Attitudes Towards Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual People in Germany

Machine Translated by Google
Attitudes towards lesbian, gay

and bisexual people in
Germany
Results of a representative survey
Beate Küpper, Ulrich Klocke, Lena-Carlotta Hoffmann

Attitudes towards lesbian, gay

and bisexual people in
Germany
Results of a representative survey
Result report prepared on behalf of the Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency
Authors: Beate Küpper (Lower Rhine University), Ulrich Klocke (Humboldt

University of Berlin), Lena-Carlotta Hoffmann (Lower Rhine University)
Suggested citation: Küpper, Beate; Klocke, Ulrich; Hoffmann, Lena-Carlotta

(2017): Attitudes towards lesbian, gay and bisexual people in Germany.
Results of a representative survey. Ed.
Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Contents
Introduction 9
1. Introduction to the topic 1.1 To 13

the history of devaluation, discrimination
and persecution of homosexual persons 1.2 13
Devaluation and discrimination from the point of view
of those affected 17
1.3 The use of the term homophobia 1.4 Homophobia 22
as a social prejudice 24
2. Method 2.1 27
Questionnaire 28
2.1.1 Selection of items 28
2.1.2 Item randomization and the use of splits 2.1.3
Response scaling and handling 29
missing values 30
2.1.4 Data processing 2.1.5 The 31
problem of social desirability 32
2.1.6 Comparison between different studies 2.2 The 33
sample 2.2.1 Sampling 2.2.2 Sociodemographic description of 33
the sample 33
34
3. Assumptions and knowledge about lesbian, gay

and bisexual people 3.1 Societal background 38
and existing research 3.2 Coverage in the
current survey 3.3 Descriptive results of 38
the current survey 3.4 Summary 40
41
44
4. Attitudes towards lesbians, gays

and bisexual people 4.1 Societal 45
background and existing research 4.2 Coverage
in the current survey 45
50
4.3 Descriptive results of the current survey 50

4.3.1 Affective attitudes towards different social groups 52 4.3.2
Perception of discrimination and attitude towards protection
against discrimination of lesbian, gay and bisexual people
55
4.3.3 Different dimensions of homophobia 56 4.3.4 Legitimation of
aggression and violence against homosexual and bisexual people
71
4.3.5 Transphobia 4.4 73
Summary 74
5. Differences between socio-demographic subgroups of the population 5.1

Existing research 5.2 Results of the current survey 77
77
80
5.2.1 Gender 81
5.2.2 Age 82
5.2.3 Level of education and income 5.2.4 83
Migration background 5.2.5 Parenthood and 86
relationship status 5.2.6 East-West comparison 86
and community size 5.2.7 Political orientation and 88
party preference 5.3 Summary 88
92
6. Behavior towards lesbian, gay and bisexual people and social

environment 6.1 Societal background and existing research 94
6.2 Coverage in the current survey 6.3 Results of the current
survey 94
96
96
6.3.1 Descriptive results on one's own behavior 6.3.2 96
Descriptive results on the social environment 6.3.3 Connections 98
between the social environment and
own behavior, attitudes and assumptions 100 6.4 Summary 103
7. Relationships between assumptions, attitudes

and behavior towards lesbians, gays and
bisexuals 7.1 Societal background and 104
existing research 7.2 Results of the
current survey 7.3 Summary 104
105
110
8. Connections to family values and other factors

111
8.1 The values of marriage, family, tradition and
Self-determination 8.2 113
Advocating traditional gender roles 8.3 Religion and religiosity 116
8.4 Empathy 8.5 Personal experience of discrimination 8.6 118
Summary 123
125
126
9. General attitudes towards diversity and

equality 9.1 Societal background and 127
coverage in the present study 9.2 Diversity
beliefs, social dominance orientation and 127
authoritarianism
131
9.3 Mistrust of Democracy and Anomia 134
9.4 Summary 137
10. Dealing with sexual diversity in schools 138 10.1

Societal background and existing research 10.2
Coverage in the current survey 10.3 Results of138
the current survey 10.3.1 Descriptive results on 140
attitudes towards sex education 10.3.2 Descriptive141
results on knowledge and attitudes towards the
consideration of sexual diversity at school
141
142
10.3.3 Descriptive results on personal experiences with

sexual diversity at school 145
10.3.4 Associations of support for sexual diversity in
school with possible influencing variables
147
10.4 Summary 153
11 Central findings and recommendations for action

11.1 Summary of central findings 11.2 General 154
recommendations for action 11.2.1 Legal 154
equality 11.2.2 Clarification, provision of 160
information, 162
Consideration in education and training 164

11.2.3 Addressing, visibility and self-evidence
of sexual diversity 165
11.2.4 Specific recommendations for addressing sexual
diversity in schools 167
11.2.5 Research gaps related to attitudes towards
LGBTI people 167
12 Bibliography 169
glossary 185
Attachment 189
Introduction
Even though great progress has been made in recent decades in terms
of social acceptance of homosexuality and increasing equality, including
legal equality, for homosexual and bisexual people, there is still a lot to
be done. Equality for homosexual people is still by no means a matter of
course and, in the worst case, regression can also occur
threaten. It is unclear to what extent the trend towards increasingly open

attitudes towards non-heterosexual people – which large population
surveys such as the Mitte study by the Friedrich Ebert Foundation
suggest (Zick, Küpper & Krause, 2016; but the findings of the Leipziger
Mitte-Study, Decker, Kiess & Brähler, 2016) – actually continues, to what
extent it is equally apparent in all parts of the population and in all forms
of expression. This raises the question of whether prevention and
intervention measures reach all parts of the population and to what extent
different forms of expression of the devaluation of homosexual and
bisexual people are already sufficiently taken into account. For example,
the overt devaluation of non-heterosexual people is declining overall, but
it is not yet clear to what extent this also applies to more subtle forms of
devaluation. Comments on online forums about sexual diversity, as well
as research on modern forms of prejudice, suggest that subtle forms of
devaluation still persist. The activities in science and practice are also of
concern
right-wing populist and Christian fundamentalist actors or

Movements in Germany (and even more so in other neighboring
countries such as France, Poland and Russia) that openly oppose
equality for non-heterosexual people and that are currently scandalizing
the consideration of sexual diversity in schools (including Raphael, 2015;
Strube, 2017). The discrediting of efforts to achieve equality by right-wing
populists, especially with a view to LGBTI1 and gender
1 The abbreviation LSBTI stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans* and intersex people.
Trans* is a generic term for various gender identities, such as transgender, transsexual,
transident. The asterisk is a placeholder for different identities.
meanwhile also found its way into quality media.2 Homophobia is

presented there as a legitimate position in democratic discourse and as
one possible “opinion” among many, as exemplified by the following
comment on the open petition “No education plan 2015 under the
ideology of the rainbow”. becomes clear: “For me, freedom of expression
means being open to something. I tolerate homosexuality - but I don't
have to think it's normal - and certainly not as a school subject!" (quote
as in the original). The right-wing populist party Alternative für
Deutschland is particularly conspicuous for its agitation against the
subject of sexual diversity in schools. Members of the party from
Thuringia have also called for a “count of all homosexuals”. There is
railing against an alleged "gender mania", an imaginary "homo-lobby"
and alleged "rainbow ideology", the open attack on equality for
homosexual people, it seems, becoming louder and more aggressive.
The Basic Law and human rights, but also the basic values of a
democratic society, call for further efforts towards full acceptance and
equality for all people, regardless of their sexual orientation. In order to
achieve this, the attitudes towards lesbian, gay and bisexual people in
the general population are a central building block.
They form the background for positive legal requirements, government

and civil society measures for equality and for the acceptance of sexual
diversity as well as for support and empowerment offers. On the negative
side, however, the attitudes of the population also form the starting point
and justification for ignorance, distance and avoidance, exclusion and
discrimination or even violence up to and including persecution, and in
the worst case even the murder of people, which is implemented on an
individual level, be made possible and encouraged at institutional and
structural level. The successful implementation and implementation of
anti-discrimination, equality and empowerment measures depends to a
large extent on how accepting or how rejecting or distancing the
population is; Conversely, equality measures in turn send signals to the
population. The basic attitude towards diversity and equality – and that
includes ne
2 An example of this is an article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung by Antje Schmelcher

entitled “Under the cloak of diversity” from October 14, 2014 (accessed on March 14,
2017).
In addition to many others, those of people with different sexual needs

Orientation and identity – primarily affects the well-being of those directly
affected. Experiencing discrimination based on sexual orientation makes
people unhappy and ill (Kap pel & Küpper, 2017). However, discrimination
is also a problem for society as a whole, legally, morally and also
economically (on the latter, among others, van Knippenberg & Schipper,
2007). Degrading and discriminating against people based on
characteristics such as sexual orientation or gender identity violate the
fundamental basic values of a democratic constitution, which are
stipulated in the Basic Law and human rights, and against ethical and
moral basic values, whether they are humanistic or religiously derived.
The extent to which equality is achieved thus determines the ethical

and democratic quality of a society (based on Heitmeyer, 2002).
In the run-up to the theme year 2017, which under the motto “Equal
rights for every love” focuses on sexual diversity and protection against
discrimination based on sexual orientation, the Federal Anti-Discrimination
Agency conducted a representative population survey on attitudes
towards lesbian, commissioned by gay and bisexual people. Public
attitudes towards trans* and intersex people were deliberately not the
focus of the study. Trans* and intersex were the subject of the theme
year of the anti-discrimination agency on the discrimination characteristic
gender in 2015. Nevertheless, in the present survey, a few additional
questions were asked about the attitude of the population towards trans*
people. The aim of the study is to collect and analyze these attitudes in
the general population, which can and should provide information for
recommendations for action. This report provides an overview of the
results of the study.
The study was conducted in autumn 2016 under the direction of Prof.
Dr. Beate Küpper from the Niederrhein University of Applied Sciences
with the collaboration of Dr. Ulrich Klocke (Humboldt University of Berlin)
and Lena-Carlotta Hoffmann (Lower Rhine University). It was designed
as a telephone population survey with around 2,000 respondents aged
16 and over. The survey was conducted by the Social Science Survey
Center GmbH under the direction of Prof. em. dr Frank Faulbaum
realized. Information on implementation and sampling
can be found in the methods (chapter 2). It is about knowledge

and assumptions about homosexuality and homosexual persons
(Chapter 3), attitudes to central questions of legal equality, such
as the opening of marriage or joint adoption rights for same-sex
couples, as well as classic and more modern forms of devaluation
and Acceptance (Chapter 4). In addition, differences between
different population groups according to demographic
characteristics (eg older and younger respondents) are worked
out (Chapter 5). In addition, we report on our own behavior and
that observed by others in our social environment towards
homosexual and bisexual people (Chapter 6). The relationships
between this knowledge, attitudes and possible behavior are
also analyzed (Chapter 7). A whole series of influencing factors
that have proven to be relevant in research on prejudice are also
examined below. First, family values, religiosity, empathy and, in
addition, one's own experience with discrimination are examined
(Chapter 8). The general attitude towards diversity and hierarchy
is then considered, some of which are also regarded as indicators
of right-wing populist attitudes – belief in diversity, social
dominance orientation, authoritarianism, mistrust of democracy,
collective anger and anomia (Chapter 9). A special look is also
taken at attitudes towards dealing with sexual diversity in schools
(Chapter 10). Finally, recommendations for intervention and
prevention are derived on the basis of the findings (Chapter 11).
1. Introduction to the topic

In the beginning, a brief outline of the history of the devaluation and
persecution of homosexual people is given. This is done to remind of
the historical context from which the currently observed attitudes
towards lesbian, gay and bisexual people have developed and against
which resistance emancipation has to fight until today. A brief look at
devaluation and discrimination from the perspective of people in same-
sex love is also provided. This is intended to make it clear how those
affected experience in everyday life what is partly reflected in the
attitudes of the population. In addition, homophobia is described as a
social prejudice. Finally, the term homophobia is briefly explained and
why we use it in the report.
1.1 On the history of devaluation,

Discrimination and persecution
of homosexual people
The history of homosexual and bisexual people is characterized by
devaluation, discrimination and persecution, and only recently by
emancipation (Sigusch, 2010). For centuries, homosexuality among
men was considered sinful (homosexuality among women was mostly
not an issue, not least because women were not allowed to have their
own sexuality independently of men anyway; e.g. Schoppmann, 2014).
The reference to naturalness, morality and God's will was and is an
essential starting point and legitimation for the devaluation, discrimination
and persecution of homosexual people. Homosexual acts were
prosecuted in Germany sometimes more, sometimes less. In 1872, the
German Empire enacted the notorious Paragraph 175 of the German
Criminal Code (§ 175 StGB-Germany), following Chancellor Bismarck’s
explicit reference to “public opinion”. Sexual acts between men were
punishable by imprisonment or disenfranchisement. Criminal liability for
female homosexuality was considered, but not implemented. Section
175 was tightened again in 1935 under the National Socialists and
initially in the Criminal Code of the
newly founded Federal Republic in this form, adopted in the GDR in a similar form. After
revisions, it was only completely abolished in 1994 in the course of legal harmonization
with the former GDR.
An estimated 140,000 men were convicted under the various versions of Section 175,
which not only meant punishment, but often also meant the loss of livelihoods such as
housing and work (including Çetin, 2012). In June 2017, the German Bundestag passed
the Rehabilitation Act. It lifts the penalties and awards compensation to convicted
homosexual men.
The devaluation, discrimination and persecution of homosexuals was not least supported
by medicine and psychology, which classified homosexuality as a disease for a long time
(Wiesendanger, 2001; Rauchfleisch, 2011; Çetin, 2012). It was not until 1992 that
homosexuality was no longer listed as a disease in the catalog of the World Health
Organization, and it was completely removed from the internationally used diagnosis
manuals DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) and ICD
(International Classification of Diseases) in psychology and psychiatry Late 1980s or
early 1990s. For those affected, this often meant compulsory medical and
psychotherapeutic treatment (Wolf, 2013).
During the National Socialist period, homosexual people were persecuted, abused, and
taken to concentration camps where they were to be re-educated or exterminated,
although some leading National Socialists were themselves homosexual and lived it out.
Hundreds of thousands of homosexual men and some women (the research is not entirely
clear here) were persecuted and forced into social and sexual conformity, up to 15,000
homosexual people, mostly men, were imprisoned in camps, thousands perished
(including Grau, 1993). The same-sex way of life did not fit into the ideology. Lesbians
and gays would endanger public morals and the "masculine character" of the people and,
since they could not have children, threatened the reproduction of a "master race". In this
logic, gay men were considered “enemies of the people”. The men convicted during the
National Socialist period were
only rehabilitated in 2002 and since 2008 her with the monument to
the homosexuals persecuted under National Socialism are thought of at a central
location in Berlin (whereby the low inclusion of lesbians
women in which commemoration was highly controversial). In close

connection with the fight against § 175, the gay movement developed in
the 19th century. Step by step, laws for equality were fought for and
later passed in the past decades, often against resistance. An example
of this is the Life Partnership Act, the first version of which came into
force in 2001, and to which equality in tax law and pension entitlements,
for example, was only gradually added (Gerald, 2010). Homosexuals
began to step out of the shadows, show themselves in public and
aggressively demand rights. Since the late 1970s, the gay and lesbian
community has been demonstrating and celebrating this annually at
Christopher Street Day parades in Germany too. Same-sex couples
have been able to register as civil partnerships since 2001, with gradual
equality, for example in terms of duties and rights with regard to tax
payments, pensions and inheritance. Nevertheless, the registered civil
partnership is a separate legal institution that is not completely equivalent
to marriage. For example, couples living in a registered partnership
cannot jointly adopt children. There are also differences in access to
medical reproductive technologies (Wapler, 2015). This unequal
treatment was only eliminated in June 2017 (and thus shortly after this
survey was carried out) when the German Bundestag passed the
Bundesrat's draft law "Introducing the Right to Marry Persons of the
Same Sex".
This means that marriage in Germany will also be open to same-sex

couples in the future. Civil partnerships, on the other hand, can no longer
be concluded after the law has come into force.
In 2006, the General Equal Treatment Act (AGG), which protects people
from discrimination and includes the characteristic of sexual identity,
came into force – partly late in relation to the implementation deadlines
of European legislation and here again against resistance (e.g. Federal
Agency for Political Education, 2014 ). In addition to the ban on
discrimination based on race and origin, there is no explicit ban on
discrimination based on sexual orientation or identity in the Basic Law
(Article 3 of the Basic Law).
Compared to other Western countries, Germany is more of a latecomer
when it comes to implementing equal rights for homosexual people
(Çetin, 2012). For example, same-sex marriage (often including the
possibility of adopting children) has been legalized in all other Western
European countries, including the Republic of Ireland.
country, with the exception of Switzerland and Austria, introduced

earlier, and also the attitudes in the population, which will be discussed
below, are less accepting than in some neighboring European countries
such as the Netherlands (Zick, Küpper & Hövermann, 2011 ).
In the wake of AIDS in the 1980s, the homosexuality of a number of

prominent actors and artists first became known to the general public
after their death and was then often negative and fearful. In recent
years, more and more prominent people have been open about their
homosexuality . The sentence "I'm gay and that's a good thing," which
the mayor of Berlin, Klaus Wowereit, uttered at the beginning of his term
in office in 2001 and with which he came out, was exemplary for this
and opened the way for other well-known politicians, business and
Media representatives and athletes. However, the media and social
interest in the topic shows that this is still not a matter of course, at least
in some areas. These include in particular institutions shaped by images
of masculinity, such as the military and the police – which meanwhile
also have a very active interest group of openly gay, lesbian and trans*
colleagues – and football (including Degele, 2013). But also in many
educational institutions such as schools, in companies, in leisure
activities and in their own families, it is still not always easy for those
affected to deal openly with their same-sex orientation (see study on the
experience of discrimination by Beigang, Fetz , Foroutan, Kalkum &
Otto, 2016, for the Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency; for the school
context Klocke, 2012).
For several decades there have also been support and leisure activities
for young people who are just discovering their homosexual or bisexual
orientation or trans*identity. These include, for example, lesbian and
gay youth clubs in the big cities, while there is still little on offer in rural
areas. Projects like Queere Bildung eV
“School of Diversity” educates about homosexuality and bisexuality in
schools and works to break down prejudices. The Lesbian and Gay
Association of Germany (LSVD), with branches in many federal states,
ensures that topics such as homosexuality and bisexuality in old age
and in the health sector and much more are put on the agenda
There are others in which, as in this case, care structures have so far
only been geared towards heterosexuals. With all of these measures
It is about focusing on homosexuality and bisexuality as well as lesbian,

gay and bisexual people, who are often no longer so openly discriminated
against, but who still often simply do not appear with their lives and their
needs (see Chapter 1.2). to move.
All in all, much progress has been made in legal equality for
homosexuals in recent decades, and being homosexual is far more
accepted today than it was ten years ago (see Chapter 4.1).
Nevertheless, decades and centuries of devaluation and discrimination
in society continue to have an effect. Even if legal equality went hand in
hand with the more liberal attitudes and vice versa, there is still
resentment towards homosexual and bisexual people in one form or
another in Germany. This is also reflected in the attitudes of the
population, which the results of the study presented below will point out
again. Sometimes they express themselves more, sometimes less
openly or subtly, often simply in ignorance of existing inequality and in
weariness at being confronted with the topic. Sometimes this also turns
into open hatred and understanding of violence against lesbians and
gay people (including Herek, 2009).
1.2 Devaluation and Discrimination

from the point of view of those affected
The legal situation and the mood in the majority of the population,
which more or less accepts or rejects homosexuality and homosexual
and bisexual people, primarily has an impact on those directly affected.
This is not always so clear to those who regard homosexuality as a
deviation from “normal”, who treat homosexuals in a distance or
disparagingly, who crack little jokes and sayings, or who speak out
against equal rights and in favor of privileges for heterosexuals. And
even those who do not have any negative attitudes towards
homosexuality themselves often underestimate what those affected
experience in terms of rejection and discrimination in everyday life and
what this means for them (Dion, 2002). In addition, derogatory attitudes
form the basis or also
Legitimacy for discrimination.3 Conversely, existing discrimination has

an influence on attitudes or equality measures can, through their signal
effect, cause a process of habituation and normalization and thus also
changes in attitudes.
One thing is clear: the perspectives of those affected and those who
are not affected differ when it comes to discrimination (Mummendey &
Otten, 2004). While in an EU-wide study 58 percent of the (heterosexual)
People from Germany were of the opinion that there was little or no
discrimination against homosexual people in their country (Eurobarometer
393, 2012), many of those affected report devaluation and discrimination
in their everyday lives (see below). One reason for this is that those who
are not affected simply do not notice much of what happens in everyday
life in terms of discrimination. For example, they do not experience the
accumulation of the many smaller and larger situations in which
discrimination occurs and simply look at the world their eyes. Thus,
those who are not directly affected by discrimination regularly
underestimate the extent of existing discrimination. These divergent
perspectives are often the cause of mutual accusations of ignorance
and a lack of sensitivity or, conversely, of “hypersensitivity”. Indeed, past
experiences also shape expectations for the future, so people who have
experienced discrimination in the past – and this is a large proportion of
lesbian, gay and bisexual people – also expect that it might happen
again, and are vigilant.
For prevention and intervention, both with regard to the empowerment

of those affected and for the reduction of prejudices and
3 According to sociological and socio-psychological understanding, discrimination describes the

disadvantaging, degrading or unwelcome unequal treatment of groups or individuals due to
group-specific characteristics such as ethnic or national origin, religious beliefs, sexual
orientation, gender, age or a disability. The starting point of discrimination is the categorization
of people into social groups based on these (assigned or actually applicable) characteristics.
Discrimination can occur at the individual level, from person to person, through individually
discriminatory behavior or the support of discriminatory regulations or structures, at the
institutional level through regulations and laws, or at the structural level when conditions are
such as to systematically disadvantage social groups. Discrimination can be legitimized,
promoted and maintained through values and prejudices (definition based on Hillmann,
(2007) Dion, (2002)
Hormel & Scheer, 2010).

discrimination by the majority population, it is important to take these

divergent perspectives seriously. In general, reports on perceptions and the
experience of discrimination are shared by those affected as well as by the
majority population
It is important to note that this is always a matter of subjective assessments.
These can vary individually and depend on many individual, social and
structural factors, for example the context in which the respondents move
and what they are individually used to and willing to endure.
Lesbian, gay and bisexual people still report all kinds of discrimination that
they experience in their everyday lives. They express themselves on an
individual level, ie from person to person, for example in the form of
derogatory remarks, insults or jokes, the frequency of which is no longer
perceived as funny by those affected, but as humiliating. They manifest
themselves through exclusion, for example when the same-sex partner is
not invited to a family celebration, a homosexual person does not get a job
or a career opportunity because of their homosexuality, or a homosexual
couple does not receive an apartment because of their homosexuality. In
the worst case, it is also expressed in psychological and physical violence.
Counseling centers for homosexual and bisexual people report a high
number of unreported cases, as many of those affected still do not dare to
make the violence they have experienced public (see the assessment by
Alexej Urev, Rubicon Köln, 2016).4 Discrimination is expressed but also
institutionally, for example if existing laws and regulations simply do not
include homosexual people, do not take their needs into account or even
openly exclude them (e.g. in legal regulations relating to marriage, adoption,
medical reproduction, blood donation, but also if, for example, in the care
for the elderly, same-sex partners are not addressed as such), and
structurally, if conditions are such that homosexual people are systematically
disadvantaged (e.g. by the lack of facilities for LGBT* young people where
they can exchange ideas with others and make friends or start relationships).
That about homosexual people with denominational employers
4 Documentation of the strategy panel “Threats to the freedom of LGBTI people through right-
wing populism and right-wing extremism” at the “Respect instead of resentment.
Strategies against homophobia and transphobia” on June 15, 2015 in Berlin. https://
www.lsvd.de/fileadmin/pics/Bilder/Veranstaltungen/Kongress/PDF_Daten/
LSVD_2015_Beitrag_ von_Klaus_Jetz.pdf (accessed on March 14, 2017).
Still at risk of losing their jobs if their homosexuality becomes public,

and this is compatible with canon law, is such discrimination.
Discrimination can be expressed directly (eg through explicit regulations
that exclude homosexual people) or indirectly (when apparently neutral
regulations or procedures do not take homosexual people into
account).5
Capturing the experience of discrimination in interviews with those

affected is not easy. As a rule, these studies are aimed specifically at
homosexual or bisexual participants and recruit them, for example, via
a snowball process or announcement on relevant websites. It is likely
that this will lead to distortions in the composition of the sample. This
also makes it difficult to compare different studies. In addition, there is
simply a lack of information about the totality of all homosexual or
bisexual people in Germany, which makes it difficult to make statements
about the type and extent of the sample bias. This also depends not
least on how homosexuality is defined. Nevertheless, studies that
specifically survey lesbian, gay and bisexual participants can provide
valuable information as to where and how those affected experience
discrimination in their everyday lives, which is important not least for
prevention and intervention. As a basis for the present report, we
researched the ten most recent studies known to us on the experience
of discrimination by homosexual and bisexual people (a list of the
researched studies can be found in the Appendix, Table III). The
reported frequencies of occurrence of discrimination are not easy to
compare between different studies, as the period of time surveyed
varies from 12 months to the person's entire life (lifetime prevalence).
The proportion of respondents who reported experiences of
discrimination varied between 46 percent in the past twelve months for
20,271 adult LGB (FRA – European Union Agency for Fundamental
Rights, 2013) and 85 percent for the whole of life for 74 young LGBT
people (Krell, 2013). A study with 2,144 LSBTIQ from Baden-
Württemberg comes to a share of 54 percent in the past five
5 Examples of direct and indirect discrimination can be found on the website of the
Schleswig-Holstein Anti-Discrimination Association: http://www.advsh.de/was-ist
discrimination-discrimination-forms-and-examples/ (accessed on March 14, 2017).
have experienced discrimination for years (Baden-Württemberg Ministry for

Social Affairs, Family, Women and Senior Citizens, 2014).
According to those affected, a particularly large amount of discrimination based

on one’s own sexual orientation takes place in the public sphere and in leisure
time (Beigang et al., 2016). Depending on the survey, the proportion of those
who have experienced discrimination in public varies between 29 percent in the
past five years with 2,144 LSBQ in Baden-Württemberg (Ministry of Social
Affairs, 2016) and 73 percent lifetime prevalence in a survey of 2,143 lesbians
and bisexuals women across Germany (LesMigraS/Castro Varela et al., 2012).
Discrimination in the workplace or apprenticeship is reported somewhat less
frequently, with around a fifth of respondents doing so (FRA – European Union
Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2013; Beigang et. al, 2016). The values for
discrimination in offices and authorities, in the health sector and in the education
sector are lower, presumably because only part of the total population (eg young
people) is (often) in these contexts. The internet is also a source of experiences
of discrimination (for 15 percent of respondents, Beigang et al., 2016).
Discrimination in the form of insults and verbal attacks based on sexual identity
is experienced particularly frequently (around a third of those surveyed report
this in the studies cited above), and there are also reports of imitation and
ridicule, as well as not being taken seriously. Between 10 percent (among
bisexual men, Bachmann, 2013) and 26 percent (LGBTI from Rhineland-
Palatinate, Ministry for Integration, Family, Children, Youth and Women
Rhineland-Palatinate, 2014) experience exclusion due to their sexual identity.
The prevalence of damage to or theft of property, physical violence and sexual
violence is between 3 percent (Ministry for Social Affairs, Family, Women and
Senior Citizens Baden-Württemberg, 2014; Steffens, Bergert & Heinecke, 2010)
and 10 percent (Ministry for Integration, Family, Children, Youth and Women
Rhineland-Palatinate, 2015).
Lesbian women and gay men differ somewhat in the form of discrimination they
experience or report (FRA – European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights,
2013; Ministry for Integration, Family, Children, Youth and Women Rhineland-
Palatinate, 2015; Ministry for social affairs, family, women and seniors Baden-
Würt-
temberg, 2014). Lesbian women tend to state more frequently than gay
men that they were not taken seriously because of their sexual identity
and that they were disadvantaged at work, in training places and in the
family; gay men, on the other hand, are slightly more likely to experience
being ostracized, verbally abused, ridiculed, or physically attacked
because of their sexual identity, having things damaged or stolen from
them, and being disadvantaged at school. The experience of
discrimination hardly varies according to different educational
qualifications, but significantly more people with lower incomes report it
Respondents with a migration background of experiences of

discrimination due to their sexual orientation or gender identity.
This suggests that factors that also otherwise encourage discrimination
based on other characteristics have an amplifying effect. Taken together
with the results reported later on the degrading attitudes of the majority
population and in specific subgroups, this is a very important indication
for prevention and intervention.
1.3 The use of the term

homophobia
Different terms are used and preferred to describe derogatory attitudes
towards homosexuality or homosexual people. Terms are always subject
to temporal and cultural change – especially those in the area of
prejudice and racism –
are critically reflected and, if necessary,
discarded and thus always reflect the understanding of a phenomenon
at their respective time, in a specific context or milieu. In the present
report, we have chosen the term homophobia , even if it is used by
some scientific actors (including
Herek, 2000) and practice or by activists as obsolete, outdated, or not
understood appropriately to the phenomenon.6 Un
6 A brief description of various terms in this context can be found here, for example: http://
www.andersundgleich-nrw.de/glossar/78-content/73-fibel.html, and here: http://
www.queerformat.de /fileadmin/user_upload/news/120622_SexuelleDiversity_Glossary.pdf ;
a short description of the criticism of the concept of homophobia can be found here:
http://www.queer.de/detail.php?article_id=17958, and here: http://homophobie. at/
wasisthomophobie/index.html (accessed on March 14, 2017).
In our opinion, however, there are a number of good reasons for its
further use and alternative terms are also not unproblematic. The term
is particularly criticized because the addition of “phobia” already
suggests one cause of the aversion to homosexuality – namely fear –
which is just one aspect among many others that accounts for the
aversion to lesbians and gays. In addition, it can even have a hurtful
effect on those affected because it downplays hostility as a
psychological problem, i.e. makes perpetrators the victims of their fear
The term phobia is also used to describe social rejection. Alternatively,
some authors use the term sexual prejudice (including Herek, 2009)
for derogatory attitudes, the term heterosexism to describe the
ideological system behind it, and the term sexual stigma to describe
any negative attitudes existing in society. heterosexual behavior,
identity, relationships or communities (Herek, 2004).8 Here the
understanding of homophobia as a social prejudice is emphasized,
which also corresponds to our understanding. However, the term
sexual prejudice is, on the one hand, unspecific and in any case
broader than we have examined the phenomenon in the present study,
on the other hand it limits the view to the sexual. Some authors prefer
the term homophobia, based on xenophobia and Muslimophobia . 9
However, the term is still not well established and may therefore be
less accessible to a broader readership.
In the present report, we have decided to use the term homophobia

because it is well established in practice and we currently consider it
to be the most understandable and
most accessible appears. We limit the term to denoting derogatory
attitudes towards lesbian, gay and bisexual people
7 This is reported by a gender-queer student, e .2017)
8 A brief definition and differentiation of both terms by Herek can be found here: http://
lgbpsychology.org/html/sexual_prejudice.html (accessed on March 14, 2017).
9 On the concept of homophobia and criticism of the concept of homophobia, see here:
http://www.akzeptanz-fuer-vielfalt.de/website/info.html (accessed on March 14, 2017).
ellen people and use the term transphobia for derogatory attitudes
towards trans* people.
1.4 Homophobia as a social prejudice

We understand homophobia as a derogatory attitude towards lesbian,
gay and bisexual people and transphobia as a derogatory attitude
towards trans people and thus as prejudices in a socio-psychological
sense. Homophobia and transphobia are similar to other prejudices in
essential facets of their structure
and can be understood, following the old Gordon Allport definition, as
“an antipathy founded on a faulty and rigid generalization. It can be
expressed or just felt. It can be directed against a group as a whole or
against an individual because he is a member of such a group” (All port,
1954/1971, p. 23). Like other attitudes, homophobia and transphobia
are primarily characterized by their evaluation, which in this case is
negative, and they include a cognitive, an affective, and a behavioral
component. The cognitive component involves thoughts such as
stereotypical ideas of how homosexual people are typically like. The
affective component deals with feelings such as fear, disgust, aversion
or even hatred.
And the behavioral component is about advocating or demanding

unequal treatment, such as denial of equal rights. However, whether
the latter behavioral component should be included in the attitude is a
matter of debate in social psychology. In most cases, a clear distinction
is made between attitudes and behavior and the behavior-related
components are already counted as discrimination or at least as part of
the intention to discriminate.
In any case, it is known from many studies that prejudices are not
directly related to discriminatory behavior (Six & Schütz, 1994), but can
certainly prepare the ground for it, especially when it comes to
emotionally connoted prejudices (Talaska, Fiske & Chaiken, 2008).
Discrimination in this sense is the application of prejudice (Fiske, 2010).
Decades of research into attitudes and behavior also show the
importance of social norms, presumed attitudes and expectations of
important reference persons and opportunity structures (e.g. because
derogatory jokes about
mosexuals are not sanctioned) (Ajzen & Fishbein, 2005).

If social norms tolerate devaluation, if people have the impression that
others who are important to them (e.g. from their own family and circle
of acquaintances, colleagues or even people from the media) would
themselves have a rather deprecating attitude towards homosexual
people, and if so When laws and regulations signal and perpetuate
inequality, they are more likely to translate their derogatory attitudes
into discriminatory behavior or even violence. Conversely, this applies
equally to accepting attitudes.
The core issue is that people are viewed as “abnormal” because of

their actual or ascribed same-sex orientation or non-binary gender
identity and not only as “unequal” but as “unequal” (see below for the
concept of heteronormativity ) . , which results in devaluation and
exclusion and is used to justify this. For example, the denial of the right
to enter into same-sex marriage is justified on the grounds that
homosexuality is “immoral” or “unnatural” (see Chapter 4 for more on
this).
Negative feelings towards homosexual and also trans* people are

justified by the fact that they are inappropriately conspicuous in public
and make too much fuss about their sexuality.
Prejudices always come from those who represent them. It is also
always about the attribution of characteristics, not about which
characteristics someone actually has or how important this characteristic
is for a devalued person. As with many other prejudices, it is irrelevant
for devaluation and exclusion whether and how a person affected by
homophobia or transphobia identifies themselves. In contrast to ethnic,
possibly also gender- or gender-related prejudices or prejudices due
to a visible disability, the characteristic of sexual orientation, on which
the attribution and devaluation is fixed, is not necessarily recognizable
for others. This means that both the characteristic and the associated
devaluation and exclusion are subject to a certain control by those
affected (in the case of an unwanted coming out, always also fear),
which can also always be a burden and demand self-confidence. It is
known from studies that take into account devaluations based on
several characteristics that Queers of Color (i.e. LGBT* people with a
non-white identity or with possibly only an ascribed migration
background) experience ethnic racism in everyday life
often feel more stressful than being excluded because of their sexual
orientation (LesMigraS/Castro Varela et al., 2012). From an intersectional
perspective (which focuses on the entanglement of characteristics of
discrimination such as gender, ethnicity or class and looks at the
exacerbation of risks of discrimination), it would be necessary to examine
disparaging attitudes not only in terms of the disparagement due to
sexual orientation or gender.
identity, but at the same time to include other characteristics that make
devaluation and discrimination more likely, for example attitudes towards
white lesbian women or lesbian women of color (who also experience
discrimination due to ethnic attribution) or having a disability differentiate.
We believe that homophobia and transphobia can only be understood

against the backdrop of heteronormativity. The basis for heteronormativity
is the idea that there is only a binary gender system of clearly man and
clearly woman who lead a heterosexual relationship. Only this is solely
"normal" and "correct".
All other forms of sexual orientation or gender identity are not only
defined as deviant, but also as “abnormal” and “incorrect”. Conversely,
sexual diversity includes all forms of sexual orientation (ie heterosexual
as well as homosexual and bisexual orientation) or gender identity (ie
all gender identifications as man, woman trans* and intersex people or
queer orientations). The abbreviations LGBT*10 or, among activists,
queers for short, stand for the variety of non-heteronormative concepts
of life and relationships. The * signals the inclusion of various other
sexual orientations or gender identities.
10 or alternative abbreviations such as LSBTTIQ*, international LGBT or LGBTTIQ* (here

the G stands for gay, the Q for queer).
2nd method
For the present study, we first carried out research into the current state of research on
the spread of various forms of homophobia, from which we then derived gaps in knowledge
and the way in which it was recorded in the current survey.
Most polls asked people whether they disagree or agree with equal rights for lesbians and
gay men and
whether they reject homosexuality as immoral or disgusting. In psychology and the social
sciences, one also speaks of classical homophobia or classical homonegativity (more on
this in Chapter 4).
In addition, several surveys asked about emotional reactions in imagined contact situations
(affective attitudes). Less frequently, modern prejudices were recorded (e.g. the rejection
of discrimination protection for lesbians and gays) or the attitude towards specific topics
such as the subject of homosexuality at school. In order to fill these research gaps, in the
present study we focused in particular on modern variants of homophobia, reports on one's
own behavior and the supportive or discriminatory behavior observed in others,
on assumptions and knowledge about homosexuality and homo- and bise

sexual people and attitudes towards sexual diversity in schools.
The study was designed as a representative population survey.

