Journal of Homosexuality, 61:1420–1434, 2014 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0091-8369 print/1540-3602 online DOI: 10.1080/00918369.2014.928172
The Role of Beliefs on Learning About Homosexuality in a College Course JAMES VAUGHN, PhD Department of Psychology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma; University of Sciences and Arts of Oklahoma, Chickasaw, Oklahoma, USA
SHELIA KENNISON, PhD and JENNIFER BYRD-CRAVEN, PhD Department of Psychology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma, USA
The present research investigated how personal beliefs about homosexuality influence learning in a college course. We tested students in introductory psychology over material on the science of homosexuality by Simon LeVay (2010). All students reported information about their typical academic habits and the extent to which homosexuality was consistent with their beliefs and values. The results showed that students’ personal beliefs were related to academic behaviors (e.g., reading assignments, skipping class) and retention of the course material. The results also showed that students’ recall of course material six weeks later was predicted by the extent to which they reported studying information that is inconsistent with their beliefs for an exam and then forgetting it. Students who reported the material to be inconsistent with their beliefs engaged in selective forgetting of the material on homosexuality. The results provide evidence that personal beliefs can reduce the retention of belief-inconsistent information in a college course. KEYWORDS college learning, science of homosexuality, schemas, academic behaviors
Homosexuality is one of many controversial topics presented in a wide range of college courses, including psychology, sociology, communication, and political sciences, as well as others. The American Psychological Association Address correspondence to Shelia Kennison, Department of Psychology, Oklahoma State University, 116 North Murray Hall, Stillwater, OK 74078, USA. E-mail: shelia.kennison@okstate. edu 1420
Learning About Homosexuality in a College Course
1421
as well as many other professional organizations including the American Psychiatric Association no longer label homosexuality as a mental disorder (APA, 2009). Today, this fact is still not widely accepted. Research by the Pew Center found that 51% of people in the United States believed that homosexuality can be changed (Pew, 2007). Many conservative groups still claim that homosexuality is a mental disorder (APA, 2009; Focus on the Family Sexual Identity, 2011; NARTH Mission Statement, 2011; NARTH Position Statements, 2011; Southern Baptist Convention, 2005; United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2006). However, psychological science has shown that homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexual behavior (APA, 2009; LeVay, 2010). College courses can be a place where educators dispel myths of all types, including myths about homosexuality. It is likely to be the case that students with personal beliefs and values that are inconsistent with the topic they are studying are not only likely to be resistant to learning about the topic but may hold tenaciously to their beliefs despite strong evidence to the contrary. The aim of the present research was to investigate how personal beliefs and values influence college students’ studying and learning about the biological basis of homosexuality. We focused specifically on students’ personal beliefs and values regarding Simon LeVay’s (2010) work on the scientific evidence regarding the causes of homosexuality. To date, there have been few studies investigating the role of beliefs and values in learning about homosexuality in college classes. Prior research from cognitive psychology supports the view that one’s personal views would influence classroom learning. Memory research has shown that longterm memory is organized around schemas (Alba & Hasher, 1983; Bower, Black, & Turner, 1979; Brewer & Nakamura, 1984; Brewer & Treyens, 1981; Macrae, Milne, & Bodenhausen, 1994; Rumelhart & Ortony, 1977). Brewer and Treyens (1981) investigated the use of schemas in memory for places, such as offices. Participants spent 35 seconds waiting in an office for their appointment. After the 35-second period, participants were led to a conference room where they were given a list of items and asked if they saw any of those items in the office. Participants were more likely to remember items that were in the room and consistent with what one would find in an office (e.g., books, pencils, bookshelf). They were less likely to remember items that were in the office but inconsistent with typical offices (e.g., wrench, umbrella, picnic basket). Their memories incorrectly included items that are typically found in an office but that were not in the office that they had experienced. Previous research has also shown that information that fits into existing schemas is remembered better than information that does not (Dijksterhuis & van Knippenberg, 1995a,b; Plaks, Stroessner, Dweck, & Sherman, 2001; Sedikides, 1997; Sentis & Burnstein, 1979). Dijksterhuis and van Knippenberg in their first study (1995a) found the timing of schema activation greatly influenced the information that was later recalled about different groups of
