Content uploaded by Judith Treas
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Judith Treas on Apr 19, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Social Science Research 34 (2005) 781–799
www.elsevier.com/locate/ssresearch
0049-089X/$ - see front matter 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2004.12.004
Explaining educational inXuences on attitudes
toward homosexual relations 夽
Julianne Ohlander a,¤, Jeanne Batalova b, Judith Treas b
a Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA
b University of California, Irvine, USA
Available online 2 March 2005
Abstract
Despite changing attitudes toward homosexual relations in the United States, college-edu-
cated individuals remain less disapproving of homosexual sex than less-educated persons. Using
recent General Social Survey data, this study considers three alternative explanations for the
established association between schooling and support for same-sex relations. First, education
may promote tolerance of homosexual sex by teaching support of nonconformity. Second,
schooling may promote greater cognitive sophistication and complex reasoning, thus enabling
individuals to better evaluate new ideas. Third, the observed relationship between education and
tolerance may be the spurious result of aZuence of the parental home. We Wnd that the relation
of education and attitudes is not a spurious one. Rather, the liberalizing eVect of education on
attitudes toward homosexual relations is due, in part, to education’s association with support for
civil liberties, and in part, to schooling’s correlation with cognitive sophistication.
2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Education; Tolerance; Attitudes; Homosexuality; Civil liberties; Cognitive sophistication;
Postmaterialist values
夽This research was supported by a NICHD demography training Grant 5 T32 HD07514 and a NICHD
institutional support Grant 1 R24 HD41025 from the Pennsylvania State University’s Population
Research Institute.
¤Corresponding author.
E-mail address: julieohlander@yahoo.com (J. Ohlander).
782 J. Ohlander et al. / Social Science Research 34 (2005) 781–799
1. Introduction
Americans are more likely than people in other industrialized nations to agree that
same-sex sexual relations are always wrong (Widmer et al., 1999). There exists, how-
ever, some diversity of opinion in the United States. Individuals with greater levels of
education are less disapproving of homosexual relations than are less-educated persons
(Glenn and Weaver, 1979; Herek, 1984; Herek and Capitanio, 1995; Loftus, 2001;
Treas, 2002). This educational diVerential holds not merely for the United States, but
for other Western nations (Scott, 1998). In recent years, Americans, as well as Britons,
have voiced growing tolerance of same-sex relations (Scott, 1998; Treas, 2002). This has
been a signiWcant development reXecting the liberalizing inXuence of cohort succession
and, even more signiWcantly, an unusual amount of intra-cohort attitude change away
from strong disapproval (Treas, 2002). Others have attributed part of the decline in dis-
approval of homosexual relations to increasing levels of education in US population
(Dejowski, 1992; Loftus, 2001). Thus, changing public opinion calls attention to educa-
tional diVerences in permissiveness toward homosexuality. Persons with less schooling
moved closer to better-educated Americans in their views during the 1990s, consistent
with the classic pattern of innovations diVusing from the top down through the social
hierarchy (Treas, 2002). College-educated Americans, however, continue to be less dis-
approving of same-sex relations than are those without college degrees.
This increasing permissiveness raises profound questions about the source of edu-
cational diVerences in tolerance of homosexuality. Half a century ago, Kinsey consid-
ered the positive association between educational level and attitudes toward
homosexuality. He concluded, “(W)e are not sure that we yet understand what these
diVerences are” (Kinsey et al., 1948, p. 383). Despite the persistence of these educa-
tional diVerences, there is still a lack of empirical studies that can shed light on these
disparities in attitudes.
Using General Social Survey (GSS) data from the recent period of revolutionary
change in American attitudes toward homosexuality, we test alternative explanations
for the well-documented, positive relationship between education and tolerance of
homosexual relations. In particular, we consider whether individuals with more
schooling are less disapproving as a result of (1) the greater support for civil liberties
that results from education; (2) greater cognitive sophistication that gives the well-
educated an advantage in evaluating complex ideas and new information; or (3) a
spurious association that arises because family aZuence leads both to more school-
ing and to postmaterialist values supporting sexual expression.
2. Theoretical background
The relationship between education and tolerance for nonconformity is multifac-
eted. Education is known to change people’s beliefs and values (Astin, 1977; Chicker-
ing, 1970; Feldman and Newcomb, 1969), and these changes are known to be lasting
ones (Alwin et al., 1991; Clark, 1962; Funk and Willits, 1987; Golebiowska, 1995;
Hyman and Wright, 1979; Hyman et al., 1975; Pascarella and Terenzini, 1991).
J. Ohlander et al. / Social Science Research 34 (2005) 781–799 783
Education transmits knowledge and skills, teaching the critical values and norms of
the environment, including socially accepted activities (Broudy, 1987; Dreeben, 1968;
Feldman, 1969; Waller, 1961[1932]). Education plays a socialization role, encourag-
ing suitable behavior according to the values and norms of the society (Boocock,
1973; Gaasholt and Togeby, 1995; Goslin, 1965; Key, 1961; Moustakas, 1967; Roth-
stein, 1987). By perpetuating social inequalities, education maintains the status quo
(Ballantine, 1989), but education can also promote social change (Yankelovich, 1974)
and teach tolerance of heterogeneity through the spread of knowledge. When used as
a measure of social class, education is related to tolerance of unconventional behav-
iors. For example, Dohrenwend and Chin-Shong (1967) reported that the less-edu-
cated had greater concerns for conformity and, thus, were less liberal than were the
more educated toward nonconformists. These educational diVerences in attitudes
about conformity are even reXected in the socialization goals that people hold for
their children. Compared to better-educated parents, less-educated parents are more
likely to view obedience as important preparation for adulthood and less likely to
endorse thinking for oneself (Alwin, 1990).
2.1. Education and civil liberties
Education may undermine disapproval of homosexuality by increasing tolerance
of nonconformists. For example, in his classic study of civil liberties, StouVer (1955)
found that education was positively associated with the willingness to support the
right of free speech, even by an unpopular group like the communists. He argued that
this was because young people were exposed to diVerent values in the classroom than
they learned in the home. Education increases one’s capacity to have compassion and
tolerance for others who are diVerent (Gaasholt and Togeby, 1995; Inkeles, 1966;
Jenssen and Engesbak, 1994; Lerner, 1958; Warshay, 1962). Each additional year of
college completed is associated with being more supportive of civil liberties (Nunn,
1973; Selvin and Hagstrom, 1960), and attending college may increase the likelihood
that one will condemn violations of civil liberties by authorities (Jesilow and Meyer,
2001). This positive relationship between education and support for the civil liberties
of various out-groups has persisted over time (Bobo and Licari, 1989; Davis, 1975;
Finney, 1974; Gibson and Tedin, 1988; Lawrence, 1976; Nunn, 1973; Nunn et al.,
1978; StouVer, 1955; Williams et al., 1976). Indeed, education even increases tolerance
toward groups about which an individual holds negative views.