For this purpose, persons aged 16 and over were interviewed by telephone. The age limit
from 16 was chosen in order to facilitate comparability with findings from previous
population surveys. Technical and legal reasons for the survey also played a role.
First, on the basis of existing literature and an additional one

small media analysis created a questionnaire and checked in a pretest before. The aim
was, on the one hand, to update previous findings, and on the other hand, facets of the
Include attitudes towards homosexual and bisexual people and give space to current
phenomena, especially with regard to right-wing populism.
In the following, the study design and the methodology of the study as well as the
description of the sample are presented. The data of the study were led by Prof. em. dr
Frank Faulbaum
collected by the Social Science Survey Center GmbH in Duisburg (SUZ)

by telephone, computer-aided survey. The main survey took place
between October 4, 2016 and November 29, 2016.
2.1 Questionnaire
For the survey, the project team developed a questionnaire that covered
various topics such as attitudes and assumptions towards lesbian, gay,
bisexual and transgender people and homosexuality as well as items
(questions/statements; see glossary) on the perceived behavior of the
social environment of the people surveyed sons and on one's own
behavior towards LSB (lesbian, gay and bisexual people). In addition,
the questionnaire also covers perceived discrimination against LGB,
acceptance of violence towards them, and attitudes towards various
other social groups in society. In addition to demographic questions on
socio-economic status, age, origin, religiosity, gender, sexual orientation
and marital status, political attitudes, attitudes towards social diversity
and social values were also recorded.
The study was aimed specifically at younger people under 30 years of

age. The questionnaire therefore also contains statements on dealing
with LSB in schools, opinions on paying more attention to sexual
diversity in schools and on sex education for younger people.
2.1.1 Selection of Items

The measuring instrument mainly contains items that have proven
themselves in previous national and international studies (a list of the
researched studies can be found in the appendix, Table II). For this
purpose, among other things, the most recent 20 major studies were
researched. Newly generated items that were developed from a media
analysis prior to the survey are also included. For this purpose, online
comments from readers on newspaper articles were examined (a list of
the researched articles can be found in the appendix, Table I). These
were comments from the newspapers "Die Welt", "Die Zeit" and the
Facebook page of "Bild". These have supra-regional
Print editions, freely accessible online articles and a freely accessible

online comment function for readers. The website's search function was
used to find articles on topics such as the public Co
ming-out of prominent people, equal rights in adoption and marriage and
the consideration of sexual diversity in schools.
The content-relevant and current articles with the most comments were
included. The first 50 comments from a total of twelve articles were
included in the media analysis. A total of 535 comments were included
in the analysis (see Appendix, Table I) and categorized by content.
Items for measuring assumptions and attitudes towards LSB were then
developed from the most common categories.
The questionnaire was first subjected to a telephone field test with 30

interviews and the comprehensibility, quality, order and acceptance of
the topics were tested. It was then revised in order to achieve the
greatest possible reliability and validity in the main survey (see Glossary
under Reliability and Validity). The field pretest also contained a series
of open-ended questions that were used to adjust the items for the main
survey. The items finally used are presented in detail in the respective
chapters of this report.
2.1.2 Randomization of items and the use of

splits
Some items were included in the questionnaire in a randomized order,
ie they were presented to the respondents in a random order.
The random sequence of items prevents the answer from depending on
the position of a question in the questionnaire.
The following blocks of questions were randomized: Questions on the

responsibility for sex education for children and adolescents, on topics
that should be dealt with in the context of sex education in school,
questions on a positive or negative attitude towards social groups in
society, attitude towards the statement that certain groups of people
make too many demands, attitude towards LSB people differentiated
according to context. The results are presented at the appropriate place
in the report.
Due to the length of the questionnaire, the respondents were divided

into groups (splits) and sometimes received different questions. Split A
was assigned to 1,004 people (49.9 percent of respondents), Split B
was assigned to 1,009 people (50.1 percent of respondents). The
persons were randomly assigned to splits A and B, thus ensuring
representativeness.
2.1.3 Response scaling and dealing with

missing values
Four-level response scales were mostly used to answer the questions
in the interview. Respondents therefore had to decide whether they
tended to agree or disagree with a question; as a rule, there was no
middle answer category “partially-partially” available.
A response scale of “(1) totally disagree”, “(2) rather disagree”, “(3)

rather agree” to “(4) completely agree” was used to record attitudes. For
items on assumptions and knowledge about LSB persons, a four-point
response scale from “(1) not at all applicable”, “(2) rather not applicable”,
“(3) rather applicable” to “(4) fully applies and completely closed”. In
principle, the interviewers also had the opportunity to note the answers
“don’t know” and “no answer” if the interviewees gave them spontaneously.
In contrast to this, spontaneously expressed answers such as “I don’t

care/neutral” or similar answers were also coded for questions on
affective attitudes towards homosexual people (more on this in Chapter 4).
The percentages presented in this report always refer to the valid 100
percent of all respondents who gave affirmative or negative answers.
The answers "don't know" or "no answer" were not considered in most
cases and were therefore rated as non-existent answers. In the case of
an accumulation of missing answers to a question, this is shown at the
given point in the report. First of all, there were remarkably few real
refusals to answer in the present study, ie only a few respondents gave
no answer at all for a statement. Some statements were answered with
“don't know” a little more frequently. Overall, the study showed no
abnormalities in the spontaneously expressed "don't know" or "no
answer" in comparison to similarly designed studies such as the FES-
Mitte study. Exceptions are the
respond to the questions about measuring affective attitudes towards

homosexuals (see Chapter 4.7). Here the respondents very often
spontaneously expressed the answers "(5) partly partly/both and" and in
particular "(6) I don't care/neutral/neither nor". These alternative answers
were not read out in the interview, but coded by the interviewer. In order not
to reduce the number of respondents included in an analysis too much, they
were rated as a medium answer category (2.5 on a scale of 1 to 4) after the
survey and included in the further analyses. Accordingly, these spontaneous
answers were included in the formation of the mean value scales (see
glossary).
Relationships between variables and differences between subgroups are only

shown as such in the text if they are statistically significant (i.e. the pure
appearance of more or less, higher or lower does not count here; see glossary
under significance/statistical significance).
2.1.4 Processing of the data

Various facets of attitudes towards lesbian, gay and bisexual people and
many other variables were recorded in this study. Here, the respondents
were presented with several statements and asked for approval or rejection.
If a respondent responds to these items equally in agreement or disagreement,
a reliable measurement can be assumed, ie the respective items measure the
same construct. First, the structure of the measurements was examined with
the help of explorative factor and reliability analyses. This is one of the usual
procedures in quantitative social research (see glossary under factor analysis,
reliability analysis) and also serves to reduce individual misunderstandings of
the participants or random errors and thus increase the overall reliability of
the measuring instrument. All items that correlated so closely with one another
that they obviously cover the same construct were then combined into a mean
scale (see glossary).
Only respondents who had answered at least half of the items on a scale
were considered. Items that were only recorded in half (one split) of the
sample were excluded from the scale formation, even if they correlate closely
with the others
ten.
2.1.5 The problem of social desirability
The collection of attitudes in opinion polls is usually a reactive process,

ie respondents know that they are being surveyed and are aware that
their attitudes are being collected. Surveys – this also applies to large
population surveys – can therefore generally only collect what the
respondents are willing to report. Since the study is based on survey
data, it is dependent on the willingness to participate and the quality of
the information provided by the participants. Especially when it comes
to topics that are perceived as sensitive – and this certainly includes
attitudes towards homosexual and bisexual people – it is assumed that
the respondents do not always reveal their “actual” attitudes, but are
also guided by social desirability (inter alia Schnell, Hill & Esser, 1999).
Social desirability describes the tendency for people to base their
answers on social norms in surveys, ie they answer in the way they
think is desired. Thus, if the dominant social norm demands acceptance,
respondents would express more positive attitudes towards, in this
case, homosexual and bisexual people than they actually have. This is
especially true for people who are motivated to appear unbiased (Banse
& Gawronski, 2003). In the meantime, however, attitude research has
moved away from the idea that there is such a thing as a “true” attitude
that is only distorted by social norms and other influencing factors
(Esser, 1986). Rather, it is assumed today that the attitude expressed
is always shaped by the respective survey situation, e.g. whether the
survey is anonymous, whether there is interaction with the interviewer,
etc., and that social norms have a stronger or weaker effect there. In
addition, you can
develop different norms in different social contexts (e.g. on the Internet,

in the analogue public sphere, in work teams, etc.).
In the case of interest here, this can mean that in one context the norm
of being tolerant prevails, in another context the norm of being
particularly aggressive in devaluing minorities. Agreement with a
statement that reflects prejudices therefore varies with the survey
situation or the survey method. The method of telephone surveys offers
the advantage that the guaranteed anonymity can limit an increased
risk of refusal to participate or answer, especially in the case of topics
that respondents find unpleasant or sensitive. In contrast to many
situations in real everyday life or other types of surveys, such as face-
to-face surveys, the identifiability of the person is minimized and
response
This should reduce distortions in terms of social desirability and

adaptation to social norms. At the same time, the social situation of the
interview is more likely to lead to people who would like to be
unprejudiced expressing more positive attitudes in this situation than
they do in an interaction-free survey situation, for example in which they
fill out a written questionnaire that they send back anonymously. When
evaluating and comparing findings, it is therefore always important to
take the respective method into account.
2.1.6 Comparison between different studies

The comparison of findings on the frequency of agreement across
different studies is methodologically not entirely unproblematic. Strictly
speaking, only the agreement frequencies of studies should be compared
that used the same survey method – ideally this also includes at least a
similar questionnaire. Differences in the survey method, eg whether the
surveys were conducted by telephone, face-to-face or online, in which
question context the questions about lesbians, gays and bisexuals were
placed and which answer scaling was used, can influence the results.
The methodological differences can then possibly also be partly

responsible for deviating results. Therefore, when comparing different
studies, potential differences due to the specific examination methods
should always be taken into account.
2.2 The sample

The sample is adjusted to the corresponding distribution of the population
using a combined adjustment weight from the characteristics of gender,
age and level of education of the participants. The weighted random
sample is thus comparable with the data from official statistics and other
empirical studies with regard to the characteristics taken into account in
the weighting.
2.2.1 Sampling
The population of the study are people living in Germany from the age
of 16, with and without German citizenship, who were interviewed via
computer-aided telephone interviews (CATI) (see glossary under CATI
methods). The random sample was drawn
as a two-stage random selection. First, according to Gabler and Häder (1997), a nationwide
random sample of telephone numbers was drawn, and numbers that were recognizable as
business numbers, extension numbers, or fax numbers were excluded. The target person
in the household was then selected using the last-birthday method. According to this
procedure, in households with several people, the person whose birthday was last is
interviewed. The proportion of mobile phone numbers in the sample was 28.2 percent,
while the proportion of landline numbers was 71.8 percent (dual-frame approach).
Contact was established and the interviews were conducted Monday to Friday between
4:30 p.m. and 9 p.m. and Saturday between 12 p.m. and 6 p.m. The maximum number of
attempts to contact the
Target person in the household was ten attempts. The average length of an interview was
27.6 minutes.
The interviewers went through a multi-stage training process and were specially trained for
this study. They pointed out to the respondents that the study was voluntary and anonymous.
An important factor for the representativeness of the sample is the minimization of the self-
selection of the participants - the participation of particularly interested persons
or the non-participation of uninterested or refusing persons. The

At the beginning, interviewers informed the participants that, among other things, it is
about “questions about marriage, family and partnership and about the attitudes people
have to topics that are currently being discussed in society”. The specific issue of
“homosexual people” was not specifically addressed. The Niederrhein University of Applied
Sciences was mentioned as the implementing institution and
the Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency, which commissioned the study, was named on
request. During the interviews, there was only a low dropout rate of 0.97 percent of the
adjusted gross sample.11 A total of 2013 interviews were conducted.
2.2.2 Socio-demographic description of the sample
The sample weighted by the above-mentioned adjustment weight corresponds in essential

criteria to the composition of the population
11 The adjusted gross sample comprised 15,295 telephone numbers, of which a total of
13,282 (86.84 percent) refused to participate. The refusers are made up of: contact
person refuses (10,207 people, 66.73 percent), target person refuses (2,621 people,
17.14 percent), target person permanently ill/cannot be interviewed (92 people, 0.60
percent), target person in Field time not available (214 people, 1.40 percent) and
termination of the interview (148 people, 0.97 percent).
as shown by the official statistics (Federal Statistical Office, 2017a,b,c

– results of the 2015 microcensus). In the present sample, 51.3 percent
of the respondents are women and 48.6 percent are men (Table 2.1).
18.4 percent of respondents are 16 to 29 years old, 22.1 percent are
30 to 44 years old, 27.3 percent are 45 to 59 years old and 32.2
percent are 60 years or older. 19.5 percent of the people questioned
in the present study have a migration background12, which pretty
much corresponds to the proportion reported by the official population
statistics. This is a very heterogeneous group: they come most often
from Poland, Russia and Turkey and are also very heterogeneous in
terms of education, age and gender.
The present sample differs from the data of the corresponding

population only in the distribution of the respondents according to
community size. The sample contains a slightly higher percentage of
respondents from smaller communities. In the present study, 17.2
percent live in communities with fewer than 2,000 inhabitants, 31.6
percent in communities with 2,000 to 20,000 inhabitants, 23.0 percent
in communities with 20,000 to 100,000 inhabitants and 28.3 percent in
communities with more than 100,000 inhabitants. In the interview, 95
percent of those questioned identified themselves as heterosexual,
almost 2 percent as homosexual and almost 3 percent as bisexual
(these are 35 and 51 people respectively in the sample). Only five
respondents indicated a different orientation, including pansexual13 or
asexual.14 Almost all respondents identified themselves as “male” or
“female”, only one person each gave the gender “inter*” or
“undetermined”, one other person did not provide any information or answered “don't know”
12 Respondents with a migration background include all people who have citizenship other
than German, were not born in Germany themselves, or had at least one parent who
was not born in Germany.
13 Pansexual are people who feel emotionally or sexually attracted to people outside of the
two-gender system (man and woman), for example to transgender or intersex people.
14 It is estimated that between 3 and 10 percent of people are homosexually oriented, with
even more young people reporting that they are not exclusively heterosexually oriented
(e.g. YouGov, 2015). The proportion depends on whether sexual orientation is assessed
through other or self-identification and whether homosexuality is defined through
homosexual behavior, sexual attraction or relationships. The spread of self-identified and
practiced homosexuality or, conversely, suppressed or only secretly practiced
homosexuality depends to a large extent on the acceptance of homosexuality in a society.
Table 2.1: Sociodemographic description of the weighted

sample (in absolute values and in percent, n= 2,013)
absolutely valid percent

Old 16-29 years 368 18.4
30-44 years 443 22:1
45-59 years 547 27.3
from 60 years 646 32.2
gender female 1,031 51.3
masculine 978 48.6
inter* 1
indefinite 1
Marital single/unmarried 621 31.0

status
married 940 47.0
separated from husband/wife 52 2.6
in a registered life partnership 10 0.5

separated from the registered
partner 11 0.5
divorced (or dissolved registered 164 8.2

partnership)
widowed 202 10.1
yes (live with partner) 1,328 66.3

partnership
no (living without a partner) 675 33.7
religious evangelical 654 32.9

affiliation Catholic 615 30.9
Muslim 64 3.2
other 77 3.9
no 581 29.2
(highest) still a student 76 3.8
Leaving school without a degree / no

Graduation 28 1.4
school-leaving certificate
Elementary/secondary school leaving

700 35.0
certificate (GDR: 8th grade)
Secondary school leaving certificate

603 30.1
(GDR: 10th grade)
Technical college entrance qualification
105 5.2
(Completion of a technical college)
Abitur/university entrance qualification 472 23:6

other degree 16 0.8
Table 2.1 continued

absolutely valid percent
current fully employed 881 44.2

Task in semi-retirement 28 1.4
on maternity leave/
32 1.6
maternity leave
part-time, marginally
employed, in a “1 euro” or
“2 euro job”, occasionally
or irregularly employed or 1,053 52.8
currently not employed
including: housewife or househusband 194 18.6
in retraining 5 0.5
student 67 6.5
student 89 8.5
unemployed or
43 4.2
looking for a job
in retirement 493 47.3

trainee 7 0.7
working part-time for no
66 6.4
specific reason
other low 77 7.4
income income 344 22.5
average earnings 884 57.8
higher income 301 19.7
East West East Germany 290 14.5
Germany
West Germany including Berlin 1,712 85.5
Note: Deviations in the absolute figures for the number of respondents in the total sample due to “no
answer” and “don't know” answers.
a
The net
weighted number equivalent
of people in theincome was calculated
household). here (household
The respondents income
were divided intolegend:
groups by the
according
to income level based on the income data from the Federal Statistical Office from 2015; here the
weighted median income was €20,668 (Destatis, 2017): low income (<70% of the median) up to
€1,205.39, middle income (>= 70% to <150% of the median) between €1,205.40 and €2,583, €00,
higher income (>= 150% of the median) from €2,583.10.
3. Assumptions and knowledge

about lesbian, gay and bisexual
people
3.1 Societal background and existing

research
While there are many surveys of attitudes towards lesbians and gays,
representative population surveys rarely ask people about their beliefs
and knowledge about LSB.
This knowledge contributes to more positive attitudes towards LSB
(Klocke, 2012). Intervention programs to reduce homophobia therefore
also successfully rely on imparting knowledge about LSB (Bartoÿ, Berger
& Hegarty, 2014). According to evaluations, knowledge against prejudice
is particularly helpful when it is combined with contact with members of
the devalued group and positive experiences can also be had on an
emotional level (eg Beelmann, Heinmann & Saur, 2009).
The attitudes people have towards LSB could be influenced, for

example, by assumptions about the causes of sexual orientation. So
you could ask people what they think goes into making one person
homosexual, a second heterosexual, and a third bisexual. However, the
question of whether one should deal with the causes of sexual orientation
is quite controversial (Bailey et al., 2016). It can reinforce a pathologizing
view of homosexuality and bisexuality, especially if one does not ask
about the causes of sexual orientation in general, but specifically about
the causes of homosexuality.
Such a question could suggest that heterosexuality does not need to

be explained because, unlike homosexuality, it is normal and desirable.
However, the ethical assessment of a phenomenon, i.e. the question of
how desirable and acceptable something is, is independent of the
causes of the phenomenon. In this respect, it is logically irrelevant for
the assessment of homosexuality or bisexuality whether they are
congenital or caused by environmental influences (e.g. the behavior of the parents).
are conditional. However, assumptions about causes are related to

attitudes. When people believe that sexual orientation is a free choice
or influenced by environmental influences, then they have more
negative attitudes towards LSB than when they believe that sexual
orientation has a biological basis (Bateman, 1996; Landen & Innala,
2002; Rye & Meaney , 2010; Smith, Zanotti, Axelton & Saucier, 2011;
Stoever & Morera, 2007; Swank & Raiz, 2007). It is likely that people
who assume environmental influences or free choice tend to reject
LSB because they think that their homo- or bisexuality would disappear
through therapy or a voluntary decision and they would not be forced
to accept the otherness of LSB as something unchangeable to accept.
Research is far from having fully explained the causes of sexual
orientation. However, the current state of knowledge speaks against
the assumption that sexual orientation is influenced by parental
upbringing, imitation, one’s own sexual experiences or even therapy
(Golombok & Tasker, 1996; Mustanski, Kuper & Greene, 2014; Rosario
& Schrimshaw, 2014 ; Sherblom & Bahr, 2008). However, there are a
number of supporting findings for genetic or hormonal influences (ibid.).
As already mentioned, there are hardly any representative studies in

Germany in which assumptions or knowledge about LSB were asked
in addition to attitudes. In a survey of 50 sixth, ninth and tenth graders
at 20 Berlin schools (representative by type of school), the students
were given a knowledge test with 27 questions on sexual diversity
(Klocke, 2012). First of all, the test showed that almost all sixth graders
already knew what the terms “lesbian” (96 percent) and “gay” (97
percent) mean. 74 percent of the students also knew that more
students would not become gay or lesbian if teachers lived openly as
lesbians or gays. Two out of three students knew that homosexuality
cannot be seduced, and just over half knew that girls who grow up with
two lesbian mothers are not more likely to become lesbians themselves.
However, only 27 percent of sixth graders and 44 percent of ninth and
tenth graders knew that therapies to change sexual orientation are
unsuccessful. Just under a third knew that upbringing has no influence
on sexual orientation, and only 22 percent of sixth graders and 29
percent of ninth and tenth graders knew that one does not choose
one's sexual orientation.
In addition to assumptions about causation and variability, it could

also provide assumptions relevant to the harmonization of adoption law for same-sex
couples. So far, to our knowledge, two representative surveys have dealt with the ability
attributed to same-sex couples to bring up children. 67 percent (Schmidt, 2016) and 74
percent (Ipsos GmbH, 2013) of the population assumed that homosexual couples can
bring up children at least as well as heterosexual couples.
3.2 Coverage in the current survey

Since the survey was intended to record not only the assumptions but also the attitudes
towards non-heterosexual people, it was first important to clarify which sexual orientations
the respondents were aware of. Sensibly, attitudes can only be asked about phenomena
of which at least an approximate idea is available. For this reason, the 30 respondents to
the pretest were asked to list all the sexual orientations they were aware of. To get an
overview of the awareness of various se
The pre-test was sufficient to obtain sexual orientation in the population. In the main
survey, we then limited ourselves to orientations that were known to the majority of
respondents in the pretest.
In the current survey, the main questions asked were those assumptions where an
influence on attitudes or behavior can be assumed. A number of questions were therefore
asked about the suspected causes of sexual orientation and the possible consequences
of opening up marriage and adoption rights to same-sex couples. The questions about the
causes of sexual orientation each began with the words "a person is homosexual because
they...". It would also have been possible to use the wording instead: "Sexual orientation
is influenced by...". This formulation might have suggested less that only homosexuality
needs explanation because it is “not normal”, while heterosexuality does not need any
explanation. However, our wording had the advantage of being easier to understand, for
example because it did not require an explanation of the term "sexual orientation". Some
of the items were taken (sometimes slightly modified) from the knowledge test mentioned
above (Klocke, 2012). Others were based on the media analysis of 535 online reader
comments described in Chapter 2.
3.3 Descriptive results of the current

survey
When asked which sexual orientations are known, “homosexual” (22 of
the 30 respondents) and “heterosexual” (21 respondents) were mentioned
most frequently during the pretest. Eleven respondents mentioned “bise
xual”. Seven mentioned “transsexual” or “transgender”, although this is
not a question of a sexual orientation but of a gender or gender identity.
Three people each mentioned the terms “lesbian” and “gay” instead of
“homosexual”. Only one person also mentioned "asexual" as a sexual
orientation. Other sexual orientations such as “pansexual” or “queer”15
were not mentioned by anyone. The main survey was therefore limited to
the three most common sexual orientations: homosexual/lesbian/gay,
straight and bisexual.
For the following questions on assumptions and knowledge, we

exceptionally show separately the proportion of respondents who stated
that they did not know an answer. The reason for this is that significantly
more respondents (up to 17 percent) admitted to not knowing an answer
to these questions, although the answer alternative "don't know" was not
read out by the interviewers, but was only coded if it was spontaneously
answered by the respondents themselves took place.
As will become clear below, most respondents gave answers that

correspond to the current state of scientific knowledge. Most respondents
did not consider environmental influences on sexual orientation to be
correct (Table 3.1): Only 30 percent believed that bad experiences with
the opposite sex had an influence, only 19 percent through seduction
and only 14 percent through parental upbringing . It also fits that only 20
percent assume that more and more people in Germany will become
homosexual. On the other hand, 59 percent believed that people were
already born homosexual, and 63 percent that most homosexuals already
noticed as children or adolescents that they were homosexual
15 Queer are people who perceive their gender and/or sexual orientation as something
changeable and do not want to be pigeonholed into rigid categories. In some cases,
the term is also used as a generic term for all people who deviate from the heterosexual
or binary gender norm, i.e. lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgender and intergender
people.
are. This assumption is consistent with surveys of LSPs when they first
realized they were not heterosexual (Krell & Oldemeier, 2015).
Two other items did not relate to the causes or spread of sexual
orientation, but to current social discussions, such as the right to adopt
for same-sex couples. Comparable to previous surveys (Ipsos GmbH,
2013; Schmidt, 2016), 67 percent of those surveyed were of the opinion
that children who grow up with same-sex couples develop just as well
as children who grow up with couples made up of a man and a woman.
This assumption also corresponds to the current scientific knowledge
(Bos, Knox, van Rijn-van Gelderen & Gartrell, 2016; Fedewa, Black &
Ahn, 2015). The second assumption relates to the discussion about
opening up marriage to same-sex couples.
Saarland Prime Minister Kramp-Karrenbauer rejected this opening in

the summer of 2015, arguing that other groups would subsequently also
demand the possibility of marriage, e.g. communities of three people or
blood relatives (ZEIT-ONLINE of June 3, 2015). However, only 19
percent of those surveyed shared this assumption.
In a factor analysis (see glossary), two factors were identified for the
assumptions about lesbians and gays: The four an
assumptions about socialization and the two assumptions about innate
sexual orientation each loaded on their own factors. For the correlation
analyzes in later chapters, we therefore averaged the four items on
socialization and used them to create a scale. On the other hand, we
analyzed the items for congenitality separately and did not average
them, since the internal consistency (Cronbach's ÿ; see glossary under
Reliability/Cronbach's ÿ) was too low to form a scale.
Table 3.1: Assumptions about lesbians and

gay men (percentages)
Meets ... not rather too full and

at all rather not to completely closed
Spontaneously: "don't know"
Homosexuality through socialization (Cronbach's ÿ = .68)
A person is homosexual because

they were seduced into being 49.5 26.4 15.2 4.2 4.7
homosexual by someone else.
A person is homosexual because

their parents raised them differently than 56.8 24.3 10.2 3.9 4.9
most parents.
A person is homosexual because they

have had bad experiences with the 38.9 25.4 24.2 5.9 5.6
opposite sex.
In Germany more and more people

30.7 32:1 14.1 5.7 17.3
are becoming homosexual.
Congenital homosexuality (Cronbach's ÿ = .37)
A person is homosexual because they

were born that way, eg because of their
16.1 13.7 31:1 28.2 10.8
genes or hormones during pregnancy.
Most homosexuals already realize as

children or young people that they are 7.1 12.5 37.9 25 17.4
homosexual.
Other Items
Children raised by same-sex couples

develop just as well as children raised
by male-female couples. 10.8 13.9 24.2 43.1 8th
If marriage is opened up to same-sex

couples, other groups will also want to
marry, eg communities of three or blood 48.2 29.1 13.3 5.7 3.6
relatives.
Note: The items from this table had a maximum of 89 missing answers (4.4% of those surveyed), specifically for
the item “More and more people are becoming homosexual in Germany.”
3.4 Summary
The assumptions about LSB for people aged 16 and over living in
Germany are more in line with current scientific knowledge than for
schoolchildren in Berlin (Klocke, 2012). Most
People seem to know that it is not upbringing, seduction, or experiences
with the opposite sex, but biology (eg
Genes and hormones in pregnancy) affect sexual orientation. A majority
also knows that children develop just as well in same-sex couples as in
heterosexual couples. One can argue that the causes of a phenomenon
(in this case homosexuality and bisexuality) should be irrelevant for its
ethical assessment and that there is also the danger of homosexuality
being pathologized. However, earlier studies have repeatedly found
connections between causal attributions on the one hand and attitudes
on the other. In Chapter 7 we will deal with the extent to which these
connections also exist in the current survey.
4. Attitudes towards lesbian,

gay and bisexual people

research
As mentioned at the beginning, in this study we look at attitudes towards

lesbian, gay and bisexual people in particular from the perspective of
socio-psychological prejudice research. This has identified various
expressions of prejudices commonly observed against devalued social
groups. Central here are the concepts of classical and modern
prejudices (each with a slightly different derivation and designation; for
a brief overview of various theories and forms of expression of modern
prejudices see Zick & Küpper, 2008). These concepts were initially
developed in US racism research. The starting point was the observation
of the change in the way racist prejudices were expressed against Afro-
Americans: Open, direct and hotly formulated prejudices, which were
evident, for example, in hard, directly derogatory stereotypes about
black people, were replaced or supplemented by more subtle, more
indirect and cold expressions (For a description of overt and subtle
biases, see Pettigrew & Meertens, 1995). The basic socio-psychological
explanation behind this is: people are influenced by the prevailing social
norms in their opinions and in how they express them, be it because
they orientate themselves by them, be it because they
in front of others and also in front of oneself with the current norms
want to submit a formal image in order to be evaluated positively.
When social norms demand tolerance and acceptance and oppose
racism, open expression of prejudice is suppressed. However, prejudices
are deeply rooted in a culture (e.g. in its stories, literature and art).
Correspondingly, the people with the old prejudices were socialized, ie
they learned these prejudices and grew up with negative thoughts and
feelings about the respective devalued group. Therefore, according to
the assumption,
old prejudices often still exist even when they are no longer wanted,
albeit in a more subtle form. Such modern prejudices then express
themselves, among other things, in more polite or at first
Maybe even look out for positive-sounding versions of what were once
clearly negative stereotypes. They also show up in the assumption of
oversized and insurmountable differences between one's own group (the
ingroup) and another group (the outgroup, ie a foreign group to which
one does not feel a part). They also become clear in the assumption that
a discriminated group pushes itself too far into the foreground, makes
too many demands, often combined with the view that equality measures
are being exaggerated because there is no longer any discrimination,
although facts speak against it.
The concept was also applied to the devaluation of homosexual and

bisexual people. A distinction is made between classic homophobia, in
which the open devaluation of homosexual people is practiced, and
modern homophobia, in which the devaluation is expressed more subtly.
Classic homophobia is found, for example, in advocating unequal
treatment or rights (Fiske, 2010). In Germany, this has so far been
particularly evident in the privilege of marriage for heterosexual couples,
endowed with all rights, which also enables full adoption (ie a child can
be adopted by two parents without being biologically related to at least
one of them), from which homosexual couples were excluded at the time
of the survey. Classical homophobia is also expressed in the open and
direct devaluation of homosexuality as a disease, as immoral or
unnatural, in contrast to heterosexuality, which is regarded as healthy,
moral and natural.
The open devaluation of homosexual people has been steadily declining

in recent years and there is more approval for equality measures. In a
survey by the European Commission, 70 percent of Germans were in
favor of granting homosexual and bisexual people the same rights as
heterosexual people, although this is fewer than in all other western
European countries (European Commission, 2015). In the long-term
study on group-related enmity (GMF; Heitmeyer, 2002-2012) and
subsequently in the FES-Mitte study, a positive trend can be clearly seen
not only for the legal component of homophobia, but also with regard to
the
moral devaluation (Heitmeyer, 2002–2011; Zick & Klein, 2014; Zick,

Küpper & Krause, 2016). For example, while in the representative GMF
population survey in 2002 only just under 60 percent of those questioned
were in favor of allowing marriage between two men or two women, this
proportion of supporters of same-sex marriage has increased almost
continuously since then. Ten years later, in the 2011 survey year, 76
percent of respondents supported same-sex marriage. In a survey
conducted in 2013, 71 percent of the population also approved of the
right of same-sex couples to adopt children (Ipsos GmbH, 2013; there
are no comparative values from previous survey years). Much the same,
though not quite as continuous, has the history of evaluating
homosexuality as immoral. In the GMF study, at the time this question
was first asked in 2005, almost 18 percent rated homosexuality as
immoral, the following year even 23 percent did so, and in the FES-Mitte
study in 2016 it was only around 10 percent of those surveyed . When
homosexuals kiss, 35 percent of those surveyed in the 2005 GMF study
still found this disgusting (Heitmeyer & Mansel, 2008), in the 2016 FES
study only a good 16 percent did so. The exception is one result of the
most recent Leipzig Mitte study from 2016, here the assessment of
homosexuality as disgusting was again at 40 percent and as unmo
ral at 25 percent (Decker, Kiess & Brähler, 2016). The main reason for
this discrepancy may be the different survey methods used in the most
recent Leipzig Mitte study. In the block of questions on extreme right-
wing and misanthropic attitudes, including homophobia, written
questionnaires are used, which the participants fill out themselves and
then hand over in a sealed envelope.
Nevertheless, as the existing population surveys also point out,

homophobia is still present in one form or another and around every
tenth person still shares open forms of devaluation (Zick, Krause,
Berghan & Küpper, 2016). After all, around a third of the population is
at least partly, partly, more or less completely of the opinion that the
well-being of the child is endangered if parents are of the same sex
(Küpper & Zick, 2015b on the basis of data from the ZuGleich, Zick &
Preuß, 2014).
Modern homophobia is found in seemingly positive stereotypes about

gay men - they are particularly witty, funny, clean, good
attracted and emotional – which may make them particularly suitable for artistic and
creative professions, but not necessarily for managerial positions in business or the army,
but also not for work in construction or agriculture. So have it
gay men who don't fit this stereotype find it particularly difficult to even be recognized as
gay or to come out in contexts that don't fit. Football is an example of this, in which only a
few players open up about their homosexuality after their playing days. But it also shows
up in a more subtle way in the opinion that homosexual people make too many demands
and that they are no longer discriminated against. A special aspect is that of visibility in
public, which is granted to heterosexual people and couples as a matter of course, or
which is even rated positively, but which is rated as obtrusive in the case of homosexual
people. If gay couples show their affection in public (e.g. kissing or holding hands), only
30 percent would feel comfortable with it, and with lesbian couples only 34 percent would
also feel comfortable. On the other hand, when it comes to heterosexual couples showing
affection in public, 53 percent of respondents would feel comfortable (European
Commission, 2015). So homosexuality is only accepted by some people as long as it is
invisible and you are not confronted with it. For homo and bisexu
For all people, however, this means always having to think about when and where they
can make their sexual orientation and love public and where this may be viewed negatively
if their very existence and recognizability cause resentment. This makes it difficult, for
example, for young people who are discovering their sexuality to find positive and different
role models for a possibly same-sex orientation and love. This makes it particularly clear
how self-evident
lich and normal heterosexuality and how still special and

non-normal homosexuality is assessed.
In the context of anti-discrimination measures, the population's assumptions about the

extent of existing discrimination are relevant. Ignorance towards or even the active denial
of discrimination against homosexuals can also be understood as a form of modern
homophobia (on the denial of discrimination as a form of modern prejudice, e.g. Kite &
Whitley, 2016). As empirical studies suggest, the denial of discrimination serves one's
own world view that the world is fair and that everyone gets what they are entitled to. This
will own privileges or the
discrimination against others justified. Conversely, the finding of

discrimination challenges the assumption that the world is fair (for
summary Kaiser & Major, 2006). In 2008, 63 percent of the German
population believed that it is difficult “to openly admit to being
homosexual unless you are a celebrity”, but 35 percent believed that
homosexuals are not discriminated against in our society ( Federal Anti-
Discrimination Agency, 2008). Discrimination against homosexuals is
therefore perceived by fewer respondents than, for example, by older
or young people. This lack of knowledge about existing discrimination
explains that in the same survey 71 percent thought that less than
before or nothing at all should be done for the group of homosexuals
(this proportion was only 11 percent for people with disabilities and
around 11 percent for older people 22 percent). And 67 percent were
of the opinion that “homosexuals do not need special legal
protection” (Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency, 2008).
In addition to classic and modern homophobia, it is also often examined

how people react emotionally when they are asked to imagine having
contact with lesbians and gays, i.e. what affective attitude they have
towards lesbians and gays. Affective attitudes are considered a proven
indicator of prejudice; they reflect, so to speak, the purest form of the
emotional evaluation of social groups. The affective reactions often
become more negative the closer the imagined contact is. This reflects
the desire for social distance, i.e. distance from social groups addressed
by prejudices.
In prejudice research, the need for social distance to members of
different social groups (e.g. ethnic or religious minorities) is considered
a reliable indicator of the acceptance or rejection of a group (based on
Bogardus, 1933). For example, 61 percent of respondents would
welcome a gay couple and 63 percent a lesbian couple as neighbors
(Change Center Foundation, 2015).
57 percent would feel reasonably comfortable having a gay, lesbian or
bisexual person as a work colleague, while 10 percent would feel
uncomfortable (European Commission, 2015). The assessments are
less positive when asking about a romantic relationship between one's
own son or daughter and a same-sex partner. Only 50 percent of those
surveyed would feel reasonably comfortable here, 28 percent would
feel uncomfortable (ibid.).
4.2 Coverage in the current survey

