ATTITUDES AND BELIEFS TOWARDS LGBTQ COMMUNITY
IN A COLLEGE CAMPUS
A Thesis
Presented to the faculty of the Division of Social Work
California State University, Sacramento
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SOCIAL WORK
by
Nicolas Caballero
SPRING
2013
© 2013
Nicolas Caballero
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ii
ATTITUDES AND BELIEFS TOWARDS LGBTQ COMMUNITY
IN A COLLEGE CAMPUS
A Thesis
by
Nicolas Caballero
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Jude Antonyappan, Ph.D.
__________________________________, Second Reader
David Nylund, Ph.D.
____________________________
Date
iii
Student: Nicolas Caballero
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University
format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to
be awarded for the thesis.
__________________________, Graduate Coordinator___________________
Dale Russell, Ed.D., LCSW
Date
Division of Social Work
iv
Abstract
of
ATTITUDES AND BELIEFS TOWARDS LGBTQ COMMUNITY
IN A COLLEGE CAMPUS
by
Nicolas Caballero
This study examined possible predictors such as hypermasculinity and ethnicity in
explaining negative attitudes towards the LGBTQ student community in a college
campus in the context of queer theory within the paradigm of social constructionism. A
non-probability sample of 158 undergraduate students was studied using the
Hypermasculinity Inventory (HMI – Modified) consisting of 26 scale questions and
Herek’s (1988) Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men (ATLG) scale. Demographic
information such as age, ethnicity, college major and gender were collected to
contextualize the study responses. The hypothesis that hypermasculinity scores are
significantly correlated with negative attitudes towards LGBTQ population was tested as
was the hypothesis that ethnic background is correlated with negative attitudes towards
individuals with the LGBTQ identity. Study findings indicate a positive weak correlation
of (r =. 227, N=158, p<. 05) between hypermasculinity and negative attitudes towards
LGBTQ and a positive weak correlation between ethnicity and attitudes toward LGBTQ
population (r=. 154, N=158, p<. 05).
In light of the small value of correlation
v
coefficients the following predictions must be considered with caution. The regression
equations are: Negative attitudes toward LGBT community members (Y) = .309 + .332
(hypermasculinity)
and Negative attitudes toward LGBT community (Y) = - .199
(ethnicity) + 2.193. Although the possible levels of variations that can be explained in the
dependent variable, the negative attitudes toward LGBTQ population, due to the variation
in the independent variables of hyper masculinity and ethnicity are relatively small the
fact that as scores on hypermasculinity increases, the scores on negative attitudes also
increases with an ascending slope is a significant finding in this study. This relationship
is worthy of further investigation. These findings need further examination with random
samples and more rigorous standardized scales to measure the relationship between
negative attitudes toward LGBTQ population in particular and the hypermasculinity
scores. The findings hold relevant implications for the field of social work in broadening
the narrowly defined gender conceptualizations thus warranting advocacy at the macro
level, and in providing direct services to clients/students.
_______________________, Committee Chair
Jude Antonyappan, Ph.D.
_______________________
Date
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to dedicate this project to the LGBTQ community in Sacramento and CSU,
Sacramento. Since the first day that I arrived to Sacramento in 2011 I made it a personal
goal to be part of the change and advancement of justice and equal rights for LGBTQ in
this community -- this project represents a small step towards that change.
“ A strong community is an organized community”
#levantatucara
I would like to thank The Sacramento Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, Holders of Hopes
& Dreams for giving me the orotundity to be part of such an amazing movement in
modern queer history. Thank you to the sister with long beautiful legs who save my life,
Sister Frida Oppressed – ME. Thank you to all the amazing people that I have met in this
past years. Thank you to my family for supporting me in this journey. Finally, special
thanks to Professor Jude Antonyappan, Ph.D. without her compassionate wisdom and
unconditional support I would not have been able to complete this project, thank you
professor.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgments...................................................................................................... vii
List of Tables .............................................................................................................. xi
Chapter
1. THE PROBLEM …………………………………………..………………...….. 1
Introduction ……………….. .......................................................................... 1
Background of the Problem ............................................................................ 3
Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................... 4
Definition of Terms ........................................................................................ 5
Theoretical Framework .................................................................................. 6
Justifications ................................................................................................... 8
Delimitations ................................................................................................ 10
Assumptions ................................................................................................. 10
2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ...................................................................... 12
Introduction ......................................................................................................... 12
The Effects of Homophobic School Environment .............................................. 14
LGB Identity Formation .................................................................................... 16
LGBTQ Attitude Development .......................................................................... 19
Prejudice ............................................................................................................. 21
Heteronormativity and Homophobia ................................................................. 22
viii
Masculinity and Femininity ............................................................................... 25
Elements of the Construct of Hypermasculinity ................................................. 28
Risk Correlated To Hypermasculinity ................................................................ 30
Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 32
3. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................... 33
Research Question ..........................................................................................33
Study Design ...................................................................................................33
Sampling Procedures .......................................................................................34
Data Collection Procedures..............................................................................35
Instruments .......................................................................................................36
Proposed Statistical Analyses ..........................................................................37
Protection of Human Subjects .........................................................................37
4. RESULTS ............................................................................................................. 39
Study Findings And Discussions .................................................................... 39
Demographics ................................................................................................. 40
Summary ......................................................................................................... 49
5. DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................... 50
Conclusion, Summary, Recommendations ..................................................... 50
Summary ....................................................................................................... 50
Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 51
Limitations ...................................................................................................... 53
Recommendations .......................................................................................... 54
Social Work Implications ............................................................................... 56
Appendix A. Human Subjects Approval Letter ....................................................... 58
ix
Appendix B. Consent Form ...................................................................................... 60
Appendix B. Study Questionnaire ............................................................................ 62
References……………………….…………………………………………………...74
x
LIST OF TABLES
Tables
Page
1.
Demographics - Gender and Age of Study Participants (N=158) ………….....40
2.
Demographics - Ethnicity of Study Participants (N=158)..……………………41
3.
Demographics – College Major of Study Participants (N=158)…….…………42
4.
Hypermasculinity Mean Model Summary (N=158)..…...………………..……43
5.
Hypermasculinity Mean ANOVA (N=158) ………………………….………. 44
6.
Hypermasculinity Mean Coefficients (N=158) .…………………………. …..45
7.
Ethnicity Model Summary (N=158) …..………………………………………46
8.
Ethnicity ANOVA (N=158)..…………………..………………………………47
9.
Ethnicity Coefficients (N=158)..……………....……………………………….47
10.
Correlation Analysis (N=158)...………………………………………………. 48
xi
1
Chapter 1
THE PROBLEM
Introduction
College years can have a great impact on the development of an identity for
students who devote their efforts to scholarship and education both inside and outside the
classroom. Students are exposed to new ideas, cultures, people, and ideologies that
challenge their initial beliefs creating an environment conducive to growth as an
individual as well as the possibility of self-actualization. Though academic demands
coupled with exposure to new experiences could potentially create intellectual and
emotional experiences that could be perceived as terrifying, demanding, and even
exhausting – these experiences are often memorable at the same time. While these
experiences are often positive, some students find that they have unique challenges
because of how they are perceived and treated as a result of their sexual orientation or
gender identity. Such challenges can prevent lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and
queer (LGBTQ) students from achieving their full academic potential or participating
fully in the campus community. LGBTQ students have limited access to culturally
competent resources, inclusion in college campus activities, visibility on campus life, and
limited in housing safety on campus. Like LGBTQ students, other campus community
members, including LGBTQ faculty, staff and administrators, may suffer as a result of
the same prejudices, limiting their ability to achieve their career goals and to mentor or
support students.