We would expect greater tolerance of nonconformists, including homosexuals, if
education fosters support of civil liberties. One role for education is suggested by the
fact that people who are more informed about social issues are not only better able to
express their attitudes about an out-group’s rights, but are also more likely to discuss a
social issue in terms of civil liberties (Chong, 1993). As attitudes are known to be sensi-
tive to the eVects of framing (Chong, 1993; Sniderman and Piazza, 1993), posing an
issue as a constitutional right inXuences the evaluation of that group’s rights and free-
doms (Chong, 1993). For example, a 1985 survey showed that the public supported the
rights of people with AIDS when framed as an issue of civil liberties, but favored man-
datory AIDS testing in the context of public health concerns (Sniderman et al., 1991).
784 J. Ohlander et al. / Social Science Research 34 (2005) 781–799
Increasingly, homosexuality has been linked with civil liberties in public debate.
During the period when disapproval of homosexuality showed rapid declines, US
news magazines shifted their coverage from the 1980s’ concern with AIDS and
unsafe sex to the 1990s’ focus on the right of gays and lesbians to serve in the military
(Bennett, 2000). Homosexuals received legal protection under hate crime legislation
that had its origin in rights discourse (Jenness and Grattet, 2001). Domestic partner-
ship laws extended legal rights to same-sex couples (Treas, 2004). Gamble (1997)
found homosexual rights initiatives on state and local ballots 43 times between 1977
and 1993. Indeed, the majority of civil rights issues on ballots (60%) involved the
rights of homosexuals (Gamble, 1997).
Although most homosexual advocacy organizations portray their issues in terms
of civil rights, their opponents typically argue morality (Haider-Markel and Meier,
1996). Anti-gay advocates, however, argue little information is necessary to debate
the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality, because everyone can claim to be an
expert on morality (Haider-Markel and Meier, 1996). The strong moral condemna-
tion of same-sex relations by poorly educated individuals might be explained by their
lack of information about homosexuals, their weaker support for civil liberties, and
their conWdence in their standing to argue moral issues.
Because the educational levels of the population have increased, we would not
be surprised to Wnd an increase in support for the civil liberties of homosexuals.
Since the 1970s, Americans have grown more willing to support the rights of homo-
sexuals to give a speech, teach at a college, and write a book kept in the public
library (Loftus, 2001; Smith, 1994). The growing support for the civil liberties of
homosexuals substantially predates the decline in disapproval of same-sex rela-
tions, however (Treas, 2002). Thus, there is nothing to assure that respect for a
group’s civil liberties will result in immediate acceptance of the group. Loftus
(2001), for example, found that individuals interviewed for the GSS distinguished
between the morality of homosexuals and the civil liberties of homosexuals. None-
theless, the increased willingness to extend basic legal protections to homosexuals
suggests a fertile ground for attitude change, once homosexuality was framed not
as a matter of permissive sexual conduct, but rather in terms of hate crimes, hous-
ing discrimination, and other civil rights themes. Thus, we hypothesize that support
for civil liberties accounts for the negative association of education and
disapproval of same-sex relations.
2.2. Education and cognitive reasoning
A second hypothesis attributes the positive association of education and tolerance
of homosexuality to the greater cognitive sophistication of those with more school-
ing. As John Dewey recognized (1916), education not only teaches fundamental
information, but also imparts new ways of interpreting information as well as the
motivation and capacity for life-long learning (Hyman et al., 1975). Cognitive skills
are improved through the school learning process (Jackman and Muha, 1984; Nunn
et al., 1978). Noteworthy are the more liberalizing inXuences at the higher, postsec-
ondary levels of education (Himmelstein and McRae, 1988).
J. Ohlander et al. / Social Science Research 34 (2005) 781–799 785
After an extensive review of prior studies, Bowen (1977) concluded that college
had moderately positive eVects on verbal skills, intellectual tolerance, and life-long
learning, as well as having smaller positive impacts on creativity and rationality.
More recently, controlling for background characteristics, a positive association was
found between education and a general cognitive skill measure based on quantitative
analysis, comprehension of prose passages, and interpretation of documents (Kerck-
hoV et al., 2001). A positive association has also been conWrmed for years of school
completed and vocabulary scores, controlling for parental status, childhood resi-
dence, and family size (Alwin, 1991). The beneWcial eVect of education on adult ver-
bal ability, however, has declined for recent cohorts (Weakliem et al., 1995).
StouVer (1955) credited education’s eVect on support for civil liberties, in part, to
cognitive Xexibility, such as the ability to tolerate ambiguities and draw Wne distinc-
tions. He found that the less-educated were more prone to rigid categorizations (e.g.,
classifying people as being either weak or strong). Rigid categorizers, he discovered,
were less tolerant of communists. Examining attitudes during the AIDS crisis, Sni-
derman et al. (1991) also found evidence for the cognitive Xexibility of people with
more schooling. They concluded that better-educated people had more information
and were less homophobic. Their judgments were not mediated by irrational anxi-
eties. Even when the better-educated did hold homophobic attitudes, they were
apparently more successful in decoupling their biases from their judgments on the
legal protections that should be aVorded people with AIDS. In short, their reasoning
was more rational, nuanced, and more accepting of ambiguities and inconsistencies.
Bobo and Licari (1989) identiWed cognitive sophistication as the mediating link
between greater education and greater tolerance. SpeciWcally, they reported that
those with higher scores on a vocabulary test showed greater support for the civil lib-
erties of members of out-groups, such as communists and homosexuals. They argued
that tolerance reXects the quality of the reasoning process, enabling individuals to
better evaluate new ideas, and thus promoting acceptance of nonconformity. That is,
people acquire “conceptual complexity and sophistication” with higher levels of edu-
cation (Bobo and Licari, 1989, p. 290).
Of course, the association of schooling and cognitive ability reXects not only the
eVects of education on knowledge and reasoning, but also the recruitment and reten-
tion of more able students into higher levels of education (WolXe, 1980). Even con-
trolling for the eVect of childhood IQ on educational attainment, however, education
has been shown to have a direct eVect on adult IQ which, in turn, serves as the major
conduit for educational eVects on vocabulary (WolXe, 1980). Thus, research estab-
lishing the association of education and cognitive sophistication, together with stud-
ies linking cognitive reasoning ability to tolerance, lead us to hypothesize that
cognitive sophistication accounts for the negative association of education and dis-
approval of same-sex relations.
2.3. Education and early inXuences on postmaterialist values
Inglehart (1985) challenges the idea that education profoundly inXuences attitudes
and values. He argues that the association of education and permissive values is a
786 J. Ohlander et al. / Social Science Research 34 (2005) 781–799
spurious one, because a childhood in an aZuent household leads both to greater educa-
tional attainment (Filmer and Pritchett, 1999) and to “postmaterialist” value orienta-
tions as an adult (Inglehart, 1985). The positive association of parental background and
educational attainment has long been established (Blau and Duncan, 1967; Sewell,
1971; Sewell et al., 1969). This association reXects, in part, the fact that high-income
parents are better able and more willing to pay for college (Steelman and Powell, 1991).
Holding high expectations for their children’s schooling, parents with high socio-eco-
nomic status also encourage high educational aspirations in their oVspring (Sewell and
Shah, 1968). Parental aZuence has implications for other attitudes and values as well.
