Journal of Homosexuality, 62:481–494, 2015 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0091-8369 print/1540-3602 online DOI: 10.1080/00918369.2014.983386
Relationships Between Religiosity Level and Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men Among Turkish University Students LEYLA SARAÇ, PhD School of Physical Education and Sports, Mersin University, Mersin, Turkey
This study examined the relationships between religiosity levels and attitudes toward lesbians and gay men among freshmen university students in Turkey. The Attitudes Towards Lesbians and Gay Men Scale–Short Form and the Religiosity Scale were administered to 91 male ( M = 19.95, SD = 1.48 years) and 171 female ( M = 19.23, SD = 1.28 years) students. The findings showed that male freshmen ( M = 19.32, SD = 4.97) had more negative attitudes toward gay men than toward lesbians ( M = 17.84, SD = 5.25), p = .000. In addition, attitudes of male freshmen were significantly more negative toward gay men ( M =19.32, SD = 4.97) than females ( M = 17.51, SD = 5.73), p = .012. Both male and female freshmen students who had higher levels of religiosity were found to have higher levels of negative attitudes toward both lesbians and gay men. KEYWORDS homonegativity, lesbian-gay, prejudice, Islamic homonegativity
Homosexuality has long been considered a form of “abnormal behavior” by many societies, regardless of its removal in 1973 from the list of mental disorders by the American Psychiatric Association (APA). Although societal attitudes toward homosexual individuals differ in diverse populations, many studies have shown negative attitudes toward homosexuals and homosexuality (Çırako˘glu, 2006; Davison & Frank, 2007; Gelbal & Duyan, 2006; Herek, 2000; Oksal, 2008). Researchers examining the underlying factors influencing heterosexuals’ attitudes toward homosexuality Address correspondence to Leyla Saraç, Mersin University, Beden Egitimi ve Spor Yuksekokulu, Ciftlikkoy Kampusu, 33343 Yenisehir, Mersin, Turkey. E-mail: [email protected] 481
482
L. Saraç
demonstrated that gender (Herek & Capitanio, 1995; Roper & Halloran, 2007; Sakallı, 2002a; Wills & Crawford, 2000) and religion (Gelbal & Duyan, 2006; Herek & Capitanio, 1995; Schulte & Battle, 2004) are two significant predictors of heterosexuals’ negative attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. Previous research on the effects of gender on attitudes toward homosexuals has indicated that heterosexual males hold more negative attitudes toward lesbians and gay men than heterosexual females (Herek, 2000; Kite & Whitley, 1996; Roper & Halloran, 2007; Schellenberg, Hirt, & Sears, 1999). In addition, heterosexual males were found to hold more negative attitudes toward gay men than toward lesbians (Whitley, Childs, & Collins, 2011). Furthermore, heterosexual females, compared to heterosexual males, were found to hold more negative attitudes toward lesbians (Whitley et al., 2011). Gender has also been shown to be a factor in predicting negative attitudes toward homosexuals in Turkey. Specifically, males, compared to females, were found to be more negative toward homosexuals (Gelbal & Duyan, 2006; Sakallı, 2002a). It was observed that female Turkish students were more tolerant toward homosexuals than male Turkish students (Gelbal & Duyan, 2006; Sakallı, 2002a; Yıldız, Atamer, & Yavuz, 2003). Similarly, the attitudes of male Turkish teachers, police officers, and medical doctors toward lesbians and gay men were shown to be more negative when compared with the attitudes of females (Akda¸s-Mitrani, 2008). Furthermore, in a study of the attitudes of different family members, fathers were found to be more negative toward homosexuals than mothers (Oksal, 2008). Although homosexuality is not illegal in Turkey, negative attitudes and behaviors toward homosexuals are still prevalent in the society. Turkey is officially a secular country, and its main religion is Islam. Many Turkish people perceive homosexuality as unallowable and a deviant behavior (Sakallı & U˘gurlu, 2001). These perceptions are thought to be affected by the Islamic religion, given that acceptable and moral behaviors in the society are established by religion (Yip, 2009). Although this not the case in Turkey, homosexuality is actually considered a crime in Islamic Law, and research has shown a direct association between religiosity and intolerance toward homosexuality (Siraj, 2009). Islam explicitly promotes heteronormative qualities (Bouhdiba, 1998; Jaspal, 2010). In some Islamic countries, such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Sudan, homosexual acts are punishable by death. The prohibition of homosexual acts is stated in the following passage of Islam’s Holy Book (The Qur’an): Prophet Lut was sent by God (Allah in Islam) to warn the people against committing same-sex sexual acts, but because his relentless warnings were rejected, much of the population was eradicated. (Siraj, 2009, p. 44)
Prior research has also identified strong associations between religiosity and attitudes toward homosexuals, as religious individuals were found to
Relationship Between Islamic Religiousness and Homonegativity
483
hold higher levels of negative attitudes toward lesbians and gay men than nonreligious individuals (Berkman & Zinberg, 1997; Herek & Capitanio, 1995; Rowatt, Tsang, Kelly, LaMartina, McCullers, & McKinley, 2006; Schulte & Battle, 2004). Despite the observable increase in research on attitudes toward homosexuals in various population samples, research on the attitudes of heterosexual Muslim young individuals remains limited. There is a need to examine the influence of the Islamic religion, which condemns homosexuality explicitly, on attitudes toward homosexual individuals. Therefore, the current study focused on understanding the effects of the Islamic religion on attitudes toward homosexual individuals. The importance of the current study lies in the fact that a variety of studies have pointed out that homosexual youth are not safe on college campuses, and due to the sexual orientation–related victimization by peers they prefer to hide their sexual orientation (Morrow & Gill, 2003; Mustanski, Newcomb, & Garofalo, 2011; Russell, Ryan, Toomey, Diaz, & Sanchez, 2011). This study will contribute the understanding of freshmen students’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. By means of understanding their attitudes toward lesbians and gay men, curriculum developers may use the results of this study for preventing discrimination on school campuses. Each individual attending college has the right to experience a positive learning environment. Also, today’s freshmen will be the future teachers, doctors, or engineers. Attending college is expected to change their attitudes toward lesbians and gay men in a positive way. Before attempting for such changes, attitudes of freshmen toward lesbians and gay men and possible predictors have to be detected. For this reason, this study will provide preliminary information.
HYPOTHESES There has been little research conducted on Muslim individuals’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. The current study was designed to examine gender differences in attitudes toward lesbians and gay men among Turkish university freshmen, and to investigate the relationships between religiosity levels and the attitudes of Turkish university freshmen toward lesbians and gay men. Based on the literature described above, the following two hypotheses guided the current study:
1. Heterosexual male freshmen university students hold more negative attitudes toward lesbians and gay men than heterosexual female freshmen university students. 2. Freshmen university students who have higher levels of religiosity have more negative attitudes toward lesbians and gay men.
484
L. Saraç
METHODS Participants and Procedures The sample for this study consisted of 91 male and 171 female university students, aged 18 to 25 years (Mmale = 19.95 years, SD = 1.48; Mfemale = 19.23 years, SD = 1.28). At the time of the study, all students were freshmen and enrolled in the Introduction to University Life (IUL) course, which is a 1-credit course required for all freshmen, during the 2010–2011 academic year. Participants were enrolled in sport activities in the School of Physical Education and Sports. Students completed the self-administered Turkish versions of the Attitudes Towards Lesbians and Gay Men Scale–Short Form and the Religiosity Scale during a regularly scheduled class period on an anonymous and voluntary basis.
Instruments Students were required to report their genders and ages. In addition, the following scales were used to collect data about participants’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men and their religiosity levels.
THE ATTITUDES
TOWARD
LESBIANS
AND
GAY MEN SCALE (SHORT FORM)
The attitudes of students toward lesbians and gay men were measured using the Turkish version of the Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men Scale– Short Form (ATLG-S; Duyan & Gelbal, 2004). The ATLG-S, a paper-andpencil self-administrated scale, was originally developed by Herek (1998) to measure heterosexuals’ attitudes toward gay men and women. It consists of 10 statements: five about lesbians (ATL) and five about gay men (ATG). The ATLG-S is a 5-point Likert scale with response alternatives ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The total score is obtained by adding the values for each response (e.g., 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). The total ATLG score ranges from 10 to 50, and the scores of each subscale (i.e., ATL and ATG) range from 5 to 25. Higher scores indicate more negative attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. The scale and its subscales have demonstrated high reliability (Cronbach’s alpha > .85; Herek, 1988; Herek, 1994). The current study found the overall reliability of the scale to be .92. In addition, Cronbach’s alpha for the subscales ranged from .87 to .89.
