ideology, religious fundamentalism, and education do provide explanatory power, changes across these variables for African Americans are minute compared to those of Caucasians. Understandably, there may be influences not addressed by this study that could better explain African American homonegativity. The lack of variability/sensitivity could be attributed to the smaller sample size of this group in the sample or poor choice of variables that may confound homonegativity for African Americans. Additionally the African American sample is under representative of black men. Again, this provides further reason to devote considerable attention to African American homonegativity. In analyzing racial differences it is equally important to assess class differences. It could be possible that class differences are what cause this plateau effect among African Americans.

     In analyzing gender interactions with education, a unique relationship was discovered. As predicted, women display less homonegativity than men in similar educational categories. However the benefit of having a higher level of education to reduce homonegativity is more substantial in males. This could be due to several reasons. First, it is possible that because female homonegativity is already low, there is little that an increase in education can due to reduce this further. Second, is the idea that education may not be as good a predictor for reducing homonegativity among females. This would be similar to the discussion of interaction and African American homonegativity.

     When considering interactions between gender role ideologies (the RoleScale) and gender, a unique unexpected relationship was discovered. Egalitarian women were expected to be less homonegative than men in the same category; however female adherence to gender role ideologies greatly increases predicted homonegativity (to where