliefs Recent scientific and media attention has been focused on research attempting to discern potential origins of homosexuality. Homosexuality is generally framed as a social problem, which can explain this intense interest in seeking its causes. Among the scientific studies exploring the
etiology of homosexuality, much work has examined the possible influence of genes. Importantly, attributing causation of human characteristics to genetics generates a way of framing the issue that may have particular social implications. For example, when traits are understood to derive from genetic origins, they may be perceived as more immutable, “natural,” and/or as something that “cannot be helped”
(Stein, 1999). Such attributions concerning causation can subsequently affect individuals’ beliefs, attitudes and behaviors (Weiner, Perry, & Magnusson, 1988). Considering the potential social and psychological implications of framing homosexuality as something that is or is not caused by genes, it
is necessary for more studies to focus on the public's etiologic beliefs. In addition, the field of bioethics has shown the importance of exploring potential dangers and benefits of discovering the genetic bases for many psychosocial phenomena; therefore, a focus on the public's understanding of the ramifications of genetic explanations for homosexuality will expand this important literature. In response to this need for further study, we present in this paper qualitative data
addressing the following two main issues: (a) The public's beliefs about genetic and other potential origins of homosexuality; and (b) public opinion on the psychosocial benefits and dangers connected to discovering the potential genetic origins of homosexuality. We believe that the richness of qualitative data can help us gain important insights into respondents’ ideas and reasoning. Ascribing the
etiology of homosexuality to genetics implies that homosexuality is immutable and uncontrollable, and therefore is not a choice or “lifestyle.” Research has found that positive attitudes toward homosexuality are associated with the belief that its origins are biological, whereas negative attitudes are associated with the view that its origin is personal choice (Jayaratne, 2002;
PEW Research Center, 2003; Schneider & Lewis, 1984; Whitley, 1990; Wood & Bartkowski, 2004). Because
beliefs about the origins of homosexuality are strongly related to attitudes, it is likely that such beliefs will ultimately relate to social policy and behaviors. The factors contributing to an individual's same-sex sexual orientation or sexual preference remain poorly understood. Even the use of general terminology in this field has underlying implications that suggest various assumptions
about the etiologic bases. For instance, while the use of the term “sexual orientation” evokes, at best, a relatively neutral stance on etiology, there is no denying the subtle message inherent in the use of the term “sexual preference” to suggest that there is at least some degree of individual choice involved. Two major categories of scientific explanations have been proposed to explain the origins of homosexuality: (a) biological and (b) psychosocial. Biological theories focus
on anatomical (Allen & Gorski, 1992; LeVay, 1991; Swaab & Hofman, 1990), hormonal (Blanchard, 2001;
Brown, Fin, Cooke, & Breedlove, 2002; Mustanski, Chivers, & Bailey, 2002) and/or genetic factors (Bailey & Pillard, 1991;
Hamer, Hu, Magnuson, Hu, & Pattatucci, 1993). Conclusions drawn from much of this research have been criticized due to problems with sampling bias, reliability of measures, generalizability, representativeness, controls, operationalization of variables and lack of replication (Banks & Gartrell,
1995; Billings, 1994; Byne & Parsons, 1993; De Cecco & Parker, 1995; Schüklenk, Stein, Kerin, &
Byne, 1997; Stein, 1999). Furthermore, no single, specific gene has been implicated in an association with homosexuality to date, and researchers have been unable to identify linkages to any genetic region in lesbians (Veniegas & Conley, 2000). Findings from genetic studies of homosexuality in
humans have been confusing—contradictory at worst and tantalizing at best—with no clear, strong, compelling evidence for a distinctly genetic basis for homosexuality (Byne, 1994; McGuire, 1995; Nuffield Council
on Bioethics, 2001). In contrast, more psychologically- and sociologically-based studies investigate the roles of individual choice and decision-making, identity development, societal hierarchies, gender role stereotypes, role expectations and conformity in the etiology of homosexuality (Bem, 1996;
Cass, 1979; Laumann, Gagnon, Michael, & Michaels, 1994; Peplau & Cochran, 1990; Troiden, 1984). Of
the various theories offered to explain the origins of homosexuality, however, it is clear that no single account has won the favor of the scientific community. Despite ambiguity in existing scientific research, analysis of Gallup poll data demonstrates that the percentage of individuals expressing the belief that homosexuality is something people are “born with” more than tripled, from 13% in
1977 to 40% in 2001 (ReligiousTolerance.org, 2004). The percentage of those attributing homosexuality to environment or upbringing dropped from 56% in 1977 to 39% in 2001 (PEW Research Center, 2003;
ReligiousTolerance.org, 2004). However, the Gallup polls have framed the question concerning the origins of homosexuality in terms of nature versus nurture, disregarding the possibility that the public believes choice plays a role (PEW Research Center, 2003). In 1985, a Los Angeles Times poll showed
that most respondents (42%) believed homosexuality is a choice, whereas fewer believed that it is due to environmental factors (20%) or biology (20%). However, by 2004, the percentage of respondents citing choice (35%) or environment (14%) dropped, while the percentage citing biology increased to 32% (Roper Center, 2004). Although these data have shown historical shifts in the public's beliefs about
the origins of homosexuality, data gathered from the different polls have been inconsistent and even slightly contradictory. Therefore, it is necessary to explore further the public's ideas concerning the origins of homosexuality by using an interview format that allows for the expression of all possible etiologic beliefs. As
genetic science advances and social policy decisions are made, the general public (as well as scientists themselves) need an awareness of how genetic explanations for human characteristics can be used to both help and harm individuals and societies. While genetic science can better humanity, the histories of genetics-based discrimination and eugenics practices cannot be forgotten or ignored. Bioethicists are greatly concerned with such issues and hope to educate the public concerning the pros
and cons of advances in genetic science (Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 2001; President's Council on Bioethics, 2004). Therefore, it is important to gain a sense of the public's awareness of the potential psychosocial ramifications of discovering possible genetic origins for homosexuality. In some polls and studies of heterosexual people's attributions for homosexuality, it has been demonstrated that when individuals believe that homosexuality is a matter of personal choice, their attitudes toward gay men and lesbians tend to be more negative, whereas more positive attitudes toward gay men and lesbians are associated with attributing homosexuality to something people are “born with”