1422
J. Vaughn et al.
people. When the schema was activated after receiving behavioral information, then stereotypical inconsistent information was less likely to be remembered. In a follow-up study (Dijksterhuis & van Knippenberg, 1995b), it was found that when processing demands are high, participants were more likely to remember stereotypical consistent information than they were stereotypical inconsistent information. Schemas are useful in storing information in long-term memory. Information is sometimes stored as stereotypical information and can be viewed as cognitive shortcuts (Macrae et al., 1994). However, as has been shown, information can be forgotten or diminished when that information is inconsistent with schemas and stereotypical information. This may be a factor in the retention of information that is inconsistent with one’s beliefs. For example, if one’s schema for a homosexual is that of a person who has made a conscious choice to be homosexual, then information that goes against this particular schema may be more difficult to retain and recall. Sedikides (1995) investigated the phenomenon known as the differential processing effect (DPE; Ostrom, Carpenter, Sedikides, & Li, 1993). DPE states that individuals will process information about in-group members by using person categories (i.e., categories that recognize a person’s individuality) and use stereotypic attribute qualities to process information about out-group members. Participants (Sedikides, 1995) were students divided into groups based on status. The groups consisted of graduate students (high status)/undergraduates (low status) and sophomores (high status)/freshmen (low status). Participants were given information about in-group and outgroup members and asked to recall information such as the names of individuals in both groups. Results indicated that highstatus group members (graduate students and sophomores) recalled more individual information about members of their particular in-group but recalled more stereotypic information about out-group members. In most regions of the United States, individuals identifying as homosexual would often be considered out-group members. There has also been research investigating the response individuals have to information that contradicts a stereotype (Plaks et al., 2001). Participants were presented with information describing behaviors that would be associated with either a priest or a neo-Nazi skinhead. Some of the information was consistent with stereotypic expectations, some was not, and some information was completely irrelevant to the stereotype. Results indicated that how an individual views human traits can influence the reaction to consistent vs. inconsistent stereotype information. Persons who believe that human traits are fixed tend to pay more attention to information that is stereotypically consistent. On the other hand, persons who take the view that human traits are malleable tend to pay more attention to information that was more stereotypically inconsistent.
Learning About Homosexuality in a College Course
1423
Information presented to an individual that contradicts a deeply held belief, while not necessarily being a traumatic event, has the potential to be viewed as being unwanted information. Information presented in a course that deals with a controversial issue such as homosexuality or evolution usually offers contradictions to deeply held religious beliefs. Students who hold to conservative religious beliefs may actively seek to employ a strategy to forget this information. Furthermore, individuals tend to seek out evidence to confirm what they believe and to ignore evidence contrary to their beliefs. This tendency has been called confirmation bias (Nickerson, 1998). Several studies have shown that a type of conformation bias can influence how individuals process controversial information (Baron, 1991, 1995; Kuhn, 1989; Perkins, Allen, & Hafner, 1983; Perkins, Farady, & Bushey, 1991; Stanovich, 2008; Stanovich & West, 2007; Toplak & Stanovich, 2003). Research by Kuhn (1989) examined the effect of presenting information that was inconsistent with a theory favored by the participants. Results showed that participants either would fail to acknowledge the inconsistent information or would attend to the information selectively. Participants also distorted the information to support the view they preferred. Confirmation bias has been shown to affect the way in which individuals process information. This is particularly true when the information is of a controversial nature or when it is inconsistent with an individual’s beliefs. The information presented thus far has shown that individuals employ many strategies in dealing with information that is inconsistent with their belief systems. This often means that information is ignored, distorted, or forgotten. There is evidence that individuals are more likely to generate more arguments and evidence for issues that they support than they will for issues that they do not support. Individuals will also evaluate arguments that support their position more favorably than those arguments that do not. This type of bias is known as myside bias (Stanovich & West, 2008; Toplak & Stanovich, 2003). In the research by Stanovich and West (2008), participants were required to evaluate arguments that either supported their position on an issue or refuted their position. Participants also evaluated arguments that were either one-sided or arguments that presented both sides of an issue. The results indicated that participants evaluated arguments that supported their position significantly higher than those that refuted their positions. Participants also preferred one-sided arguments to balanced arguments. The purpose of the present research was to determine how personal beliefs influence retention of information about homosexuality presented in a psychology course. We tested four hypotheses. First, we hypothesized that students consider college courses and the material that courses cover in the context of whether they are consistent or inconsistent with their beliefs. Specifically, we hypothesized that students would recall the LeVay (2010) material on the science of homosexuality less well if it was inconsistent with
