When the law allows, but you don’t accept: attitudes toward adoption by same-sex couples

Universidade do Minho Escola de Psicologia Sara Manuela Cunha Dionísio When the Law Allows, but You Don’t Accept: Attitudes Toward Adoption by Same-Sex Couples junho de 2021 When the Law Allows, but You Don’t Accept: Attitudes Toward Adoption by Same-Sex Couples Sara Dionísio UMinho | 2021 Universidade do Minho Escola de Psicologia junho de 2021 Sara Manuela Cunha Dionísio When the Law Allows, but You Don’t Accept: Attitudes Toward Adoption by Same-Sex Couples Dissertação de Mestrado Mestrado Integrado em Psicologia Trabalho efetuado sob a orientação da Professora Doutora Joana Arantes ii Despacho RT - 31 /2019 - Anexo 3 DIREITOS DE AUTOR E CONDIÇÕES DE UTILIZAÇÃO DO TRABALHO POR TERCEIROS Este é um trabalho académico que pode ser utilizado por terceiros desde que respeitadas as regras e boas práticas internacionalmente aceites, no que concerne aos direitos de autor e direitos conexos. Assim, o presente trabalho pode ser utilizado nos termos previstos na licença abaixo indicada. Caso o utilizador necessite de permissão para poder fazer um uso do trabalho em condições não previstas no licenciamento indicado, deverá contactar o autor, através do RepositóriUM da Universidade do Minho. Licença concedida aos utilizadores deste trabalho Atribuição-NãoComercial-SemDerivações CC BY-NC-ND https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ iii Acknowledgments “Tudo acontece por uma razão”. Há quem acredite no destino, há quem acredite no trabalho, há quem… O mundo está repleto de pessoas que acreditam e outras que nem sempre escolhem fazê-lo. Eu acredito que o nosso percurso é construído não só por aquilo que acreditamos, mas também pela oportunidade que as pessoas que cruzam connosco nos dão de acreditar em nós. Em primeiro lugar, gostaria de agradecer a uma pessoa que sempre acreditou e sempre me incentivou a acreditar. Muito obrigada àquela que foi e será sempre a minha orientadora, obrigada por tornar este percurso tão gratificante, mas acima de tudo, obrigada por me ter ensinado tanto deste mundo que é a investigação. Obrigada pela total disponibilidade, interesse, excelente orientação e pela paciência demonstrada em todas as fases desta dissertação. Muito obrigada, Professora Doutora Joana Arantes! Gostaria ainda de agradecer aos meus/minhas colegas do laboratório de Psicologia Evolutiva por todas as sugestões, por toda a ajuda e por fazerem das reuniões deste grupo tão enriquecedoras. Muito obrigada a todos/as. Um obrigada especial aos meus pais, à minha irmã, ao meu cunhado e ao meu afilhado por terem acreditado sempre em mim e terem estado sempre presentes. Obrigada por todo o esforço e dedicação! À Raquel que sempre esteve lá para um “tudo acontece por uma razão” e nunca me deixou desistir. Por ter sempre uma palavra amiga. Por juntas, fazermos coisas incríveis que sozinhas não conseguiríamos. Aos meus familiares e amigos por todo o apoio, amizade e carinho demonstrado. Um sincero MUITO OBRIGADA a todos! iv Despacho RT - 31 /2019 - Anexo 4 STATEMENT OF INTEGRITY I hereby declare having conducted this academic work with integrity. I confirm that I have not used plagiarism or any form of undue use of information or falsification of results along the process leading to its elaboration. I further declare that I have fully acknowledged the Code of Ethical Conduct of the University of Minho. Braga, 04 de junho de 2021 v Quando a Lei Permite, mas Tu Não Aceitas: Atitudes em Relação à Adoção por Casais do Mesmo Sexo Resumo Em Portugal, a legislação apoia a adoção de crianças por casais do mesmo sexo. Investigações prévias mostram que gays e lésbicas são progenitores competentes, e que os seus filhos tão saudáveis e bem-ajustados os de heterossexuais. Contudo, parte da população acredita que a paternidade homossexual afeta negativamente as crianças, gerando discriminação e preconceito contra os pais e os seus filhos adotivos. O objetivo deste estudo centra-se na associação entre as atitudes em relação à adoção por casais do mesmo sexo, bem-estar e personalidade. Este estudo incluiu 1001 participantes (798 mulheres e 203 homens), com idades compreendidas entre 18 e 75 anos (M = 32,55; DP = 12,50). Os participantes responderam ao questionário sociodemográfico, à escala sobre as Atitudes em Relação à Adoção de Crianças por Homossexuais (EAACH), à Escala de Medidas de Manifestação de BemEstar Psicológico (EMMBEP) e ao NEO-Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). Os resultados mostraram que os indivíduos com altos níveis de envolvimento social, amabilidade, abertura à experiência e neuroticismo tendem a ter atitudes mais positivas em relação à adoção de casais do mesmo sexo. Além disso, pessoas do sexo masculino, com mais idade e mais religiosas tendem a ter atitudes mais negativas relativamente à adoção por casais homossexuais. Palavras-chave: Adoção homoparental, Bem-estar psicológico, Idade, Personalidade, Religiosidade vi When the Law Allows, but You Don't Accept: Attitudes Toward Adoption by Same-sex Couples Abstract In Portugal, the current legislation supports children’s adoption by same-sex couples. In addition, scientific research consistently shows that gays and lesbians are fit and capable as parents, and that their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as those raised by heterosexual couples. However, population believe that homosexual parenting adversely affects children, leading to discrimination and prejudice against homosexual parents and their adopted children. Our main goal was to study the relationship between attitudes toward adoption by same-sex couples, well-being and personality. This study included 1001 participants (798 females and 203 males), ranging from 18 to 75 years (M = 32.55; SD = 12.50). All participants completed a sociodemographic questionnaire, the Attitudes Towards Adoption of Children by Homosexuals (ATACH), the Psychological WellBeing Manifestation Measure Scale (PWBMMS) and the NEOFive Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). Results showed that individuals with high levels of social involvement, agreeableness, openness to experience, and neuroticism tended to have more positive attitudes toward same-sex adoption. In addition, men, older people, and those more religious tended to have more negative attitudes toward same-sex adoption. Keywords: Age, Personality, Religiousness, Same-sex adoption, Well-being vii Index Literature Review ............................................................................................................. 8 Method .......................................................................................................................... 