(Schneider & Lewis, 1984; Whitley, 1990; Wood & Bartkowski, 2004). Weiner et al.'s (1988) research
concerning people's attributions for psychosocial stigmas also found that attributing the cause of a social stigma to something believed to be uncontrollable and immutable (such as genetics) is related to more positive attitudes. A focus on genetic origins also serves to counter the assertions by religious fundamentalist groups that homosexuality is a chosen “sin” and is “unnatural.” These findings have led some individuals and groups to assume that identifying a genetic causal role for
homosexuality will result in more tolerant attitudes, as well as social and legal gains for gays and lesbians. This assumption is anecdotally reflected in the adoption by many gay men and lesbians of the “I was born this way” assertion when advocating for legal and civil rights. It is unclear, however, if the general public has also considered these possible social, political and psychological benefits of discovering a genetic basis for homosexuality. The current study is a much-needed addition
to research concerning this sociopolitical issue. While many believe that identifying a genetic basis for homosexuality may result in concrete gains for gay and lesbian rights, others remain more skeptical (Billings, 1994; Brookey,
2001; Burr, 1996a; Greenberg & Bailey, 1993; Haynes, 1995; Hegarty, 2002;
Nardi, 1993; Wilcox, 2003). Similar to other minority populations, gay and lesbian people have been persecuted or considered deviant throughout history. Although homosexuality was no longer defined by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) as a psychiatric illness after 1973, discrimination against
gay men and lesbians continues even in the face of the depathologization of homosexuality by some social institutions. The link between homosexuality and stigma seems quite resistant to attempts at normalizing gay and lesbian identity. It seems tenuous, therefore, to assert that the discovery of a genetic link for homosexuality would somehow “legitimate” gay and lesbian identity, or result in the eradication of societal discrimination against homosexual people, despite empirical evidence of an
association between genetic explanations and tolerance toward gays and lesbians. History also demonstrates that establishing causal genetic links connected to stigmatized identities does not necessarily mitigate discrimination (Brookey, 2001; Brookey, 2002;
Nardi, 1993). Rather, a genetic link to homosexuality may be interpreted by some as a genetic anomaly, flaw or defect that might someday be preventable or even “cured.” Indeed, the history of persecution of gay men and lesbians over the last 100 years includes the eugenics movement, which attempted to justify discrimination on the basis of perceived genetic inferiority. This movement culminated in
Nazi Germany with the genocidal extermination of several populations deemed “subordinate” and “less desirable,” including gay men and lesbians (Black, 2003). Additionally, some current researchers still advocate positions somewhat reminiscent of eugenics arguments. A recent article by Bailey
and Greenberg (2001), published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, contains the following statement: Allowing parents, by means morally unproblematic in themselves, to select for heterosexuality would be morally acceptable. This is because allowing parents to select their children's sexual orientation would further parents’ freedom to raise the sort of children they wish to raise and because selection for heterosexuality may benefit parents and children
and is unlikely to cause significant harm (from the Abstract). In light of these findings and assertions, and given that public opinion influences social policy, more systematic and extensive examination of these issues seems critical. Therefore, we also chose to investigate in this study whether the public has considered the psychosocial harm that could result from discovering a genetic basis for homosexuality. The current study is part of a larger study of the public's understanding of genetic science and the use of genetic explanations for several human behaviors and characteristics, including sexual orientation. The larger study consisted of a 40-minute structured interview with a national probability sample of 1200 White and Black respondents throughout the United States. This survey was conducted from January to June 2001. In order to
gain a more complete understanding of how people think about some of these genetic issues, we conducted two separate follow-up interviews with small sub-samples of these respondents using a semi-structured instrument with many open-ended items. We selected respondents who were cooperative and attentive, showed good understanding of questions, and gave us permission during the structured survey to be re-interviewed. The criteria used to select the Black and the White respondents differed due to
questions we wished to investigate in the larger survey; however, both subsamples consisted of respondents possessing a wide range of opinions concerning genetic attributions and who varied in terms of demographic characteristics. Participants were interviewed over the phone by professionally trained interviewers (Market Strategies, Inc., South Bend, IN) and all interviews were tape recorded and then transcribed for data analyses. The two sub-samples for this qualitative study consisted of 42
self-identified White respondents and 44 self-identified Black respondents. Table 1 presents the demographic information for both sub-samples. Demographic Characteristics of the Two Sub-Samples
Note: Frequencies reported within parentheses. Selection of White respondentsDue to interest in the connection between racism and the use of genetic explanations in our larger study, we selected White respondents based partly on their answers in the structured survey to items measuring racist attitudes. In addition, we selected respondents based partly on their answers to questions about the possible genetic basis for perceived differences between Whites and Blacks in athleticism, violence and intelligence. Thus, the 42 White respondents were selected from the following four groups: (a) high use of genetic explanations/high racism (nmen = 5, nwomen = 6); (b) low use of genetic explanations/high racism (nmen = 5, nwomen = 6); (c) high use of genetic explanations/low racism (nmen = 6, nwomen = 4); and (d) low use of genetic explanations/low racism (nmen = 5, nwomen = 5). The interviews took place during March and April, 2002. Selection of Black respondentsBlack respondents were selected based on their views about (a) the possible genetic basis for perceived differences between men and women in violence and intelligence, and (b) the possible genetic differences between Whites and Blacks in athleticism, violence and intelligence. The sample was also stratified by gender of respondent. Therefore, the 44 respondents were represented from the following four groups: 1) male/high use of genetic explanations (n = 11), 2) male/low use of genetic explanations (n = 11), 3) female/high use of genetic explanations (n = 10), 4) female/low use of genetic explanations (n = 12). The interviews were