1424
J. Vaughn et al.
their views than if it was consistent with their views. Second, we hypothesized that students’ beliefs would be related to their academic behaviors in college (e.g., enrolling in courses, attending class, studying course material); we hypothesized that students would be less likely to study material, turn in assignments, and attend class lectures when the course material is inconsistent with their views than at other times. Third, we hypothesized that students’ beliefs would predict their exam performance on the LeVay (2010) material covering the science of homosexuality; students whose views were inconsistent with homosexuality, generally, and with LeVay’s (2010) views on homosexuality, specifically, were hypothesized to perform less than other students. Last, we hypothesized that students’ strategic forgetting of material that is inconsistent with their beliefs would predict their performance on exam questions when they are tested later in the semester.
METHOD Participants Participants were students enrolled in Introductory Psychology at Oklahoma State University during the fall semester of 2011. Of the 997 students who were invited to participate in a post-exam survey about their preparation for the first exam; 883 students (377 men, 506 women, and 40 individuals who did not indicate their sex) participated. For the retesting session, which occurred 6 weeks following the exam, we aimed to measure the extent to which participants forgot course material; thus, retesting individuals who did not perform well on the LeVay (2010) material would have been uninformative. For the retesting, we focused only on individuals who answered at least 86% of the questions correctly (i.e., 13 out of 15). All of these individuals were invited to answer questions from Exam 1 approximately 6 weeks following Exam 1. Of the 117 who were invited, only 82 (31 men and 51 women) responded to the invitation to participate and later did participate in the retest 6 weeks following Exam 1 in exchange for extra credit toward their course.
Materials and Procedure The coordinator of Introductory Psychology required that all students enrolled in Introductory Psychology read Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why: The Science of Sexual Orientation (LeVay, 2010), specifically from chapters 6, 7, and 8, which deal with sex hormones, genes, and the brain, respectively. Copies of the chapters were accessible to participants through online classroom management systems (i.e., Desire to Learn). All students were assigned to prepare a paper about the reading material. For the first exam of the class, all students received 15 multiple-choice questions covering the
Learning About Homosexuality in a College Course
1425
material. The exam contained 55 questions covering other material assigned for the course. This material covered history of psychology, research methods, and the brain. At the end of first exam, all students were invited to complete a survey about their study habits in courses when the material conflicts with their beliefs and values. Of the 15 questions, three questions addressed students’ views on college courses and their coverage of material that is inconsistent with their beliefs (i.e., question 5, question 7, and question 13). Six addressed general academic behaviors involving material that is inconsistent with one’s beliefs (i.e., question 1, question 3, question 4, question 6, question 11, and question 12). Four questions focused on students’ general experiences when learning material is inconsistent with their beliefs (i.e., question 2, question 8, question 9, and question 10). One question focused specifically on whether the reading by LeVay (2010) was consistent with “their beliefs and values.” One question asked how much of the assigned LeVay (2010) material that they read. Approximately 6 weeks following the first exam, students who had answered correctly 13 or more questions covering the LeVay material received an invitation to answer the 15 questions again. The retesting phase occurred during the last month of the fall semester in 2011. A total of 117 students received this invitation. The average performance on the general exam questions for this group was 90% (SD = 8.38%). Of these students, 83 participated in the follow-up session. All students received the same 15 multiple-choice questions covering LeVay (2010). The questions were intermixed with 12 questions covering history of psychology, research methods, or the brain. These 12 questions were randomly selected from the questions covering these topics on Exam 1. Students were not expecting to see the 15 questions over homosexuality on the second exam. The survey was sent via e-mail with the survey to be completed online. The e-mail contained the following instructions: Dear student, You have been selected at random from a list of students who performed very well on Exam 1. This is a survey to learn how much students remember from previous exams without new studying. Please read each question and select the answer that you think is correct. Please do not use any books or materials as you answer the questions. Try to answer the best that you can using only what you remember. Your score will not affect your grade in the course.
