Attributions that point to sexual orientation being involuntary tend to be associated with more favorable attitudes toward homosexuals (Herek & Capitanio, 1995). Aside from attributions, those with more contact with sexual minorities are likely to have accepting attitudes about bisexuality (Mayfield & Carruba, 1996). Yet, the quality of the contact matters; research indicates that those with poorer qualitative contact have less positive attitudes toward homosexuals (Hodson, Harry, & Mitchell, 2009). Also, those with high religious beliefs are susceptible to beliefs of homosexuality as a choice and have more negative views (Kendra, Christopher, Franzen, & Keyes, 2006; Herek, 2002). While attitudes about homosexuality and bisexuality have been shown to be related, bisexuality is distinct from homosexuality and deserves separate focus (Mohr & Rochlen, 1999). The current study expands past research by examining a variety of factors related to attitudes toward bisexuality, such as perceiving sexual orientation as a choice, religiosity, and amount and quality of contact. Our first hypothesis is that both the perception of sexual orientation as a choice and higher levels of religiosity will relate to more negative attitudes toward bisexuals. Next, both the quantity and quality of contact with sexual minorities will predict attitudes such that less contact and less quality contact will be related to more negative attitudes toward bisexuals. We collected data from 1725 (67.2% female) individuals through participation in an online survey. Results indicate negative attitudes towards bisexuality are significantly related to the perception of sexual orientation as a choice (r = .499, p < .01) higher levels of religiosity (r = .515, p < .01) and lower levels of contact with sexual minorities (r = -.547; p < .01) and quality of contact (r = -.617; p< .01). These findings and comparisons of these relations by self-identified sexual orientation will be presented.

Abstract not available

published_or_final_version / abstract / Comparative Literature / Doctoral / Doctor of Philosophy

Research in the field of bisexuality has identified that bisexuals experience a unique kind of phobia, in that phobic responses to their sexual preferences appear from both mainstream and LGBT communities. However, little research in the UK has been conducted within the arena of sport culture to cater for the particular welfare needs of bisexual athletes. As an additional consequence, there is little theorisation of bisexuality available within the context of sport sociology. This research contributes to debates in the politics of identity by exploring a fairly new landscape within sport culture using a Foucauldian analysis of power. Discourse analyses have been utilised to interpret thirteen semi-structured interviews conducted with British athletes on the topics of bi-invisibility and the general problem of homophobia. This research also contributes to discussions concerning the mobilisation of power through discourse – certain discursive practices function to legitimize normative over non-normative sexualities and queer/fluid/bisexual identities are further stigmatized and othered. The main findings suggest that exclusions are mobilised most effectively, ironically, through sport cultural practices of inclusion, in that they are almost exclusively sexual identity-based. Additionally, this study offers a theoretical explanation for the peripheralisation of bisexuality in sport culture which can shed new light on bisexual theory in mainstream culture. It makes important suggestions as to the new directions future research can take in order to advance the current knowledge bases concerning the effects of bantering. This research proposes that practices of bantering can be just as marginalising as those of bullying. In the resultant climate of covert exclusions, organizational sporting bodies could benefit from paying close attention to the disempowering effects of biphobic and homophobic language, whether humorously intended or otherwise. This is with particular respect to youth footballing academies and spectator communities.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Michigan State University. Dept. of Sociology, 2008. / Title from PDF t.p. (viewed on Apr. 1, 2009) Includes bibliographical references (p. 198-212). Also issued in print.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--UCLA, 2007. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 470-491).

Thesis (M. Phil.)--University of Hong Kong, 2000. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 192-199).

Thesis (M. Phil.)--University of Hong Kong, 2000. / Title from PDF t.p. (viewed on Dec. 20, 2005). Includes bibliographical references (leaves 192-199) Also issued as print manuscript.

Thesis (M.A.)--University of North Carolina at Wilmington, 2005. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves: 42-43)

Married bisexuals who come out to their heterosexual partners do not invariably divorce. This qualitative study included 14 intact, mixed orientation married couples. The mean marriage duration was 14.5 years, and the mean time since the bisexual spouse had come out was 7.9 years. The research focused the negotiation processes around three constructs: (a) sexual identity; (b) gender identity; and (c) marital commitment. Dyadic interviews were used to generate a grounded theory of the identity and commitment negotiation processes occurring among intact mixed orientation married couples. The findings revealed two sexual identity trajectories: Bisexuals who identify before marriage and reemerge within marriage; or bisexuals who do not identity before marriage but who emerge from within marriage. Two gender identity processes were reported: gender non-conformity and deliberate gender conformity. Finally, two negotiation processes around marital commitment were found: (a) closed marital commitment, and (b) open marital commitment. Closed marital commitment was defined as monogamous. Open marital commitment had four subtypes: (a) monogamous with the option to open; (b) open on one side (i.e., the bisexual spouse was or had the option to establish a tertiary relationship outside the marriage); (c) open on both sides or polyamorous; and (d) third-person inclusive (i.e.. couples had or were seeking a third person to bring into their marriage for both spouses). The implications for research and clinical practice were discussed. / Ph. D.