Early experiences in the parental home have lasting eVects, because they mold
basic personality and fundamental values (Inglehart, 1997). Due to the subjective
sense of material security that well-oV families can provide, children raised in aZuent
families grow up to be adults who place greater emphasis on higher-order needs, such
as self-expression and quality of lifestyle (Inglehart, 1990, 1997; Maslow, 1954; Sulli-
van et al., 1982). Embracing this postmaterialist orientation, people are more likely to
support social change and to be liberal in their political views, while rejecting tradi-
tional notions of family, gender, and sexual roles (Abramson and Inglehart, 1995).
Indeed, Inglehart’s (1990, p.182) research identiWes an “inviolability of the family
and childbearing” factor based on sexual attitudes regarding abortion, adultery,
prostitution, and homosexuality. Liberal sexual attitudes are evidence of postmateri-
alist values supportive of the gratiWcation of high-order needs. SpeciWcally, postmate-
rialists are less likely than materialists to believe that homosexuality can never be
justiWed (Inglehart, 1990). If the relationship between greater education and liberal
values is the artifact of the income of the parental home, we hypothesize that there
will be no association between education and attitudes toward homosexuality, net of
family income experienced during a respondent’s youth.
3. Data and methods
To investigate the relationship between education and disapproval of same-sex
relations, we use the GSS, the nationally representative, household survey conducted
nearly annually by NORC. Our analysis pools data from the 1988–1994 surveys, the
survey years that contained items measuring concepts for all the key independent
variables. Given the design of the GSS, not all variables are available in all years nor
are they available for all respondents in a given year (Davis and Smith, 1992). Due to
this design, we omitted cases missing on the dependent variable, attitude toward
same-sex relations, as well as on two independent variables (measurements of cogni-
tive sophistication and the precursor to the postmaterialist values). Thus, the eVective
sample size for our analysis is 2733. Missing data, amounting to no more than 6% for
any variable, were not a major concern for this sample. For nonresponses on both
dependent and independent variables, we imputed mean values. Comparisons with
case-wise deletion showed no substantive diVerences in results.
The dependent variable is based on an item that reads: “What about sexual rela-
tions between two adults of the same sex—do you think it is always wrong, almost
J. Ohlander et al. / Social Science Research 34 (2005) 781–799 787
always wrong, wrong only sometimes, or not wrong at all?” Because the overwhelm-
ing majority of respondents chose the “always wrong” response, we recode the data
into a dummy variable where “always wrong” equals “1” and else “0.”
The independent variables of theoretical interest include education and measures
of support for civil liberties, cognitive sophistication, and the precursor to postmate-
rialist values. Education is measured by the highest degree attained (less than high
school, high school, associate/junior college, bachelor, and graduate). Emphasizing
distinctions at the upper levels of education, this measure takes account of more lib-
eralizing inXuences at the higher levels of schooling (Himmelstein and McRae, 1988).
We treat educational degree as an interval variable after analyses with each value
coded as a dummy variable yielded comparable results. Although the “years of
schooling completed” variable was also evaluated, there were no diVerences in the
direction or signiWcance level of coeYcients.
A summated civil liberties scale was constructed from the scores for 12 items on
support for the rights of members of various out-groups (communists, racists, milita-
rists, and atheists) to speak in public, teach at a college, or have a book in a public
library. The summated scale ranges from “0,” indicating the respondent favored
restrictions on all the civil liberties items, to “12,” indicating the respondent sup-
ported the rights of nonconformists on all items. The Cronbach’s for this scale,
0.89, demonstrates a high degree of internal consistency, thus suggesting that all
items measure the same concept. Following Bobo and Licari (1989), cognitive sophis-
tication is measured by a summated scale of correct answers on a 10-item vocabulary
test. A verbal factor is widely recognized to be one important component underpin-
ning general measures of intelligence and cognitive ability (Bowen, 1977; Chan et al.,
1997; Eley et al., 2001; Guenole et al., 2003; Hyman et al., 1975; Plomin et al., 2002;
Thorndike and Gallup, 1944; Wechsler, 1958, 1981; WolXe, 1980; Wonderlic, 1983).
To measure a formative precursor of postmaterialist values (Inglehart, 1985), we con-
sider relative family income, compared to American families in general, when the
respondent was 16 (i.e., far below average, below average, average, above average, or
far above average). We evaluated other potential mediators in preliminary analyses,
such as media exposure (newspapers and television), but these variables were found
to be unrelated to education and tolerance.
The analysis incorporates control variables known to be associated with sexual
attitudes (Harding, 1988; Laumann et al., 1994; Loftus, 2001; Smith, 1994). Survey
year takes account of the secular trend of declining disapproval (Treas, 2002). Gender
has been found to be associated with a number of sexual attitudes (Oliver and Hyde,
1993). Because women are more tolerant of homosexuality than are men (Scott, 1998),
we include a gender variable, coded “1” for male and “0” for female. Younger people
are also more tolerant of homosexuality (Inglehart, 1990; Treas, 2002). Age is
included as a control variable after preliminary analyses determined that there was no
statistically signiWcant nonlinearity in its relationship with attitudes toward same-sex
relations. African-Americans are more disapproving of same-sex relations (Bonilla
and Porter, 1990; Lewis, 2003; Smith, 1994) as well as of other controversial social
matters (Combs and Welch, 1982; Cook et al., 1992; Secret, 1987; Wilcox, 1990). The
GSS distinguishes only white, black and “other” races. As other races made up only
788 J. Ohlander et al. / Social Science Research 34 (2005) 781–799
four percent of the sample and resembled whites in their attitudes toward homosexual
sex, we recoded the race variable to black equals “1” and nonblack equals “0.” For
marital status, we distinguish the widowed and married, as well as the divorced and
separated, from the never married, who are known to be more approving of homosex-
uality (Smith, 1994), in part, because homosexuals are over-represented in this cate-
gory (Smith, 1991). Religious behavior and aYliation are associated with tolerance
(Beatty and Walter, 1984; Jelen, 1982; Lenski, 1963; Nunn et al., 1978; Smidt and Pen-
ning, 1982; StouVer, 1955; Wilcox and Jelen, 1990) and attitudes toward homosexual-
ity (Greenberg and Bystryn, 1982; Smith, 1994). In fact, Scott (1998) suggests that
religiosity in the US oVsets some of the liberalizing eVects of education on sexual atti-
tudes. Religiosity is measured by frequency of attendance at religious services. In
addition, denominational beliefs inXuence individual attitudes. Conservative Protes-
tants are less tolerant of homosexuals than are members of other religious groups
(Woodberry and Smith, 1998). If a respondent is aYliated with a conservative reli-
gious denomination, this person is coded as “1” on the fundamentalism variable and
else coded as “0.” Because support for civil liberties is associated with political views
(Cohen and Liebman, 1997; Cook et al., 1992; Ellison and Musick, 1993; Guth and
Green, 1991; McClosky and Brill, 1983; StouVer, 1955), we control for liberal-conser-
vative orientation to avoid confounding the relationship with homosexual attitudes.
In light of regional diVerences in sexual attitudes, such as the greater social conserva-
tism of the Southern US (Abrahamson and Carter, 1986; Ellison and Musick, 1993;
Jelen, 1982; Laumann et al., 1994; Middleton, 1976; Nunn et al., 1978), we consider
dummy variables for the West, North, and Central states in contrast to the omitted
region of the South. Because residents in nonmetropolitan areas are also more conser-
vative on sexual issues (Smith, 1994), a dummy variable identiWes respondents in rural
areas. The descriptive statistics for all variables are provided in Table 1.