RESULTS Archival data analysis was carried out on the exam scores and survey responses for the 883 students who completed the survey questions on
1426
J. Vaughn et al.
Exam 1 and 83 students who answered the 28 questions from Exam 1 approximately 6 weeks after Exam 1. Table 1 displays a summary of the descriptive statements for each of the survey questions. As predicted, students view college courses and the material that they cover in the context TABLE 1 Descriptive Statistics for Students’ Responses to Beliefs and Values Questions Variable
Mean (n)
SD
% Responding D or E
Q1. When I am taking a course in which there is course material that is inconsistent with my beliefs and values, I usually spend very little time studying that particular course material. Q2. I find it easier to remember course material that is inconsistent with my beliefs and values than material that is inconsistent with my beliefs. Q3. Overall, I probably spend more time studying course material that is consistent with my beliefs and values than I do studying course material that is inconsistent with my beliefs and values. Q4. When I am studying for an exam that covers course material that is inconsistent with my beliefs and values, I will memorize it for the exam, but try to forget it after I know that I will no longer be tested on it. Q5. I avoid enrolling in courses that may present material that is inconsistent with my beliefs and values. Q6, I place very little importance on course material that is inconsistent with my beliefs and values. Q7. It’s my opinion that college courses should never include material that is inconsistent with my beliefs and values. Q8. I have difficulty remembering course information that is inconsistent with my beliefs and values. Q9. I do not enjoy reading course material that is inconsistent with my beliefs and values. Q10. It makes me angry to read course material that is inconsistent with my beliefs and values. Q11. I usually do not read assigned course material that is inconsistent with my beliefs and values. Q12. I skip class on days when I know material that is inconsistent with my beliefs and values will be discussed. Q13. OSU courses cover material that is inconsistent with my personal beliefs . . . Q14. I found LeVay’s writing . . . consistent with my personal beliefs and values. Q15. How much of the reading material by Simon LeVay did you actually read?
2.48 (883)
1.17
24
2.87 (881)
1.11
26
3.12 (883)
1.19
43
2.51 (883)
1.16
22
2.33 (883)
1.20
20
2.27 (883)
1.15
17
1.68 (883)
.97
5
2.51 (883)
1.16
23
2.94 (881)
1.26
37
2.36 (880)
1.19
21
1.77 (882)
.94
6
1.39 (882)
.80
3
2.62 (882)
1.17
25
2.48 (881)
1.23
21
2.16 (882)
1.03
12
Note. For Questions 1–14, 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither disagree or agree, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree. For Question 15, 1 = all of it, 2 = most of it, 3 = some of it, 4 = a little of it, and 5 = none of it.
