The young are often considered to be among the most open-minded age group, particularly as compared to older adults (Andersen & Fetner, 2008; Gopnik, Griffiths, & Lucas, 2015; Milkman, 2017). Millennials (defined below) especially have been regarded as interested in commitment to social justice and diversity issues, including LGBTQ acceptance (Anderson, 2018; Milkman, 2017; Parker, Graf, & Igielnik, 2019; Raines, 2003; Risman, 2018). Yet GLAAD’s (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) newly released Accelerating Acceptance report conducted by Harris Poll shows that those aged 18–34Footnote 1 have been increasingly less supportive of LGBTQ people in recent years (GLAAD, 2019b). For example, the percentage of young people indicating they are “very” or “somewhat” comfortable interacting with LGBTQ people fell nearly 20% in the last few years from a majority (63%) in 2016, to 53% in 2017, to less than half (45%) in 2018. According to GLAAD, this is the only age group that has been declining in their LGBTQ acceptance (GLAAD, 2019b). Further, media commentary about these issues suggests “when it comes to L.G.B.T.Q. rights as a whole, millennials aren’t nearly as ‘woke’ as many assume” (Kosoff, 2018).

This pattern holds true for both male and female non-LGBTQ young people in the GLAAD report; however, the biggest drop in LGBTQ support has been among millennial men whose acceptance levels were nearly cut in half from 2016 to 2018. In particular, only 35% were “very” or “somewhat” comfortable interacting with LGBTQ people in 2018 as compared to nearly twice that (62%) in 2016 (GLAAD, 2019b). Other research bolsters these patterns and continues to demonstrate that millennial men are less supportive of LGBTQ issues as compared to their female counterparts (Hensley, Diddi, & Hyllegard, 2019; Milkman, 2017). Such findings suggest that there may be something unique about this group of young men that is contributing to these trends.

“Dude bros” are typically young (millennial), straight, White cisgender males of privilege who express masculinity in entitled, obnoxious, and toxic ways which can be inclusive of overt anti-LGBTQ commentary and behaviors (e.g., a “dude, you’re a fag” discourse, Pascoe, 2005, 2011) as well as misogynistic rants about their sexual “conquests” over women (Baxter-Webb, 2016; Jourian, 2017). In addition, because of their economically privileged status, dude bros are associated with distinctly affluential “prep-like” attire which often includes popped collar shirts, khakis, and loafers. In today’s political climate, the highly visible red “MAGA” ballcap that features US President Trump’s campaign slogan “Make America Great Again” is also characteristic of dude bro apparel. A general laissez-faire attitude about anything but alcohol, partying, and “hooking up” is common among dude bros. Dude bros can be a part of other male groups who are regularly stereotyped for their potentially problematic expressions of masculinity (e.g., football players/jocks and frat boys, Corprew & Mitchell, 2014; Gust, 2007; Worthen, 2014) but dude bros need not participate in such collective activities that can bring them together (e.g., organized sport or fraternity life). Instead, dude bros’ unifying characteristics are their shared negative and disparaging perspectives about women and LGBTQ people that work to secure their own places of privilege as cisgender men.

The cultural milieu that millennial dude bros typically experience can be geared toward a lack of LGBTQ acceptance. In particular, dude bro culture may be related to the recent shifts in decreasing LGBTQ support among millennial men. Yet despite ample commentary about this youthful uptick toward LGBTQ negativity in Time (Suleman, 2019), Newsweek (Avery, 2019), and elsewhere (e.g., Kosoff, 2018; Miller, 2019), no scholarly research to date has explored these patterns.

In the current study, data from the 2018 LGBTQ and Hetero-cis Population Study (Worthen, 2020) collected via online panelists are utilized to investigate how being a millennial man is related to attitudes toward LGBTQ people among a nationally representative sample of US adults aged 18–64 stratified by US Census categories of age, gender, race/ethnicity, and census region (N = 3104). Specifically, being a millennial cisgender man is explored as it relates to the stigmatization of lesbian women, gay men, bisexual women, bisexual men, trans women, trans men, non-binary people, queer women, and queer men. In addition, “dude bro” disposition characteristics including adherence to patriarchal gender norms, the aversion to being “hit on” by other men, and the use of anti-LGBTQ slurs (“fag,” “faggot,” “queer,” “dyke,” “tranny,” “no homo,” and “that is so gay!”) are examined as they relate to being a millennial cisgender man and attitudes toward LGBTQ people. Building from previous work that has highlighted the nuances of problematic expressions of masculinity (especially among young men) (Pascoe, 2011; Worthen, 2014) and research that considers the unique qualities of millennials (Milkman, 2017; Risman, 2018; Strauss & Howe, 1991), the current study focuses on millennial “dude bros” and LGBTQ negativity with the ultimate goal of working toward a deeper understanding of how to combat the stigmatization of LGBTQ people.

Millennials and Their Characteristics

Defining Millennials

Since William Strauss and Neil Howe first coined the term “millennial” in 1991 to describe young people who would be graduating from high school in the new millennium (i.e., the year 2000) (Strauss & Howe, 1991), there has been notable debate about how to best identify “millennials,” especially in terms of birth year. For example, the Pew Research Center defines millennials as those born from 1981 to 1996 (Dimock, 2019) while the US Census Bureau identifies those born between 1982 and 2000 as “millennials” (US Census Bureau, 2015). George Masnick of the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies argues for 20-year age spans for each generation as follows: Baby Boomers (1945 to 1964), Generation X (1965 to 1984), and Millennials (1985 to 2004) (Masnick, 2017). Masnick (2017) notes three compelling reasons to support this particular conceptualization of millennials: (1) the opening of Facebook to any user with an email address in 2006, the creation of Twitter in 2006, and the release of the first iPhone in 2007 meant that those born in 1985 and later were coming of age during this dramatic increase of social media (and access to it) in ways that significantly differed from older people who had spent the majority of their lives without as strong of a connection to social media; (2) the overall student loan debt dramatically increased for many young people, tripling from 2005 to 2016, which had strong impacts on shaping their lives including delaying them from leaving home, starting their own families, etc.; and (3) especially starting in 2005 and later, the high unemployment rate also meant that this group of young people was plagued by a constellation of difficulties that differed from older generations. Following Masnick’s (2017) arguments and in line with the GLAAD report’s findings related to those ages 18–34 in the year 2019 (i.e., those born from 1985 to 2001), for the purposes of this study, “millennials” are defined as those born in 1985 and later with a data-driven cap of those born in the year 2000 (because data were collected in the year 2018 among only those ages 18–64).