THE RELIGIOSITY SCALE The 14-item Religiosity Scale was used to measure Muslim participants’ levels of religiosity. The scale was developed by Mutlu (1989) and demonstrated high internal consistency (α = .94). Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was found
Relationship Between Islamic Religiousness and Homonegativity
485
to be .78 in the current study. Examples of Religiosity Scale items include The Qur’an conveys the commands of God and I am not interested in religious subjects. The participants were instructed to indicate the extent to which each statement described them. Response options were given on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree. The overall religiosity score was calculated by averaging the scale items, and the scores ranged from 1 to 5. Numerous studies have explored individuals’ religiosity levels using a variety of criteria. In some of these studies, participants were asked to indicate their religious affiliations. In other studies, they were asked to indicate how frequently they attended religious services, while in some others they were asked to rate themselves on how religious they were. The current study employed scales to measure participants’ religiosity levels. Religiosity has been accepted as a multidimensional concept, and attempts have been made to measure these dimensions using various scales (Allport & Ross, 1967; Batson & Ventis, 1982). Koenig, McCullough, and Larson (2001) reported 12 different measures of religiousness, such as religious belief, religious affiliation or denomination, organizational religiosity, nonorganizational religiosity, subjective religiosity, and religious commitment or orientation. One of the most studied measures of religion was religious commitment or orientation, which has two dimensions: intrinsic (religious faith is internalized) and extrinsic (religious faith is externalized; Allport & Ross, 1967). In addition, several instruments to measure religiosity have been developed for use with specific populations, such as Jewish (Ben-Meir & Kedem, 1979; Ressler, 1997), Christian (Allport & Ross, 1967; Francis, 1978), Buddhist (Emavardhana & Tori, 1997), and Hindu (Hassan & Khalique, 1981). For the Muslim population, no or limited religiosity scale reported in the international literature (Koenig et al., 2001; Rabin & Koening, 2002; Suhail & Chaudhry, 2004). Although some scales were available among Turkish scales, the Religiosity Scale, which was developed by Mutlu (1989) for the Muslim population, was selected and used in the current study. The scale has been shown to have adequate validity and reliability in previous research (Ta¸sdemir & Sakallı-U˘gurlu, 2010). However, future efforts to measure religiosity should pay particular attention to find out different dimensions of religiosity.
RESULTS The first hypothesis was that heterosexual male freshmen university students would hold more negative attitudes toward lesbians and gay men than heterosexual female freshmen university students. A 2 (Sex of the Respondent-Male vs. Female) × 2 (Gender of the Target-ATL vs. ATG) repeated-measures analysis of variance was conducted. The main effect for
486
L. Saraç
the responders’ sex was not significant [F(1, 260) = 2.42, p = .121], indicating that male (M = 18.58) and female (M = 17.55) students gave similar responses when gender of the target being scored was ignored. On the contrary, the main effect of the gender of the target was statistically significant [F(1, 260) = 11.56, p = .001] such that the scores of the ATG (M = 18.42) and ATL (M = 17.70) were significantly different, ignoring the sex of the respondent. Furthermore, the interaction between sex of the respondent and gender of the target was statistically significant [F(1, 260) = 13.11, p = .000], indicating that the ATL and ATG scores were not same for male and female respondents (Table 1). To explore the nature of the interaction, tests of the simple main effects were performed. Results of the analysis revealed that male respondents had more negative attitudes toward gay men (M = 19.32, SD = 4.97) than toward lesbians (M = 17.84, SD = 5.25), [F(1, 260) = 18.88, p = .000]. However, the attitudes of female respondents toward gay men (M = 17.51, SD = 5.73) and lesbians (M =17.56, SD = 5.36) did not differ significantly, [F(1, 260) = .04, p = .851]. Results also demonstrated that attitudes of males were significantly more negative toward gay men (M =19.32, SD = 4.97) than females (M =17.51, SD = 5.73), [F(1, 260) = 6.45, p = .012]; but no significant sex differences were observed in attitudes toward lesbians (M male =17.83, SD = 5.36, M female =17.56, SD = 5.36), [F(1, 260) = .16, p = .692]. The second hypothesis was that freshmen university students who have higher levels of religiosity would have more negative attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. The relationship between attitudes of male and female students toward gay men and their religiosity levels was investigated separately using the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. There was a strong, positive, and significant correlation between the attitudes of male students toward gay men and their religiosity levels (r = .60, n = 91, p < .01): highly negative attitudes toward gay men were associated with higher levels of religiosity. Similarly, there was a moderate, positive, and significant correlation between the attitudes of female students toward gay men and their religiosity levels (r = .39, n = 171, p < .01): more negative attitudes toward gay men were associated with higher levels of religiosity. In addition, the relationship between male and female students’ attitudes toward lesbians and TABLE 1 2 × 2 ANOVA Showing the Influence of Sex of Respondent and Gender of Target in Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men Source a
Main effect of A (Sex of Respondent ) Main effect of B (Gender of Target) Interaction: AXB Error aN
male =
91; Nfemale = 171.
SS
df
MS
F
p
128.21 61.30 69.54 1379.18
1 1 1 260
128.21 61.30 69.54 5.31
2.42 11.56 13.11
.121 .001 .000
Relationship Between Islamic Religiousness and Homonegativity
487
their religiosity levels was investigated using Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. A moderate, positive, and significant correlation between the male students’ attitudes toward lesbians and their religiosity level (r = .53, n = 91, p < .01), and a strong, positive, and significant correlation between female students’ attitudes toward lesbians and their religiosity level were found (r = .38, n = 171, p < .01): a high level of negative attitudes toward lesbians was associated with higher levels of religiosity.
DISCUSSION The purpose of this study was to examine gender differences in attitudes toward lesbians and gay men and to explore the relationship between religiosity levels and attitudes toward lesbians and gay men in male and female freshmen university students in Turkey, most of whom are Muslim. Two hypotheses were tested. The first hypothesis stated that male freshmen would have more negative attitudes toward lesbians and gay men than female students. The results obtained somewhat supported Hypothesis 1 in that male freshmen held more negative attitudes toward gay men compared to female freshmen. In contrast, no difference was found between the attitudes of male and female freshman toward lesbians. These results confirmed earlier research findings that heterosexual males hold more negative attitudes toward homosexuals, especially gay men, than females (Ben-Ari, 2001; Herek, 1988, 2000; Herek & Capitanio, 1995; Herek & Gonzalez-Rivera, 2006; Lim, 2002; Roper & Halloran, 2007; Schellenberg et al., 1999; Steffens & Wagner, 2004). For instance, Kite and Whitley (1996) performed a metaanalysis of 120 studies of sex differences in attitudes toward homosexual men and women and found that heterosexual men, compared with heterosexual females, were more negative toward gay men than lesbians. Similar conclusions were also drawn by studies conducted on Turkish samples. A study of a sample of college students revealed that male students had more negative attitudes toward homosexuals compared to female students (Çırako˘glu, 2006; Gelbal & Duyan, 2006; Sakallı, 2002a, 2002b). For example, Yıldız et al. (2003) found that male undergraduates from five different academic departments were more negative toward gays than lesbians compared to females. Contrary to the findings of the current study, their findings demonstrated that males were more negative toward lesbians compared with females. In addition, data gathered about the attitudes toward lesbians and gay men among various occupational groups (e.g., undergraduate students, teachers, police officers, medical doctors) demonstrated that males were more negative toward both lesbians and gay men compared with females (Akda¸s-Mitrani, 2008). In the current study, the gender of the participant was found to be one of the predictors of Turkish freshmen students’ attitudes toward gay men
488
L. Saraç