1427
Learning About Homosexuality in a College Course
TABLE 2 Summary of Correlations for General Exam Questions, LeVay (2010) Exam Questions, and Questions Related to Academic Behaviors General Exam LeVay (2010) Questions Exam Questions Q1 Q3 Q4 Q6 Q11 Q12 General Exam Questions LeVay (2010) Exam Questions Q1 Q3 Q4 Q6 Q11 Q12 Note. ∗ p < .01,
∗∗ p
− .44∗ −.06 −.01 −.04 −.05 −.05 −.07∗∗
− −.06 −.04 −.07∗∗ −.07∗∗ −.09∗ −.09∗
− .43∗ .40∗ .41∗ .34∗ .18∗
− .33∗ .32∗ .23∗ .08∗∗
− .36∗ − .31∗ .40∗ − .19∗ .27∗ .54∗
−
The Role of Beliefs on Learning About Homosexuality in a College Course JAMES VAUGHN, PhD Department of Psychology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma; University of Sciences and Arts of Oklahoma, Chickasaw, Oklahoma, USA
SHELIA KENNISON, PhD and JENNIFER BYRD-CRAVEN, PhD Department of Psychology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma, USA
The present research investigated how personal beliefs about homosexuality influence learning in a college course. We tested students in introductory psychology over material on the science of homosexuality by Simon LeVay (2010). All students reported information about their typical academic habits and the extent to which homosexuality was consistent with their beliefs and values. The results showed that students’ personal beliefs were related to academic behaviors (e.g., reading assignments, skipping class) and retention of the course material. The results also showed that students’ recall of course material six weeks later was predicted by the extent to which they reported studying information that is inconsistent with their beliefs for an exam and then forgetting it. Students who reported the material to be inconsistent with their beliefs engaged in selective forgetting of the material on homosexuality. The results provide evidence that personal beliefs can reduce the retention of belief-inconsistent information in a college course. KEYWORDS college learning, science of homosexuality, schemas, academic behaviors
Homosexuality is one of many controversial topics presented in a wide range of college courses, including psychology, sociology, communication, and political sciences, as well as others. The American Psychological Association Address correspondence to Shelia Kennison, Department of Psychology, Oklahoma State University, 116 North Murray Hall, Stillwater, OK 74078, USA. E-mail: shelia.kennison@okstate. edu 1420
Learning About Homosexuality in a College Course
1421
as well as many other professional organizations including the American Psychiatric Association no longer label homosexuality as a mental disorder (APA, 2009). Today, this fact is still not widely accepted. Research by the Pew Center found that 51% of people in the United States believed that homosexuality can be changed (Pew, 2007). Many conservative groups still claim that homosexuality is a mental disorder (APA, 2009; Focus on the Family Sexual Identity, 2011; NARTH Mission Statement, 2011; NARTH Position Statements, 2011; Southern Baptist Convention, 2005; United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2006). However, psychological science has shown that homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexual behavior (APA, 2009; LeVay, 2010). College courses can be a place where educators dispel myths of all types, including myths about homosexuality. It is likely to be the case that students with personal beliefs and values that are inconsistent with the topic they are studying are not only likely to be resistant to learning about the topic but may hold tenaciously to their beliefs despite strong evidence to the contrary. The aim of the present research was to investigate how personal beliefs and values influence college students’ studying and learning about the biological basis of homosexuality. We focused specifically on students’ personal beliefs and values regarding Simon LeVay’s (2010) work on the scientific evidence regarding the causes of homosexuality. To date, there have been few studies investigating the role of beliefs and values in learning about homosexuality in college classes. Prior research from cognitive psychology supports the view that one’s personal views would influence classroom learning. Memory research has shown that longterm memory is organized around schemas (Alba & Hasher, 1983; Bower, Black, & Turner, 1979; Brewer & Nakamura, 1984; Brewer & Treyens, 1981; Macrae, Milne, & Bodenhausen, 1994; Rumelhart & Ortony, 1977). Brewer and Treyens (1981) investigated the use of schemas in memory for places, such as offices. Participants spent 35 seconds waiting in an office for their appointment. After the 35-second period, participants were led to a conference room where they were given a list of items and asked if they saw any of those items in the office. Participants were more likely to remember items that were in the room and consistent with what one would find in an office (e.g., books, pencils, bookshelf). They were less likely to remember items that were in the office but inconsistent with typical offices (e.g., wrench, umbrella, picnic basket). Their memories incorrectly included items that are typically found in an office but that were not in the office that they had experienced. Previous research has also shown that information that fits into existing schemas is remembered better than information that does not (Dijksterhuis & van Knippenberg, 1995a,b; Plaks, Stroessner, Dweck, & Sherman, 2001; Sedikides, 1997; Sentis & Burnstein, 1979). Dijksterhuis and van Knippenberg in their first study (1995a) found the timing of schema activation greatly influenced the information that was later recalled about different groups of
