Attitude Formation: Cultural Influences on Attitude Toward LGBT Individuals
Abstract
This study seeks to better understand the reasons upon which college students
base their opinions of LGBT people. The hypothesis states that college students
at a midwestern university will base their attitude towards the LGBT community
more on their friends’ attitude of the LGBT community than on their mother’s
attitude or their father’s attitude. One hundred fifty one students from a
midwestern university participated in the study. A 55-item questionnaire was
compiled using questions from the Components of Attitudes Toward Homosexuality
scale (Lamar & Kite, 1998). There were three independent variables (similarity
to father, similarity to mother, similarity to friends) and seven dependent
variables (6 sub-scores and an aggregate score). In the future, this work can
serve as the starting block for research into the effects of attitude formation;
it would be interesting to look for patterns in the behavior of those who form
their attitudes in one way or another.
Keywords: sexual orientation,
attitude, contact hypothesis
“For social scientists, the opportunity
to serve in a life-giving purpose is a humanist challenge of rare distinction.”
(King, 1967, par. 3). Martin Luther King, Jr. articulated this phrase as a
call-to-arms for social scientists and his words ring true today. Yet, the
struggle has transitioned from one minority group to another. Society has
entered another area of social justice, and psychology sits at the center of the
issue. There are multiple facts that call attention to LGBT (lesbian, gay,
bisexual, transgender) concerns and rights in our society:
§
3.5% of Americans classify as LGBT (Stark, 2012)
§
48% of Americans oppose same-sex marriage today, but 68% of Americans opposed
same sex marriage in 1996 (Stark, 2012)
§
About one third of American LGBT youth have attempted to commit suicide (Robin,
Brener, Donahue, Hack, Hale, & Goodenow, 2002)
§
Over 80% of LGBT students have reported that faculty and staff make no effort to
stop verbal abuse and harassment in the classroom (GLSEN, 2003)
§
In 2005, more than 1 in every 10 cases of hate crimes was related to sexual
minority status (Robin et al., 2002)
Although there are a number of interesting research questions relating to the
LGBT community, one of the most important is the way that outside influences
affect the formation of one’s attitude toward the LGBT community. This study
seeks to better understand the reasons upon which college students base their
opinions of LGBT people. Are their opinions predicated on the influence of
parents, the influence of friends, their ethnicity, or another factor? In order
to change behavior, we must first understand thoughts and the origin of
thoughts. “Thoughts become feelings, feelings become attitude, and attitude
becomes behavior” (J.L. Kemp, personal communication, September 24, 2012).
Attitude is defined as the “positive or negative evaluations of humans, objects,
or ideas, which can be reflected in an individual’s cognitions, sensibilities,
and behaviors (Cao, Wang, & Gao, 2010, p. 722). In contrast, to understand
attitude, we must first discover its source; only then, we can narrow down
influences and become more specific. For instance, if a participant’s attitude
is predicated on parents’ beliefs, the next step is to discover the basis of
parental beliefs (religiosity, homophobia,
their parents’ beliefs, etc.). This
study aims to determine that first step and provoke future research among
college students.
Background: Nature vs. Nurture
The most basic question in the discourse on homosexuality is whether or not it
is “natural;” in other words, are people gay/lesbian because they were made that
way, or because they choose to be that way. Past research (Sarantakos, 1998) has
characterized this debate as essentialists versus social constructionists.
Essentialists believe that homosexuality comes from a fundamental component of
one’s identity and that it is unchangeable and fixed. Further, they posit that
homosexuals ‘come out’ when they accept themselves as gay or lesbian. Finally,
they support their argument by referencing the ineffectiveness of reparative
therapy (designed to adjust homosexuals back to the normal state of
heterosexuality). In fact, reparative therapy has increased the likelihood of
clients attempting suicide (Schidlo & Schoredor, 2002).
In contrast, social constructionists posit that one’s sexual identity is
not a fixed element of personality and that “what seems to be a self-discovery
is better considered as self-construction” (Sarantakos, 1998, p. 23). In
addition, they strongly suggest that sexuality constantly shifts and adjusts
throughout life, which would support their position of sexuality as a social
construct. Neither theory describes homosexuality as an illegitimate component
of personality; they simply conflict on the consistency and the depth of
homosexuality. A significant factor in one’s attitude towards LGBT people has
been between those who see it as a natural component of personality versus those
who see it as an unnatural component. This distinction strongly affects one’s
perception and attitude towards homosexuals.
Generational Differences: Parents’ influence vs. Friends’ Influence
As indicated by a CBS News poll in May (Reals, 2012), there is a strongly
defined generational gap when considering attitudes towards the LGBT community.
