Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 34, No. 1, February 2005, pp. 8193 ( C 2005) DOI: 10.

1007/s10508-005-1002-z

The Evaluation of Homophobia in an Italian Sample

Vittorio Lingiardi, M.D.,1,3 Simona Falanga, Ph.D.,1 and Anthony R. DAugelli, Ph.D.2
Received August 2, 2002; revisions received March 17, 2003 and May 12, 2004; accepted May 22, 2004

Homophobia has not been systematically studied by Italian social scientists. This study was an initial investigation of the nature of homophobia among Italians, using an Italian version of a scale measuring the construct, and investigated personality and other factors related to homophobia. We examined (1) whether a male military personnel group had more homophobic attitudes than a group of comparably aged male university students; (2) whether personal characteristics and personality factors were correlated with homophobia; and (3) whether there were gender differences in homophobia between male and female university students. Male ofcers of the Italian Marine Corps were compared to male university students of the same age with respect to homophobia and personality characteristics. In addition, a sample of male university students was compared to female students. The instruments used were the Italian versions of the Modern Homophobia Scale (MHS) and the 16 Personality Factor Inventory (16 PF). Results showed signicantly higher homophobia among the military personnel than among male students. Consistent with previous research, male university students demonstrated more negative attitudes towards gay and lesbian people than female students.
KEY WORDS: homophobia; homosexuality; sexual orientation.

INTRODUCTION In Italy, the historical co-existence of a strong Catholic culture and a tolerant Mediterranean one, along with the lack of legal discrimination against lesbian, gay, and bisexual people since the end of the 1800s, has reinforced the diffusion of a dont ask, dont tell attitude related to same-sex sexual behavior. This has also led to the underdevelopment of a gay and lesbian consciousness, which has only recently expressed itself as a civil rights movement. Another consequence has been that little research on homosexuality has been conducted by Italian social scientists, and that homophobia has not been systematically studied in Italian samples. This study is an exploratory investigation of homophobia among Italians, and an examination of personality factors associated with homophobia. The study was conducted in the hope that

1 Department

of Dynamic and Clinical Psychology, University La Sapienza of Rome, Rome, Italy. 2 Department of Human Development and Family Studies, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania. 3 To whom correspondence should be addressed at: via Vigevano, 41, 20144 Milan, Italy; e-mail: vittorio.lingiardi@uniroma1.it.

its results can focus the attention of Italian professional psychologists on the discrimination and prejudice toward homosexuality that remains prevalent in Italian culture (Capozzi & Lingiardi, 2003; Lingiardi & Capozzi, 2004; Lingiardi & Drescher, 2003; Savoia, 1996). Mental health professionals working with gay male and lesbian clients do not always take into account the pervasive psychological consequences of stigmatization, discrimination, and victimization directed to this population, such as internalized homophobia and self-harm (DAugelli, 1998; McDaniels, Purcell, & DAugelli, 2001). Homophobia was originally dened by Weinberg (1972) as the dread of being in close physical proximity to lesbians and gay men, a denition that emphasizes discomfort and fear heterosexuals can experience in the presence of lesbian and gay people. Since then, many conceptual frameworks for the construct have been proposed (Hudson & Ricketts, 1980; Lehne, 1976; Levitt & Klassen, 1974; Morin & Garnkle, 1978). The most recent approaches have focused on heterosexism as a belief system that privileges heterosexuality and stigmatizes homosexuality (Herek, 1993), and on sexual prejudice (Herek, 2000), which addresses some of the conceptual weakness of homophobia as a construct. 81
0004-0002/05/0200-0081/0
C

2005 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.

82 The diversity of denitions has prompted the creation of many measurement instruments. Schwanberg (1993) conducted a meta-analytic study of such instruments and underscored several problematic conceptual issues. Problems included the use of the term homophobia to subsume any negative response toward gay men and lesbians, which leads to a blurring of the varied functions that homophobic attitudes may serve for different people. For example, reactions toward gay men and lesbians may result from anxiety rather than fear, and may be a developmental consequence of socialization rather than an irrational response (Fyfe, 1983; Herek, 1984, 1988; Hudson & Ricketts, 1980; MacDonald, 1976). Negative attitudes toward gay and lesbian people may result from past personal experiences with particular gay men and lesbians, and may also serve defensive functions to thwart homoerotic attractions (Aguero, Block, & Byrne, 1984; Kite, 1984). Schwanberg (1993) classied homophobia scales into scales that measured emotional dimensions, cognitive dimensions, and both dimensions. Schwanbergs review preceded the development of additional instruments, such as the Modern Homophobia Scale (MHS; Raja & Stokes, 1998), the Attitudes of Military Personnel Toward Homosexuals Measure (ATHM; Estrada & Weiss, 1999), or the Homonegativity Scale (HS; Morrison, Parriag, & Morrison, 1999). The present study employed the MHS to examine homophobia in several Italian samples. The theoretical basis of the MHS was derived from Blumenfelds (1992) view that homophobia must be assessed on personal, interpersonal, institutional, and societal levels. Personal homophobia concerns an individuals prejudices about lesbians and gay men. Interpersonal homophobia involves action related to such prejudices. Institutional homophobia refers to the practices and the policies of government, the private sector, the military, religious communities, and professional organizations. Finally, societal homophobia reects common stereotypes of lesbians and gay men, which often result from their representation in mainstream media, as well as by their absence from such representation. Much research has investigated the relation between homophobia and other psychological variables. For instance, a consistent nding has been a signicant positive relation between homophobia and authoritarianism (low tolerance of ambiguity, high cognitive rigidity, and adherence to authority over individual freedom; Herek, 1984; MacDonald & Games, 1974; Smith, 1971; Wylies & Forest, 1992). Homophobia has also been associated with traditional gender role attitudes (i.e., maintaining a clear and traditional distinction between the sexes, and between what is thought to be male and female; Aguero et al., 1984; Hudson & Ricketts, 1980; Smith, 1971), and