Logistic regression is used because the dependent variable, strong disapproval of
homosexual sex, is dichotomous. Because we constrain the disapproval variable by 0
and 1 values, the resulting parameter estimates (exponentiated betas) are interpreted
as odds ratios (Allison, 1999). These values are reported in the tables. We interpret
the results in the text by converting the exponentiated beta into a percentage change
in the odds of disapproval per one-unit change in the independent variable. This is
done by subtracting one from the coeYcient and multiplying the diVerence by 100
(Pampel, 2000). The models presented, each reXecting the successive addition of inde-
pendent variables, predict disapproval of homosexual sex and evaluate the diVerent
relationships suggested by the theoretical discussion.
4. Results
4.1. Educational diVerences in attitudes toward homosexual relations
Moral judgments about homosexuality are sharply inXuenced by educational
attainment. As Fig. 1 demonstrates, the percent strongly disapproving of same-sex
relations is twice as great among Americans who did not Wnish high school as among
J. Ohlander et al. / Social Science Research 34 (2005) 781–799 789
those who earned an advanced graduate degree. In the most recent year, 2002, the
percent strongly disapproving was 77% for less than high school, 58% for high school
graduates, 49% for those with some college, 41% for those Wnishing college, and 32%
for those who went on to graduate degrees. These educational disparities are evident
throughout the period.
From time to time, the GSS has asked other questions about attitudes regarding
homosexuals. As Table 2 shows, these items also reveal that better-educated Ameri-
cans are more tolerant than their less-educated counterparts. The educational diVer-
ences for each item demonstrate a high level of statistical signiWcance. Questions
from the 1994 GSS, for example, show that respondents with Bachelor or advanced
T
a
bl
e
1
Descriptive statistics (nD2733)
Variable Values Mean SD
Dependent variable
What about sexual relations between two adults
of the same sex—do you think it is always
wrong, almost always wrong, wrong only
sometimes, or not wrong at all?
Always wrong D1, else D00.750.43
Independent variables
Highest degree of education Less than high school D0 to
graduate school D4
1.33 1.15
Civil liberties:
Restrict rights of communists, racists, militarists,
atheists to speak in public, teach at a college,
and have book in a public library
Supports all restrictions D0 to
opposes all restrictionsD12
7.24 3.87
Cognitive sophistication:
Number words correct on vocabulary test None D0 to all D10 6.02 2.05
Postmaterialist value precursor:
Relative income at age 16 Far below average D1 to far above
average D5
2.82 0.86
Control variables
Survey year 1988–1994 coded as 0–6 2.60 1.98
Gender Male D1, femaleD00.430.49
Age 18–89 years 45.80 17.96
Race Black D1, nonblack D00.120.32
Marital status Divorced and separated D1, else D00.150.36
Never married D1, else D00.200.40
Frequency of attending religious services Never D0 to more than once a
week D8
3.92 2.68
Fundamentalist denomination Fundamentalist D1, moderate or
liberal D0
0.33 0.47
Region of interview West D1, other D00.190.40
North D1, other D00.190.39
Central D1, other D00.260.44
Political orientation Extremely liberal D1 to extremely
conservative D7
4.06 1.34
Place of interview Rural D1, suburban and urban D00.130.33
790 J. Ohlander et al. / Social Science Research 34 (2005) 781–799
graduate degrees are more likely than people with less schooling to see homosexual-
ity not as a choice, but rather as something that individuals cannot change. Those
with more education are also more supportive of extending a host of rights and pro-
tections to gays and lesbians. Those with more schooling are more likely to endorse
the rights of a homosexual to make a speech, to teach at a college, or to have the pub-
lic library keep a book he or she wrote in favor of homosexuality. They are less likely
to believe that the government “deWnitely should” have the right to question people
about their sexual orientations before giving them a security clearance. In 1988,
respondents with more schooling were less likely to strongly disagree with permitting
homosexual couples to marry. Although relatively few Americans in 1982 were pre-
pared to exempt homosexuals from the military draft, those who had not Wnished
high school were the most likely to endorse this policy. In short, the positive associa-
tion of education and tolerance toward homosexuals is very robust, persisting across
time and across diVerent attitudinal items.
4.2. Explaining the association between education and disapproval of homosexual
relations
Using logistic regression on pooled data from 1988 to 1994, we evaluated three
explanations for the persistently positive association between education and disap-
proval of homosexual sex. Table 3 presents the results. As a Wrst step, we estimated
Model 1, the impact of education on disapproval. Each additional educational degree
earned decreases the odds of disapproval of same-sex relations by about 39% (calcu-
lated, using the coeYcient in the table, as (0.613–1) * 100 D39%). We are interested in
whether the magnitude of this education coeYcient (exp ()D0.613) is reduced
Fig. 1. Educational diVerences in disapproval of homosexual sex, 1973–2002.
J. Ohlander et al. / Social Science Research 34 (2005) 781–799 791
signiWcantly with the addition of other variables hypothesized to account for the
eVect of education.
When control variables were added in Model 2, the inXuence of education was vir-
tually unchanged. Controlling for time, gender, age, race, marital status, religiosity,
T
a
bl
e
2
Attitudes toward homosexuals by educational degree
Question (year) Highest degree of education 2 p value
Less than
high school
High
school
Junior
college
Bachelor Graduate
school
Do you think being homosexual is
something people choose to be,
or do you think it is something
they cannot change? (1994)
% “choose to be” 53.4 50.9 50.0 43.8 19.6
n131 454 38 135 56 .0002
Before giving an individual a secret
or top secret clearance, the
government should have the
right to ask him or her detailed
personal questions in the following
areas: sexual orientation (1994)
% “deWnitely should” 35.5 29.9 30.6 26.2 21.4
n217 773 72 252 103 .0089
Suppose an admitted homosexual
wanted to make a speech in your
community. Should he be allowed
to speak, or not? (1994)
% “not allowed to speak” 36.9 18.5 15.7 8.7 4.4
n317 1048 115 322 136 <.0001
Should a homosexual be allowed to
teach in a college or university,
or not? (1994)
% “not allowed to teach” 49.1 27.2 17.9 14.6 11.7
n318 1045 112 316 137 <.0001
If some people in your community
suggested that a book he wrote
in favor of homosexuality should be
taken out of your public library,
would you favor removing this
book, or not? (1994)
% “favor removing this book” 51.1 29.1 25.9 15.7 12.5
n315 1044 112 319 135 <.0001
Homosexual couples should have
the right to marry one another (1988)
% “strongly disagree” 54.2 48.6 38.6 35.2 34.6
n312 692 57 165 81 <.0001
Should homosexuals be exempted
from a military draft? (1982)
% “yes, exempt” 22.0 16.7 17.1 8.1 14.8
n533 892 70 160 69 .0013
792 J. Ohlander et al. / Social Science Research 34 (2005) 781–799
political views, region of the country, and rural residence, each additional educa-
tional degree corresponded to a 40% (exp()D0.600) decrease in the odds of disap-
proval. The results for the control variables are consistent with prior studies.