On average, 38% of people stated that same-sex couples should be allowed to
marry, but when we striate the survey by age, we see a huge shift. In people
aged 18-44, 53% believed that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry; in
people aged 45 and over, only 24% believed that same-sex couples should be
allowed to marry. Interestingly enough, the 18-44 group had an almost identical
approval of same-sex marriage as did proclaimed Democrats when considering the
poll’s sampling error: 53% and 58%, respectively. This survey strongly indicates
that there may be a strong difference between what participants hear at home and
what they hear in other places. Therefore, it will be interesting to study the
effect of parental influence on students’ attitudes towards LGBT people.
In the same manner, this study will measure the effect of friends’
influence on students’ attitudes towards LGBT persons. College students often
move away from home and grow independent of their parents at this time, often
spending much more time around other college students. This paper focuses on
college students, because of the unique interaction between two variables: (a)
their independence as critically thinking adults versus the influence of their
parents; and (b) the clash between two very strong influences: parental
influences and friend influences. The generational gap is also unique to this
study because of the historical context. From 1947 to 1997, a comprehensive
analysis of Time and News Week magazine articles by Bennet found that “nearly
every article was resoundingly critical of gays and lesbians both in language
and in content” (Blackwell, 2008, p. 653). Eight years ago, a national survey (Capehart,
2012) found that 31% of respondents stated that same-sex marriage should be
legal, while 60% stated that it should be illegal. Just this year, when asked
the same question, 48% of respondents stated that same-sex marriage should be
legal, and 44% stated that it should be illegal. There is an undeniable rise in
support for same-sex marriage; if the trend continues, there will be no other
time better to do research than the moment when opinions are basically tied.
Allport’s Contact Hypothesis
In 1954, Allport changed the landscape of psychology with his work on
prejudice, specifically his theory of contact hypothesis (Bowen & Bourgeois,
2001). He suggested that people become more accepting and less discriminatory of
a group of people once they actually know those people. In other words, more
familiarity and experience with a different group leads to better understanding
and less stereotypical thoughts. Past research has studied the effect of contact
with LGBT people before college (Bowen & Bourgeois, 2001). They found that
attitudes towards homosexuals improved drastically when they lived in the same
residence halls, took a class to familiarize themselves with the LGBT community,
or simply interacted with homosexuals in the classroom. This theory has been
used in reference to many different minority groups, specifically ethnic
minorities (Bowman, 2012) and it will be interesting to see how it relates to
sexual orientation minorities.
Cross-Cultural Background
Research relating to attitude formation toward the LGBT community is not
limited to the United States. In fact, many nations have conducted research
concerning this topic; two of the most relevant studies come from Turkey and
China. Cirakoglu (2006) found that college-aged students in Turkey applied
varying attitudes towards labels relating to the LGBT community, such as
“lesbian,” “gay,” or “homosexual.” MANOVA testing strongly suggested that
students’ attitudes were directly impacted by their gender, the label, and level
of contact. In addition, Cao, Wang, and Gao (2010) researched the correlation
between Chinese students’ perception of LGBT individuals and their attitudes
towards the LGBT community. Significant results indicated that there are
multiple independent variables which impact attitude, including perception, area
of study, and contact. These studies are representative of the world-wide
interest in the topic of attitude formation towards the LGBT community.
Relevancy
College students are relevant in this overarching discussion for reasons
more than that they are easy to sample. For instance, LGB college students are
impacted by the manner in which their peers and faculty treat them. Schmidt,
Miles, and Welsh sought to better understand the influence of homosexuality on
students’ college experience (2011). They found that college is different for
heterosexual students than it is for LGB students, as evidenced by the ways they
spend their time and the activities in which they participate. In addition,
their study strongly indicated that LGB students experience greater confusion on
career choices and that career confusion is strongly predicated on perceived
discrimination and social support. Also, college students serve as a unique
population because of their impact on professional LGBT individuals in one of
the safest working environments: the college campus. In other words, college
students’ attitudes towards the LGBT community have a direct impact on LGBT
professors on college campuses. Previous research indicates that college
students tend to view LGBT professors as biased (Anderson & Kanner, 2011). The
same study posited two cognitive structures that relate to this topic: subtle
prejudice and expectancy violation; both constructs were significantly supported
by the data collected in the study. Keeping in mind the unique role of college
students in the arena of attitude formation towards the LGBT community, this
paper seeks to understand the causes and influences during the process of
attitude formation.
Hypotheses and Operationalized Variables
The following independent variables will be measured by self-reported
test items: age, gender, ethnicity, number of close friends who identify as
LGBT, number of close family members who identify as LGBT, influence of parental
beliefs, similarity to parental beliefs, influence of friends’ beliefs, and
similarity to friends’ beliefs. The dependent variable (participant’s attitude
towards LGBT people) will be measured using the Lamar & Kite’s
Components of Attitudes Toward
Homosexuality measure (1998). The hypothesis states that college students at a
midwestern institution will base their attitude towards the LGBT community more
on their friends’ attitude of the LGBT community than on their mother’s attitude
or their father’s attitude.