In the present study, various facets of classic and modern homophobia
were surveyed along the theoretical basis. The statements used for
this reflect the basic components of thinking, feeling and possible action
of social prejudices: a) affective attitudes, which are expressed in
positive, neutral or negative feelings towards lesbian, gay and bisexual
people,16 b) attitudes towards legal equality and open devaluations of
homosexuality as unnatural or immoral, which are usually considered
classic forms of homophobia, and c) modern homophobia, whereby we
primarily surveyed attitudes towards the conspicuousness and visibility
of homosexuality in public. In addition, we have assumptions about
Discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people, which some

authors also understand as an indicator of modern homophobia, which
is not undisputed.
On the basis of exploratory factor and reliability analyses, in which all

items on attitudes and assumptions about homosexual persons were
initially included in several steps, the statements were assigned to the
respective sub-dimensions of homophobia in a theoretically and
empirically guided manner. The statements used to record homophobia
and transphobia and the assignment to the summarizing constructs can
be found in Tables 4.1 and 4.2.
4.3 Descriptive results of the current

survey
Before reporting on the derogatory attitudes towards homosexual and

bisexual people, the attitudes towards different social groups, including
homosexual and trans* people, are compared with one another. In
addition, it is examined whether the majority of society perceives
discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people at all and to
what extent they do so
16 The query presented here of affective attitudes towards a minority group in different
contexts that vary according to social proximity was already used in a similar form in
the classic scale by Bogardus (1933) and is also used as a measure of social distance.
Protection against discrimination considered important. In addition, the

extent to which violence against homosexuals is considered justified is
examined. In addition, the derogatory attitudes towards trans people
are reported. The following list gives an overview:
— Affective attitudes towards homosexuals and

Trans* people in comparison to other social groups (Chapter
4.3.1)
— Perception of discrimination and attitude towards protection

against discrimination (Chapter 4.3.2)
— Different dimensions of homophobia (Chapter 4.3.3)

ÿ
Classic homophobia – this includes statements about the
rejection of equal rights and the open devaluation of
homosexuality as sick, unnatural or immoral (Chapter
4.3.3.1)
ÿ
Modern homophobia – this includes statements on the
visibility of homosexuality in public and on the issue of
homosexuality in the media (Chapter 4.3.3.2)
ÿ
Affective homophobia – all statements have been
summarized here that deal with how pleasant or unpleasant
a person is to be around homosexual people in different
contexts, e.g. as a work colleague, as a teacher or as a
partner of one’s own children) (Chapter 4.3. 3.3)
ÿ
Connections between the three sub-dimensions of
homophobia and formation of the overall homophobia scale
(Chapter 4.3.3.4)
— Justification of violence against homosexuals (Chapter 4.3.4)
— Derogatory attitudes towards trans people

(Chapter 4.3.5)
4.3.1 Affective attitudes towards different social

groups
First, the extent to which attitudes towards homosexual and bisexual
people are more positive or negative compared to attitudes towards
other social groups was surveyed. This was recorded in a randomly
selected but still representative half of the respondents. A list of social
groups that are discriminated against was read out to the respondents.
For comparison purposes, respondents were also asked about their
own attitudes towards “Germans”. For each of the social groups,
respondents were asked to indicate on a four-point scale whether their
attitudes toward that group were very negative, somewhat negative,
somewhat positive, or very positive. The individual groups were read
out to the respondents in a randomly changing order. In addition to the
spontaneous answer "don't know" or no answer (both answers were
not included in the further analysis as missing values), two further
answer categories were coded if the respondents spontaneously stated
them: 1. the group was divided as negative and partly as positive or as
both negative and positive, and 2. the respondents said that they didn't
care or they rated the group neutrally or as neither positive nor
negative. These answers were included in the frequency analysis.
Respondents had the most positive attitudes towards people with

disabilities and Germans, followed by attitudes towards homosexuals,
bisexuals, trans people, Muslims, asylum seekers, and the most
negative towards the unemployed and Sinti and Roma (Figure 4.1). In
comparison to other discriminated groups, the attitudes towards
homosexual and bisexual and also trans* people are comparatively
positive and do not differ significantly (or only slightly in the case of
trans* people) from each other. It is noticeable, however, that a
comparatively large number of respondents have indifferent attitudes
towards homosexuals and bisexuals as well as towards trans* people,
here above all “don’t care/neutral/neither nor”, while the attitudes
towards Germans, for example, are significantly less indifferent. Almost
12 percent of those questioned said they had rather or very negative
attitudes towards homosexuals, 67 percent had rather or very positive
attitudes and almost 22 percent were indifferent, ie answered
spontaneously with “don't care/neutral/neither nor” or with “partially
partly/both and”. According to their own assessment,
13 percent indicated rather or very negative, 62 percent rather or very positive

and 25 percent indifferent attitudes. According to their own assessment, 17
percent have negative, 59 percent positive and 24 percent indifferent attitudes
towards trans people.17
Figure 4.1: Attitudes towards different social groups

(percentages)
What is your attitude towards the following groups of people: is it very

negative, somewhat negative, somewhat positive or very positive?
homosexuals 17 4 4 8th 46 21
bisexual 20 53 10 45 17
trans people 19 5 3 14 45 14
Muslims living in Germany 11 8th 2 23 46 11
Asylum seekers 9 10 4 21 45 10
Sinti and Roma 16 8th 5 29 35 7
People with disabilities 10 43 43

31
unemployed 11 12 5 28 38 7
German 7 6 2 7 54 23
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
percent
I don't care/neutral/neither nor partly-partly/both and
very negative rather negative
rather positive very positive
17 The proportion of “don’t know” or “no answer” responses was not included or shown here, but is less than 1 percent
with the exception of attitudes towards bisexuals (1.4 percent), the unemployed (1, 4 percent) and Sinti and Roma
(3.4 percent) of missing values.
The next step was to examine the extent to which the terminology used to
describe homosexual people played a role in the attitudes. In this section of the
interview, the randomly selected other half of the respondents were only asked
about their attitudes towards homosexual and bisexual people, although different
terms were used to describe this group. A quarter each (i.e. around 250 people)
were asked about their attitude towards a) homosexual and bisexual men or
women, b) gay men or lesbian women, c) men or women with same-sex love
and d) gays and lesbians . The settings differ only minimally depending on the
terminology (Figure 4.2). Comparatively, bisexual men are judged most negatively.
Figure 4.2: Attitudes towards variously labeled

homosexual and bisexual people (percentages)
What is your attitude towards the following groups of people: is it very

negative, somewhat negative, somewhat positive or very positive?
homosexual men 24 24 11 43 16
gay men 19 5 2 12 44 18
same-sex loving men

19 3 6 10 46 16
gays 20 52 13 43 18
homosexual women 26 23 10 40 19
lesbian women 21 41 12 46 16
same-sex loving women

21 34 10 48 15
lesbians 22 50 13 43 17
bisexual men 27 3 5 12 38 15
bisexual women 24 33 12 41 16
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
percent
I don't care/neutral/neither nor partly-partly/both and
very negative rather negative
rather positive very positive

4.3.2 Perception of discrimination and attitude

towards protection against discrimination of
lesbian, gay and bisexual people
The next step was to record the extent to which those surveyed were
aware of ongoing discrimination against homosexual and bisexual
people and how they felt about legal protection against discrimination.
The overwhelming majority of 95 percent of those questioned found it
“good that homosexual people are legally protected against
discrimination”, only a very small minority of 5 percent tended to
disagree or disagree (Table 4.1).
In 2008, two thirds of those questioned in a study commissioned by the
Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency were of the opinion that
“homosexuals do not need any special legal protection”. Even if the
statements are not directly comparable, this is a clear indication of a
growing awareness among the general public of the importance of
statutory protection against discrimination.
At the same time, a large majority of almost 81 percent of those

surveyed also recognized that “homosexuals and bisexuals [are] still
being discriminated against or disadvantaged in Germany today”.
Conversely, almost a fifth no longer saw any discrimination, so they
should therefore see less reason for further prevention and intervention.
Here the initially outlined divergence of the perspectives of those
affected by discrimination, most of whom report discrimination in
everyday life (Chapter 1.2), and those who are not directly affected
becomes apparent. 90 percent of those surveyed also said that
“homosexual and bisexual young people are victims of bullying and
discrimination more often than heterosexual young people”, which can
actually be seen from studies (including Gruber & Fineran, 2008;
Klocke, 2012). A good half (52 percent) of those questioned are aware
that same-sex couples living in a registered partnership do not have the
same legal status as heterosexual couples in Germany, but vice versa,
almost half of those questioned do not know this either.18
18 When it came to these questions about knowledge of discrimination, there were again
a comparatively large number of respondents who answered “don’t know” or gave no
information. When asked about discrimination against homosexuals and bisexuals in
general, this was 6 percent, when asked about discrimination against homosexual and
bisexual young people 9 percent and when asked about the legal equality of registered
civil partnerships 8 percent. This is understandable insofar as some of the respondents
are unlikely to deal with the topic in their everyday life.
This means that there are two very important prerequisites for preventing
and intervening in the devaluation and discrimination of homosexual and
bisexual people in a very large part of the majority of the population –
the legal protection of this group against discrimination is considered
important, and more than four fifths still recognize it before the need.
4.3.3 Different dimensions of homophobia

The results of the three central dimensions of homophobia – classical,
modern and affective homophobia – and their respective sub-aspects
are presented below.
4.3.3.1 Classic homophobia
Classical homophobia is characterized, among other things, by the

rejection of equal rights and the moral devaluation of homosexuality as
unnatural or immoral. As already mentioned, both aspects are empirically
very closely related (Chapter 4.2).
4.3.3.1.1 Legal equality in relation to marriage and family
The survey took place in autumn 2016, well before the German
Bundestag decided to open up marriage to same-sex couples. The
starting point for the survey was therefore that homosexuals have fewer
rights than heterosexuals in some central areas of matrimonial and
family law.
As already mentioned, this applies in particular to the possibility of
marriage and joint adoption of children by same-sex couples. Until now,
only successive adoption was permitted (ie the partner can adopt the
biological child of the other partner). The vast majority of those surveyed
in the present study were clearly in favor of legal equality (Table 4.1.).
More than eight out of ten respondents supported opening up marriage
to same-sex couples (almost 83 percent).
Despite slight deviations, the findings of other studies (Chapter 4.1)

show a similarly high level of agreement, for example the FES-Mitte-
Study 2016. The Leipziger Mitte-Study 2016 did not ask for the approval,
but for the rejection of the legal recognition of the asked about marriage
and also worked with anonymous questionnaires. In 2016, around a
third of those surveyed still rejected same-sex sex
marriage off. Almost as many, 76 percent of those surveyed, were in

favor of allowing lesbian and gay couples to adopt children as well as
straight couples. Not quite as many, but still a majority of two-thirds
(67 percent) of respondents also supported same-sex couples getting
as much assisted reproduction assistance as straight couples. It
remains open to what extent respondents are generally against artificial
insemination. However, the statement correlates highly with other
statements on classical homophobia.
Table 4.1: Indicators of classic and modern homophobia

and related attitude constructs (percentages)
Meets ... not at all to rather to full and

rather not to completely closed
Knowledge about discriminationc (Cronbach's ÿ = .68)

Homosexuals and bisexuals are still
discriminated against or disadvantaged 6.0 13.5 40.5 40.1
in Germany today.
Gay and bisexual young people are

more likely to be victims of bullying and
3.6 6.3 38.8 51.4
discrimination than heterosexual young
people.
Same-sex couples living in a

registered partnership are legally equal to
22.7 28.9 19.7 8.7
heterosexual couples in Germany.a
Voice … not at all to rather to fully

rather not to agree
Classic homophobia (Cronbach's ÿ = .85)
It is good that homosexual people are

protected against discrimination by law. 2.1 3.3 17.9 76.7
Marriages between two women and two

10.8 6.6 18.0 64.6
men should be allowed.
Lesbian and gay couples should be allowed

to adopt children just like heterosexual 14.0 10.2 19.4 56.4
couples.
Same-sex couples should get as much

assisted reproduction assistance as
17.8 14.8 22.6 44.8
heterosexual couples.a
Table 4.1 continued

rather not to agree
Classic homophobia (Cronbach's ÿ = .85)
Homosexual acts by men used to be a

punishable offense in Germany. To what
extent do you agree that the convictions of
7.3 6.5 15.8 70.3
men convicted of homosexual acts should be
overturned?
And to what extent do you agree that the men

convicted at the time should be compensated? 15.9 14.5 26.7 42.9
a
Lesbian, gay and bisexual demonstrations

and parades, such as Christopher Street Day,
13.9 14.2 31:8 40.1
are a good thing.
Homosexuality is immoral. 72.3 18.0 5.1 4.6
Homosexuality is unnatural. 65.4 16.3 9.2 9.1
Homosexuality is a disease.
79.3 10.0 4.8 5.8
(Scaling: Matches...)
Modern homophobia (Cronbach's ÿ = .80)
Homosexuals should stop making such

a fuss about their sexuality. 30.1 26.1 23:6 20.2
In Germany, many people exaggerate their

tolerance towards lesbians and gays. 43.4 29.3 15.5 11.8
The subject of homosexuality takes up

43.0 30.7 14.1 12.2
too much space in the media.
Homosexuals represent too many

46.1 33:1 11.9 8.8
claims.b
It is inappropriate for people to make their

52.0 21:4 14.9 11.7
homosexuality public.
I would like to have as little contact as possible

with the subject of homosexuality. 45.8 27.7 13.4 13.1
Acceptance of violence against LSB personsc
Lesbians and gay men only have themselves

to blame if people react aggressively towards 70.3 18.8 6.3 4.6
them.
It's understandable when people use violence

91.4 7.2 0.8 0.7
against gays and lesbians.
Table 4.1 continued

rather not to agree
Offender-victim reversal in relation to LSB personsc
You can't say anything bad about gays and

lesbians these days without being
18.0 28.0 27.9 26.0
immediately accused of being intolerant.
Trans*phobia (Cronbach's ÿ = .65)
It is not normal when a man prefers to

be a woman or, conversely, a woman 45.7 21.2 18.3 14.9
prefers to be a man.
It's simply too much effort to have to

take into account the special features of
transgender people. 49.9 25.7 13.8 10.7
a
b Legend: Not included in the scale formation. The other half of the respondents were
presented with this statement using different terms to describe homosexual persons; these were
c
combined to form the scale.
Used as a single item.
Over the past few years, support for equal rights has increased
significantly. This can be demonstrated as an example for consent to
same-sex marriage, which has continued to rise almost linearly (Figure
4.3).
Figure 4.3: Development of classic homophobia from

2002 to 2016 (agreement with selected
statements, percentages)
100
90 83
80 75 76 76
73
70
70 63 64
60 59
60 56 58
50
percent
40
30 23
18 20 18
20 17 16 17
12 10
10
0
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Marriages between two women and two men should be allowed.
Homosexuality is immoral.
Note: Where available, information from the following studies was used to show the
development: 2002 to 2011 from the long-term study on group-related enmity (Heitmeyer,
2002-2011), 2013 from the ZuGleich study (Zick & Preuß, 2014), 2014 from the FES-Mitte
study (Zick & Klein, 2014); 2016 Results of the present study. For better comparability, all
information is based on random samples including interviewees with a migration background,
so the information may differ slightly from that in other publications of the studies mentioned,
which e.g. T. only report on the samples of respondents without a migration background
(this applies to publications in the context of "German conditions"; Heitmeyer, 2002-2011).
However, there are also some abnormalities and contradictions in comparison

to the approval and the demand for equality of homosexual and bisexual people
expressed on the general level: Firstly, the approval decreases the more
concrete it is about proactive actions for equality goes to children.
Even more respondents were in favor of “marriage for all” than in favor of full
adoption rights and even fewer in favor of equal access to assisted reproduction.
Conversely, the proportion of those who are completely against legal equality
increases from 18 percent who are against same-sex marriage, over 24 percent
who are against full adoption, to 33 percent who are against support for artificial
marriage are fertilization.
And secondly, there is also a discrepancy here with the overwhelmingly high
level of support from almost all respondents to the generally formulated requirement
Demand for legal protection of lesbian, gay and bisexual people

against discrimination. After all, when it comes to specific questions
about legal equality, a not inconsiderable proportion of up to a third of
those questioned are in favor of the continuation of unequal legal
treatment, especially with regard to life with children. Many interviewees
are probably not aware that by rejecting equal rights they are
contradicting the demand for statutory protection against discrimination.
A third discrepancy is also worth noting: When asked how many percent
of the population are probably in favor of allowing marriages between
two women or two men in Germany, only 37 percent of the respondents
assumed this on average (the median here is 35 percent, ie 50 percent
of those questioned come up with estimates from a maximum of 35
percent of the population). The vast majority of those surveyed clearly
underestimated the acceptance of same-sex marriage in Germany – 99
percent estimated the acceptance to be lower than it is based on the
survey results. On average, the respondents themselves were
significantly more accepting than is assumed by the population as a
whole. It is also clear that the sooner the respondents agreed that
marriage should also be open to same-sex couples, the higher the
percentage of the population that they thought was in favor of it, and
vice versa.
The correlation is not very high, but it is linear and significant.19 Both
directions of impact are possible here – one deduces that of others
from one’s own attitude, and vice versa, the presumed assessment of
others has an influence on one’s own attitudes (see also chapter 6 on
the influence of the observed behavior in the social environment). The
discrepancy between their own, on average, more accepting attitude
and the presumed less accepting attitude of the population could be
due to the motive of the interviewees not to appear prejudiced in the
interview and also to themselves. In addition, people in general tend to
think of themselves as better than average and progressive. This could
also be reflected here, since protection against discrimination is actually
judged by the overwhelming majority to be something worthwhile. In
any case, this discrepancy points to the importance of expressing one's
own accepting attitudes loudly and clearly in order to make them
perceptible to others and thus one
19 Correlation (see glossary) between one's own attitude towards opening up marriage and the
estimated proportion of the population that is also in favor of it, r = .80, p < .001 (n = 1,857).
flow in a positive sense towards even more support for legal equality.
When asked about the full right to adopt for same-sex couples, we also
determined the extent to which the respondents were receptive to any
counter-arguments and might change their attitude.20 For this we used
a method that had already been used in other large population surveys.
Depending on whether you agree or disagree with the statement that
lesbian and gay couples are allowed as well as heterosexual couples
should adopt children, the interviewees were given a corresponding

counter-argument to their opinion. Overall, 76 percent of those
questioned spoke out in favor of the right to adopt and 24 percent
against the right to adopt.
Respondents who opposed the right to adopt were read out either one
or the other of the following two counter-arguments (divided equally and
randomly): “There are people who say it is unfair that lesbian or gay
couples are not as equal as straight couples xual couples are allowed
to adopt children" or: "There are people who say that according to
scientific studies, the children would develop just as well there as with
heterosexual couples".
Respondents who voted in favor of the right to adopt for same-sex

couples were also read out one of the two alternative counter-arguments
(also divided equally and randomly): “There are people who say that
children need a father and mother” or “There are people who who say
that lesbian or gay parents are a burden for the children because they
will then be teased by other children". Of those interviewed who spoke
out in favor of the right to adopt, only 4 percent changed their mind after
reading out the counter-argument and were then of the opinion that the
adoption was not right after all. The majority of respondents, however,
did not allow themselves to be dissuaded from their approval. We could
not find any differences in the two counter-arguments. Of those surveyed
who spoke out against adoption by homosexual couples, at least 7
percent changed their minds, although the majority shared their negative
opinion
20 The method of counterarguments is a method that has been tried and tested in social
science surveys (Sniderman & Theriault, 2004; also used by Zick, Küpper, Hövermann,
2011, among others).
remained. Again, it didn't matter which counter-argument was put forward.

A simple counter-argument can actually change the attitude of a small
proportion of respondents.
The question is how permanent this is or whether a simple counter-
argument is sufficient for a permanent change in attitude.
4.3.3.1.2 Rehabilitation of homosexuals convicted under Section 175 of the Penal Code
Men
The attitude towards the question of the rehabilitation of homosexual men

who were convicted according to § 175 StGB is empirically closely related
to the approval or rejection of equal rights for homosexual and bisexual
people and is therefore dealt with here in this chapter. From 1949 to the
defusing of the paragraph in 1969, an estimated 50,000 men were
sentenced to prison terms, some of them for several years, and then
another 3,500.
Irrespective of a conviction, it is not uncommon for those already accused
to lose their jobs when the police made a report to their employer. A report
published in May 2016, which was commissioned by the Federal Anti-
Discrimination Agency, came to the conclusion that the legislator can not
only rehabilitate the victims of criminal prosecution, but actually has to. As
a result, the federal government introduced a bill for the criminal
rehabilitation of people convicted of consensual homosexual acts after
May 8, 1945, which was passed by the federal cabinet in March 2017. In
June 2017, the German Bundestag passed the Rehabilitation Act.
It overturns the sentences and awards compensation to the convicted

homosexual men.
We asked the respondents for their opinion on this and asked: “In the
past, homosexual acts by men were punishable in Germany. To what
extent do you agree that the convictions of men convicted of homosexual
acts should be overturned?” The vast majority of 86 percent of respondents
believed that the convictions should be overturned (Table 4.1). However,
around every seventh respondent speaks out against it. More than two-
thirds of those surveyed (70 percent) were also in favor of compensating
those convicted. However, these are significantly less than
spoke out in favor of annulment of the verdicts. 30 percent of those questioned

were against compensation.21
4.3.3.1.3 Demonstrations for equal rights
Finally, a majority also spoke out in favor of homosexual, bisexual and trans
people demonstrating for equal rights or drawing attention to themselves and the
rights they had fought for (Table 4.1).
This attitude is also empirically so closely related to the other questions on legal
equality that we mention it here.
72 percent of those questioned are of the opinion that “demonstrations and
parades by lesbians, gays and bisexuals, such as Christopher Street Day, are a
good thing.” However, almost a third (28 percent) reject them.22
4.3.3.1.4 Devaluation of homosexuality as unnatural and immoral
In addition to the rejection of equal rights, the moral devaluation of homosexuality

is an expression of classic homophobia. This includes the assessment of
homosexuality as “immoral” – only just under 10 percent of those surveyed found
this to be the case (Table 4.1). Here, too, the downward trend of recent years is
confirmed (Figure 4.3).
The alarming findings of the 2016 Leipzig Mitte study, which pointed to a renewed
increase in openly homophobic attitudes (in the context of the written survey, 25
percent of those surveyed rated homosexuality as immoral), could not be confirmed
in the telephone interview. The classification of homosexuality as "unnatural" is
somewhat more common - this is still the opinion of almost a fifth of those surveyed
(18 percent). Almost 11 percent of respondents are still convinced that
homosexuality is a “disease”.23
All of these questions depend on aspects of classic homophobia, like the

Analyzes have shown, empirically, that they are very closely related and can
hardly be separated from one another: those who openly identify homosexuality as un
Naturally or immorally devaluing, there is a high probability that they will also
reject equal rights for homosexual people and vice versa.
21 For these two questions, 3 percent (rehabilitation) and 6 percent (compensation) of all respondents
answered “don’t know” or “no answer”.
22 In response to this question, 5 percent of all respondents answered “don't know” or did
not specified.
23 Here, the proportion of missing values was less than 3 percent.
Therefore, all statements on these topics – ie both the rejection of equal

rights and the open devaluation of homosexuality as unnatural or
immoral – became highly reliable
Summary of the mean scale for “classic homophobia” (Table 4.1 shows
the assignment of the items to this and the other sub-dimensions of
homophobia). Respondents who scored more than 2.5 on the four-point
response scale were categorized as “classically homophobic.” As
surveyed here, 12 percent of those questioned held classic homophobic
views.
4.3.3.2 Modern homophobia
As a further aspect, we have recorded more modern forms of

expression of homophobia, which theoretical assumptions about the
development of prejudices suggest are even more widespread (Chapter 4.1).
This includes the assumption that homosexuals make too many
demands. Here, comparable to the question outlined above on affective
attitudes towards different social groups (Chapter 4.2), the same
statement was presented with a slightly different designation for
homosexual persons in order to be able to compare again whether the
chosen terminology affects the settings. Half of the respondents, chosen
at random, were presented with the statement “Homosexual people
make too many demands”, while the other half had different terms,
which were again read out in random order. In this second half, around
250 respondents were given separate statements for the target groups
of lesbian/bisexual women and gay/bisexual men. The terms used
were: “homosexual men/women” and “bisexual men/women”, “gay men/
lesbian women”, “men/women who love same-sex sex” and “gays/
lesbians”.
79 percent of respondents did not agree that homosexual people make

too many demands, but one in five respondents somewhat or totally
agreed (Table 4.1). The highest level of agreement was with the phrase
“gay people make too many demands” (22 percent), the fewest
respondents agreed with the phrase “homosexual women make too
many demands” (14 percent), followed by “bisexual women/ men” and
“same-sex loving women”. But again, the percentage of respondents
who were presented with different formulations only varied
slightly, ie the chosen terminology apparently has little influence on the

answers overall.
As a second aspect of modern homophobia, we collected the visibility of

homosexuality in public and its thematization in everyday life and in the
media using several statements. At least 27 percent of those surveyed
found it “inappropriate for people to make their homosexuality public”
and 26 percent were of the opinion that “the subject of homosexuality
takes up too much space in the media”. As many as 44 percent of those
surveyed said, “Homosexuals should stop making such a fuss about
their sexuality”. Also 27 percent were
believes that "in Germany, many people exaggerate their tolerance
towards lesbians and gay men" and just as many respondents said, "I
would like to have as little contact as possible with the subject of
homosexuality".24
These statements were also combined into a highly reliable mean

scale. Collected in this way, around a quarter of the respondents (26
percent) share homophobic attitudes that are expressed in a modern
way.
What is clear is that homosexuality is accepted by the vast majority, but

by quite a few only if it is quiet and not visible, i.e. homosexual people
do not come out as homosexual in public and refrain from demanding
equal rights. A very typical pattern of modern prejudices can be seen
here – the assessment of visibility and the demand for equal rights as
“too much”, which is also used to legitimize derogatory attitudes. What
is overlooked is the fact that heterosexuality is a matter of course, even
in public, which is by no means a matter of course for homosexuality,
even if many people think so. For prevention and intervention, this
means paying particular attention to more modern ways of expressing
homophobia, which the results show have largely replaced classic, open
prejudices.
24 In these questions about modern homophobia, 2 to 4 percent of respondents answered

“don't know” or gave no information.
4.3.3.3 Affective homophobia
The affective component of prejudice is about negative feelings in relation to

the addressed group. We have captured this component most directly in
relation to same-sex love, which is particularly evident in the manifestation of
affection (Table 4.2): When two men or two women share their love in public
show affection, for example by kissing. People react to this with positive or
negative feelings. Respondents were therefore asked to indicate how
uncomfortable or comfortable this was for them. They were also asked this in
relation to a heterosexual couple (due to capacity limitations, the three
affection questions were presented to only a random half of respondents).
When a man and a woman show their affection in public, for example kissing,
only around one in ten (10.5 percent) found this very or rather unpleasant,
while a majority of almost 58 percent even accompanied and stated this with
positive feelings , this is rather or very pleasant to them.
In addition, almost a third of those surveyed (30 percent) said spontaneously

that they did not care. On the other hand, the respondents found it significantly
less positive and also less irrelevant when a same-sex couple shows their
affection in public: If two women kiss in public, this was rather or very
unpleasant for more than a quarter of the respondents (almost 28 percent).
and only 41 percent comfortable. 29 percent of those surveyed said
spontaneously that they didn't care.
When two men kiss in public, 38 percent felt this to be rather or very
unpleasant and only 34 percent to be rather or very pleasant. 26 percent said
they didn't care. Apparently, significantly more people are still uncomfortable
or do not care if they share same-sex love between a couple of two men or
two women in public
watch as if it were a man-woman couple

del.
Table 4.2: Indicators of affective homophobia (percentages)
Feels like very rather rather very
unpleasant unpleasant pleasant pleasant
Spontaneously: I don't care/neutral/neithe

i.e
Affective homophobia (Cronbach's ÿ = .91)
You find out that a work colleague is

2.0 10.6 31.0 9.1 47.3
gay.
They find out that a work colleague is

2.0 9.8 31:1 8.9 48.2
a lesbian.
You find out that your son's teacher

5.1 14.0 29.2 6.6 45.1
is gay.
You find out that your daughter's

3.5 13.5 31:3 7.3 44.4
teacher is a lesbian.
You find out that your son's

6.0 18.1 27.8 7.1 41.1
caregiver at daycare is gay
You find out that your daughter's

5.5 14.1 28.7 7.4 44.3
caregiver at daycare is a lesbian
You find out your son is gay.b

11.6 29.2 24.5 5.9 28.8
You learn that your daughter is

10.2 29.6 24.7 6.1 29.4
a lesbian. Affection in public
A man and a woman show their

affection in public, 1.9 8.6 42.0 15.5 31:9
eg by kissing.
Two women show their affection

in public, e.g. B. 5.2 22.3 32.7 8.7 31.0
by kissing.
Two men show their affection in

public, for example by kissing. 9.3 29.1 25.9 7.7 27.9
a
Legend: Only included in half of the sample, therefore not included in the scaling Not included in
b
the scaling affective homophobia as these two were included.
statements less closely related to the other affective statements. However, both items are included in
c
the overall homophobia scale. Coded and included as a value of
i.e
2.5 for scaling. For the formation of the scale, the values were recoded in such
a way that high values indicate more affective homophobia.
One aspect of prejudice that is theoretically particularly closely related to behavioral

discrimination is social distance (Bogardus 1933). The need for distance or,
conversely, the acceptance of closeness is a proven measure of the strength of
aversion to a social group. Social distance is expressed in an uncomfortable feeling
at the idea of members of a typically devalued outgroup coming close to one, or in
the sometimes greater, sometimes lesser acceptance of closeness to members of
this group. Research has been examining this for many decades now, especially in
relation to ethnic and religious groups. The social distance is recorded through the
idea of different socially close contexts, e.g. how pleasant or unpleasant it would be
to have a member of a particular group as a neighbor or as a spouse of one's own
child. We have now raised the concept of social distancing with regard to gay and
lesbian people
and in relation to various presented contexts that allow more or less social proximity
or distance, the respondents were asked how pleasant or unpleasant this was
(Table 4.2). Here, too, it was not read aloud, but coded when respondents
spontaneously said that they didn't care or that they had no feeling for a situation.
The various contexts were presented in randomized order; for reasons of capacity,
some of the questions were only put to a random half of the respondents.
The results confirm the previous findings. When asked how they would find it if a
work colleague was lesbian or a work colleague was gay, only a minority of 12 or
13 percent felt this to be somewhat or very unpleasant, while almost half (46 or 45
percent) spontaneously answered this they don't care or they don't have a specific
feeling about it. 17 and 19 percent of those surveyed would find it uncomfortable if
their daughter's teacher was a lesbian or their son's teacher was gay (43 and 42
percent, respectively, don't care). The idea that the caregiver of one's own daughter
in the daycare center is a lesbian or that the caregiver is gay - in a certain respect,
an even closer social context, because it is a matter of caring for a smaller number
of respondents (41 and 39 percent respectively) and more respondents
uncomfortable (20 and 24 percent respectively).
children acts -,
The fact that their own daughter is lesbian or their own son is gay is something that
40 and 41 percent respectively find rather or even very unpleasant, and only 23
and 22 percent don't care.
So it's clear that there are more reservations the closer the subject of
homosexuality comes to mind, especially when it extends into one's own
family. The reservations expressed are certainly not always to be
equated with generally degrading attitudes towards lesbians and gays.
The fact that comparatively more respondents are uncomfortable or
care less if their own daughter is or would be a lesbian or their own son
is or would be gay does not necessarily have to be an indicator of
devaluation. This could also express concern, for example, that the wish
for a grandchild could be more difficult to fulfill or that one's own child
could become a victim of discrimination.
However, the evidence tends to refute these latter assumptions or they

may only apply to a small proportion of those who find homosexuality in
their own children unpleasant. Respondents who find it rather or very
uncomfortable if their own daughter or son were homosexual are
somewhat more likely to deny that homosexual people continue to be
discriminated against and tend to be among the few who do not feel well
about protection against discrimination tend to say that tolerance towards
lesbians and gays is exaggerated in Germany and generally tend
towards classical and modern homophobia much more frequently.25
For the scale formation, the questions were selected with regard to the
mean social proximity (colleague or teacher gay or lesbian), which
correlated closely with each other. The question of how comfortable or
uncomfortable the respondents would find it if their own son or daughter
were gay is also highly significantly related to the other affective
questions, but not quite as highly, and was therefore not included here
Scale formation including affective homophobia.26 For reasons of
space, the question relating to day-care center care was only collected
in half of the sample and
25 Correlation of the assessment of the statements “You find out that your son is gay.”/“You
find out that your daughter is gay.” as negative with the agreement with the statements
“It is good that homosexual people are legally protected against discrimination are.”, r
= .23***/.22***; "Homosexuals and bisexuals are still discriminated against or
disadvantaged in Germany today.", r = -.18***/-.19***; "In Germany, many exaggerate
their tolerance towards lesbians and gays." r = .36***/.36***; with classic homophobia,
r = .58***/.58***; with modern homophobia, r = .50***/.48***.
26 Correlation scale affective homophobia (in relation to teacher and work colleague) with
the additional subscale affective homophobia in relation to one's own son or daughter
(LSB child), r = .66***.
was therefore also not included in the affective homophobia scale. In

summary, 42 percent of those surveyed expressed more positive and
18 percent more negative affects towards lesbians and gay people in
this sense, the rest gave indifferent answers. A total of 41 percent of
those surveyed find the idea of their own child being gay or lesbian
rather or very unpleasant.
4.3.3.4 Connections between the three sub-dimensions of

homophobia
The three subscales of homophobia – classic, modern and affective

homophobia – are closely related. 80 percent of those questioned who
agree with classic homophobia also agree with modern homophobia,
67 percent with affective homophobia, ie they would have an unpleasant
feeling if a work colleague or teacher were homosexual. 87 percent of
those who are classically homophobic would find it uncomfortable if
their own child were homosexual.
Of those surveyed who agree with modern homophobia, a third (36
percent) also share classic homophobic attitudes and 40 percent share
affective homophobia with regard to homosexual work colleagues or
teachers, 68 percent with regard to the idea that one's own child is
homosexual. Here it becomes clear once again how classic forms of
homophobia are being replaced by modern ones that are more widely
accepted. The affective component of homophobia is almost always
involved. In the end, these three sub-dimensions became an overall
homophobia scale (including how comfortable or uncomfortable it was
for respondents to have their child homosexual). Taken together, 22
percent of those surveyed tend towards homophobic attitudes. In some
chapters that deal with factors that are more closely related to the topic
“your own child is lesbian or gay”, there is a separate report on
connections with these statements with regard to affective homophobia
(abbreviated as LSB child) .
4.3.4 Legitimation of aggression and violence against

homosexual and bisexual people
In addition to derogatory attitudes, we also raised agreement with the

accusation “Nowadays you can't say anything bad about gays and
lesbians without immediately being called intolerant.” This accusation
is in a similar form and relates to others
social groups such as foreigners heard again and again and is put
forward as an alleged restriction of freedom of expression. In this
statement, however, a very typical pattern of prejudices becomes
clear, the reversal of perpetrators and victims. More than half of the
respondents (54 percent) agree (Table 4.1). This observation of the
justification of one's own devaluation is important for prevention and
intervention, since prejudices could creep in and be maintained over
this very point. However, some of the respondents could have meant
this purely as a description, not as an expression of their own attitude.
There is a weak association with homophobic attitudes, although not
as strong as has been demonstrated in other contexts for the same
xenophobia formulation (Küpper, Zick & Krause, 2015).
In addition, the legitimation of aggression and violence was once again

explicitly recorded by two statements: "Lesbians and gays are to blame
if people react aggressively to them" (11 percent agree, 19 percent
tend to disagree and 70 percent totally disagree ) and "It's
understandable when people use violence against gays and
lesbians" (1.5 percent agree, 7 percent tend to disagree, and 91
percent totally disagree). A small proportion of those questioned
therefore showed understanding for aggression and violence against
homosexual people. Above all, there is a connection with classic and
modern homophobia.27 Violence against lesbians, gays, bisexuals
and trans people is a sad reality, and counseling centers report a high
number of unreported cases. The tendency of quite a few respondents
to justify devaluation, aggression and even violence, or at least not to
clearly reject them, which can be seen in the survey, points to the
mechanisms that promote aggression and violence against sexual
minorities.
27 Correlation of the statements “Nowadays you can't say anything bad about gays and
lesbians without immediately being called intolerant” with classic/modern/affective/
homophobia, r =.16***/.20***/. 09***; “Lesbians and gay men only have themselves to
blame if people react aggressively to them.” with classic/modern/affective homophobia
r =.53***/.48***/.30 “It is understandable if people use violence against Apply gays and
lesbians.” with classic/modern/affective homophobia, r = .27***/.21***/.11**.
4.3.5 Transphobia
The primary aim of the present study was to survey attitudes towards
lesbian, gay and bisexual people, i.e. towards people who are at risk
of discrimination due to their sexual orientation. Sexual orientation (i.e.
who loves whom, who would like to enter into a sexual relationship or
partnership with whom) can be separated from gender identity (i.e. to
what extent, where and in which how a person identifies themselves
sexually between the poles “clearly male” or “clearly female” and to
what extent self-identification is associated with social and biological
sex). However, the 2016 FES-Mitte study already showed a close
connection between the devaluation of homosexual and trans* people
– those who devalue people because of their sexual orientation often
also devalue people because of their gender identity and vice versa.
For this reason, two additional statements on the recording of

transphobia were taken into account in the present study. The first
statement refers to devaluing being trans* as “not normal”: “It is not
normal if a man prefers to be a woman or, conversely, a woman prefers
to be a man.” A third of the respondents (33rd percent) rather or
completely agree (Table 4.1). The second statement captures the
accusation that too much consideration is given to trans* people, an
expression typically used to capture modern prejudices: "It's just too
much effort to now also take into account the special features of
transsexual or transgender people .to have to take transgender people.”
Here, 24 percent agree
of the interviewees rather or completely agree. Both statements were
combined into a satisfactorily reliable scale. 20.5 percent of those
surveyed are transphobic. Transphobia is related to all sub-dimensions
of homophobia, as has already become clear in a previous study (Zick,
Krause, Berghan & Küpper, 2016).28
28 Correlation with homophobic attitudes, r = .28 to .56.