Disapproval is negatively associated with survey year. That is, the odds of disap-
proval decreased by about 10% per year from 1988 to 1994. Individuals living in the
West and North, but not the Central region of US, are signiWcantly less disapproving
than those in the South. Consistent with prior studies, more disapproving were males,
older respondents, blacks, married and widowed persons, those attending religious
services more frequently, those aYliated with fundamentalist denominations, those
with more conservative political views, and those living in rural areas.
Does greater education promote tolerance of homosexual sex by teaching toler-
ance or support of nonconformity? The coeYcient for the support for civil liberties is
strong (Model 3). The more supportive of the civil liberties of nonconformists, the
less likely a respondent is to disapprove of homosexual relations. In Model 3, support
of the civil liberties of out-groups is associated with the reduction in the odds of
T
a
bl
e
3
Logistic regression (exponentiated beta) coeYcients predicting disapproval of homosexual sex (nD2733)
¤p< .05.
¤¤ p< .01.
¤¤¤ p< .001.
Independent variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6
Education (degree) 0.613¤¤¤ 0.600¤¤¤ 0.690¤¤¤ 0.690¤¤¤ 0.594¤¤¤ 0.742¤¤¤
Controls
Year 0.900¤¤¤ 0.908¤¤¤ 0.898¤¤¤ 0.899¤¤¤ 0.905¤¤¤
Male 1.584¤¤¤ 1.718¤¤¤ 1.542¤¤¤ 1.584¤¤¤ 1.672¤¤¤
Age 1.013¤¤¤ 1.008¤1.017¤¤¤ 1.014¤¤¤ 1.011¤¤¤
Black 2.027¤¤¤ 1.753¤¤ 1.822¤¤ 2.056¤¤ 1.683¤¤
Divorced/separated 0.681¤¤ 0.729¤0.690¤¤ 0.680¤¤ 0.733¤¤
Never married 0.734¤0.724¤0.732¤¤ 0.727¤¤ 0.712¤¤
Religious attendance 1.182¤¤¤ 1.162¤¤¤ 1.182¤¤¤ 1.182¤¤¤ 1.164 ¤¤¤
Fundamentalist 1.640¤¤¤ 1.510¤¤¤ 1.532¤¤¤ 1.648¤¤¤ 1.462¤¤¤
Political views 1.483¤¤¤ 1.445¤¤¤ 1.489 1.484¤¤¤ 1.454¤¤¤
West 0.626¤¤ 0.682¤¤ 0.654¤¤ 0.626¤¤ 0.696¤¤
North 0.619¤¤¤ 0.625¤¤ 0.640¤¤ 0.619¤¤ 0.634¤¤
Central 0.803 0.840 0.827 0.803 0.853
Rural 1.960¤¤¤ 1.880¤¤¤ 1.848¤¤¤ 1.971¤¤¤ 1.820¤¤¤
Civil liberties
Civil liberties scale 0.854¤¤¤ 0.869¤¤¤
Cognitive sophistication
Vocabulary 0.823¤¤¤ 0.873¤¤¤
Postmaterialist value precursors
Family income at age 16 1.061 1.094
¡2 Log likelihood 2914.3 2474.5 2379.0 2430.3 2473.6 2357.8
DF 11215151517
Max-rescaled R20.091 0.297 0.314 0.316 0.298 0.347
J. Ohlander et al. / Social Science Research 34 (2005) 781–799 793
disapproval of homosexual sex by 15% (exp()D0.854). A comparison of Models 2
and 3 also shows that controlling for the respondent’s support for civil liberties
reduces the eVect of education on the odds of homosexual disapproval.
Does greater education foster tolerance of homosexual sex by promoting greater
cognitive sophistication and complexity of reasoning processes, thus enabling indi-
viduals to better evaluate new ideas? The results suggest the answer is yes. The more
words correctly identiWed on the vocabulary test, the less disapproving respondents
were of homosexual sex (Model 4). For each additional word correct, there is an 18%
decline in the odds of disapproval (exp()D0.823). Furthermore, vocabulary
explains part of the negative association between education and disapproval. Com-
paring Models 2 and 4 shows a reduction in the coeYcient for education.
Is the observed relationship between education and attitudes only a spurious
association? Does an aZuent childhood home lead to both greater educational
attainment and postmaterialist values sympathetic to homosexuality? Although tol-
erance of homosexuality has been identiWed as an indicator of postmaterialist values,
Model 5 shows that the association between relative family income at age 16 and dis-
approval of same-sex relations is low and statistically insigniWcant at the .05 level.
The respondent’s relative family income at age 16 does not account for the observed
association between education and attitudes toward same-sex relations. Moreover,
the inclusion of this variable has little or no eVect on the coeYcient for education.
Model 6 includes all the variables. Both civil liberties and cognitive sophistication
are negatively and signiWcantly associated with disapproval of homosexuality, but
family income at age 16 remains statistically insigniWcant. Even with the inclusion of
all variables, education continues to have a strong and signiWcant eVect. To infer how
the eVect of education on tolerance of homosexual sex depends on the magnitude of
each of the control variables, we also estimated the eVects of interaction terms. The
inclusion of the interactions of education with survey year, gender, age, race,
divorced or separated status, religiosity, region of the US, and rural residence in sep-
arate versions of Model 6 did not change the statistical signiWcance of the main eVect
coeYcients or their direction. Only two interactions were statistically signiWcant, the
interaction of education with the never married and with political views. These mod-
els are not included in the paper, but are available upon request.
We test for statistically signiWcant diVerences in the coeYcient for education
between the diVerent models. The purpose is to learn whether the addition of
explanatory variables signiWcantly changes the coeYcient for education. Follow-
ing Schenker and Gentleman (2001), we employ a standard method of testing sta-
tistical signiWcance at the 0.05 level. By this method, the addition of the civil
liberties scale (comparison of Models 2 and 3), the addition of vocabulary (com-
parison of Models 2 and 4), and the addition of all three independent variables
(comparison of Models 2 and 6) produce statistically signiWcant changes in the
education coeYcient. This is not surprising, however, as there are noteworthy
changes in the magnitude of the exponentiated betas between these models. Also,
as expected, the addition of the postmaterialist value precursor (comparison of
Models 2 and 5) produces no statistically signiWcant change in the coeYcient for
education.
794 J. Ohlander et al. / Social Science Research 34 (2005) 781–799
5. Discussion
As the heated debate over the legality and morality of gay marriage draws atten-
tion once again to divided opinions about same-sex relations, it becomes even more
important to understand the sources of tolerance and intolerance, approval and dis-
approval. This paper has established that educational diVerences constitute one
major divide in American attitudes about homosexual relations. These educational
diVerences are extremely robust. They persist across decades of public opinion sur-
veys. They are evident whether the question concerns the roots of homosexuality, the
rights of homosexuals, or the rightness of same-sex sexual relations. The inescapable
conclusion is that better-educated Americans are more tolerant of homosexuality
than are their less-educated counterparts.
We show that this relation is not an artifact of aZuence, as Inglehart (1985) specu-
lated. The association of education and tolerance does not arise merely because
material security permits greater educational attainment and fosters the postmateri-
alist values consistent with individual self-expression. Controlling for the perceived
aZuence of the parental home at age 16 neither eliminates nor reduces the negative
eVect of schooling on disapproval of same-sex relations. In fact, the parental income
variable does not even prove to be a statistically signiWcant inXuence on attitudes.