Method
Participants
One hundred fifty one students from a midwestern university participated
in the study; they did not receive any class credit or reward of any kind. Data
from nine participants (one man, six women, and two that did not report their
gender) who reported that they were lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or
questioning were excluded from the analysis. Therefore, 142 participants’ data
are considered in the data analysis. Breakdown of the 142 who reported ethnicity
was as follows: 89.4% Caucasian, 7.0% African American, 1.4% Latino, and 2.1%
selected Other as their ethnicity. Breakdown of the 140 participants who
reported their age was as follows: 50% age 18-20, 40.8% age 21-24, and 7.9% age
25 and above. Data were collected in accordance with the ethical standards of
the American Psychological Association (American Psychological Association,
2010).
Materials
A 55-item questionnaire was compiled using questions from the Components
of Attitudes Toward Homosexuality scale (Lamar & Kite, 1998), as well as six new
items. The questionnaire used all the items on the Components of Attitudes
Toward Homosexuality scale, but each item was adjusted to include both “lesbians
and gay men” instead of focusing on one of the other group. Items included
statements such as, “Lesbians and gay men should be required to register with
the police department where they live,” “Gay men and lesbians are a viable part
of our society,” and “Most lesbians and gay men like to dress in opposite-sex
clothing” (Lamar & Kite, 1998). Of the 49 items on the Components of Attitudes
Toward Homosexuality scale, 15 were reverse-scored; all items scored so that a
higher number indicates more negative attitudes towards homosexuality. Three new
items measured self-reported levels of influence of the participant’s mothers,
fathers, and friends, with items such as “My beliefs/morals of homosexuality
have been influenced (either positively or negatively) by my mother’s beliefs.”
Another three original items measured self-reported levels of similarity to the
beliefs of the participant’s mother, father, and friends with items such as “My
beliefs/morals of homosexuality are similar to my mother’s beliefs.”
Procedure
Participants were asked to complete the 55-item questionnaire during
class time. The researcher explained the general goal of the study and
explicitly stated that the object of the study was not to judge anyone on their
opinions but to gain a better understanding of attitudes towards homosexuality.
Participants were also informed that they could withdraw from the study at any
time, if they became overly uncomfortable. Participants were informed verbally
and in written instruction that all responses were anonymous. The completion of
the survey took no longer than 15 minutes for the participants to complete.
After completion of the surveys, the experimenter debriefed the participants and
answered any questions regarding the research study.
Results
There were three independent variables (similarity to father, similarity
to mother, similarity to friends) and seven dependent variables (when
considering the total score and the 6 sub-scores). To test the hypothesis that a
person’s attitude towards LGB individuals differed due to their congruency with
their father’s opinion, a perceived congruency with father (low congruency,
medium congruency, high congruency) by attitude one-way ANOVA was performed.
Results indicated a significant difference in attitude based on
congruency with father, F (2,116) =
13.048, p < .001. Following this format, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was run
for each variable; specific results can be found in Table 1.1.
Table 1.1
Note: NS
= a non-significant result, F = the
ANOVA score, and p = probability.
Other Results: Correlations
A Pearson bivariate correlation was performed between gender (1 = men, 2
= women) and total attitude score (higher score indicates more negative
attitudes towards homosexuality).
This analysis indicated a negative correlation between gender (Mean
= 1.590 SD = .494) and total attitude score (Mean
= 93.308 , SD = 32.814), r (df = 139) = -.360,
p < .001. In other words, as gender increased, the total attitude score
decreased; women were more likely to have less negative feelings towards
homosexuality.
A Pearson bivariate correlation was performed between the number of close
friends who identify as LGBT and total attitude score (higher score indicates
more negative attitudes towards homosexuality).
This analysis indicated a negative correlation between the number of
close friends who identify as LGBT (Mean
= 2.204 SD = 3.405) and total attitude score (Mean
= 93.308 , SD = 32.814), r (df = 141) = -.382,
p < .001. In other words, as the number of close LGBT friends increased,
the total attitude score decreased; the more homosexual close friends a
participant had, the more likely they were to have less negative feelings
towards homosexuality.
A Pearson bivariate correlation was performed between the number of close family
members who identify as LGBT and total attitude score (higher score indicates
more negative attitudes towards homosexuality).
This analysis indicated a negative correlation between the number of
close family members who identify as LGBT (Mean
= .366 SD = .767) and total attitude score (Mean
= 93.308 , SD = 32.814), r (df = 141) = -.238,
p < .001. In other words, as the number of close LGBT friends increased,
the total attitude score decreased; the more homosexual family members a
participant had, the more likely they were to have less negative feelings
towards homosexuality.