2
Hostile environments that LGBTQ students, faculty, staff and administrators often
experience have been documented in the research. Compared to heterosexual students,
LGBTQ students face higher rates of mental health problems, sexual health risks,
substance abuse, and family issues leading to negative health outcomes (Evans, 2001;
Wright and McKinley, 2011). LGBTQ students are at risk of harassment and violence as
a result of homophobic attitudes, intolerance, discrimination, and marginalization on
college campuses (Brown, Clarke, Gortmaker, & Robinson-Keilig, 2004). Many LGBTQ
students find that they must hide significant parts of who they are as a person from peers,
leading to increased emotional and social isolation. Those who do not hide their sexual
orientation or gender identity have a range of experiences including discrimination,
verbal or physical harassment, and subtle or outright silencing of their sexual identities.
While higher education provides a variety of opportunities for students, these are greatly
limited for those who fear for their safety when they walk on campus. The college
experience is different for those students who feel they must censor themselves in the
classroom. Their academic performance and self-actualization as a student are
jeopardized because they are so distracted by harassing remarks that they are unable to
concentrate on their studies. The purpose of the present study is to explore factors that
predict negative attitudes towards lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgender, and queer students
in order to understand the possible role played by the hyper-masculinity concepts in the
prejudice against the LGBTQ campus community.
3
Background of the Problem
Grossman et al, (2009) conducted a qualitative study focusing on the experience
of school-based violence against a group of five LGBTQ youths in a public school. The
study suggested that as a result of the violence that LGBTQ students experienced at
school, LGBTQ youth escaped and avoided stressors by distancing themselves from
school. The findings explained that being harassed because of their sexual orientation
was one of the most common reasons why students drop out of school. One of the major
predictors of violence against LGBTQ youth is the lack of social capital and community
resources available to them, making them vulnerable towards violence and exposing them
to a lack of human agency in school (Grossman, et al, 2009).
In regards to the empowerment of the LGBTQ student community, Craig, Tucker
and Wagner (2008) conducted a qualitative research project examining responses of
participants in a Safe Schools Summit. The study examined the participants’ experiences
with school-based violence, harassment, and discrimination, and the effects of their
attendance at the Summit. Results showed that all respondents have been witnesses or
victims of school-based harassment. The data also showed that participants did nothing
when witnessing or experiencing harassment due to a general sense of powerlessness
stemming from a variety of sources including fear of retribution, lack of administrative
support, and the overwhelming nature of antigay bullying in school contexts. Quantitative
analyses of the study found that 92% of respondents felt more empowered following
participation in the Safe School Summit. The qualitative analyses found that themes
related to experiences of victimization lead to a sense of powerlessness. In contrast, their
4
experiences at the summit itself was found to lead to feelings of catharsis, strengthened
skills, and a commitment to confront bullies and to make schools safer (Craig, Tucker &
Wagner, 2008). The body of research suggests that in order to empower the LGBTQ
community, peer education, planned educational activities, changes in policies and rules,
and in-service training for school personnel about LGBTQ youth are all necessary to
create inclusive school communities.
Purpose of the Study
Schools, being social institutions in a democratic society, have a duty to provide a
supportive and safe environment for all their members through a teaching and learning
framework that promotes respect and recognition of diversity and difference. Schools
need to be much more aware and proactive in addressing issues pertaining to diversity in
order to ensure a safe and equitable learning and teaching environment for all members of
the school community. Negative feelings or attitudes towards non-heterosexual behavior,
identity, relationships and community, can lead to homophobic behavior which is the root
of discrimination experienced by many lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and
questioning people.
For many members of the LGBTQ community, acceptance and embracement of
their sexuality does not come until they find other people like them in a more supportive
environment. Colleges and universities are supposed to embrace acceptance of diversity
and inclusion of all members of the community, but, as the research shows, this is not
always the case. The present study will examine the relationship between hypermasculinity attitudes/beliefs and negative attitudes towards members of the LGBTQ
5
community in a college campus. It is hypothesized that hyper-masculinity attitudes will
be significantly correlated with negative attitudes towards LGBTQ people in a college
campus. The purpose of the present study is to explore factors that predict negative
attitudes towards LGBTQ students in order to understand the possible role played by the
hyper-masculinity concepts in the prejudice against LGBTQ campus community.
Definition of Terms
Heterosexism
Defined as the individual person, group, or institutional norms and behaviors that result
from the assumption that all people are heterosexual. This system of oppression, which
assumes that that heterosexuality is inherently normal and superior, negates LGBTQ
people’s lives and relationships.
Homonegativity
Similar to homophobia, but instead of being a fear of homosexuality, is the negative
belief and attitude towards homosexuality.
LGBTQ
While specifically being an acronym for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender, it is
often expanded to include Queer, Intersex, Transsexual, Questioning and other
appropriate terms. Groups and individuals use some or all of the terms, in varying orders.
For the purposes of this study, LGBT is used as an inclusive term of for anyone that selfidentifies as such.
6
Hypermasculinity
The hypermasculinity man is thought of as being prepared to challenge any real or
imagined provocation from other men with violence. Men who hold calloused sexual
attitudes, consider violence manly, and consider danger exciting are thought to be
hypermasculine men.
Theoretical Framework
What follows is an assessment of theories underlining the terms homophobia, and
heterosexism which systematically review terms of anti-gay or anti-lesbian practice and
ideologies. The structural section includes theories that look towards the organization of
society, in particular those of male dominance, such as feminist theory. The gender panic
section explores deconstructionist queer theory. Both of these theories look at the source
of the problem in psychological contradictions and tension of contemporary male
masculinity and dominance.
Feminist Theory
From a feminist viewpoint, Gayle Rubin (1975) notes in her landmark paper
“The Traffic in Women”, that social relations of a kinship system specify that men have
certain rights to their female kin and that women do not have the same rights either to
themselves or to their male kin. The system of exchange of woman by male clans
reproduces a gender system that oppresses both same-sex and cross-sex relations.
Heteronormativity is recreated each generation as a result of a system of fraternal interest,
in groups/societies that exercise control over women’s reproductive power.
7
Homosexuality among men and among women encountered a different but related
source of oppression, similar to the one that women experience. Homosexuality among
men violates the fundamental social game plan of the fraternal interest group to acquire,
control, and trade in the reproductive power of women. Lesbianism, as Monique Wittig
(1992) argues violates the same social order by asserting will and subjectivity among the
female gender, intended by patriarchal groups, to be objects of change. Wittig calls
female homosexuality a revolt of the trade goods in the traffic in women. Anti-lesbianism
in this view becomes virtually indistinguishable from misogyny, as it is one among many
aspects of the larger force of oppression applied by patriarchy to maintain its domination
over the lives of women. Its alleviation would entail much more than education but rather
a dismantling of patriarchy and empowerment of women as controllers of their own
bodies and destinies.
Queer Theory
In general, queer theorists propose to destabilize hegemonic cultural ideals of
heteronormativity (Britzman, 1997; Butler, 1991; Tierney & Dilley, 1998; Seidman,
1996). Some of the core tenets of queer theory include the concept that all categories are
falsifications, especially if they are binary and descriptive of sexuality. Queer theory
suspends the classifications of “lesbian,” “gay,” “masculine,” and “feminine.” (Tierney &
Dilley, 1998) Instead of categorizing and grouping individual experiences queer theory
recognizes sexual and gender identities as social, multiple and fluid (Britzman, 1997). All
assertions about reality are socially constructed, identify categories are suspended based
on the idea that identity is performed and unstable (Butler, 1991) texts form discourses
8
that are exercises in power/knowledge and which, properly analyzed, reveal relations of
dominance within historically-situated systems of regulation (Seidman, 1996 pg. 199).