Though there is some variation as to what exact year “millennials” were born in, there is less debate about their general characteristics. Millennials are the first generation to experience a fully culturally embedded connection to digital media via portable internet-enabled technology. They are “sociable, optimistic, talented, well-educated, collaborative, open-minded, influential, and achievement oriented. They’ve always felt sought after, needed, indispensable” (Raines, 2003, p. 172). This generation differs from previous cohorts in that inclusiveness, tolerance, and connection to multiculturalism, diversity, and social justice have been emphasized in millennials’ lives in ways unlike ever seen before (Milkman, 2017; Raines, 2003; Whittier, 2018). However, they have also been painted as “lazy” and “entitled” (Chung, 2019) as well as “narcissistic” and “egocentric” (Twenge, 2014). In addition, millennials and young people today are more likely than any previous generation to openly identify as LGBTQ (England, Mishel, & Caudillo, 2016; Montgomery & Stewart, 2012; Morandini, Blaszczynski, & Dar-Nimrod, 2017; Whyte, Brooks, & Torgler, 2018; Worthen, 2020). Because of these qualities, the unique experiences of millennials as they relate their attitudes and perspectives deserve further attention.

Millennials and LGBTQ Attitudes

As noted in the introduction, GLAAD’s Accelerating Acceptance report shows that those aged 18–34 have been increasingly negative toward LGBTQ people in recent years across multiple measures (GLAAD, 2019b). For example, from 2016 to 2018, young people reported more discomfort with an LGBTQ doctor (increasing from 24% in 2016 to 34% in 2018), with an LGBTQ family member (increasing from 24% in 2016 to 36% in 2018), and with their child learning about LGBTQ history in school (increasing from 27% in 2016 to 39% in 2018) (GLAAD, 2019b). These findings may also be an indicator that these attitudinal shifts have occurred very recently. Indeed, most research on attitudes toward LGBTQ issues has shown that people across all ages are becoming more tolerant as time passes and that these increases in LGBTQ support are most dramatic among the youngest age groups (Andersen & Fetner, 2008; Garretson, 2015; Keleher & Smith, 2012; Loftus, 2001). For example, being a “millennial” (defined as those ages 18 to 29 in the year 2010) was found to be significantly positively related to support for same-sex marriage using Pew Research Center telephone interview data collected via random digit dialing (N = 2020, n = 830 millennials) (Becker, 2012). Other telephone interview research collected by the Public Religion Research Institute using random sampling (N = 4509, n = 876 millennials) shows that that millennials (defined as those ages 18 to 33 in the year 2013) are the most supportive of LGB people among all age groups in regard to allowing same-sex couples to adopt children, agreeing that “gay and lesbian couples can be as good as heterosexual couples as parents,” and supporting same-sex marriage even when other characteristics are considered including Republican identity, White Evangelical Protestantism, and rural location (Cox, Navarro-Rivera, & Jones, 2014). Additional research using data from a national probability sample of heterosexual US adults recruited from a Knowledge Networks panel (N = 2281) focused on attitudes toward transgender people follows a similar pattern whereby those ages 18 to 29 (n = 493) in the year 2005 (the majority of whom could be categorized as millennials) report the highest levels of support of transgender people; however, differences between the age groups in this study were minimal and were not statistically significant (Norton & Herek, 2013). Another recent report compiled by the Williams Institute in 2014 using analyses of the American National Election Studies also found no strong evidence of cohort/generational differences in attitudes toward lesbians and gay men when comparing millennials (defined as those born in 1981 to 1993) to other age groups (Flores, 2014). Thus, previous studies using data collected prior to 2014 either indicate increasing LGBTQ support among young people or no major age or generational differences in LGBTQ attitudes. Thus, something that occurred after 2014 may be related to millennials’ unsupportive LGBTQ perspectives that are captured in the 2019 GLAAD report.

Millennial Men and Dude Bro Dispositions

Many millennial men and “dude bros” have been coming of age during the US Presidency of Donald Trump who started campaigning in 2015Footnote 2 and was elected in 2016 (he remains in office at the time of writing this paper in April 2020). Because adolescence and emerging adulthood are critical life course stages in the development of masculinity (Arnett, 2000; Corprew, Matthews, & Mitchell, 2014; Marcell, Eftim, Sonenstein, & Pleck, 2011; McDermott & Schwartz, 2013) and sexuality (Morgan, 2013; Torkelson, 2012), it is essential to consider young men’s experiences in today’s political climate while Trump and his party are in power. In particular, some young men today are developing their understandings of masculinity in a culture that is led by a President who has made numerous toxic comments about women including his belief that you can just “Grab ‘em by the pussy” (Victor, 2017). Though these types of perspectives are not new, “American ‘manhood’ is littered with narratives of the need to rehabilitate the nation’s diminished masculinity through hatred and repudiation of women, and those narratives are on full display in the open misogyny represented by President Trump” (Burns, 2017, p. 181). An overarching sense of the enforcement of and partiality toward patriarchy have dominated the last 3 years of US politics (Dignam & Rohlinger, 2019). In addition, a very palpable anti-LGBTQ reality has been cultivated during the Trump presidency (Drabble, Veldhuis, Wootton, Riggle, & Hughes, 2019; Gonzalez, Ramirez, & Galupo, 2018; Ng & Stamper, 2018). According to the Trump Accountability Project which chronicles the anti-LGBTQ statements and actions of President Trump and those in his cabinet, close to 150 (about one per week) policies and/or initiatives that negatively impact LGBTQ people have come about in the more than 3 years since he has been President (GLAAD, 2019a). Indeed, in comparison to Hillary Clinton supporters, Trump supporters in the 2016 election were found to express significantly more sexist, homophobic, and transphobic perspectives (Blair, 2017; Swank, 2018a). Trump’s win against Clinton (via the Electoral College, though he lost the popular vote, see Blair, 2017) secured these hostile perspectives as entwined with the dominant political power.

Such anti-woman and anti-LGBTQ cultural narratives certainly inform the construction of millennial masculinities in important ways. For some young men, this includes a “dude bro disposition” that is largely characterized by overlapping and interacting dynamics of patriarchy and LGBTQ negativity. Indeed, dude bros regularly disparage others (e.g., women, LGBTQ people) in order to assert their own hetero-cis-masculinity and uphold their status as “real men” (Pascoe, 2011). The millennial mentality of extraordinariness and confidence (Twenge, 2014) coupled with a political and cultural climate that has been recognized as categorically anti-woman and anti-LGBTQ may make some millennial men feel particularly emboldened to both adopt and embrace a dude bro disposition.