1422
J. Vaughn et al.
people. When the schema was activated after receiving behavioral information, then stereotypical inconsistent information was less likely to be remembered. In a follow-up study (Dijksterhuis & van Knippenberg, 1995b), it was found that when processing demands are high, participants were more likely to remember stereotypical consistent information than they were stereotypical inconsistent information. Schemas are useful in storing information in long-term memory. Information is sometimes stored as stereotypical information and can be viewed as cognitive shortcuts (Macrae et al., 1994). However, as has been shown, information can be forgotten or diminished when that information is inconsistent with schemas and stereotypical information. This may be a factor in the retention of information that is inconsistent with one’s beliefs. For example, if one’s schema for a homosexual is that of a person who has made a conscious choice to be homosexual, then information that goes against this particular schema may be more difficult to retain and recall. Sedikides (1995) investigated the phenomenon known as the differential processing effect (DPE; Ostrom, Carpenter, Sedikides, & Li, 1993). DPE states that individuals will process information about in-group members by using person categories (i.e., categories that recognize a person’s individuality) and use stereotypic attribute qualities to process information about out-group members. Participants (Sedikides, 1995) were students divided into groups based on status. The groups consisted of graduate students (high status)/undergraduates (low status) and sophomores (high status)/freshmen (low status). Participants were given information about in-group and outgroup members and asked to recall information such as the names of individuals in both groups. Results indicated that highstatus group members (graduate students and sophomores) recalled more individual information about members of their particular in-group but recalled more stereotypic information about out-group members. In most regions of the United States, individuals identifying as homosexual would often be considered out-group members. There has also been research investigating the response individuals have to information that contradicts a stereotype (Plaks et al., 2001). Participants were presented with information describing behaviors that would be associated with either a priest or a neo-Nazi skinhead. Some of the information was consistent with stereotypic expectations, some was not, and some information was completely irrelevant to the stereotype. Results indicated that how an individual views human traits can influence the reaction to consistent vs. inconsistent stereotype information. Persons who believe that human traits are fixed tend to pay more attention to information that is stereotypically consistent. On the other hand, persons who take the view that human traits are malleable tend to pay more attention to information that was more stereotypically inconsistent.
Learning About Homosexuality in a College Course
1423
Information presented to an individual that contradicts a deeply held belief, while not necessarily being a traumatic event, has the potential to be viewed as being unwanted information. Information presented in a course that deals with a controversial issue such as homosexuality or evolution usually offers contradictions to deeply held religious beliefs. Students who hold to conservative religious beliefs may actively seek to employ a strategy to forget this information. Furthermore, individuals tend to seek out evidence to confirm what they believe and to ignore evidence contrary to their beliefs. This tendency has been called confirmation bias (Nickerson, 1998). Several studies have shown that a type of conformation bias can influence how individuals process controversial information (Baron, 1991, 1995; Kuhn, 1989; Perkins, Allen, & Hafner, 1983; Perkins, Farady, & Bushey, 1991; Stanovich, 2008; Stanovich & West, 2007; Toplak & Stanovich, 2003). Research by Kuhn (1989) examined the effect of presenting information that was inconsistent with a theory favored by the participants. Results showed that participants either would fail to acknowledge the inconsistent information or would attend to the information selectively. Participants also distorted the information to support the view they preferred. Confirmation bias has been shown to affect the way in which individuals process information. This is particularly true when the information is of a controversial nature or when it is inconsistent with an individual’s beliefs. The information presented thus far has shown that individuals employ many strategies in dealing with information that is inconsistent with their belief systems. This often means that information is ignored, distorted, or forgotten. There is evidence that individuals are more likely to generate more arguments and evidence for issues that they support than they will for issues that they do not support. Individuals will also evaluate arguments that support their position more favorably than those arguments that do not. This type of bias is known as myside bias (Stanovich & West, 2008; Toplak & Stanovich, 2003). In the research by Stanovich and West (2008), participants were required to evaluate arguments that either supported their position on an issue or refuted their position. Participants also evaluated arguments that were either one-sided or arguments that presented both sides of an issue. The results indicated that participants evaluated arguments that supported their position significantly higher than those that refuted their positions. Participants also preferred one-sided arguments to balanced arguments. The purpose of the present research was to determine how personal beliefs influence retention of information about homosexuality presented in a psychology course. We tested four hypotheses. First, we hypothesized that students consider college courses and the material that courses cover in the context of whether they are consistent or inconsistent with their beliefs. Specifically, we hypothesized that students would recall the LeVay (2010) material on the science of homosexuality less well if it was inconsistent with