Most of the psychological research associated with the study of homophobia
agrees on some version of a gender panic theory. Gregory Herek (1986, 1990) argues that
homophobia stems from personal insecurities about personal capability in meeting
gender-role demands and is inherent in the cultural construction of heterosexual male role
and identity. Defensiveness against losing male status and privilege generates
homophobia. Homosexuality signifies the discredited male whose body has been violated
and presumably feminized. Herek (1986, 1990) observed that homophobia serves as a
display of achieved masculinity by many males toward other males. Anti-gay insults,
which circulate persistently and pervasively among male youth, serve to police gender
boundaries and enhance male heterosexual bonding. Stephen, Morin and Ellen (1978)
report that among groups of male students confederates who actually performed the
labeling were all perceived as significantly more masculine and more sociable when they
labeled someone homosexual than when they do not.
Justification
The results of the present study may assist social workers and college campus
professionals to be aware of the culture climate and the access of resources by LGBTQ
students. When exposing a correlation between hyper-masculinity and negative attitudes
towards gays and lesbians, social workers can advocate for more resources and
programing that would benefit LGBTQ community. As noted in the National Association
of Social Workers Code of Ethics (1999) in Section 4, Social Workers’ Ethical
9
Responsibilities as Professionals, Dignity and Worth of the Person, “it is part of the
ethical practice to treat each person in a caring and respectful fashion, mindful of
individual differences, cultural, and ethnic diversity” by being sensitive to the people’s
needs and desires and considering how this may affect wellbeing.
This study addresses the perceived predictor of homophobic attitudes in a college
campus. Social workers have an ethical responsibility to understand barriers of their
clients when accessing resources. Therefore, it is important to understand the challenges
and strengths that LGBTQ youth might face in a college campus.
The NASW Code of Ethics (2006) states that social workers have the responsibility
to be culturally competent and socially diverse. Furthermore, “social workers should
understand culture and function in human behavior and society, recognizing the strengths
that exist in all cultures” (p. 9). Therefore, when social workers work with LGBTQ
youth, or LGBTQ youth in a college campus, they should be aware of challenges and
strengths this population has, so that they can more appropriately approach and work with
this population.
Social workers have ethical responsibilities to advocate for vulnerable populations
such as LGBTQ youths; according to NASW’s Code of Ethics, “a social worker’s
primary responsibility is to promote the wellbeing of clients/people” (p. 7). In order to
promote the client’s wellbeing, social workers must know the importance that structural
systems such as homophobia and heterosexism play in the lack of resources available for
LGBTQ students. It is important for social workers to know and understand the perceived
challenges and strengths that LGBTQ youth face in a college campus. In addition social
10
workers must be informed of the resources, or the lack of, for LGBTQ students as this
could potentially influence their wellbeing and their capacity to advocate for equality.
Delimitations
Although this research study has been carefully prepared, the researcher is aware
of the limitations and shortcomings of the study. First, the questionnaire measures
attitudes and beliefs about a particular college campus population; therefore, the
researcher depends upon self-report and not direct observation of phenomenon of
interest. Consequently, the respondents' honesty, seriousness, accurate memory, and
interest in the research determine the accuracy of the findings. Second, the researcher
considers that certain terms used in the questionnaire might be a limitation to the study.
The participants in the study are undergraduate students who might not have much
exposure to terms pertaining to the LGBTQ community. Lastly, correlational research
does indicate the existence of a relationship, but gives no clue to the causal relationship.
If there was to be a significant correlation between hypermasculinity and negative
attitudes towards LGBTQ students, this does not mean that one is the cause of the other
one.
Assumptions
The present study is based on the assumption that there is a hypermasculine
culture embraced in college campuses, as may be the case in CSU Sacramento. This
unilateral presentation of hypermasculinity is assumed to create conflict and limit the
potential for students who do not conform to heteronormative attitudes. It is also assumed
that hypermasculine attitudes are not only embraced by male students, but by female
11
students as well. It is assumed that the LGBTQ student community on campus is limited
in resources, inclusion in college campus culture, limited visibility on campus life and
limited in housing safety on campus. These presumed limitations of access to resources
for the wellbeing of LGBTQ students are thought to be correlated to the hypermasculine
culture present at CSU Sacramento. Because the measurement use for the present study is
a self- report questionnaire, it is assumed that the participant will answer truthfully. The
study is limited to measuring attitudes and beliefs of all students, not just male students.
There is an assumption that the selected sample population of students is representative
of the entire college campus community.
12
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
This chapter reviews the literature concerning attitudes and beliefs towards
LGBTQ students in the context of hypermasculinity and attitudes toward this population
on college campuses. This review of the literature will explore LGB identity formation
and the impact that universities have in the identity formation. Secondly, attitude
development towards LGB community will be discussed, followed by a review of the
literature in prejudicial attitudes; and the potential effects that ideologies such as
homophobia and heterosexism could have on LGBTQ students. Thirdly, this review of
the literature will discuss gender roles, masculinity and femininity as predictors of
negative attitudes towards LGBTQ students. Lastly, the construct hypermasculinity and
its effects as potential predictors of negative attitudes towards LGBTQ students will be
reviewed.
Colleges and universities remain largely hostile environments for members of the
LGBTQ community. Compared to heterosexual students, LGBTQ students face higher
rates of mental health problems, sexual health risks, substance abuse, and family issues
leading to negative health outcomes (Evans, 2001; Wright and McKinley, 2011). LGBTQ
students are more prone to harassment and violence as a result of homophobic attitudes,
intolerance, discrimination, and marginalization on college campuses (Rankin, 1998;
Brown, Clarke, Gortmaker, & Robinson-Keilig, 2004). Because colleges and universities
are very hostile towards LGBTQ issues, students who had been “out” in high school have
13
gone back into the closet due to the lack of support networks at colleges and universities
(Beemyn & Rankin, 2011).
Rankin (2003) found that undergraduate students encountered various issues. For
example, 36% of LGBTQ undergraduates had encountered harassment within the last
year; 38% had been pressured to hide their gender identity or sexual orientation; 20%
were concerned for their physical safety; and 51% decided to suppress their sexual
orientation or gender identity to avoid persecution. In a study focusing on the availability
of mental health resources for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender college students,
Wright and McKinley (2011) found that LGBTQ targeted communications were the
exception, rather than the norm. Even though LGBTQ students are at a higher risk of
violence, harassment and oppression, which could affect their mental wellbeing, only a
handful of college mental health services are targeted towards the LGBTQ community.
Only 30% of campus counseling centers stated that they offered individual counseling for
LGBTQ students, and only 11.3% stated that they offered group counseling for LGBTQ
students (Wright & McKinley, 2011).
Research has shown that the perception of a non-discriminatory environment is
significantly correlated to greater educational attainment for students (Rankin, 2005).
Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) found that African American students who attended a
Historically Black College had greater educational attainment and a greater academic
self-image. By comparison, in a study looking at both LGBTQ community and
heterosexual students, Brown et al (2004) found that LGBTQ students generally perceive
the climate on campus as less welcoming than heterosexual students. A 2008 report
14
issued by the California Postsecondary Education Commission showed that 93% of
heterosexual students said they feel respected on campus, while only 73% of LGBTQ
students reported feeling respected on campus. Significantly more LGBTQ students than
heterosexual students said they are aware of expressions of negative or stereotypical
views about sexual orientation. The purpose of the present study is to explore factors that
predict negative attitudes towards LGBTQ students in order to understand the possible
role played by the hyper-masculinity concepts in the prejudice against LGBTQ campus
community.