11 Participants ........................................................................................................................... 11 Measures .............................................................................................................................. 14 Procedure .............................................................................................................................. 15 Statistical Analysis ................................................................................................................ 16 Results .................................................................................................................................. 16 Descriptive analyses.............................................................................................................. 16 Correlational analyses .......................................................................................................... 17 Regression analyses predicting Acceptance and Rejection .................................................. 21 Attitudes towards same-sex adoption and sociodemographic variables ............................. 21 Discussion....................................................................................................................... 25 References ...................................................................................................................... 29 ANEXOS .......................................................................................................................... 39 Table Index Table 1. Sociodemographic Description of the Sample ........................................................... 12 Table 2. Descriptive Statistics for Gender ................................................................................. 17 Table 3. Correlational analyses between age, religiousness, neuroticism, extroversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, conscientiousness, happiness, sociability, control, social involvement, self-esteem, balance, acceptance, and rejection ..................................... 20 Table 4. Multiple regression models predicting Acceptance and Rejection ............................. 21 Figure Index Figure 1. Attitudes towards same-sex adoption and sociodemographic variables….……………24 ATTITUDES TOWARD ADOPTION BY SAME-SEX COUPLES 14 Atheists Other Spiritism Agnostic Buddhist Evangelicals Protestants 166 28 24 21 9 5 4 16.7 2.8 2.4 2.1 .9 .5 .4 With Children Without With 613 388 61.2 38.8 With LGBTQIA+ Family Without With 759 242 75.8 24.2 With LGBTQIA+ Friends With Without 684 317 68.3 31.7 Note. N= 1001 Measures Sociodemographic Questionnaire Participants were asked questions regarding their sex, gender, age, marital status, sexual orientation, political party, socio-economic level, place where they lived (city, town, village or other), level of education, if they were religious, religion and level of religiousness (using a Likert scale from 1, Not religious at all, to 7, Extremely religious), if they had children, and whether a member of their family or group of friends was a part of the LGBTQIA+ community. Participants were also asked if they were currently involved in a relationship. Attitudes Towards Adoption of Children by Homosexuals (ATACH) (Falcão, 2004; Portuguese version adapted by Cardeira et al., 2013) The ATACH is a scale used to evaluate the attitudes of the population towards the adoption of children by same-sex couples. This scale consists of thirty-seven items, divided into two factors: acceptation (e.g., "If a homosexual couple is formed by two adjusted people, the child will develop normally") and rejection (e.g., “A child raised by gays will have psychological problems in the future due to the lack of a maternal figure"). Throughout this ATTITUDES TOWARD ADOPTION BY SAME-SEX COUPLES 15 scale, participants are asked to select the option that corresponded to their opinion on a Likert scale from 1 (I totally disagree) to 7(I totally agree). This scale has been shown to have a good internal consistency (α > .95 for both Portuguese and original versions). Psychological Well-Being Manifestation Measure Scale (PWBMMS) (Massé et al., 1998; Portuguese version adapted by Monteiro et al., 2012) This scale assesses overall psychological well-being. It consists of twenty-five items, divided into six subscales: i) self-esteem (e.g., “I felt confident”); ii) balance (e.g., "I was like myself, natural in all circumstances."); iii) social involvement (e.g., “I had goals and ambitions"); iv) sociability (e.g., "I laughed with ease"); v) control (e.g., "In the face of complex situations, I was able to solve them clearly."); and vi) happiness (e.g., "I was quite calm". ). Participants answer using a Likert scale from 1 ("Never”) to 5 (“Almost always”). Total scores were computed by calculating the arithmetic mean of the individual items by subscale, witch higher scores indicating greater psychological well-being. Both the original version (Massé et al., 1998) and the scale adapted for the Portuguese population reveal very good internal consistency values, both with  = .93. NEO-Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Portuguese version of Magalhães et al., 2014) The NEO-FFI is a questionnaire used to identify personality traits. The NEO-FII assesses the personality of each element. It is a reduced version of NEO-PI-R (Portuguese version of Lima & Simões, 1997; 2006) and reflects the basic dimensions of personality based on the 5-factor model: i) Extroversion (e.g., “I am a very active person.”); ii) Agreeableness (e.g., “I try to be gentle with everyone I meet.”); iii)Openness to experience (e.g., “I often try new and unknown foods.”); iv) Neuroticism (e.g., “I’m not a concerned person”); and v) Conscientiousness (e.g., “I keep my things clean and in order.”). It includes 60 items, 12 for dimensions, answered on a 5-point Likert scale, from 0 (“Strongly disagree”) to 4 (“Strongly agree”). Validity and reliability of the NEO-FFI has been demonstrated (Cronbach alpha range from .71 to .82) (Magalhães et al., 2014; McCrae & Costa, 2004). Procedure Participants did not receive monetary compensation, and were recruited through personal and institutional emails, and social networks (Instagram and Facebook). Participants’ responses were recorded anonymously using the Qualtrics Research Suite program. For all ATTITUDES TOWARD ADOPTION BY SAME-SEX COUPLES 16 participants, the sociodemographic questionnaire was presented first, followed by the ATACH, PWBMMS, and NEO-FFI, in a counterbalanced order. Participants took an average of 15 minutes to complete the survey. Statistical Analysis The collected data were first exported to an Excel spreadsheet and then analyses were