Lingiardi, Falanga, and Augelli with religious conservatism (Agnew, Thompson, Smith, Gramzow, & Currey, 1993; Forstein, 1988; Fyfe, 1983). Little prior research existed to guide hypotheses concerning homophobia specic to Italian culture; therefore, our exploratory study focused on two core issues: (1) the relation of homophobia to personality characteristics; and (2) the relation between homophobia and gender. In the rst part of the study, personality factors were related to homophobia using a sample of male military personnel, who were compared to male undergraduate students of similar age. Such a comparison was expected to highlight differences in personality characteristics, such as conservatism and conformity, with the expectation that the military sample would have higher scores on these factors as well as higher homophobia scores. A military population is a relatively closed society, with considerable control over its members (Estrada & Weiss, 1999). Estrada and Weiss (1999) found that sociocultural characteristics, such as conservative political views, more frequent religious attendance, and lack of knowledge of gay and lesbian people, were more prevalent in military than civilian populations. In Italy, the military has historically been hostile toward gay and lesbian people; indeed, the articles of the Italian militarys codex contain one of the few forms of explicit legal discrimination against lesbians and gay men in Italy.4 The same differences that American researchers usually nd were expected for the Italian sample because the Catholic Church, with its view of homosexuality as intrinsically disordered, is arguably attempting to use religious and social conservatism in Italy in much the same way that both the Evangelical movement and the Catholic Church do in America. To investigate gender differences in attitudes towards lesbians and gay men, the second part of the research compared male and female undergraduate students. Based on past research on college populations (Evans, 2001; Herek, 2000), it was expected that male students would evidence signicantly more negative attitudes towards gay men and lesbians than female students. METHOD Participants The sample for the rst part of the study consisted of 100 ofcers of the Italian Marine Corps stationed at the Naval Academy in Livorno, in Tuscany, and 100 male undergraduate students attending the University
4 Because it was considered a mental disorder until 1989, homosexuality

was grounds for discharge from military service.

Evaluation of Homophobia in Italy La Sapienza of Rome. The military personnel were selected from the four classes of the Naval Academy. Each class contained 50 men, and half were randomly chosen to participate in the study. The military personnel ranged in age from 22 to 30 years (M = 27.41; SD = 2.96). A stratied random sample of undergraduate students enrolled in different academic departments of the University La Sapienza of Rome was obtained. Of the students, 25% were studying Engineering, 25% Psychology, 25% the Natural Sciences, and 25% Jurisprudence. Students were randomly chosen from the second, third, and fourth year classes. The students ranged in age from 23 to 29 years (M = 26.60; SD = 2.60). Men in the military were signicantly older than the students, t(198) = 2.05, p < .05. The second part of the project involved an additional 100 students (58 men and 42 women) attending the University La Sapienza of Rome. Similar percentages of students from the four academic departments noted above were recruited to the study. The total sample ranged in age from 20 to 30 years. There was no signicant difference in age between the men (M = 26.43, SD = 2.56) and women (M = 26.83, SD = 2.65) students, t(98) < 1, ns. Measures Participants completed questions and measures to obtain personal information, to assess attitudes towards gay men and lesbians, and to assess personality characteristics. Personal information concerned attitudes towards religion, political ideology, and personal knowledge of lesbian and gay people. Religious attitudes were assessed with three items that evaluated: (1) whether participants had received religious education (yes or no); (2) participants psychological involvement with religion (the options were intense, supercial, or formal); and (3) participants religious practices (believer and practicing, believer and not practicing, and non-believer and not practicing). With regard to political ideology, participants were asked if their political views could be characterized as leftist, centrist, or rightist. Personality characteristics were assessed with a previously validated Italian version of the 16 Personality Factor Test (16 PF; Cattell, Cattell, Saunders, & Stice, 1950; Cusin & Novaga, 1962; Majer & Bargellini, 1986; Novaga & Pedon, 1977). Attitudes towards gay men and lesbians were assessed using an Italian translation of the Modern Homophobia Scale (MHS: Raja & Stokes, 1998; translated by Lingiardi and Falanga, 2001). The MHS is a multidimensional scale assessing three dimensions of homophobia: (1) Deviance, the degree to which the respondent views homosexuality as deviant and pathological;

83 (2) Socializing, the urge to avoid personal contact with gay men and lesbians due to discomfort caused by their presence; and (3) Rights, opposition to efforts aimed at decreasing institutional discrimination against lesbians and gay men (e.g., in professional organizations, religious organizations, etc.). The MHS includes two subscales, one concerning lesbians (Modern Homophobia Scale towards Lesbians [MHS-L] with 24 items), and the other concerning men (Modern Homophobia Scale towards Gay Men [MHS-G]) with 22 items. Both scales were answered using a 5-point, Likert-type scale with response options ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). Items were coded so that high scores reected more homophobic attitudes. After translating the MHS and having the translation reviewed by language and content experts, we veried its factor structure using a principal components factor analysis. The three factors identied were the same as the dimensions found in the original version of the instrument. Therefore, we used the scores from the original three factors for analyses. The 16 PF measures 16 independent personality characteristics (Cattell et al., 1950). The Italian version of the 16PF has three forms. Form C was used and consisted of 16 subscales: Schizothymia-Cyclothymia; Dull-Bright; Low-High Ego Strength; SubmissionDominance; Desurgency-Surgency; Low-High SuperEgo Strength; CautionBoldness; HardnessSensitivity; Trustful-Suspicious; Conformism-Eccentricity; Naivet e Shrewdness; Condent-Guilt Prone; ConservatismRadicalism; Group Adherence-Self-Sufciency; Weak Willed-Self Disciplined; and, Low-High Ergic Tension. Scales have six items each, except for the Dull-Bright subscale, which has eight items. The participant responded to 105 statements using three or more response options depending on the scale, such as: Yes, I dont know, and No. The range of scores for each subscale was from 1 to 10. Internal consistency reliabilities of the scores were calculated using Cronbachs alpha. The following reliabilities were obtained for the MHS: MHS-G: .93; MHS-L: .92. For the 16PF Form C, alphas for the scores of the different scales ranged from .75 to .95 (Cusin & Novaga, 1962; Majer & Bargellini, 1986; Novaga & Pedon, 1977). RESULTS Comparisons of Military Personnel and Male University Students on Personal Information, Homophobia and Personality Characteristics Signicantly more military personnel (79%) received a religious education than students (47%), 2 (2, N = 200) = 18.01, p < .001. Of the military