Millennial Men and LGBTQ Negativity

Because most research finds that men are less supportive of LGBTQ people when compared to women (Worthen, Lingiardi, & Caristo, 2017; Worthen, 2016, 2018; Herek, 1988, 2000; Eliason, 1997; Mohr & Rochlen, 1999), it follows that these gender gaps in attitudes toward LGBTQ people should be present across ages and generations. However, as the GLAAD report demonstrates (GLAAD, 2019b), millennial men’s experiences and perspectives may be contributing to more extreme gender gaps in LGBTQ attitudes among millennials as compared to gender gaps among prior generations. For example, one national probability sample of heterosexual US adults recruited from a Knowledge Networks panel (N = 2281) found that attitudes toward trans individuals statistically differ by gender with young women reporting significantly more supportive perspectives as compared to young men among those ages 18–29 (n = 493); however, there were no statistically significant differences by gender among those aged 45–59 and those ages 60 and over (Norton & Herek, 2013). Additional studies show that millennial men are less supportive of LGBTQ issues/causes as compared to their female counterparts (millennials defined as those aged 18–32 in Hensley et al., 2019) and that millennial women are more involved in activism than millennial men (millennials defined as those born after 1980 in Milkman, 2017). Further research focusing on heterosexual college students (N = 166, average age 20 years old) also finds that college men have significantly less awareness of their heterosexual privilege and less resistance to heteronormativity when compared to college women (Montgomery & Stewart, 2012). Thus, millennial men may be especially relevant in conversations about LGBTQ negativity.

Attitudes toward lesbian women, gay men, bisexual women, bisexual men, trans women, trans men, non-binary people, queer women, and queer men have not been carefully examined among millennial men. This is especially important because research shows that heterosexual men in particular are more negative toward LGBTQ men and women than heterosexual women are (Worthen, 2018; Worthen, 2013; Worthen, 2016; Eliason, 1997; Mohr & Rochlen, 1999; Hill & Willoughby, 2005; LaMar & Kite, 1998; Worthen, 2020). In addition, gender nonconformity prejudice, heterosexism, sexism, and cis-normativity are also more prevalent among heterosexual men than among heterosexual women (Herek, 1988; LaMar & Kite, 1998; Montgomery & Stewart, 2012; Worthen, 2013).

Yet there are complexities in these patterns that deserve further attention. For example, heterosexual young men (especially) have been found to express their masculinities in “homophobic” manners that denigrate gay and bisexual men (Marsiglio, 1993; Pascoe, 2005, 2011; Theodore & Basow, 2000). In addition, the sexualization of lesbian and bisexual women means that heterosexual men place a certain erotic value in lesbian and bisexual behavior among women which can impact their perspectives about these groups (Louderback & Whitley, 1997; Raja & Stokes, 1998; Worthen, 2013). Heterosexual men have also been found to be hostile toward trans men because they are perceived as unable to meet the rigid standards of cis-masculinity (Cromwell, 1999; Devor, 1997; Rubin, 2003; Schilt, 2010; Worthen, 2020) and trans women have been found to be targets of heterosexual men’s prejudices because they are perceived as “not real women” and in some cases, as “deceivers” who try to “trick” men into romantic/sexual encounters (Meyer, 2015; Schilt & Westbrook, 2009; Serano, 2007; Wodda & Panfil, 2014). Furthermore, because queer women, queer men, and non-binary people often express gender and sexuality in diverse ways which can contrast with hetero-cis-normative expectations (Davidson, 2007; Eves, 2004; Jones, 2015; Richards, Bouman, & Barker, 2017; Stachowiak, 2017), they can be stigmatized by those that are interested in reinforcing hetero-cis-normativity (a practice which is more common among heterosexual cisgender men than among others, see Worthen, 2020).

Dude Bro Disposition and LGBTQ Negativity

A “dude bro disposition” emphasizes both patriarchal and anti-LGBTQ perspectives in a process that disparages others (e.g., women, LGBTQ people) and confirms one’s own hetero-cis-masculinity. There are numerous overlapping layers involved in this process. Specifically, this includes (1) adherence to patriarchal gender norms, (2) men’s aversion to being “hit on” by other men, and (3) the use of anti-LGBTQ slurs. These are discussed further below.

Patriarchal Gender Norms

Adherence to patriarchal gender norms reflects a preference for male dominance, female submission, and hetero-cis-normativity in all realms of society. Largely because LGBTQ people generally disrupt these dynamics, patriarchal perspectives have been found to be associated with negativity toward LGBTQ people (Nagoshi et al., 2008; Theodore & Basow, 2000; Worthen, 2018, 2020). In addition, compared to women, men have been found to be more likely to support patriarchy and less likely to support gender equality (Conlin & Heesacker, 2017; Harnois, 2017). Yet few studies to date have considered how age and generational cohort may relate to these patterns (for exceptions see Anderson, 2018; Whittier, 2018). Because many millennial men are coming of age during a time when political and social discourse have both emphasized and supported these types of “dude bro” patriarchal perspectives (Burns, 2017; Dignam & Rohlinger, 2019) and thus, they may be opting into/developing these ideologies in ways that differ from previous generations, it is important to examine how being a millennial man relates to LGBTQ attitudes.

Being “Hit on” by Other Men

Past research indicates that some heterosexual men’s aversion to sexual advances from other men may be an overarching force behind their prejudices toward gay and bisexual men (Bortolin, 2010; Worthen, 2013). For example, one small-scale study of college students found that heterosexual men (n = 59) felt threatened by gay and bisexual men because they were fearful that they might be solicited romantically by them (Eliason, 1997). When they are “hit on” by gay or bisexual men, heterosexual cisgender men may perceive this action as a reflection of their real or imagined effeminacy, which may be interpreted as a direct threat to their own hetero-cis-masculinity (Worthen, 2013). This can be amplified among young men who are especially likely to be seeking to prove their masculinity to others (Pascoe, 2005, 2011), including those who are maintaining (or trying to maintain) “dude bro” dispositions. Indeed, research focusing on teenage boys (aged 15–19; N = 1463) indicates that “[young] ‘straight’ men are reluctant to behave in a manner that would provide others with cause to question their sexual orientation and masculinity” (Marsiglio, 1993, p. 16). Thus, there may be important relationships between (young) age and hostility toward sexual advances from men that enhance the stigmatization of LGBTQ people among millennial men.