conducted with the statistical software Statistical Package for Social Sciences ® (IBM SPSS ®; version 27). These analyses included: i) correlations to evaluate the associations among variables, namely age, religiousness, neuroticism, extroversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, conscientiousness, happiness, sociability, control, social involvement, selfesteem, balance, acceptance and rejection; ii) t tests to examine gender differences, differences between participants with and without children, religious and non-religious, with and without LGBTQIA+ friends and with and without LGBTQIA+ family members; iii) unidirectional analyses of variance (ANOVA) to investigate possible differences between participants with different sexual orientations, marital status, political parties (left, right, center and non-partisans), places of residence and religions; and iv) multiple regression models predicting acceptance and rejection. A criterion of p < .05 was used for significance tests. Results Descriptive analyses Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics for the sample on the different scales. Results are shown for both the full sample and separately for males and females. Results indicated that, compared with women, male participants tend to be less religious, t(325.933) = -2. 697, and to score less in neuroticism, t(858)= -5.556, less agreeableness, t(858) = -3.793, less conscientiousness, t(223.803) = -3.826, less sociability, t(253.068) = -2.360 , less acceptance, t(209.794) = 6.268. However, men tend to be happier, and to score more in control, and rejection than women, t(922) = 4.642, t(257.845)= 2.064, and t(210.813) = 5.434, respectively. ATTITUDES TOWARD ADOPTION BY SAME-SEX COUPLES 17 Table 2 Descriptive Statistics for Gender Female Male p Mean DP Mean DP Age 32.30 12.12 34.11 13.71 .65 Religiousness 2.60 1.81 2.23 1.71 .001 Neuroticism 3.16 .67 2.84 .60 .000 Extroversion 3.41 .58 3.48 .59 .162 Openness to experience 3.49 .52 3.53 .49 .372 Agreeableness 3.74 .44 3.59 .48 .000 Conscientiousness 3.90 .60 3.68 .71 .000 Happiness 10.32 .84 10.64 .82 .000 Sociability 8.19 2.10 7.67 3.00 .019 Control 10.45 .79 10.59 .81 .040 Social Involvement 10.50 .87 10.62 .80 .080 Self-esteem 10.60 .74 10.68 .76 .182 Balance 10.79 .76 10.76 .83 .605 Acceptance 6.00 .74 5.47 1.03 .000 Rejection 1.94 .71 2.37 .98 .000 Correlational analyses We examined correlations between age, religiosity, personality (neuroticism, extroversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness), well-being (happiness, sociability, control, social involvement, self-esteem, and balance), and attitudes towards same-sex adoption (acceptance and rejection). Results are shown in Table 3. Age was positively correlated with religiosity (r = .07, p = .02), extroversion (r = .12, p = .001), openness to experience (r = .11, p = .001), agreeableness (r = .13; p = .000), consciousness (r = .16, p =. 000), happiness (r = .11, p = .001), control (r = .16, p = .000), social involvement (r = .009, p = .008), self-esteem (r = .23, p = .000), balance (r = .15, p = .000) and rejection (r =. 22, p = .000), indicating that older people tended to be more religious, and score more in extroversion, ATTITUDES TOWARD ADOPTION BY SAME-SEX COUPLES 18 openness to experience, agreeableness, consciousness, happiness, control, social involvement, self-esteem, balance and rejection. On the other hand, age was negatively correlated with neuroticism (r = -.28, p = .000) and acceptance (r = -.26, p = .000), showing that older people tended to score less on neuroticism and acceptance. Religiosity was positively correlated with extroversion (r = .10, p = .003), agreeableness (r = .11, p = .002), consciousness (r = .12, p = .000), happiness (r = .09, p = .01), control (r = .09, p = .007), social involvement (r = .11, p = .001), self-esteem (r = .11, p = .001), balance (r = .07, p = .03)and rejection (r = .12, p = .000) and negatively correlated with the opening to experience (r = -.007 , p = .04) and acceptance (r = -.09, p = .008). That shows that more religious people tended to score higher in extroversion, agreeableness, consciousness, happiness, control, social involvement, self-esteem, balance, rejection and scoreless in acceptance and openness to experience. Neuroticism was positively correlated with acceptance (r = .15, p = .000) and was negatively correlated with extroversion (r = -.46, p = .000), openness to experience (r = -.14, p = .000), agreeableness (r = -.29, p = .000), consciousness (r = -.34, p = .000), happiness (r = - .63, p =.000), sociability (r = -.15, p = .000), control (r = -.58, p = .000), social involvement (r = - .40, p = .000), self-esteem (r = -.58-, p = .000) and balance (r = -.41, p = .000). That shows that, people that score more in neuroticism tended to score more in acceptance, and score less in extroversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, consciousness, happiness, sociability, control, social involvement, self-esteem and balance. Extroversion was positively correlated with openness to experience (r = .20, p = .000), agreeableness(r = .29, p = .000), consciousness (r = .36, p = .000), happiness (r = .53, p = .000), sociability (r = .20, p = .000), control (r = .47, p = .000), social involvement (r = .46, p = .000), self-esteem (r = .50, p = .000) and balance (r = .27, p = .000). Results shows that, people that score more in extroversion, tended to score higher in openness to experience, agreeableness, consciousness, happiness, sociability, control, social involvement, self-esteem and balance. Open to experience was positively correlated with agreeableness (r = .13, p = .000), consciousness (r = .09, p = .01), happiness (r = .11, p = .001), control (r = .17, p = .000), social involvement (r = .31, p = .000), self-esteem (r = .13, p =.000), and acceptance (r = .15, p = .000). On the other hand, it was negatively correlated with rejection (r = -.22, p = .000). That Shows that, people that score higher in openness to experience tended to score higher in ATTITUDES TOWARD ADOPTION BY SAME-SEX COUPLES 19 agreeableness, consciousness, happiness, control, social involvement, self-esteem and acceptance. Agreeableness was positively correlated with conscientiousness (r = .27, p = .000), happiness (r = .29, p = .000), sociability (r = .14, p = .000), control (r = .23, p = .000), social involvement (r = .21, p = .000), self-esteem (r = .27, p = .000), balance (r = .24, p = .000) and acceptance (r = .13, p = .000). Also, it was possible to observe that was negatively correlated with rejection (r = -.15, p =.000). That indicates that, people that score more in agreeableness tended to score higher in consciousness, happiness, control, social