84 sample, 29% reported an intense involvement with their religion, 35% reported a formal involvement, 34% reported a supercial involvement, and the remainder (2%) were not religious. In contrast, 28% of male students reported an intense involvement with religion, 22% reported a formal involvement, 41% reported a supercial involvement, and the remainder (9%) were not religious. The difference between the military and the student sample was signicant, 2 (3, N = 200) = 13.29, p < .01, and indicated that the military sample adhered more formally to religious rules, while the students views were more informal; however, there was no signicant difference between the number of military men who were believers and not practicing (60%) and students who were believers and not practicing (64%), 2 (2, N = 200) = 3.85, ns. Of the military sample, 11% reported a leftist political ideology, 59% reported a centrist ideology, and 30% reported a rightist ideology. In contrast, students political ideologies were 30% leftist, 46% centrist, and

Lingiardi, Falanga, and Augelli 24% rightist. This difference was signicant, 2 (2, N = 200) = 11.08, p < .01, with more leftists among students than among the military men. Geographic origins were also different between the two groups. About half (55%) of the military sample came from Southern Italy, 29% from Central Italy, and 16% from Northern Italy. About one-quarter (23%) of the students came from Southern Italy, 66% from Central Italy, and 11% from Northern Italy, 2 (2, N = 200) = 28.46, p < .001. To determine whether there were differences in attitudes towards lesbian and gay people and on personality characteristics between the military personnel and the students, t-tests were computed. Table I shows the results of these analyses. The military personnel had signicantly more negative attitudes than students on all three factors of the MHS, for both gay males and lesbians. The most negative dimension, based on the groups mean scores, was on the Rights factor, with students showing signicantly more support for gay rights than the military personnel.

Table I. Differences in Modern Homophobia Scale Scores and 16PF Personality Characteristics Between Military Personnel and Male University Students Military (N = 100) Variable Homophobia Gay males Socializing Rights Deviance Lesbians Socializing Rights Deviance Personality characteristics Schizothymia-cyclothymia Dull-bright Low-high ego strength Submission-dominance Desurgency-surgency Low-high superego strength Caution-boldness Hardness-sensitivity Trustful-suspicious Conformism-eccentricity Naivet -shrewdness e Condent-guilt prone Conservatism-radicalism Group adherence-self-sufciency Weak willed-self-disciplined Low-high ergic tension M SD Students (N = 100) M SD t

2.91 3.13 2.79 2.68 3.12 2.68 4.21 4.53 3.87 4.30 5.69 4.39 4.75 3.63 5.23 4.42 5.63 6.33 3.68 3.71 4.04 5.32

.75 .80 .84 .85 .70 .82 1.78 1.72 2.66 2.25 2.17 1.60 1.76 2.04 2.22 1.73 2.23 1.62 1.64 2.01 2.22 1.79

1.98 2.29 1.99 1.95 2.64 1.82 3.76 4.73 4.56 4.66 6.59 3.63 4.75 5.83 5.63 5.42 5.50 6.18 4.50 3.69 3.77 6.24

.64 .66 .80 .59 .67 .84 1.72 1.50 2.49 2.03 1.89 2.05 1.81 2.13 2.03 1.65 2.00 1.81 1.47 1.99 1.98 2.09

9.36 8.11 6.93 7.02 4.95 7.31 1.81 <1 1.89 1.18 3.12 2.91 <1 7.44 1.32 4.16 <1 <1 3.71 <1 <1 3.33

Note. The range for each MHS dimension is 15, and the range for each of the 16PF dimension is 110. p < .01. p < .001.

Evaluation of Homophobia in Italy The scores of the two groups on 16PF scales were also compared using t-tests. Several signicant differences were found. Male students were signicantly more enthusiastic on the Desurgency-Surgency factor than the military personnel, whose scores reected more seriousness. Military personnel had signicantly higher scores on the Low-High Super-ego Strength factor, suggesting they were more conscientious, rule-bound, and persistent than the students. Military personnel were higher on the Hardness-Sensitivity factor, showing them to be more realistic, tough, and self-reliant than students. The students scores reected characteristics of sensibility and imagination on the Conformism-Eccentricity factor, which suggests that students were more unconventional and imaginative than military personnel. Differences on homophobia scores and personality characteristics were tested in a series of four analyses of variance (ANOVA), with Group as one factor and Knowledge, Political Ideology, Religious Attitudes, and Place of Origin as the other factors. The results for the main effects of these results are shown in Table II. In general, participants who knew gay and lesbian people had lower homophobia scores, whether they were military personnel or students. Among both the military and student groups, participants who were politically conservative expressed signicantly more negative attitudes. Participants with a more supercial and formal approach to religion were more homophobic than participants who described themselves as having a deep and intense involvement with religion. Only one signicant interaction effect was found. The military personnel with a formal or supercial involvement with their religion had higher socializing scores on the lesbian subscale than military personnel with an intense involvement with religion. However, among students, there was little variation in socializing with lesbians scores across the three levels religious involvement (Military, Intense: M = 2.19, SD = .69; Military, Formal: M = 2.90, SD = .85; Military, Supercial: M = 2.88, SD = .85; Student, Intense: M = 2.08, SD = .57; Student, Formal: M = 1.96, SD = .57; Student, Supercial: M = 1.92, SD = .62; F (2, 188) = 6.58, p < .01). Correlations Between Homophobia and Personality Variables Pearson product-moment correlations were calculated to assess relationships between total MHS scores and 16 PF scores. Results are shown in Table III. In the military sample, the High Ego Strength factor was signicantly negatively correlated with homophobia (r = .39); more homophobic people were more easily upset

85
Table II. Differences in Background Characteristics Between Military Personnel (N = 100) and Male University Students (N = 100) M Knowledge of lesbian/gay people Socializing-gay males Group Military Students Knowledge of lesbian/gay people Yes No Rights-gay males Group Military Students Knowledge of lesbian/gay people Yes No Deviance-gay males Group Military Students Knowledge of lesbian/gay people Yes No Socializing-lesbians Group Military Students Knowledge of lesbian/gay people Yes No Rights-lesbians Group Military Students Knowledge of lesbian/gay people Yes No Deviance-lesbians Group Military Students Knowledge of lesbian/gay people Yes No Political ideology Socializing-gay males Group Military Students Political ideology Left Center Right 2.91 1.98 2.04 2.21 2.76 .76 .64 .70 .91 .75 54.23 2.69 1.82 2.05 2.49 .82 .84 .89 .94 42.59 3.12 2.64 2.61 3.21 .70 .67 .65 .68 15.27 2.68 1.95 1.97 2.73 .85 .59 .62 .84 36.16 2.79 1.99 2.19 2.63 .84 .79 .89 .88 38.01 3.14 2.29 2.32 3.18 .80 .66 .72 .75 50.58 SD F