conducted during May and June, 2002. MeasuresOrigins of homosexualityTo measure participants’ ideas about the origins of homosexuality and whether they believed that homosexuality has a genetic basis, interviewers asked participants the following question: “Some people told us that homosexuality is due partly to someone's genes or genetic makeup. Others told us genetics has nothing to do with this. What do you think?” If respondents said they believed that homosexuality was either partly or totally genetic, interviewers asked participants to explain why they believed this. When respondents stated that they believed homosexuality is not genetic, the interviewers asked them why they believed it is not genetic. Respondents who did not initially give an answer regarding homosexuality's causes were asked, “What do you think homosexuality is due to?” Sources of informationBecause opinions are not generated within a vacuum and because sources of information can vary in their degree of accuracy and objectivity, we felt it was also important to examine sources of information the public uses to establish and justify their beliefs about the origins of homosexuality. Media, religious teachings, and individuals’ discussions with others, observations, and personal experiences are often used to form and justify their beliefs about homosexuality (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2001). For example, the media tends to distill scientific studies and present them to the public in a highly condensed form or invite “experts” to discuss their studies and findings, sometimes employing the use of scintillating covers or headlines such as “Born Gay: Science Finds a Genetic Link” (Time cover from July 26, 1993) or “Is This Child Gay?” (Newsweek cover from February 24, 1992). In terms of religious teachings, there are different religious views concerning the morality and acceptability of homosexuality. For instance, conservative religious groups often condemn homosexuality as “unnatural,” sinful, and willfully chosen by the individual and tend to argue against the idea that homosexuality has a genetic or biological basis (Herman, 1997; Pew Research Center, 2003). Regarding individuals’ interactions and observations, those who have personal contact with lesbians and gay men tend to hold more positive attitudes toward homosexuality (Herek, 1988; Herek & Capitanio, 1996; Herek & Glunt, 1993). However, such interactions and observations may also increase stereotyping and prejudice when they are biased and/or stereotyped. Research has shown that people often selectively attend to information that confirms their previously held beliefs (i.e., confirmation bias; Klayman & Ha, 1987) and tend to disregard information that contradicts their ideas (i.e., belief perseverance; Shafir & LeBoeuf, 2002). To assess where participants acquired their information regarding the origins of homosexuality, the interviewers asked respondents about the sources of information on which they had based their ideas. Specifically, if respondents stated that they believed homosexuality is genetic or partially genetic, the interviewers asked, “What have you seen or heard that has influenced your opinion that homosexuality is genetic [partially genetic]?” If respondents initially stated that they believed genes played no role in the etiology of homosexuality, the interviewers asked them, “What have you seen or heard that has influenced your opinion that homosexuality is not genetic?” Participants were also asked, “Have you had any personal experiences that influenced your opinion?” Interviewers probed for more specific information when necessary. How genetic information can help and harm peopleTo investigate participants’ ideas about how information concerning a genetic basis for homosexuality could impact individuals and social systems in both beneficial and negative ways, interviewers posed two questions: (a) “If it were found that homosexuality is partly genetic, how do you think that information might be used to help people?” and (b) “If it were found that homosexuality is partly genetic, how do you think that information might be used to harm people?” Interviewers requested clarification when answers were ambiguous or incomplete. CodingWe categorized participants’ responses by using the technique of inductive content analysis, the procedural guidelines of which have been explained by research methodologists (e.g., Boyatzis, 1998; Patton, 1990). When participants gave more than one response to a question, we coded all their responses. Responses with similar meanings were combined into higher order themes. Two of the investigators conferred to reach consensus before moving to the next stage of analysis. Consensual validation is necessary to reduce researcher bias and to obtain the most accurate depiction of participants’ beliefs. Origins of homosexualityParticipants first answered the question concerning their belief about the extent to which genes play a role in the etiology of homosexuality. We coded their answers into five categories: (a) genes are fully responsible; (b) genes are partly responsible; (c) genes play a role in some gay people but not in others; (d) genes are not at all responsible; (e) don't know. To gain a richer account of participants’ ideas about the etiology of homosexuality, we not only asked them whether genes play a role, but we also asked them to elaborate on why they believe what they do about the extent to which homosexuality is genetic. Their answers most often included a discussion of other potential causes of homosexuality. Thus, we were then able to code all their responses concerning the origins of homosexuality into four broad categories of causal influences: (a) Genetic/Biological, (b) Environmental, (c) Personal Choice, and (d) Other. Respondents’ answers could be coded into more than one category. Answers coded as Genetic/Biological contained terms related to biology and/or genetics or focused on physical aspects of the body. Responses coded as Environmental focused on external factors that impacted on gay men or lesbians, rather than biological factors or factors relating to individuals’ mental or motivational states. Answers coded as Personal Choice specifically referred to gay men's and lesbians’ personal desires, liking, and choices. Genes/biology, environment, and personal choice are the three main domains of causal explanations that have been investigated in previous research concerning ideas about the origins of homosexuality (PEW Research Center, 2003). Sources of informationTo investigate the sources of information participants used when developing their ideas about the origins of homosexuality, we coded their answers to the question concerning what factors had influenced their opinion. Sources of people's information included (a) gay family members, (b) gay friends, acquaintances, or co-workers, (c) non-gay family and friends, (d) personal experiences, (e) mass media, (f) scientific research, and (g) religious teachings. How genetic information can help and harm peopleWe asked participants how it might help people if it were found that homosexuality is partly genetic. Categories that emerged when analyzing the data were the following: (a) increase heterosexuals’ tolerance, (b) show that homosexuality is not a choice, (c) help homosexuals accept themselves, (d) find a cure, (e) do genetic testing, (f) assist