Use of Anti-LGBTQ Slurs

The use of “homophobic” epithets and anti-LGBTQ slurs can take on many forms. For example, young men can use the terms “fag,” “faggot,” and “queer” as insults to one another’s masculinities (Pascoe, 2005, 2011). Those who are believed to be LGBTQ may also be directly verbally attacked using these terms as well as others such as “dyke” or “tranny” (though in some cases, such derogatory slurs have been reclaimed) (Diaz-Legaspe, 2019; Heklina, 2015; Tibbals, 2015). In addition, there are other common phrases that are not direct attacks on an individual or group per se but rather promulgate negativity toward LGBTQ identities. For example, the phrase “that’s so gay!” associates being “gay” with being “stupid,” “lame,” or “boring” (Woodford, Howell, Kulick, & Silverschanz, 2013; Burn, Kadlec, & Rexer, 2005) and the phrase “no homo” (shorthand for “I’m not a homosexual” and popularized by hip hop music) is used to deflect any potential associations of the user of the phrase with a “gay” or effeminate identity (Brown, 2011; Pascoe & Diefendorf, 2019; Winberg et al., 2019). Unsurprisingly, such anti-LGBTQ slurs have been associated with negativity toward LGBTQ people (Fasoli et al., 2016; Woodford et al., 2013; Burn, 2000). In particular, however, it is young men who most commonly use anti-LGBTQ derogatory language to both secure approval from others (especially other young men) and distance themselves from LGBTQ people (Shawn Meghan Burn, 2000; Fasoli et al., 2016; Pascoe, 2005, 2011; Pascoe & Diefendorf, 2019; Woodford et al., 2013). Thus, it is important to consider how the use of anti-LGBTQ slurs relates to millennial men’s LGBTQ negativity.

Dude Bro Disposition and Non-Hetero Millennial Men

While the “dude bro” label and its accompanying disposition have largely been reserved for heterosexual millennial men, the ways these perspectives manifest among GBTQ (gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer) millennial men are worth exploring. For example, one study focused on young men (average age 24.4 years for gay men and 22.5 years for heterosexual men) found that gay men’s perceptions are relatively similar to heterosexual men’s perceptions in that both express more negative attitudes toward “effeminate” gay men as compared to “masculine” gay men (Salvati, Ioverno, Giacomantonio, & Baiocco, 2016; see also Taywaditep, 2002; Hunt, Fasoli, Carnaghi, & Cadinu, 2016). Thus, rejecting effeminacy may be a part of both heterosexual and GBTQ men’s practices of “secur[ing] their position in the social hierarchy by adopting masculine behaviors and derogating feminine ones” (Salvati et al., 2016, p. 111). Other research finds that support of patriarchal (“traditional”) gender attitudes is actually greater among bisexual men in comparison to heterosexual men (Kowalski & Scheitle, 2019). This suggests that there may be evidence of at least some aspects of “dude bro” disposition (such as anti-woman/patriarchal attitudes) that are relevant in millennial GBTQ men’s lives that may relate to the ways GBTQ men differ from other generational cohorts in their LGBTQ perspectives.

Current Study

Using data collected via online panelists among a nationally representative sample of US adults aged 18–64 stratified by US Census categories of age, gender, race/ethnicity, and census region (N = 3104), the current study investigates how being a millennial cisgender man relates to the stigmatization of lesbian women, gay men, bisexual women, bisexual men, trans women, trans men, non-binary people, queer women, and queer men with particular attention to how “dude bro” disposition characteristics (i.e., the adherence to patriarchal gender norms, the aversion to being “hit on” by other men, and the use of anti-LGBTQ slurs) relate to these relationships. By focusing on these patterns, the current study works toward a deeper understanding of how to combat the stigmatization of LGBTQ people.

Methods

Data and Sample Characteristics

The data come from the 2018 LGBTQ and Hetero-cis Population Study (Worthen, 2020). The data were collected using panelists recruited from Survey Sampling International (SSI), an international survey research and survey sample provider with over 5 million US online panel participants. SSI panel members are recruited from online communities, social networks, and the web. SSI profiles, authenticates, and verifies each panel member as a reliable respondent for rigorous research participation. SSI awards incentives to respondents upon survey completion.

A nationally representative sample of US adults aged 18–64 stratified by US Census categories of age, gender, race/ethnicity, and census region was obtained by SSI. A total of 4994 individuals accessed the survey by clicking the survey invite link, 4583 began the survey by answering one or more survey items, and 3104 respondents completed all items in the survey for a survey start to completion rate of 68%. Missing data were handled through listwise deletion. The total sample included 3104 respondents, 13.53% of whom were millennial cisgender men (n = 420). See Table 1 for additional details.

Table 1 Sample Characteristics, Mean Values and (Standard Deviations)
Full size table

Survey Design and Implementation

The author created the survey instrument on Qualtrics (an online survey platform). The survey was live on the Internet from November 5, 2018, to November 23, 2018. Through the link provided in the invitation email from SSI, panelists could access the survey via PCs, laptops, tablets, and mobile phones. The survey included 184 closed-ended questions with both multiple- and single-response items. The average time to complete the survey was 25.8 min.

Dependent Variables: Perspectives About LGBTQ People

Worthen’s (2020) LGBTQ Stigma Scales are utilized to estimate stigmatizing attitudes toward nine groups: lesbian women, gay men, bisexual women, bisexual men, trans women, trans men, non-binary individuals, queer women, and queer men. Each of the nine scales is composed of items clustered around six key areas: (1) social and familial relationships, (2) positions of importance and social significance, (3) basic human rights, (4) sex act-related stigma, (5) LGBTQ permanency, and (6) the achievement of femininity/masculinity. Appendix Table 6 provides the 14 individual scale items for each of the nine scales. Cronbach’s alphas ranged from .90 to .93 (see Table 2).

Table 2 Mean values and (standard deviations) of the LGBTQ Stigma Scales and “dude bro” disposition variables by age group for cis men with ANOVA results
Full size table

Independent Variable: Millennial Cis Man

Millennial, Gen X, and Boomer

Respondents were asked to provide their age in years; however, the survey was only open to those aged 18 to 64 due to IRB restrictions. Following Masnick’s (2017) arguments and in line with the GLAAD report, “millennials” were coded as those born in 1985 and later with a data-driven cap of those born in the year 2000. Gen Xers were defined as those born from 1965 to 1984 and Boomers were those born prior to 1964 with a data-driven cap of those born in the year 1954.

Cis Man, Cis Woman, Trans Woman, Trans Man, and Non-Binary

Respondents were asked “What best describes your gender?” with responses that were coded as cis men (those that indicated “I identify as a man and my sex assigned at birth was male”), cis women (those that indicated “I identify as a woman and my sex assigned at birth was female”), trans women (those that indicated “I am transgender, I identify as a woman and my assigned sex at birth was male”), trans men (those that indicated “I am transgender, I identify as a man and my assigned sex at birth was female”), and non-binary/genderqueer individuals (those that indicated “I am gender-nonbinary, gender fluid, or genderqueer”).

Independent Variables: Dude Bro Disposition

For the Patriarchal Gender Norms Scale, five items with response options of “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree” on a five point Likert-type scale were summed: (1) “If my political party nominated a woman for President, I would vote for her if she was qualified for the job” (reverse coded), (2) “It is more important for a wife to help her husband’s career than to have one herself,” (3) “The household tasks should be evenly divided between both partners in committed relationships” (reverse coded), (4) “All-in-all, family life suffers when both partners have full-time jobs,” and (5) “It is much better for everyone involved if the man is the earner outside of the home and the woman takes care of the home and family” (Cronbach’s alpha = .74).