but not toward lesbians. To explain the finding that males are more negative toward gay men than toward lesbians, Sakallı (2002b) stated that the term homosexual mostly reminds people of gay men rather than lesbians (Sakallı, 2002a, 2002b). In addition, Turkish people believe and follow traditional gender roles, which support the normality of heterosexual sexual relationships between males and females (Sakallı, 2002a; Çırako˘glu, 2006). For this reason, Turkish freshmen might see homosexual relationships as unacceptable and adopt negative attitudes toward gay men. Homosexual acts are denied in Turkish society due to common and traditional sexist beliefs (Sakallı, 2002a). Additionally, Turkey is a male-dominated country, and the characteristics of males are accepted as the opposite of females (Sakallı, 2002a). In her study, Sakallı (2002b) found that most participants described homosexuals as engaging in feminine behaviors. They thought that homosexuals “wear flashy clothes, wear feminine clothes, and act like a woman” (p. 116). Male freshmen in the current study might think that gay men reflect feminine characteristics that are the opposite of masculine characteristics, which represent the honor of manhood (Duyan & Duyan, 2005; Sakallı, 2002b). Descriptions of gay men can be harsh; for instance, Tapınç (1992) stated, “For straight men homosexuals are the disgrace of manhood” (pp. 39–49). In addition, the importance of traditionally established rules and societal behaviors is widespread in Turkey (Oksal, 2008). The rules of Turkish society deny homosexuality and homosexuals. Therefore, the negative attitudes of the male students toward gay men in this study might be due to these general beliefs about gay men. The religious traditions, which alienate women and make them inferior to men, are mentioned as another factor in the existence of these negative beliefs (Sofuo˘glu, 2010). In the community men are accepted as the superior gender and there are negative attitudes toward men who behave opposite to the expected roles, contrary to this, not caring women’s similar behavior is not surprising. When the attitudes of heterosexual individual maled are compared with femaled, the reasons of having more negative attitudes toward gay men than lesbians have been explained in various ways. One of these reasons has been called gender belief systems. According to this system, people have been grouped as masculine or feminine, or accepted individuals are expected to have appropriate physical features and roles (Kite & Whitley, 1996; LaMar & Kite, 1998). However, when people do not display behaviors that have been required for their genders, such as being a gay, males are exposed to worse responses than females. This is because the gender roles attributed to males are stricter than for females. The reason for this is that the roles those males are imposed to be accepted as superior than women’s roles (Arndt & de Bruin, 2006; Kite & Whitley, 1996; LaMar & Kite, 1998; Lim, 2002; Rajecki, De Graaf-Kaser, & Rasmussen, 1992). Another reason for the negative attitude toward male gays compared to lesbians is the belief that males can lose their power, superiority, and being distinguished, which are
Relationship Between Islamic Religiousness and Homonegativity
489
all socially constructed roles imposed on the male gender (Arndt & de Bruin, 2006; Kerns & Fine, 1994). It is also considered that the reason for exhibiting more tolerance toward lesbians over gay men, which is also accepted in the international literature, is due to its validity for Turkish society. Herek (2000) has also stated that most people think of males when they hear the word gay. Additionally, as Herek (2000) emphasized, another reason of males’ negative attitude toward male gays can be the need to prove that they are in the heterosexual group accepted by the community. The way they prove this can be by displaying exaggerated negative attitude toward male gays (Herek, 2000). Kimmel (1997) stated that men seek approval from others. The anxiety of males to be accepted by their own gender has been explained by Kimmel (1997) in this way: Other men: We are under the constant careful scrutiny of other men. Other men watch us, rank us, grant our acceptance into the realm of manhood. Manhood is demonstrated for other men’s approval. It is other men who evaluate the performance. (p. 214)
Unfortunately, sex education is missing at various levels of the formal educational curricula of Turkey (Duyan & Duyan, 2005). This creates a lack of information related to homosexuality. In addition, due to their hidden lives, homosexuals in Turkey are shown mainly in written and visual media, which misinforms people (Bolak-Boratav, 2006). The negative attitudes of freshmen toward gay men in the current study might be due to this deficiency of accurate knowledge about homosexuals and homosexuality. The second hypothesis tested was whether freshmen university students who have higher levels of religiosity would have more negative attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. The findings of the current study resonate with previous findings that freshmen who had higher levels of religiosity had more negative attitudes toward both lesbians and gay men. The negative influence of religion on attitudes toward lesbians and gay men has been reported in other studies. For instance, Herek and Capitanio (1995) found more negative attitudes toward gay men and lesbians among a Black and White sample who attended religious services frequently. Similarly, Schulte and Battle (2004) found that higher levels of religiosity are strongly associated with negative attitudes toward homosexual individuals. In addition, Herek and Gonzalez-Rivera (2006) found that individuals who belong to a fundamentalist religious denomination and who attend religious services frequently have negative attitudes toward gay men. Brown and Henriquez (2008) also demonstrated that being more religious was positively correlated with negative attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. Although limited, results from studies on attitudes toward lesbians and gay men in Muslim populations demonstrated less tolerance toward homosexuals by individuals who are more religious compared to those who are not religious. For instance, in
490
L. Saraç
a British Muslim sample, Siraj (2009) conducted a study and found that the being religiously conservative led to negative attitudes toward homosexuals. A recent comparison between Catholics, Protestants, and Muslims living in the same country (Belgium) showed that religious denominations, especially Islam, had a strong negative effect on tolerance toward lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights (Hooghe, Claes, Harell, Quintelier, & Dejaeghere, 2010). Despite being a country with a Muslim population of over 98% (BolakBoratav, 2006), there have been limited studies examining the relationship between attitudes toward homosexuals and the Islamic religion in the Turkish population. In one of these few studies, Gelbal and Duyan (2006) found that university students having strong religious beliefs have more negative attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. Furthermore, due to the strict gender roles described in Islamic texts, homosexuals are considered a threat to male identity (Tapınç, 1992). As previously mentioned, the characteristics of homosexuals are observed as similar to those of females, being at a lower level and weaker when compared with the masculine and powerful characteristics of males (Duyan & Duyan, 2005; Sakallı, 2002a, 2002b). Under this perspective, homosexuals, who behave as females, shame males (Tapınç, 1992). The texts that represent the laws of Islam explicitly condemn and prohibit homosexual acts (Bolak-Boratav, 2006; Wafer, 1997). Homosexuality is referred to as deviant from acceptable male and female behavior (BolakBoratav, 2006). Most important, in Islamic law there is a passage indicating that God (Allah in Islam) sent the Prophet Lut to inform people that homosexual acts were forbidden. As a result of the disregard of Lut’s warnings, most of the people were destroyed (Siraj, 2009). Moreover, homosexuality is not only discouraged but is a crime according Islamic law (Siraj, 2009). Although Turkey is not officially an Islamic country, believers of Islam in Turkey might be influenced by or follow these rules. The negative attitudes toward lesbians and gay men among both male and female students in the current study may be explained by the beliefs mentioned above.
CONCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS In conclusion, the current study provided evidence of gender differences in attitudes toward gay men among freshmen and evidence of the relationship between religiosity levels and attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. These results are consistent with the previous literature. Turkish freshmen students had more negative attitudes toward gay men than lesbians but had similar attitudes toward lesbians. Finally, these findings supported the existence of the negative effect of religion on attitudes toward lesbians and gay men in that both male and female freshmen students who had higher levels of
Relationship Between Islamic Religiousness and Homonegativity
491
religiosity were found to have more negative attitudes toward both lesbians and gay men. This study has some limitations that should be considered. The current study included only freshmen students at one of the universities of the Turkish Republic. Students of other years (2nd, 3rd, 4th) were not included in the study. In addition, the sample consisted only of the students enrolled in the IUL course provided by the School of Physical Education and Sports. The demographic information collected did not include questions about the sexual orientation of the freshmen students, and all students were regarded as heterosexual. Another limitation of the current study was not including some other mediating variables such as socioeconomic status, parental education level, or athletic background. The ATLG-S uses different items to measure attitudes toward lesbians and gay men, which may have had an influence on the study’s findings. The scales in the current study were self-reported measures, and the related bias needs to be considered while interpreting the results. Additionally, the responses derived from the Turkish sample should not be generalized to other Islamic countries, which are governed by Islamic law.
REFERENCES Akda¸s-Mitrani, A. T. (2008). E¸scinsellere yönelik olumsuz tutumlar: meslek grupları ve ili¸skileri özellikler (Attitudes towards homosexuals: Occupational groups and characteristics). Turkish Journal of Forensic Sciences, 7, 23–30. Allport, G. W., & Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 432–443. American Psychiatric Association. (1973). Position statement on homosexuality and civil rights. American Journal of Psychiatry, 131, 497. Retrieved from http://www.psychiatry.org/File%20Library/Advocacy%20and%20Newsroom/ Position%20Statements/ps1973_HomosexualityCivilRights.pdf Arndt, M., & de Bruin, G. (2006). Attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: Relations with gender, race and religion among university students. Psychology in Society, 33, 16–30. Batson, C. D., & Ventis, W. L. (1982). The religious experience: A social-psychological perspective. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Ben-Ari, A. T. (2001). Homosexuality and heterosexism: Views from academics in the helping professions. British Journal of Social Work, 31, 119–131. Ben-Meir, Y., & Kedem, P. (1979). Index of religiosity of the Jewish population of Israel. Megamot, 24, 353–362. Berkman, C. S., & Zinberg, G. (1997). Homophobia and heterosexism in social workers. Social Work, 42, 319–332. Bolak-Boratav, H. (2006). Making sense of heterosexuality: An exploratory study of young heterosexual identities in Turkey. Sex Roles, 54, 213–225. Bouhdiba, A. (1998). Sexuality in Islam. London, UK: Saqi Books.