in family planning, (g) wouldn't be helpful, and (h) don't know. Participants’ answers to the question concerning how it might harm people if it were found that homosexuality is partly genetic were coded into the following thematic categories: (a) increase hate and discrimination, (b) change or eliminate a person's “homosexual genes,” (c) legitimize homosexuality, (d) increase family blame, (e) wouldn't be harmful, and (f) don't know. Intercoder reliabilitiesAll responses to questions were coded by two members of the research team. When disagreements concerning the coding of particular cases occurred, decisions were made by consensus of the entire research team. Intercoder reliabilities (percentage of agreements) were calculated across the entire sample for each subcategory. Reliabilities ranged from 92% to 98% for the coding of genetic/biological, environmental, choice, and other influences on the origins of homosexuality. For the coding of sources of information the reliabilities ranged from 86% to 98%. Intercoder reliabilities were 86% for the questions concerning how discovering a genetic basis for homosexuality might help and harm people. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONOrigins of HomosexualityIn order to understand what our participants believe about the origins of homosexuality, we first asked them the question concerning whether they believe that genes play a role in homosexuality. As explained previously, we categorized their responses in terms of whether they said genes were responsible fully, partly, for some people, or not at all. Eight respondents gave answers that showed they believed that homosexuality is totally due to genes, 25 respondents believed that genes are at least partly the cause of homosexuality, 5 participants said that genes play a role for some people but not for others, and 43 respondents felt that genes play no role. The remaining participants stated that they did not know. To understand more fully participants’ beliefs concerning the different potential origins of homosexuality, we also coded their responses into the four broad areas explained previously: (a) genetic/biological; (b) environmental, (c) personal choice; and (d) other influences. Participants often gave multiple answers concerning the causes of homosexuality. Although many participants (n = 31) gave responses that fell into two or more of these four broad categories, some participants gave answers that fell into one and only one of the categories. For example, 17 individuals gave only genetic explanations. (Important to note, however, is that 9 of these 17 participants specifically stated that genes play a partial role in the origin of homosexuality, yet they only discussed the role of genetics and did not elaborate on other possible causes.) In addition, two respondents gave only other biological answers, 12 participants gave only environmental explanations, and 14 respondents gave only personal choice explanations. Additionally, 7 respondents stated that they did not know the cause of homosexuality. Genetic influencesAs stated previously, some respondents asserted that homosexuality is totally genetic:
According to these individuals, homosexuality must be genetic because it cannot possibly be due to what they saw as the other possible cause—either choice or environment. In these cases, participants appeared to view the origins of homosexuality through the lens of either the nature vs. free will dichotomy or the nature vs. nurture dichotomy. Many respondents believed that genes are partly the cause of homosexuality, yet they expressed a variety of opinions regarding the degree of the genetic influence.
A few participants stated that they believe homosexuality could have a genetic basis in some gay people, but not in other gay people.
These statements may indicate a more sophisticated view concerning the origins of homosexuality in that participants seem to recognize human complexity and individual differences. Scholars (Garnets & Peplau, 2000; Rosario, 1996; Stein, 1997; Whisman; 1996) have also pointed out the likely etiological variations for homosexuality depending on the individual. Finally, a large number of respondents stated that genes are not at all responsible for homosexuality, and instead other biological factors, the environment and/or choice are the causes. Their statements concerning the origins of homosexuality are included in the next sections of this paper. Other biological influencesOther biological explanations besides genetics were given for the origin of homosexuality (10 responses). The brain, hormones, the blood, disease, and ambiguous genitalia were suggested as some of the possible biological causes.
Four respondents believed that the biological factor of ambiguous genitalia is homosexuality's cause. We investigate this possible conflation of biological sex and homosexuality in more detail in a later section of this paper.
Although all these responses clearly fall into the broader category of biological/genetic, it is unclear how to interpret these statements in terms of participants’ specific etiologic beliefs within this category. It may be that participants equated these biological factors with genetic factors, viewing all biology as ultimately stemming from genes. Importantly, however, even though we asked respondents about their belief in the possible genetic basis of homosexuality and about any other potential causes of homosexuality, few gave biological answers other than genetics. So, although the scientific community has investigated hormonal (Blanchard, 2001; Brown, Fin, Cooke, & Breedlove, 2002; Mustanski, Chivers, & Bailey, 2002) and neuroanatomical (Allen & Gorski, 1992; LeVay, 1991; Swaab & Hofman, 1990) factors in the etiology of homosexuality, the respondents very rarely viewed hormones (n = 1) or neurological structures (n = 2) as possible causes. This may reflect the public's (a) lack of awareness about hormonal and neurological studies, (b) lack of belief in the findings from such research, (c) extrapolation from hormonal and neurological data to other biological characteristics that were discussed, such as ambiguous genitalia, or (d) the inherent bias of our study as we did not specifically ask about belief in hormonal or neurological influences. Additional research is needed to further investigate the public's views about specific potential biological influences on homosexuality, such as hormonal profiles or brain anatomy. Environmental influencesA variety of environmental causes were given by participants. To acquire a deeper understanding of the external influences participants believe contribute to homosexuality, we further coded environmental responses into the following categories: (a) upbringing, (b) lack of same-sex role models, (c) problems with the other gender/sex, (d) trauma, abuse or neglect, and (e) influence of homosexual others. Several respondents commented on the importance of one's upbringing (10 responses):
Interestingly, many answers concerning the upbringing of homosexual individuals focused on the influence of females on young males. Thus, many respondents may have been thinking more of gay men than lesbians when responding to the questions about homosexuality, a phenomenon found in other research (Black & Stevenson, 1984; Haddock, Zanna, & Esses, 1993). Two respondents referred to a very specific aspect of upbringing: the lack of a male role model for gay men:
Such beliefs about the origin of homosexuality are consistent with the psychoanalytic view that gay men have cold, distant relationships with their fathers, a view unsupported by empirical research yet still circulating in society and upheld by some psychoanalytic theorists. Statements (7 responses) by several respondents reflected a belief that homosexuality is due to problems with the other gender:
Such comments relate to the heterosexist idea that lesbians just “need to find the right man” and gay men just “need to find the right woman.” Experiences of abuse or neglect were also cited (10 responses) as potential causes of homosexuality:
Despite the fact that few studies (e. g., Tomeo, Templer, Anderson, & Kotler, 2001) have investigated a possible relationship between abuse and the development of homosexuality, this causal relationship was a fairly common idea in our sample of respondents. In terms of the influence of homosexual others (14 responses), respondents asserted:
One participant stated the following about incarcerated fathers who were presumed to be gay because they engaged in homosexual behaviors in prison:
Thus, the influence of homosexual others was seen as either passive (growing up in their presence) or as active (introducing heterosexual individuals to homosexuality). Some of these comments are expressions of the belief that all gays and lesbians actively “recruit” young heterosexuals, a cultural myth that is often perpetuated by hate groups and some religious groups. Personal choiceThirty-two responses by participants indicated a belief that homosexuality is at least partly a matter of choice. As several respondents concluded:
The view that choice plays a role in homosexuality has also been found in research concerning the etiologic beliefs of lesbians and gay men about their own sexual orientation (Whisman, 1996). However, this causal attribution is not the most common in the gay community, with most gays and lesbians citing biological and environmental origins (Bidstrup, 2000). Interestingly, two participants suggested that while there may be a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality, it is still an individual's personal choice whether or not to acknowledge those feelings or act on them:
These statements indicate that, in accordance with others’ views (e.g., Brookey, 2001; Byne & Stein, 1997; Greenberg & Bailey, 1993; Nardi, 1993), ascribing a genetic basis to homosexuality will not necessarily increase favorable attitudes towards gays and lesbians, because for some individuals “genetic” does not necessarily mean “uncontrollable.” As others (e.g., Byne & Stein, 1997; Weinrich, 1995) point out, there are different models of biological causation, so that genes can be seen as having a direct impact on the development of homosexuality or an indirect impact, with environmental and personality factors moderating biology's influence. Other influencesSome respondents expressed other ideas about the origins of homosexuality that were nearly uniformly negative (9 responses):
Religion also surfaced in the discussion of the etiology of homosexuality with religious reasons given by three participants:
These three answers concerning the perceived origins of homosexuality, although all drawing upon religious beliefs, differ greatly in terms of the specific religious source and the respondents’ subsequently positive or negative moral assessment of homosexuality. For instance, ascribing homosexuality to “Satan's work” makes it clear that homosexuality is seen as evil and against God's will. However, if homosexuality is considered a “cross to bear” that God has given, then that implies homosexuality is a punishment. The statement that “God determines sexuality” could again be construed that homosexuality is a punishment, but could also imply that it is just one of the many God-given features humans experience. Sources of Information about HomosexualityWe sought to understand more about participants’ beliefs by also investigating the sources of their information. We asked if they had seen anything, heard anything, or had any personal experiences that had influenced their opinions about the causes of homosexuality. Once again, participants often gave multiple answers that fell into two or more categories. Family members, friends, acquaintances, or co-workers who are gayWhen we asked about the sources of their information, many respondents gave statements indicating that their beliefs regarding the origins of homosexuality had derived from gay family members (12 responses) or gay friends, acquaintances, or co-workers (52 responses). Participants’ responses were ambiguous about the amount and quality of their personal contact with the homosexual individuals they referred to. Therefore, we were unable to assess whether personal contact related to more positive attitudes, as other researchers have found (Herek, 1988; Herek & Capitanio, 1996; Herek & Glunt, 1993). One small differentiation we were able to make, however, was whether respondents had gained their information from talking with gay men and lesbians or from observing them. Some respondents gained their information from talking with homosexual individuals:
However, a more common source of information was merely knowing of or seeing someone presumed to be homosexual:
Many of these instances concerning observations (and all of the statements above) had to do with the violations of gender role norms that presumably indicated the sexual orientation of the individual. This theme of counterstereotyped gender role behaviors surfaced many times, thus we investigate it in more depth in a later section of this paper. Non-gay family and friendsNon-gay family and friends were mentioned 9 times as sources of information, reflected in the following statements:
Personal experiencesThree responses concerned using general personal experiences as one's source of information about the etiology of homosexuality.
Mass mediaThe answers by many respondents (31 responses) indicated that they acquired their information about homosexuality from the mass media, such as television, radio, newspapers and magazines:
These responses suggest that the media are, indeed, a common source of information about homosexuality, even if such media presentations are not necessarily scientifically-grounded or informed. Journalistic reports tend to be inadequate in their explanations of complex scientific phenomena (Murray, Schwartz, & Lichter, 2001; Nelkin, 1996), and such media presentations can mislead the public, who rarely have the knowledge base necessary for critically evaluating media accounts of scientific research (Conrad, 1997). Media coverage of research concerning the etiology of homosexuality has been particularly contradictory and dramatic (Wilcox, 2003). Scientific researchSome participants (8 responses) credited specific scientific research, yet when they did, they sometimes showed confusion about the scientific findings.
In this statement the participant implies that Carl Jung was an authority on the etiology of homosexuality, even though Jung's ideas were never empirically tested and are controversial within the psychological community (McGowan, 1994; von Raffay & Slotkin, 2000). Religious teachingsReligious teachings (10 responses) were also cited as a source of information about the etiology of homosexuality.