1424
J. Vaughn et al.
their views than if it was consistent with their views. Second, we hypothesized that students’ beliefs would be related to their academic behaviors in college (e.g., enrolling in courses, attending class, studying course material); we hypothesized that students would be less likely to study material, turn in assignments, and attend class lectures when the course material is inconsistent with their views than at other times. Third, we hypothesized that students’ beliefs would predict their exam performance on the LeVay (2010) material covering the science of homosexuality; students whose views were inconsistent with homosexuality, generally, and with LeVay’s (2010) views on homosexuality, specifically, were hypothesized to perform less than other students. Last, we hypothesized that students’ strategic forgetting of material that is inconsistent with their beliefs would predict their performance on exam questions when they are tested later in the semester.
METHOD Participants Participants were students enrolled in Introductory Psychology at Oklahoma State University during the fall semester of 2011. Of the 997 students who were invited to participate in a post-exam survey about their preparation for the first exam; 883 students (377 men, 506 women, and 40 individuals who did not indicate their sex) participated. For the retesting session, which occurred 6 weeks following the exam, we aimed to measure the extent to which participants forgot course material; thus, retesting individuals who did not perform well on the LeVay (2010) material would have been uninformative. For the retesting, we focused only on individuals who answered at least 86% of the questions correctly (i.e., 13 out of 15). All of these individuals were invited to answer questions from Exam 1 approximately 6 weeks following Exam 1. Of the 117 who were invited, only 82 (31 men and 51 women) responded to the invitation to participate and later did participate in the retest 6 weeks following Exam 1 in exchange for extra credit toward their course.
Materials and Procedure The coordinator of Introductory Psychology required that all students enrolled in Introductory Psychology read Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why: The Science of Sexual Orientation (LeVay, 2010), specifically from chapters 6, 7, and 8, which deal with sex hormones, genes, and the brain, respectively. Copies of the chapters were accessible to participants through online classroom management systems (i.e., Desire to Learn). All students were assigned to prepare a paper about the reading material. For the first exam of the class, all students received 15 multiple-choice questions covering the
Learning About Homosexuality in a College Course
1425
material. The exam contained 55 questions covering other material assigned for the course. This material covered history of psychology, research methods, and the brain. At the end of first exam, all students were invited to complete a survey about their study habits in courses when the material conflicts with their beliefs and values. Of the 15 questions, three questions addressed students’ views on college courses and their coverage of material that is inconsistent with their beliefs (i.e., question 5, question 7, and question 13). Six addressed general academic behaviors involving material that is inconsistent with one’s beliefs (i.e., question 1, question 3, question 4, question 6, question 11, and question 12). Four questions focused on students’ general experiences when learning material is inconsistent with their beliefs (i.e., question 2, question 8, question 9, and question 10). One question focused specifically on whether the reading by LeVay (2010) was consistent with “their beliefs and values.” One question asked how much of the assigned LeVay (2010) material that they read. Approximately 6 weeks following the first exam, students who had answered correctly 13 or more questions covering the LeVay material received an invitation to answer the 15 questions again. The retesting phase occurred during the last month of the fall semester in 2011. A total of 117 students received this invitation. The average performance on the general exam questions for this group was 90% (SD = 8.38%). Of these students, 83 participated in the follow-up session. All students received the same 15 multiple-choice questions covering LeVay (2010). The questions were intermixed with 12 questions covering history of psychology, research methods, or the brain. These 12 questions were randomly selected from the questions covering these topics on Exam 1. Students were not expecting to see the 15 questions over homosexuality on the second exam. The survey was sent via e-mail with the survey to be completed online. The e-mail contained the following instructions: Dear student, You have been selected at random from a list of students who performed very well on Exam 1. This is a survey to learn how much students remember from previous exams without new studying. Please read each question and select the answer that you think is correct. Please do not use any books or materials as you answer the questions. Try to answer the best that you can using only what you remember. Your score will not affect your grade in the course.