Thus, the relationship between education and attitudes is not a spurious one
although questions remain about how education gives rise to tolerance of homosexu-
ality. We hypothesized that education diminished disapproval of homosexual rela-
tions by increasing support for the civil liberties of others, even members of
unconventional or unpopular groups. Our measure of support for civil liberties is sig-
niWcantly associated with attitudes toward same-sex relations. Furthermore, includ-
ing the civil liberties scale in the model results in a noteworthy reduction in
education’s negative eVect on disapproval of homosexual relations. The same may be
said for cognitive sophistication. Persons who tested better on vocabulary were sig-
niWcantly less disapproving of homosexuality. Net of other variables, cognitive
sophistication also reduced the magnitude of the education eVect. Although the
reduction resulting from controls for cognitive sophistication is similar to that for
civil liberties, the eVects of the two variables are not redundant. When both civil liber-
ties and cognitive sophistication are included in the model for disapproval, they are
both statistically signiWcant, and their additive eVect on reducing the education
coeYcient is larger than the eVect of either variable alone.
In short, the liberalizing eVect of education on attitudes toward homosexual rela-
tions is due, in part, to education’s association with support for civil liberties and, in
part, to schooling’s relationship with cognitive sophistication. Although these vari-
ables reduce the coeYcient for education, they do not fully account for education’s
liberalizing eVect. Greater education depresses disapproval of same-sex relations
even when civil liberties, cognitive sophistication, and other variables are controlled.
Like Kinsey colleagues (1948), our understanding of educational diVerences in atti-
tudes toward homosexuality is still uncertain.
To be sure, other variables may mediate the relationship between education and
attitudes toward homosexuality. For example, the college-educated may have social
J. Ohlander et al. / Social Science Research 34 (2005) 781–799 795
networks or information sources that expose them to new ideas that are not readily
available to those with less schooling. In preliminary analyses, we explored the possi-
bility that diVerences in the frequency of television watching or newspaper reading
might distinguish educational groups. Although these relationships were not statisti-
cally signiWcant, educational diVerences in what people watch or read may inXuence
their opinions (Hyman et al., 1975). In addition, a 10-item vocabulary score can
address only one part of the broader concept of cognitive sophistication (Glenn,
1994). The eVect of higher education is more impressive since students in technical
Welds may have relatively little explicit exposure to civil liberties concepts. A social
science major in college is related to students’ more liberal attitudes (Feldman and
Newcomb, 1969; Guimond, 1999; Guimond and Palmer, 1990). College major, how-
ever, was only available for 1994, and we did not include it in the analyses. The qual-
ity of the university may also be related to liberal attitudes (Knoke and Isaac, 1976).
Were the data available for a fuller analysis, one might ask whether educational
eVects on attitudes toward homosexuals occur because those with more schooling
engage in more rational thinking, that is, thinking logically, objectively, and critically
to distinguish factual information from ideology, emotion, or cultural biases (Bowen,
1977). Following Kohn and Schooler (1978), one might explore how education leads
to jobs that promote cognitive Xexibility. Another potential explanation for the more
permissive attitudes toward homosexual relations found among the greater educated
is the exposure to more liberal environments aVorded by university campuses com-
pared to other US establishments. University students are more likely to have in a
positive role someone who is homosexual, such as a professor or a fellow student,
compared to those who have not attended college. Unfortunately, a measure of the
amount of contact with gays or lesbians is unavailable in the GSS.
Besides dismissing the argument that the education–attitude relationship is the
spurious artifact of parental aZuence or deprivation, this paper has identiWed two
of the mechanisms by which education operates to promote tolerance of homosexu-
ality. By demonstrating the importance of civil liberties, the paper suggests one
source of the recent, revolutionary decline in disapproval of same-sex relations. Our
Wndings underscore the potential eYcacy of advocacy eVorts that frame homosexu-
ality as a matter of civil rights, rather than sexual morality. Successful policy initia-
tives to gain civil protections in areas such as employment, housing, and domestic
life demonstrate the resonance of this strategy. Particularly when rising educational
attainments predispose a larger proportion of the population to appeals based on
civil liberties, rights discourse is an eVective lever to move public opinion on gay and
lesbian issues.
References
Abrahamson, M., Carter, V.J., 1986. Tolerance, urbanism, and region. American Sociological Review 51,
287–294.
Abramson, P.R., Inglehart, R., 1995. Value Change in Global Perspective. Michigan University Press, Ann
Arbor, Michigan.
Allison, P.D., 1999. Multiple Regression: A Primer. Pine Forge Press, Thousand Oaks, California.
796 J. Ohlander et al. / Social Science Research 34 (2005) 781–799
Alwin, D., 1990. Cohort replacement and changes in parental socialization values. Journal of Marriage
and the Family 52, 347–360.
Alwin, D., 1991. Family of origin and cohort diVerences in verbal ability. American Sociological Review
56, 525–638.
Alwin, D.F., Cohen, R.L., Newcomb, T.M., 1991. Political Attitudes over the Life Span: The Bennington
Women After 50 Years. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin.
Astin, A.W., 1977. Four Critical Years. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Ballantine, J.H., 1989. The Sociology of Education: A Systematic Analysis, second ed. Prentice Hall, Engle-
wood CliVs, New Jersey.
Beatty, K., Walter, O., 1984. Religious preference and practice: reevaluating their impact on political toler-
ance. Public Opinion Quarterly 48, 318–329.
Bennett, L., 2000. Fifty years of prejudice in the media. Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide 7 (2), 30–35.
Blau, P., Duncan, O.D., 1967. The American Occupational Structure. Wiley and Sons, New York.
Bobo, L., Licari, F.C., 1989. Educational and political tolerance: testing the eVects of cognitive sophistica-
tion and target group aVect. Public Opinion Quarterly 53 (3), 285–308.
Bonilla, L., Porter, J., 1990. A comparison of Latino, Black, and Non-Hispanic White attitudes toward
homosexuality. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 12, 437–452.
Boocock, S.S., 1973. The school as a social environment for learning: social organization and micro-social
process in education. Sociology of Education 46 (1), 15–50.
Bowen, H.R., 1977. Investment in Learning: The Individual and Social Value of American Higher Educa-
tion. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, California.
Broudy, H.S., 1987. Becoming Educated in Contemporary America. University of Chicago Press, Chicago,
Illinois.
Chan, D., Schmitt, N., DeShon, R.P., Clause, C., Delbridge, K., 1997. Reactions to cognitive ability tests:
the relationships between race, test performance, face validity perceptions, and test-taking motivation.
Journal of Applied Psychology 82, 300–310.
Chickering, A.W., 1970. Civil liberties and the experience of college. The Journal of Higher Education 41
(8), 599–606.
Chong, D., 1993. How people think, reason, and feel about rights and liberties. American Journal of Polit-
ical Science 37 (3), 867–899.
Clark, B.R., 1962. Educating the Expert Society. Chandler Publishing Company, San Francisco.
Cohen, S.M., Liebman, C.S., 1997. American Jewish liberalism: unraveling the strands. Public Opinion
Quarterly 61 (3), 405–430.
Combs, M.W., Welch, S., 1982. Blacks, whites, and attitudes toward abortion. Public Opinion Quarterly 46
(4), 510–520.