492
L. Saraç
Brown, M. J., & Henriquez, E. (2008). Socio-demographic predictors of attitudes toward gays and lesbians. Individual Differences Research, 6, 193–202. Çırako˘glu, O. C. (2006). Perception of homosexuality among Turkish university students: The roles of labels, gender, and prior contact. Journal of Social Psychology, 146, 293–305. Davison, K. G., & Frank, B. W. (2007). Sexualities, genders, and bodies in sport: Changing practices of inequity. In K. Young & P. White (Eds.), Sport and gender in Canada (2nd ed.; pp. 178–193). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Duyan, V., & Duyan, G. (2005). Turkish social work students’ attitudes toward sexuality. Sex Roles, 52, 697–706. Duyan, V., & Gelbal, S. (2004). Lezbiyen ve geylere yönelik tutum (LGYT) ölçe˘gi: Güvenirlik ve geçerlik çalı¸sması (Attitudes toward lesbians and gey men scale: A study of reliability and validity). Türk HIV/AIDS Dergisi (Turkish Journal of HIV/AIDS), 7(3), 106–112. Emavardhana, T., & Tori, C. D. (1997). Changes in self consept, ego defence mechanisms, and religiosity following seven-day Vipassana meditation retreats. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 36, 194–206. Francis, L. J. (1978). Attitude and longitude: A study in measurement. Character Potential, 8, 119–130. Gelbal, S., & Duyan, V. (2006). Attitudes of university students toward lesbians and gay men in Turkey. Sex Roles, 55, 573–579. Hassan, M. K., & Khalique, A. (1981). Religiosity and its correlates in college students. Journal of Psychological Researches, 25, 129–136. Herek, G. M. (1988). Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: Correlates and gender differences. Journal of Sex Research, 25, 451–477. Herek, G. M. (1994). Assessing heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: A review of empirical research with the ATLG scale. In B. Greene, & G. M. Herek (Eds.), Lesbian and gay psychology: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 206–228). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Herek, G. M. (1998). The attitudes toward lesbians and gay men (ATLG) scale. In C. M. Davis, W. H. Yarber, R. Bauserman, G. Schreer, & S. L. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality-related measures (pp. 392–394). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Herek, G. M. (2000). The psychology of sexual prejudice. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 19–22. Herek, G. M., & Capitanio, J. P. (1995). Black heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men in the United States. Journal of Sex Research, 32, 95–105. Herek, G. M., &Gonzalez-Rivera, M. (2006). Attitudes toward homosexuality among U.S. residents of Mexican descent. Journal of Sex Research, 43, 122–135. Hooghe, M., Claes, E., Harell, A., Quintelier, E., & Dejaeghere, Y. (2010). Anti-gay sentiment among adolescents in Belgium and Canada: A comparative investigation into the role of gender and religion. Journal of Homosexuality, 57, 384–400. Jaspal, R. (2010). Identity threat among British Muslim gay men. The Psychologist, 23, 640–641.
Relationship Between Islamic Religiousness and Homonegativity
493
Kerns, J. G., & Fine, M. A. (1994). The relation between gender and negative attitudes toward gay men and lesbians: Do gender role attitudes mediate this relation? Sex Roles, 31, 297–307. Kimmel, M. S. (2000). Masculinity as homophobia: Fear, shame, and silence in the construction of gender identity. In M. Adams, W. J. Blumenfeld, R. Castaneda, H. W. Hackman, M. L. Peters, & X. Zuniga (Eds.), Readings for diversity and social justice (pp. 213–219). New York, NY: Routledge. Kite, M., & Whitley, B. (1996). Sex differences in attitudes toward homosexual persons, behaviours, and civil rights: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 336–353. Koenig, H. G., McCullough, M. E., & Larson, D. B. (2001). Handbook of religion and health. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. LaMar, L., & Kite. M. (1998). Sex differences in attitudes toward gay men and lesbians: A multidimensional perspective. Journal of Sex Research, 35, 189–196. Lim, V. K. (2002). Gender differences and attitudes towards homosexuality. Journal of Homosexuality, 43, 85–97. Morrow, R. G., & Gill, D. L. (2003). Perceptions of homophobia and heterosexism in physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 74, 205–214. Mustanski, B., Newcomb, M., & Garofalo, R. (2011). Mental health of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths: A developmental resiliency perspective. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 23, 1–22. Mutlu, K. (1989). Bir dindarlık ölçe˘gi: Sosyoloji’de yöntem üzerine bir tartı¸sma ˙ (The religiosity scale: the discussion of methodology in sociology). Islami Ara¸stırmalar (Islamic Research), 3, 194–199. Oksal, A. (2008). Turkish family members’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. Sex Roles, 58, 514–525. Rabin, B. S., & Koenig, H. G. (2002). Immune, neuroendocrine, and religious measures. In H. G. Koening & H. J. Cohen (Eds.), The link between religion and health: Psychoneuroimmunology and the faith factor (pp. 11–30). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Rajecki, D. W., De Graaf-Kaser, R., & Rasmussen, J. L. (1992). New impressions and more discrimination: Effects of individuation on gender-label stereotypes. Sex Roles, 27, 171–185. Ressler, W. H. (1997). Jewishness and well-being: Specific identification and general psychological adjustment. Psychological Reports, 81, 515–518. Roper, E. A., & Hollaran, E. (2007). Attitudes toward gay men and lesbians among heterosexual male and female student-athletes. Sex Roles, 57, 919–928. Rowatt, W. C., Tsang, J., Kelly, J., LaMartina, B., McCullers, M., & McKinley, A. (2006). Associations between religious personality dimensions and implicit homosexual prejudice. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 45, 397–406. Russell, S. T., Ryan, C., Toomey, R. B., Diaz, R., & Sanchez, J. (2011). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender adolescent school victimization: Implications for young adult health and adjustment. Journal of School Health, 81, 223–230. Sakallı, N. (2002a). The relationship between sexism and attitudes toward homosexuality in a sample of Turkish college students. Journal of Homosexuality, 42, 51–62.
494
L. Saraç
Sakallı, N. (2002b). Pictures of male homosexuals in the head college students: The effects of sex difference and social contact on stereotyping. Journal of Homosexuality, 43, 111–126. Sakallı, N., & U˘gurlu, O. (2001). Effects of social contact with homosexuals on heterosexual Turkish university students’ attitudes towards homosexuality. Journal of Homosexuality, 42, 53–62. Schellenberg, E. G., Hirt, J., & Sears, A. (1999). Attitudes toward homosexuals among students at a Canadian university. Sex Roles, 40, 139–152. Schulte, L. J., & Battle, J. (2004). The relative importance of ethnicity and religion in predicting attitudes towards gays and lesbians. Journal of Homosexuality, 47(2), 127–142. Sofuo˘glu, N. (2010). Butler’i Schutz ile okumak: Toplumsal cinsiyet kavramı ve cinsiyet ayrımcılı˘gının bazı göstergeleri üzerine bir de˘gerlendirme (Reading Butler with Schutz: A review on concept of social gender and some phenomenon gender discrimination). Toplum Bilimleri (Social Sciences), 4(8), 83–93. Siraj, A. (2009). The construction of the homosexual “other” by British Muslim heterosexuals. Contemporary Islam, 3, 41–57. Steffens, M. C., & Wagner, C. (2004). Attitudes towards lesbians, gay men, bisexual women, and bisexual men in Germany. Journal of Sex Research, 41, 137–149. Suhail, K., & Chaudhry, H. R. (2004). Predictors of subjective wellbeing in an Eastern Muslim culture. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23, 359–376. Tapınç, H. (1992). Masculinity, femininity, and Turkish male homosexuality. In K. Plummer (Ed.), Modern homosexualities (pp. 39–49). London, UK: Routledge. Ta¸sdemir, N., & Sakallı-U˘gurlu, N. (2010). The relationship between religiosity, and ambivalent sexism among Turkish students. Sex Roles, 62, 420–426. Wafer, J. (1997). Muhammad and male homosexuality. In S. O. Murray & W. Roscoe (Eds.), I˙slamic homosexualities: Culture, history, and literature (pp, 87–96). New York, NY: New York University Press. Whitley, B. E., Childs, C. E., & Collins, J. (2011). Differences in Black and White American college students’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. Sex Roles, 64, 299–310. Wills, G., & Crawford, R. (2000). Attitudes toward homosexuality in ShreveportBossier City, Louisiana. Journal of Homosexuality, 38, 97–116. Yip, A. K-T. (2009). Islam and sexuality: Orthodoxy and contestations. Contemporary Islam, 3, 1–5. Yıldız, S., Atamer, A., & Yavuz, M. F. (2003). Correlates of negative attitudes of undergraduate students towards gay men and lesbians. Forensic Sciences International, 136(Suppl. 1), 290.