We noticed that many participants (n = 21) mentioned religion not only when explaining the source of their information, but also when justifying their answers and in the course of merely discussing the issue of homosexuality. Because religious views have been shown to play a large role in beliefs about and attitudes toward homosexuality (PEW Research Center, 2003), we chose to investigate responses concerning religion in more detail. One respondent, after being asked the first survey question, declared:
Here, the respondent drew upon a recent conversation with a religious leader seemingly in order to justify the appropriateness of her beliefs concerning gays and lesbians that she expanded upon throughout the interview. However, many individuals who mentioned religion (n = 14) used it to justify their belief that homosexuality has nothing to do with genes, but instead is due to choice and/or environmental factors:
Thus, religious beliefs were most often used by participants to refute the possibility that biology plays a role in sexual orientation, and instead to assert that individual choice is a cause of homosexuality. Such attributions are consistent with being morally opposed to homosexuality, because ascribing homosexuality to choice (rather than to genes or environment) moves it into the moral domain. After all, immorality can only occur when there is volition. Additional Themes that EmergedPossible conflation of sex, gender, gender identity, gender roles, and sexual orientationA theme that emerged as we investigated the data was respondents’ possible conflation of the concepts of biological sex, gender, gender identity, gender roles, and sexual orientation. Biological sex usually is determined by the appearance of the external genitalia and internal genital structures, along with chromosomal and hormonal patterns (Byne & Sekaer, 2004), whereas gender is the societal construction of “maleness” and “femaleness” and is not limited to biological sex (emedicine.com, 2004). Gender identity is one's personal sense of being “male” or “female” and may or may not be related to biological sex or to gender, but usually is (emedicine.com, 2004). Gender roles are those behaviors, characteristics, customs and roles in a society that are considered “feminine” (i.e., appropriate for females) and those considered “masculine” (i.e., appropriate for males). They are socially prescribed and can change over time (emedicine.com, 2004). A homosexual sexual orientation is generally defined as sexual attraction to same-sex individuals. Possible conflation of these concepts occurred when participants discussed both the potential origins of homosexuality and the sources of their information. Twenty-six participants made statements that revealed potential confusion about the difference between sex or gender and sexual orientation. For example, one participant asserted:
In addition, respondents often demonstrated this possible conflation of sexual orientation with sex or gender by suggesting that a homosexual individual has the genes of the “other sex” or that, as discussed previously, ambiguous genitalia is the cause of homosexuality.
Here, the respondents may be referring to intersex individuals, a population who have gained public attention since 1997 due to media reports about the “John/Joan” case (Colapinto, 1997) and to other forms of media information (e.g., Eugenides, 2002; Gorman & Cole, 2004). However, these respondents’ comments also indicate that they may be equating intersexuality with homosexuality. Therefore, they seem to believe that homosexuality is most often (or perhaps even always) associated with some sort of intersex condition, a belief that is woefully inaccurate. Seven respondents demonstrated confusion about the differences between gender identity and sexual orientation. Their statements indicated a belief that homosexuality for all or many gay men and lesbians has to do with wanting to be the other sex or gender.
Many participants (n = 27) conflated the construct of gender roles with sexual orientation. For example, as two participants explained:
In particular, however, males exhibiting stereotyped feminine behaviors were most often cited as examples of gender role nonconformity (21 responses). It may be, then, that some of these participants have an awareness of research (e.g., Bailey & Zucker, 1995; Green, 1987) that has demonstrated a connection between gender role nonconformity in boyhood and later homosexuality in adult men. However, it also may be that respondents are merely using stereotypes to substantiate their beliefs, so that they view the violation of gender norms as a proxy for homosexuality.
As discussed previously, such gender role stereotypes were often cited as examples of how the environment can supposedly cause homosexuality, such as when a boy is raised around many girls and thus adopts their female behaviors. One respondent relayed a detailed story about a father who didn't take his son fishing, to the lumberyard, or to the hardware store to buy nails, but instead left the boy in the care of the mother, who taught the boy to bake cookies and pies. The conclusion of the story was:
As mentioned before, when respondents were asked about homosexuality they tended to give examples of gay men rather than lesbians, especially when citing gender role violations. As others (Herek, 2002; Kite & Deaux, 1987) have pointed out, gender role “inversion” and homosexuality are often equated, especially for gay men. Importantly, research has also shown that individuals who possess negative attitudes toward gender role inversion have more negative attitudes toward lesbians and gay men (Kerns & Fine, 1994; Whitley, 2001). Family lineageA second important theme that surfaced in the interviews was participants’ (n = 42) use of family lineage examples to explain their beliefs about homosexuality. Such examples appeared at various points in the interviews as respondents sifted through their ideas and tried to explain their reasoning. For most of these respondents who mentioned family lineage, when they cited an example in which only one homosexual individual was present in a family, they then concluded that homosexuality is likely not genetic. Respondents believing that genes play no role stated:
If, however, respondents mentioned more than one person in a family who was homosexual, they used this information to substantiate their belief that genes do indeed play a role. Participants citing a genetic basis for homosexuality explained:
Thus, participants’ insufficient understanding of genetic mechanisms seemed to contribute to their use of simplistic reasoning concerning heritability and to a reliance on observable manifestations presumed to be genetic. These findings are consistent with research concerning the public's limited understanding of genetic science (Lanie et al., 2004; Richards, 1996; Richards & Ponder, 1996) and point to the need for increased education in this area. How Information That Homosexuality Is Partly Genetic Could Be Used to Help PeopleWhen asked how it could help people if it were discovered that homosexuality has a genetic basis, 11 participants said they did not know how such information could be helpful and 15 participants asserted that there would be nothing helpful about finding out that homosexuality is partly genetic. However, most respondents gave answers that reflected their belief in the benefits of this information. Increase heterosexuals’ toleranceMost statements (29 responses) from participants contained the idea that the information could be used to educate heterosexual people and help them to be more accepting and tolerant. Examples of these ideas are the following:
Show that homosexuality is not a choiceSimilar to the previous category of responses is the view by five participants that the genetic information would make it clear that homosexuality is not a choice.