involvement, self-esteem, balance, sociability, and acceptance. Conscientiousness was positively correlated with happiness (r = .38, p = .000), control (r = .39, p = .000), social involvement (r = .43, p = .000), self-esteem (r = .42, p = .000) and balance (r = .36, p = .000). Showing that people that score more in conscientiousness tend to score higher in happiness, control, social involvement, self-esteem and balance. Happiness was positively correlated with sociability (r = .68, p = .000), control (r = .74, p = .000), social involvement (r = .59, p = .000), self-esteem (r = .76, p = .000) and balance (r = .63, p = .000). That shows that, people that score more in happiness tended to score more in sociability, control, social involvement, self-esteem and balance. Sociability was positively correlated with control (r = .62, p = .000), social involvement (r = .52, p = .000), self-esteem (r = .61, p = .000) and balance (r = .53, p = .000). That shows that, people that score more in sociability tend to score higher in control, social involvement, self-esteem and balance. Control was positively correlated with social involvement (r = .55, p = .000), self-esteem (r = .68, p = .000) and balance (r = .54, p = .000). That shows that, people that score higher in control, score higher in social involvement, self-esteem and balance. Social involvement was positively correlated with self-esteem (r = .60, p = .000) and balance (r = .38, p = .000). Social involvement was negatively correlated with rejection (r = - .09, p = .01). Showing that, people that score higher in social involvement, score higher in selfesteem and balance. Self-esteem was positively correlated with balance (r = .53, p = .000). That shows that, people with higher self-esteem score higher in balance. Acceptance was negatively correlated with rejection (r = -.79, p = .000). That shows that people that score higher in acceptance, score less in rejection. ATTITUDES TOWARD ADOPTION BY SAME-SEX COUPLES 20 Table 3 Correlational analyses between age, religiousness, neuroticism, extroversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, conscientiousness, happiness, sociability, control, social involvement, self-esteem, balance, acceptance, and rejection Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1. Age ─ .074* -.281*** .115*** .111*** .132*** .155*** .114*** -.016 .164*** .087** .227*** .145*** -.258*** .215*** 2. Religiousness ─ -.005 .102** -.069* .107** .124*** .085** -.018 .089** .106*** .106*** .072* -.089** .121*** 3. Neuroticism ─ -.464*** -.141*** -.285*** -.335*** -.629*** -.148*** -.580*** -.397*** -.580*** -.405*** .146*** -.051 4. Extroversion ─ .201*** .291*** .360*** .531*** .200*** .471*** .455*** .502*** .266*** -.037 .016 5. Openness to experience ─ .127*** .088** .114*** -.010 .173*** .307*** .126*** .008 .152*** -.219*** 6. Agreeableness ─ .267*** .288*** .141*** .232*** .207*** .269*** .242*** .130*** -.154*** 7. Conscientiousness ─ .381*** .054 .390*** .434*** .421*** .356*** .024 -.060 8. Happiness ─ .684*** .743*** .591*** .759*** .628*** -.065 .010 9. Sociability ─ .618*** .522*** .612*** .528*** .024 -.026 10. Control ─ .554*** .681*** .539*** -.007 -.061 11.Social involvement ─ .601*** .383*** .011 -.088* 12. Self-esteem ─ .532*** -.010 -.045 13. Balance ─ -.003 -.007 14. Acceptance ─ -.792*** 15. Rejection ─ * p < .05, ** p < .01, ***p < .001 ATTITUDES TOWARD ADOPTION BY SAME-SEX COUPLES 21 Regression analyses predicting Acceptance and Rejection The zero-order correlations presented above demonstrate that age, religiousness, neuroticism, openness to experience and agreeableness were associated with Acceptance and age, religiousness, neuroticism, openness to experience, agreeableness and social involvement were associated with Rejection. However, because some of these variables were low-to-moderately intercorrelated, it was of interest to determine the collective and unique explanatory power of these variables. Therefore, we performed multiple regression analyses wherein the subscales of the Attitudes Towards Adoption of Children by Homosexuals (i.e., Acceptance and Rejection) were each simultaneously regressed onto these six predictor variables. On Table 4 it is possible to see that the model measured the variables collectively explained approximately 15% of the total variance in Acceptance (14.6%) and Rejection (14.7%). The standardized regression coefficients (βs) for the specific variables indicated that age, religiousness, neuroticism, openness to experience and agreeableness were the strongest and unique predictors of acceptance and rejection of adoption by same-sex couples. These patterns support the deduction that age, religiousness, neuroticism, openness to experience and agreeableness were the strongest and unique predictors of Attitudes Towards Adoption of Children by Homosexuals. Table 4 Multiple regression models predicting Acceptance and Rejection Variable Acceptance Rejection  P  P Model Age Religiousness Neuroticism Openness to Experience Agreeableness Social involvement Model r2 -.017 -.042 .191 .260 .359 .015 .146 .000*** .007** .000*** .000*** .000*** .691 .015 .049 -.093 -.316 -.322 -.040 .147 .000*** .001*** .042* .000*** .000*** .251 * p < .05, ** p < .01, ***p < .001 Attitudes towards same-sex adoption and sociodemographic variables As shown in Figure 1, T tests for independent means that individuals with children tended to score less in acceptance (Macceptance = 5.65, SD = .93) and more in rejection (Mrejection ATTITUDES TOWARD ADOPTION BY SAME-SEX COUPLES 22 = 2.23, SD = . 91), than participants without children (Macceptance = 6.06, SD = .72; Mrejection = 1.89, SD = .66), t(568.781) = -6.867, p < .001 e t(539.221) = 5.778, p < .001, respectively. Participants who consider themselves religious scored less in acceptance (MAcceptance = 5.79, SD = .89) and more in rejection (MRejection = 2.15, SD = .83) than participants who do not consider themselves religious (Maceptance = 6.02, SD = .74, Mrejection = 1.87, SD = .69), t(866.870) = 4.12, p < .001 and t(865.897) = 5.40, p < .001, respectively. Participants with LGBTIQ+ families scored more in acceptance (Maceptance = 6.02, SD = .76) and less in rejection (Mrejection= 1.90, SD = .71) than participants without LGBTQIA+ families (Maceptance = 5.86, SD = .85, Mrejection = 2.06, SD = .80), t(403.981) = 2.59, p < .05 and t(408.497) = -2.83, p <.01, respectively. Participants with LGBTIQ+ friends, scored more in acceptance (Macceptance = 6.02, SD = .74) and less in rejection (Mrejection = 1.90, SD = .70) than participants without LGBTQIA+ friends (Maceptance = 5.64, SD = .96, Mrejection = 2.28, SD = .88), t(427.120) = 5.78, p < .001 and t(439.561) = -6.33, p <.001, respectively. Univariate analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were performed to examine possible differences in acceptance and rejection depending on the political parties of the participants. Results showed a significant effect of acceptance, F (3,804) = 21,008, p < .001. Post-hoc Bonferroni tests demonstrated that right parties people scored less on acceptance (M = 5.27, SD = 1. 