Cook, E.A., Jelen, T.G., Wilcox, C., 1992. Between Two Absolutes. Public Opinion and the Politics of
Abortion. Westview Press Inc., Boulder, Colorado.
Davis, J.A., 1975. Communism, conformity, cohorts, and categories: American tolerance in 1954 and
1972–73. American Journal of Sociology 81, 491–513.
Davis, J.A., Smith, T.W., 1992. The NORC General Social Survey. A User’s Guide. Sage Publications Inc.,
Newbury Park, California.
Dejowski, E.F., 1992. Public endorsement of restrictions on three aspects of free expression by homosexu-
als: socio-demographic and trends analysis 1973–1988. Journal of Homosexuality 23 (4), 1–18.
Dewey, J., 1916. Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education. Macmillan,
New York.
Dohrenwend, B.P., Chin-Shong, E., 1967. Social status and attitudes toward psychological disorder: the
problem of tolerance and deviance. American Sociological Review 32 (3), 417–433.
Dreeben, R., 1968. On What Is Learned in School. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, Mas-
sachusetts.
Eley, T.C., Dale, P.S., Bishop, D.V., Price, T.S., Plomin, R., 2001. Longitudinal analysis of components of
cognitive delay: examining the aetiology of verbal and performance aspects of cognitive delay. Journal
of Educational Psychology 93, 698–707.
Ellison, C.G., Musick, M.A., 1993. Southern intolerance: a fundamentalist eVect?. Social Forces 72 (2),
379–398.
J. Ohlander et al. / Social Science Research 34 (2005) 781–799 797
Feldman, K.A., 1969. Studying the impacts of colleges on students. Sociology of Education 42 (3), 207–237.
Feldman, K.A., Newcomb, T.M., 1969. The Impact of College on Students. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco,
California.
Filmer, D., Pritchett, L., 1999. The eVect of household wealth on educational attainment: evidence from 35
countries. Population and Development Review 25 (1), 85–120.
Finney, H.C., 1974. Political dimensions of college impact on civil-libertarianism and the integration of
political perspective: a longitudinal analysis. Sociology of Education 47 (2), 214–250.
Funk, R.B., Willits, F.K., 1987. College attendance and attitude change: a panel study, 1970–81. Sociology
of Education 60 (4), 224–231.
Gaasholt, O., Togeby, L., 1995. Interethnic tolerance, education, and political orientation: evidence from
Denmark. Political Behavior 17 (3), 265–285.
Gamble, B.S., 1997. Putting civil rights to a popular vote. American Journal of Political Science 41 (1),
245–269.
Gibson, J.L., Tedin, K.L., 1988. Etiology of intolerance of homosexual politics. Social Science Quarterly
69, 587–604.
Glenn, N.D., 1994. Television watching, newspaper reading, and cohort diVerences in verbal ability. Sociol-
ogy of Education 67 (3), 216–230.
Glenn, N.D., Weaver, C.N., 1979. Attitudes toward premarital, extra-marital, and homosexual relations in
the United States in the 1970’s. Journal of Sex Research 15, 108–118.
Golebiowska, E.A., 1995. Individual value priorities, education, and political tolerance. Political Behavior
17 (1), 23–48.
Goslin, D.A., 1965. The School in Contemporary Society. Scott Foresman & Company, Glenview, Illinois.
Greenberg, D.F., Bystryn, M.H., 1982. Christian intolerance of homosexuality. American Journal of Soci-
ology 88 (3), 515–548.
Guenole, N., Englert, P., Taylor, P.J., 2003. Ethnic group diVerences in cognitive ability test scores within a
New Zealand applicant sample. New Zealand Journal of Psychology 32 (1), 49–54.
Guimond, S., 1999. Attitude change during college: normative or informational social inXuence? Social
Psychology of Education 2, 237–261.
Guimond, S., Palmer, D.L., 1990. Type of academic training and causal attributions for social problems.
European Journal of Social Psychology 20, 61–75.
Guth, J.L., Green, J.C., 1991. An ideology of rights: support for civil liberties among political activists.
Political Behavior 13 (4), 321–344.
Haider-Markel, D.P., Meier, K.J., 1996. The politics of gay and lesbian rights: expanding the scope of the
conXict. The Journal of Politics 58 (2), 332–349.
Harding, S., 1988. Trends in permissiveness. In: Jowell, Roger, Witherspoon, Sharon, Brook, Lindsay
(Eds.), British Social Attitudes: The 5th Report. Gower Publishing Company, Aldershot, England.
Herek, G.M., 1984. Beyond “homophobia”: a social psychological perspective on attitudes toward lesbians
and gay men. Journal of Homosexuality 10 (1–2), 1–21.
Herek, G.M., Capitanio, J.P., 1995. Black heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men in the
United States. Journal of Sex Research 32, 95–105.
Himmelstein, J.L., McRae Jr., J.A., 1988. Social issues and socioeconomic status. Public Opinion Quarterly
52 (4), 492–512.
Hyman, H.H., Wright, C.R., 1979. Education’s Lasting InXuence on Values. University of Chicago Press,
Chicago.
Hyman, H.H., Wright, C.R., Reed, J.S., 1975. The Enduring EVects of Education. University of Chicago
Press, Chicago, Illinois.
Inglehart, R., 1985. Aggregate stability and individual-level Xux: the level of analysis paradox. The Ameri-
can Political Science Review 79, 97–116.
Inglehart, R., 1990. Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society. Princeton University Press, Princeton,
New Jersey.
Inglehart, R., 1997. Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic and Political Change in
43 Societies. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
Inkeles, A., 1966. The modernization of man. In: Weiner, M. (Ed.), Modernization. Basic Books, New
York, pp. 138–150.
798 J. Ohlander et al. / Social Science Research 34 (2005) 781–799
Jackman, M.R., Muha, M.J., 1984. Education and intergroup attitudes: moral enlightenment, superWcial
democratic commitment, or ideological reWnement?. American Sociological Review 49, 751–769.
Jelen, T.G., 1982. Sources of political intolerance: the case of the American south. In: Moreland, L.W.,
Baker, T.A., Steed, R.P. (Eds.), Contemporary Southern Political Attitudes and Behavior. Praeger, New
York, pp. 73–91.
Jenness, V., Grattet, R., 2001. Making Hate a Crime: From Social Movement to Law Enforcement. Russell
Sage Foundation, New York.
Jenssen, A.T., Engesbak, H., 1994. The many faces of education. Why are people with lower education
more hostile towards immigrants than people with higher education?. Scandinavian Journal of Educa-
tional Research 38, 33–60.
Jesilow, P., Meyer, J., 2001. The eVect of police misconduct on public attitudes: a quasi-experiment. Jour-
nal of Crime and Justice 24, 109–121.
Key Jr., V.O., 1961. Public Opinion and American Democracy. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
KerckhoV, A.C., Raudenbush, S.W., Glennie, E., 2001. Education, cognitive skill, and labor force out-
comes. Sociology of Education 74 (1), 1–24.
Kinsey, A.C., Pomeroy, W.B., Martin, C.E., 1948. Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. W.B. Saunders
Company, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Knoke, D., Isaac, L., 1976. Quality of higher education and sociopolitical attitudes. Social Forces 54 (3),
524–529.