Help homosexuals accept themselvesA separate category related to the idea of increasing tolerance was that the information will help homosexual individuals come to terms with their own sexuality and not feel ashamed (7 responses).
Most of these responses concerning the use of genetic science to increase tolerance and acceptance implied that the key issue would be that homosexuality is not a personal choice and therefore that homosexual individuals cannot be held responsible, blamed, or shunned for their sexual orientation. This stance has also been taken by many gay and lesbian activists who believe that finding a genetic (and therefore supposedly immutable) cause for homosexuality will result in more tolerance and in the same legal and political protections that racial minorities currently possess. However, others (Byne & Stein, 1997; Rosario, 1996; Whisman, 1996) assert that finding a genetic basis for homosexuality will not necessarily lead to political or social tolerance and protections, but instead may result in gays and lesbians being seen as genetically inferior or defective, a biological view consistent with the eugenics movement. In fact, the following category of responses demonstrates that the fear of eugenics beliefs is not unfounded. Find a cureIn total contrast to responses having to do with increasing tolerance and acceptance, 18 responses from participants focused upon finding a cure for homosexuality and changing the individual.
In addition, two categories of responses, Do Genetic Testing (4 responses), and Assist in Family Planning (3 responses), indicated that homosexuality was viewed as undesirable and to be avoided:
In support of others’ assertions (Brookey, 2001; Greenberg & Bailey, 1993; Hegarty, 2002; Nardi, 1993; Whisman, 1996; Wilcox, 2004), these responses make it evident that the discovery of genetic causes for homosexuality may make little difference to some individuals in terms of their acceptance of it. Instead, these respondents asserted that getting rid of homosexuality is what would be helpful about identifying its genetic basis. Thus, our findings lend support to scholars’ (e. g., Gould, 1997; Whisman, 1996) concern that the discovery of a genetic basis for homosexuality may lead not only to discrimination, but also to selective abortion, forced sterilization, gene therapy, and other eugenics practices. Indeed, some (e. g., Burr, 1996b) have discussed how “beneficial” it would be for homosexuality to be due to genetics (rather than choice or environment), because the technology may soon exist to change people's genes. As demonstrated in the next section of this paper, statements about changing or removing genes were also made, by other participants, when discussing the harm that could result from genetic markers. Clearly then, ideas about the benefits and problems associated with finding a genetic basis for homosexuality likely depend on people's personal biases and prejudices and cannot be separated from these preconceived notions (Brookey, 2000; Hegarty, 2002; Herrn, 1995; Stein, 1994). How Information That Homosexuality Is Partly Genetic Could Be Used to Harm PeopleAlthough 10 participants did not know how information about the genetic cause of homosexuality could be used to harm people and 12 respondents believed that there would be nothing harmful about such knowledge, most participants gave specific examples of how such genetic information could be harmful. Increase hate and discriminationMany respondents expressed concern that the information could be used to increase hate and discrimination (21 responses).
Many of these respondents recognized that some sort of genetic “marker” could serve to increase discrimination if prejudiced individuals were allowed access to this genetic information. As stated previously, these ideas are in accordance with the views of many researchers and gay and lesbian activists (Byne & Stein, 1997; Rosario, 1996; Whisman, 1996), who cite the histories of racism in numerous societies as examples of genetics-based discrimination. Change or eliminate a person's genesThirteen responses were about harming individuals by changing or eliminating their genes. For example, respondents described these possible scenarios:
In contrast, one individual proposed the idea:
These comments demonstrate that individuals have different ideas about the method of harm and the object of harm. Participants suggested that a genetic basis for homosexuality could be harmful to both homosexual individuals (who would be either aborted, weeded out, or changed) and heterosexual individuals (who could be “inflicted” with homosexuality, as though it is a disease). It is also important to remember that several participants stated that aborting, changing, or weeding out homosexual individuals would be a way that genetic information could be used to help people. As stated previously, how individuals use genetic information will likely depend on their personal biases and agendas (Brookey, 2000; Council for Responsible Genetics, 2004; Herrn, 1995; Veniegas & Conley, 2000). Legitimize homosexualityNegative attitudes toward homosexuality contributed to other responses, as well. Some respondents (7 responses) believed that discovering a genetic basis for homosexuality would do harm to individuals in that it would legitimize homosexuality.