For the variable Aversion to men hitting on me, respondents were asked to respond to the following statement on a five point Likert-type scale with options from “Strongly Agree” to “Strongly Disagree”: “Generally, if a man hit on me (asked me out on a date, complimented me on my physical appearance, etc.), I would be flattered.”

For anti-LGBTQ slurs, respondents were asked “How often do you use each of the following?” and were presented with six statements: “I use the terms “fag” or “faggots” as insults,” “I use the term “queer” as an insult,” “I use the term “dyke” as an insult,” “I use the term “tranny,” “I use the phrase “no homo”,” and “I use the phrase “that’s so gay!” Response options of (1) never, (2) rarely, (3) sometimes, and (4) frequently were provided.

Sociodemographic Controls

Previous studies have found significant relationships between sociodemographics and attitudes toward LGBTQ people (Appleby, 2001; Donnelly et al., 2016; Embrick, Walther, & Wickens, 2007; Herek, 1988, 2000, 2002; Mohr & Rochlen, 1999; Raja & Stokes, 1998; Worthen, 2016, 2018, 2020); thus, the current study includes sexual identity, racial/ethnic identity, education, income, and town type as sociodemographic controls. For sexual identity, respondents were asked “How would you describe yourself?” with the following response options: heterosexual, gay or lesbian, bisexual, pansexual, and asexual. For racial identity, the response options were Caucasian/White, African American/Black, Asian American/Pacific Islander, Native American/Alaskan Native, Multi-Racial, and Other Race: Please Specify. For Other Race, n = 25 respondents wrote in responses (e.g., “Hispanic,” n = 12; “Mexican,” n = 6) that were recoded into a new category of Latinx Race. The final Other Race category (n = 24) was comprised of about half (46%, n = 11) Middle Eastern individuals. In a separate question for Latinx Ethnicity, respondents were also asked “Are you Hispanic or Latino/a/x? (A person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American or other Spanish culture of origin regardless of race” with response options of yes (1) and no (0). Education response options were (1) less than high school, (2) high school/GED, (3) some college, (4) Associate’s, (5) Bachelor’s, or (6) greater than Bachelor’s. Income options were (1) less than $5 k, (2) $5 k-$24,999, (3) $25 k-$49,999, (4) $50 k-$99,999, and (5) $100 k or greater. Town type (where the majority of life was spent) response options were (1) rural, (2) small town, (3) suburb, and (4) large city.

Method of Analysis

In the first set of analyses, the mean values of the nine LGBTQ Stigma Scales and the “dude bro” disposition variables were compared first among cis men by age group (Millennial, Gen X, and Boomer) and then among hetero-cis men by age group and GBTQ men by age group using ANOVAs and post hoc Tukey–Kramer tests. In the second set of analyses, OLS regressions were used to explore the effects of being a millennial cis man on the stigmatization of LGBTQ people. The kurtosis and skewness values for all nine of the LGBTQ Stigma Scales were within the established criteria for determining normality (Kim, 2013); thus, OLS regressions were utilized for these models. In the first set of OLS regression models, being a millennial cis man was included along with sociodemographic controls. In the second set of OLS regression models, the “dude bro” disposition variables were added. Multicollinearity was examined using the STATA command “collin” (Ender, 2010) which provides collinearity diagnostics for all variables utilized in each model. The Mean VIF values ranged from 1.09 to 1.63 suggesting no issues with multicollinearity (Allison, 2012).

Results

Mean Comparisons

In Table 2, ANOVA and post hoc Tukey–Kramer test results reveal several significant age group differences among cis men. Millennial cis men are statistically significantly more stigmatizing toward all nine LGBTQ groups as compared to both Gen X cis men and Boomer cis men (who do not significantly differ from one another). Millennial cis men also report greater adherence to all measures of “dude bro” disposition examined in the current study. Millennial cis men score higher on the Patriarchal Gender Norms Scale than the other two groups and are more averse to men hitting on them than Gen X men are (though they do not statistically differ from Boomer cis men for this variable). Millennial cis men use all six types of anti-LGBTQ slurs measured in this study more frequently in comparison to both Gen X cis men and Boomer cis men. In addition, Boomer cis men use these terms less frequently than Gen X cis men.

In Table 3, hetero-cis men are separated from GBTQ (gay, bisexual, trans, and queer) men to allow for further comparisons across the age groups. Among hetero-cis men, Millennial hetero-cis men are statistically significantly more stigmatizing toward seven of the nine LGBTQ groups as compared to both Gen X hetero-cis men and Boomer hetero-cis men (who do not significantly differ from one another). Millennial hetero-cis men report greater stigmatization of gay men than Boomer hetero-cis men do and greater stigmatization of non-binary people than Gen X hetero-cis men do. Millennial hetero-cis men also report greater adherence to nearly all measures of “dude bro” disposition examined in the current study including the Patriarchal Gender Norms Scale and all six types of anti-LGBTQ slurs as compared to the other two age groups. In addition, Gen X hetero-cis men and Boomer hetero-cis men differ from one another on all measures of dude bro disposition with Gen X hetero-cis men reporting more patriarchal attitudes and using more using more anti-LGBTQ slurs than Boomer hetero-cis men do. For aversion to men hitting on them, Boomer hetero-cis men are the most averse and significantly differ from Millennial hetero-cis men and Gen X hetero-cis men (but Millennial hetero-cis men and Gen X hetero-cis men do not significantly differ on this variable).

Table 3 Mean values of the LGBTQ Stigma Scales and “dude bro” disposition variables by hetero-cis or GBTQ men and age group with ANOVA results
Full size table

Also in Table 3, among GBTQ men, Millennial GBTQ men are statistically significantly more stigmatizing toward lesbian women, gay men, bisexual women, and bisexual men as compared to both Gen X GBTQ men and Boomer GBTQ men (who do not significantly differ from one another on these measures). Millennial GBTQ men report greater stigmatization of trans women than Boomer GBTQ men do. Attitudes toward trans men, non-binary people, queer women, and queer men are not significantly different from one another across the age groups of GBTQ men. Millennial GBTQ men also report greater adherence to all measures of “dude bro” disposition examined in the current study including the Patriarchal Gender Norms Scale, aversion to men hitting on them, and all six types of anti-LGBTQ slurs as compared to the other two age groups of GBTQ men. In addition, Boomer GBTQ men are also significantly less likely than Gen X GBTQ men to use the phrase “no homo” and significantly less likely than both Millennial and Gen X GBTQ men to use the term “tranny” (but Millennial GBTQ men do not differ from Gen X GBTQ men on this variable).