4.4 Summary
A look at the attitudes in the majority of the population towards gay,
lesbian and bisexual people confirms a positive trend towards more
acceptance in many respects. Attitudes towards trans people are also
surprisingly positive. At the same time, however, a number of
contradictions become clear, which become apparent the more detailed
the inquiry is and the closer the topic of homosexuality approaches. In
addition, these contradictions become particularly apparent when
looking at more modern forms of expression of homophobia, such as
visibility in public, but also with regard to the demand for and support
for equal rights.
The vast majority of 95 percent of those questioned in the present

study are in favor of legal protection for homosexual people against
discrimination. At the same time, there is widespread recognition that
there is still discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people.
The study also confirms the trend of a continuous decline in negative
attitudes towards homosexual people in recent years. Taken together,
only around 12 percent of the population still hold classic homophobic
views that harshly and openly denigrate homosexuality as unnatural or
immoral and are clearly opposed to equal rights for homosexual people
in relation to marriage and family.
In relation to other discriminated groups, the attitudes towards homo-

and bisexuals and also towards trans people are comparatively positive.
It makes little difference which term is chosen for homosexual people.
In addition to this positive message, the findings also point to some

problematic aspects. A fifth of the population no longer sees any
persistent discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people, and
support for equality decreases when it becomes concrete and especially
when it specifically involves equality with regard to all rights in relation
to marriage and family goes. While more than 80 percent of those
surveyed are in favor of opening up marriage to homosexual couples,
support for equal rights in relation to the adoption of children and, even
more clearly, support for artificial insemination is lower. The situation is
very similar with regard to the rehabilitation of the men convicted under
Section 175, which an overwhelming majority approves of, while German
are much less in favor of compensating those convicted. However, the

small experimental set-up in the survey on the topic of “Adoption” shows
that some of the respondents are open to counter-arguments that they
may not have initially considered themselves, and are therefore more
likely to agree convince. What's more, homophobia still exists in a not
insignificant proportion of the population, it's just that it's no longer
expressed so openly today. Modern homophobia, which expresses
disparagement in more subtle ways, remains fairly widespread at around
25 percent. In the case of specific forms of expression of devaluation,
even higher approval ratings become clear, for example with the
accusation that homosexuals make “too much fuss about their sexuality”.
The same applies to the direct question about affection in public, which
is rated less positively with homosexual couples than with heterosexual
ones. Only a small proportion of respondents find it uncomfortable when
a heterosexual couple kisses in public, but significantly more when two
men or two women kiss in public, and fewer respondents "don't care".
In addition, it becomes clear what is also repeatedly confirmed by many
studies on social distance in relation to ethnic and religious minorities:
the closer homosexual people get in the mind of the interviewees, the
more uncomfortable they rate this – whereas nowadays it is almost the
same Half of those surveyed don't care if a work colleague is gay or
lesbian and most of them don't find this unpleasant either, acceptance
falls as the perceived closeness increases. The idea that one's own
daughter is lesbian or one's own son is gay is irrelevant to significantly
fewer respondents and significantly more also find it unpleasant.
However, this does not seem to be motivated by concerns about their
own children, who would then be exposed to discrimination and possibly
not be able to fulfill their desire to have children or grandchildren.
Rather, the rejection of homosexuality is also reflected here.
More than half of those questioned share the accusation that “nothing
bad should be said about gays and lesbians these days without being
immediately insulted as being intolerant”, which is less a description
than a hidden justification of one's own devaluation.
This becomes even clearer in the legitimation of aggression and
violence against homosexual people. After all, every tenth respondent
believes that "Lesbians and gay men have only themselves to blame if
people react aggressively towards them", a similarly high proportion expresses
at least some understanding of aggression and violence towards

homosexuals, although very few respondents clearly agree with the
justification for violence.
5. Differences between
sociodemographic
subgroups of the population
The extent of homophobic attitudes varies across different socio-
demographic population groups, as is known from previous studies
(including Küpper & Zick, 2015, on the results of the long-term study on
group-related enmity).
5.1 Existing Research

In all surveys in which gender was analyzed, male respondents
expressed more negative attitudes (Federal Anti-Discrimination
Agency, 2008; Baier & Pfeiffer, 2011; Change Center Foundation,
2015; infratest dimap, 2011, 2013; Ipsos GmbH, 2013, Klocke , 2012;
Zick et al., 2016; Steffens & Wagner, 2004; Zick et al., 2014) and also
showed more unpleasant feelings towards LSB than female respondents
(Simon, 2008; Steffens & Wagner, 2004). In the 2016 FES-Mitte-Study,
12 percent of men but only 8 percent of women agreed with homophobic
statements and 15 percent of men but only 10 percent of women with
derogatory attitudes towards trans people (Zick, Küpper & Krause,
2016 ).
Many studies also refer to the importance of age: on average, older

people express less acceptance of lesbians, gays and bisexuals than
younger people (Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency, 2008; infratest
dimap, 2011, 2013; Shell Germany, 2015; Steffens & Wagner, 2004) .
In the FES-Mitte Study 2016, 3.7 percent of 16 to 30 year olds, 7.6
percent of 31 to 60 year olds and 16.3 percent of over 60 year olds
tended to have homophobic attitudes (Zick, Küpper & Krause, 2016).
This can be shown in a very similar way for the devaluation of trans*
people; here 6.4 percent of the 16 to 30 year olds, 10.8 percent of the
31 to 60 year olds and 18.7 percent of the over 60 year olds agreed
with derogatory statements about trans* (ibid.).
The results of other studies show that homophobia is always a question

of education. This resulted in fundamentally positive
related to attitudes towards LSB (Baier & Pfeiffer, 2011; Klocke, 2012;
Ipsos GmbH, 2013; Steffens & Wagner, 2004; Zick et al., 2014; Zick et
al., 2016): the higher the school education, the more positive the settings
and vice versa. In the 2016 FES-Mitte study, 15.5 percent of the low-
educated, 7.7 percent of the middle-educated and 3.7 percent of the
high-educated respondents agreed with homophobic statements. Similar
results were also found in the derogatory attitude towards trans people.
With regard to the economic situation, studies have so far shown no

clear connection. In the Berlin school survey, the different economic
situations of students and parents were not related to attitudes towards
homosexuals (Klocke, 2012). Other studies have found a connection
between income and homophobic attitudes (Zick et al., 2016), but
compared to other factors, one's own economic situation hardly seems
to play a role in the extent of homophobic attitudes (Küpper & Zick,
2015 ; Zick et al., 2011).
With regard to the devaluation of trans*, there are no significant

differences in terms of income (Zick et al., 2016).
In Germany, around one fifth of the population has a so-called

migration background. People with a migration background include all
those who have immigrated to Germany since 1950 and their
descendants, regardless of their nationality (more than half of these
people have German citizenship). A third of them come from a country
of the European Union, another third from another European country. In
percentage terms, the largest part comes from Turkey, followed by
immigrants from Poland, Russia or another state of the former Soviet
Union and Italy (Federal Statistical Office, 2017c). Incidentally, the
majority of people with a migration background are not Muslim – the
countries of origin suggest this – but rather Catholic or belong to an
orthodox church. So under the label “with a migration background” very
different people come from very different backgrounds
subsumed in contexts. This makes it questionable whether it makes any

sense to group people under this trait. However, many people with a so-
called migration background share a socialization in contexts of origin
in which homosexuality is generally even less accepted than this - as
described, after many decades of the struggle for equality and in
comparison to, for example, the
The Netherlands is still lagging behind - which is now the case in larger
parts of Germany. For prevention and intervention
can therefore be learned from experiences with the German majority
population.
In several surveys, people with a migration background actually

expressed more negative attitudes towards lesbians and gays than
people without a migration background (Baier & Pfeiffer, 2011; Change
Center Foundation, 2015; Klocke, 2012; Küpper & Zick, 2015; Simon,
2008; Zick et al., 2016).
In the youth study by Baier & Pfeiffer (Baier & Pfeiffer, 2011), among
the Berlin youths in the ninth grade, there was a connection between
the migration background of the youths and the attitude towards
homosexuals: youths with Lebanese and Turkish roots or from other
predominantly Muslim backgrounds countries had higher homophobic
attitudes compared to other youth. However, there is also an educational
effect here, because young people from grammar schools have more
positive attitudes towards homosexuals than young people from other
school types. So it cannot be generalized that young people with a
migration background have more negative attitudes towards
homosexuals. Rather, the level of education of young people seems to
play a not inconsiderable role here.
Studies do not show any clear indications of differences between East

and West Germans . There are some indications that derogatory
attitudes towards homosexuals (GESIS – Leibniz Institute for Social
Sciences, 2009) and trans* (Zick et al., 2016) are somewhat less
pronounced among East Germans than among West Germans.
However, there are also indications that people in eastern Germany
are more inclined to devalue homosexual people (Zick et al., 2014).
Studies also come to the conclusion that there are no differences
between East and West (Albert et al., 2015; Steffens & Wagner, 2004).
Whether people live in a big city or in the country has little effect on
attitudes towards homosexuals. However, the trend shows that
respondents who live in small towns are comparatively more homophobic
(for an overview: Steffens & Wagner, 2004; Küpper & Zick, 2015).
People with politically more conservative attitudes also have more

negative attitudes towards homosexuals (Decker et al., 2016; infratest
dimap, 2013; Zick et al., 2014; Steffens & Wagner, 2004). And with
regard to political orientation , it was often repeated that respondents
tend to make homophobic statements the further to the right they position
themselves politically. But even among people who position themselves
on the left or rather on the left, studies repeatedly come up against
negative attitudes towards homosexuals (Zick et al., 2014; Zick et al.,
2016). There are also major differences depending on the preference
for political parties . In various studies, Greens, FDP and Left Party
voters have the comparatively most positive attitudes, while the most
negative attitudes were found among AfD and CDU/CSU voters (Decker
et al., 2016; infratest dimap, 2013).
However, even 57 percent of CDU/CSU and AfD voters agreed that
marriages between two women and between two men should be allowed
(Brähler et al., 2016).
Existing studies also found differences in terms of party preference with

regard to the devaluation of trans people: Similar to the devaluation of
homosexuals, it is the voters of the AfD and CDU/CSU with the
comparatively most negative attitude (Zick et al., 2016).
5.2 Results of the current survey

What were the attitudes and assumptions towards lesbians, gays and
bisexuals in our study depending on the affiliation to different subgroups?
In order to be able to answer this question, in this chapter we look at
differences in terms of gender, age, level of education, income, migration
background, parenthood, relationship status, life in East and West
Germany and political orientation. For this purpose, the average inflow
and
Rejection values of the respondents in the socio-demographic groups
were compared.29
29 For a detailed description of the items and scales used in the analyses, cf.
Chapter 4
5.2.1 Gender30
In the present study, too, men and women differ in their attitude towards
lesbians and gays (Table 5.1). Around 15 percent of women, but 29
percent of men agreed with negative statements about LSB
(homophobia overall scale). This phenomenon was also confirmed in
attitudes towards trans people: 16 percent of women had negative
attitudes towards trans people, in contrast to 25 percent of men. Men
were also less likely to know that lesbians and gay men realize that
they are homosexual as children (18 percent of women disagree with
this statement vs. 30 percent of men). On the other hand, there is
hardly any difference between men and women when it comes to the
assumptions about the causes of homosexuality and about the
experience of discrimination by LSB.
Table 5.1 Attitudes and assumptions about LSB by

gender (percentages)
female male (n= Total

(n=1,031) 978) (n=2,009)
Pejorative attitudes towards LSB
homophobia total scale*** 14.8 29.4 21:9
Classic homophobia*** 8.5 15.7 12.0
Modern homophobia*** 20.1 30.1 24.9
Affective homophobia*** 13.7 22.5 17.9
Derogatory attitudes towards trans* people
Devaluation of trans* people*** 16.4 24.6 20.5
assumptions about homosexuality
Homosexuality through socialization (consent) 11.3 13.7 12.5
Congenital homosexuality (rejection) 32.3 34.6 33.4
Homosexuals realize their homosexuality early

18.1 30.4 23.8
(rejection)***
Homosexuals are not discriminated against
18.3 20.3 19.2
(Approval)
** ***
Legend: * p < .05, p < .01, (see p<.000. Significances are based on Chi² tests
glossary) with the categorized variables.
30 With regard to gender or gender identity, it was only possible to distinguish between men
and women, since the number of people in the sample who do not identify as woman or
man is too small in the representative sample.
5.2.2 Age
As in many other studies, the extent of homophobia in this study also

increases with the age of the respondents (Table 5.2). Young people
under 30 were the group with the lowest homophobic and transphobic
attitudes compared to all other age groups (14 and 16 percent,
respectively). Among the over-60s, a particularly large number of people
showed resentment towards homo and trans people (33 and 29 percent
respectively).
Less clear-cut results were found in the assumption that homosexuality

is caused by socialization. Anyway
17 percent of those over 60 assumed this and set themselves apart
from the younger generations. Among these, however, the respondents
differed only slightly from each other (11 percent of those aged 16 to
29, 12 percent of those aged 30 to 44 and 9 percent of those aged 45
to 59). On the other hand, knowledge that sexual orientation is partly
innate also increases with age (40 percent of younger people and 26
percent of older people do not believe this). However, older and younger
people do not differ in their assumptions as to whether homosexual
people already realize that they are homosexual as children or
adolescents. With regard to the assumptions about discrimination
against lesbians and gays, it was found that almost a fifth (19 percent,
see Table 5.1) of all respondents assumed that homosexual and
bisexual young people are no more victims of discrimination and bullying
today than others . This opinion was more common among those over
60 years of age than among those under 60 years of age.
Table 5.2: Attitudes and assumptions about LSB by age

(percentages)
16-29 30-44 45-59 >60

(n=368) (n=443) (n=547) (n=646)
homophobia total scale*** 14.1 18.7 16.8 32.8
Classic homophobia*** 7.4 11.6 9.2 17.1
Modern homophobia*** 13.7 19.7 17.4 41.3
Affective homophobia*** 14.9 14.2 13.9 25.2
Devaluation of trans* people*** 16.0 13.9 19.0 29.2
Homosexuality through socialization

10.8 12.3 8.9 16.6
(Approval)**
innate homosexuality
39.8 40.7 31.0 26.3
(rejection)***
Homosexuals realize their
19.6 21.3 26.0 26.5
homosexuality early on (rejection)
Homosexuals are not
12.1 16.2 17.7 26.9
discriminated against (agreement)***
** ***
Legend: * p < .05, p < .01, p<.000. The significances are based on Chi² tests with the
categorized variables.
5.2.3 Educational Level and Income

The phenomenon described in many studies was also confirmed in the
case of education (cf. Chapter 5.1): With higher education, derogatory
attitudes decrease (Table 5.3). The lowest level of agreement with
homophobic statements was among those who have graduated from high
school, have completed a degree or are aiming to do so (30 percent among
people with a secondary school diploma or people who left school without
a degree; 21 percent among people with a secondary school diploma, mid
maturity or a degree from a university of applied sciences; 13 percent for
people with a high school diploma or university degree).
There were also significant differences in terms of the education of the

respondents with regard to the recorded transphobia: 28 percent of those
who have a low level of education made negative statements.
19 percent with a medium level of education and 14 percent with a

higher level of education.
As assumed, there was also a difference in the three educational

groups with regard to knowledge about homosexuality and the estimated
experiences of discrimination by LGB. 23 percent of the less educated
assumed that homosexuals are not discriminated against, compared to
17 percent of the higher educated. Also, 19 percent of those with a low
level of education believe that homosexuality is acquired through
socialization, compared to only 9 percent of those with a medium and 8
percent of the higher educated. There are no or only very small
differences in the further assumptions about the causes of homosexuality
and the point in time at which one's own sexual orientation was
discovered.
Table 5.3: Attitudes and assumptions about LSB after school

education (percentages)
single mean higher

(n = 734) (n = 622) (n=640)
homophobia total scale*** 30.2 20.8 13.3
Affective homophobia*** 21:9 18.4 12.6

19.4 8.9 7.7
(Approval)***
Congenital homosexuality (rejection) 30.4 36.0 34.4

24.3 23:6 22.8
(rejection)
22.7 17.1 16.9
(Approval)**
** ***
Furthermore, we examined the extent to which respondents differ in

terms of income distribution (Table 5.4). The results here were less
clear than for the other population groups presented. However, it can
be said that the higher the income, the lower the level of approval for
classic and affective homophobia and transphobia, and the greater the
level of knowledge about the causes of homosexuality. With regard to
the knowledge about the discrimination situation of homosexuals, there
were hardly any differences in the income groups.
Table 5.4: Attitudes and assumptions about LSB by

income (percentages)
income Middle high

mens class income
weak (n = (n = 884) earners (n = 301)
344)
homophobia total scale 24.1 21.5 17.3
Modern homophobia 27.4 22.9 20.7
Affective homophobia* 20.2 19.2 13.4
Devaluation of trans* people* 24.4 21.2 15.0

15.2 13.5 6.9
(Approval)**
Congenital homosexuality (rejection)*** 44.0 31.7 28.9

30.0 22:4 24.2
(rejection)*
18.4 20.2 20.3
(Approval)
** ***
5.2.4 Migration background
Respondents in the present study who have a migration background

have significantly more negative attitudes towards homosexuals and
trans people than respondents without a migration background (Table
5.5). 34 percent of respondents with a migration background agree
with homophobic attitudes, but only 19 percent of respondents without
a migration background. 25 percent of those surveyed with, but only
19 percent of those surveyed without a migration background tended
to have derogatory attitudes towards trans people. When it comes to
knowledge about discrimination and the assumption that most
homosexuals realize that they are homosexual as children or
adolescents, the interviewees with and without a migration background
showed hardly any differences. However, a larger proportion of
respondents with a migrant background assume that sexual orientation
can be changed during the socialization of a person (21 percent with a
migrant background compared to 10 percent without a migrant background).31
5.2.5 Parenting and Relationship Status
Since our study focuses on attitudes towards dealing with sexual

diversity in school lessons and the emotional reaction to the idea that
one's own child is homosexual was also recorded, it seems relevant to
also consider attitudes with regard to parenthood. However, persons
with and without children of school age differed only slightly from one
another and showed hardly any different attitudes and assumptions
towards LSB. The parents showed somewhat more positive attitudes
towards affective and modern homophobia. However, they believe that
homosexuality is innate somewhat less than school-age children
without children.
31 More differentiated analyzes between people with different backgrounds (e.g. Turkish,
Russian, Polish or southern European background) are not possible due to the small
number in the sample. This would require a targeted sampling.
Do people who live in permanent partnerships differ from those who

live alone? Among the 675 singles and 1328 couples we were able to
survey, singles had slightly more positive attitudes towards homosexuals
(homophobia total scale and classic homophobia) and more negative
attitudes towards trans people. In addition, people in partnerships were
somewhat less likely to know than single people that most homosexuals
realize that they are homosexual as early as children or adolescents.
No other significant differences were found.
Table 5.5: Attitudes and assumptions about LSB by

migration background (percentages)
no migration with a migration

background background
(n = 1,616) (n = 392)
homophobia total scale*** 18.8 34.4
Classic homophobia*** 9.7 21.0
Modern homophobia*** 22.3 35.6
Affective homophobia*** 16.1 24.8
Devaluation of trans* people* 19.3 24.7

10.4 21:1
(Approval)***
Congenital homosexuality (rejection)** 31:8 39.4

24.1 21:4
(rejection)
19.8 17.2
(Approval)
** ***
5.2.6 East-West comparison and community size
In the present study, there were hardly any differences between

respondents from East and West Germany. 21 percent of West
Germans and 26 percent of East Germans tend towards homophobia (overall scale).
The more detailed analysis showed that the difference is only significant
when it comes to agreeing to modern homophobia, with East Germans
agreeing significantly more often at 31 percent than West Germans at
24 percent. There were no significant differences in any of the other sub-
dimensions of homophobia and assumptions about homosexuality.
The size of the municipality in which the respondents live also played
almost no role in their attitudes. People living in a big city (17 percent)
shared homophobic attitudes slightly less often than those living in
medium-sized cities (21 percent) or in the countryside (22 percent); the
highest level of agreement with homophobia was found among people
from small towns (29 percent). There were no other significant differences
in the sub-dimensions of homophobia and in assumptions about
homosexuality.
5.2.7 Political orientation and party preference
The extent of homophobia varied quite significantly depending on the

political self-positioning of the respondents (Table 5.6). People who
placed themselves on the left or more on the left of the political
spectrum had consistently more positive attitudes towards homosexuals
and trans people and also assessed the discrimination situation of
homosexuals as the most realistic. Among them, only 7 percent believed
homosexuality was acquired through socialization. However, it also
became clear that derogatory attitudes reached into the political center
and were even widespread among people who positioned themselves
politically on the left or more on the left.
Table 5.6: Attitudes and assumptions about LSB according

to political self-identification (percentages)
left Middle right

(n = 543) (n = 1,110) (n = 184)
homophobia total scale*** 11.4 22.3 47.3
Affective homophobia*** 11.7 18.5 35.8
Devaluation of trans* people* 12.3 21.3 35.0

6.6 13.0 23:1
(Approval)***
Congenital homosexuality (rejection) 29.7 34.5 31:4

19.7 24.4 32:1
(rejection)***

13.0 20.7 25.4
(Approval)***
** ***
Also with regard to the question of which political party the respondents
would vote for if the Bundestag elections were held next Sunday, there
were some clear differences in the attitudes and assumptions. However,
the following results must be interpreted with caution for the small
parties, for which only a few respondents said they would vote.
The potential voters of all established parties were unanimous in their

majority approval of the opening of marriage. 88 percent of potential
SPD voters, but also 77 percent of CDU/CSU voters were in favor of
allowing marriages between two women or two men (in the comparatively
small subgroup of CSU voters, approval was 74 percent).
The approval was also high among the voters of the other, smaller
parties (FDP 76 percent, Bündnis 90/Die Grünen 94 percent, Linke 87
percent, non-voters 85 percent approval). le
only the potential voters of the AfD were divided on the question with 51 percent approval.
At the same time, the adherents of the different parties differed in the degree of overt and
subtle that still existed
Resentment towards LSB and Trans* (Table 5.7). By far the most widespread were
negative attitudes towards LGB among potential AfD voters, at 54 percent (homophobia
overall scale). CDU/CSU voters followed with 30 percent and people who would not vote
with 29 percent approval of homophobia. The lowest approval ratings were found among
voters from Bündnis 90/Die Grünen (9 percent).
The devaluation of trans* was also particularly pronounced among potential AfD voters (41
percent). The lowest level of agreement was found among voters from Bündnis 90/Die
Grünen (10 percent) and the FDP (14 percent).
In the assumptions about the causes of homosexuality differed

which the potential voters of the various parties differ only slightly. Assuming that
homosexuality is influenced by socialization, the potential voters of the AfD, who have the
highest approval ratings, stand out. AfD and CDU/CSU voters were also most likely of the
opinion that homosexuals are not discriminated against nowadays.
Table 5.7: Relationships between party preference (in columns) and attitudes and assumptions (percentages)
CDU/CSU SPD FDP B 90/Tue The Left AfD (n=84) I would not
(n=414) (n=328) (n=83) Greens (n=142) vote
(n=283) (n=138)
homophobia total scale*** 30.0 15.2 21.7 9.2 20.6 53.6 29.0
Classic homophobia*** 15.1 8.5 3.6 4.9 12.1 34.5 10.2
Modern homophobia*** 37.2 15.7 26.5 10.3 21:1 48.8 32.8
Affective homophobia** 21.5 16.8 18.1 10.8 18.4 38.6 12.5
Devaluation of trans* people*** 25.6 17.4 14.1 10.4 23.4 40.5 24.6
Homosexuality through socialization (consent)*** 12.3 13.3 8.8 5.5 9.4 21:1 18.7
Congenital homosexuality (rejection) 33.2 35.2 34.3 31.5 23.2 31:9 37.1
Homosexuals realize their homosexuality early (rejection) 20.5 24.1 21:9 22.2 20.3 38.2 28.4
Homosexuals are not discriminated against (agreement) 23.2 16.1 20.3 8.6 13.6 34.6 21.5
** ***
Legend: * p < .05, p < .01, p<.000. The significances are based on Chi² tests with the categorized variables.
5.3 Summary
Homophobic attitudes are a problem for society as a whole.
However, the current survey also shows that homophobic attitudes vary
significantly in different population groups, and thus confirms previous
findings. For intervention and prevention, the challenge here is
differentiated approaches and measures tailored to the target group.
Comparable to existing research, women have more positive attitudes

than men. Men and women differ in their knowledge of the causes of
homosexuality and how it can be changed
but hardly from each other. However, men are somewhat less likely to
believe that homosexuals know about their sexual orientation at a young
age.
The evaluations make it clear that the age effects documented in many
other studies are still valid (see the state of research in Chapter 5.1).
Homophobic attitudes are more widespread in older age groups than in
younger respondents. LSB also underestimate the experiences of
discrimination more often than younger people. The assumption that
sexual orientation is influenced by external causes is found to some
extent in all age cohorts, but is particularly common among older
respondents over 60 years of age. Knowledge and levels of positive
attitudes towards LSB increase with a person's level of education. Higher
educated people assume somewhat less that homosexuality can be
changed through socialization. Only when it comes to assumptions about
whether homosexuality is innate and whether people realize early on
that they are homosexual does education play no role.
People with a migration background have negative attitudes towards

homosexuals and trans* people that are significantly more negative than
people without a migration background. People with a migration
background assume that homosexuality can be changed through
socialization and are less likely to assume that homosexuality is innate.
People with and without children differ only marginally in their attitudes
and assumptions towards LGB and homosexuality. Singles have slightly
more positive attitudes towards LGB and homosexuality and slightly
more negative attitudes towards trans*.
It also becomes clear that derogatory attitudes reach into the political
center of society. However, they are most strongly represented among
people who position themselves politically on the right. Potential AfD
voters, as well as those from the CDU/CSU and non-voters, have
reservations. Whether someone lives in a small town, in a rural area,
or in a big city has little impact on the extent of homophobic attitudes
and assumptions about homosexuality. There are also hardly any
differences between respondents who live in East and West Germany.
6. Behavior towards lesbians,

gays and bisexuals and
social environment

research
Having dealt with assumptions and attitudes towards lesbians, gays

and bisexuals in the last few chapters, we would now like to address a
question which, to our knowledge, has so far been ignored in
representative population surveys. How do people behave towards
LSB? This question is more relevant to practice than the question
about the settings. While a person's assumptions and attitudes are not
necessarily apparent to others, behavior has a direct impact on other
people. Advocating equal rights for LGB has no effect unless it is
spoken out in front of others or leads to political action (e.g. electoral
decisions). An uncomfortable feeling at the sight of two men kissing
only harms them if it leads to verbal abuse, avoidance of contact or at
least non-verbal expressions of displeasure.
One reason why behavior has so far not been recorded in population
surveys may be the difficulties in recording it. While people can access
their attitudes directly, at least if they have thought about a topic before,
when asked about their behavior they first have to retrieve memories
of past events. If this is difficult, the behaviors asked for may be
reconstructed on the basis of current attitudes, so that the relationship
between attitudes and behavior is overestimated. In addition, it is
conceivable that the responses to socially undesirable behavior (e.g.
treating a person unkindly because they belong to a certain social
group) are more closely adapted to the presumed social norm than to
socially undesirable attitudes (e.g. being more suspicious of a person
because they belongs to the appropriate group).
When it comes to behavior, respondents may be more likely to expect

social disapproval because it is easier to control at will than attitudes.
For this reason, in the above-mentioned survey at 20 Berlin schools of
all regular school types (Klocke, 2012), the students were asked not to
provide information about their own behavior, but about that of two
randomly selected classmates.
The results highlighted the prevalence of homophobic behavior in
schools: 62 percent of sixth graders and 55 percent of ninth and tenth
graders have used “gay” or “faggot” as a swear word in the past 12
months. Half of the sixth graders and a third of the ninth and tenth
graders gave reason to gossip about people who were considered
lesbian or gay in their own school. However, solidarity behavior was
also reported: more than half of the students showed that they did not
like it when a person was teased because they were mistaken for being
gay or lesbian.
However, it is not just a person's own behavior that is relevant for

research; the behavior of people in their social environment (e.g. their
classmates) is also important, since people often adapt to their
environment and adopt their own behavior. This connection could also
be proven for homophobic behavior (Bahns & Branscombe, 2011;
Poteat, 2007). In addition, personal contact with people the person
knows to be LSB is an important factor influencing their own attitudes
and behavior.
The positive influence of personal contact with individual members of
another group on attitudes towards the group as a whole has now been
documented in hundreds of studies using different methodological
approaches (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006) and also apply in particular to
contacts with LSB (Smith, Axelton & Saucier, 2009). Personal contact
not only seems to be an important influencing factor on attitudes, but
also on one's own behavior. This is shown by both the school survey
(Klocke, 2012) and a survey of over 1,000 teachers in Germany (Klocke,
Latz & Scharmacher, 2015, 2016): teachers who knew that there were
more LGBTI people in their own circle of acquaintances addressed
sexual and gender diversity in the under judged significantly more often
and also intervened more consistently when LGBTI people were
discriminated against.
6.2 Collection in the current survey

In the current survey, comparable items were used to ask about one's
own behavior and the behavior of friends and family members. The
items were developed based on previous studies (Klocke, 2012;
Schope & Eliason, 2000) and each related to behavior in the past two
years. Two discriminatory and two supportive behaviors were recorded.
In addition, it was asked how many people the respondents have
personal contact with and know that they are lesbian, gay or bisexual.

6.3.1 Descriptive results on one's own behavior
Discriminatory and supportive behaviors were equally reported (Table
6.1). About half of those surveyed said they had made jokes or
derogatory remarks aimed at lesbian, gay or bisexual people, or
laughed at such remarks, in the past two years. 5 percent stated that
they had often made such derogatory remarks. In addition, 39 percent
of those surveyed were critical of the demand for equal rights. On the
other hand, 71 percent of those surveyed reported that they had shown
disapproval of derogatory jokes or comments made about LSB in the
past two years. For this percentage calculation, the 145 (15 percent)
respondents who indicated that such jokes or comments were never
made were excluded. In addition, 65 percent stated that they had made
a positive statement about the demand for equal rights. The size of
these proportions shows that some people sometimes make derogatory
remarks and sometimes express disapproval of such derogatory
remarks, or sometimes criticize and sometimes support equal rights.
Apparently, behavior depends on the situation, eg the person you are
talking to or about, or the specific rights being talked about. The two
items on supportive behavior were averaged into a scale (“LSB
supported”) for the correlation analysis in Chapters 6.3.3 and 7, since
they were
analyzes loaded on the same factor and showed sufficient internal

consistency (Cronbach's ÿ).
Table 6.1: Personal behavior towards lesbians, gays and

Bisexuals (percentages)
never rarely sometimes often

LSB discriminates
Please indicate how often in the

past two years you have made a joke
or snide remark that was directed
48.9 33.6 12.6 4.9
against lesbian, gay or bisexual people,
or laughed at it.
And how often have you criticized

homosexuals' demands for equal rights? 60.8 25.6 8.2 5.4
LSB supported (Cronbach's ÿ = .68)
... spoke positively or supportively about

never rarely in mostly every time

about half
the cases
… made it clear that you

are not okay with jokes or
derogatory remarks being
made that were directed at 28.7 29.1 13.1 19.4 9.6
lesbian, gay or bisexual
people.
Note: There were a maximum of 31 missing or “don't know” answers (3.0% of respondents) for the
items in this table, specifically for the item made it clear that youderogatory
"... don't think remarks
it's okay are
if jokes
madeor directed
against lesbian, gay or bisexual people?” In addition, 145 people (14.6% of the respondents) answered
here that such jokes or derogatory remarks were never made.
6.3.2 Descriptive results on the social environment
If people are asked what behavior they have observed in their friends and family members
over the past two years, the results are similar to those for their own behavior (Table 6.2).
The interviewees indicated discriminatory behavior among friends and family a little more
often than among themselves. While only 39 percent said they had made critical statements
about homosexuals' demands for equal rights, 54 percent said they had observed this
behavior in friends or family. However, these values cannot be directly compared. On the
one hand, the number of people to whom the information refers varies: only one (personal)
vs. all people in the circle of friends and family. On the other hand, the observations
Attention times not comparable: While one can continuously observe one's own behavior,
one can only observe the behavior of people in one's circle of friends and family at certain
times. The two items on discriminatory and supportive behavior of friends and family each
load on the same factor in a factor analysis and were therefore used as two reliable scales
for the correlation analyzes in Chapters 6.3.3 and 7 (“Behaviour of friends and family :
LSB discriminates” and “Behaviour of friends and family: LSB supports”).
When asked about personal contact with people they know to be lesbian, gay or bisexual,
75 percent of those surveyed said yes. 7 percent reported one person, 41 percent from
two to four people, 17 percent from five to nine people and
11 percent of more than ten people.