The Effects of Homophobic School Environment
The research suggests that because non-heterosexual feelings and behaviors are
stigmatized, students who experience same-sex attraction may become distressed and
withdrawn. The academic performance and future educational opportunities of these
students are likely to be negatively affected, in part because they may become depressed
or begin using harmful substances, and also because they may detach and disengage from
school. There is a lack of research in the area of academic success and sexual orientation;
for the purpose of this study, the present review of the literature will draw information
from research on hostile work environment and secondary education campus climate.
In a study examining workplace experiences of 900 gay men, lesbians, and
transgendered people, Irwin (1999) found that harassment and/or prejudicial treatment on
the basis of homosexuality or gender identity was widespread with 59% of the
participants experiencing this in their current or previous workplace. Acts of bigotry
included sexual and physical assault, verbal harassment and abuse, destruction of
15
property, ridicule and homophobic jokes. Prejudicial treatment in the workplace included
unfair rosters, unreasonable work expectations, undermining of work and restrictions to
career (Irwin, 1999). The individuals who were affected by these events showed an
increase in stress, depression, illness, loss of self-confidence, increased substance abuse
and attempted suicide. Work performance was negatively impacted evident by an
increase in stress related leave, not wanting to be at work and the need to be constantly on
guard (Irwin, 1999). The homophobic and heterosexist workplace culture affected the
work environment for LGBTQ people who were “out” in their work. In their work on
social identity in workplace encounters, Creed and Scully (2000), point out that the
unspoken disclosure of heterosexuality occurs constantly in the workplace, such as the
common instance of heterosexual individuals sharing their partner's name and family
photos on their desk. For LGBTQ people, these simple acts become difficult choices and
place them at risk of stigmatization. Gay lives and careers become characterized by a
preoccupation with self- disclosure and skill in the management of sexual identity, with
decisions such as naming a partner becoming a source of intense frequent concern.
Invisibility and isolation in the workplace becomes common results of these difficulties.
Universities enforce heterosexuality as the norm; the review of the literature
suggests that this attitudes and beliefs have devastating effects on LGBTQ students. In
the secondary education level, high school and middle school, work has been done on
campus climate. For instance, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network
(GLSEN), a Boston community-based, teacher-led organization is working to end
homophobia in schools. An initial report Making Schools Safe for Gay and Lesbian
16
Youth (The Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, 1993) resulted in
statewide teacher training on homophobia. It aimed to create inclusion of LGBTQ
students whose narratives have not been reflected in the classroom experience or the
curriculum. This initiative has led to an increase in acts of inclusion of LGBTQ students;
and has drawn attention to the importance of classroom climate and its effects on
educational outcomes (Fraser, 1991). Woodward (2000) explores the issues for gays and
lesbians in higher education in the UK. The research suggests that even when universities
have a strong equity focus and record of achievement, sexual orientation is invisible in
the equal opportunity agenda. With so few students and staff feeling brave enough to be
out, they remain a group not readily identifiable making it difficult to get on the agenda.
Raising the issue, challenging homophobia, making the invisible visible and making the
stigmatized acceptable become necessary steps in making universities a place where
LGBTQ staff and students can thrive.
LGB Identity Formation
According to Erik Erikson, the process of identity development consists of
identity formation in which the internal reality of the individual begins to assert and
demand its expression as earlier identifications are discarded or reconfigured (Erikson,
1968, 1980). Identity development also consists of identity integration, in which a
commitment to, and integration of, the evolving identity with the totality of the self are
expected, although not guaranteed (Marcia, 1966). Identity integration involves an
acceptance of the unfolding identity, its continuity over time and settings, and a desire to
be known by others as such, none of which is surprising given that identity integration
17
concerns an inner commitment and solidarity with oneself (Erikson, 1968,1980). The
opposite of identity integration is diffusion or confusion, a sense of self as other or
inauthentic either because an invalid identity has been assumed or imposed upon an
individual, or because one is searching for a meaningful identity (Erikson, 1968,
1946,1980). Although most theories of LGB identity development do not explicitly
reference Erikson’s more general theory of identity development, the general notions of
identity formation and integration are implicit in the models (Cass, 1979; Chapman &
Brannock, 1987; Fassinger & Miller, 1996; Troiden, 1989).
In keeping with Erikson, sexual identity development is conceived as having two
related developmental processes (Morris, 1997). The first, identity formation, is the
initiation of a process of self-discovery and exploration of one’s LGB identity. This
consists of the individual becoming aware of sexual orientation, questioning whether the
individual may be LGB, and having sex with members of the same sex (Chapman &
Brannock, 1987; Fassinger & Miller, 1996; Troiden, 1989). The second, identity
integration, is a continuation of sexual identity development as individuals integrate and
incorporate the identity into their sense of self, which then allows an increase in their
commitment to the new LGB identity (Morris, 1997). Specifically, identity integration is
composed of engaging in LGB related social activities, working through negative
attitudes toward homosexuality, feeling more comfortable with other individuals knowing
about their LGB identity, and disclosing that identity to others (Morris, 1997).
On the other hand, a growing body of research and theory has offered alternative
understandings of sexual identity development based on the claim that this development
18
has no universal endpoint and interacts with contextual factors (Horowitz & Newcomb,
2001; Sophie, 1986). Lesbian, gay or bisexual (LGB) identity stage models or
developmental models of identity have been created through a combination of theory and
empirical research in western countries, such as the USA (Cass, 1984; Coleman, 1982).
These models of identity formation are based on the assumption that sexual identities are
formed through roughly sequential stages beginning in adolescence or early adulthood
and resulting in a healthy and integrated LGB identity. It is important to clarify that no
developmental model applies to every individual (Lee, 1977; Martin, 1991). The majority
of the stage models of LGB identity development explain the sexual identity development
of all or most LGB persons.
For example, most stage models include at least three broad stages: first
awareness of same-sex attractions; exploration and testing of LGB feelings; and
integration of LGB identity or coming out. According to these models, gay men and
lesbian women should be able to form committed romantic relationships with members of
the same sex, maintain a positive sense of self and integrate their sexuality with other
aspects of their identities (Hanley-Hackenbruck, 1989; Hiestand and Levitt, 2005; SavinWilliams, 1998). These outcomes are considered markers of successful LGB identity
development and, once they are reached, the resulting identity is largely resistant to
change. On the other hand these stages of identity development rely on a linear sequential
account of a developmental process that can be fluid and do not attend to the
development of intersecting identities, such as race, profession or gender, that may be
19
inseparable from sexual identity development (Diamond, 1998; Eliason, 1996; Bowleg,
2008; Crenshaw, 1991; Shields, 2008).
Additionally, other approaches emphasize the fluidity and flexibility of sexual
identity (Diamond, 2007; Hansen and Evans, 1985). For example, Diamond’s (2007)
dynamical systems theory offers a contextualized and flexible account of lesbian identity
development, which characterized by non-linear changes and spontaneous reformations
that occur throughout women’s lives. This theory is based on a homogeneous
convenience sample of young, urban white American women and may not apply to
women from other racial, class or national backgrounds. Furthermore, Diamond
addresses only changes in how women label their sexual orientation, for instance lesbian,
heterosexual, and bisexual which may or may not correspond to broader ways in which
they conceptualize their sexual identities.