104) than those on the left (M = 5.89, SD = .794), p < .001, than center ones (M = 6.19, SD = . 602), p < .001 and than the nonpartisans (M = 5.85, SD = . 852), p < .001. In addition, people with a tendency to center parties (M = 6.19, SD = . 602), scored more on acceptance than people on the left parties (M = 5.89, SD = . 794), p < .001, and than nonpartisans (M = 5.85, SD = . 852), p < .001. Results also showed a significant effect of rejection, F (3,804) = 20.028, p < .001. Post-hoc Bonferroni tests indicated that people from right parties (M = 2.63, SD = 1. 044) scored higher than the left ones (M = 2.04, SD = .741), p< .001, than center ones (M = 1.76, SD = .575), p < .001, and than the nonpartisans (M = 2.02, SD = .816), p < .001. Individuals with a tendency to center parties (M = 1.76, SD = .575) scored less than those on the left (M = 2.04, SD = .741), p < .001, and than nonpartisans (M = 2.02, SD = .816), p < .01. Concerning sexual orientations and acceptance proved to have a significant effect F (4,866) = 5,931, p < .001. Post-hoc Bonferroni tests demonstrated that heterosexual people (M = 5.85, SD = .850) score less than bisexual (M = 6.29, SD = .491), p < .001 and then homosexuals ( M = 6.24, SD = .548), p < .05. Results also showed a significant effect of with rejection F (4,866) = 5,945, p < .001. Post-hoc Bonferroni tests demonstrated that ATTITUDES TOWARD ADOPTION BY SAME-SEX COUPLES 23 heterosexual people (M = 2.07, SD = .803) score more than bisexual (M = 1.71, SD = .481), p < .01 and then homosexuals (M = 1.60, SD = .511), p < .01. As far as marital status and acceptance is concerned, there was also a significant effect F (4,866) = 12.041, p <.001. Posthoc Bonferroni tests demonstrated that in which married people (M = 5.60, SD = .960) tend to score less than single (M = 6.03, SD = .742), p < .001 and then those in a facto union (M = 6.05 , SD = .662), p < .01. Finally, as far as rejection was also a significant effect on the F (4,866) = 12.522, p <.001. Post-hoc Bonferroni tests demonstrated that married people (M = 2.30, SD = .916) tend to score more than single (M = 1.91, SD = .684), p < .001 and then those in a facto union (M = 1.75, SD = .643), p < .001. Place of residence and rejection also indicated a significant effect F (3,867) = 2.929, p < .05. Post-hoc Bonferroni tests demonstrated that people residing in village (M = 1.89, SD = .723) tend to score less than residents elsewhere (M = 2.52, SD = .731, p < .05. Religion and acceptance also indicated a significant effect F (7,859) = 3.108, p <.01. Post-hoc Bonferroni tests demonstrated that Catholics (M = 5.82, SD = .858) accept less than atheists (M = 6.13, SD = .696), p < .01. Religion and rejection also indicated a significant effect F (7,859) = 4.264, p <.001. Post-hoc Bonferroni tests demonstrated that Catholics (M = 2.11, SD = .824) reject more than atheists (M = 1.80, SD = .295), p <.001. It is important to note that further unidirectional analyses were conducted in order to investigate if there were any differences between participants literacy level and with different socioeconomic levels but showed no significant effects Acceptance and Rejection subscales (ps > .05). ATTITUDES TOWARD ADOPTION BY SAME-SEX COUPLES 30 Allen, D. W., Pakaluk, C., & Price, J. (2013). Nontraditional families and childhood progress through school: A comment on Rosenfeld. Demography, 50, 1– 7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-012-0169-x Anderssen, N., Amlie, C., & Ytterøy, E. A. (2002). Outcomes for children with lesbian or gay parents. A review of studies from 1978 to 2000. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 43(4), 335–351. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9450.00302 Averett, P., Strong-Blakeney, A., Nalavany, B. & Ryan, S. (2011). Adoptive Parents’ Attitudes Towards Gay and Lesbian Adoption. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 7:1-2, 3048, https://doi.org/10.1080/1550428X.2011.537211 Bartoş, S. E., Berger, I., & Hegarty, P. (2014). Interventions to reduce sexual prejudice: A studyspace analysis and meta-analytic review. The Journal of Sex Research, 51(4), 363382. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2013.871625 Bergh, R., Akrami, N., Sidanius, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2016). Is group membership necessary for understanding generalized prejudice? A re-evaluation of why prejudices are interrelated. Journal of personality and social psychology, 111(3), 367. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000064 Bergner, R. M. (2020). What is personality? Two myths and a definition. New Ideas in Psychology, 57, 100759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2019.100759 Biblarz, T. J., & Stacey, J. (2010). How does the gender of parents matter? Journal of marriage and family, 72(1), 3-22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00678.x Bigner, J., & Jacobsen, R. B. (1989). Parenting Behaviors of Homosexual and Heterosexual Fathers. Journal of Homosexuality. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v18n01_09 Blais-Rochette, C., Miranda, D., & Kljajic, K. (2021). A meta-analysis on personality and cultural attitudes. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne. https://doi.org/10.1037/cap0000264 Bos, H., van Balen, F., & van den Boom, D. (2007). Child adjustment and parenting in planned lesbian-parent families. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 77(1), 38– 48. https://doi.org/10.1037/0002-9432.77.1.38 Boyette, L., Korver-Nieberg, N., Verweij, K., Meijer, C., Dingemans, P., Cahn, W., Haan, L. (2013). Associations between the Five-Factor Model Personality Traits and Psychotic Experiences in Patients with Psychotic Disorders, their Siblings and Controls. Psychiatry Research, 210(2013), 491-497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2013.06.040 Capezza, N. M. (2007). Homophobia and sexism: The pros and cons to an integrative approach. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 41, 248–253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-007-9033-8 ATTITUDES TOWARD ADOPTION BY SAME-SEX COUPLES 31 Cardeira, H., Frazão, A., & Mónico, L. (2013). Attitudes towards the adoption of children for homosexual couples. International Journal of Developmental and Educational Psychology, 1(1), 135-142. Carlson DS, Kacmar KM, Grzywacz JG, Tepper B, & Whitten D. (2013). Work-family balance and supervisor appraised citizenship behavior: The link of positive affect. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 14, 87– 106. Carone, N., Baiocco, R., Lingiardi, V., & Kerns, K. (2020). Child attachment security in gay father surrogacy families: Parents as safe havens and secure bases during middle childhood. Attachment & human development, 22(3), 269289. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616734.2019.1588906 Cerqueira-Santos, E., & Bourne, J. (2016). Estereotipia de gênero nas brincadeiras de faz de conta de crianças adotadas por casais homoparentais. Psico-USF, 21(1), 125-133. Cerqueira-Santos, E., Nunes, L. M., & Silveira, A. P. (2017). Homofobia internalizada e religiosidade entre casais homoafetivos. Temas em Psicologia, 25(2), 691702. http://dx.doi.org/10.9788/TP2017.2-15 Cervone, D., & Pervin, L. (2013). Personality: Theory and research. New York: Wiley. Chaux, E., & León, M. (2016). Homophobic attitudes and associated factors among adolescents: A comparison of six Latin American countries. Journal of homosexuality, 63(9), 1253-1276. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2016.1151697 Christov-Moore, L., Simpson, E. A., Coudé, G., Grigaityte, K., Iacoboni, M., & Ferrari, P. F. (2014). Empathy: Gender effects in brain and behavior. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 46, 604–627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.09.001 Ciocca, G., Capuano, N., Tuziak, B., Mollaioli, D., Limoncin, E., Valsecchi, D., & al. (2015). Italian Validation of Homophobia Scale (HS). Sexual Medicine, 3(3), 213218´. https://doi.org/10.1002/sm2.68 Commissioner for Human Rights. (2011). Discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity in Europe. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe Publishing. Conselho Nacional para a Adoção (2018). Relatório Anual de Atividades 2018. https://www.segsocial.pt/documents/10152/16400203/Relat%C3%B3rio%20de%20atividades%20do %20Conselho%20Nacional%20para%20a%20Ado%C3%A7%C3%A3o%20- %202018/d6fc4ae1-882e-49ec-9e29-fbb8a2b21874 Costa, Â. B., & Nardi, H. C. (2015). Homophobia and prejudice against sexual diversity: conceptual debate. Temas em Psicologia, 23(3), 715-726. https://dx.doi.org/10.9788/TP2015.3-15 Costa, P. A., Almeida, R., Anselmo, C., Ferreira, A., Pereira, H., & Leal, I. (2014). University students’ attitudes toward same-sex parenting and gay and lesbian rights in ATTITUDES TOWARD ADOPTION BY SAME-SEX COUPLES 32 Portugal. Journal of Homosexuality, 61(12), 16671686. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2014.951253 Costa, P. T. Jr., & Mccrae, R. R. (1992). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and Individual Differences, v.13, n.6, p. 653-665. Costa, A., & Nardi, H. (2015). Homofobia e preconceito contra diversidade sexual: debate conceitual. Temas em Psicologia, 23(3), 715- -726. https://doi.org/10.9788/TP2015.315 Crawford, J. T., & Brandt, M. J. (2019). Who is prejudiced, and toward whom? The big five traits and generalized prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(10), 1455-1467. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0146167219832335 D’Amore, S., Green, R. J., Scali, T., Liberati, G., & Haxhe, S. (2014). Belgian heterosexual attitudes toward homosexual couples and families. Coming-out for LGBT, 18. Dadfar, M., Gunn III, J. F., Lester, D., & Abdel-Khalek, A. M. (2021). Love of Life Model: role of psychological well-being, depression, somatic health, and spiritual health. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/13674676.2020.1825360 Delgado, J., Castro, M., & Ojeda, F. (2014). Características sociodemográficas, bienestar subjetivo y homofobia en una muestra de hombres gay en tres ciu dades chilenas. Cadernos de saude publica, 30, 12591269. https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-311X00108413 Di Tella, M., Miti, F., Ardito, R. B., & Adenzato, M. (2020). Social cognition and sex: Are men and women really different?. Personality and Individual Differences, 162, 110045. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110045 Dias, M. B., & Reinheimer, T. L. (2013). Homoparentalidade: Uma realidade. In C. J. Cordeiro & J. A. Gomes (Eds.). Temas contemporâneos de direito das famílias (pp. 6-503). São Paulo, SP: Pillares. Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2007). Right wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation and the dimensions of generalized prejudice. European Journal of Personality: Published for the European Association of Personality Psychology, 21(2), 113130.https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868308319226 Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Harcourt brace Jovanovich college publishers. Edwards, R., & Gillies, V. (2012). Farewell to family? Notes on an argument for retaining the concept. Families, Relationships and Societies, 1(1), 6369. https://doi.org/10.1332/204674312X633162 Ekehammar, B., Akrami, N., Gylje, M., & Zakrisson, I. (2004). What matters most to prejudice: Big five personality, social dominance orientation, or right-wing ATTITUDES TOWARD ADOPTION BY SAME-SEX COUPLES 33 authoritarianism? European Journal of Personality, 18, 463-482. https://doi.org/10.1002%2Fper.526 Everett, B. G., Steele, S. M., Matthews, A. K., & Hughes, T. L. (2019). Gender, race, and minority stress among sexual minority women: An intersectional approach. Archives of sexual behavior, 48(5), 1505-1517. Feliciano, P. H. (2020). Dilemas E Desafios Na Homoparentalidade Pela Via Da Adoção. Humanidades & Inovação, 7(2), 194-206. Flaks, D. K., Ficher, I., Masterpasqua, F., & Joseph, G. (1995). Lesbians Choosing Motherhood: A Comparative Study of Lesbian and Heterosexual Parents and Their Children. Developmental Psychology, 31(1), 105–114. https://doi.org/10.1037/00121649.31.1.105 Flynn, F. J. (2005). Having an open mind: The impact of openness to experience on interracial attitudes and impression formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(5), 816–826. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.5.816´ Fredrickson, B. L., & Joiner, T. (2002). Positive Emotions Trigger Upward Spirals Toward Emotional Well-Being. Psychological Science, 13(2), 172– 175. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00431 Gato, J., & Fontaine, A. (2010). Desconstruindo preconceitos sobre a homoparentalidade. Gato, J., & Fontaine, A. M. (2015). Attitudes Toward Adoption by Same-Sex Couples: Effects of Gender of the Participant, Sexual Orientation of the Couple, and Gender of the Child. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 12(1), 46– 67. https://doi.org/10.1080/1550428x.2015.1049771 Goldberg, N. G., & Hasenbush, A. (2020). Family Law and Policy for LGBTQ Individuals and Families: Adoption, Foster Care, Assisted Reproduction, and Parental Rights. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.1218 Golombok, S., Mellish, L., Jennings, S., Casey, P., Tasker, F., & Lamb. M. E. (2014). Adoptive gay father families: Parent-child relationships and children’s psychological adjustment. Child Development, 85(2), 456-68. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12155 Gomes, M., Assunção, S., Azevedo, S., & Teixeira, C. M. (2019). A influência de fatores socioculturais nas atitudes face à homossexualidade: Estudo comparativo. PsychTech & Health Journal, 2(2), 3-16. https://doi.org/10.26580/PTHJ.art13-2019 Gómez-López, M., Viejo, C., & Ortega-Ruiz, R. (2019). Psychological Well-Being during adolescence: Stability and association with romantic relationships. Frontiers in psychology, 10, 1772. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01772 Guerra, P. (2012). Da exclusão social à inclusão social: eixos de uma mudança paradigmática. Revista Angolana de Sociologia, (10), 91110. https://doi.org/10.4000/ras.257 ATTITUDES TOWARD ADOPTION BY SAME-SEX COUPLES 34 Gusmão, E., Nascimento, B., Gouveia, V., Filho, L., Costa, K., Moura, H., & Monteiro, R. (2016). Valores humanos e atitudes homofóbicas flagrante e sutil. Psico-USF, 21(2), 367-380. https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-82712016210213 Halman, L., & van Ingen, E. (2015). Secularization and changing moral views: European trends in church attendance and views on homosexuality, divorce, abortion, and euthanasia. European Sociological Review, 31(5), 616– 627. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcv064 Hare, T. A., Camerer, C. F., & Rangel, A. (2009). Self-control in decision-making involves modulation of the vmPFC valuation system. Science, 324(5927), 646-648. https://doi.org/ 10.1126/science.1168450 Hegarty, P., & Pratto, F. (2001). Sexual orientation beliefs: Their relationship to anti-gay attitudes and biological determinist arguments. Journal of Homosexuality, 41(1), 121135. Hicks, G. R., & Lee, T. T. (2006). Public attitudes toward gays and lesbians: Trends and predictors. Journal of homosexuality, 51(2), 57-77. Ionescu, A. (2020). Psycho-Sociological Perspectives On The Family Institution In The Contemporary Society. Annals of the University of Craiova, Series Psychology, Pedagogy, 41(1), 85-92. Jäckle, S., & Wenzelburger, G. (2015). Religion, religiosity, and the attitudes toward homosexuality—A multilevel analysis of 79 countries. Journal of Homosexuality, 62(2), 207–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2014.969071 Jakobsson, N., Kotsadam, A., & Jakobsson, S. S. (2013). Attitudes toward same-sex marriage: The case of Scandinavia. Journal of Homosexuality, 60(9), 13491360. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2013.806191 Khera, M. L., Harvey, A. J., & Callan, M. J. (2014). Beliefs in a just world, subjective well-being and attitudes towards refugees among refugee workers. Social Justice Research, 27(4), 432-443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-014-0220-8 Kite, M. E., & Whitley, B. E. (1996). Sex differences in attitudes toward homosexual persons, behaviors, and civil rights a meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(4), 336-353. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167296224002 Kleinert, E., Martin, O., Brähler, E., & Stöbel-Richter, Y. (2015). Motives and Decisions for and Against Having Children Among Non-heterosexuals and the Impact of Experiences of Discrimination, Internalized Stigma, and Social Acceptance. The Journal of Sex Research, 52(2), 174–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2013.838745 Lin, C., & Alvarez, R. M. (2020). Personality traits are directly associated with anti-black prejudice in the United States. PloS one, 15(7), e0235436. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235436 MacCallum, F., & Golombok, S. (2004). Children raised in fatherless families from infancy: A follow-up of children of lesbian and single heterosexual mothers at early ATTITUDES TOWARD ADOPTION BY SAME-SEX COUPLES 35 adolescence. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14697610.2004.00324 Macedo, A. (2018). Identidade de Género e Orientação Sexual na Prática Clínica. Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation on Clinical Practice. Sílabo. Maftei, A., & Holman, A. C. (2020). Predictors of homophobia in a sample of Romanian young adults: age, gender, spirituality, attachment styles, and moral disengagement. Psychology & Sexuality, 112. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2020.1726435 Magalhães, E., Salgueira, A., Gonzalez, A., Costa, J., Costa, M., Costa, P., & Lima, M. (2014). NEO-FFI: Psychometric properties of a short personality inventory in Portuguese context. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 27(4), 642657. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-7153.201427405 Manning, W. D., Fettro, M. N., & Lamidi, E. (2014). Child well-being in same-sex parent families: Review of research prepared for American Sociological Association Amicus Brief. Population research and policy review, 33(4), 485-502. Massé, R., Poulin, C., Dassa, C., Lambert, J., Bélair, S., & Battaglini, A. (1998). Élaboration et validation d’un outil de mesure du bien-être psychologique: L’É.M.M.B.E.P. Revue Canadienne de Santé Publique, 89(5), 352-357. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03404490 McColl-Kennedy, J. R., Danaher, T. S., Gallan, A. S., Orsingher, C., Lervik-Olsen, L., & Verma, R. (2017). How do you feel today? Managing patient emotions during health care experiences to enhance well-being. Journal of Business Research, 79, 247259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.03.022 McConnachie, A. L., Ayed, N., Foley, S., Lamb, M. E., Jadva, V., Tasker, F., & Golombok, S. (2021). Adoptive Gay Father Families: a longitudinal study of children’s adjustment at early adolescence. Child development, 92(1), 425443. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13442 Melo, M., Bota, P., & Santos, J. (2020). Diferenças, discriminações e desigualdades: estudos sobre minorias sexuais. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.cidehus.13577. Messina, R., & D'Amore, S. (2018). Adoption by Lesbians and Gay Men in Europe: Challenges and Barriers on the Journey to Adoption. Adoption Quarterly, 21(2), 5981. https://doi:10.1080/10926755.2018.1427641 Meyer, I. H. (2013). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 1(S), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1037/2329-0382.1.S.3 Monteiro, S., Tavares, J., & Pereira, A. (2012). Adaptação portuguesa da escala de medida de manifestação de bem-estar psicológico com estudantes universitáriosEMMBEP. Psicologia, saúde e doenças, 13(1), 61-77. ATTITUDES TOWARD ADOPTION BY SAME-SEX COUPLES 36 Morales-Murillo, M. P., Erazo-Álvarez, J. C., Pinos-Jaén, C. E., & Narváez-Zurita, C. I. (2020). Adopción homoparental en el ordenamiento jurídico ecuatoriano en interés superior de los niños y adolescentes. Iustitia socialis, 5(1), 376396. http://dx.doi.org/10.35381/racji.v5i1.618 New Family Social. (2016). Statistics: How many LGBT people are parents? Retrieved from http://www.newfamilysocial.org.uk/resources/research/statistics/ Oswald, R., Blume, L. & Marks, S. (2005). Decentering heteronormativity: a model for family studies. In Bengtson, V. L., Acock, A. C., Allen, K. R., Dilworth-Anderson, P., & Klein, D. M. (Eds.). Sourcebook of family theory and research (pp. 143-165). SAGE Publications, Inc. https://www.doi.org/10.4135/9781412990172 Passos, M. C. (2005). Homoparentalidade: uma entre outras formas de ser família. Psicologia clínica, 17(2), 31-40. Patterson, C. J. (2006). Children of lesbian and gay parents. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 241-244. Petrović, I., Goljović, N., Janjić, T., & Milević, K. (2020) Authoritarianism as a predictor of homophobia among students 20. International Thematic Proceedia, 269. Pistella, J., Salvati, M., Ioverno, S., Laghi, F., & Baiocco, R. (2016). Coming-out to family members and internalized sexual stigma in bisexual, lesbian and gay people. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25, 3694–3701. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-016-0528-0 Poisson, (2001). A seleção dos candidatos à adoção: prever o imprevisível. In F. Freire (Org.), Abandono e adoção: contribuições para uma cultura da adoção (pp. 65-66). Curitiba: Terra dos Homens. Roggemans, L., Spruyt, B., Droogenbroeck, F. V., & Keppens, G. (2015). Religion and negative attitudes towards homosexuals: An analysis of urban young people and their attitudes towards homosexuality. Young, 23(3), 254276. https://doi.org/10.1177/1103308815586903 Roy, S., Neumann, C. S., Jones, D. N., Gari, A., & Šram, Z. (2021). Psychopathic propensities contribute to social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism in predicting prejudicial attitudes in a large European sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 168, 110355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110355 Rye, B. J., & Meaney, G. (2010). Self-Defense, Sexism, and Etiological Beliefs: Predictors of Attitudes toward Gay and Lesbian Adoption. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 6(1), 1– 24. https://doi.org/10.1080/15504280903472485 Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 10691081. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069 ATTITUDES TOWARD ADOPTION BY SAME-SEX COUPLES 37 Sani, G. M. D., & Quaranta, M. (2020). Let Them Be, Not Adopt: General Attitudes Towards Gays and Lesbians and Specific Attitudes Towards Adoption by Same-Sex Couples in 22 European Countries. Social Indicators Research, 123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-020-02291-1 Santos, J. V. D. O., Araújo, L. F. D., Negreiros, F., & Cerqueira-Santos, E. (2018). Adoption of children by homosexual couples: The social representations. Trends in Psychology, 26(1), 153-166. https://doi:10.9788/TP2018.1-06En Santos, J., Araújo, L., Negreiros, F., & Cerqueira-Santos, E. (2018). Adoption of children by homosexual couples: The social representations. Trends in Psychology, 26(1), 153-166. Santos, E., Carvalho, C., Nunes, L., & Silveira, A. (2017). Homofobia internalizada e religiosidade entre casais homoafetivos. Temas em Psicologia, 25(2), 691702. https://dx.doi.org/10.9788/TP2017.2-15 Schmitt, M., Gollwitzer, M., Maes, J., & Arbach, D. (2005). Justice sensitivity. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 21(3), 202-211.https://doi.org/10.1027/10155759.21.3.202 Schultz, D. P. & Schultz, S. E. (2008). Teorias da Personalidade. São Paulo: Centage Learning. Sharif, R. M. (2019). Homophobia, transphobia, and the homonationalist gaze: Challenges of young Bangladeshi homosexuals and transgenders in migration. Global perspectives of gendered youth migration: Subjectivities and modalities, 101. Takács, J., Szalma, I., & Bartus, T. (2016). Social attitudes toward adoption by same-sex couples in Europe. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45(7), 17871798. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-016-0691-9 Tarrant, A., & Hall, S. (2020). Everyday geographies of family: feminist approaches and interdisciplinary conversations. Gender, Place & Culture, 27(5), 613623. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2019.1609430 Valcour M. (2007). Work-based resources as moderators of the relationship between work hours and satisfaction with work–family balance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 6, 1512– 1523. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/00219010.92.6.1512 Wang, I. M., Sinclair, R. R., & Tetrick, L. E. (2012). How to think about and measure psychological well-being. Research methods in occupational health psychology. New York: Routledge. Wayne, J. H., Butts, M. M., Casper, W. J., & Allen, T. D. (2017). In search of balance: A conceptual and empirical integration of multiple meanings of work–family balance. Personnel Psychology, 70(1), 167-210. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12132 ATTITUDES TOWARD ADOPTION BY SAME-SEX COUPLES 38 Wendy, T. F. (2014). Academic partnership to assess the development of institutionalized children in Jamaica. Wetzel, E., Böhnke, J. R., & Brown, A. (2016). Response biases. In F. Leong, D. Bartram, F. Cheung, K. F. Geisinger, & D. Iliescu (Eds.).The ITC international handbook of testing and assessment, (pp. 349-364). New York: Oxford University Press. Wolpert, D. M., & Landy, M. S. (2012). Motor control is decision-making. Current opinion in neurobiology, 22(6), 996-1003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2012.05.003 Xavier, P., Alberto, I., & Mendes, F. (2020). Pensando a Homoparentalidade: Um Estudo Qualitativo com Jovens Adultos Portugueses sem Filhos. Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa, 36. https://doi.org/10.1590/0102.3772e3646 Zanna, M. P., & Rempel, J. K. (1988). Attitudes: A new look at an old concept. In D. Bar-Tal & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), The social psychology of knowledge (pp.315-334). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Ziller, C., & Berning, C. C. (2021). Personality traits and public support of minority rights. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 47(3), 723740. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2019.1617123 ATTITUDES TOWARD ADOPTION BY SAME-SEX COUPLES 39 ANEXOS