RESULTS Archival data analysis was carried out on the exam scores and survey responses for the 883 students who completed the survey questions on
1426
J. Vaughn et al.
Exam 1 and 83 students who answered the 28 questions from Exam 1 approximately 6 weeks after Exam 1. Table 1 displays a summary of the descriptive statements for each of the survey questions. As predicted, students view college courses and the material that they cover in the context TABLE 1 Descriptive Statistics for Students’ Responses to Beliefs and Values Questions Variable
Mean (n)
SD
% Responding D or E
Q1. When I am taking a course in which there is course material that is inconsistent with my beliefs and values, I usually spend very little time studying that particular course material. Q2. I find it easier to remember course material that is inconsistent with my beliefs and values than material that is inconsistent with my beliefs. Q3. Overall, I probably spend more time studying course material that is consistent with my beliefs and values than I do studying course material that is inconsistent with my beliefs and values. Q4. When I am studying for an exam that covers course material that is inconsistent with my beliefs and values, I will memorize it for the exam, but try to forget it after I know that I will no longer be tested on it. Q5. I avoid enrolling in courses that may present material that is inconsistent with my beliefs and values. Q6, I place very little importance on course material that is inconsistent with my beliefs and values. Q7. It’s my opinion that college courses should never include material that is inconsistent with my beliefs and values. Q8. I have difficulty remembering course information that is inconsistent with my beliefs and values. Q9. I do not enjoy reading course material that is inconsistent with my beliefs and values. Q10. It makes me angry to read course material that is inconsistent with my beliefs and values. Q11. I usually do not read assigned course material that is inconsistent with my beliefs and values. Q12. I skip class on days when I know material that is inconsistent with my beliefs and values will be discussed. Q13. OSU courses cover material that is inconsistent with my personal beliefs . . . Q14. I found LeVay’s writing . . . consistent with my personal beliefs and values. Q15. How much of the reading material by Simon LeVay did you actually read?
2.48 (883)
1.17
24
2.87 (881)
1.11
26
3.12 (883)
1.19
43
2.51 (883)
1.16
22
2.33 (883)
1.20
20
2.27 (883)
1.15
17
1.68 (883)
.97
5
2.51 (883)
1.16
23
2.94 (881)
1.26
37
2.36 (880)
1.19
21
1.77 (882)
.94
6
1.39 (882)
.80
3
2.62 (882)
1.17
25
2.48 (881)
1.23
21
2.16 (882)
1.03
12
Note. For Questions 1–14, 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither disagree or agree, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree. For Question 15, 1 = all of it, 2 = most of it, 3 = some of it, 4 = a little of it, and 5 = none of it.
1427
Learning About Homosexuality in a College Course
TABLE 2 Summary of Correlations for General Exam Questions, LeVay (2010) Exam Questions, and Questions Related to Academic Behaviors General Exam LeVay (2010) Questions Exam Questions Q1 Q3 Q4 Q6 Q11 Q12 General Exam Questions LeVay (2010) Exam Questions Q1 Q3 Q4 Q6 Q11 Q12 Note. ∗ p < .01,
∗∗ p
− .44∗ −.06 −.01 −.04 −.05 −.05 −.07∗∗
− −.06 −.04 −.07∗∗ −.07∗∗ −.09∗ −.09∗
− .43∗ .40∗ .41∗ .34∗ .18∗
− .33∗ .32∗ .23∗ .08∗∗
− .36∗ − .31∗ .40∗ − .19∗ .27∗ .54∗
−