These recent additions to conceptualizing sexual identity development have
complicated and improved upon traditional stage models. However, they often ignore
how sexual identity development intersects with other aspects of social and
developmental experience such as cultural, racial, gender, national, and professional
identities and their development. In addition, few researchers incorporate the narratives
of lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals into the construction and validation of theoretical
models, Hiestand and Levitt (2005) and Sophie (1986) are exceptions.
LGBTQ Attitude Development
The research suggests that direct contact with the LGBT community is correlated
with the acceptance of homosexual relationships (Herek, 1984, 1988; D’Augelli and Rose
20
1990). Furthermore, individuals categorize social reality primarily on the basis of ones
previous interactions with homosexual persons (Herek, 1984). Research on the topic of
attitude development suggests that positive attitudinal changes are associated with direct
exposure to LGBT students. Herek and Capitanio (1995) indicate a difference in
acceptance between genders. A woman’s acceptance of sexual diversity is often a result
of direct exposure, and Gilligan (1981) posits that a woman’s capacity for empathy and
perception disassembles prejudicial barriers towards LGBT students. Research on the
prediction of factors related to attitudes toward LGBT students has often found that men
are less accepting of sexual diversity and LGBT persons than women. Not surprisingly,
men account for the majority of anti-gay violence on college campuses (D’Augelli &
Rose, 1990; Forstein, 1988; Kurdek, 1988; Morin & Garfinkle, 1978; Whitley & Kite,
1995). The research suggests that men have more negative attitudes towards the LGBTQ
persons than women, particularly when the person being rated was a gay man, and gender
role attitudes mediated gender differences. On the other hand, in a meta-analysis that
included an investigation of gender differences in attitudes toward homosexuality, Oliver
and Hyde (1993) found no substantial difference between the sexes on this aspect.
Additionally, Oliver and Hyde (1995) suggested that the gender difference found by
Whitley and Kite (1995) might be a result of the construction of the ‘‘attitudes toward
homosexuality’’ paradigm. Kite and Whitley (1995) addressed the various components
that researchers have measured related to anti-gay and lesbian prejudice. Given the
contradictory findings of the meta-analyses, Oliver and Hyde (1995) posited that whether
such a gender difference exists is to date unresolved, suggesting that there is a possibility
21
of having no gender differences in regards to negative attitudes towards gays and
lesbians.
Prejudice
The predominant form of prejudicial expression towards LGBTQ seems to have
changed over the years; the research suggests that society considers blatant prejudice
unacceptable (Tougas, Brown, Beaton, & Joly, 1995). However, as the outward
expression of prejudice distinguishes, a hidden or subtler prejudice remains ingrained.
Modern prejudice differs from its old-fashioned, or traditional, equivalent in that it has
not emphasized biological or character logical inferiority. Rather, modern prejudice
appears to be cultural in origin, reflecting the belief that minority groups are pursuing
undeserved gains in society (Tougas et al., 2004).
When talking about prejudice, both modern and traditional, it is evident that in the
orientation towards minority groups it’s the same, meaning that modern and traditional
forms of prejudice are interrelated. However, modern prejudice is more subtle in nature
and therefore better at predicting indirect forms of discrimination such as social
distancing from resources (Morrison & Morrison, 2002). Modern prejudice has been
studied in relation to African Americans (McConahay, 1986), women (Swim, Aiken,
Hall, & Hunter, 1995) and, most recently, sexual minorities (Cowan, Heiple, Marquez,
Khatchadourian, & McNevin, 2005; Morrison & Morrison, 2002). This latter one is the
primary focus of the present study.
Aberson and Dora (2003) argue that homonegativity is similar in origin and form,
to prejudice directed against other groups. The research has documented that prejudice
22
appears to be a generalized phenomenon where negative attitudes towards one social
group, such as women or African Americans, often correlate with negative attitudes
toward other groups, such as gay men and lesbian women (Davies, 2004; Ficarotto, 1990;
Morrison & Morrison, 2002; Parrott, Adams, & Zeichner, 2002; Robinson & Schwartz,
2004). Using the models of modern racism and modern sexism, Morrison and Morrison
(2002) assert that homonegativity now exists in two interrelated, but theoretically distinct
forms. Old-fashioned homonegativity is grounded in objections to, or misconceptions
about, gay men and lesbian women based on religious or moral condemnation.
According to Morrison and Morrison (2002), modern homonegativity is based on the
endorsement of one or more of the following beliefs: (a) Gay men and lesbian women are
making unnecessary demands for social change for instance, the right to marry; (b)
prejudice and discrimination against gay men and lesbian women has become a thing of
the past; and (c) gay men and lesbian women place too much emphasis on their sexuality
and, in so doing, are culpable for their own marginalization. With modern
homonegativity, the objections are not that gay men and lesbian women are immoral,
sinful, or evil but, rather, that these groups have all the rights they need, and should stop
asking for more.
Heteronormativity and Homophobia
There is no single definition for the term homophobia, as it covers a wide range of
different viewpoints and attitudes. Fyfe (1983) has defined homophobia as any negative
reaction or attitude towards homosexuals. Fyfe (1983) suggests that homophobia can be
seen on many different levels, including culture which is manifested by the preservation
23
of traditional sex role distinctions; attitudinal homophobia, which is seen as a hostility
towards, or fear of, gay people, but can also refer to social ideologies, which stigmatizes
homosexuality; and homophobia as a personality dimension, correlated with rigidity,
authoritarianism, conservatism, and intolerance for ambiguity and nonconformity.
Hudson and Ricketts (1980) provided groundbreaking work in measuring
affective responses among non-gay people. They focused on the personal affective
response (disgust, anxiety, aversion, discomfort, fear, and anger) to the proximal or
distant contact with “homosexual” individuals. Hudson and Ricketts’s (1980) work, and
others in this area, has tended to focus on the non-gay person’s affective responses to gay
men. Research has demonstrated that the experiences of gay men and lesbians are
strikingly different (Harwood, 1998) and non-gay responses differ based on the gender of
the respondent. In order to understand homophobia among males, Lock and Kleis (1998)
conducted an analysis of the data and developed a clinical illustration of homophobia.
Their study suggested that there is a range of homophobic attitudes among males that
initiate in childhood. The study suggested that homophobia is related to anxieties about
gender, gender roles, and gender-role conformity.
Although much research has investigated predictors of homophobia in males,
little attention has been given to the predictors of homophobia in females. In a study
investigating how self-esteem, self-discrepancy and gender-attribute importance related
to homophobia college women, Basow and Johnson (2000) found that homophobia in
women is not significantly predicted by feelings of inadequacy about living up to cultural
expectations of appropriate gender traits. Whereas Herek (1986) proposed that the
24
pressure on men to conform to heterosexual masculinity causes male heterosexuals to
develop anxiety over not fulfilling these expectations. In addition, college women who
feel stereotypic feminine traits are important to their femininity are more homophobic
than their female peers who believe such traits are less important. This suggests that men
and women who are insecure about their stereotypic gender construction are more likely
to hold negative attitudes toward homosexuals.
The research shows that there are consistent patterns across different samples in
regard to negative affective responses and attitudes towards persons who are gay. There
seems be an increase in homophobic attitudes among persons with an authoritarian
personality style who are sexually restricted or feel guilt about sexual expression. Herek
(1984) suggests that heterosexuals who positively interact with gay, lesbian and bisexual
persons are more likely to hold more accepting attitudes toward them. Lastly, research
shows that persons with conservative values (religion and gender roles) who are
unsupportive of diversity (racism and sexism) tend to be homophobic (Hunter, Shannon,
Knox, & Martin, 1998; Reinhardt, 1994). These findings support Herek’s notion of
symbolic homophobia. It was found that in males homophobia is closely related to
anxieties about power, authority, and dependency issues regarding femininity and
passivity. There is a direct link between heterosexism and homophobia, the irrational fear
or hatred of homosexuals.