Copyright of Journal of Homosexuality is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
Relationships Between Religiosity Level and Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men Among Turkish University Students LEYLA SARAÇ, PhD School of Physical Education and Sports, Mersin University, Mersin, Turkey
This study examined the relationships between religiosity levels and attitudes toward lesbians and gay men among freshmen university students in Turkey. The Attitudes Towards Lesbians and Gay Men Scale–Short Form and the Religiosity Scale were administered to 91 male ( M = 19.95, SD = 1.48 years) and 171 female ( M = 19.23, SD = 1.28 years) students. The findings showed that male freshmen ( M = 19.32, SD = 4.97) had more negative attitudes toward gay men than toward lesbians ( M = 17.84, SD = 5.25), p = .000. In addition, attitudes of male freshmen were significantly more negative toward gay men ( M =19.32, SD = 4.97) than females ( M = 17.51, SD = 5.73), p = .012. Both male and female freshmen students who had higher levels of religiosity were found to have higher levels of negative attitudes toward both lesbians and gay men. KEYWORDS homonegativity, lesbian-gay, prejudice, Islamic homonegativity
Homosexuality has long been considered a form of “abnormal behavior” by many societies, regardless of its removal in 1973 from the list of mental disorders by the American Psychiatric Association (APA). Although societal attitudes toward homosexual individuals differ in diverse populations, many studies have shown negative attitudes toward homosexuals and homosexuality (Çırako˘glu, 2006; Davison & Frank, 2007; Gelbal & Duyan, 2006; Herek, 2000; Oksal, 2008). Researchers examining the underlying factors influencing heterosexuals’ attitudes toward homosexuality Address correspondence to Leyla Saraç, Mersin University, Beden Egitimi ve Spor Yuksekokulu, Ciftlikkoy Kampusu, 33343 Yenisehir, Mersin, Turkey. E-mail: [email protected] 481
482
L. Saraç
demonstrated that gender (Herek & Capitanio, 1995; Roper & Halloran, 2007; Sakallı, 2002a; Wills & Crawford, 2000) and religion (Gelbal & Duyan, 2006; Herek & Capitanio, 1995; Schulte & Battle, 2004) are two significant predictors of heterosexuals’ negative attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. Previous research on the effects of gender on attitudes toward homosexuals has indicated that heterosexual males hold more negative attitudes toward lesbians and gay men than heterosexual females (Herek, 2000; Kite & Whitley, 1996; Roper & Halloran, 2007; Schellenberg, Hirt, & Sears, 1999). In addition, heterosexual males were found to hold more negative attitudes toward gay men than toward lesbians (Whitley, Childs, & Collins, 2011). Furthermore, heterosexual females, compared to heterosexual males, were found to hold more negative attitudes toward lesbians (Whitley et al., 2011). Gender has also been shown to be a factor in predicting negative attitudes toward homosexuals in Turkey. Specifically, males, compared to females, were found to be more negative toward homosexuals (Gelbal & Duyan, 2006; Sakallı, 2002a). It was observed that female Turkish students were more tolerant toward homosexuals than male Turkish students (Gelbal & Duyan, 2006; Sakallı, 2002a; Yıldız, Atamer, & Yavuz, 2003). Similarly, the attitudes of male Turkish teachers, police officers, and medical doctors toward lesbians and gay men were shown to be more negative when compared with the attitudes of females (Akda¸s-Mitrani, 2008). Furthermore, in a study of the attitudes of different family members, fathers were found to be more negative toward homosexuals than mothers (Oksal, 2008). Although homosexuality is not illegal in Turkey, negative attitudes and behaviors toward homosexuals are still prevalent in the society. Turkey is officially a secular country, and its main religion is Islam. Many Turkish people perceive homosexuality as unallowable and a deviant behavior (Sakallı & U˘gurlu, 2001). These perceptions are thought to be affected by the Islamic religion, given that acceptable and moral behaviors in the society are established by religion (Yip, 2009). Although this not the case in Turkey, homosexuality is actually considered a crime in Islamic Law, and research has shown a direct association between religiosity and intolerance toward homosexuality (Siraj, 2009). Islam explicitly promotes heteronormative qualities (Bouhdiba, 1998; Jaspal, 2010). In some Islamic countries, such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Sudan, homosexual acts are punishable by death. The prohibition of homosexual acts is stated in the following passage of Islam’s Holy Book (The Qur’an): Prophet Lut was sent by God (Allah in Islam) to warn the people against committing same-sex sexual acts, but because his relentless warnings were rejected, much of the population was eradicated. (Siraj, 2009, p. 44)
Prior research has also identified strong associations between religiosity and attitudes toward homosexuals, as religious individuals were found to
Relationship Between Islamic Religiousness and Homonegativity
483
hold higher levels of negative attitudes toward lesbians and gay men than nonreligious individuals (Berkman & Zinberg, 1997; Herek & Capitanio, 1995; Rowatt, Tsang, Kelly, LaMartina, McCullers, & McKinley, 2006; Schulte & Battle, 2004). Despite the observable increase in research on attitudes toward homosexuals in various population samples, research on the attitudes of heterosexual Muslim young individuals remains limited. There is a need to examine the influence of the Islamic religion, which condemns homosexuality explicitly, on attitudes toward homosexual individuals. Therefore, the current study focused on understanding the effects of the Islamic religion on attitudes toward homosexual individuals. The importance of the current study lies in the fact that a variety of studies have pointed out that homosexual youth are not safe on college campuses, and due to the sexual orientation–related victimization by peers they prefer to hide their sexual orientation (Morrow & Gill, 2003; Mustanski, Newcomb, & Garofalo, 2011; Russell, Ryan, Toomey, Diaz, & Sanchez, 2011). This study will contribute the understanding of freshmen students’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. By means of understanding their attitudes toward lesbians and gay men, curriculum developers may use the results of this study for preventing discrimination on school campuses. Each individual attending college has the right to experience a positive learning environment. Also, today’s freshmen will be the future teachers, doctors, or engineers. Attending college is expected to change their attitudes toward lesbians and gay men in a positive way. Before attempting for such changes, attitudes of freshmen toward lesbians and gay men and possible predictors have to be detected. For this reason, this study will provide preliminary information.
HYPOTHESES There has been little research conducted on Muslim individuals’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. The current study was designed to examine gender differences in attitudes toward lesbians and gay men among Turkish university freshmen, and to investigate the relationships between religiosity levels and the attitudes of Turkish university freshmen toward lesbians and gay men. Based on the literature described above, the following two hypotheses guided the current study:
1. Heterosexual male freshmen university students hold more negative attitudes toward lesbians and gay men than heterosexual female freshmen university students. 2. Freshmen university students who have higher levels of religiosity have more negative attitudes toward lesbians and gay men.
484
L. Saraç
METHODS Participants and Procedures The sample for this study consisted of 91 male and 171 female university students, aged 18 to 25 years (Mmale = 19.95 years, SD = 1.48; Mfemale = 19.23 years, SD = 1.28). At the time of the study, all students were freshmen and enrolled in the Introduction to University Life (IUL) course, which is a 1-credit course required for all freshmen, during the 2010–2011 academic year. Participants were enrolled in sport activities in the School of Physical Education and Sports. Students completed the self-administered Turkish versions of the Attitudes Towards Lesbians and Gay Men Scale–Short Form and the Religiosity Scale during a regularly scheduled class period on an anonymous and voluntary basis.
Instruments Students were required to report their genders and ages. In addition, the following scales were used to collect data about participants’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men and their religiosity levels.
THE ATTITUDES
TOWARD
LESBIANS
AND
GAY MEN SCALE (SHORT FORM)
The attitudes of students toward lesbians and gay men were measured using the Turkish version of the Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men Scale– Short Form (ATLG-S; Duyan & Gelbal, 2004). The ATLG-S, a paper-andpencil self-administrated scale, was originally developed by Herek (1998) to measure heterosexuals’ attitudes toward gay men and women. It consists of 10 statements: five about lesbians (ATL) and five about gay men (ATG). The ATLG-S is a 5-point Likert scale with response alternatives ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The total score is obtained by adding the values for each response (e.g., 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). The total ATLG score ranges from 10 to 50, and the scores of each subscale (i.e., ATL and ATG) range from 5 to 25. Higher scores indicate more negative attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. The scale and its subscales have demonstrated high reliability (Cronbach’s alpha > .85; Herek, 1988; Herek, 1994). The current study found the overall reliability of the scale to be .92. In addition, Cronbach’s alpha for the subscales ranged from .87 to .89.