Table 6.2: Behavior towards friends and family

Lesbians, gays and bisexuals (percentages)

LSB discriminated (Cronbach's ÿ = .68)
Please indicate how often in the past

few years you have made a joke or snide
remark that was directed against lesbian,
43.2 37.1 13.3 6.4
gay or bisexual people, or laughed at it.
And how often have you criticized

LSB supported (Cronbach's ÿ = .62)****
... spoke positively or supportively about

homosexuals' demands for equal rights? 33.6 30.2 22:1 14.0
never rarely in about mostly every time

half the
cases
… made it clear that you

are not okay with jokes or
derogatory remarks being
33.9 38.5 12.3 12.0 3.3
made that were directed
against LSB.a
Note: There were a maximum of 62 missing or “don't know” responses (6.0% of respondents) to the
items in this table, specifically for the item expressed a positive or supportive
"...forresponse
homosexuals
to thefordemand
equal
rights?” Legend : never such jokes or derogatory remarks were made.
a
For this item, 109 people (11.2% of the respondents) answered that
6.3.3 Connections between the social

environment and one's own behavior,
attitudes and assumptions
In order to illustrate connections between the variables of the social
environment and one's own behavior, attitudes and assumptions, we
divided the respondents into two categories for each variable, e.g. those
who had never shown (or observed) a behavior in the past two years )
versus those who have at least rarely shown (or observed) this behavior
(Table 6.3). For the assumptions and attitudes, the middle of the
response scale was used for allocation: respondents who scored higher
than this middle point were placed in the category of those who answered
“true” or rated LSB positive on average, all others in the “ does not
apply” or “not positive” category. Since all four subscales of attitude
towards LSB and homophobia were related to the variables of the social
environment in a comparable way, we only report the connections to
one scale attitude towards LSB overall.
32
Above all, there were clear connections between behavior in the social
environment and one’s own behavior: 88 percent of those who had
observed supportive behavior on the part of friends or family LSB
reported that they had also behaved in a supportive manner themselves.
For those who had seen no support from friends and family, it was only
43 percent. There were also correlations between one's own behavior
and behavior in the environment for the two discriminatory behaviors,
albeit not as strongly. It is interesting that discrimination in the social
environment goes hand in hand with more personal support: 86 percent
of those whose friends or family showed discriminatory behavior
behaved in a self-supportive manner towards LSB, but only 58 percent
of those whose friends and family did not behave discriminatory showed.
Observing discrimination thus appears not only to generate direct
imitation, but also to increase the motivation to take action against this
discrimination. Al
32 To illustrate the connections, the respondents were divided into two categories: those
with an explicitly positive attitude on the LSB total scale, ie whose mean value on the
LSB total scale was greater than the midpoint of the scale, and those with non-positive
attitudes on the LSB total ( negative or neutral attitude) whose mean was less than or
equal to the midpoint of the scale.
However, those who had observed supportive behavior in their environment were more
likely to discriminate the other way around.
Supportive behavior in the social environment is also important

Connection with attitudes and assumptions about LSB. If friends or family were supportive
towards LSB, more respondents indicated positive attitudes. In addition, they believed
less often that homosexuality is influenced by socialization and knew more often that
homosexuals usually become aware of their sexual orientation in childhood or adolescence,
that they continue to be discriminated against and that children who grow up with same-
sex couples develop just as well as in heterosexual couples. However, they also suspected
somewhat more frequently that opening up the marriage could also trigger covetousness
in other groups.
Discriminatory behavior in the social environment does not stand with the
attitudes of the respondents, but only with one of the assumptions asked: Respondents
who had observed how friends or family behaved in a discriminatory manner believed less
frequently that same-sex couples living in a registered partnership are already fully equal
to heterosexual couples.
The three out of four respondents (75 percent) who knew about LSB in their circle of
acquaintances were significantly more likely to have positive attitudes towards these
groups and were more supportive of them. However, they also showed slightly more
discriminatory behavior, possibly because there were more reasons to do so than people
without any contact. In addition, they often knew that children in same-sex couples develop
just as well as in opposite-sex couples, that most LSBs have been aware of their sexual
orientation since childhood or adolescence, that LSBs continue to be discriminated against,
that sexual orientation is not influenced by socialization and the registered partnership is
not legally equivalent to marriage.
Table 6.3: Connections between the social environment (in columns) and personal behavior, personal attitudes
and assumptions (in rows, percentages)
Behavior of friends and family: Behavior of friends and family: Contact with LSB
LSB supported LSB discriminated against
never at least never at least no Yes
rarely rarely
Own behavior towards LSB
LSB supported *** *** ***

43.2 88.2 58.4 86.0 63.4 82.5
** *** *
LSB used in a derogatory way (jokes) 35.7 57.0 25.8 63.5 47.9 52.4
*** ***
Derogatory to LSB (rights) 22.8 45.4 22.9 47.6 38.2 39.9
Positive attitude towards LSB overall

*** ***
64.3 81.6 77.7 76.9 54.8 85.6
Assumptions about LSB
Homosexuality through socialization ** ***

14.6 9.9 12.9 10.1 15.7 11.6
innate homosexuality 72.5 63.6 67.5 65.0 67.2 66.1

Homosexuals realize their homosexuality early ** ***
74.6 78.8 80.4 77.0 70.5 78.1
LSB discriminates *a ***
80.7 81.7 83.0 80.8 75.6 82.3
** *
Same-sex couples are legally equal 54.3 48.1 56.2 46.2 53.7 46.5
*** ***
Children in same-sex couples do just as well 68.4 74.7 75.0 72.1 58.3 78.3
If marriage for same sex Open to couples, more groups will also want to
16.8 21.0
* 18.4 20.5 21.5 19.2
get married
Note: The percentages refer to how many of those who belong to a column category fulfill the characteristic in the row. Example: 43.2% of those whose friends and family have never
supported LSB have done so themselves; among those whose friends and family supported LSB, the figure was 88.2%.
** *** a The correlates

Legend: * p < .05, p < .01, p < .001. The significance information is based on correlations (Pearson) with the (uncategorized) output variables.
difference between the support of LSB from friends and family and the assumption that LSB are discriminated against is positive and significant (r = .08), although the group of those who
have support from friends and family differs observed little different from the group of those who never observed such support. The reason is that the connection came about through
differences between those who observed this behavior rarely vs. more frequently.
6.4 Summary
The current survey shows that the majority of people in Germany
(according to their own statements) at least occasionally behave
in a supportive manner towards LSB and also report this to their
friends and family. However, about half also admit to making
jokes or derogatory remarks aimed at LSB, or laughing at such
remarks made by others. Comparable to existing research (see
Chapter 6.1), behavior in the social environment is clearly related
to one's own behavior, which can be explained by imitation or
conformity as well as by a reaction to the behavior of others, eg
the disapproval of discriminatory statements by friends or family
members. The result of numerous existing studies is also
confirmed that people who know LSB personally have significantly
more positive attitudes towards LSB and are more often
supportive towards LSB than people who do not know anything
about LSB in their circle of acquaintances. The assumptions
people have about LSB also seem to be influenced by personal
contact: for example, people who have been in contact with LSB
are more likely to know that children in same-sex relationships
develop just as well as in heterosexual ones, and that LSB are
still both legal and immoral being discriminated against on a daily basis.
7. Relationships between
assumptions, attitudes
and behavior towards
lesbians, gays and
bisexuals

research
This chapter looks at how the assumptions, attitudes and behaviors

towards lesbian, gay and bisexual people presented in the previous
chapters relate to each other. The question is relevant because
assumptions about educational campaigns can be changed and
knowledge about LSB can be increased.
If knowledge in turn leads to more accepting attitudes and more
supportive behavior, it stands to reason that attitudes and behavior can
also be influenced with information campaigns. Furthermore, behavior
is influenced, at least to some extent, by attitudes, as suggested by well-
tested social psychological models (Ajzen & Fishbein, 2005). This also
applies to prejudice and discrimination (Schütz & Six, 1996). If attitudes
towards LSB are improved, e.g. through contact interventions in schools
attended by LSB (Timmermanns, 2003), or through consideration of
sexual diversity in teaching materials and media, supportive behavior
could be strengthened and discriminatory behavior reduced in the
medium term.
The extent to which attitudes towards LSB actually influence behavior

towards LSB has not been conclusively clarified. Studies in which both
attitudes and behavior were recorded through self-reports show clear
associations (Poteat, DiGiovanni & Scheer, 2013; Prati, 2012). However,
studies in which behavior was recorded using information from other
people found hardly any connections (Klocke, 2012). To ensure that
knowledge transfer on diversity
However, there is some evidence, also from field experiments, that can
improve lungs, with which cause-effect relationships can be shown
(Bartoÿ et al., 2014; Kalinoski et al., 2013).
Due to its design (only one measurement point and no experimental

manipulation of knowledge or attitudes), the present survey cannot
provide reliable evidence of cause-effect relationships. Nonetheless, it
can provide clues as to which specific assumptions are also likely to
influence attitudes and behavior, and to what extent changing attitudes
might also bring about changes in behavior.

How were attitudes towards LSB in the current survey related to behavior
and assumptions about LSB? Since the together
Since the behavior and assumptions were very similar on all four
subscales, we limit ourselves (as already in Chapter 6.3.3) to the
overall attitude towards LSB scale, in which all respondents with
values higher than the midpoint of the response scale of the category “
positive” and all others in the “non-positive” category. According to their
own statements, people who had a positive attitude towards LSB were
also significantly more supportive than respondents with a negative
attitude (83 percent vs. 55 percent) and showed less discriminatory
behavior towards LSB (Table 7.1). In addition, almost all assumptions
about LSB were related to how positively or negatively they were rated.
While 84 percent of respondents with positive attitudes knew that
children of same-sex couples do as well as children of heterosexual
couples, only 32 percent of respondents with non-positive attitudes knew
this. The knowledge that sexual orientation is not influenced by
socialization, that most homosexuals already know that they are
homosexual as children or adolescents, and that homosexuals continue
to be discriminated against, was also associated with more positive
attitudes towards LSB. On the other hand, about twice as many people
with non-positive as with positive attitudes assumed that the opening up
of marriage would lead to other groups also wanting to marry, eg
communities of three people or blood relatives. The knowledge that up
until now it has primarily been possible to prove biological causes of
sexual orientation was also related to the attitude, but
less strong than the knowledge that for socialization influences mainly
refuting indications have been found so far. Whether the respondents
were aware that the registered partnership is not legally equivalent to
marriage played no role in their attitude towards LSB.
Table 7.1: Correlation of attitude towards LSB with

behavior and assumptions (percentages)
Overall attitude towards

LSB not positive positive
LSB supported ***

55.0 83.0
*
LSB used in a derogatory way (jokes) 55.3 50.1
**
Derogatory to LSB (rights) 53.7 35.0
Homosexuality through socialization ***

31.5 7.3
***
innate homosexuality 62.5 67.7
Homosexuals realize their homosexuality early ***
63.7 79.4
LSB discriminates 67.8 84.4 ***
Same-sex couples are legally equal 44.8 49.3
Children in same-sex couples do just as well ***

32.4 84.4
If marriage for same sex Open to couples, more groups will ***
30.2 16.8
also want to get married
Note: The percentages refer to how many of those who belong to a column category fulfill the
characteristic in the row. Example: 55% of those with negative attitudes towards LSB have shown
supportive behavior towards LSB, compared to 83% of those with positive attitudes towards LSB.
** ***
Legend: * p < .05, p < .01, p < .001. The significance information is based on correlations
(Pearson) with the (uncategorized) output variables.
How did assumptions about the causes of sexual orientation relate to

the behavior and other assumptions about LSB recorded in this survey?
The clearest links were between behavior and the assumption that
homosexuality is influenced by socialization (Table 7.2).
Individuals who accepted socialization influences were less likely to be

supportive and more likely to be critical of equal rights for homosexuals.
They were less aware that sexual orientation is at least partly innate and
that lesbians and gay men usually already knew their sexual orientation
in childhood and adolescence.
come true. They were much less aware that children of same-
sex couples develop just as well as children of husband-wife
couples and that registered civil partnerships are not legally
equivalent to marriage. They were also less aware of other forms
of discrimination against LGB; however, they assumed much
more frequently that opening up marriage could arouse the
desires of other groups. On the other hand, if the interviewees
knew that people are born homosexual and often notice their
sexual orientation as children or adolescents, then they also
knew more that LSB are still discriminated against and that
children of same-sex couples develop just as well as children of
heterosexual couples, and they were less critical of homosexual
demands for equal rights. In addition, respondents who knew
that most homosexuals did not realize their homosexuality until
adolescence were more likely to support LSB and were less
likely to make derogatory jokes or comments about LSB.
If the interviewees were aware that LSB are discriminated

against in everyday life, they knew significantly more often that
children of same-sex couples develop just as well, and
surprisingly somewhat less often that their partnerships are still
not legally equal (Table 7.3). . They also behaved somewhat
more supportively. Critical statements about the equal rights of
LGB, on the other hand, were made less frequently by
respondents who knew that the children of same-sex couples
developed just as well and thought that the registered partnership
was already legally equal. People who suspected that opening
marriages would lead to covetousness from other groups were
also less likely to know that children in same-sex relationships develop just as well.
Table 7.2: Correlation of assumptions about causes with behavior and other assumptions (percentages)
Assumption: Assumption: Assumption:

homosexuality through innate homosexuality Homosexuals remember theirs
socialization early homosexuality
does true does true does true
not apply not apply not apply
LSB supported *** ***

79.4 58.5 78.6 78.3 73.2 81.7
***
** * *
Homosexuality through socialization *** ***

17.2 9.6 16.9 10.7
*** ***
innate homosexuality 68.4 52.6 49.7 73.0
Homosexuals realize their homosexuality early *** ***
77.6 67.0 62.9 82.2
LSB discriminates *** * ***
82.0 72.5 77.1 82.3 72.0 84.2
*** **
*** ** ***
Children of same-sex couples do just as well if same-sex marriage Open 77.1 50.7 71.2 75.0 62.9 78.8
to couples, more groups will also want to get married ***

17.2 36.4 21.0 19.4 * 19.7 19.0
Note: The percentages refer to how many of those who belong to a column category fulfill the characteristic in the row. Example: 79.4% of those who do not consider homosexuality
to be socialization-related have shown supportive behavior towards LSB, compared to only 58.5% of those who think homosexuality is socialization-related.
** ***
Table 7.3: Connections between further assumptions and behavior (percentages)
Assumption: Assumption: Assumption:

LSB discriminates Same-sex Children of same- Assumption: If
Couples are equal sex couples develop marriage for the same
by law just as well Open to couples, more
groups will also want to get married
does true does true does true does true
not apply not apply not apply not apply
LSB supported ***

73.6 79.2 80.2 75.8 66.8 82.1 79.2 73.4
LSB voiced pejoratively

49.4 52.1 53.9 47.8 52.5 49.8 52.8 50.3
(jokes)
LSB voiced pejoratively ** **

45.0 38.7 44.7 34.4 55.0 34.1 39.0 47.9
(Right)
LSB discriminates ***

82.9 78.4 67.8 85.4 82.3 77.0
Same-sex couples are legally equal * **

54.0 46.7 46.9 49.9 50.4 41.5
Children in same-sex couples do just as well *** ** ***

55.9 77.9 73.1 75.4 76.1 62.6
Note: The percentages refer to how many of those who belong to a column category fulfill the characteristic in the row. Example: 73.6% of those who perceive LSB as not
being discriminated against have shown supportive behavior towards LSB, in contrast only 79.2% of those who were aware that LSB are still being discriminated against.
** ***
7.3 Summary
The results of the current survey show that assumptions (or
knowledge), attitudes and behavior towards LSB are related. In
particular, the knowledge that children of same-sex parents develop
just as well as children of heterosexual parents (Bos, Knox, van Rijn-
van Gelderen & Gartrell, 2016; Fedewa, Black & Ahn, 2015) is
associated with supportive behavior and positive attitudes LSB
together. In addition, people who know that there are no indications of
socialization influences (e.g. from parents or sexual partners) on sexual
orientation that should be taken seriously show more positive attitudes
and behavior towards LSB. The same applies to the knowledge that
most lesbian, gay and bisexual people realize as children or young
people that they are not heterosexual. Discriminatory behavior, on the
other hand, seems to be influenced more by other factors, such as the
behavior of important caregivers (see Chapter 6), than by attitudes.
8. Connections to family
values and other
factors
People's attitudes and behavior are also influenced to a certain extent
by how they imagine an ideal society, i.e. by their basic social values.
These values are often fairly stable and are difficult and slow to change
through intervention efforts. Even if a number of basic values are not
as important in everyday life as one might think, they obviously play a
role in discussions about issues such as opening up marriage to same-
sex couples or taking sexual diversity into account in schools. They can
be seen, for example, in the arguments put forward by the opponents
of the Baden-Württemberg education plan (Chapter 10). On the part of
the opponents, the protection of traditional marriage and family is often
used as a guarantee for
binding relationships are used as a value, whereas the proponents put

individual self-determination in the foreground.
In this context, religious (for an overview, e.g. Küpper & Zick, 2015c)
and political convictions (currently, e.g. Zick, Küpper & Krause, 2016)
as well as the ability and willingness to empathize are important, as
well as a number of previous ones Reference studies (Heyder, 2003;
Strayer, 1987; Oskamp, 2000). In social psychology, empathy is not
considered a basic value, but rather as a personality trait or competence,
but is related to basic values in terms of content.
Against the background of the currently loud right-wing populism, the

question of value orientation plays a special role, since conservative
values are often linked with homophobia or conservative values are
also used to legitimize inequality with reference to “values”. . The
current survey therefore recorded how important marriage, family,
tradition and self-determination are to the respondents, how much they
support traditional gender roles, how religious and how empathetic
they are. This chapter reports on the relationship of these

common values and beliefs regarding family and related
constructs with assumptions, attitudes and behavior towards
homosexual and bisexual people. In chapter 10 they are taken
up again and their connection with the support for the
consideration of sexual diversity in schools is reported. The
family values queried here and related constructs can be found
in Table 8.1.
Table 8.1: Value orientations in relation to

family and related indicators (percentages)
Voice … not at all to rather to full and

Values: partnership, marriage and family (Cronbach's ÿ = .60)
It's good for society when people...

11.4 23.5 30.4 34.7
… get married and live in a marriage.
… have and raise children. 1.8 2.2 21.5 74.4
… enter into a marriage or partnership

4.1 13.2 33.5 49.2
that will last until the end of your life.
… are there for their partner, even if they
have to put their own needs aside to do so. 2.3 5.4 32.2 60.0
Value: Tradition (Cronbach's ÿ = .71)
… respect traditions. 2.5 10.6 33.9 52.9
… perpetuate the customs they have

1.8 11.5 39.2 47.5
learned.
Value: self-determination (Cronbach's ÿ = .64)
… can decide for themselves what they

1.3 5.0 19.0 74.7
want to do.
… can plan and select their own

0.5 2.4 22.7 74.4
activities.
Traditional gender roles (Cronbach's ÿ = .55)
It is better for senior positions in companies

to be held by men rather than women. 64.5 21.3 10.4 3.8
It is better for women to take care of small

children and the household than for men to 49.4 22.7 19.1 8.8
do it.
8.1 The values of marriage, family, tradition

and self-determination
“Having a happy relationship” is one of the most important aspects that

a large majority in Germany would like for themselves.
70 percent of Germans are convinced that one needs a “happy family”,
and almost all of them, especially among the younger ones, want
children (Data Report 2016). According to the results presented here,
the values of marriage and family are also important for society as a
whole. How are the values relating to marriage and family, but also
relating to the preservation of tradition and the liberal value of self-
determination, related to assumptions, attitudes and behavior towards
lesbian, gay and bisexual people? With regard to marriage and family,
both
There is a theoretical justification for both a positive and a negative

connection: It would be obvious that people who value marriage and
family would like them to be open to homosexual people as well, so that
they too can live out these values. However, these respondents may
also have more traditional ideas about marriage and family, from which
they exclude same-sex couples and parents.
The values of self-determination and tradition were measured based

on existing scales (Iser & Schmidt, 2003; Schwartz, 1992). However, we
have changed the introduction to the question. In the original, the
resemblance to a fictitious person is asked, whereby the respondents
are asked to imagine that a certain value is important to this fictitious
person. In the current survey, on the other hand, it was not the individual
values that were to be asked about, but rather the societal values, i.e.
which values the respondents would like to be valid for society as a
whole. The introduction to each item was therefore: "It is good for society
if people ...", followed by the corresponding value, eg "Respect
traditions". The values from Schwartz (1992) were supplemented with
four items on the areas of marriage, family and committed partnerships.
This addition was made based on a content analysis of the comments
on the petition against the Baden-Württemberg education plan (Stängle,
2013).
A majority of respondents agreed with all of the social values surveyed

(Table 8.1). In particular, self-determination was considered important.
97 percent thought it would be good for society if people could plan
and choose their own activities, and 94 percent if they could decide for
themselves what they wanted to do. But also committed relationships,
family and tradition were considered important by most respondents.
96 percent found it good for society when people have and raise
children, 92 percent when they are there for their partner, even if they
have to put their own needs aside, 83 percent when they start a
marriage or partnership that last until the end of life, and 65 percent if
they marry and live in a marriage. In addition, 87 percent thought it was
good for society when people respected traditions and upheld the
customs they had learned.
How are these societal values related to the behavior, attitudes and
assumptions of respondents about LSB?
The strongest correlations were found with the attitudes towards LSB,
which were again summarized in an overall scale of attitudes towards
LSB because all subscales correlated with the values to a comparable
extent (Table 8.2). Above all, people for whom committed partnerships
and family were less important, but also those for whom tradition was
less important and self-determination particularly important, expressed
positive attitudes towards LSB and advocated equal rights. In addition,
those interviewees were more likely to have supported LSB for whom
binding partnership, family and tradition were less important. The
assumption that homosexuality is caused by socialization was perceived
as correct above all by people for whom committed relationships and
family were particularly important. These people were also less likely
to know that children of same-sex couples develop just as well as those
of male-female couples. Other associations with assumptions were
also statistically significant, but weak and cannot be seen in the
percentages in some cases, because they are mainly due to differences
in people who “rather” agree with a value and those who agree with the
value “completely and completely” agreed. For example, the knowledge
that LGB are still discriminated against is positively related to the value
of self-determination and negatively related to the values of committed
partnership and family as well as tradition.
Table 8.2: Correlations of social values with behavior, attitudes and assumptions about LSB (percentages)
Values: partnership, Value: self-determination Value: tradition

marriage and family
consent rejection consent rejection consent
rejection
LSB supported *** ***

85.6 75.6 71.4 76.9 80.4 75.9
*

*** ** ***
90.5 75.1 81.6 76.5 83.6 75.2
Homosexuality through socialization *** * *

2.9 11.7 15.2 10.5 7.8 11.4
innate homosexuality 69.7 65.5 51.2 66.7 65.5 66.1

Homosexuals realize their homosexuality early 77.6 77.5 83.3 77.3 84.1 76.4
** ***a *
LSB discriminates 93.1 80.3 82.6 81.4 91.6 79.4
*** *a **
Children in same-sex couples do just as well 90.6 70.6 72.5 72.8 80.8 71.0
If marriage for same sex Open to couples, more groups will also want
17.0 20.6 30.4 19.7 21.0 20.0
to get married
Note: The percentages refer to how many of those who belong to a column category fulfill the characteristic in the row. Example: 76% of those who agree with the value of committed
partnership and family have shown supportive behavior towards LSB, while 86% of those who disagree with this value.
** *** a
< .001. Thepsignificance
< .01,and the
Legend: * p self-determination information
assumptions
is based
that LSB
on correlations
are discriminated
(Pearson)
against
with(rthe
= .14)
(uncategorized)
or that children
output
of same-sex
variables.couples
p < .05,develop
relationships
just asbetween
well (r =the are of the cor
.08)value
positive, although the group of those who agreed hardly differed from the group of those who disagreed. The reason is that 95% of respondents agreed with the value of self-
determination and the connection was therefore made by the differences between those who “rather” agree and those who “totally” agree.
8.2 Advocating traditional gender

roles
How a person feels specifically about LSB has a lot to do with what they think about the
ideal behavior of women and men in general. In the case of same-sex sexuality, at least
one of the partners violates traditional notions of gender roles. In the imagination of many
people, this violation of roles extends to the entire relationship, in which one person always
takes on the “male role” and one the “female role” (knowledge test in Klocke’s survey,
2012). Consequently, there are already many studies showing that an endorsement of
traditional gender roles is associated with a greater devaluation of LSB (Whitley, 2001).
In the current survey, support for traditional gender roles was measured on the basis of
two gender-stereotyped behavior domains that are almost always included in existing
questionnaires and correlate highly with the total score of the scale. One of
Both areas of behavior were part of the male gender role:

"Take over managerial functions in companies", the other part of the female gender role:
"Take care of small children and the household". Respondents were asked in each case to
say whether it was better if these behaviors were carried out in a manner consistent with
gender roles.
The majority of respondents expressed opposition to traditional gender roles (Table 8.3):
only 28 percent of respondents agreed that it is better for women to take care of small
children and the household than for men to do it. Only 14 percent thought that managerial
roles in companies were better
should be taken over by men instead of women.
The negative association found in many existing studies between the support of traditional
gender roles and attitudes towards LSB was confirmed by the current survey: while only 45
percent of those who supported traditional gender roles had positive attitudes towards LSB,
the figure was 82 percent those who rejected these gender roles. At 44 percent (vs. 77
percent), the advocates of traditional gender roles were also significantly less likely to know
that children who
children who grow up with same-sex couples develop just as well

as children who grow up with male-female couples. In addition,
they behaved less frequently in a supportive manner towards
LGB, expressed more frequent criticism of the demands of
homosexuals for equal rights, suspected socialization influences
on sexual orientation and were less likely to know that homosexuals
usually notice their sexual orientation as early as adolescence
and still have dis are exposed to crime. Slightly more frequently,
they also assumed that opening up marriage would also lead to
covetousness in other groups.
Table 8.3: Correlations of attitudes towards gender

roles with behavior, attitudes and assumptions
towards LSB (percentages)
Traditional
gender roles
advocacy
rejection wording
LSB supported ***

79.0 61.8
LSB used in a derogatory way (jokes) 51.8 46.8

***
Derogatory to LSB (rights) 36.7 54.3
***
81.8 45.4
Homosexuality through socialization ***

11.4 21.5
innate homosexuality 66.9 64.8

Homosexuals realize their homosexuality early ***
77.7 63.2
LSB discriminates ***
82.1 69.5
Same-sex couples are equal under the law Children of same- 48.6 46.5
sex couples do just as well When marriage for same-sex ***

77.0 44.1
couples. Open to couples, more groups will also want to get
married *
19.6 21:1
Note: The percentages refer to how many of those who belong to a column category fulfill the
characteristic in the row. Example: 62% of those who support traditional gender roles have shown
supportive behavior towards LGB, compared to 79% of those who reject traditional gender roles.
** ***
Apparently, most people for whom partnership, marriage and family are
important do not associate them with same-sex relationships. This
finding is not entirely surprising, but once again points to an inner
contradiction: these respondents consider the corresponding values to
be important for a society, but at the same time exclude homosexual
people from them. Apparently, they are not fundamentally concerned
with the value of stable relationships with children, but with a traditional
family image. Also obtaining status
Differentiated in favor of one's own life model may play a role here, but
de facto legal equality and social acceptance of homosexual
relationships does not affect one's own life model, but reduces its status
as "the only right model". For the intervention, the critical question here
is to what extent these people can be reached with educational
campaigns that work with rainbow families. Here real experience in
contact with same-sex parents and their children should be more
effective in making similarities tangible.
8.3 Religion and religiosity

From its inception, modern prejudice research has questioned whether
religion protects against prejudice or rather promotes it (Allport, 1954).
With regard to homophobic attitudes, however, the finding is fairly
clear: on average, people who have no religious affiliation and are less
religious have a more positive attitude towards homosexuals than those
who belong to a denomination or people who consider themselves
religious (for an overview, Küpper & Zick, 2015c). The negative influence
of a fundamentalist religious orientation is particularly clear: people who
regard their religion as the only true one have more prejudices across
the board. This is evident for all major religious communities. In addition,
Muslims turn out to be more negative on average towards homosexuals
than Christians (Klocke, 2012; Pollak & Müller, 2013). However, the
long-standing unequivocal finding of a tendency towards homophobic
attitudes among those belonging to a denomination has begun to
weaken in recent years, at least with regard to classic homophobia, as
the most recent FES-Mitte study from 2016 suggests. Previous evidence
has pointed to the importance of the directive on the part of the major
churches or faith communities and their influential actors - depending
on the signals they give, prejudices are expressed more openly or more
subtly.
In the present study, religious affiliation, self-assessed religiosity and

religious fundamentalism were surveyed.
According to the proportion of the population, the majority of those
questioned are Catholic, Protestant or non-denominational (around a
third in each case). The proportion of Muslim respondents is 3 percent
and thus slightly below the actual proportion of the population (here it is
5 to 7 percent). One of the reasons for this is that many Muslim people
have immigrated and do not speak German well enough to be able or
willing to conduct a telephone interview. Also other Kon
Denominations or faith communities are hardly represented in terms of
the percentage of the population. The analysis by religion is therefore
limited to Catholic, Protestant or non-denominational. Detailed analyzes
according to religion cannot be implemented in a representative survey,
they would require targeted sampling.
In addition, all respondents who identified themselves with a religion

were asked to indicate how religious they considered themselves to be
on a four-point scale. This rough measure of religiosity has proven to be
a good approximation, regardless of the fact that many different forms of
religiosity can be observed. 12 percent of respondents classify themselves
as “very”, 47 percent as “rather”, 32 percent as “rather not” and 9 percent
as “not at all” religious, although they belong to a religion. In addition, the
fundamentalist conviction about the statement “My religion is the only
true one” was raised.
This is a measure that has been used and proven many times in this
context (for an overview see Küpper & Zick, 2015c). 82 percent of those
surveyed find this statement "not at all" or "rather not" applicable, 11
percent "rather" applicable and 7 percent "completely" applicable.
People who said they did not belong to any religious community had
the lowest agreement scores on all facets of homophobia. The
differences, while significant, are remarkably small in absolute terms. In
contrast, Protestant, Catholic and non-denominational people do not
differ in their attitudes towards trans people. Also with regard to
assumptions about the causes of homosexuality and about homosexuals,
the sub
not very high. Catholics are slightly more likely than others to assume
that homosexuals are not discriminated against. Conversely, Protestants
believed somewhat more frequently than non-denominationals that
homosexuality developed during socialization (Table 8.4). The weakening
negative influence of religion, which has already been shown in other studies
was established, is also recognizable here. A change in the attitude of the

churches and a number of relevant actors is also evident here, such as the
increasing willingness to also give blessings to same-sex couples.
Table 8.4: Agreements with the facets of homophobia

Religious community of respondents (percentages)
Catholic none
(n=615) (n = 581)
evangelical (n = 654)
homophobia total scale*** 19.2 21:9 17.4
Affective homophobia 16.8 18.9 14.3

13.4 11.3 10.4
(Approval)**
Congenital homosexuality (rejection)* 33.0 31:4 34.1

20.2 27.0 22.5
(rejection)**
15.1 23.8 19.3
(Approval)**
** ***
Respondents who rated themselves as “rather” or “very” religious (and were

denominationally affiliated), on the other hand, were significantly more likely
to have homophobic attitudes (Table 8.5). Among respondents who described
themselves as very religious, 30 percent agreed with homophobic statements.
Among respondents who described themselves as not very religious, the
figure was significantly lower at 15 percent.
Table 8.5: Agreements with the facets of homophobia

Religiousness of respondents (percentages)
not/rather rather/
not religious very
(n = 574) religious (n = 824)
Devaluation of trans* people* 15.0 25.2

11.3 14.8
(Approval)***
Congenital homosexuality (rejection)** 31.7 34.5

19.1 26.9
(rejection)

13.9 23.2
(Approval)
** ***
Respondents with fundamentalist religious beliefs tended to have

homophobic attitudes significantly more often (Table 8.6).
This is particularly clear in relation to classical (37 percent vs. just under
9 percent) and modern homophobia (53 percent vs. 21 percent
agreement), somewhat less in the case of affective homophobia (41
percent vs. almost 15 percent agreement). This confirms the many
findings of religious psychological research.
Table 8.6: Agreement with the facets of homophobia

according to religious fundamentalism (percentages)
religious more religious

fundamentalism Fundamentalism
low (n=1,056) high (n =
227)
Devaluation of trans* people*** 18.6 35.6

10.2 26.8
(Approval)***
Congenital homosexuality (rejection)*** 30.9 48.3

22.7 30.3
(rejection)*
17.7 28.2
(Approval)***
** ***
Previous studies point to the importance of the messages sent out by

the churches in connection with religiosity and the tendency to prejudice
against different social groups. Religious people have no more
prejudices than others towards social groups towards which the
churches declare empathy and solidarity, such as those currently
fleeing. On the contrary: religiosity helps against devaluation and
promotes commitment to support these groups. However, if the churches
send out at least unclear, ambivalent or even morally derogatory
messages towards a group, this promotes prejudices, here also
homophobia (in more detail Küpper & Zick, 2016). For prevention and
intervention, this once again points to the importance of a clear
positioning of important role models and on the part of the institutions,
including the churches and parties.
8.4 Empathy
Studies point to the importance of empathy and the ability or willingness
to adopt perspectives for reducing prejudice. Heyder (2003), among
others, was able to prove that people with more empathy and a greater
willingness to accept perspectives are less inclined towards group-
focused enmity, including homophobia. The reasoning behind this is
that empathy and perspective-taking promotes looking for similarities
and developing positive feelings towards members of a devalued
group. Perspective adoption tends to be more cognitive and, as studies
have shown, primarily leads to a perception of less stereotypes
(including Strayer, 1987). Empathy starts with feelings and leads to
fewer open prejudices being expressed and the willingness to make
contact is increased (ibid.). Many practical projects aim to practice and
strengthen empathy and perspective-taking (see also Oskamp, 2000),
even if the findings on a lasting effect are not entirely clear (Paluck &
Green, 2009) and it obviously depends how they are conveyed, for
example without activating a guilty conscience and negative stereotypes
about one's own group, which may be prejudiced and unjust.
In the present study, we measured empathy using two statements: "I

care a lot about other people's feelings" and "Other people's feelings
leave me cold" (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006), which resulted in a
moderately satisfactory mean scale empathy.33 In summary, the vast
majority of 83 percent of those surveyed said they had empathy for
others, while 17 percent were less empathetic. The difficulty of
capturing empathy in a survey must be pointed out as a limitation;
Social desirability may also play a role here, so that respondents
presumably rate themselves more empathetically than would be the
case if they were recorded in other ways (e.g. how empathetic they
are in the eyes of others or how much compassion they have for others
in a real situation). feel).
33 The second statement was recoded such that, as with the first statement, a high level
of agreement also stands for a high level of empathy; Cronbach's ÿ = .59.
Figure 8.1: Empathy and homophobia (percentages)
100
90
80
70
60
50
percent
44
40
32
30
23
21
20 15
10
10
0
classical homophobia high modern homophobia high affective homophobia high
empathy high empathy low
It becomes clear: Respondents who say they are more empathetic

tend less frequently to classic, modern and affective homophobia than
respondents who present themselves as less empathetic (Figure 8.1).
In the present study, empathy also reduces the devaluation of lesbian,
gay and bisexual people, but at the same time, it also becomes clear,
it is no guarantee of acceptance. Because a not inconsiderable
proportion of those who show empathy on a general level also tend to
be homophobic. So there is a slight connection between empathy and
homophobia, but it is not very strong.34
34 Correlation between empathy and the subscales of homophobia: r = -.18*** to