Heterosexism could be thought of as the assumption that all people are
heterosexual and that heterosexuality is seen as more desirable than non-heterosexuality
(Neisen, 1990). Heterosexist attitudes are used to justify the mistreatment, discrimination
25
and harassment of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and questioning individuals.
Ferfolja (2007) conducted a data analysis of 17 in-depth interviews with highly
experienced teachers who self identified as lesbian. The discussion focused on the data
related to participants’ perspectives of their school’s institutional practices, including
LGBTQ invisibility in policies, programs, education and practices. This research suggests
that school culture foments heteronormativity and heterosexism. Ferfolja (2007) suggests
that in order for schools to become truly impartial institutions that serve the needs of all
in their communities, it is crucial that they recognize how such marginalization
negatively impacts the lives and educational experiences of many students and teachers.
Masculinity and Femininity
A significant body of research supports the claim that masculinity in modern
western societies consists in part to the devaluation of femininity, homophobia, violence,
and sexual success with women. Research in disciplines such as social work and
psychology suggest that anti-femininity, including negative attitudes towards sexual
minorities, is an integral concept of masculinity (Davis, Yarber, Bauserman, Schreer, &
Davis, 1996; Smiler, 2004; Thompson & Pleck, 1995). Anti-femininity can be defined as
the devaluation of feminine attributes in men and women. Such a belief system leads to
the devaluation of women and the derogation of men who display such attributes, often
leading to the avoidance of feminine behaviors by men. Anti-femininity is evident in
scales measuring extreme gender beliefs, such as the Macho Scale (Villemez & Touhey,
1977), the Hypermasculinity Inventory (HMI: Mosher & Sirkin, 1984) and the
Hypergender Ideology Scale (HGIS: Hamburger, Hogben, McGowan, & Dawson, 1996).
26
These scales define masculinity as involving a devaluation and denigration of femininity,
and thus as being superior to femininity. The implication from such subscales is that
masculinity is very much heterosexual. Specifically it is attitudes towards male
homosexuality, not necessarily homosexuality, that are important to masculinity.
Evidence supporting a link between anti-femininity and gay-male homophobia suggests
that violence is a binding element in their relation.
Research has shown that gender roles play an important role in shaping attitudes
towards the LGBTQ community. In order to develop an understanding of the reasoning
behind this phenomenon, McCreary (1994) tested two theories: the social status model
and the sexual orientation hypothesis. The social status model predicts that males are
punished because of feminine behavior, as femininity is seen as lower in status than
masculine behavior. The sexual orientation hypothesis sees males as stronger; the
research speculates that there is a link between gender roles and sexuality and finds that a
male acting in a feminine way is more likely to be considered a homosexual than a
female acting in a masculine way (McCreary, 1994).
The research suggests that these two models may not be mutually exclusive,
especially from within a developmental framework. For instance, in a study focusing on
gender differences in heterosexual reactions to gay people, Herek (1988) found that
religiosity, conformity to traditional ideologies of family, and past interactions with
lesbians and gay men shapes the way people think about the LGBTQ community. Herek
(1988) suggests that heterosexual males have more negative attitudes towards gay men
than do heterosexual females. Males who hold direct aggressive impulses may hold more
27
hostile attitudes towards gay people. These results are in line with findings by McCreary
(1994) suggesting that males are expected to portray a masculine persona so that they are
not punished.
Davies (2004) investigated the relationship between hostile sexism, male
toughness, and attitudes toward male sexuality by analyzing a questionnaire related to
attitudes towards gay men completed by 517 undergraduate university students. Results
revealed that attitudes toward homosexual behavior and homosexual persons were
primarily influenced by one factor -- affective reactions toward gay men, suggesting that
men respond more negatively to affective reactions than women do. This finding supports
previous results of studies that found negative attitudes toward gay men to be part of a
larger construct concerning traditional gender roles. Dunkle & Francis (1990) conducted
a study that examined whether participants would differentially perceive male and female
faces as homosexual based upon facial masculinity/femininity, and the extent to which
their attitudes toward homosexuals would influence their perceptions. The participants
also completed the Index of Homophobia, the Bem Sex Role Inventory, the Attitudes
Toward Women Scale, a conservatism scale, and a demographic questionnaire. The
subjects assigned higher homosexuality ratings to feminine male and masculine female
faces compared to their masculine and feminine counterparts, respectively. It was found
that subjects with negative attitudes toward homosexuals would be more likely to
perceive feminine men as gay and masculine women as lesbians.
Theodore and Basow (2001) tested how much college men conformed to
heteronormative gender roles and how important it was for college men to fulfill
28
this stereotype. It is speculated that men who feel more insecure about their masculinity
are more likely to hold negative attitudes towards LGBTQ students. Findings showed that
college men who believe it important to have masculine traits and not to have feminine
traits, and felt that they did not meet this stereotype, were the most homophobic. In a
study focusing on predictors of female attitudes toward lesbians, Basow & Johnson
(2000) found that homophobia functions differently for college women than for college
men. Homophobia in women is not predicted by feelings of inadequacy of living up to
cultural expectations of gender, instead these attitudes were attributed to feminineness.
College women who find that their femininity, or hyper-feminine traits, is important to
them are more homophobic than other college students who do not hold those beliefs.
Theodore and Basow (2001) found similar patterns among college men; greater
homophobia was related to the importance of stereotypical masculine traits. These
findings suggest that homophobia originates from the conformity of individuals to
heteronormative gender roles.
Elements of the Construct of Hypermasculinity
There are two primary developmental theories used to understand the construct of
hypermasculinity -- social learning theory and attachment theory. Social learning theory
suggests that social learning is how behavior is acquired. Theoretically hypermasculinity
results from gender role socializations (Cowell & Burgers, 1996) in which cultural
expectations of maleness produce norm for men to follow (Bergman, 1991) and also an
adversarial relationship with femininity which is seen as deficient. Attachment theory
provides the motivation to maintain appropriate behavior. The majority of the studies in
29
the construct of hypermasculinity grew out of the research of Mosher and Sirkin (1981).
The hypermasculinity man is thought of as being prepared to challenge any real or
imagined provocation from other men with violence.
Mosher and Sirkin (1981) referred to “calloused sexual attitudes” as men who have
hostile competitive feelings toward women and desire to control and dominate them.
Groth (1979) stated that the most common classification of rapists included men who
raped to assert their power and validate their masculinity. The hypermasculine
personality construct, especially the component of calloused sexual attitudes toward
women, has been associated with a history of sexual aggression. According to Mosher
and Sirkin (1981), scores on the Hypermasculinity Inventory (HMI) were positively
correlated with a self-reported likelihood of raping. The subscale of “Violence as manly”
defines aggression of any kind as an acceptable expression of dominance over other men
(Mosher & Sirkin 1981). The hypermasculine personality style has many characteristics
predictive of aggressive action. Hypermasculine males endorsed the expression of anger,
action, and domination of others and repressed emotions that they considered “weak”
such as caring and empathy. Unfortunately this hypermasculine personality is believed to
be developed both by socialization and enculturation.