THE RELIGIOSITY SCALE The 14-item Religiosity Scale was used to measure Muslim participants’ levels of religiosity. The scale was developed by Mutlu (1989) and demonstrated high internal consistency (α = .94). Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was found
Relationship Between Islamic Religiousness and Homonegativity
485
to be .78 in the current study. Examples of Religiosity Scale items include The Qur’an conveys the commands of God and I am not interested in religious subjects. The participants were instructed to indicate the extent to which each statement described them. Response options were given on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree. The overall religiosity score was calculated by averaging the scale items, and the scores ranged from 1 to 5. Numerous studies have explored individuals’ religiosity levels using a variety of criteria. In some of these studies, participants were asked to indicate their religious affiliations. In other studies, they were asked to indicate how frequently they attended religious services, while in some others they were asked to rate themselves on how religious they were. The current study employed scales to measure participants’ religiosity levels. Religiosity has been accepted as a multidimensional concept, and attempts have been made to measure these dimensions using various scales (Allport & Ross, 1967; Batson & Ventis, 1982). Koenig, McCullough, and Larson (2001) reported 12 different measures of religiousness, such as religious belief, religious affiliation or denomination, organizational religiosity, nonorganizational religiosity, subjective religiosity, and religious commitment or orientation. One of the most studied measures of religion was religious commitment or orientation, which has two dimensions: intrinsic (religious faith is internalized) and extrinsic (religious faith is externalized; Allport & Ross, 1967). In addition, several instruments to measure religiosity have been developed for use with specific populations, such as Jewish (Ben-Meir & Kedem, 1979; Ressler, 1997), Christian (Allport & Ross, 1967; Francis, 1978), Buddhist (Emavardhana & Tori, 1997), and Hindu (Hassan & Khalique, 1981). For the Muslim population, no or limited religiosity scale reported in the international literature (Koenig et al., 2001; Rabin & Koening, 2002; Suhail & Chaudhry, 2004). Although some scales were available among Turkish scales, the Religiosity Scale, which was developed by Mutlu (1989) for the Muslim population, was selected and used in the current study. The scale has been shown to have adequate validity and reliability in previous research (Ta¸sdemir & Sakallı-U˘gurlu, 2010). However, future efforts to measure religiosity should pay particular attention to find out different dimensions of religiosity.
RESULTS The first hypothesis was that heterosexual male freshmen university students would hold more negative attitudes toward lesbians and gay men than heterosexual female freshmen university students. A 2 (Sex of the Respondent-Male vs. Female) × 2 (Gender of the Target-ATL vs. ATG) repeated-measures analysis of variance was conducted. The main effect for
486
L. Saraç
the responders’ sex was not significant [F(1, 260) = 2.42, p = .121], indicating that male (M = 18.58) and female (M = 17.55) students gave similar responses when gender of the target being scored was ignored. On the contrary, the main effect of the gender of the target was statistically significant [F(1, 260) = 11.56, p = .001] such that the scores of the ATG (M = 18.42) and ATL (M = 17.70) were significantly different, ignoring the sex of the respondent. Furthermore, the interaction between sex of the respondent and gender of the target was statistically significant [F(1, 260) = 13.11, p = .000], indicating that the ATL and ATG scores were not same for male and female respondents (Table 1). To explore the nature of the interaction, tests of the simple main effects were performed. Results of the analysis revealed that male respondents had more negative attitudes toward gay men (M = 19.32, SD = 4.97) than toward lesbians (M = 17.84, SD = 5.25), [F(1, 260) = 18.88, p = .000]. However, the attitudes of female respondents toward gay men (M = 17.51, SD = 5.73) and lesbians (M =17.56, SD = 5.36) did not differ significantly, [F(1, 260) = .04, p = .851]. Results also demonstrated that attitudes of males were significantly more negative toward gay men (M =19.32, SD = 4.97) than females (M =17.51, SD = 5.73), [F(1, 260) = 6.45, p = .012]; but no significant sex differences were observed in attitudes toward lesbians (M male =17.83, SD = 5.36, M female =17.56, SD = 5.36), [F(1, 260) = .16, p = .692]. The second hypothesis was that freshmen university students who have higher levels of religiosity would have more negative attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. The relationship between attitudes of male and female students toward gay men and their religiosity levels was investigated separately using the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. There was a strong, positive, and significant correlation between the attitudes of male students toward gay men and their religiosity levels (r = .60, n = 91, p < .01): highly negative attitudes toward gay men were associated with higher levels of religiosity. Similarly, there was a moderate, positive, and significant correlation between the attitudes of female students toward gay men and their religiosity levels (r = .39, n = 171, p < .01): more negative attitudes toward gay men were associated with higher levels of religiosity. In addition, the relationship between male and female students’ attitudes toward lesbians and TABLE 1 2 × 2 ANOVA Showing the Influence of Sex of Respondent and Gender of Target in Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men Source a
Main effect of A (Sex of Respondent ) Main effect of B (Gender of Target) Interaction: AXB Error aN
male =
91; Nfemale = 171.
SS
df
MS
F
p
128.21 61.30 69.54 1379.18
1 1 1 260
128.21 61.30 69.54 5.31
2.42 11.56 13.11
.121 .001 .000
Relationship Between Islamic Religiousness and Homonegativity
487
their religiosity levels was investigated using Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. A moderate, positive, and significant correlation between the male students’ attitudes toward lesbians and their religiosity level (r = .53, n = 91, p < .01), and a strong, positive, and significant correlation between female students’ attitudes toward lesbians and their religiosity level were found (r = .38, n = 171, p < .01): a high level of negative attitudes toward lesbians was associated with higher levels of religiosity.
DISCUSSION The purpose of this study was to examine gender differences in attitudes toward lesbians and gay men and to explore the relationship between religiosity levels and attitudes toward lesbians and gay men in male and female freshmen university students in Turkey, most of whom are Muslim. Two hypotheses were tested. The first hypothesis stated that male freshmen would have more negative attitudes toward lesbians and gay men than female students. The results obtained somewhat supported Hypothesis 1 in that male freshmen held more negative attitudes toward gay men compared to female freshmen. In contrast, no difference was found between the attitudes of male and female freshman toward lesbians. These results confirmed earlier research findings that heterosexual males hold more negative attitudes toward homosexuals, especially gay men, than females (Ben-Ari, 2001; Herek, 1988, 2000; Herek & Capitanio, 1995; Herek & Gonzalez-Rivera, 2006; Lim, 2002; Roper & Halloran, 2007; Schellenberg et al., 1999; Steffens & Wagner, 2004). For instance, Kite and Whitley (1996) performed a metaanalysis of 120 studies of sex differences in attitudes toward homosexual men and women and found that heterosexual men, compared with heterosexual females, were more negative toward gay men than lesbians. Similar conclusions were also drawn by studies conducted on Turkish samples. A study of a sample of college students revealed that male students had more negative attitudes toward homosexuals compared to female students (Çırako˘glu, 2006; Gelbal & Duyan, 2006; Sakallı, 2002a, 2002b). For example, Yıldız et al. (2003) found that male undergraduates from five different academic departments were more negative toward gays than lesbians compared to females. Contrary to the findings of the current study, their findings demonstrated that males were more negative toward lesbians compared with females. In addition, data gathered about the attitudes toward lesbians and gay men among various occupational groups (e.g., undergraduate students, teachers, police officers, medical doctors) demonstrated that males were more negative toward both lesbians and gay men compared with females (Akda¸s-Mitrani, 2008). In the current study, the gender of the participant was found to be one of the predictors of Turkish freshmen students’ attitudes toward gay men
488
L. Saraç