The implication here is that if one views homosexuality as a choice that a person has control over, then one can denounce such behavior (and the person exhibiting the behavior) as wrong or immoral. However, a genetic basis for homosexuality may take away individual choice and control, thus reducing stigma and blame. Such a relationship between causal attributions and attitudes was also found by Weiner et al. (1988) who showed that when participants believed that a person with a stigma had no control over that stigma, their attitudes toward that person were more positive than when they believed the person did have control over the stigma. Increase family blameIncreasing family blame was another category of answers (7 responses):
Several of these statements suggest that a genetic basis for homosexuality implies its heritability, so that all individuals genetically related to someone who is homosexual would carry “undesirable” genes and thus would be ostracized for possessing such a “defect.” ConclusionThe breadth of responses captured in our survey highlights the fact that Americans have diverse opinions about the basis for homosexuality that incorporate, but extend far beyond, commonly discussed nature and nurture perspectives or genes versus choice arguments. Interestingly, despite the fact that the etiological factors contributing to sexual orientation are not understood by biological scientists, psychologists, or other scholars, few respondents stated that they did not know or understand the basis of homosexuality. In fact, the vast majority of our respondents were readily able to articulate their views on the etiology of homosexuality and point to specific examples or sources supporting their opinions. Similar to other studies, we found that some individuals’ beliefs about the origins of homosexuality were rooted entirely within the broad categories of biological, environmental, choice or other specific factors such as those stemming from religious beliefs. The open-ended, exploratory nature of our study, however, allowed us to better appreciate the rich complexity of our respondents’ views as respondents often suggested that multiple causal factors from more than one broad category contributed to homosexuality. A few even suggested etiological heterogeneity, noting that different causes might be important factors for different gay and lesbian individuals. This illustrates that some respondents likely recognized the complex basis of sexual orientation and were aware that the interaction of several variables likely impacts whether or not any particular individual is homosexual. At the same time, however, many comments reflected a limited awareness about this multifactorial complexity or demonstrated that participants were swayed by their biases to reject perspectives that conflicted with their moral framework or limited understanding. For instance, those who provided a conservative religious perspective as the sole contributing factor seemed less likely to consider biological contributions or account for environmental influences. In addition, many individuals, no matter what their etiological perspectives, used a simplistic understanding of inheritance and/or an inaccurate understanding of genetic or other biological concepts to support their views. We also found that many respondents substantiated their beliefs by associating homosexuality with a deviation from normal biological sexual differentiation and/or from stereotypical societal gender role norms. Again, such views demonstrate a lack of understanding, in that the lines are blurred between the different conceptual areas of biological sex, gender, gender roles, and sexuality. Nearly all of our respondents, who collectively embraced a wide range of beliefs on the origins of homosexuality, were easily able to state their beliefs and provide insights, often peppered with specific examples or experiences, regarding support for the foundation of their beliefs. Few, however, reflected on how their own biases, such as their moral framework or lack of scientific knowledge in this area, might cloud their understanding of homosexuality. As with their etiological beliefs, we found that participants’ perspectives on how genetic knowledge might benefit or harm individuals and society were diverse. Even respondents’ concepts of what would be considered “helpful” versus what would be considered “harmful” to homosexuals varied significantly. For instance, although several respondents suggested that increased genetic knowledge about homosexuality would somehow increase societal and/or individuals’ acceptance of homosexuality, some believed that such a shift in perspectives would be a helpful outcome whereas others viewed this same outcome as harmful. Similarly, some participants noted the possibility of genetic engineering to eradicate homosexuality as being a harmful potential outcome of increased genetic knowledge, whereas others suggested that such an outcome would be favorable. Given this, it is difficult to predict the potential impact any future genetic discoveries will have on the lives of gay and lesbian individuals, especially related to changes in public policies related to adoption, marriage, and discrimination law. It is clearly suggested from these results, however, that people with highly polar views on issues surrounding homosexuality will certainly look for, and easily find, ways to use any new genetic insights that emerge on its etiology to support the moral and sociopolitical agendas most congruent with their views. Given the responses here, it seems highly unlikely that increased genetic information about homosexuality alone would be sufficient or compelling enough to shift any major policy changes given the diverse moral frameworks that make up the multicultural fabric of our American society. In summary, we found that genetic concepts, as understood by the respondents, could be used to support very diverse opinions, including those suggesting negative eugenic agendas in 21st century America. This suggests that significant caution is needed as we seek genetic mechanisms underlying complex human traits, especially those of an oppressed minority population. Although we selected respondents from a larger survey in an effort to explore a broad range of opinions, our study is limited by its sample size and selectivity of respondents. Because of this, we did not attempt to draw specific conclusions relative to any particular subgroup of our respondents or examine differences based on such characteristics as gender, race, age, or religiosity, despite some trends that we observed in the data (e.g., Black respondents offering more environmental causes for homosexuality than Whites). Our results demonstrate, however, that further studies are needed to explore these and other relationships in larger random samples to better understand the critically important implications genetic advances in our understanding of homosexuality may have on individuals and society. AcknowledgmentsThis study was funded by a grant awarded to Toby Jayaratne from the Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications Research Program at the National Human Genome Research Institute (NIH – grant #R01 HG01881. We appreciate additional support from the Institute for Research on Women and Gender, the Office of the Vice President for Research, and the Life Science, Values and Society Program at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. We acknowledge the assistance of Jennifer Yim and Jennifer Hurlburt and the staff and interviewers at Market Strategies, Inc., Livonia, Michigan. We also thank the participants in this study who so generously gave us their opinions about genetic issues. Contributor InformationJane P. Sheldon, University of Michigan-Dearborn. Carla A. Pfeffer, Joint Doctoral Program in Social Work and Sociology at the University of Michigan. Toby Epstein Jayaratne, Institute for Research on Women and Gender at the University of Michigan. Merle Feldbaum, Institute for Research on Women and Gender at the University of Michigan. Elizabeth M. Petty, Internal Medicine and Human Genetics at the University of Michigan School of Medicine. REFERENCES
What is the best description of positive psychology quizlet?What is the definition of positive psychology? Positive Psychology is the scientific study of human flourishing, and an applied approach to optimal functioning. It has also been defined as the study of the strengths and virtues that enable individuals, communities and organisations to thrive.
Which of the following is true positive psychology?Which of the following is TRUE? -Positive psychology examines positive subjective states and the sense of individual achievement removed from its social context. -Positive psychology focuses on positive functioning on a number of levels, such as biological, personal, relational, and cultural.
Which of the following is the best description of the field of positive psychology?What is the best description of positive psychology? The science and applications related to the study of human psychological strengths.
Can positive individual traits can be taught?Principles of Psychology
These traits are inclusive of virtues such as humility, humbleness, courage, and abilities such as being creative and developing the capacity for love and forgiveness. Thus, in order to lead a good life, positive individual traits can be imbibed and taught.
|
Of the following statements regarding positive individual traits, which is the most accurate?
zusammenhängende Posts
Urheberrechte © © 2024 de.apacode Inc.
