Self-Defense, Sexism, and Etiological Beliefs: Predictors of Attitudes toward Gay and Lesbian Adoption
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While attitudes toward gay and lesbian civil rights issues have generally become more positive, attitudes regarding the rights of gay and lesbian couples to adopt children are relatively more negative. It is proposed that attitudes toward homosexual adoption are rooted in self-protective defense mechanisms, sexism, and beliefs about the etiology of sexual orientation. A sample of Introductory Psychology students was asked to read one of three adoption scenarios. The three scenarios were identical except that the gender composition of the candidate couple was manipulated (i.e., heterosexual couple, gay male couple, or lesbian couple). Results for men and women were analyzed separately because previous evidence suggests that men and women process attitudes related to sexual orientation differently. Men's attitudes toward homosexual adoption were predicted by self-protective defense mechanisms, beliefs about the etiology of sexual orientation, and hostile sexism; women's attitudes were predicted by beliefs about the etiology of sexual orientation, self-protective defense mechanisms, hostile sexism, and benevolent sexism. The importance of a theoretical understanding of the determinants of attitudes toward gay and lesbian adoption and the implications of the current theory for professionals working with gay or lesbian adoption candidates are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".