“Danger as exciting” reflected the attitude that survival in dangerous situations was
a display of a man’s dominance over the environment. The construct was created after it
was noticed that while some men display many of these qualities, others display all of
them (Mosher & Sirkin, 1981). The research suggests that during early and middle
childhood, parents tend to use contempt and humiliation as strategies to discourage the
30
emotions of fear and distress in boys. It has been theorized that when a boy inhibited the
emotions of fear and distress the exaggerated masculine style was formed (Izard, 1977).
Furthermore, boys are shamed whenever they display normal emotions of fear or distress.
This exaggerated masculine style was supported throughout adolescence through the
participation in activities, including sports and less acceptable dangerous, delinquent, or
aggressive behaviors.
Risk Correlated To Hypermasculinity
Hypermasculinity in men has been linked to several significant risk factors for child
maltreatment including physically and sexually coercive behavior, verbally aggressive
behavior, alcohol abuse, and lower frustration tolerance and levels of empathy.
The research suggests that hypermasculine men’s perpetration of sexual coercion, is
correlated to a lack of rape-related empathy and deficiency in general empathy and
warmth (Norris, George, Davis, Martell, & Leonesio, 1999). Hypermasculine narratives
may facilitate expressions of anger and excitement but suppress empathy when they feel
distressed or threatened in a way that challenges their perceived masculinity (Mosher &
Tomkins, 1988; Norris et al., 1999). A woman refusing sexual activity may threaten a
hypermasculine man’s sense of masculinity in which sexual prowess is valued. Similarly,
a child’s misbehavior may threaten a hypermasculine man’s sense of masculinity if
familial dominance is valued. Either situation may activate hypermasculine scripts,
suppressing men’s empathy raising his level of anger or excitement, and facilitating his
use of sexual, physical, or verbal aggression to lower perceived threat levels.
Hypermasculine men have been found to report cultural values consistent with viewing
31
women as sexual conquests (Bogaert & Fisher, 1995) and engaging in misogynistic
fantasy (Johnson & Knight, 2000), both of which may increase likelihood of engaging in
sexually coercive acts. Researchers have also found significant positive relationships
between men’s levels of hypermasculinity and their willingness to act sexually coercively
according to their self- reports and greater attitudinal acceptance of rape (Sullivan &
Mosher, 1990; Vass & Gold, 1995). In a study involving using electrical shocking
behavior as retaliation against female competitors, Parrot and Zeichner (2003) found that
men high in hypermasculinity had a higher frequency of shock administrations to their
female opponents, higher shock durations, and a significantly larger proportion of
instances in which they administered the highest possible levels of electrical shock
toward their female opponents (Parrot & Zeichner, 2003). Norris et al. (1999) also found
that the higher a man’s level of hypermasculinity, the less likely he was to show empathy
toward a woman in response to violent pornography if the woman ex- pressed distress.
Verbal aggression has been linked to both intimate partner violence (Ryan, 1995) as well
as child physical abuse (Teicher, Samson, Polcari, & McGreenery, 2006). Research on
the relationship between hypermasculinity and verbal aggression has suggested that
hypermasculinity was correlated to a man’s reported levels of experiencing psychological
maltreatment (Ray & Gold, 1996). Further, Ray and Gold found that hypermasculine men
were more likely to feel verbally abused by their partners than men scoring low in
hypermasculinity. These are important findings because psychological aggression has
been found to precede physical aggression (Ryan, 1995), especially when the perceived
threat was not reduced by verbal aggression (Ray & Gold, 1996). Thus, hypermasculine
32
men may be more likely to perceive more psychological or verbal aggression from their
female partners than men low in hypermasculinity, and, they may respond with intimate
partner violence.
Conclusion
As discussed in the themes of this literature review, there is ample evidence for the
constructs of hypermasculinity and negative attitudes toward the LGBTQ population.
This study specifically adds to the existing knowledge by examining this relationship in
the context of a state institution such as California State University. Institutions of higher
education seek to create an environment characterized by equal access for all students,
faculty and staff regardless of cultural, political or philosophical differences; where
individuals are not just tolerated but also valued. Creating and maintaining a community
environment that respects individual needs, abilities and potential is one of the most
important functions of universities and colleges. A welcoming and inclusive climate is
grounded in respect, nurtured by dialogue and evidenced by a pattern of civil interaction.
33
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
This chapter presents the methodology and research design utilized for this research
study. The following areas are addressed: Research Question, Study Design, Sampling
Procedures, Data Collection Procedures, Instrumentation, Proposed Statistical Analyses
and a Summary. In addition, there is a description of the steps taken to protect human
subjects.
Research Question
This study examined the relationship between hyper-masculinity attitudes/beliefs
and negative attitudes against members of the LGBTQ community in a college campus. It
is hypothesized that hyper-masculinity attitudes will be significantly correlated with
negative attitudes towards gays and lesbians in a college campus. The purpose of the
present study is to explore factors that predict negative attitudes towards LGBTQ
students in order to understand the possible role played by the hyper-masculinity
concepts in the prejudice against LGBTQ campus community.
Study Design
This research study examines the relationship between hypermasculinity and
attitudes and beliefs towards LGBT community in a college campus. The research
approach used for this study is quantitative and correlational. A quantitative rather than a
qualitative or mixed method approach was selected to examine the relationship between
hypermasculinity and attitudes towards LGBT community. A quantitative survey
approach was selected because it accomplished the study’s purpose and attempted to
34
answer the research questions. A regression was selected to guide this study’s analysis by
answering the following questions:
1. What is the relationship between two things?
2. How precise is the estimate of the relationship?
The regression answered the first question by the estimated “coefficient” and the second
question in the “t” statistic. In essence, the analysis attempted to estimate the extent to
which hypermasculinity is a predictor of negative attitudes toward LGBTQ population.
These relationships as well as the results of the analysis are discussed in Chapter 4.
Data was collected via Likert type questionnaire. Participant’s consent was
obtained prior to filling out the questionnaire. The researcher distributed the
questionnaire in undergraduate level classes with professor permission. Descriptive
statistics were obtained for each variable and T-tests and correlations were used for
variables of interest. The purpose of administering a questionnaire in an anonymous and
confidential way was to allow the participants to report their attitudes and beliefs without
any impacts on the validity of the responses. This process will assist the researcher in
gaining a greater understanding of the effects of heteronormative attitudes such as
hypermasculinity on LGBT students. The researcher hopes that the conclusions of this
study will further expand the knowledge of predictors of homophobia and heterosexism,
which create negative effects on academic performance.
Sampling Procedures
The researcher used non-random, purposive sampling of current California State
University, Sacramento students, at the undergraduate level. The researcher recruited
35
students to survey from a sociology class, which is a requirement for graduation, and
from an honors class program; this allowed the researcher to survey students from
different college majors.
An initial contact to professors was established and consent from the professors
was obtained to survey their students. The participants were selected based on who was
willing to participate in the study after reading the consent form. Any student at least 18
years of age and currently enrolled in class was able to participate. The total sample size
consisted of 158 participants.
Data Collection Procedures
All subjects participated in the study voluntarily, were over the age of 18 and
enrolled in an undergraduate course at CSUS. Researcher presented a 5-minute oral
presentation introducing the study and reading the rights of the participants. Researcher
informed the potential participants about consenting to participate in the study by signing
with an “X” at the bottom of the consent form and completing the questionnaire.
Following the presentation, participants were asked to complete a 46-item questionnaire
that would take 20 minutes to complete.
In order to collect the completed questionnaires and consents forms, participants
were asked to drop the questionnaire off in a covered cardboard box with a slit. The
consent forms were dropped off in two separate envelopes labeled “consent forms.”