OLS Regression Results

In Table 4, being a millennial cis man is examined as it relates to Worthen’s (2020) LGBTQ Stigma Scales using nine OLS regression models (one model for each LGBTQ Stigma Scale). Even when with a battery of sociodemographic controls including sexual identity, race, ethnicity, education, income, and town type (nearly all of which are significant), being a millennial cis man is robustly related to the stigmatization of all nine LGBTQ groups. Interestingly, the individual controls for millennial and cis man are in opposite directions, with being a millennial negatively related to the stigmatization of LGBTQ people and being a cis man positively related to these perspectives in all nine models.

Table 4 OLS regression models exploring the effects of being a millennial cis man on the LGBTQ Stigma Scales with sociodemographic controls (N = 3104)
Full size table

In Table 5, “dude bro” disposition measures are included to further examine how being a millennial cis man relates to the stigmatization of nine LGBTQ groups using OLS regression. Being a millennial cis man is positively related to the stigmatization of gay men, bisexual women, and bisexual men; however, being a millennial cis man is not significantly related to attitudes toward the other six LGBTQ groups. Looking at the individual controls for millennial and cis man, being a millennial remains negatively related to the stigmatization of LGBTQ people in all nine models (as seen in Table 4); however, partially contrasting with the findings in Table 4, being a cis man is only positively related to attitudes toward three groups (trans women, trans men, and non-binary people).

Table 5 OLS regression models exploring the effects of being a millennial cis man and “dude bro” disposition on the LGBTQ Stigma Scales with sociodemographic controls (N = 3104)
Full size table

Moving to the “dude bro” disposition measures, three are positively related to the stigmatization of all nine groups: the Patriarchal Gender Norms Scale, aversion to men hitting on me, and the use of “dyke” as an insult. In addition, the use of “fag” or “faggot” as insults is positively related to the stigmatization of eight LGBTQ groups (but not non-binary people) and the use of “queer” as an insult is related to negativity toward seven LGBTQ groups (but not non-binary people and queer men). The use of “no homo” is only significantly related to stigma toward lesbian women, gay men, and bisexual women while the use of “tranny” is not significant in any of the nine models. Surprisingly, the use of “that’s so gay!” is negativity related to the stigmatization of lesbian women and bisexual women and not statistically significant in any other models.

Controls and Goodness of Fit

Among the controls in Table 4, being heterosexual (wherein the reference category is all non-heterosexuals) is robustly related to the stigmatization of LGBTQ people in all nine models. Among the race/ethnicity measures (wherein Caucasian/White is the reference category), all are significant in at least five models except Latinx race which is not statistically significant in any model. Being African American/Black, Asian American/Pacific Islander, Other Race, and Latinx Ethnicity are all related to hostility toward all nine LGBTQ groups, as is being Native American/Alaskan Native for five groups (lesbian women, gay men, bisexual women, trans women, trans men). In contrast, being Multi-Racial is negatively related to the stigmatization of gay men, trans women, non-binary people, queer women, and queer men. Although education is only negative and significant in three models (stigma toward lesbian women, gay men, bisexual women), income and town type (rural–large city) are negatively and significantly related to attitudes toward all nine LGBTQ groups. The adjusted R2 values are similar across the models ranging from .22 to .27.

In comparison to Table 4, there are fewer significant controls in Table 5. Being heterosexual and being African American/Black are both related to the stigmatization of all nine LGBTQ groups (similar to Table 4); however, being Asian American/Pacific Islander is only significant in two models (the stigmatization of lesbian women and bisexual women) and being Native American/Alaskan Native or Other Race are significant in only one model (the stigmatization of lesbian women). There are no other significant findings among the race/ethnicity measures. In addition, income and town type (rural–large city) are only negative and significant in one model (the stigmatization of lesbian women and trans women respectively) while education is positively related to the stigmatization of trans women, trans men, non-binary people, queer women, and queer men. The adjusted R2 values in Table 5 are significantly higher in comparison to those in Table 4 ranging from .52 to .61.

Discussion

The current study set out to explore a finding in the GLAAD report (GLAAD, 2019b) wherein millennial men were found to be increasingly less supportive of LGBTQ people in recent years—a finding which largely contrasts with existing work that demonstrates that young people and millennials are especially interested in commitment to social justice and diversity issues, including LGBTQ acceptance (Andersen & Fetner, 2008; Gopnik et al., 2015; Milkman, 2017; Montgomery & Stewart, 2012; Parker et al., 2019; Raines, 2003; Risman, 2018). In particular, the current study posited that a certain type of millennial men (those with “dude bro” dispositions who emphasize both patriarchal and anti-LGBTQ perspectives in a process that disparages others (e.g., women, LGBTQ people) and confirms one’s own hetero-cis-masculinity) are contributing to these patterns. Overall, the results indicated that being a millennial cis man is robustly related to the stigmatization of LGBTQ people and that overlapping layers of patriarchy, aversion to being “hit on” by other men, and the use of anti-LGBTQ slurs relate to these patterns.

In particular, mean comparisons across the generational cohorts demonstrated a clear pattern: millennial cis men are more stigmatizing toward LGBTQ people as compared to both Gen X cis men and Boomer cis men (see Table 2). A similar trend emerged among the “dude bro” measures with millennial cis men indicating stronger adherence to “dude bro” disposition characteristics than the other age groups. Perhaps even more surprisingly, several of these patterns held among GBTQ millennial men as well (not just among hetero-cis millennial men) (see Table 3). Thus, the findings of the current study demonstrate that there is likely something unique happening among millennial men that notably contradicts past research about millennials (Andersen & Fetner, 2008; Gopnik et al., 2015; Milkman, 2017; Parker et al., 2019; Raines, 2003; Risman, 2018). Indeed, the recent socio-cultural shifts that have created a patriarchal and anti-LGBTQ milieu that have come about in the past few years (during Trump and his party’s dominant political power) (Burns, 2017; Dignam & Rohlinger, 2019; Gonzalez et al., 2018; Ng & Stamper, 2018) may be related to these problematic “dude bro” mentalities, especially among millennial men.

Moving to the regression models, the findings in Table 4 continue to reflect a strong relationship between being a millennial cis man and stigmatizing LGBTQ people even when a battery of sociodemographic controls are included. However, with the inclusion of “dude bro” disposition measures in Table 5, some surprising patterns emerged. In particular, being a millennial cis man is only significant in the models stigmatizing gay men, bisexual women, and bisexual men (and approaches significance, p = .078, for the stigmatization of lesbian women). However, ancillary analyses (not shown) that did not include the Patriarchal Gender Norms Scale found that being a millennial cis man was also significantly associated with the trans women, queer women, and queer men stigma scales. Thus, “dude bro” attitudes and behaviors are influential in understanding the relationships between being a millennial cis man and LGBTQ negativity.