2.91 1.98 2.05 2.92

.76 .64 .73 .71

73.25

59.22

54.00

4.96

39.25

29.73

4.72

5.14

86
Table II. Continued M Rights-gay males Group Military Students Political ideology Left Center Right Deviance-gay males Group Military Students Political ideology Left Center Right Socializing-lesbians Group Military Students Political ideology Left Center Right Rights-lesbians Group Military Students Political ideology Left Center Right Deviance-lesbians Group Military Students Political ideology Left Center Right Relation with religion Socializing-gay males Group Military Students Relation with religion Intense Formal Supercial Rights-gay males Group Military Students 2.91 2.00 2.29 2.78 2.40 .76 .66 .74 .90 .81 68.99 SD F Relation with religion Intense Formal Supercial Deviance-gay males Group Military Students Relation with religion Intense Formal Supercial Socializing-lesbians Group Military Students Relation with religion Intense Formal Supercial Rights-lesbians Group Military Students Relation with religion Intense Formal Supercial Deviance-lesbians Group Military Students Relation with religion Intense Formal Supercial
p

Lingiardi, Falanga, and Augelli

Table II. Continued M SD F 5.94

3.14 2.29 2.38 2.42 3.02

.80 .66 .81 .66 .83

29.98

2.50 3.07 2.73

.712 .85 .85

4.68

2.78 2.02 2.32 2.57 2.38

.84 .79 .96 .93 .84

36.58

.56

2.79 1.99 2.17 1.93 2.71

.84 .79 .90 .69 .88

26.09

7.16

2.69 1.97 2.14 2.57 2.33

.86 .60 .63 .88 .87

38.57

2.87

2.68 1.95 2.01 2.11 2.57

.85 .59 .58 .75 .88

20.98

3.41

3.13 2.67 2.74 2.97 2.98

.70 .67 .70 .81 .67

22.27

2.93

3.12 2.64 2.62 2.58 3.15

.70 .67 .73 .70 .62

6.51

8.94

2.68 1.86 2.20 2.45 2.23

.83 .84 .92 .99 .93

44.05

.33

2.69 1.82 1.99 2.00 2.50

.82 .84 1.0 .83 .89

35.33

1.21

< .05. p < .01. p < .001.

3.24

3.14 2.35

.80 .66

48.21

and emotionally unstable. The Condent-Guilt Prone factor had a positive correlation with homophobia (r = .24); more homophobic people were more apprehensive, troubled, and insecure. Participants with high scores on this factor have a strong sense of duty, inappropriate self-expectations, and fear of social disapproval. For such people, homophobic attitudes may reect a need to strengthen their personal identities by endorsing commonly held negative attitudes about gay men and lesbians. These elements were also present in another factor that was signicantly related to homophobia, the Submission-Dominance factor (r = .30). Less dominant, more conforming, and more easily inuenced participants showed more homophobic attitudes. A similar

Evaluation of Homophobia in Italy

Table III. Correlations Between Modern Homophobia Scale Scores and 16PF Personality Characteristics Military (N = 100) .18 .18 .39 .30 .18 .18 .18 .09 .17 .15 .07 .24 .38 .03 .05 .18 Male students (N = 100) .09 .39 .18 .29 .19 .26 .18 .05 .14 .02 .01 .15 .13 .05 .03 .17

87 believers and not practicing (64%), 2 (2, N = 100) = 2.05, ns. As to political ideology, 40% of the males reported that they were leftists, 26% reported that they were centrists, and 34% reported that they were rightists. Of the females, 55% were leftists, 7% were centrists, and 38% were rightists. Females were signicantly more liberal than males, 2 (2, N = 100) = 6.04, p < .05. Male and female scores on the MHS were compared using t-tests, to discern differences in attitudes towards lesbian and gay people. Table IV shows these results. Consistent with previous research (Herek, 1991, 1994; Kerns & Fine, 1994; Kite, 1984), male students showed more negative attitudes towards lesbians and gay men than female students on nearly all MHS factors. Exceptions occurred for the Socializing factor and the Deviance factor of the MHS-L, where no signicant differences were found. Differences on homophobia scores and personality characteristics were tested using ANOVA with sex as one factor and knowledge of gay and lesbian people, political ideology, attitudes about religion, and place of origin as the other factors. Results for the main effects are shown in Table V. There were two signicant interaction effects whose results were consistent with previously reported t-test results. The rst signicant interaction was that males who did not know lesbians or gay people had higher socializing scores on the gay male subscale of the knowledge of lesbian/gay people scale than males who did know lesbians or gay people; however, there were no differences for females (Males, Know: M = 1.76, SD = .52; Males, Dont know: M = 2.48, SD = .59; Females, Know: M = 1.70, SD = .48, Females, Dont know: M = 1.77, SD = .67; F (1, 99) = 6.91, p < .01). The second signicant interaction was that males who did not know lesbians
Table IV. Differences in Modern Homophobia Scale Scores Between Male University Students and Female University Students Males (N = 58) Variable Gay males Socializing Rights Deviance Lesbians Socializing Rights Deviance M SD Females (N = 42) M SD t 2.39 2.08 2.10 1.53 2.31 1.80

Personality factors Schizothymiacyclothymia Dullbright Lowhigh ego strength Submissiondominance Desurgencysurgency Lowhigh superego strength Cautionboldness Hardnesssensitivity Trustfulsuspicious Conformismeccentricity Naivet shrewdness e Condentguilt prone Conservatismradicalism Group adherenceself-sufciency Weak willedself-disciplined Lowhigh ergic tension
p

< .05. p < .01.

negative relationship (r = .29) between homophobia and the Submission-Dominance factor was found in the student group. In the military group, there was a signicant negative relationship (r = .38) between homophobia and the Conservatism-Radicalism factor; the more someone had an attitude of resistance to change and new ideas, followed traditions, and was politically conservative, the higher were his homophobia scores. Finally, higher scores in the student group on the Low-High Super-Ego Strength factor (r = .18) (being more conscientious, rulebound and persistent), and the Dull-Bright factor (r = .38) (being supercial and intellectually weak) were signicantly associated with more homophobic attitudes.