-.28***.
8.5 Personal experience of discrimination

The effect of one's own experience of discrimination on that of others is
controversial in research. Do people who have experienced
discrimination themselves discriminate against others more or less?
There are theoretical justifications and empirical evidence for both
effects. Experiencing one's own discrimination could strengthen the
willingness and competence to accept perspectives and empathy and
then reduce one's own prejudices and willingness to be devalued. A
number of anti-discrimination projects start by reminding participants of
their own discrimination or even letting them experience it in exercises
(e.g. the Blue Eye-Brown Eye exercise, Stewart, LaDuke, Bracht, Sweet
& Gamarel, 2003). Conversely, from the extensive research on relative
deprivation – the feeling of being worse off than others, individually or
as a group – it can be reasonably assumed that one’s own experience
of discrimination is more likely to promote prejudice. The feeling of
collective disadvantages (eg as Germans compared to foreigners) is
closely related to prejudices (including Pettigrew et al., 2008). Young
people with a migration background who themselves report being
discriminated against devalue other social groups more (Mansel &
Spaiser, 2013).
In the present study, we asked to what extent respondents felt

discriminated against based on a number of characteristics such as
age, gender, origin, etc. A not insignificant proportion of up to a third
observe discrimination based on a specific characteristic (without
necessarily experiencing this as individual disadvantage). Almost 30
percent agree that people of their age, gender or gender identity are
discriminated against in Germany, almost 20 percent agree that this
happens to people of their religion and 25 percent to people of their
ethnic origin or nationality. Over and beyond
10 percent agree with the statement that they belong to another group
that is disadvantaged, e.g. people with disabilities or a chronic illness,
single parents, but also families or teachers. This is not about
interpreting this observed discrimination, but about the feeling of
collective relative deprivation. It becomes clear that the observation of
discrimination against one's own group tends to be related to more
homophobic attitudes, ie respondents who recognize discrimination
based on a characteristic they share tend to perceive homo- and bise-
tend to devalue xual people. This effect is not very strong, i.e. there are
many exceptions where this is not the case, but it is significant and is
more evident in classical and modern homophobia than in affective
homophobia.35 The exception is the perception of discrimination based
on one's own sex or gender • One's own gender identity, which is stated
above all by women: Anyone (as a woman) who observes discrimination
based on their own gender tends to be less homophobic.
8.6 Summary
Which values a person represents in relation to family also influences
their specific attitudes towards lesbian, gay and bisexual people.
However, the correlations are not very high.
First of all, a discrepancy becomes clear: those for whom binding
partnerships and family are particularly important tend to have negative
attitudes towards LSB and tend to reject equal rights with regard to
marriage, adoption and support for artificial insemination. The same
applies to those for whom tradition is very important and who advocate
more traditional gender roles. Conversely, people for whom self-
determination is particularly important tend to have more positive
attitudes towards LSB people. They also believe less often that
homosexuality is a question of socialization, including upbringing.
The present study also confirms the connection between religiosity and
homophobia known from many other studies – the more religious and
fundamentalist the respondents are, the more likely they are to be
homophobic. At the same time, however, religious affiliation alone hardly
plays a role anymore. The findings of the present study on the positive
effect of empathy – no matter how problematic the self-assessment in a
telephone interview may be – confirm this once again. Conversely, one's
own experiences of discrimination by no means have an immunizing
effect, on the contrary – those who regard groups to which they belong
as discriminated against, for example with regard to ethnic, national,
religious, age, illness or disability-related characteristics, are more
inclined to devalue homosexuals .
35 Correlations between personal experience of discrimination and the subscales of

Homophobia: r = .02 to .22***.
9. General attitudes to
diversity and equality
The possibility of equal participation of diverse social groups is a core
element of the democratic constitution. The anti-discrimination work
also essentially ties in with this. Equal participation in a society can be
viewed in two dimensions: on the one hand in diversity or plurality, on
the other hand in the hierarchy between the various social groups. Many
studies support the importance of beliefs about diversity and hierarchy
in prejudice, including homophobia, that is, ideas about how plural
society should be and how different social groups should be valued and
treated equally.
This raises the question of what basic attitude the population in Germany
actually has towards diversity and hierarchy and how these relate
negatively to devaluation and exclusion and positively to accepted
attitudes and inclusive behavior. The right-wing populism that can
currently be observed, as can be seen in the PEGIDA demonstrations
and AfD rallies, explicitly calls them into question. Right-wing populist
attitudes, which are also linked to homophobia, can also be observed in
the broader population (Zick & Küpper, 2015).
9.1 Societal background and coverage

in the present study
Right-wing populism can be described in terms of content and rhetoric

in two basic dimensions: a vertical dimension that rails against “those
up there” (elites, politicians, journalists, media), against “the small,
honest, hard-working man down here” in position and a horizontal
dimension of a “we” from which “the others” are distinguished (eg
Decker & Lewandowski, 2009; Zick, Küpper & Krause, 2016). Right-
wing populism is currently not only aimed at immigrants, asylum seekers
and Muslims (and
is often accompanied by anti-Semitism), but its actors also work

specifically to discredit efforts to achieve equality for homosexual
people. The devaluation of others, including railing against a supposed
“gender delusion” or a “homo-lobby”, is often presented in conspicuously
vulgar, obscene rhetoric and is accompanied by aggression and anger
on the part of the listeners (including Raphael, 2015). The close
connection between right-wing populist and homophobic attitudes can
also be empirically proven (ibid.). There are also substantive and
personal connections and intersections between right-wing populist
tendencies and fundamentalist Christians, also and especially through
the rejection of equality and equality measures in relation to homosexual
people and women (Strube, 2017). The journalist Liane Bednarz
describes how an alliance between right-wing populist actors and
conservative-fundamentalist Christians emerged over these issues
(Bednarz, 2016). These voices are particularly loud in the campaigns
against addressing sexual diversity in schools (see also Chapter 10).
The clear connections between right-wing populist attitude patterns in
the population and homophobia, which have already been proven (Zick
& Küpper, 2015), point to the anti-democratic streak that these debates
carry.
For a more detailed analysis of this connection, several components

of right-wing populism were surveyed in the present study: a law-and-
order authoritarianism that demands obedience and subordination, the
blanket and undifferentiated distrust in democratic processes of
negotiation and finding compromises, and the representative
Representation by parties and politicians as an indicator for the vertical
component of right-wing populism.36 In addition, the general attitude
towards diversity and social dominance orientation were surveyed as
indicators for approval of social inequality.
Right-wing populism reveals its backwardness in the promise of an

“ideal world as it was then”, so it always contains a component of
nostalgia (including Hentges et al., 2003; Müller, 2016).
This is also evident in the feeling of disorientation, which Durkheim and
Merton already referred to as anomia
36 For reasons of capacity, this and the following concepts were only presented by a
random but representative half of the respondents.
described (see Legge, 2006). This is about the feeling that the modern
world is too confusing and about the need for clear orientation. The
feeling of disorientation is empirically related to the devaluation of a
whole range of social groups, including homosexuals (ibid.) and was
also surveyed.
The concepts of diversity and hierarchy addressed here have often been
examined in social-psychological attitude research, especially with
regard to prejudices. As special
A key construct here is the basic attitude towards diversity (often
primarily in relation to cultural and religious diversity). Many studies,
including population surveys, show a connection between a positive
basic attitude towards diversity and less prejudiced attitudes towards a
whole range of social groups, as recorded in the syndrome of group-
focused enmity, in the German and European context (including Zick,
Küpper & Hövermann, 2011). The importance of a positive basic attitude
towards diversity was also proven in specific work contexts, which
reduces discriminatory behavior, but can also have many other positive
effects, including on satisfaction in work teams (for an overview, e.g.
van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007) .
The constructs listed in Table 9.1 were collected to test the influence of
the general value attitude towards diversity and hierarchy, which can
also be found negatively in right-wing populist attitudes. The detailed
description of the constructs can be found in Chapters 9.2 and 9.3.
Table 9.1: Indicators of the attitude towards diversity

and hierarchy (percentages)

Advocating cultural diversity (Cronbach's ÿ = .77)
I am pleased that Germany is becoming

9.7 18.9 39.3 32:1
even more diverse and colourful.
It is better for a country when there is a

diversity of different cultures and religions. 10.1 18.2 36.5 35.3
Social dominance orientation (Cronbach's ÿ = .60)
All population groups should be of equal

1.7 3.8 17.7 76.7
value to us.a
Social equality is a good thing.a 1.9 3.6 17.6 76.9
It is a good thing when some groups

in society are at the top and others are 51.0 28.3 15.6 5.1
at the bottom.
Subgroups should remain in place.

66.2 23.2 7.0 3.6
Authoritarianism (Cronbach's ÿ = .60)
To maintain law and order, tougher action

should be taken against outsiders and 22.2 20.7 29.7 27.4
troublemakers.
Among the most important qualities a

person should have is obedience and 14.4 27.8 34.7 23:1
respect for one's superior.
Anomia (Cronbach's ÿ = .81)
Today everything has gotten so messy

that nobody knows where you actually 18.4 28.0 29.9 23.7
stand anymore.
Things have gotten so difficult today

that you don't know what's going on 19.5 32.8 29.8 18.0
anymore.
Distrust of democracy and collective anger (Cronbach's ÿ = .63)
The democratic parties talk things up and

12.2 28.3 36.9 22.6
don't solve the problems.
You have to resist the current politics.

18.3 31:8 29.3 20.7
Citizens' anger at immigration is

31:1 33.3 23.5 12.2
absolutely understandable
a b Used as a single item.

Legend: Not included in the scale formation.
9.2 Diversity belief, social dominance

orientation and authoritarianism
Social dominance orientation and authoritarianism, which is also

considered a key indicator of right-wing populist attitudes (including Zick
& Küpper, 2015), have been examined as influential constructs in social-
psychological prejudice research in recent years. Social dominance
orientation describes a basic attitude that generally supports social
hierarchies between groups and rejects equality (Sidanius & Pratto,
1999; for a brief overview also Zick & Küpper, 2006). Social dominance
theory assumes that high-status groups (e.g. whites, males,
heterosexuals) tend towards a social dominance orientation that is
related to prejudices against various social groups, which in turn help
to enforce in-group privileges and discrimination other groups (ibid.).
Within the framework of the studies on group-focused enmity, the social
dominance orientation was confirmed as the core ideology of various
prejudices, including homophobia (including Groß, Zick & Krause,
2013), and many studies prove this connection (including Eldridge &
Johnson, 2011). The construct of right-wing authoritarianism describes
an attitude that demands obedience, discipline and subordination from
others (this component was recorded in the present survey), and one’s
own willingness to submit to authorities and conventions (not recorded
here).
(Adorno et al., 1950; Altemeyer, 1988). Here, too, various studies show
a positive connection to prejudices, including homophobia (Duckitt &
Sibley, 2007). The associations between social dominance orientation
and authoritarianism with homophobia are somewhat more pronounced
among people who self-identify as heterosexual (Andrejewski, Frindte
& Geschke, 2016).
In the present study, diversity belief was divided into two

Statements on cultural diversity, the social dominance orientation over
four statements that both support hierarchy and, in
Address negative content that rejects equality, and right-wing
authoritarianism via two statements that have proven themselves in this
or a similar form in other population surveys in Germany (most recently
in the FES-Mitte study 2016; Zick, Küpper
& Krause, 2016). The statements were combined into (partly only
moderately) satisfactorily reliable mean scales (Table 9.1). Two-thirds
of those surveyed have a positive attitude towards diversity (66 percent),
around half of those surveyed tend toward authoritarianism; on social
dominance orientations in this form of recording only 9 percent of those
surveyed.
The relationships found in other studies are also confirmed in the

current study (Figures 9.1, 9.2, 9.3): The less the respondents tend
towards a belief in diversity, and the more towards social dominance
orientation or towards authoritarianism, the more likely they are them
also to homophobic attitudes. The connections between the social
dominance orientation and homophobia tend to be somewhat more
pronounced than that of the belief in diversity; the comparatively weakest
connections are found with authoritarianism. In addition, all three
constructs are somewhat more solid
Connections with classic and modern than with affective homophobia.37
The figures below illustrate these connections by showing the
percentage of not and rather dominance-oriented or rather not or rather
authoritarian
asked respondents.
37 Correlation between positive belief in diversity/social dominance orientation/

authoritarianism and classical homophobia r = -.33***/.30***/.28***; modern homophobia
r = -.33***/.32***/.32***; affective homophobia r = -.20***/.17***/ .16***.
Figure 9.1: Positive belief in diversity and homophobia

(percentages)
100
90
80
70
60
percent
50
38
40
28
30
22
18
20
13
7
10
0
Diversity belief high Diversity belief low
Figure 9.2: Social dominance orientation (SDO) and

homophobia (percentages)
100
90
80
70
60 55
percent
50
40 37
33
30 23
20 16
10
10
0
SDO low SDO high

Figure 9.3: Authoritarianism and homophobia (percentages)
100
90
80
70
60
percent
50
40 34
30 24
18
20 15
12
10 6
0
authoritarianism low authoritarianism high
9.3 Mistrust of Democracy and Anomia
Distrust of democracy was raised using two statements that have

already proven themselves in many other studies, including the FES-
Mitte Study 2016 (Table 9.1). 45 percent of those questioned distrust
democracy in the form recorded, believing that political parties talk
everything to pieces or believing that current politics should be resisted.
Distrust in democracy is closely related to collective anger, captured
here by a statement directed against immigration: “Citizens' anger at
immigration is perfectly understandable.” This statement was taken
from a scale used to capture collective anger and correlates closely
with other indicators of a right-wing populist attitude pattern (Zick &
Küpper, 2015). 36 percent of those surveyed tend to agree or fully
agree with this statement. The feeling of disorientation (anomia) was
also recorded in the present study using two statements that were also
used in other population surveys. As recorded here, 43 percent of
those surveyed tend to be disoriented.
Weak but significant connections between homophobia and mistrust

of democracy, collective anger and disorientation become clear: those
who agree here tend to have homophobic attitudes.38 This applies not
only to classic homophobia, but also to modern and affective
homophobia (Figure 9.4 and 9.5).
Figure 9.4: Distrust of democracy and

homophobia (percentages)
100
90
80
70
60
percent
50
40 35
30 23
20
17 17
20
10
10
0
Democracy low mistrust of democracy high
38 Correlation between mistrust of democracy/collective anger/anomia and classic

homophobia r = .13***/.30***/.16***; modern homophobia r = .19***/.27***/.10***; affective
homophobia r = .10***/.18***/.12***.
Figure 9.5: Disorientation and homophobia

(percentages)
100
90
80
70
60
percent
50
40 35
30 24
22
18 17
20
10
10
0
anomia low anomia high
The findings once again underscore the importance of a general

worldview that is shaped more by curiosity and openness or by a sense
of threat and fear of confusion (Duckitt, 2001; Sibley & Duckitt, 2008).
At the same time, this is also the gateway for right-wing populism, which
fuels feelings of threat and – as the other findings of the study show –
also promotes homophobia. As in previous studies (Zick & Küpper,
2015; Zick, Küpper & Krause, 2016), this also confirms that those who
distrust democracy and who share collective anger, which is currently
particularly directed against immigration, also tend to have a higher
level Probability of devaluing homosexual people. Empty phrases such
as “gender madness”, “rainbow ideology” and “homo-lobby” are
repeatedly brought up by right-wing populists and representatives of
the Alternative for Germany party to promote efforts to achieve equality
for homosexual people or people with non-binary gender identity to
discredit. Here the
Promotion of equality, i.e. a core of the democratic constitution, rejected

and given defamatory labels such as “madness” and the like.
9.4 Summary
As in previous studies, the general positive value orientations in relation
to diversity are associated with less homophobia, while the support for
social hierarchies in the sense of social dominance orientation and
authoritarianism is associated with more homophobia. This connection
is particularly clear in classical homophobia, but it also applies to
modern homophobia and – in this case to a lesser extent – to affective
homophobia. The same applies to other indicators of right-wing populist
attitudes such as distrust in democracy, collective anger at immigration
and the feeling of disorientation in a modern world, as expressed in the
construct of anomia. Those who share this are more likely to adopt
homophobic attitudes.
10. Dealing with sexual

diversity in school

research
School is a central, if not the central, facility to improve the situation of
non-heterosexual people for many reasons: Because school is
compulsory, nobody can avoid being visited. On the one hand,
therefore, a hostile atmosphere in school affects people even more
than a comparable atmosphere in other contexts that can be avoided
more easily, for example in a club. On the other hand, every person of
at least a certain age can be reached at school. Teachers and other
pedagogical specialists can therefore lay the foundation for the
development of responsible citizens who treat their fellow human
beings with respect, even if they are different from themselves, e.g. a
different world view, religion, a different appearance or a different
sexual orientation have. Finally, school is a key place because most
lesbian, gay or bisexual people become aware of their sexual identity
at school age (Krell & Oldemeier, 2015) and experience high levels of
homophobia or ignorance in their school (Klocke, 2012).
For these reasons, a few years ago the Council of Europe (a European
international organization to which 47 European countries including
Russia and Turkey belong) called on all its member states to create a
supportive and non-discriminatory school atmosphere for LGBTI young
people and to provide objective information about sexual Include
orientation and gender identity in curricula and teaching materials
(Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, 2010). In recent
years, many federal states have expanded their curricula or educational
plan to include acceptance or respect or at least tolerance for sexual
diversity. These efforts have met with surprisingly strong opposition
and sparked controversy over sex education
(Kramer, 2015). A petition against the education plan in Baden-

Württemberg (Stängle, 2013) was supported by almost 200,000 people.
This petition fears "educational, moral and ideological re-education"
and uses the term "LGBTIQ lifestyle" instead of the terms "sexual
orientation" and "gender identity". The education plan calls for this
lifestyle to be presented as “desirable” and does not adequately
address its “negative side effects”. Implicitly, the assumption becomes
clear that young people allow themselves to be influenced in their
sexual orientation by an appreciative depiction of LSB. The petition
also claims that the aim is to “address various sexual practices”. This
claim is also spread in various media (Junge Freiheit, 2014; Voigt,
2014), but it is never substantiated in relation to education or curricula.
If evidence is quoted at all, reference is repeatedly made to the same
few exercises in collections of sex education material, which, however,
were not written for school teachers but for specialized sex education
workers (e.g. Tuider, Müller, Timmermanns, Bruns-Bachmann &
Koppermann, 2012). It is no wonder that no suitable evidence is given,
since the educational and curricula of the state governments do not
call for a sexualized depiction of LSB, but for interdisciplinary
consideration of diversity beyond sex education in biology lessons.
The fact that this misinformation is still effective is already evident in
the comments under the petition “Sexual practices should be discussed
at an early age” or “Should our children be brought up to be gay and
lesbian?”.
In the course of the revision of education plans and curricula, existing

population-representative surveys have already asked about relevant
attitudes several times. Around three out of four respondents answered
that students should learn more about “different lifestyles such as
homosexuality” (71 percent, Change Center Foundation, 2015) or
about “diversity in relation to sexual orientation” (75 percent , European
Commission, 2015). Another survey showed that only 6 percent
thought that homosexuality should not be taught at school (Schmidt,
2015). Most prefer treatment in grades 5 and 6 (31 percent) or grades
7 to 10 (38 percent), 8 percent think it makes sense to address them
in grades 1 to 4, and 9 percent only from grade 11 onwards (ibid.).
Existing surveys therefore do not indicate that the majority of the

population as a whole rejects sexual diversity in school lessons.
However, the questions did not refer to the explicit goal of acceptance
or respect for lesbian, gay and bisexual people. It is therefore possible
that the majority has no objection to a neutral discussion of homosexuality,
but does not share the goal of teaching students to accept lesbian, gay
and bisexual people.
In the present study, consent to this goal was therefore explicitly asked
for. Furthermore, possible causes of the settings were examined. What
is the contribution of misinformation about the content of education and
curricula, eg that children should be encouraged to engage in a variety
of sexual practices? What is the contribution of value differences, eg the
value of individualism and self-determination on the one hand and
cohesion, commitment and family on the other? How much influence
does the assumption that the topic is irrelevant in school, for example
because lesbian, gay or bisexual people only discover their sexual
identity after school, have an impact? How important is the fear that
students could be influenced in their sexual orientation by considering
the topic?
10.2 Collection in the current survey

In the current survey, we first asked about attitudes towards sex
education in general and, in a later part of the survey, more specifically
about educational plans for teaching acceptance of sexual diversity in
schools. First of all, the knowledge and the knowledge of the educational
plans were asked and then the attitude. At the end of the survey, people
under the age of 30 were asked about their own experiences with sexual
diversity at school. The items were largely developed on the basis of the
media analysis described in Chapter 2.

10.3.1 Descriptive results on attitudes
towards sex education
A possible influencing factor on the attitude towards sexual diversity in school could be
the general attitude towards sex education of children and adolescents. To what extent is
sex education seen as a task for parents and schools, and what sex education content
should the school address? A large majority of 93 percent see sex education as a parent's
responsibility, and a similar majority of 63 percent see it as a school's responsibility (Table
10.1). For many respondents, the responsibilities for this topic are not mutually exclusive,
but rather complement each other. When it comes to content, there is the greatest
consensus when it comes to addressing reproduction and the dangers of sexuality: 95
percent of respondents want schools to address reproduction and 96 percent want the
dangers of sexuality, such as communicable diseases or unwanted pregnancies , see
treated. But 85 percent also agree that different sexual orientations should be discussed
and 79 percent want the teachers to also show the beautiful sides of
treat sexuality. All items on the content of school sex education

For the subsequent correlation analysis, the attitudes towards sex education in school
were combined into a reliable scale. The high correlation between the individual statements
– ie whoever agrees with one statement also agrees with a high probability with all other
statements and vice versa – indicates that the interviewees obviously have a fundamental
attitude towards sex education in school is to be provided and the specific teaching content
is less important. This means that they do not differentiate in their settings what content is
to be learned there.
Table 10.1: Attitudes towards sex education (percentages)

Attitude towards sex education in school (Cronbach's ÿ = .73)
The following topics should be covered

as part of sex education in schools:
2.5 2.7 19.2 75.7
... reproduction.
... Different sexual orientations, i.e.
heterosexuality, bisexuality and 8.0 6.9 23.0 62.2
homosexuality.
… dangers that may be associated with

the topic, eg communicable diseases or
2.8 1.0 11.0 85.3
unwanted pregnancies.
… The beautiful sides of sexuality. 7.8 13.1 27.3 51.8
Other Items
Sex education is the responsibility of the parents. 1.1 6.0 33.3 59.7
Sex education is the job of the school. 13.0 24.3 42.3 20.3
Note: For the items in this table, there were a maximum of 33 missing answers or "don't know" answers
(1.6% of respondents), namely for the item "The beautiful sides of sexuality".
10.3.2 Descriptive results on knowledge and

Attitudes towards consideration of sexual
diversity in school
In order to meaningfully ask people about their knowledge of the changes
in education and curriculum, it is important that respondents have at least
heard of the change in plans. For this reason, the block of questions on
the educational plans began with the following explanation:
“Recently, some states are revising their guidelines on what topics

should be covered in schools. Among other things, it is planned that
homosexuality should be discussed more frequently and that school
materials should also include lesbian, gay or bisexual people in addition
to heterosexual people. Efforts are therefore being made to give more
consideration to sexual diversity in school than has been the case up to now.
Have you already heard or read about these plans?”
Despite extensive media coverage of the education plans and resistance

to them, only 20 percent of those surveyed said they had heard or read
about them. The consideration of sexual diversity in school is therefore
only a perceived topic of public debate for a minority. But what is the
knowledge of the fifth of the population who consciously took part in this
debate? Do you know the goals of the plans or do you believe the
misinformation that has been spread about them? 91 percent of those
surveyed who had heard of the education plans knew that the plans are
about increasing acceptance of homosexual and bisexual people (Table
10.2). On the other hand, only 15 percent believed that the aim was to
encourage students to try out as many different sexual practices as
possible.
Which attitudes do the interviewees have regarding the consideration

of sexual diversity in school? Everyone was asked about their attitudes,
including those who had not heard anything about the specific
educational plans. A large majority of 90 percent thought that it should
be a goal of the school to make the students accept homosexual and
bisexual people. This meant that even more people were in agreement
with conveying acceptance of LSB than in earlier surveys with neutrally
getting to know different sexual orientations (Change Center Foundation,
2015; European Commission, 2015). 85 percent called for schools to do
something about the use of words like "fag", "gay", "fag" or "lesbian" as
profanities.
75 percent thought that homosexual and bisexual people should also

appear in school materials. However, 29 percent also suspected that
children are "confused" about their sexuality by addressing sexual
diversity in school, and 27 percent advocated that only heterosexual
couples should be portrayed in school when it came to the topics of love
and partnership goes. All items on the attitude towards sexual diversity
in school load on the same factor in a factor analysis and were therefore
combined into a reliable scale for the correlation analyzes in Chapter
10.3.4.
Table 10.2: Knowledge and attitudes towards sexual

diversity at school (percentages)
Meets ... not at all to rather to full and

Knowledge about sexual diversity in school
According to the plans, the students

should be encouraged to accept homosexual
2.8 6.0 26.5 64.7
and bisexual people.
According to the plans, the students

should be encouraged to try out as
61.3 24.0 9.0 5.7
many different sexual practices as possible.

rather not to agree
Attitudes towards sexual diversity in school (Cronbach's ÿ = .72)
School materials (e.g. books, films or

assignments) should also feature
11.2 13.8 30.6 44.4
homosexual or bisexual people.
When it comes to the topics of love and

partnership, there should only be
48.1 25.0 13.3 13.6
heterosexual couples made up of a man
and a woman in school.
It should be a goal of the school to teach

the pupils to accept homosexuals and
5.5 4.9 22:4 67.2
bisexuals.
Addressing sexual diversity in school

confuses children in developing their 42.2 28.4 17.1 12.2
sexuality.
Schools should do something about

students using terms like “faggot”, “gay”,
“queer” or “lesbian” as swear words. 7.1 7.8 20.7 64.5
Note: The items in this table had a maximum of 140 missing or “don't know” responses (7.0% of
respondents) for the item “Addressing sexual diversity in school confuses children's development their
sexuality.”
10.3.3 Descriptive results on personal experiences

with sexual diversity at school
And what is the reality in German schools? For that we have
interviewed the 16 to 29 year olds. They are either still going to school or probably remember
their school days comparatively well. Sixty-four percent of these younger respondents
reported that their teachers had never used lesson plans or school materials that included
lesbian, gay, or bisexual people (Table 10.3). Only 2 percent reported that lesbian, gay or
bisexual couples were often considered. In addition, 25 percent reported that their teachers
never made it clear that they did not find it okay to use derogatory words such as “faggot”,
“gay”, “queen” or “lesbian”. Only 41 percent reported that teachers intervened most or all of
the time.
In addition to teachers addressing sexual diversity, it would also be a sign of an open and
accepting school atmosphere if teachers and fellow students could stand by their non-
heterosexual identity, for example by not hiding a same-sex relationship. Unfortunately, the
results show that the schools are far from having an accepting atmosphere. 74 percent
reported that during their entire school years there was not a single teacher who was open
about their own lesbian, gay or bisexual orientation, and 50 percent did not even know of
any classmates who were open about it. So the reality in the schools does not look (or at
least did not look in the recent past) as if the curricula are superfluous as sexual diversity is
already adequately addressed. But what influences the attitude towards considering sexual
diversity in schools?
Table 10.3: Experiences with sexual diversity in school

(16 to 29 year olds, percentages)
no None
Yes one yes, several Yes many
Were or are there classmates who were

open about their own lesbian, gay or
49.5 23.4 25.5 1.5
bisexual orientation?
Were or are there teachers at the

schools you go to or used to go to who
were open about their own lesbian, gay
73.8 17.9 7.2 1.0
or bisexual orientation?

How often have teachers
used teaching examples or school
materials that also included lesbian, gay 64.2 27.8 5.9 2.1
or bisexual people?
never rarely in mostly every time

about half
the cases
... made it clear that

they (teachers) don't
think it's okay if words like
"fag", "homo", "fag" or 24.9 25.6 8.6 28.8 12.1
"lesbian" are used
pejoratively?
a
Note: For the items from this table, there were a maximum of 8 missing answers or "don't know"
answers (2.2% of the respondents), namely for the item "Was or are there at the schools you go to or
before teachers who have been open about their own lesbian, gay or bisexual orientation?” Caption:
Teachers have never used such words in a derogatory way.”
a
56 (5.3% of those questioned) answered this question: “In the presence of the
10.3.4 Associations of support for sexual

diversity in school with possible influencing
variables
Do the opponents of considering lesbians, gays and bisexuals differ
from the proponents mainly in their general values and attitudes? Or
does knowing what the exact goals of the educational plans are, how
sexual orientation develops and that LSB continue to be discriminated
against also contribute to advocating taking them into account? To
analyze these questions, the scale from all five attitude items presented
in Table 10.2 was used.
The results show that knowledge and specific attitudes, but less general
values and socio-demographic characteristics, are associated with
attitudes towards considering sexual diversity in school. The clearest
correlations arise with knowledge of the objectives of the plans (Table
10.4). While 87 percent of those who knew that the plans aim to increase
the acceptance of gay and bisexual people supported addressing sexual
diversity, only 46 percent of those who did not know did. The exact
opposite applies to the assumption that students should be encouraged
to try out as many different sexual practices as possible. Only 61 percent
of those who believed this were in favor of including sexual diversity,
compared to 88 percent of those who knew it was not a goal of
educational plans. In addition to the assumptions about the educational
plans, almost all of the assumptions about LSB presented in Chapter 3
are related to attitudes towards sexual diversity in school: 38 percent of
those surveyed rejected taking sexual diversity into account, saying that
children raised by same-sex couples fared less well than those raised
by male-female couples, and by 36 percent of those who suspected
homosexuality was caused by socialization. On the other hand, only 12
percent of those who assumed that people were already born
homosexual and only 10 percent of those who knew that most
homosexuals realize that they are homosexual when they are teenagers
rejected the consideration. Also respondents who knew that LGB are
still discriminated against and who did not expect that an opening
marriage triggers covetousness in other groups were more likely to

agree that sexual diversity should be taken into account in school.
Table 10.4: Relationships between attitudes towards taking

sexual diversity into account in school and
assumptions/knowledge about the educational
plans and LSB (percentages)
Consideration of sexual
diversity in schools
rejected approved
According to the plans, the students should...
… be made to accept homosexual and does not apply 54.3 45.7

bisexual people.***
true 13.1 86.9
… be encouraged to try as many does not apply 12.2 87.8

different sexual practices as possible.***
true 38.6 61.4
Homosexuality through socialization*** does not apply 11.8 88.2
true 36.1 63.9
Congenital homosexuality*** does not apply 21:4 78.6
true 11.6 88.4
Homosexuals remember theirs does not apply 22.2 77.8

early homosexuality***
true 10.2 89.8
LSB discriminated*** does not apply 22.7 77.3
true 12.9 87.1
Same-sex couples are legally equal does not apply 14.8 85.2
true 12.7 87.3
Children of same-sex couples do just as does not apply 38.1 61.9

well***
true 6.3 93.7
If marriage for same sex Couples open, will does not apply 12.8 87.2
want to get married more groups as well***
true 23.7 76.3
** ***
p < .01,
Legend: * p < .05, p < .001. The significance information is based on correlations (Pearson) with the
(uncategorized) output variables.
In addition, attitudes towards considering sexual diversity in school were related to

general attitudes towards LGB. Here, the focus was placed on the respondents with
explicitly positive attitudes and it was examined which general attitudes these
respondents have towards sex education in school compared to respondents with a
non-positive attitude (negative or neutral attitudes towards LGB) (Table 10.5). While
94 percent of those who had overall positive attitudes towards LSB also supported
gender diversity in schools, only 51 percent of those who did not have positive
attitudes towards LSB did. And while 88 percent of those who had an overall positive
attitude towards sex education in school (summary of all items regardless of the
specific content, see scale in Table 10.1) were also in favor of considering sexual
diversity in school, they only did so 48 percent of those who were critical of sex
education in school.
In addition to specific attitudes and false information, opponents of taking sexual

diversity into account could also be motivated by general social values. Some
comments under the Baden-Württemberg petition suggest that the signatories feared
that values such as family and commitment would be compromised in favor of
individual self-determination: “… strengthening these groups means weakening the
family. I am against this weakening, the family is the most important foundation
society” and
of our
"... where the children are to be taught and suggested in the

school curriculum that everyone engages in sexual contacts and practices with
everyone and everything, without any moral concept and imparting of important
values such as love and deep feelings..." The current survey confirms this Differences
in values (Table 10.5) show, however, that these are smaller than the differences in
knowledge: the consideration of sexual diversity in school was most likely to be
rejected by people for whom binding partnership and family as well as tradition are
important social values, but less self-determination were important. However, there
were stronger connections than with social values for religious fundamentalism. 40
percent of people who considered their religion to be the only true one spoke out
against it being taken into account, compared to only 10 percent of non-fundamentalists.
Political attitudes were also related to support for sexual diversity in school. It is
noticeable, however, that
across the entire right-left spectrum and all parties, a majority supports
the consideration of sexual diversity in schools.
Even 62 percent of those surveyed who stated that they wanted to vote
for the AfD were in favor of taking sexual diversity into account in schools.
Table 10.5: Relationships between attitudes towards

Consideration of sexual diversity in schools and
Settings and values (in percent)
rejected approved
settings too
LSB total*** Not positive 49.0 51.0
Positive 5.9 94.1
Sex education in school*** Not positive 52.1 47.9
Positive 12.4 87.6
Parental sex education rejection 9.9 90.1
approval 15.6 84.4
Sex education task of the rejection 18.9 81.1

school***
approval 13.1 86.9
General Values
Values: partnership, marriage rejection 4.8 95.2

and family***
approval 17.7 82.3
Value: self-determination*** rejection 18.4 81.6
approval 16.3 83.7
Value: Tradition** rejection 11.1 88.9
approval 17.6 82.4
Religiousness*** Low 10.9 89.1
High 18.9 81.1
Religious Fundamentalism*** Low 10.1 89.9
High 40.4 59.6
Political attitude*** Left 9.8 90.2
rather left 6.5 93.5
right in the middle 14.4 85.6
rather right 30.8 69.2
to the right 42.9 57.1