In addition, among the “dude bro” disposition measures, a majority are in line with the existing literature. For example, the Patriarchal Gender Norms Scale, aversion to being “hit on” by other men, as well as the use of “fag,” “faggot,” “queer,” and “dyke” are all positively related to nearly all nine LGBTQ Stigma Scales, as demonstrated in past work (Pascoe, 2011; Worthen, 2018; Burn, 2000; Meyer, 2015; Bortolin, 2010). Overall, these results indicate that “dude bro” perspectives and behaviors may be being used to secure one’s own hetero-cis-masculinity while simultaneously disparaging non-hetero-cis-normativity and femininity, as also seen in previous research (Pascoe, 2011; Worthen, 2018; Burn, 2000; Meyer, 2015; Bortolin, 2010). Such findings also reflect the pervasive presence of anti-LGBTQ language and its role in LGBTQ negativity. Indeed, as of April 30, 2020, “faggot” has been tweeted nearly 42 million times and “dyke” has been tweeted over 8 million times since July 2012Footnote 3 according to the website NoHomophobes.com which tracks the frequency of four anti-LGBTQ terms (“faggot,” “no homo,” “so gay,” and “dyke”) on Twitter (Nohomophobes.com, 2020). In fact, there was a 35% increase in the use of “faggot” on Twitter the day after the election of President Trump: on November 8, 2016, there were 7571 tweets with the word “faggot” and on November 9, 2016, there were 10,225 tweets of this type (however, the number of tweets with “dyke” was nearly identical between the two dates, 2144 and 2209 respectively) (Nohomophobes.com, 2020). Thus, “dude bro” and anti-LGBTQ sentiments may have been amplified during this time period (while Trump and his political party are the dominant power) and this may be supporting a “dude bro” mentality of LGBTQ negativity among millennial young men.

But surprisingly, the use of “tranny” is not significant in any model; however, ancillary analyses (not shown) that did not include the Patriarchal Gender Norms Scale revealed that the use of “tranny” was significantly associated with all nine LGBTQ Stigma Scales. It is also important to note that millennial cis men use the term “tranny” nearly as frequently as they use “queer” and “dyke” as insults (see Table 2). In addition, the National School Climate Survey conducted by GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network) found an increase from 2013 to 2017 in the frequency of negative remarks about transgender people among students (Kosciw, Greytak, Zongrone, Clark, & Truong, 2018). Thus, the term “tranny” may be an increasingly problematic fixture in young men’s cultural discourse that is indicative of LGBTQ negativity (Heklina, 2015; Serano, 2007; Tibbals, 2015).

In addition, using the phrase “no homo” is only significant in the models stigmatizing lesbian women, gay men, and bisexual women; however, as similarly seen with the use of “tranny,” ancillary analyses (not shown) that did not include the Patriarchal Gender Norms Scale found that the use of “no homo” was significantly associated with the stigmatization of bisexual men, queer women, and queer men. This is notable because “no homo” was the second most used anti-LGBTQ phrase by millennial men measured in the current study (see Tables 2 and 3). Other research among LGBTQ middle school and high school students (Kosciw et al., 2018) as well as college students (Winberg et al., 2019) finds that a majority report hearing “no homo” quite regularly. In addition, “no homo” has been tweeted more than 16 million times since July 2012 as of April 30, 2020,Footnote 4 according to Nohomophobes.com. Like the other anti-LGBTQ phrases explored in the current study, “no homo” is also utilized to protect and secure one’s own hetero-masculinity; however, unlike the usage of “fag,” “dyke,” and “tranny” as insults directed outwardly toward others, “no homo” is a phrase directed inwardly about one’s own identity (read: “I’m not a homosexual”) and is used to create a unique space for positive emotionality while still conveying disapproval of non-hetero-normativity (Brown, 2011; Pascoe & Diefendorf, 2019; Winberg et al., 2019). Indeed, in a study of 1061 “no homo” tweets, nearly all (86.4%) utilized “no homo” alongside a positive sentiment either toward others as an expression of platonic friendship that clearly delineates boundaries or toward topics/things that are often perceived as feminine/girly or gay (Pascoe & Diefendorf, 2019). Thus, “no homo” is not only a common phrase (especially among young men), it is also linked to LGBTQ negativity in unique and diverse ways that may be amplified by its relatively recent popularity among “dude bros.”

Furthermore, the use of the phrase “that’s so gay!” was in the opposite direction from expected in two models. In particular, saying “that’s so gay!” was negatively related to the stigmatization of lesbian women and bisexual women. However, ancillary analyses (not shown) did indicate that using “that’s so gay!” is positively and significantly correlated with all nine LGBTQ Stigma Scales as well as the other “dude bro” disposition measures with the exception of aversion to being “hit on” by other men. Even so, it may be that “that’s so gay!” operates differently than the other anti-LGBTQ slurs measured in the current study. Indeed, “that’s so gay” is often used to describe something as “negative, stupid, or uncool” (Winberg et al., 2019, p. 1481) but may not be entwined with direct insults of others or to a direct process of securing one’s own hetero-cis-masculinity (though a slight variation of the phrase “you’re so gay!” might be). Some research suggests that the phrase “that’s so gay” may even be less harmful in comparison to more overtly offensive direct attack slurs (e.g., “faggot”) (Sue, 2010). For example, one study found that hearing “that’s so gay” was related to “feeling left out at the university” and poor physical health but not low self-esteem or anxiety (Woodford, Howell, Silverschanz, & Yu, 2012). Even so, GLSEN’s 2017 National School Climate Survey of more than 20,000 LGBTQ middle school and high school students found that a majority (64.1%) were significantly bothered or distressed as a result of hearing “gay” used in a derogatory way (Kosciw et al., 2018). Interestingly, across all age groups of men, “that’s so gay!” was the most commonly utilized anti-LGBTQ phrase measured in the current study (see Tables 2 and 3). Additional research among LGBTQ college students (Winberg et al., 2019) as well as middle school and high school students (Kosciw et al., 2018) finds that between 63.9% and 70% (respectively) hear this phrase frequently. However, though “so gay” has been tweeted close to 14 million times since July 2012 as of April 30, 2020,Footnote 5 it is less commonly tweeted in comparison to “fag” and “no homo” (Nohomophobes.com, 2020). Thus, the use of “that’s so gay!” by millennial men especially relates to LGBTQ negativity in ways that may differ from other types of LGBTQ slurs.