Comparisons Between Male and Female University Students There were no differences between male and female students in religious attitudes. About half of both males (54%) and females (55%) had a religious education, 2 (2, N = 100) = 3.31, ns. Moreover, 22% of the males reported an intense involvement with religion, 19% reported a formal involvement, 47% have a supercial involvement, and 12% were not religious. Among the female students, 36% reported an intense involvement with religion, 26% have a formal involvement, 33% have a supercial involvement, and 5% were not religious, 2 (3, N = 100) = 4.60, ns. Moreover, there was no signicant difference between male students who were believers and not practicing (64%), and female students who were

2.01 2.31 2.04 1.96 2.64 1.85

.64 .67 .81 .59 .66 .87

1.72 2.01 1.70 1.77 2.29 1.55

.52 .75 .73 .63 .83 .75

Note. The range for each MHS dimension is 15. p < .05.

88
Table V. Differences in Background Characteristics Between Male (N = 58) and Female (N = 42) University Students M Knowledge of lesbian and gay people Socializing-gay males Sex Males Females Knowledge of lesbian/gay people Yes No Rights-gay males Sex Males Females Knowledge of lesbian/gay people Yes No Deviance-gay males Sex Males Females Knowledge of lesbian/gay people Yes No Socializing-lesbians Sex Males Females Knowledge of lesbian/gay people Yes No Rights-lesbians Sex Males Females Knowledge of lesbian/gay people Yes No Deviance-lesbians Sex Males Females Knowledge of lesbian/gay people Yes No Political ideology Socializing-gay males Sex Males Females Political ideology Left Center Right 2.01 1.72 1.69 1.81 2.17 .64 .52 .52 .63 .60 5.37 1.85 1.55 1.58 2.06 .87 .75 .69 1.02 3.90 2.64 2.29 2.40 2.71 .66 .83 .72 .78 7.58 1.96 1.77 1.75 2.19 .59 .63 .52 .69 3.84 2.04 1.70 1.75 2.25 .82 .73 .68 .94 3.08 2.31 2.02 2.03 2.55 .67 .75 .65 .73 7.44 SD F Rights-gay males Sex Males Females Political ideology Left Center Right Deviance-gay males Sex Males Females Political ideology Left Center Right Socializing-lesbians Sex Males Females Political ideology Left Center Right Rights-lesbians Sex Males Females Political ideology Left Center Right Deviance-lesbians Sex Males Females Political ideology Left Center Right Involvement with religion 4.49 Socializing-gay males Sex Males Females

Lingiardi, Falanga, and Augelli

Table V. Continued M SD F

2.01 1.72 1.73 2.24

.64 .52 .50 .69

9.62

2.31 2.01 1.95 2.18 2.49

.67 .75 .70 .67 .66

4.51

6.94

10.38

2.04 1.70 1.69 1.83 2.20

.81 .73 .72 .62 .89

1.18

7.14

4.03

1.96 1.77 1.72 1.88 2.09

.59 .62 .57 .60 .61

1.74

7.07

4.53

7.64

2.64 2.29 2.22 2.46 2.86

.66 .83 .76 .78 .57

4.71

9.41

1.31

1.85 1.55 1.46 1.83 2.01

.86 .75 .74 .77 .87

.24

5.18

2.05 1.73 1.95 1.89 1.89

.66 .53 .63 .64 .62

5.60

Involvement with religion Intense Formal Supercial Rights-gay males Sex Males Females

.45

7.54

2.38 2.03

.66 .75

5.95

Evaluation of Homophobia in Italy

Table V. Continued M Involvement with religion Intense Formal Supercial Deviance-gay males Sex Males Females Involvement with religion Intense Formal Supercial Socializing-lesbians Sex Males Females Involvement with religion Intense Formal Supercial Rights-lesbians Sex Males Females Involvement with religion Intense Formal Supercial Deviance-lesbians Sex Males Females Involvement with religion Intense Formal Supercial Place of origin Socializing-gay males Sex Males Females Place of origin North Center South Rights-gay males Sex Males Females Place of origin North Center South 2.31 2.01 2.09 2.23 2.11 .67 .75 .65 .71 .77 2.88 2.01 1.72 1.76 1.89 1.92 .64 .52 .65 .59 .65 3.31 1.90 1.53 1.78 1.75 1.70 .86 .73 .79 .97 .78 3.37
p

89
Table V. Continued SD F Deviance-gay males M SD F

2.26 2.24 2.20

.83 .71 .65

.44

Sex Males Females Place of origin North Center South Socializing-lesbians Sex Males Females Place of origin North Center South Rights-lesbians Sex Males Females Place of origin North Center South Deviance-lesbians Sex Males Females Place of origin North Center South < .05. p < .01. p < .001.

2.04 1.70 1.90 1.87 1.97

.81 .73 .73 .71 1.04

1.20

2.08 1.70 1.97 1.86 1.91

.82 .72 .90 .75 .80

4.42

.26

.93

1.96 1.77 1.72 1.94 1.79

.59 .62 .44 .62 .63

1.37

.70

1.99 1.78 2.05 1.82 1.83

.60 .62 .66 .63 .57

2.97

1.68

2.64 2.29 2.21 2.61 2.31

.66 .83 .64 .74 .77

3.48

2.68 2.32 2.65 2.29 2.55

.65 .83 .95 .70 .61

4.96

2.20

1.47

1.85 1.55 1.72 1.69 1.84

.86 .75 .92 .74 1.03

.33

.47

.63

.66

and gay men had higher rights scores (reecting less support for rights) on the gay subscale of the knowledge of lesbian/gay people than males who did know lesbians or gay men, but there were no differences for females (Males, Know: M = 2.05, SD = .56; Males, Dont know: M = 2.81, SD = .57; Females, Know: M = 2.01, SD = .76, Females, Dont know: M = 2.04, SD = .75; F (1, 99) = 5.97, p < .05).