Table 10.5 continued

rejected approved
Sunday question: If there were a CDU or CSU 22.8 77.2

federal election next Sunday, which
SPD 9.1 90.9
party would you vote for with your
second vote?*** FDP 10.8 89.2
alliance 90/
4.7 95.3
The green
The left 9.9 90.1
alternative for
38.1 61.9
Germany (AfD)
I would not
16.7 83.3
choose
** ***
(Pearson) with the (uncategorized) output variables. Exception: A variance analysis was carried out
for the Sunday question.
With regard to sociodemographic variables, the differences are

relatively small (Table 10.6). In all of the subgroups considered, the
majority approved of taking sexual diversity into account in school.
Agreement was lowest among people with a migration background,
but 75 percent of this group also approved of it being taken into
account. Above-average agreement was found among women,
among non-heterosexual people,39 among those with higher income
and higher education, and among younger people. In addition,
approval in western Germany (including Berlin) was slightly higher
than in eastern Germany.
39 The percentage of non-heterosexual respondents is correspondingly small because it is

a representative sample. A reliable statement is not possible here, the information must
be interpreted with great caution as an indication.
Table 10.6: Relationships between attitudes towards

taking sexual diversity into account in school
and socio-demographic variables (percentages)
rejected approved
Gender*** Feminine 12.7 87.3
Masculine 17.9 82.1
Sexual Orientation*** heterosexual 15.6 84.4
non-heterosexual 1.2 98.8
Residence* West Germany or Berlin 14.5 85.5
East Germany 17.2 82.8
Income*** Low 24.0 76.0
Middle 13.2 86.8
High 10.3 89.7
Age*** 16-29 years 12.8 87.2
30-44 years 12.7 87.3
45-59 years 11.1 88.9
From 60 years 21:4 78.6
Education*** Low 19.5 80.5
Middle 15.9 84.1
High 9.6 90.4
Living in partnership No 14.6 85.4
Yes 15.3 84.7
migration background*** No 12.6 87.4
Yes 25.3 74.7
School-age child No 15.2 84.8
Yes 14.5 85.5
** ***
10.4 Summary
The results of the current survey confirm findings (Klocke, 2012) that
teachers in Germany hardly make sexual diversity an issue and non-
heterosexual teachers or students only rarely stand by their sexual
orientation. A large majority of the population, across all political
affiliations and socio-demographic groups, wants this to change. The
minority, which still rejects the consideration of sexual diversity in
school, is characterized above all by the fact that they are insufficiently
informed about the goals and content of the educational plans. People
who know that it is not about sexual practices, but about the acceptance
of LSB, are much more likely to support consideration of sexual
diversity in schools. Knowledge about the causes of sexual orientation
also contributes to greater acceptance of sexual diversity in schools.
11. Key Findings and

recommendations for action
The devaluation and discrimination of people based on actual
characteristics or characteristics attributed to them fundamentally
contradicts the democratic claim for dignity and equality for all human
beings, which is anchored in the Basic Law and in human rights. At the
same time, prejudices and the resulting discrimination, like other
undesirable human behavior such as aggression and violence, are not
isolated “problems” that can be easily remedied and which are then
permanently solved. The devaluation of lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgender people is no exception. Devaluation phenomena therefore
require regular attention, prevention and intervention as a permanent
and overarching task. With the present population survey, there is now
an up-to-date overview of existing resentments towards lesbian, gay
and bisexual people as well as initial indications of attitudes towards
transgender people, which is used as a basis for the further development
of recommendations for action with regard to prevention and intervention
can be.
In the following, the most important findings of the study are

summarized again (Chapter 11.1). In a second step, based on this,
some central problem areas are outlined and reference is made to
overarching options for action (Chapter 11.2).
11.1 Summary of key findings

The Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency commissioned this study as
part of its theme year 2017, which focuses on discrimination based on
sexual orientation under the motto “Equal rights for every love”. The
aim was to take stock of current attitudes towards lesbian, gay and
bisexual people. In addition, attitudes towards trans people were also
surveyed with the help of a few questions. For this
which was interviewed by the Social Science Survey Center GmbH in

autumn 2016 in a nationwide, representative survey of around 2,000
people aged 16 and over by telephone using a standardized
questionnaire (CATI method). It must be emphasized that all attitudes
were self-reported and therefore reflect what the respondents reported
about themselves in the interview. Prejudice research suggests that in
this open interview situation, resentments are communicated rather
cautiously.
In the following, central findings are presented, structured according to the topics of the
Report summarized:
Attitudes towards lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender

people The overwhelming majority of respondents (95 percent)
support legal protection against discrimination against homosexual
and bisexual people. The vast majority of 81 percent also recognizes
that homosexual and bisexual people continue to be disadvantaged.
The positive trend of increasing acceptance of homosexuals and the

demand for legal equality, which has already emerged in other studies,
is continuing. Classic homophobia – the open devaluation of
homosexuality as unnatural or immoral and the clear positioning against
equal rights in relation to marriage and family – is only shared by a small
part of the population.
In relation to other groups at risk of discrimination, such as asylum

seekers or Muslims, the attitudes of the population towards homosexual
and bisexual people and also towards trans people are comparatively
positive. No differences were found between attitudes towards
homosexual people on the one hand and bisexual people on the other.
However, there is also a discrepancy in the opinions, which becomes

all the more apparent the more concrete the question is asked. 83
percent of those surveyed are now in favor of opening up marriage to
same-sex couples. However, support for full adoption rights and support
for artificial insemination for same-sex couples is lower. A large number
of respondents are also in favor of the rehabilitation of homosexual men
convicted under Section 175 of the Criminal Code. In contrast, support
for compensation for those convicted is much less pronounced.
Modern or more subtle forms of homophobia, which are shown,

for example, in the rejection of the visibility of homosexuality in public
or in the media addressing it – expressed, for example, in the demand
that homosexuals should not make such a fuss about their sexuality
still much more widespread. homosexuality will
accepted by the vast majority, but apparently only by some respondents
if it is not too visible.
This also becomes particularly clear in the case of the affective

component of prejudices, which is about negative feelings towards the
addressed group – recorded here in the attitude towards gestures of
affection in public. While just under 11 percent of respondents are
uncomfortable when a straight couple kisses in public, almost 28
percent are uncomfortable when a lesbian couple kisses and even 38
percent when a gay couple kisses. It is also evident that the closer the
subject of homosexuality comes to the mind of the respondents, the
more uncomfortable they find it: For example, while only 12 percent of
those surveyed would find it unpleasant that a work colleague was
homosexual, almost 40 percent find the idea uncomfortable that their
own child would be gay or lesbian.
Even if only very few respondents justify aggression and violence

against homosexual people , every tenth respondent expresses at
least some understanding for this or legitimizes aggression towards
homosexual people by blaming them themselves.
Around one-fifth of those surveyed show – as recorded in the current

survey – derogatory attitudes towards transgender people. Attitudes
towards trans* people are closely related to those towards homosexual
people – those who devalue one tend to devalue others and vice versa.
Differences between sociodemographic subgroups of the

population Disparaging attitudes towards homosexual and bisexual
people are a phenomenon affecting society as a whole. However, there
are also some clear differences in the attitudes of different population
groups. For example, older respondents – especially those over 65
years of age – and those with lower formal educational qualifications
more negative attitudes towards homosexual and bisexual people, they tend
to underestimate their experiences of discrimination and more frequently
assume that sexual orientation is determined by socialization. The well-
known difference between men and women is also confirmed : on
average, women have a more positive attitude towards homosexuals than
men.
Homophobia is similarly prevalent among respondents from East and West

Germany . Whether someone lives in rural areas, in a city or in a large
city also has little influence on the extent of homophobic attitudes. On the
other hand , attitudes are more negative among respondents with a migrant
background than among people without a migrant background. The
characteristic of migration background includes a very heterogeneous group
of respondents with the most diverse immigration backgrounds and
socialization contexts, particularly from Poland, countries of the former
Soviet Union and Turkey.
Whether the interviewees have children themselves or are married or in

a permanent partnership plays almost no role in determining the extent of
their homophobia. Singles tend to have somewhat more positive attitudes
(which is also due to the fact that they are younger on average).
Homophobia extends to the political center. However, the further the

respondents position themselves on the political spectrum from left to
center to right, the greater their tendency towards homophobia (with those
who position themselves “leaning to the left” being slightly less homophobic
than those who position themselves “to the left”. see). Potential voters for
the AfD achieve remarkably high approval ratings for homophobia, followed
at some distance by voters for the CDU/CSU and declared non-voters. The
values are particularly low for voters from Bündnis 90/Die Grünen.
Knowledge about homosexual persons and assumptions about them

Causes of homosexuality
Most respondents know that a person's sexual orientation is not influenced
by upbringing, seduction or experiences with the opposite sex, but
primarily by biology. Most people are also aware that children can develop
just as well in same-sex couples as in heterosexual couples.
Even if the causes of a phenomenon for its ethical judgment

Even though this should be irrelevant, it turns out that knowledge
about homosexuality and homosexual people is related to attitudes
– those who know more about homosexuality are more positive towards
homosexual people and show more supportive behavior towards them
and vice versa.
Own behavior and behavior of the social environment towards

lesbians, gays and bisexuals According to their own statements,
the majority of those questioned behave in a supportive manner
towards lesbians, gays and bisexuals and also says this about their
family and circle of acquaintances. At the same time, however, half of
those surveyed say they sometimes make jokes or derogatory
remarks about homosexuals , or laugh at them. Whether a person
behaves in a discriminatory manner seems to have less to do with their
own attitudes than with the perceived behavior of important people they
relate to, such as their circle of friends and family.
Respondents who know homosexual and bisexual people personally

have more positive attitudes and are also more supportive towards
them. They also have more knowledge about homosexual people and
are more likely to assume that homosexual people will continue to be
discriminated against.
Influence of values in relation to marriage and family as well

as religion and religiosity, empathy and personal experiences
of discrimination on attitudes The general value orientation in
relation to marriage and family plays a moderate role in attitudes
towards homosexual and bisexual people. At the same time, there is a
notable discrepancy here: anyone who thinks that stable partnerships,
marriage and family are important for a society tends to oppose legal
equality for homosexuals in relation to marriage and family and is
otherwise more homophobic. It seems to them that they are primarily
concerned with a traditional family image and less with the fundamental
value of stable relationships with children.
Religious affiliation is less important, but the well-known connections

between religiosity and homophobia are confirmed once again : the
more religious the respondents assess themselves or ever
the more religious-fundamental they are, the more likely they are to
devalue homosexual, bisexual and transgender people.
Self-reported empathy, i.e. the ability and willingness to empathize with

the thoughts and feelings of other people, has hardly any influence on
attitudes towards LSB* people.
Belonging to a group that is perceived as being discriminated against,

for example because of age, ethnic, cultural or religious affiliation, an
illness or disability, is associated with a higher tendency towards
homophobia. So one's own experiences of discrimination do not
necessarily have an immunizing effect on the devaluation of others.
Influence of attitudes towards diversity and equality on attitudes

Anyone who tends to reject cultural diversity in society in general ,
tends to support hierarchies between groups, has authoritarian
attitudes and laments a lack of orientation towards the modern world
in the sense of anomia tends to be more classic, but also to modern and
affective homophobia.
In addition, the compatibility of homophobia with current right-wing

populism is revealed : those who share an authoritarian attitude, distrust
democracy and devalue “foreigners” are also more likely to devalue
homosexuals. The same applies to those who express collective anger,
which is currently directed particularly against immigration.
Opinions on and personal experiences of addressing sexual

diversity in schools The vast majority of those surveyed (90
percent) agree that schools should aim to make people accept
homosexuals and bisexuals. Almost as many specifically demand that
teachers should intervene when homophobic swear words are used.
The vast majority of three quarters of those surveyed are also in favor
of addressing sexual diversity in schools . On the other hand, a
quarter believes that only heterosexual couples made up of a man and
a woman should be present when it comes to love and partnership at
school.
Around every seventh respondent who knows about the current

education plans in various federal states assumes that the topic of
sexual diversity is about sexual practices and not about the acceptance
of homosexuality and bisexuality. Especially those who are insufficiently
informed are more likely to reject the consideration of sexual diversity in
school lessons.
At the same time, it becomes clear that the topic of sexual diversity is
still hardly ever discussed in schools. Teachers make sexual diversity
rarely on the subject, and the younger respondents report only a few
teachers who have openly identified themselves as homosexual. On the
other hand, half of the younger respondents stated that at least one or
more classmates had openly come out as lesbian or gay.
11.2 General recommendations for action

Even if only limited concrete recommendations for action can be derived
from a population survey like this one for practice, the findings refer to a
number of central issues in which action is required. In the following,
five central subject areas are outlined and some overarching
recommendations are made. The concrete formulation must and should
always take place in exchange with practice. Since the present study
was designed as a representative population survey, the best indications
for prevention and intervention can be found with regard to the Ein
positions of the heterosexual majority. As part of the study, the central

results were discussed in January 2017 with a number of experts from
science and practice, and initial recommendations were made available
by the experts (a list of the participating experts can be found in the
Appendix, Table IV). Some of these aspects, which are directly related
to the results of the study, are addressed here. In accordance with the
focus of the survey, the development of the recommendations for action
also focused on measures that are suitable for increasing acceptance
and reducing negative attitudes towards lesbian, gay and bisexual
people. However, since the study found that attitudes towards LGB are
closely related to those towards trans people, many recommendations
for combating
Devaluation and discrimination based on gender identity are valid. This

also corresponds to the working methods and the self-image of many
activists and (non-governmental) organizations in the field of LGBTI*.
For these reasons, the
the following recommendations for action against the devaluation and
discrimination of LGBTI* people as a whole.
With regard to the implementation of the following recommendations,

we consider the following overarching information to be relevant: 1.
Prevention and intervention are an ongoing task and a cross-cutting
issue for all areas of society and institutions, specifically in
authorities, in the health care system, in education and Further
education, in school and university, the church, the police, the
unions and many other fields. In addition, projects limited in time
can draw attention to the topic and generate and test approaches
for action.
2. On the one hand, it is important to protect and strengthen the

addressees of devaluation and discrimination – in this case LGBTI*
people – and on the other hand the addressees – ie those who allow
and promote devaluation, exclusion and discrimination – into
prevention and include intervention. For the implementation of
recommendations for action in the different, specific fields, this
means: The issues of sexual and gender diversity must be included
in standard structures and with the inclusion of both the heterosexual
majority and the LGBTI*minority
be addressed. This includes a triad of institutional anchoring, for
which guidelines are helpful, individual sensitization of those who
are not directly affected, and empowerment of LGBTI* people. At
the same time, this calls for breaking down the contrast between
majority society and minority and for strengthening all those who
speak out and work for equality, who treat LGBTI* people and other
minorities with appreciation and respect.
3. The topic of devaluation and discrimination or, in a positive sense,

equal opportunities for LGBTI* people always demands constant
attention, also in connection with other possible and possibly also
intertwined devaluation phenomena that are based, among other
things, on gender-related, ethnic, cultural or religious characteristics.
fasten len. The right to difference, the right to be different, must be

emphasized here, while at the same time emphasizing and realizing
equality.
4. In view of the right-wing populism that has become loud at the moment, this
also means explaining and communicating (sexual) diversity and equality
as a fundamental basic value, especially with regard to the equality of
LGBTI* people. This includes the need to make further efforts to achieve
more equality in various social contexts, for example by addressing sexual
diversity in schools. This also means resisting the attempt to play one
group with a risk of discrimination off against the other – for example,
blanketly insinuating that Muslims or refugees are homophobic – and
thus playing into the hands of right-wing populist actors.
5. Here also comes the topic “How about homosexuality and homo
sexual people assign meaning. While on the one hand it is important to
reflect on non-discriminatory language, on the other hand it means
addressing and picking up all population groups – including people whose
native language is not German – i.e. no new barriers should be broken
through in prevention and intervention build language.
In the following, five subject areas are to be particularly emphasized, the

importance of which is indicated by the findings of the present study:
11.2.1 Legal equality

Need for legislative reform Legal
equality in relation to marriage is shared by a very large majority, and in
relation to adoption and support for artificial insemination by a clear majority.
In this respect, the passing of the draft law “introducing the right to marry
persons of the same sex” by the German Bundestag should meet with the
approval of large parts of the population. Opening up marriage to same-sex
couples and the associated legal equality sends out an important signal,
which in turn can influence public opinion. The importance of social norms
supported by law is particularly important for the implementation of attitudes
frequently documented in actions and is also confirmed once again in

the present study. Those who have already advocated equality anyway,
who campaign for equality and gender equality and against discrimination
against LGBTI* people in various policy and practice areas, feel further
supported and strengthened by a norm set by law. In addition, it also
sends out signals for those who currently still have reservations about
full equality (and thus also about the implementation of fundamental
democratic and human rights values). Research on the effects of social
influence suggests that a number of those who are not yet convinced of
equality will become accustomed to, for example, same-sex marriage
through a simple habituation effect, and many will actually be persuaded
by legal signals.
It is important to explain that equal rights do not mean granting a group

“special rights”, but simply an adjustment to the provisions of the Basic
Law and human rights.
The results of the present study also make it clear that the “Law on the
Criminal Rehabilitation of Persons Convicted of Consensual Homosexual
Acts after May 8, 1945” is supported by a clear majority of those
surveyed. The law overturns criminal convictions and awards
compensation to convicted gay men. An important signal emanates
from this law, because it recognizes that from today's perspective the
convictions violate fundamental rights.
Review of explicit and implicit regulations In addition, it is

important to critically review and, if necessary, revise explicit and
implicit regulations in organisations, institutions, companies and social
facilities, as well as standard procedures based on the requirements of
equality and anti-discrimination.
This can, for example, be a question of the extent to which same-sex
partners are invited to celebrations or are included in important
decisions just as naturally as heterosexual partners, or regulations on
the acceptance of registered civil partnerships by church employers.
However, this also relates to regulations at various administrative levels.
Incidentally, this also includes not only developing general models of

diversity, but also very specific models against discrimination and
bullying, and above all ensuring their implementation. It is not enough
to address diversity on a superficial level, it also includes raising
awareness, explaining the manifestations and consequences of
discrimination, doing persuasion and ensuring that guiding principles
are implemented in everyday life. Addressing discrimination based on
sexual orientation or gender identity should not be the sole focus, but
should not be overlooked either and should disappear behind general
diversity guidelines.
Especially with a topic like LGBTI*, which is certainly more than others
occupied by shame, hiding and ignorance, this means a particularly
critical review of everyday regulations, which can then also make
everyday actions easier for individuals.
11.2.2 Reconnaissance, information transfer,

Consideration in education and training
The findings point to the need for education and information about
homosexuality and homosexual lifestyles
human beings, as well as the need to raise awareness of various forms
of devaluation and discrimination, including more modern and subtle
ones. Close cooperation with civil society is required here. This includes
the participation of actors and the involvement of associations from
these target groups (e.g. migrant associations, senior citizens'
associations, churches, trade unions, chambers of crafts). In this way,
target groups can also be reached that might not otherwise feel
addressed, but among whom derogatory attitudes towards homosexual
and bisexual people are even more widespread, such as seniors,
members of migrant communities and religious people. Here it is also
important to create an awareness that one's own experiences of
discrimination do not protect against discrimination oneself and are not
an excuse not to deal with one's own devaluing tendencies. This means
for prevention and intervention
above all, to promote empathy and perspective-taking.
It is also important to anchor the topic of sexual diversity in training and

further education in the various fields of practice as a regular, obligatory
topic to be dealt with across the board. This includes the training of
professionals as well as teachers and
Multipliers from various contexts, including schools, vocational schools

and universities, in the health sector including doctors, psychologists,
nurses and social workers, and the police. The topic should be
concretely and firmly anchored in the respective curricula. Training
programs and policies (in schools and elsewhere) should be inclusive
and include an anti-discrimination claim.
In addition, it is known, for example from analyzes of the successful

implementation of diversity concepts in companies, how important both
bottom-up and top-down processes are. This means that diversity must
be “desired from above”. For this reason, executives and those
responsible for management must also be included in the training.
Managers and teachers should also be prepared for cases of bullying
and discrimination and know what to do in these cases.
11.2.3 Addressing, visibility and self-

evidence of sexual diversity
The findings point to a high level of acceptance of homosexuality,
which decreases when homosexuality is openly discussed and visibly
lived. It is therefore important to make lesbian, gay and bisexual people
more visible and therefore more natural. The
The challenge here is to maintain a balance between making
homosexuality visible and avoiding making homosexuals “special”.
Here it is important to show a wide range of possible homosexual and
bisexual lifestyles in everyday situations and everyday contexts such
as the world of work, leisure time, family, voluntary work, the media and
the health sector, to present being different as a possible variant, but at
the same time also draw attention to similarities. In addition, when
portraying homosexual lifestyles, it is important not to focus primarily
and exclusively on the topic of sexuality or to particularly emphasize
sexuality.
The level of acceptance of sexual diversity varies among the population.

The critical question is how to reach different subgroups of society. It
is therefore important to address other target groups, such as those
from the health and care sector and, for example, senior citizens, in
addition to schools and young people as an important target group for
prevention and intervention.
Another important target group are migrant communities or

Young people, but also older people with an immigration background,
as well as people of different faiths with strong religious ties. Targeted
campaigns and addressing the respective reasons for rejection or
distancing are recommended here. Role models as well as public figures
and multipliers can also play an important role, for example in areas
such as sport, politics and individual, especially masculine-associated
professions (e.g
police, fire brigade, military, Red Cross, crafts). The tried-and-tested
approach of alliances between LGBTI* and heterosexually oriented
people (queer-straight-alliances), for example in work contexts or at
school, is also recommended here. It is of particular importance to
address gender-stereotypical role models and ideas of masculinity.
A strategy, for example in the context of campaigns, can also be to

focus on heterosexual people who are not affected by discrimination
based on their sexual orientation. This can happen, for example, by
aggressively questioning heterosexuality, which is taken for granted, as
is often the case with homosexuality (e.g. “Why are you actually
heterosexual?” instead of “Why are you actually gay/lesbian?”). In this
way, members of the heterosexual majority can be made aware of how
naturally they can live their own sexual identity, and sensitization and
critical reflection on processes of devaluation and exclusion can be
promoted. The focus primarily on minorities also often stirs up envy and
the fear that something is being taken away from one's own group. The
aim here is to communicate the realization of equality as a benefit for all
those involved.
Also of importance here are LGBTI* representatives in the committees

and advisory boards of municipalities and large associations, among
others, who can help to put the topic more firmly on the agenda. These
include family councils, development councils, senior citizen councils
and those in the care and health sector.
11.2.4 Specific recommendations for addressing

sexual diversity in schools
While the vast majority of respondents consider it important to promote
the acceptance of homosexual and bisexual people at school, sexual
diversity has rarely been discussed there. The small minority opposed
to addressing sexual diversity in schools also appears to be misinformed
about the content and goals of educational plans. Here it is important to
impart more specific knowledge about the objectives of the educational
plans in order to counteract rumors and to further promote support for
consideration in schools.
Framework and educational plans as well as internal school curricula

must also be specific in the area of diversity and LGBTI*, ie make it
clear what diversity can actually mean in everyday life. Textbooks,
materials (and possibly also school projects) must be revised and
evaluated with a view to addressing and making sexual diversity visible.
It is important that the topic is presented in the materials and textbooks
in a way that is as everyday as possible. When developing concepts
and materials, it is important to make them available, accessible and
known. For this purpose, the school management must emphasize the
importance of the topic, managers should have to prove diversity
competence and teachers should be trained in initial and further training.
One strategy can also be to explicitly name diversity as a criterion, for
example in the context of “school inspections”, and to check it if
necessary. Action plans already exist in 14 out of 16 federal states,
which can be referred to here.
It would also be necessary to carry out regular studies to determine

progress in the area of school, including knowledge, attitudes, behavior
and the experience of discrimination on the part of those affected. This
could be supported by the federal states.
11.2.5 Research gaps related to attitudes

towards LGBTI people
So far, there has been no regular and differentiated monitoring of the
attitudes of the majority population towards homosexual and bisexual
people (these are only briefly described in the
collected from population surveys on a broader topic, sponsored by

private foundations). These would be relevant for observing
developments and being able to react to them if necessary. In this
context, it would be interesting to find out more about how legal
developments affect the opinion of the population and vice versa, how
legal developments are driven forward by a changed climate of opinion
or possibly delayed or even reversed. There is also a lack of research
on attitudes towards trans* and intersex people in German-speaking
countries and beyond student samples.
It would also be important to analyze more precisely the connection

between one's own experience of discrimination (e.g. due to belonging
or assignment to a cultural or religious group) and the devaluation of
other social groups. The analysis requires greater inclusion of the
perspective of those affected by devaluation, ie their assessments and
perceptions of the attitude climate in society.
12. Bibliography
Adorno TW & Frenkel-Brunswik E, Lewinson D & Sanford N (1950).

The Authoritarian Personality. Studies in Prejudice. Edited by Max
Horkheimer and Samuel H. Flowerman. New York: Harper.
Ajzen I & Fishbein M (2005) The influence of attitudes on behavior. In:

Albarracin, D., Johnson, BT & Zanna, MP (eds.): The handbook of attitudes.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum: 173-221.
Allport, GW (1954): The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Perseus

Books.
Albert, M., Hurrelmann, K. & Quenzel, G. (Deutsche Shell Holding GmbH,

eds.) (2015). 17. Shell Youth Study. Jugend 2015. Summary of the study in
German. Accessed on 03/15/2017. Available at http://www. ljbw.de/files/
shell-jugendstudie-2015-summary-de.pdf.
Allport Gordon, W. (1954/1971): The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA:

Perseus Books.
Altemeyer R (1988) Enemies of freedom: Understanding right-wing au

thoritarianism. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Andrejewski, S., Frindte, W. & Geschke, D. (2016). The influence of right-

wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation on homophobic
attitudes. Journal for Deradicalization, 7, 26-67.
Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency (2008). discrimination in everyday life.

Perception of discrimination and anti-discrimination policies in our society.
Berlin: Druckvogt GmbH. Accessed on 03/15/2017. Available at http://
www.anti-discrimination agency. de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/
publikationen/forschungsprojekt_dis
kriminierung_im_alltag.pdf;jsessionid=9178876E56EA3ED2E14B4D
3CF66473D7.2_cid322?__blob=publicationFile&v=2.
Schleswig-Holstein Anti-Discrimination Association (2012). What is

discrimination? Forms of discrimination and examples. Kiel: accessed on
03/17/2017. Available at http://www.advsh.de/was-ist-discrimination-
discrimination-forms-and-examples/.
Bachmann, AS (2013). Life situations and experiences of discrimination of

gay and bisexual men. Berlin: Senate Department for Labour, Integration
and Women.
Bahns, AJ & Branscombe, N.R. (2011). Effects of legitimizing discrimination

against homosexuals on gay bashing. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 41(3), 388-396.
Baier, D. & Pfeiffer, C. (2011). Young people as victims and perpetrators of

violence in Berlin. In Berlin State Commission against Violence (ed.), Berlin
Violence Prevention Forum (Vol. 114). Berlin: Druckhaus Berlin-Mitte GmbH.
Accessed 10/04/2017. Available at http://digital.zlb.de/viewer/content?
action=application&sourcepath=15446578/fob114.pdf&format=pdf.
Bailey, JM, Vasey, PL, Diamond, LM, Breedlove, SM, Vilain, E & Epprecht,
M (2016). Sexual Orientation, Controversy, and Science. Psychological
Science in the Public Interest, 17(2), 45-101.
Banse R & Gawronski B (2003). The motivation scale for unprejudiced

behavior. Psychometric properties and validity. Diagnosti ca, 49 (1), 4-13.
Bartoÿ, SE, Berger, I. & Hegarty, P. (2014). Interventions to reduce sexu al

prejudice: A study-space analysis and meta-analytic review. Journal of Sex
Research, 51(4), 363-382.
Bateman, JIB (1996). A treatment strategy for changing preservice tea

chers' attitudes toward homosexuality. ProQuest Information & Learning,
US.
Bednarz, L. (01/31/2016). The Radicals. Guest article in the Frankfurter

Allgemeine Zeitung Accessed on March 1st, 2017. Available at http://www.
faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/putin-orban-und-afd-rechte-christen-VENUE-
political-heimat-14043650-p3.html?printPagedArticle=true# pageIndex_3.
Beigang S, Fetz K, Foroutan N, Kalkum D & Otto M (2016). Experiences of

discrimination in Germany. Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency: Berlin.
Accessed on 03/29/2017. Available at http://www. antidiscrimination.de/
SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/publikatio nen/
Handout_Umfrage_Diskriminierung_in_Dtschl_2015.pdf?__blob=-
publicationFile&v=5.
Bogardus, ES (1933). A social distance scale. Sociology and Social Research

arch 17, 65-271.
Bos, HMW, Knox, JR, van Rijn-van Gelderen, L. & Gartrell, NK

(2016). Same-sex and different-sex parent households and child health
outcomes: Findings from the National Survey of Children's Health. Journal of
Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 37(3), 179-187.
Federal Agency for Civic Education (2014). 20 years ago:

homosexuality was no longer punishable. Federal Agency for Civic
Education from 03/10/2014. Accessed on 03/17/2017. Available at
http://www. bpb.de/politik/background-aktuell/180263/20-years-
homosexuality-punishable-10-03-2014 .
Cetin, Zülfukar (2012). homophobia and Islamophobia. Intersectional

discrimination using the example of binational gay couples in Berlin.
Bielefeld: transcript Verlag.
Change Center Foundation. (2015). Queer Germany 2015: Between

Appreciation and Reservations. Accessed on 08/13/2016. Available at
https://www.lsvd.de/fileadmin/pics/Documents/Bildung/CCF_Queeres_
Deutschland_31.12.2015.pdf.
Decker F & Lewandowski M (2009). Populism. Manifestations, origins and

consequences of a political phenomenon.
Bonn: Federal Agency for Civic Education. Accessed 02/05/2017.
Available at http://www.bpb.de/politik/extremismus/rechtsextremis
mus/41192/was-ist-rechtspopulismus?p=all.
Decker, O., Kiess, J. & Brähler, E. (2016). The uninhibited middle. Authoritarian
and right-wing extremist attitudes in Germany: the Leipzig “Mitte” study 2016.
Gießen: Psychosozial-Verlag. Accessed on 01/27/2017.
Available at https://www.rosalux.de/fileadmin/rls_uploads/pdfs/Studies/
Mittestudie_Uni_Leipzig_2016.pdf .
Degele, N. (2013). Football connects – through exclusion. Wiesbaden:

Springer VS.
Dion, KL (2002). The Social Psychology of Perceived Prejudice and

Discrimination. Canadian Psychology Vol. 43, N. 1, pp. 1-10.
Duckitt, J. (2001). A dual-process cognitive-motivational theory on

ideology and prejudice. In MP Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental
social psychology (Vol. 33, pp. 41-113). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Esser, H. (1986). Can respondents lie? On the concept of “true value” in

the context of the action-theoretical explanation of situational influences
during the survey. Cologne journal for sociology and social psychology,
38, 314-336.
Eurobarometer No. 393 (2012). Eurobarometer 2012 on perceptions of

discrimination in the EU. Accessed 09/29/2016. Available at http://
ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/discrimination/news/121122_en.htm .
European Commission. (2015). Discrimination in the EU in 2015: Report.

Special Eurobarometer. Accessed 10/26/2016. Available at http://
ec.europa.eu/COMMFrontOffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/ResultDoc/
download/DocumentKy/68004.
Fedewa, AL, Black, WW & Ahn, S. (2015). Children and adolescents with
same-gender parents: A meta-analytic approach in assessing outcomes.
Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 11(1), 1-34.
Fiske, ST (2010). Social beings: Core motives in Social Psychology (2nd

ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
FRA – European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2013). European

Union lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender survey: Results at a glance.
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Accessed on 03/15/2017. Available at http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/
2013/eu-lgbt-survey-european-union-lesbian-gay-bisexual-and-transgender-
survey-results
Frohn, D. (Schwules Netzwerk NRW eV in cooperation with the LAG

Lesben in NRW eV and the Schwules Forum Niedersachsen eV, ed.).
(2007). Out in the office?! Sexual identity, (anti-)discrimination and
diversity in the workplace.
FSR Gender Studies RUB (2017). Reflecting on Language #1: Why

homophobia is not a disease. Accessed on 03/14/2017. Available at
https://fsrgs.blogs.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/nachmachen-uebersprache-1-
warum-homophobia-no-disease-ist/.
Gabler, S. & Häder, S. (1997). Considerations on a sample design for

telephone surveys in Germany. ZUMA News, 21(41), 7-18.
Accessed on 02/17/2017. Available at http://nbn-resolving.de/
urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-208339 .
GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences (2009). ALLBUS

General population survey of the social sciences. Data Handbook 2008.
Study no. 4600. Cologne, Mannheim.
Golombok, S. & Tasker, F. (1996). Do parents influence the sexual

orientation of their children? Findings from a longitudinal study of lesbian
fa milies. Developmental Psychology, 32, 3-11.
Grau, G. (1993). Homosexuality in the Nazi Era. Documents of

discrimination and persecution (2nd edition). Frankfurt am Main: Fischer-TB.
Gruber, JE, & Fineran, S. (2008). Comparing the Impact of Bullying and
Sexual Harassment Victimization on the Mental and Physical Health of
Adolescents Sex Roles, 58, pp. 13-14.
Heitmeyer, W. & Mansel, J. (2008). Social development and group-

focused enmity: confusing perspectives. German States, 6, 13-35.
Hentges G, Meyer M-H, Flecker J, Kirschhofer S, Thoft E, Grinders lev

E & Balazs G (2003). The abandoned worker. Socio-economic change
and the attraction of right-wing populism. SIREN study. Vienna.
Herek, GM (2000). The psychology of sexual prejudice. Current

Directions in Psychological Science, 9(1), 19–22.
Herek, GM (2004). Beyond "homophobia": Thinking about sexual stigma and

prejudice in the twenty-first century. Sexuality Research and Social Policy,
1(2), 6–24.
Herek, Gregory M. (2009). Hate crimes and stigma-related experiences

among sexual minority adults in the United States. Prevalence estimates from
a national probability sample. Journal of Interpersonal Violence vol. 24 no. 1,
54-74.
Heitmeyer, S. (2002-2012). German States, Episodes 1–10. Frankfurt am

Main/Berlin: Suhrkamp.
Hillmann, K.-H. (2007). Dictionary of Sociology (5th ed.). Stuttgart: Kroner.
Hormel, U. & Scheer, A. (2010). Introduction. Discrimination as a social

phenomenon. In: U. Hormel & A. Scheer (eds.), Discrimination. Basics and
research results. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag for Social Sciences, 7-20.
Infratest dimap. (2011). "Homosexuality in women's football". Results of a

representative survey commissioned by Report Mainz. Accessed 10/04/2016.
Available at http://www.infratest-dimap.de/umfragen-analysen/bundesweit/
umfragen/aktuell/homosexualitaet-im-frau enfussball/.
Infratest dimap. (2013). ARD DeutschlandTREND March 2013. A study

commissioned by the daily topics. Accessed 10/04/2016. Available at http://
www.infratest-dimap.de/fileadmin/_migrated/content_uploads/dt1303_bericht.pdf .
Ipsos Ltd. (2013). Ipsos press release: Same-sex partnerships accepted in

Germany: Ipsos study: 71 percent of Germans demand equal rights in
adoption. Accessed on 07/23/2017. Available at: https://www.marktforschung.de/
nachrichten/ market research/ipsos-study-germans-accept-same-sex-
partnerships.
Iser, J. & Schmidt, P. (2003). Dangerous Values? What tradition and

conformity can do. In W. Heitmeyer (ed.), German conditions.
Episode 2. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 61-77.
Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D.P. (2006). Examining the relationship bet
ween low empathy and bullying. Aggressive behavior, 32(6), 540-550.
Kaiser, CR & Major, B (2006). A social psychological perspective on

perceiving and reporting discrimination. Law & Social Inquiry, 31/4,
801-830.
Kaiser, CR & Major, B (2006). A social psychological perspective on

perceiving and reporting discrimination. Law & Social Inquiry, 31/4,
801-830.
Kalinoski, ZT, Steele-Johnson, D, Peyton, EJ, Leas, KA, Steinke, J &

Bowling, NA (2013). A meta-analytic evaluation of diversity training
outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(8), 1076-1104.
Kite, ME & Whitley, BE (2016). Psychology of prejudice and

discrimination (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Klocke, U. (2012). Acceptance of sexual diversity in Berlin schools: A

survey on behavior, attitudes and knowledge about LGBT and their
influencing variables. Berlin: Senate Department for Education, Youth
and Science. Accessed on 03/01/2017. Available at http://www.
psychologie.hu-berlin.de/prof/org/download/klocke2012_1.
Klocke, U., Latz, S. & Scharmacher, J. (2015, September). school under

the rainbow Consideration of sexual and gender diversity by teachers.
Paper presented at the 15th conference of the Social Psychology Section
of the DGPs, Potsdam.
Klocke, U., Latz, S. & Scharmacher, J. (2016). school under the rainbow
Influences on teachers' consideration of sexual and gender diversity.
Unpublished manuscript, Institute for Psychology, Humboldt University
of Berlin. Institute of Psychology.
Kramer, B. (02/12/2015). Sex education protests: Who are the

'concerned parents'? MIRROR ONLINE. Accessed on 03/01/2017.
Available at http://www.spiegel.de/schulspiegel/besorgte-eltern-und-ihr-
seltsamer protest-gegen-sexualkundeanleitung-a-1017578.html.
Krell, C. (2013). Life situations and experiences of discrimination of

homosexual young people in Germany. German Youth Institute.
Available at https://www.lsvd.de/fileadmin/pics/Documents/Studies/ Final
report_Pilotstudie_Lebenssituationen_und_Diskriminiations
erlebnisen_von_homosexualen_Jugendlichen_in_Deutschland.pdf.
Krell, C. & Oldemeier, K. (2015). Coming out - and then ...?! A DJI
research project on the living situation of lesbian, gay, bisexual and
trans* adolescents and young adults. Munich: German Youth Institute e.
V
Küpper, B. & Zick, A. (2011). gender and prejudice. An empirical analysis.