Kohn, M.L., Schooler, C., 1978. The reciprocal eVects of the substantive complexity of work and intellec-
tual Xexibility: a longitudinal assessment. American Journal of Sociology 84, 24–52.
Laumann, E.O., Gagnon, J.H., Michael, R.T., Michaels, S., 1994. The Social Organization of Sexuality:
Sexual Practices in the United States. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.
Lawrence, D.G., 1976. Procedural norms and tolerance: a reassessment. American Political Science Review
70, 80–100.
Lenski, G., 1963. The Religious Factor. Doubleday, New York.
Lerner, D., 1958. The Passing of Traditional Society. Free Press, New York.
Lewis, G.B., 2003. Black-white diVerences in attitudes toward homosexuality and gay rights. The Public
Opinion Quarterly 67 (1), 59–78.
Loftus, J., 2001. America’s liberalization in attitudes toward homosexuality, 1973 to 1998. American
Sociological Review 66, 762–782.
Maslow, A.H., 1954. Motivation and Personality. Harper, New York.
McClosky, H., Brill, A., 1983. Dimensions of Tolerance. Russell Sage Foundation, New York.
Middleton, R., 1976. Regional diVerences in prejudice. American Sociological Review 41, 94–117.
Moustakas, C., 1967. Creativity and conformity in education. In: Mooney, R., Razik, T. (Eds.), Explora-
tions in Creativity. Harper, New York, pp. 173–184.
Nunn, C.Z., 1973. Support of civil liberties among college students. Social Problems 20 (3), 300–310.
Nunn, C.Z., Crockett, H.J., Williams Jr., A.J., 1978. Tolerance for Nonconformity. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Oliver, M.B., Hyde, J.S., 1993. Gender diVerences in sexuality: a meta analysis. Psychological Bulletin 114,
29–51.
Pampel, F.C., 2000. Logistic Regression: A Primer. Sage Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks, California.
Pascarella, E.T., Terenzini, P.T., 1991. How College AVects Students: Findings and Insights from Twenty
Years of Research. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, California.
Plomin, R., Price, T.S., Eley, T.C., Dale, P.S., Stevenson, J., 2002. Associations between behaviour problems
and verbal and nonverbal cognitive abilities and disabilities in early childhood. Journal of Child Psy-
chology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines 43 (5), 619–633.
Rothstein, S.W., 1987. Schooling in mass society. Urban Education 22, 267–285.
Schenker, N., Gentleman, J.F., 2001. On judging the signiWcance of diVerences by examining the overlap
between conWdence intervals. The American Statistician 55 (3), 182–186.
Scott, J., 1998. Changing attitudes to sexual morality: a cross-national comparison. Sociology 32, 815–845.
Secret, P.E., 1987. The impact of region on racial diVerences in attitudes toward legal abortion. Journal of
Black Studies 17 (3), 347–369.
Selvin, H.C., Hagstrom, W.O., 1960. Determinants of support of civil liberties. British Journal of Sociology
11, 51–73.
J. Ohlander et al. / Social Science Research 34 (2005) 781–799 799
Sewell, W.H., 1971. Inequality of opportunity for higher education. American Sociological Review 36,
793–809.
Sewell, W.H., Haller, A.O., Portes, A., 1969. The early educational and occupational attainment process.
American Sociological Review 34, 82–92.
Sewell, W.H., Shah, V.P., 1968. Social class, parental encouragement, and educational aspirations. Ameri-
can Journal of Sociology 73, 559–572.
Smidt, C., Penning, J., 1982. Religious commitment, political conservatism, and political and social toler-
ance in the United States: a longitudinal analysis. Sociological Analysis 43, 231–246.
Smith, T.W., 1991. Adult sexual behavior in 1989: number of partners, frequency of intercourse and risk of
AIDS. Family Planning Perspectives 23, 102–107.
Smith, T.W., 1994. Attitudes toward sexual permissiveness: trends, correlates, and behavioral connections.
In: Rossi, A.S. (Ed.), Sexuality Across the Life Course. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois,
pp. 63–97.
Sniderman, P.M., Piazza, T., 1993. The Scar of Race. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachu-
setts.
Sniderman, P.M., WolWnger, B.K., Mutz, D.C., Wiley, J.E., 1991. Values under pressure: AIDS and civil lib-
erties. In: Sniderman, P.M., Brody, R.A., Tetlock, P.E. (Eds.), Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in
Political Psychology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 31–57.
Steelman, L.C., Powell, B., 1991. Sponsoring the next generation: parental willingness to pay for higher
education. American Journal of Sociology 96, 1505–1529.
StouVer, S.A., 1955. Communism, Conformity and Civil Liberties. Doubleday, New York.
Sullivan, J.L., Piereson, J.E., Marcus, G.E., 1982. Political Tolerance and American Democracy. University
of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.
Thorndike, R.L., Gallup, G.H., 1944. Verbal intelligence of the American adult. Journal of General Psy-
chology 30, 75–85.
Treas, J., 2002. How cohorts, education, and ideology shaped a new sexual revolution: American attitudes
toward nonmarital sex, 1972–1998. Sociological Perspectives 45 (3), 267–283.
Treas, J., 2004. The family and the sexual revolution. In: Scott, J.L., Treas, J., Richards, M.P.M. (Eds.), The
Blackwell Companion to Sociology of Families. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, pp. 397–415.
Waller, W., 1961[1932]. The Sociology of Teaching. Russell & Russell, New York.
Warshay, L., 1962. Breadth of perspective. In: Rose, A. (Ed.), Human Behavior and Social Processes.
Houghton MiZin, Boston, Massachusetts, pp. 148–176.
Weakliem, D., McQuillan, J., Schauer, T., 1995. Toward meritocracy? Changing social-class diVerences in
intellectual ability. Sociology of Education 68, 271–286.
Wechsler, D., 1958. The Measurement and Appraisal of Adult Intelligence, fourth ed. Williams and Wil-
kins, Baltimore.
Wechsler, D., 1981. Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Revised. Psychological Corporation, San Antonio,
Texas.
Widmer, E.D., Treas, J., Newcomb, R., 1999. Attitudes toward non-marital sex in 24 countries. Journal of
Sex Research 35, 349–358.
Wilcox, C., 1990. Race diVerences in abortion attitudes: some additional evidence. Public Opinion Quar-
terly 54, 248–255.
Wilcox, C., Jelen, T.G., 1990. Evangelicals and political tolerance. American Politics Quarterly 18, 25–46.
Williams Jr., J.A., Nunn, C.Z., St. Peter, L., 1976. Origins of tolerance: Wndings from a replication of Stou-
Ver’s communism, conformity, and civil liberties. Social Forces 55, 394–408.
WolXe, L.M., 1980. The enduring eVects of education on verbal skills. Sociology of Education 53 (2), 104–
114.
Wonderlic, E.F., 1983. Wonderlic Personnel Test Manual. Wonderlic and Associates, NorthWeld, Illinois.
Woodberry, R.D., Smith, C.S., 1998. Fundamentalism, et al.: conservative protestants in America. Annual
Review of Sociology 24, 25–56.
Yankelovich, D., 1974. The New Morality: A ProWle of American Youth in the 70’s. McGraw-Hill, New
York.