Predictors of Homophobia Stepwise multiple regression was used to understand the relative importance of different variables in predicting homophobia. The predictor variables were group, sex, religious attitudes, political ideology, and all 16 PF factors. Analysis were conducted separately for the six

.42

90 scores of the MHS (Socializing-Gay Men, Rights-Gay Men, Deviance-Gay Men, Socializing-Lesbians, RightsLesbians, Deviance-Lesbians) as dependent variables. Table VI presents the results of the regression analyses. The table presents the nal step in the analysis for each homophobia subscale, including the unstandardized coefcients, the standard errors of the coefcients, and standardized s. The adjusted R 2 values appear below each analysis. The R 2 for the homophobia factors ranged from .28 to .56. A signicant standardized signies that the particular variable signicantly contributed to the MHS score analyzed. Thus, the following variables were signicant contributors to the variance in different factors: group (military/students), sex, and political ideology, and the following 16PF factors: dull-bright, submissiondominance, low-high super-ego strength, low-high ego strength, and conservatism-radicalism. In particular, an important predictor of all factors, one that exceeded a of .20, except for Rights-Lesbians Factor, was Group (military/student), with being in the military group associated with increased homophobia. For the RightsGay Factor, the important predictors, besides Group, were Submission/Dominance and Conservatism/Radicalism. The important predictors of the Socialization-Lesbians Factor, besides Group, were Dull-Bright, Conservatism/ Radicalism, while of the Right-Lesbians Factor were: Political Ideology, Sex, Submission/Dominance, and Conservatism/Radicalism. The regression results were consistent with the other analysis, because the important predictors were Group, Sex, Dull-Bright, LowHigh Super-Ego Strength, and Conservatism/Radicalism. Comparing the standardized betas for different variables revealed that the group factor was a strong predictor.

Lingiardi, Falanga, and Augelli

Table VI. Predictors of Homophobia Predictors Socialization-gay males factor Constant Group (military/student) Sex Political ideology Schizothymia-cyclothymia Dull-bright Submission-dominance Low-high superego strength Conservatism-radicalism Adjusted R 2 = .50, SD = .59 Deviance-gay males factor Constant Group (military/student) Dull-Bright Low-High Ego strength Low-High Superego strength Adjusted R 2 = .28, SD = .78 Rights-gay males factor Constant Group (military/student) Sex Political ideology Schizothymia-cyclothymia Dull-bright Low-high ego strength Submission-dominance Low-high superego strength Conservatism-radicalism Group-adherence-self-sufciency Adjusted R 2 = .56, SD = .58 Socialization-lesbians factor Constant Group (military/student) Sex Political ideology Dullbright Lowhigh ego strength Submissiondominance Lowhigh superego strength Naivet shrewdness e Conservatismradicalism Adjusted R 2 = .47, SD = .59 Deviance-lesbians factor Constant Group (military/student) Sex Schizothymia-cyclothymia Dull-bright Low-high ego strength Low-high superego strength Adjusted R 2 = .33; SD = .77 Rights-lesbians factor Constant Sex Political Ideology Low-High Ego strength B SE B

3.71 .69 .27 .07 .05 .09 .07 .07 .08

.28 .09 .11 .02 .02 .03 .02 .02 .03

.41 .12 .15 .10 .18 .17 .16 .16

3.15 .79 .10 .05 .06

.21 .11 .03 .02 .03

.42 .17 .13 .12

4.49 .51 .31 .07 .06 .09 .04 .11 .07 .16 .04

.28 .09 .11 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .03 .02

.29 .13 .15 .12 .17 .12 .25 .15 .29 .10

DISCUSSION Male military personnel had more homophobic attitudes than male university students. The variables signicantly related to a high degree of homophobia were: being politically conservative, not knowing gay and lesbian people personally, and having an intense involvement with religion. Those having a more intense, deeper relationship with religion showed less homophobic attitudes than those having a formal approach, with the formers attitudes possibly reecting a greater commitment to the Christian ideal of acceptance of outsiders. Results from the ANOVA showed that both military and students groups had high scores on the rights factor of homophobia. This result conrms the dont ask, dont tell approach, because the participants,

3.96 .38 .22 .08 .11 .05 .07 .07 .04 .13

.29 .09 .11 .03 .03 .02 .02 .02 .02 .03

.23 .10 .17 .22 .16 .19 .17 .10 .25

3.02 .69 .33 .08 .11 .07 .09

.25 .11 .15 .03 .03 .02 .03

.36 .13 .15 .18 .18 .18

3.80 .53 .13 .04

.25 .11 .02 .02

.26 .30 .14

Evaluation of Homophobia in Italy

Table VI. Continued Submission-dominance Low-high superego strength Conservatism-radicalism Adjusted R 2 = .39, SD = .61
p

91 that dene the behaviors and homosexuality represents a violation of these norms (Pietrantoni, 1999). In both the military and in the male student groups, homophobia was signicantly associated with a lack of personal knowledge of gay and lesbian people. This result was consistent with the hypothesis that personal contact with a specic group of people is important in understanding prejudices and stereotypes (Gergen & Gergen, 1981; Herek & Glunt, 1993; Mazzara, 1997). Social psychologists have argued that stereotypes and prejudices result partly from an insufcient knowledge of the reality of the other, who is therefore considered different. Increased personal contact can change these views, even if, as Allport (1979) acknowledged, such personal contact, while necessary, may be insufcient to reduce prejudice. In order to change stereotypes and subsequent prejudices, it is necessary for people to have an interpretative cognitive framework in which to incorporate new information. This suggests the importance of education about homosexuality in decreasing homophobia. Educational approaches can promote the reframing and the development of relational and social competences based on mutual recognition and non-discriminatory attitudes. Some encouraging initial experiences in this direction have occurred in Italy (Arcidiacono & Gelli, 1994; Casamassima & Pietrantoni, 1997; Francescato, Putton, & Cedi, 1986). Pietrantoni (1999) investigated how anti-gay and lesbian prejudice, particularly among school-age children, does not reect direct experience with gay and lesbian people, but is the result of social, affective, and cultural views, which can be modied by pedagogical processes. The contact hypothesis (Mazzara, 1997) highlights how contact between different groups reduces prejudice in the majority group. From this perspective, the teaching role is crucial in changing attitudes and behaviors. Findings from the 16 PF assessment of personality characteristics suggested that some personality characteristics were associated with homophobia. Among the military personnel, homophobia scores were signicantly associated with an insecure personality, low self-esteem, super-ego harshness, conformity, and conservatism. Male students homophobia scores were positively correlated with a potentially conforming and easily inuenced character, and with a general sense of personal insecurity. These results were consistent with other research showing that people with discriminatory attitudes towards minorities may also be submissive to authority, nd security in rules and norms, and make their social identity their personal identity (e.g., Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950; Katz, 1960; Sarnoff, 1960). Homophobic attitudes may reect a psychological need to afrm and conform to others social rules and to

.09 .04 .14

.02 .02 .03

.11 .28

.25

< .05. p < .01. p < .001.