but not toward lesbians. To explain the finding that males are more negative toward gay men than toward lesbians, Sakallı (2002b) stated that the term homosexual mostly reminds people of gay men rather than lesbians (Sakallı, 2002a, 2002b). In addition, Turkish people believe and follow traditional gender roles, which support the normality of heterosexual sexual relationships between males and females (Sakallı, 2002a; Çırako˘glu, 2006). For this reason, Turkish freshmen might see homosexual relationships as unacceptable and adopt negative attitudes toward gay men. Homosexual acts are denied in Turkish society due to common and traditional sexist beliefs (Sakallı, 2002a). Additionally, Turkey is a male-dominated country, and the characteristics of males are accepted as the opposite of females (Sakallı, 2002a). In her study, Sakallı (2002b) found that most participants described homosexuals as engaging in feminine behaviors. They thought that homosexuals “wear flashy clothes, wear feminine clothes, and act like a woman” (p. 116). Male freshmen in the current study might think that gay men reflect feminine characteristics that are the opposite of masculine characteristics, which represent the honor of manhood (Duyan & Duyan, 2005; Sakallı, 2002b). Descriptions of gay men can be harsh; for instance, Tapınç (1992) stated, “For straight men homosexuals are the disgrace of manhood” (pp. 39–49). In addition, the importance of traditionally established rules and societal behaviors is widespread in Turkey (Oksal, 2008). The rules of Turkish society deny homosexuality and homosexuals. Therefore, the negative attitudes of the male students toward gay men in this study might be due to these general beliefs about gay men. The religious traditions, which alienate women and make them inferior to men, are mentioned as another factor in the existence of these negative beliefs (Sofuo˘glu, 2010). In the community men are accepted as the superior gender and there are negative attitudes toward men who behave opposite to the expected roles, contrary to this, not caring women’s similar behavior is not surprising. When the attitudes of heterosexual individual maled are compared with femaled, the reasons of having more negative attitudes toward gay men than lesbians have been explained in various ways. One of these reasons has been called gender belief systems. According to this system, people have been grouped as masculine or feminine, or accepted individuals are expected to have appropriate physical features and roles (Kite & Whitley, 1996; LaMar & Kite, 1998). However, when people do not display behaviors that have been required for their genders, such as being a gay, males are exposed to worse responses than females. This is because the gender roles attributed to males are stricter than for females. The reason for this is that the roles those males are imposed to be accepted as superior than women’s roles (Arndt & de Bruin, 2006; Kite & Whitley, 1996; LaMar & Kite, 1998; Lim, 2002; Rajecki, De Graaf-Kaser, & Rasmussen, 1992). Another reason for the negative attitude toward male gays compared to lesbians is the belief that males can lose their power, superiority, and being distinguished, which are
Relationship Between Islamic Religiousness and Homonegativity
489
all socially constructed roles imposed on the male gender (Arndt & de Bruin, 2006; Kerns & Fine, 1994). It is also considered that the reason for exhibiting more tolerance toward lesbians over gay men, which is also accepted in the international literature, is due to its validity for Turkish society. Herek (2000) has also stated that most people think of males when they hear the word gay. Additionally, as Herek (2000) emphasized, another reason of males’ negative attitude toward male gays can be the need to prove that they are in the heterosexual group accepted by the community. The way they prove this can be by displaying exaggerated negative attitude toward male gays (Herek, 2000). Kimmel (1997) stated that men seek approval from others. The anxiety of males to be accepted by their own gender has been explained by Kimmel (1997) in this way: Other men: We are under the constant careful scrutiny of other men. Other men watch us, rank us, grant our acceptance into the realm of manhood. Manhood is demonstrated for other men’s approval. It is other men who evaluate the performance. (p. 214)
Unfortunately, sex education is missing at various levels of the formal educational curricula of Turkey (Duyan & Duyan, 2005). This creates a lack of information related to homosexuality. In addition, due to their hidden lives, homosexuals in Turkey are shown mainly in written and visual media, which misinforms people (Bolak-Boratav, 2006). The negative attitudes of freshmen toward gay men in the current study might be due to this deficiency of accurate knowledge about homosexuals and homosexuality. The second hypothesis tested was whether freshmen university students who have higher levels of religiosity would have more negative attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. The findings of the current study resonate with previous findings that freshmen who had higher levels of religiosity had more negative attitudes toward both lesbians and gay men. The negative influence of religion on attitudes toward lesbians and gay men has been reported in other studies. For instance, Herek and Capitanio (1995) found more negative attitudes toward gay men and lesbians among a Black and White sample who attended religious services frequently. Similarly, Schulte and Battle (2004) found that higher levels of religiosity are strongly associated with negative attitudes toward homosexual individuals. In addition, Herek and Gonzalez-Rivera (2006) found that individuals who belong to a fundamentalist religious denomination and who attend religious services frequently have negative attitudes toward gay men. Brown and Henriquez (2008) also demonstrated that being more religious was positively correlated with negative attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. Although limited, results from studies on attitudes toward lesbians and gay men in Muslim populations demonstrated less tolerance toward homosexuals by individuals who are more religious compared to those who are not religious. For instance, in
490
L. Saraç
a British Muslim sample, Siraj (2009) conducted a study and found that the being religiously conservative led to negative attitudes toward homosexuals. A recent comparison between Catholics, Protestants, and Muslims living in the same country (Belgium) showed that religious denominations, especially Islam, had a strong negative effect on tolerance toward lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights (Hooghe, Claes, Harell, Quintelier, & Dejaeghere, 2010). Despite being a country with a Muslim population of over 98% (BolakBoratav, 2006), there have been limited studies examining the relationship between attitudes toward homosexuals and the Islamic religion in the Turkish population. In one of these few studies, Gelbal and Duyan (2006) found that university students having strong religious beliefs have more negative attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. Furthermore, due to the strict gender roles described in Islamic texts, homosexuals are considered a threat to male identity (Tapınç, 1992). As previously mentioned, the characteristics of homosexuals are observed as similar to those of females, being at a lower level and weaker when compared with the masculine and powerful characteristics of males (Duyan & Duyan, 2005; Sakallı, 2002a, 2002b). Under this perspective, homosexuals, who behave as females, shame males (Tapınç, 1992). The texts that represent the laws of Islam explicitly condemn and prohibit homosexual acts (Bolak-Boratav, 2006; Wafer, 1997). Homosexuality is referred to as deviant from acceptable male and female behavior (BolakBoratav, 2006). Most important, in Islamic law there is a passage indicating that God (Allah in Islam) sent the Prophet Lut to inform people that homosexual acts were forbidden. As a result of the disregard of Lut’s warnings, most of the people were destroyed (Siraj, 2009). Moreover, homosexuality is not only discouraged but is a crime according Islamic law (Siraj, 2009). Although Turkey is not officially an Islamic country, believers of Islam in Turkey might be influenced by or follow these rules. The negative attitudes toward lesbians and gay men among both male and female students in the current study may be explained by the beliefs mentioned above.
CONCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS In conclusion, the current study provided evidence of gender differences in attitudes toward gay men among freshmen and evidence of the relationship between religiosity levels and attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. These results are consistent with the previous literature. Turkish freshmen students had more negative attitudes toward gay men than lesbians but had similar attitudes toward lesbians. Finally, these findings supported the existence of the negative effect of religion on attitudes toward lesbians and gay men in that both male and female freshmen students who had higher levels of
Relationship Between Islamic Religiousness and Homonegativity
491
religiosity were found to have more negative attitudes toward both lesbians and gay men. This study has some limitations that should be considered. The current study included only freshmen students at one of the universities of the Turkish Republic. Students of other years (2nd, 3rd, 4th) were not included in the study. In addition, the sample consisted only of the students enrolled in the IUL course provided by the School of Physical Education and Sports. The demographic information collected did not include questions about the sexual orientation of the freshmen students, and all students were regarded as heterosexual. Another limitation of the current study was not including some other mediating variables such as socioeconomic status, parental education level, or athletic background. The ATLG-S uses different items to measure attitudes toward lesbians and gay men, which may have had an influence on the study’s findings. The scales in the current study were self-reported measures, and the related bias needs to be considered while interpreting the results. Additionally, the responses derived from the Turkish sample should not be generalized to other Islamic countries, which are governed by Islamic law.
REFERENCES Akda¸s-Mitrani, A. T. (2008). E¸scinsellere yönelik olumsuz tutumlar: meslek grupları ve ili¸skileri özellikler (Attitudes towards homosexuals: Occupational groups and characteristics). Turkish Journal of Forensic Sciences, 7, 23–30. Allport, G. W., & Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 432–443. American Psychiatric Association. (1973). Position statement on homosexuality and civil rights. American Journal of Psychiatry, 131, 497. Retrieved from http://www.psychiatry.org/File%20Library/Advocacy%20and%20Newsroom/ Position%20Statements/ps1973_HomosexualityCivilRights.pdf Arndt, M., & de Bruin, G. (2006). Attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: Relations with gender, race and religion among university students. Psychology in Society, 33, 16–30. Batson, C. D., & Ventis, W. L. (1982). The religious experience: A social-psychological perspective. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Ben-Ari, A. T. (2001). Homosexuality and heterosexism: Views from academics in the helping professions. British Journal of Social Work, 31, 119–131. Ben-Meir, Y., & Kedem, P. (1979). Index of religiosity of the Jewish population of Israel. Megamot, 24, 353–362. Berkman, C. S., & Zinberg, G. (1997). Homophobia and heterosexism in social workers. Social Work, 42, 319–332. Bolak-Boratav, H. (2006). Making sense of heterosexuality: An exploratory study of young heterosexual identities in Turkey. Sex Roles, 54, 213–225. Bouhdiba, A. (1998). Sexuality in Islam. London, UK: Saqi Books.