Discussion
The original hypothesis stated: College students at a midwestern institution
will base their attitude towards the LGB community more on their friends’
attitude of the LGBT community than on their fathers’ beliefs or their mothers’
beliefs. Because there were no significant results for the friends variable (on
the composite score or any of the sub-scales), only one significant result for
the mother variable, and all significant results for the father variable, it is
clear that this data does not support the original hypothesis. Instead, it
appears as if college students at a midwestern institution will base their
attitude towards the LGB community more on their fathers’ attitude of the LGBT
community than on their friends’ beliefs or their mothers’ beliefs.
Limitations
If this study is repeated in the future, there are a few alterations that would
improve the quality of the results. First, the participants were verbally
informed of the scale direction and it was written on the white board of the
classroom, but at least two students’ surveys were not included because they
wrote the scale in the wrong direction at the top of their survey. In future
studies, the Likert scale should be included at the top of every page. Also, the
quality of the original survey questions can be improved. In the present survey,
participants were asked how similar their opinion of homosexuality was in
comparison to their fathers’ opinions, their mothers’ opinions, and their
friends’ opinions. Instead of asking participants to answer the question in that
self-report fashion, a more effective prompt would ask participants to answer a
Likert scale indicating their fathers’, mothers’, and friends’ support for
homosexuality.
Implications
In the future, this project can help further the search for the catalyst of
attitude formation towards the LGBT population. As stated earlier, after we
uncover the source of an attitude, we can delve into the details and the cause
of the source’s influence. Future research may include a population with more
variability in ethnicity, sexual orientation, and age. In a broad analysis, this
research further reveals the unanswered question: What is the origin of
individuals’ attitudes towards homosexuality? This work can also serve as the
starting block for research into the effects of attitude formation; it would be
interesting to look for patterns in the behavior of those who form their
attitudes in one way or another. At the end of the day, “Thoughts become
feelings, feelings become attitude, and attitude becomes behavior” (J.L. Kemp,
personal communication, September 24, 2012). It is this quest for understanding
that inspired this project and it is that same quest that will fuel similar
projects in the future.
References
Anderson, K.J., & Kanner, M. (2011). Inventing a gay agenda: Students’
perceptions of lesbian and gay professors.
Journal of applied Social Psychology,
41.
Blackwell, C. W. (2008). Nursing implications in the applications of conversion
therapies on gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender clients.
Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 29
(6), 651-655. doi:10.1080/01612840802048915
Bowman, N.A., & Griffin, T.M. (2012). Secondary transfer effects of interracial
contact: The moderating role of social status.
Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority
Psychology, 18 (1), 35-44. doi:10.1037/a0026745
Bowman, A.M., & Bourgeois, M.J. (2001). Attitudes toward lesbian, gay, and
bisexual college students: The contribution of pluralistic ignorance, dynamic
social impact, and contact theories.
Journal of American College Health, 50 (2), 35-44
Cao, H., Wang, P., Gao, Y. (2010). A survey of Chinese university students’
perceptions of attitudes towards homosexuality.
Social Behavior & Personality: An
international journal, 38 (6), 721-728. doi:10.2224/sbp.2010.38.6.721
Çirakoğlu, O. (2006). Perception of homosexuality among Turkish university
students: the roles of labels, gender, and prior contact.
Journal of Social Psychology, 146
(3), 293-305.
GLSEN. (2003). The 2003 national school climate survey: the school related
experiences of our nations’ lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth
Lamar, L. & Kite, M. (1998). Sex differences in attitudes toward gay men and
lesbians: A multidimensional perspective.
The Journal of Sex Research, 35 (2), 189-196
Reals, T. (2012, May 14). CBS News. Retrieved from
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57433493-503544/ poll-most-americans-support-same-sex-unions/
Robin, L., Brener, N.D., Donahue, S.F., Hack, T., Hale, K., Goodenow, C. (2002)
Associations between health risk behaviors and opposite-, same-, and both-sex
sexual partners in representative samples of Vermont and Massachusetts high
school students. Archive of Pediatric and
Adolescent Medicine, 156 (4), 349-355
Sarantakos, S. (1998). Sex and power in same-sex couples.
Australian Journal of Social Issues,
33 (1), 17-36.
Schidlo, A., & Schroeder, M. (2002). Changing sexual orientation: A consumers’
report. Professional Psychology: Research
and Practice, 33 (3), 249-259. doi:10.1037//0735-7028.33.3.249
Schmidt, C.K., Miles, J.R., Welsh, A.C. (2011). Perceived discrimination and
social support: The influences on career development and college adjustment of
LGBT college students. Journal of Career
Development, 38 (293). doi:10.1177/0894845310372615
Stark, C. (2012, May 12). CNN Library. Retrieved from
http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/11/politics/btn-same-sex-marriage/index.html