although tolerant, do not accept legal recognition of homosexuality. The positive correlation between political conservatism and homophobic attitudes is consistent with other research (e.g., Augoustinos & Walker, 1995). To better understand Italian attitudes toward homosexuality, one must consider the two complex foundations of Italian culture: (1) Catholicism and post-war Marxism and (2) a Mediterranean identity that is also MiddleEuropean. Social relationships in Italy have traditionally been characterized by the personal and political practice of dont ask-dont tell concerning homosexuality. Despite the cultural importance of Catholicism, Italy was one of the rst European countries to decriminalize samesex sexual behavior. One could argue that Italy is a gay/lesbian friendly country, even if it is dominated by a double-standard with different views in different regions. On the other hand, following Drescher (1995), we would argue that silence is a symbol of indifference, and indifference is a special kind of disdain (p. 240). In Italy, the dont ask, dont tell approach, supported by the Catholic presence, reinforces a separation between the public and the private. Homosexuality is neither persecuted nor protected by law, and it must remain private.5 When lesbians and gay men in Italy show the same behaviors as heterosexual women and men, they render public what Italian society has established as private. Anti-homosexual prejudice can also be explained by the negative cultural meaning of particular forms of sexuality. Rifelli (1998) argued that in Italian society there are strong prescriptions of what is normal sexuality. Sexuality should only occur between people of the opposite sex, who are married and monogamous, and who have procreative intentions. Furthermore, in Italian Catholic society, there are specic convictions, values, and moral customs about masculinity and femininity
5 When

Italy was becoming a unied nation in 1861, the criminal code in Northern Italy was extended to the rest of the country; however, the law that punished homosexual acts was not extended to Southern Italy, thus creating a double standard. In 1889, the Zanardelli Code was promulgated, the rst of the newly unied Italy, which decriminalized private homosexual behavior between consenting adults. Homosexuality became legal and was acceptable if one did not make too much noise (Capozzi & Lingiardi, 2003).

92 reinforce ones afliation with the heterosexual majority. Another signicant result consistent with other research concerns gender differences, with women being less homophobic than men (e.g., Herek, 1991, 1994; Kerns & Fine, 1994; Kite, 1984). According to a gender role socialization model, children and adolescents develop their gender role attitudes from experiences with parents and signicant others. From these early experiences, people develop attitudes about appropriate roles for men and women (Kerns & Fine, 1994). These attitudes can range from traditional to non-traditional. Attitudes towards gay and lesbian people reect attitudes towards gender roles (Kite, 1994). Because gay men and lesbians often diverge from traditional expectations about gender roles, one would expect that heterosexual people holding non-traditional gender role attitudes would be less homophobic. Heterosexual men are likely to have more traditional gender role attitudes than heterosexual women for several reasons: (1) men receive more stringent gender role socialization than women (Huston, 1984); (2) traditional gender roles grant men greater privilege and power than women; and (3) heterosexual men perceive rejection of homosexuality, especially among males, as more consistent with gender role expectations than do heterosexual women (Herek, 1991, 1992; Mishkind, Rodin, Silberstein, & Striegel-Moore, 1986). There are several limitations to our study. First, the sample was relatively small and its representativeness is unknown. With this exploratory study, we were interested in evaluating homophobia in military personnel as a precursor to a larger study, which will use a random sample of 1,000 people. Second, these ndings may be inadequate in predicting the behavior of people in actual situations. The military personnel, in particular, could have answered in terms of social expectations to afrm their afliations with the traditional male culture of the group, and may act differently in personal interactions with lesbians or gay men. The sample of students was also small and may not be representative of Italian students. Larger and more representative samples can address these limitations in future research on Italian populations. We hope that this study will encourage Italian researchers to focus on understanding homosexuality and others attitudes toward it. Such attention by social and behavioral scientists in Italy is crucial to give voice to an issue treated with marginalization, indifference, and silence. Increased systematic research has considerable potential to contribute to efforts to reduce prejudice, discrimination, and violence against gay and lesbian people, their families, and their communities.

Lingiardi, Falanga, and Augelli ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank Paolo Iliceto for the statistical analysis and Michael T. Starks for his general collaboration in manuscript editing. REFERENCES
Adorno, T., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper & Row. Agnew, C. R., Thompson, V. D., Smith, V. A., Gramzow, R. H., & Currey, D. P. (1993). Proximal and distal predictors of homophobia: Framing the multivariate roots of outgroup rejection. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 20132042. Aguero, J. E., Bloch, L., & Byrne, D. (1984). The relationships among sexual beliefs, attitudes, experience, and homophobia. Journal of Homosexuality, 10(1/2), 8393. Allport, G. W. (1979). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley. Arcidiacono, C., & Gelli, B. R. (1994). Psicologia di comunit` ed a educazione sessuale. Milan, Italy: FrancoAngeli. Augoustinos, M., & Walker, I. (1995). Social cognition: An integrated introduction. London: Sage. Blumenfeld, W. J. (1992). Homophobia: How we all pay the price. Boston: Beacon Press. Capozzi, P., & Lingiardi, V. (2003). Happy Italy? The Mediterranean experience of homosexuality, psychoanalysis, and the mental health professions. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Psychotherapy, 7(1/2), 93 116. Casamassima, F., & Pietrantoni, L. (1997). Omofobia a scuola: le funzioni del pregiudizio antiomosessuale nelladolescenza. In B. Zani & M. G. Pombeni (Eds.), Ladolescenza: Bisogni soggettivi e risorse sociali (pp. 264267). Cesena, Italy: Il Ponte Vecchio. Cattell, R. B., Cattell R. B., Saunders D. R., & Stice G. (1950). The 16 Personality Factor Test. Champaign, IL: Institute of Personality and Ability Testing. Churchill, W. (1967). Homosexual behavior among males: A crosscultural and cross-species investigation. New York: Hawthorn Books. Cusin, S. G., & Novaga, M. (1962). Ladattamento e la standardizzazione italiana della Forma C del 16 PF di Cattell. Bollettino di Psicologia Applicata, 51, 1632. DAugelli, A. R. (1998). Developmental implications of victimization of lesbian, gay and bisexual youths. In G. M. Herek (Ed.), Stigma and sexual orientation: Understanding prejudice against lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals (pp. 187210). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Drescher, J. (1995). Anti-homosexual bias in training. In T. Domenici & R. C. Lesser (Eds.), Disorienting sexualities (pp. 227241). New York: Routledge. Estrada, A. X., & Weiss, D. J. (1999). Attitudes of military personnel towards homosexuals. Journal of Homosexuality, 37, 83 126. Evans, N. J. (2001). The experiences of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths in university communities. In A. R. DAugelli & C. J. Patterson (Eds.), Lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities and youth: Psychological perspectives (pp. 181198). New York: Oxford University Press. Forstein, M. (1988). Homophobia: An overview. Psychiatric Annals, 18, 3336. Francescato, D., Putton, A., & Cedin, S. (1986). Star bene a scuola. Milan, Italy: Nuova Italia Scientica. Fyfe, B. (1983). Homophobia or homosexual bias reconsidered. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 12, 549554. Gergen, M. M., & Gergen, K. J. (1981). Social psychology. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Jovanovich.