Notably, not all millennial men are dude bros. As Anderson and colleagues have indicated (Anderson, 2018; Anderson, Adams, & Rivers, 2012; McCormack & Anderson, 2014), some young men are becoming increasingly less anti-LGBTQ and less concerned with the archaic framings of masculinity that their fathers and grandfathers were subjected to (e.g., the four scripts of “no sissy stuff,” “be a big wheel,” “be sturdy as an oak,” and “give ‘em hell,” David & Brannon, 1976). There may even be an increasing polarization of dude bros from other millennial young men who are supportive of LGBTQ people and women. Indeed, studies of the 2016 election show that there was divisive voting along the lines of LGBTQ negativity and sexism (Blair, 2017) and more support of Clinton among LGB people comparison to hetero men especially (Swank, 2018a). Thus, dude bros’ unifying characteristics of shared negative and disparaging perspectives about women and LGBTQ people may be especially important to examine in future studies.

Among the sociodemographic controls, most are significant in Table 4 and consistent with existing literature (Worthen, 2016, 2018, 2020; Norton & Herek, 2013; Herek, 2000, 2002). However, when “dude bro” disposition variables are included in Table 5, most sociodemographic controls are no longer significant (with the robust exceptions of millennial, heterosexual, and African American/Black). In particular, being a cis man is no longer significant in six models suggesting that “dude bro” perspectives and attitudes explain more about LGBTQ negativity than being a cis man does. This is also reflected by the notably higher adjusted R2 values in Table 5 (which range from .52 to .61) in comparison to those in Table 4 (which range from .22 to .27). Together, these findings demonstrate that thinking and acting like a “dude bro” when it comes to reinforcing patriarchal gender norms, aversion to being “hit on” by other men, and using anti-LGBTQ language are both very common among millennial cis men and robustly related to LGBTQ negativity.

Implications

Overall, the current study shows that millennial men are notably less supportive of LGBTQ people and women than previous work has found (Anderson, 2018; Milkman, 2017; Parker et al., 2019; Raines, 2003; Risman, 2018). In order to combat this, educational efforts and social policies that focus on cultivating a deeper understanding of the importance of LGBTQ equality and gender equity should be geared toward young people more generally and millennial men specifically (Goldberg & Allen, 2018). Especially because the current study’s findings demonstrate similar patterns among both hetero-cis men and GBTQ men, outreach efforts should be careful to consider how LGBTQ negativities can manifest among GBTQ men (not just hetero-cis men). Recognizing such intersections with both gender and sexuality are essential in educational efforts (Meyer, 2009; Worthen, 2013; Worthen, 2020). As other research has noted (Signorile, 2015), increasing awareness about the continued existence of LGBTQ prejudices and gender inequity is vital. The findings in the current study bolster these arguments by demonstrating that millennials, especially millennial cis men, should be specifically included in educational efforts designed to combat these problematic perspectives.

Limitations and Future Research

Though the current study uses data from a nationally representative sample of US adults stratified by US Census categories of age, gender, race/ethnicity, and census region, it is limited to those aged 18 to 64. Thus, comparisons across generational cohorts by age are limited in that there are no Boomers aged 65 and over and there are no members of the Silent Generation (those born prior to 1945) included in the current study. This is important because some work has focused on the intergenerational transmission of politicized perspectives, including anti-Trump collectives (Whittier, 2018). Furthermore, there may be possible differences in the ways millennials and older generations are responding to more generalized awareness about LGBTQ people/issues as well as recent (though moderate) LGBTQ political progress (e.g., marriage equality) (Milkman, 2017) and the use of LGBTQ-oriented negative slang terms, especially because slang use tends to shift from generation to generation (Moore, 2004). In addition, although the current study’s definition of “millennials” aligns with the GLAAD report’s as well as others’ definitions (GLAAD, 2019b; Masnick, 2017), the year in which “millennials” were born is notably disputed. For example, some (such as the Pew Research Center) have argued for exploring “Generation Z” (those born after 1997) as the next generational cohort (Dimock, 2019). Indeed, some evidence exists that even though they are relatively similar, Generation Z may be even more liberal about some issues when compared to Millennials (Parker et al., 2019). Thus, greater efforts to include people across all ages would be especially helpful to better understand how generational cohort relates to LGBTQ attitudes.

In addition, the measurements of “dude bro” disposition were somewhat limited and there were no direct measures of masculinity available. The incorporation of other measures that could tap into dude bro identity is essential in future work so that we can build scholarly support for the continued examination this (likely) distinct group of men. The anti-LGBTQ slurs measured in the current study were also limited to those that have been popularized in recent decades (Brown, 2011; Pascoe, 2011; Woodford et al., 2013) and do not fully reflect the landscape of negative language directed toward LGBTQ people. Moreover, measures beyond the use of slurs, such as the use of violence directed toward LGBTQ people and the participation in hate crimes based on sexual identities, were not available, though are essential to examine (Meyer, 2015). It may also be meaningful to consider how men’s participation in non-hetero sexual experiences may relate to LGBTQ attitudes (Hughes & Hurtado, 2018; Silva & Whaley, 2018). Thus, future quantitative work might incorporate more measures along these lines and qualitative work could explore these ideas further to better capture these experiences and perspectives, especially in regard to how the US political climate under Trump’s presidency relates to the findings in this study. This is particularly important because opposition to Trump has taken on many forms in recent years and is notably visible in the US political landscape (Whittier, 2018).

There were also significant results in the current study related to race, ethnicity, income, education, and town type that could certainly inform other work that focuses on intersectionalities (e.g., race, ethnicity, gender, class), generational cohort, and LGBTQ perspectives (Harnois, 2017). Furthermore, it would be especially informative to explore millennial women and millennial non-binary individuals across the generations to complement the findings of the current study, especially because studies show that women differ from men in numerous ways across these perspectives and experiences (England et al., 2016; Hensley et al., 2019; Milkman, 2017; Montgomery & Stewart, 2012; Norton & Herek, 2013) and no studies to date have explored these patterns among millennial non-binary individuals. Finally, because millennials and young people have been found to be increasingly more likely to adopt LGBTQ and activist identities (Montgomery & Stewart, 2012; Morandini et al., 2017) and being LGBQ has been found to be related more liberal attitudes (Grollman, 2017; Kowalski & Scheitle, 2019; Schnabel, 2018; Swank, 2018b; Worthen, 2019) and specific concerns about Trump and his policies/perspectives (Drabble et al., 2019; Gonzalez et al., 2018; Swank, 2018a), the ways such identities relate to the perspectives found in the current study should be explored. Such future work can contribute to deeper understanding of generational differences in the marginalization of LGBTQ people and problematic expressions of masculinity/“dude bro” dispositions, perhaps shifting from the “young and the prejudiced” toward increasing acceptance.