492
L. Saraç
Brown, M. J., & Henriquez, E. (2008). Socio-demographic predictors of attitudes toward gays and lesbians. Individual Differences Research, 6, 193–202. Çırako˘glu, O. C. (2006). Perception of homosexuality among Turkish university students: The roles of labels, gender, and prior contact. Journal of Social Psychology, 146, 293–305. Davison, K. G., & Frank, B. W. (2007). Sexualities, genders, and bodies in sport: Changing practices of inequity. In K. Young & P. White (Eds.), Sport and gender in Canada (2nd ed.; pp. 178–193). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Duyan, V., & Duyan, G. (2005). Turkish social work students’ attitudes toward sexuality. Sex Roles, 52, 697–706. Duyan, V., & Gelbal, S. (2004). Lezbiyen ve geylere yönelik tutum (LGYT) ölçe˘gi: Güvenirlik ve geçerlik çalı¸sması (Attitudes toward lesbians and gey men scale: A study of reliability and validity). Türk HIV/AIDS Dergisi (Turkish Journal of HIV/AIDS), 7(3), 106–112. Emavardhana, T., & Tori, C. D. (1997). Changes in self consept, ego defence mechanisms, and religiosity following seven-day Vipassana meditation retreats. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 36, 194–206. Francis, L. J. (1978). Attitude and longitude: A study in measurement. Character Potential, 8, 119–130. Gelbal, S., & Duyan, V. (2006). Attitudes of university students toward lesbians and gay men in Turkey. Sex Roles, 55, 573–579. Hassan, M. K., & Khalique, A. (1981). Religiosity and its correlates in college students. Journal of Psychological Researches, 25, 129–136. Herek, G. M. (1988). Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: Correlates and gender differences. Journal of Sex Research, 25, 451–477. Herek, G. M. (1994). Assessing heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: A review of empirical research with the ATLG scale. In B. Greene, & G. M. Herek (Eds.), Lesbian and gay psychology: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 206–228). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Herek, G. M. (1998). The attitudes toward lesbians and gay men (ATLG) scale. In C. M. Davis, W. H. Yarber, R. Bauserman, G. Schreer, & S. L. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality-related measures (pp. 392–394). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Herek, G. M. (2000). The psychology of sexual prejudice. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 19–22. Herek, G. M., & Capitanio, J. P. (1995). Black heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men in the United States. Journal of Sex Research, 32, 95–105. Herek, G. M., &Gonzalez-Rivera, M. (2006). Attitudes toward homosexuality among U.S. residents of Mexican descent. Journal of Sex Research, 43, 122–135. Hooghe, M., Claes, E., Harell, A., Quintelier, E., & Dejaeghere, Y. (2010). Anti-gay sentiment among adolescents in Belgium and Canada: A comparative investigation into the role of gender and religion. Journal of Homosexuality, 57, 384–400. Jaspal, R. (2010). Identity threat among British Muslim gay men. The Psychologist, 23, 640–641.
Relationship Between Islamic Religiousness and Homonegativity
493
Kerns, J. G., & Fine, M. A. (1994). The relation between gender and negative attitudes toward gay men and lesbians: Do gender role attitudes mediate this relation? Sex Roles, 31, 297–307. Kimmel, M. S. (2000). Masculinity as homophobia: Fear, shame, and silence in the construction of gender identity. In M. Adams, W. J. Blumenfeld, R. Castaneda, H. W. Hackman, M. L. Peters, & X. Zuniga (Eds.), Readings for diversity and social justice (pp. 213–219). New York, NY: Routledge. Kite, M., & Whitley, B. (1996). Sex differences in attitudes toward homosexual persons, behaviours, and civil rights: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 336–353. Koenig, H. G., McCullough, M. E., & Larson, D. B. (2001). Handbook of religion and health. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. LaMar, L., & Kite. M. (1998). Sex differences in attitudes toward gay men and lesbians: A multidimensional perspective. Journal of Sex Research, 35, 189–196. Lim, V. K. (2002). Gender differences and attitudes towards homosexuality. Journal of Homosexuality, 43, 85–97. Morrow, R. G., & Gill, D. L. (2003). Perceptions of homophobia and heterosexism in physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 74, 205–214. Mustanski, B., Newcomb, M., & Garofalo, R. (2011). Mental health of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths: A developmental resiliency perspective. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 23, 1–22. Mutlu, K. (1989). Bir dindarlık ölçe˘gi: Sosyoloji’de yöntem üzerine bir tartı¸sma ˙ (The religiosity scale: the discussion of methodology in sociology). Islami Ara¸stırmalar (Islamic Research), 3, 194–199. Oksal, A. (2008). Turkish family members’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. Sex Roles, 58, 514–525. Rabin, B. S., & Koenig, H. G. (2002). Immune, neuroendocrine, and religious measures. In H. G. Koening & H. J. Cohen (Eds.), The link between religion and health: Psychoneuroimmunology and the faith factor (pp. 11–30). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Rajecki, D. W., De Graaf-Kaser, R., & Rasmussen, J. L. (1992). New impressions and more discrimination: Effects of individuation on gender-label stereotypes. Sex Roles, 27, 171–185. Ressler, W. H. (1997). Jewishness and well-being: Specific identification and general psychological adjustment. Psychological Reports, 81, 515–518. Roper, E. A., & Hollaran, E. (2007). Attitudes toward gay men and lesbians among heterosexual male and female student-athletes. Sex Roles, 57, 919–928. Rowatt, W. C., Tsang, J., Kelly, J., LaMartina, B., McCullers, M., & McKinley, A. (2006). Associations between religious personality dimensions and implicit homosexual prejudice. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 45, 397–406. Russell, S. T., Ryan, C., Toomey, R. B., Diaz, R., & Sanchez, J. (2011). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender adolescent school victimization: Implications for young adult health and adjustment. Journal of School Health, 81, 223–230. Sakallı, N. (2002a). The relationship between sexism and attitudes toward homosexuality in a sample of Turkish college students. Journal of Homosexuality, 42, 51–62.
494
L. Saraç
Sakallı, N. (2002b). Pictures of male homosexuals in the head college students: The effects of sex difference and social contact on stereotyping. Journal of Homosexuality, 43, 111–126. Sakallı, N., & U˘gurlu, O. (2001). Effects of social contact with homosexuals on heterosexual Turkish university students’ attitudes towards homosexuality. Journal of Homosexuality, 42, 53–62. Schellenberg, E. G., Hirt, J., & Sears, A. (1999). Attitudes toward homosexuals among students at a Canadian university. Sex Roles, 40, 139–152. Schulte, L. J., & Battle, J. (2004). The relative importance of ethnicity and religion in predicting attitudes towards gays and lesbians. Journal of Homosexuality, 47(2), 127–142. Sofuo˘glu, N. (2010). Butler’i Schutz ile okumak: Toplumsal cinsiyet kavramı ve cinsiyet ayrımcılı˘gının bazı göstergeleri üzerine bir de˘gerlendirme (Reading Butler with Schutz: A review on concept of social gender and some phenomenon gender discrimination). Toplum Bilimleri (Social Sciences), 4(8), 83–93. Siraj, A. (2009). The construction of the homosexual “other” by British Muslim heterosexuals. Contemporary Islam, 3, 41–57. Steffens, M. C., & Wagner, C. (2004). Attitudes towards lesbians, gay men, bisexual women, and bisexual men in Germany. Journal of Sex Research, 41, 137–149. Suhail, K., & Chaudhry, H. R. (2004). Predictors of subjective wellbeing in an Eastern Muslim culture. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23, 359–376. Tapınç, H. (1992). Masculinity, femininity, and Turkish male homosexuality. In K. Plummer (Ed.), Modern homosexualities (pp. 39–49). London, UK: Routledge. Ta¸sdemir, N., & Sakallı-U˘gurlu, N. (2010). The relationship between religiosity, and ambivalent sexism among Turkish students. Sex Roles, 62, 420–426. Wafer, J. (1997). Muhammad and male homosexuality. In S. O. Murray & W. Roscoe (Eds.), I˙slamic homosexualities: Culture, history, and literature (pp, 87–96). New York, NY: New York University Press. Whitley, B. E., Childs, C. E., & Collins, J. (2011). Differences in Black and White American college students’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. Sex Roles, 64, 299–310. Wills, G., & Crawford, R. (2000). Attitudes toward homosexuality in ShreveportBossier City, Louisiana. Journal of Homosexuality, 38, 97–116. Yip, A. K-T. (2009). Islam and sexuality: Orthodoxy and contestations. Contemporary Islam, 3, 1–5. Yıldız, S., Atamer, A., & Yavuz, M. F. (2003). Correlates of negative attitudes of undergraduate students towards gay men and lesbians. Forensic Sciences International, 136(Suppl. 1), 290.
Copyright of Journal of Homosexuality is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