In U. Birsl (ed.), Right-wing extremism and gender. Oplaine: Barbara
Budrich, 187-210.
Küpper, B. & Zick, A (2015a). Homophobia - to devalue non-heterosexual

people. In Citizens in the State, 1/15.
Küpper, B. & Zick, A. (2015b). Devaluation of same-sex lovers in North

Rhine-Westphalia. Update of the special evaluation on homophobia.
Düsseldorf: Ministry for Health, Emancipation, Nursing and Old Age of the
State of North Rhine-Westphalia. Accessed 10/04/2016. Available at http://
andersundgleich-nrw.de/images/Abwertung%20same-
sex%20liebender%20Menschen%20in%20NRW. pdf.
Küpper, B. & Zick, A. (2015c). Religion and prejudices - empirical

connections about individual attitude patterns. In: M. Klöcker & U.
Twuroschka (ed.), Handbook of Religions. Munich: OLZOG.
LAG Lesbians in NRW eV (2012). Glossary - Explanations. Accessed on:

03/01/2017. Available at http://www.andersundgleich-nrw.de/glossar/78-
content/73-fibel.html .
Landen, M. & Innala, S. (2002). The effect of a biological explanation on

attitudes towards homosexual persons. A Swedish national sample study.
Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 56, 181-186.
Legge, S. (2006). anomia. Uncertainty in orientation, certain in devaluation.

In W. Heitmeyer, (ed.), German states, part 4 (pp. 86-110). Frankfurt am
Main: Suhrkamp.
LesMigraS/Castro Varela, M. et al. (2012). "... Not so tangible and yet real”.
A quantitative and qualitative study on experiences of violence and (multiple)
discrimination of lesbian, bisexual and trans* women in Germany. Berlin:
LesMigraS: Anti-violence and anti-discrimination section of the
Lesbenberatung Berlin eV
Lippl, B. (2007). Experiences of violence by gay and bisexual adolescents

and men in Germany. Results of the MANEO survey 2006/2007.
LGBTI from Rhineland-Palatinate, Ministry for Integration, Family, Children,

Youth and Women Rhineland-Palatinate, 2014.
Mansel, J. & Spaiser, V. (2013). exclusion dynamics. In which life situations

young people devalue outgroups. Weinheim: Beltz Juventa.
Menold N & Bogner K (2015). Design of rating scales in questionnaires. In:

GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences (ed.). Accessed on:
03/01/2017. Available at http://www.gesis.org/fileadmin/upload/SDMwiki/
Ratingskalen_MenoldBogner_08102015_1.1.pdf .
Ministry for Labor and Social Order, Family, Women and Seniors Baden-
Württemberg. (2014). Online survey on the life situation of LGBTTIQ people
in Baden-Württemberg. Stuttgart: State Statistical Office of Baden-
Württemberg.
Ministry for Integration, Family, Children, Youth and Women Rhineland-

Palatinate (2015). Rhineland-Palatinate under the rainbow: Life situation of
lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transsexuals, transgender and intersexuals in
Rhineland-Palatinate. Evaluation report for the online survey from June to
October 2013.
Ministry for Social Affairs and Integration Baden-Württemberg. (2016).

Diversity of gender and sexual orientation in youth work in Baden-
Württemberg: A study as part of the “ Youth Future Plan”. Stuttgart.
Accessed on: 03/01/2017. Available at https:// sozialministerium.baden-
wuerttemberg.de/de/service/publikation/did/diversity-of-gender-and-sexual-
orientation-in-the-youth-work-in-baden-wuerttemberg-eine-st /?
tx_rsmbwpublications_pi3%5B
ministries%5D=11&cHash=9177824db773779b2a2f1532eaaa5c81.
Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (2010). Recommendation

CM/Rec(2010)5 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on
measures to combat discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender
identity. Available at https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?p=&Ref=CM/
Rec(2010)5&Language=lanGerman&Ver=original&Site=COE&BackColorInternet=DBDCF2&Ba
Müller, J.-W. (2016). What is populism. Berlin: Suhrkamp.
Mummendey, A. & Otten, S. (2004). Aversive discrimination. In MB

Brewer & M. Hewstone (eds.), Emotion and motivation (pp. 298–318).
Malden: Blackwell.
Mustanski B, Kuper L & Greene GJ (2014). Development of sexual

orientation and identity. In: DL Tolman, LM Diamond, JA Bauermeister,
WH George, JG Pfaus & LM Ward (eds.), APA handbook of sexuality
and psychology, Vol. 1: Person-based approaches. Washington, DC US:
American Psychological Association, 597-628.
Petersen, T. (2015). When the majority thinks they are the minority. A
documentation of the contribution of Dr. Thomas Petersen in the
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung No. 162 from July 16, 2015.
Pettigrew TF, Christ O, Wagner U, Meertens RW, van Dick R & Zick A
(2008). Relative deprivation and intergroup prejudice. Journal of Social
Issues, 64, 385-401.
Pettigrew, TF & Meertens, RW (1995). Subtle and blatant prejudice in

Western Europe. In: European Journal of Social Psychology 25, 1, 57-75.
Pettigrew, TF & Tropp, LR (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup

contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751-783.
Pollak, D. & Müller, O. (2013). Religiosity and cohesion in Germany.

Published by the Bertelsmann Foundation.
Poteat, VP (2007). Peer Group Socialization of Homophobic Attitudes

and Behavior During Adolescence. Child Development, 78, 1830-1842.
Poteat, VP, DiGiovanni, CD & Scheer, JR (2013). Predicting homophobic

behavior among heterosexual youth: Domain general and sexual ori-
Prati, G. (2012). A social cognitive learning theory of homophobic aggression

among adolescents. School Psychology Review, 41, 413-428.
landscape format. (2012). Glossary on gender and sexual diversity in the

context of anti-discrimination and education. Accessed 3/14/17. Available at
http://www.queerformat.de/fileadmin/user_upload/news/
120622_SexuelleVielfalt_Glossar.pdf .
Raphael, Simone (2015). The middle and the gender madness. In: Andreas
Zick & Beate Küpper (editors), Anger, contempt, devaluation – right-wing
populism in Germany. Berlin: Friedrich Ebert Foundation, 78-94.
Rosario, M. & Schrimshaw, EW (2014). Theories and etiologies of sexual

orientation. In DL Tolman, LM Diamond, JA Bauermeister, WH George, JG
Pfaus & LM Ward (eds.), APA handbook of sexuality and psychology, Vol. 1:
Person-based approaches. Washington, DC US: American Psychological
Association, 555-596.
Rye, BJ & Meaney, GJ (2010). Self-defense, sexism, and etiological beliefs:

Predictors of attitudes toward gay and lesbian adoption. Journal of GLBT
Family Studies, 6(1), 1-24.
Schmelcher, A. (10/14/2014). Under the cloak of diversity. Frankfurter

Allgemeine Zeitung.
Schmidt, M. (2015). One in four for sex education classes in elementary

school. Accessed 10/09/2016. Available at https://yougov.de/news/2015/09/02/
jeder-vierte-fur-sexualkundeanleitung-der-grundsc/ .
Schmidt, M. (2016). Slightly growing majority in favor of legalizing gay

marriage. Accessed 10/09/2016. Available at https://yougov.de/ news/
2016/01/28/light-growing-majority-fur-legalization-der-ho/.
Schnell, R., Hill, P.B. & Esser, E. (1999). Methods of empirical social research
(6th, completely revised and expanded ed.). Munich [among others]: Olden
bourg.
Schope, RD & Eliason, MJ (2000). Thinking versus acting: Assessing the

relationship between heterosexual attitudes and behaviors towards
homosexuals. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services: Issues in Practice,
Policy & Research, 11(4), 69-92.
Schoppmann, Claudia (2014). Lesbian women and female homosexuality in

the Third Reich. In: Black, Michael (ed.), Homosexuals under National
Socialism. Oldenburg: De Gruyter, 85-92.
Schwartz, S.H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values:

Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In MP Zanna & MP
Zanna (eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol.
25. San Diego, CA, US: Academic Press, 1-65.
Shell Germany (2015). Summary of the 17th Shell Youth Study. Accessed
on 02/16/2017. Available at http://www.shell.de/ue ber-uns/die-shell-
jugendstudie/multimediale-inhalte/_jcr_content/par/ expandablelist_643445253/
expandablesection.stream/1456210165334/
d0f5d09f09c6142df03cc804f0fb389c2d39e167115a786d2402
cca4f5f/flyer-zu-shell-jugendstudie-2015-auf-deutsch.pdf.
Sherblom, SA & Bahr, MW (2008). Homosexuality and normality: Basic

knowledge and practical considerations for school consultation. Journal of
Educational & Psychological Consultation, 18, 81-100.
Sibley, CG & Duckitt, J (2008). Personality and prejudice: A meta-analysis

sis and theoretical review. Personality and Social Psychology Review 12,
248-279.
Sigusch, V. (2010). Homosexuals between persecution and emancipation.

In: From politics and contemporary history, 15-16/2016, 3-7.
Simon, B (2008). attitudes towards homosexuality. Characteristics and

psychological correlates in young people with and without a migration
background (former USSR and Turkey). Journal of Developmental Psychology
and Educational Psychology, 40 (2), 87-99.
Schutz, H. & Six, B. (1996). How strong is the relationship between preju
dice and discrimination? A meta-analytic answer. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 20(3-4): 441-462.
Smith, SJ, Axelton, AM & Saucier, DA (2009). The effects of contact on sexual
prejudice: A meta-analysis. Sex Roles, 61, 178-191.
Smith, SJ, Zanotti, DC, Axelton, AM & Saucier, DA (2011). Individuals'

beliefs about the etiology of same-sex sexual orientation. Journal of
Homosexuality, 58(8), 1110-1131.
Sniderman, PM & Theriault, SM (2004). The structure of political argument

and the logic of issue framing. In: WE Saris & PM Sniderman, PM (eds.),
Studies in Public Opinion. Princeton University Press, 133-165.
Stängle, G. (2013). Future - Responsibility - Learning: No education plan

2015 under the ideology of the rainbow. Accessed on 03/01/2017.
Available at http://www.bildungsplan2015.de/petition/
Federal Statistical Office (Destatis) (2017a). Level of education. Accessed

on 03/29/2017. Available at https://www.destatis.de/DE/zahlenFakten/
GesellschaftStaat/BildungForschungKultur/Bildungsstand/Tablen/
Bildungsdegree.html.
Federal Statistical Office (Destatis) (2017b). Living conditions, risk of

poverty: income distribution (net equivalent income) in Germany. Accessed
on 02/07/2017. Available at https://www.destatis. de/DE/FiguresFacts/
SocietyState/IncomeConsumptionLiving Conditions/Living ConditionsPoverty
Risk/Tables/Income Distribution_SILC.html.
Federal Statistical Office (Destatis) (2017c). Population and employment

– results of the 2015 microcensus. Accessed on February 7th, 2017.
Available at https://www.destatis.de/DE/Publikationen/Thematik/
Bevoelkerung/ MigrationIntegration/Migrationsbackground2010220157004.pdf?
__blob= publicationFile.
Steffens, M.C. & Wagner, C. (2004). Attitudes toward lesbians, gay men,
bisexual women, and bisexual men in Germany. Journal of Sex Research,
41(2), 137-149.
Steffens, MC, Bergert, M. & Heinecke, S. (2010). Doubly discriminated

against or well integrated?: Life situation of lesbians and gays with a
migration background in Germany. Accessed 02/23/2016. Available at
http://www.migrationsfamilien.de/pdf/Studie_Jena.pdf.
Stewart, TL LaDuke, JR Bracht, C. Sweet, BAM & Gamarel, KE

(2003). Do the “Eyes” Have It? A Program Evaluation of Jane Elliott's
“Blue-Eyes/Brown-Eyes” Diversity Training Exercise (pages 1898–1921).
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33/9, 1889-1921.
Stoever, CJ & Morera, OF (2007). A confirmatory factor analysis of the

Attitude Toward Lesbians and Gay Men (ATLG) measure. Journal of
Homosexuality, 52(3-4), 189-209.
Strube, S. (2017). Christian supporters of the AfD: Milieus, intersections,

alliances. In: S. Orth & V. Resing (eds.), AfD, Pegida & Co. Attack on
Religion?, (pp. 58-71). Freiburg i. B.
Swank, E & Raiz, L (2007). Explaining comfort with homosexuality among

social work students: The impact of demographic, contextual, and
attitudinal factors. Journal of Social Work Education, 43, 257-279.
Timmermanns, S. (2003). Don't worry, they don't bite! Evaluation of gay

and lesbian education projects in schools. Aachen: Youth Network Lambda
NRW eV
Tuider, E. Müller, M. Timmermanns, S. Bruns-Bachmann, P. &

Koppermann, C. (2012). Sexual education of diversity: practical methods
on identities, relationships, body and prevention for school and youth
work (2nd, revised edition). Weinheim and Basel: Beltz Juventa.
Uhlmann, S. (2017). The long road to yes. How “marriage for all” has
gained a majority in society and parliament over the past three decades.
In: The Parliament 27-29/2017. Accessed 7/23/2017. Available at: http://
www.das-parlament.de/2017/27_29/thema_der_woche/-/513940.
Van Knippenberg, D & Schipperts, MC (2007). Work group diversity.

Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 514-541.
Voigt. (2014, 22.10.). Enlightenment or instruction on sex? Frankfurter

Allgemeine Zeitung. Accessed 2/10/17. Available at http://www. faz.net/
aktuell/politik/inland/lehrplaene-aufklaerung-oder-ananleitung-zum-
sex-13223950.html?printPagedArticle=true - pageIndex_2.
Wapler, F. (2015). The question of the constitutionality of opening up

marriage to same-sex couples. Report for the Friedrich-Ebert-Foundation.
Available at: http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/dia log/11459.pdf.
Whitley, BE, Jr (2001). Gender-role variables and attitudes toward

homosexuality. Sex Roles, 45, 691-721.
Wiesendanger, K. (2001). Gays and lesbians in psychotherapy, pastoral

care and counselling. Goettingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Wolf, G. (2013). Psychopathologization processes of LGBT*I life evidence

in DSM-5 and ICD 10, Chapter F. Lecture at the 1st LGBTI* Science
Congress of the Magnus Hirschfeld Foundation.
YouGov (2015). 1 in 2 young people say they are not 100% heterose xual.
Accessed on 04/10/2017. Available at https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/08/16/
half-young-not-heterosexual/ .
TIME ONLINE. (06/03/2015). Gay marriage: Kramp-Karrenbauer warns

against marriage among relatives. Accessed on 02/08/2017. Available at http://
www.zeit. de/politik/deutschland/2015-06/homo-ehe-kramp-karrenbauer.
Zick, A. & Küpper, B. (2008). Racism. In L.-E. Petersen & B. Six (eds.),
Stereotypes, prejudice and discrimination: theories, findings and
interventions. Weinheim: Beltz, 111-120.
Zick, A. & Küpper, B. (2015). Anger, contempt, devaluation. Right-wing

populism in Germany. Edited by R. Melzer & D. Molthagen for the Friedrich
Ebert Foundation. Bonn: Dietz.
Zick A, Klein A (2014). Fragile middle - hostile states. Extreme right-wing

attitudes in Germany 2014. Edited by R. Melzer for the Friedrich-Ebert-
Foundation. Bonn: Dietz. Accessed on 03/21/2017.
Available at http://www.fes- gegen-rechtsextremismus.de/pdf_14/ FragileMitte-
FeindseligeZustaende.pdf.
Zick, A., Küpper, B. & Hövermann, A. (2011). The devaluation of others.

A European description of the state of intolerance, prejudice and
discrimination. Berlin: Friedrich Ebert Foundation. Accessed on 03/21/2017.
Available at http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/do/07905-20110311.pdf
Zick, A., Küpper, B., Krause, D. (2016). Divided Center – Hostile Conditions.
Right-wing extremist attitudes in Germany 2016. Edited by R.
Melzer & D. Molthagen for the Friedrich Ebert Foundation. Bonn: Dietz.
Zick, A. & Preuss, M. with the collaboration of Berghan, W. & Bause, N. (2014).
ZuGleich – belonging and (in)equality. An interim report. Mercator Foundation.
glossary
***/**/*
Asterisks express the importance of the results found in the sample (e.g.
connections between two characteristics in the form of differences in mean
values, different frequencies or correlations), taking into account the
probability with which the researcher is wrong if he or she from the These
results are applied to the population, in our case the resident population
aged 16 and over. With *** this probability of error is only 0.1 percent, with
** it is 1 percent, with * it is 5 percent. The lower the probability of error, the
more significant are the results found for the population (see also under
significance).
CATI method (Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing)
CATI designates the support of the telephone interview with the computer.
The data for this study were collected via a computer-assisted telephone
survey. The content of the questionnaire is presented to the interviewer on
a screen depending on the previous answers of the respondents (filtering)
or randomly (distribution in splits). The interviewers enter the answers of
the interviewees directly into the computer, which collects them and
summarizes them in a data record.
Chi² test
This statistical test checks whether a difference between categorical

variables is statistically significant. Observed frequencies are compared
with theoretically expected frequencies - if there were no connection.
Cronbach's
Alpha S. under Reliability
Factor analysis (exploratory)
Factor analysis is a statistical method that is used to combine many individual

items into individual constructs (factors).
The goal of factor analysis is to reduce dimensions and discover structures.
In this study, the discovered factors
structure the mean over the answers of the items of a factor as
a scale value is determined (see under scale).
item
Items are the smallest elements in a questionnaire with which a content

construct can be measured. They can be formulated as a statement, question
or task, and the respondents have the opportunity to state their opinion in the
form of agreement or disagreement on a multi-level response scale, for
example between “I totally agree” and “I totally disagree”.
correlation/product moment correlation/r
Correlation (the statistical expression for this is r) indicates how closely there
is an association between two constructs or characteristics. r can assume
values between -1 and +1. The value 0 indicates that there is no connection.
The value -1 indicates a perfect negative correlation, the value +1 a perfect
positive correlation. In concrete terms, a positive correlation means: the
higher (or lower) the expression on feature a is, the higher (or lower) it is on
feature b. Conversely, in the case of a negative correlation, the higher the
expression on feature a, the lower it is on feature b.
If there is no connection between two characteristics, characteristic a does

not occur together with characteristic b. A correlation can only be traced back
to the population (here: resident population > 16 years) if this is statistically
significant (see under Significance). However, it does not allow any
conclusions to be drawn about the direction of the causal relationship between
a and b.
mean scale
S. under scale.
Reliability/Cronbach's Alpha
The reliability of social science measurements of traits expresses the reliability, accuracy,
and precision with which they are measured. The measurement is precise and accurate if
it is free of random measurement errors and also achieves the same measurement result
in other surveys under the same framework conditions. Constructs such as attitudes are
difficult to directly and precisely measure with a single question. Therefore, scales (see
under scales) are often used, which can better depict the construct. The Reliabi
quality then expresses the internal consistency of this scale of two or more
Items from, ie the extent to which all items reliably construct the same
measure.
The standard method for estimating the reliability of a scale is to calculate the value of
Cronbach's alpha. Values < .50 indicate an unreliable measurement. Values > .50 indicate
sufficient reliability. In addition to high validity (see under Validity), high reliability is one of
the most important quality criteria for empirical studies.
Significance/Statistical Importance
If two groups surveyed in a study differ from each other, for example in terms of their mean
values, this difference does not necessarily have to be statistically significant. The
correlation found between variables can also have arisen by chance. In this case, the
population should not be inferred. It is tested with what probability of error the correlations
can actually be inferred from the population (here: resident population > 16 years). The
probability of error p is calculated for the fact that the connection may be due to chance
and thus the German population is incorrectly inferred. An association is considered
statistically significant if the probability of error is less than 5 percent and is marked with an
* (see asterisk above), if it is less than 1 percent, it is marked with ** and if the probability
of error is less than 0.1 percent , the connection is highly significant and is marked with ***.
The probability of error is given in decimal numbers. It is either less than or equal to 5
percent (p < .05), less than or equal to 1 percent (p < .01) or less than 0.1 percent (p <
.001). Depending on the type of difference (e.g. mean differences, differing
Frequencies or correlations) the statistical significance is calculated with different test

methods.
scale
A scale is the summary of individual items which, through factor and reliability analyses,
can be assumed to represent a common construct (see factor analysis). Scales can then
be formed, for example, by calculating mean values of the responses to individual items.
By using several items, their reliability and validity can be checked better than by using
individual items. Accidental errors or individual misunderstandings can also be compensated
for in individual items.
validity
In addition to reliability (see under Reliability), validity is a quality criterion for psychological
and social science measurements. It expresses the validity or the adequacy of a
measurement in terms of content. A valid measurement actually measures what it purports
to measure. This is in the social science measurements of e.g
Attitudes less clear than, for example, in the natural sciences

ten.
Attachment
Table I: Overview of the newspapers, articles and

the number of comments included in the media analysis
Newspaper Newspaper article title number of

Comments
The world Kramp-Karrenbauer reported for hate speech (04.06.2015) 222
The world Interjection about Merkel's childlessness 298

(06/12/2015)
The world Children should play anal sex at school 166

(06/19/2016)
The world Thomas Hitzlsperger comes out as homosexual 99

(08.01.2014)
The world Steffi Jones comes out - "Yes, we are a

24
couple" (02/03/2013)
The time Homosexual baiting from the Black Forest

895
(09.01.2014)
The time Schwesig threatens to break off the coalition negotiations 370
(12.11.2013)
The time SPD outraged by Kramp-Karrenbauer's inbreeding 379

statement (03.06.2015)
The time The coming out of a Colombian would be a scandal 11

(06/20/2011)
The time What are we tolerant

176
(09.01.2014)
Image Facebook Respect! Ex-soccer national player Thomas Hitzl Sperger says
it boldly. Yes, I love men! (09.01.2014) 779
Picture Facebook Sandra Maischberger talked about homosexuality on the

curriculum (02/12/2014) 219
Researched studies on attitudes towards LSB people
For the present study, we first conducted research into the current state
of research on the spread of various forms of homophobia. The aim
was to derive gaps in knowledge and to provide an overview of the
questions used to date for data collection
of homophobia. Only studies that were representative of the total

population living in Germany or a clearly definable subpopulation (e.g.
ninth and tenth graders in Berlin) were selected. If reports are made
from Europe-wide surveys, then only the results of the German sub-
sample are reported there as well. In addition to studies on attitudes
towards non-heterosexual people, studies that analyzed knowledge,
assumptions, behavior or behavioral intentions towards non-
heterosexual people were also included. Of all the studies that meet
these criteria, we have included the 20 most recent studies in the
present documentation.
Table II: Researched studies on population attitudes

towards LSB people
source year of Type of number of

elevation elevation respondents
persons
Steffens, M.C. & Wagner, C. (2004). Atti

Phone;
tudes toward lesbians, gay men, bisexual 2000 2,006
representative
women, and bisexual men in Germany.
Heitmeyer W. (ed.) (2002–2012). 2,000

Phone;
German conditions. Episode 1-10. 2002-2011 per survey
representative
year
Zick, A., Küpper, B. & Hövermann, A.

(2011). The devaluation of others. A European Phone;
2008 1,000
description of the state of intolerance, representative
prejudice and discrimination.
Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency (2008).

discrimination in everyday life.
2008 Paper; 2,610
Perception of discrimination and anti-
representative
discrimination policies in our society.
GESIS – Leibniz Institute for Social

Sciences (2009). ALLBUS general population face to face;
2008 3,469
survey of the social sciences. Data Guide representative
2008.
Baier, D. & Pfeiffer, C. (2011). Young people 2010 Paper; 3,085

as victims and perpetrators of violence in Berlin. representative
Infratest dimap (2011). "Homosexuality in

women's football". Results of a representative Phone;
2011 1,000
survey commissioned by Report Mainz. representative
Klocke, U. (2012). Acceptance of sexual Online + online

diversity in Berlin schools. A survey on questionnaire 521;
2011 Paper;
behavior, attitude and knowledge about LGBT. Paper
representative
questionnaire 266
Table II continued
persons
Pollak, D. & Müller, O. (Bertelsmann

Phone;
Foundation, eds.) (2013). Religiosity and 2012 2,000
cohesion in Germany. representative
Infratest dimap (2013). ARD Germany Phone;

2013 1,503
TREND. March 2013. representative
Ipsos (2013). Table of Contents. Same-sex

On-line;
partnerships in Germany. 2013 1,005
representative
Zick, A. & Preuss, M. with the collaboration

of Berghan, W. & Bause, N. (2014). ZuGleich Phone;
2013 2,006
– belonging and (in)equality. representative
An interim report. Mercator Foundation.
Zick, A. & Klein, A. (ed. by R. Melzer)

(2014). Fragile middle - hostile states.
Phone;
Right-wing extremist attitudes in Germany 2014 1,915
2014. Friedrich-Ebert-Foundation. representative
European Commission (2015). Discrimination

face to face;
in the EU in 2015. Report. Special 2015 1,513
Eurobarometer: 437. representative
Petersen, T. (2015). When the majority

thinks they are the minority. A documentation
face to face;
of the contribution by Dr. Thomas Petersen in 2015 1,213
representative
the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung No. 162
from July 16, 2015.
Change Center Foundation (2015).

On-line;
Queer Germany 2015. Between Appreciation 2015 2,026
representative
and Reservations. YouGov.
Schmidt, M. (2015). One in four for sex

On-line;
education classes in elementary school. 2015 1.207
YouGov. representative
Schmidt, M. (2016). Slightly growing majority

On-line;
in favor of legalizing gay marriage. YouGov. 2016 1,338
representative
Decker, O., Kiess, J. & Brähler, E. (2016).

The uninhibited middle. Authoritarian and face to face;
2016 2,420
right-wing extremist attitudes in Germany: representative
the Leipzig “Mitte” study 2016.
Zick, A., Küpper, B. & Krause, D. (ed. by R.

Melzer) (2016). Cleaved Center - Hostile
Phone;
conditions. Right-wing extremist attitudes in 2016 1,915
representative
Germany 2016.
Friedrich Ebert Stiftung.
Researched studies on the experience of discrimination by LSB people
As a basis for the present report, we have also included the ten most
recent studies known to us on the experience of discrimination by
homosexual and bisexual people. For this purpose, we searched the
Psyndex and Google Scholar databases for current studies in August
2016. In addition, we have the Web
Allbus, Deutschlandtrend, Politbarometer, the Federal Anti-Discrimination
Agency, GESIS, European Social Survey, the European Union Agency
for Fundamental Rights, the Federal Agency for Civic Education and the
Diversity School project were included in the search. Word combinations
from prejudice, attitude, stereotype, discrimination, homophobia,
homosexuality, heterosexuality, bisexuality, transgender, lesbian, gay,
same-sex couples, same-sex marriage, adoption rights, marriage, family,
sexual diversity, school, sexual orientation were used as search terms ,
knowledge, survey, study, representative, item analysis, test construction
and the respective English translation is used.
Table III: Researched studies on the experience of

discrimination by LSB people

people (from
Germany)
Frohn, D. (Schwules Netzwerk NRW eV in

cooperation with the LAG Lesben in NRW On-line;
eV and the Schwules Forum Niedersachsen quantitative,
2006 2,230
eV, ed.) (2007). Out in the office?! Sexual not
identity, (anti-)discrimination and diversity in representative
the workplace.
Lippl, B. (2007). Experiences of violence paper +

by gay and bisexual adolescents and men On-line; 23,949
2006/2007
in Germany. Results of the MANEO survey quantitative,
2006/2007. not representative
LesMigras (eds)/Castro Varela, M.d. M et online

al. (2012). "... Not so tangible and yet real”. questionnaire/
A quantitative and qualitative study on violent paper
and (multiple) 2010/2011 1,483 /
Experiences of discrimination by lesbian, questionnaire; 660
bisexual and transgender women in quantitative,
Germany. not representative
Intensive
interviews, 6/1
2010/2012 group group
discussion; discussion
qualitative
Table III continued

people (from
Germany)
Bachmann, AS (2013). Life situations and

On-line;
discrimination experiences of gay and
bisexual men. A study by the Institute for 2011 quantitative, 2,610
not
Psychology at the Christian-Albrechts- representative
University in Kiel.
FRA – European Union Agency for On-line;

Fundamental Rights (2013). European Union 2012 quantitative, 20,271
lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender survey: not
Results at a glance. representative
Beigang, S.; Fetz, K.; Foroutan, N.; Kalkum, Questioning of

D. & Otto, M. (Federal Anti-Discrimination those affected:
Agency, ed.) (2016): Discrimination experiences Online + 18,162
in Germany. Paper;
First results of a representative survey and quantitative,
2015
a survey of those affected. not representative
Phone;
quantitative, 992
representative
Ministry for Integration, Family, Children,

Youth and Women Rhineland-Palatinate
(2015). Rhineland-Palatinate under the On-line;
rainbow. Life situation of lesbians, gays, 2013 quantitative, 592
bisexuals, transsexuals, transgender and not representative
intersexuals in Rhineland-Palatinate.
Ministry of Labor and Social Order, Family,

Women and Senior Citizens Baden-
Württemberg (2014). Online survey on the On-line;
living situation of LGBTTIQ people in Baden- quantitative, 2.144
2013-2014
Württemberg. Action Plan for Acceptance & not representative
Equal Rights Baden-Württemberg.
Krell, C. & Oldemeier, K. (German Youth On-line;

5,037
Institute, eds.) (2015). Coming out - and quantitative,
then ...?! A DJI research project on the living 2014 not representative
conditions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans*
adolescents and young adults. interviews;
40
qualitative
Steffens, MC, Bergert, M. & Heinecke, S.

(Family and social association of the Lesbian
Online +
and Gay Association in Germany (LSVD) eV,
no Paper; 252
ed.) (2010). Doubly discriminated against or
quantitative,
well integrated? Life situation of lesbians and
gays with a migration background in Germany. not representative
Table IV: Participants of the expert workshop

in January 2017
Surname institution
dr Michael Bochow Board of Trustees of the Waldschlösschen Academy
Florencio Chicote State Office for Equal Treatment – against discrimination at the Senate
Department for Justice, Consumer Protection and Anti-Discrimination;
LGBTI department
Prof. Dr. Nina Degele Albert-Ludwigs-University Freiburg, Institute for Sociology
Marcel de Groot Gay advice Berlin gGmbH
dr Nora Gaupp German Youth Institute eV; Specialist group living conditions and
lifestyle of young people, Dept. Youth and Youth Welfare
Ulf Höpfner Berlin Senate Department for Education, Youth and Science,
Implementation of the Senate agenda on the acceptance of sexual
and gender diversity
dr Carolin Kueppers Federal Foundation Magnus Hirschfeld
dr Ralph Lottman Alice Salomon Hochschule Berlin, IFAF project “Same-sex lifestyles and
care in old age (GLEPA)”/HWR Berlin
Frank G Pohl Counseling center School of Diversity in North Rhine-Westphalia
Saideh Saadat-Lendle LesMigraS – Lesbenberatung Berlin eV

Publisher:
Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency
11018 Berlin
www.antidiscrimination-office.de
Authors:
Beate Küpper (Lower Rhine University of Applied Sciences)
Ulrich Klocke (Humboldt University of Berlin)

Lena-Carlotta Hoffmann (Lower Rhine University)
Contact advice:
Tel.: 030 18 555-1865
(Monday to Friday, 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. and 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.)

Fax: 030 18 555-41865
E-Mail: beratung@ads.bund.de
Visiting times by arrangement
Contact headquarters:
Phone: 030 18 555-1855

Fax: 030 18 555-41855
Email: poststelle@ads.bund.de
Design: www.avitamin.de
Status: August 2017, 1st edition
Printing: MKL Druck GmbH & Co. KG
All rights reserved. Photomechanical duplication of the work (photocopy/microcopy) or parts

thereof also requires the prior consent of the Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency.
ISBN: 978-3-8487-4473-2
Wide support for same-sex marriage is an indicator of increasingly open attitudes towards
lesbian, gay and bisexual people. At the same time, more subtle forms of devaluation are
still widespread. Homosexuality is by no means as “normal” and self-evident as is
sometimes assumed. This is the finding of a nationwide, representative survey of around
2,000 people conducted by Prof. Dr. Beate Kuepper, Dr. Ulrich Klocke and Lena-Carlotta
Hoffmann carried out on behalf of the Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency and which
gives an insight into the attitudes of the majority of the population towards lesbian, gay
and bisexual people. The results of the study make it clear that society must continue to
work on the acceptance of sexual diversity if it wants to live up to its democratic and
ethical claim to equality.

Attitudes Towards Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual People in Germany

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Attitudes Towards Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual People in Germany

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Attitudes Towards Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual People in Germany

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Machine Translated by Google

Attitudes towards lesbian, gay

Beate Küpper, Ulrich Klocke, Lena-Carlotta Hoffmann

Attitudes towards lesbian, gay

Results of a representative survey

Result report prepared on behalf of the Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency

Authors: Beate Küpper (Lower Rhine University), Ulrich Klocke (Humboldt

Suggested citation: Küpper, Beate; Klocke, Ulrich; Hoffmann, Lena-Carlotta

1. Introduction to the topic 1.1 To 13

3. Assumptions and knowledge about lesbian, gay

4. Attitudes towards lesbians, gays

4.3 Descriptive results of the current survey 50

5. Differences between socio-demographic subgroups of the population 5.1

6. Behavior towards lesbian, gay and bisexual people and social

7. Relationships between assumptions, attitudes

8. Connections to family values and other factors

9. General attitudes towards diversity and

10. Dealing with sexual diversity in schools 138 10.1

10.3.3 Descriptive results on personal experiences with

11 Central findings and recommendations for action

Consideration in education and training 164

threaten. It is unclear to what extent the trend towards increasingly open

right-wing populist and Christian fundamentalist actors or

meanwhile also found its way into quality media.2 Homophobia is

They form the background for positive legal requirements, government

2 An example of this is an article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung by Antje Schmelcher

In addition to many others, those of people with different sexual needs

The extent to which equality is achieved thus determines the ethical

can be found in the methods (chapter 2). It is about knowledge

1. Introduction to the topic

1.1 On the history of devaluation,

women in which commemoration was highly controversial). In close

This means that marriage in Germany will also be open to same-sex

country, with the exception of Switzerland and Austria, introduced

In the wake of AIDS in the 1980s, the homosexuality of a number of

It is about focusing on homosexuality and bisexuality as well as lesbian,

1.2 Devaluation and Discrimination

Legitimacy for discrimination.3 Conversely, existing discrimination has

For prevention and intervention, both with regard to the empowerment

3 According to sociological and socio-psychological understanding, discrimination describes the

Hormel & Scheer, 2010).

discrimination by the majority population, it is important to take these

Still at risk of losing their jobs if their homosexuality becomes public,

Capturing the experience of discrimination in interviews with those

have experienced discrimination for years (Baden-Württemberg Ministry for

According to those affected, a particularly large amount of discrimination based

Respondents with a migration background of experiences of

1.3 The use of the term

In the present report, we have decided to use the term homophobia

7 This is reported by a gender-queer student, e .2017)

1.4 Homophobia as a social prejudice

And the behavioral component is about advocating or demanding

mosexuals are not sanctioned) (Ajzen & Fishbein, 2005).

The core issue is that people are viewed as “abnormal” because of

Negative feelings towards homosexual and also trans* people are

We believe that homophobia and transphobia can only be understood

10 or alternative abbreviations such as LSBTTIQ*, international LGBT or LGBTTIQ* (here

on assumptions and knowledge about homosexuality and homo- and bise

The study was designed as a representative population survey.

10 or alternative abbreviations such as LSBTTIQ, international LGBT or LGBTTIQ (here