Evaluation of Homophobia in Italy

Herek, G. M. (1984). Attitudes towards lesbians and gay men: A factor analytic study. Journal of Homosexuality, 10, 3951. Herek, G. M. (1988). Heterosexuals attitudes towards lesbian and gay men: Correlates and gender differences. Journal of Sex Research, 25, 451477. Herek, G. M. (1991). Stigma, prejudice and violence against lesbians and gay men. In J. C. Gonsiorek & J. D. Weinrich (Eds.), Homosexuality: Research implications for public policy (pp. 60 80). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Herek, G. M. (1992). Psychological heterosexism and anti-gay violence: The social psychology of bigotry and bashing. In G. Herek & K. Berrill (Eds.), Hate crimes: Confronting violence against lesbians and gay men (pp. 149169). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Herek, G. M. (1993). The context of antigay violence: Notes on cultural and psychological heterosexism. In L. D. Garnets & D. C. Kimmel (Eds.), Psychological perspective on lesbian and gay male experience (pp. 89107). New York: Columbia University Press. Herek, G. M. (1994). Assessing heterosexuals attitudes toward lesbian and gay men: A review of empirical research with the ATLG Scale. In B. Greene & G. M. Herek (Eds.), Lesbian and gay psychology: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 206 228). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Herek, G. M. (2000). The psychology of sexual prejudice. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 1922. Herek, G. M., & Glunt, E. K. (1993). Interpersonal contact and heterosexuals attitudes towards gay men: Results from a national survey. Journal of Sex Research, 30, 239244. Hudson, W. W., & Ricketts, W. A. (1980). A strategy for the measurement of homophobia. Journal of Homosexuality, 5, 357 372. Huston, A. C. (1984). Sex-typing. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (Third ed., pp. 387467). New York: Wiley. Katz, D. (1960). The functional approach to the study of attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 24, 163204. Kerns, G. J., & Fine, M. A. (1994). The relation between gender and negative attitudes towards gay men and lesbians: Do gender role attitudes mediate this relation? Sex Roles, 31, 297 307. Kite, M. E. (1984). Sex-differences in attitudes towards homosexuals: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Homosexuality, 10, 69 81. Kite, M. E. (1994). When perceptions meet reality: Individual differences in reactions to lesbians and gay men. In B. Greene & G. M. Herek (Eds.), Lesbian and gay psychology: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 2553). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lehne, G. K. (1976). Homophobia among men. In D. Davis & R. Brannon (Eds.), The forty-nine percent majority: The male sex role (pp. 6688). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Levitt, E. E., & Klassen, A. D. (1974). Public attitudes toward homosexuality. Journal of Homosexuality, 1, 2943.

93
Lingiardi, V., & Capozzi, P. (2004). Psychoanalytic attitudes toward homosexuality: An empirical research. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 85, 137158. Lingiardi, V., & Drescher, J. (Eds.). (2003). Mental health professions and homosexuality: International perspectives. New York: Haworth Press. MacDonald, A. P. (1976). Homophobia: Its roots and meanings. Homosexual Counseling Journal, 3, 2333. MacDonald, A. P., & Games, R. G. (1974). Some characteristics of those who hold positive and negative attitudes toward homosexuals. Journal of Homosexuality, 1, 927. Majer, V., & Bargellini, S. (1986). Attendibilit` e falsicazione degli a inventari di personalit` in selezione e in orientamento scolasticoa professionale: Il 16 P.F.-forma C di Cattell. In V. Majer & S. Bargellini (Eds.), Ricerca e professionalit` in psicologia del lavoro a e dellorganizzazione. Pordenone, Italy: ERIP. Mazzara, B. M. (1997). Stereotipi e pregiudizi. Bologna, Italy: Il Mulino. McDaniels, J. S., Purcell, D. W., & DAugelli, A. R. (2001). The relationship between sexual orientation and risk for suicide: Research ndings and future directions for research and prevention. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 31(Suppl. 1), 6083. Mishkind, M. E., Rodin, J., Silberstein, L. A., & Striegel-Moore, R. H. (1986). The embodiment of masculinity. American Behavioral Scientist, 29, 545562. Morin, S. F., & Garnkle E. M. (1978). Male homophobia. Journal of Social Issues, 34, 2947. Morrison, T. G., Parriag, A. V., & Morrison, M. A. (1999). The psychometric properties of the Homonegativity Scale. Journal of Homosexuality, 37, 111126. Novaga, M., & Pedon, A. (1977). Contributo allo studio della personalit` : Il 16 PF Test di Cattell. Firenze: OS. a Pietrantoni, L. (1999). Loffesa peggiore, latteggiamento verso lomosessualit` : Nuovi approcci psicologici ed educativi. Pisa, a Italy: Edizioni Del Cerro. Raja, S., & Stokes, J. P. (1998). Assessing attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: The Modern Homophobia Scale. Journal of Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Identity, 3, 113134. Rifelli, A. (1998). Psicologia e psicopatologia della sessualit` . Bologna, a Italy: Il Mulino. Sarnoff, I. (1960). Psychoanalytic theory and social attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 24, 251279. Savoia, V. (1996). Omosessualit` : Un termine troppo vago e riduttivo ad a un tempo. Rivista di Psicoanalisi, 44, 331356. Schwanberg, S. L. (1993). Attitudes toward gay men and lesbian women: Instrumentation issues. Journal of Homosexuality, 26, 99136. Smith, K. T. (1971). Homophobia: A tentative personality prole. Psychological Reports, 29, 10911094. Weinberg, G. (1972). Society and the healthy homosexual. New York: Anchor Books. Wylies, L., & Forest, J. (1992). Religious fundamentalism, right-wing authoritarianism and prejudice. Psychological Reports, 71, 1291 1298.