Researcher stepped out of the room while participants completed the questionnaire to
eliminate any risk variables arising out of potential researcher influence that could result
from the presence of the researcher. This ensured anonymity and confidentiality of the
36
participants. Participants were asked not to write any information that could identify them
in any way (i.e., address, phone number, or email address). Participants were informed
prior to completing the questionnaire that the researcher and the advisor will be the only
people with access to the completed forms, that individual answers would not be reported
on their own but they will be examined as a whole to ensure that participants are aware
that the information is confidential.
Instruments
Participants were asked to complete a 46 questions questionnaire consisting of two
different scales that measure Hypermasculinity and Attitudes Towards LGBT people.
Participants were also asked to provide demographic information such as gender, race,
age and college major.
A modified version of the Hypermasculinity Inventory (HMI) will be used. The
Hypermasculinity Inventory is a valid forced-choice scale that is used to measure a
macho personality constellation pattern. The macho personality is defined as a cognitive
structure, which has developed over time because of repeated interactions of emotions,
cognitions and beliefs about events which led to a formation of a macho self concept.
This scale consists of 30 items. The questions assess the view of danger as exciting, idea
that violence is manly, and calloused sexual attitudes toward women.
To measure attitudes towards LGBTQ community the researcher used a
modification to Herek’s (1988) Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men (ATLG) scale.
This scale measured attitudes towards Transgender people, bisexual people, and queer
people. The participants rated the extent to which they agreed with statements
37
concerning LGBTQ community. Higher scores indicate attitudes that are more
homophobic.
Proposed Statistical Analyses
All study hypotheses are correlational in nature. The operational null hypothesis
suggests that there is no significant correlation between hypermasculinity and negative
attitudes towards LGBT people. It is speculated that hypermasculinity attitudes are
significantly correlated with negative attitudes towards LGBT people. It is also
speculated that ethnic background is significantly correlated with negative attitudes
towards LGBT people. Finally it is speculated that people whose college major is in the
social sciences have more positive attitudes towards LGB people.
A simple regression using ethnicity as the independent variable and negative
attitudes against LGBT as the criterion was conducted. In addition, a second simple
regression using college major as the independent variable and negative attitudes against
LGBT as the criterion was conducted.
Protection of Human Subjects
As required by California State University, Sacramento, a human subject
application was submitted to the Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects from
the Division of Social Work. This committee approved the proposed study and
determined the research as "minimal risk" to the study participants. The approval number
of the study is12-13-037. The approval was received prior to participant contact and the
collection of any study data.
38
Participation in this research study by subjects over the age of 18 and enrolled in
an undergraduate course at CSUS was on a strictly voluntary basis. Participants were
informed in writing and verbally of their right to decline to answer any questions or stop
the interview at any time and for any reason. Participants were not given any type of
compensation for their participation in the study. Participants were informed that their
participation in the study will not affect their grade in the class. To protect the identity of
the participants, participants were told to not use any personal information such as name,
email address or telephone number. Questionnaires were given a number after being
completed in order to protect their confidentiality.
Privacy was maintained through separately locking away all interview sheets
researcher noted on and the informed consents. All the digital recordings and transcribed
materials were stored in a locked drawer and were immediately destroyed after being
transcribed, analyzed and coded. All interview materials were destroyed by June 15,
2013. This information was described in the participant's consent form in English (see
Appendix ###) which was signed prior to the interview taking place.
39
Chapter 4
RESULTS
Study Findings And Discussions
This chapter presents the study results stemming from the quantitative and
qualitative analysis of the data gathered from the 158 respondents who responded to a
survey on the impact of hypermasculinity on attitude toward members of the LGBT
campus community. The purpose of the present study was to identify factors that predict
negative attitudes towards LGBTQ students in order to understand the possible role
played by the hyper-masculinity and ethnicity concepts in the attitudes toward LGBTQ
campus community.
This chapter begins with the demographics of the study participants and continues
to present the key study findings. All study hypotheses are correlational in nature. The
operational null hypothesis suggesting that there is no significant correlation between
hypermasculinity and negative attitudes towards LGBTQ people was tested in
conjunction with the alternative hypothesis that hypermasculinity attitudes are
significantly correlated with negative attitudes towards LGBTQ people. Another
alternative hypothesis tested was that ethnic background is significantly correlated with
negative attitudes towards individuals with the LGBTQ orientation and or identity. A
simple regression using ethnicity as the independent variable and negative attitudes
against LGBTQ as the dependent variable was conducted. The constructs used in the
hypotheses formulation was constructed after extensive literature review on the primary
40
factors driving the conceptualization of gender and attitude construction in the context of
attitudes toward LGBQT population.
Demographics
The participants consisted of 158 undergraduate students, 107 females (67.7%)
and 58 males (32.3%). Majority of the participants (77.2%) reported to be in the age
group 18-24, with 19 % in the age group 25-30, and 1.9% reported to be in the 31-35 age
group with very few participants in the 31-45 age group and an outlier indicating as
above 50 years of age.
Table 1
Demographics - Gender and Age of Study Participants (N=158)
Frequency
Valid
Gender
Female
Male
Total
Valid
Age
Group
18-24
25-30
31-55
41-45
50+
Total
107
51
158
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
67.7
32.3
100.0
67.7
32.3
100.0
67.7
100.0
122
77.2
77.2
77.2
30
3
2
1
158
19.0
1.9
1.3
.6
100.0
19.0
1.9
1.3
.6
100.0
96.2
98.1
99.4
100.0
The ethnic composition of the sample included 24.1% Latino-Americans, 5.1%
African Americans, 41.1% European-Americans, 17.1% Asian Americans, 44.4%
41
multiethnic, 3.8% West Asia Descend/ Indians, and 1.3% Native Americans and 3.2%
did not indicated their ethnic background.
Table 2:
Demographics - Ethnicity of Study Participants (N=158)
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Hispanic/Latino/Mexican
Valid
African
American/African
Asian American
South West
Asians/Indians
European American/
White
Interracial/Mix
Native American
Total
Missing System
Total
Cumulative
Percent
38
24.1
24.8
24.8
8
5.1
5.2
30.1
27
17.1
17.6
47.7
6
3.8
3.9
51.6
65
41.1
42.5
94.1
7
4.4
4.6
98.7
2
153
5
158
1.3
96.8
3.2
100.0
1.3
100.0
100.0
The college major composition of the respondents included the distribution of
8.9% in Business Administration, 1.3 % English and Education, 5.7% Engineering &
Computer Sciences 10.2% Health and Human Services 12.7% Natural Sciences &
Mathematics, 55.7% Social Sciences and Interdisciplinary Studies, 2.5 Arts, and 3.2%
undeclared.
As is evident from this summary majority of the respondents of the study
identified themselves as from the social sciences and interdisciplinary studies lending the
42
possibility that study results might be influenced by the predominant representation of
students from social sciences and interdisciplinary studies.
Table 3
Demographics – College Major of Study Participants (N=158)
Frequency Percent
Business Administration
14
8.9
Valid
Missing
Total
Valid Percent
8.9
Education/English
2
1.3
1.3
Engineering & Computer
Science
9
5.7
5.7
Health & Human Services
16
10.1
10.2
Natural Sciences &
Mathematics
20
12.7
12.7
Social Sciences &
Interdisciplinary Studies
87
55.1
55.4
Arts
4
2.5
2.5
Undeclared
5
3.2
3.2
157
1
158
99.4
.6
100.0
100.0
Total
System
Key Study Findings
A simple regression analysis was conducted to examine the relationship between
negative attitudes towards the LGBTQ students and hypermasculinity. Assumptions
concerning the linearity of the response variable, attitudes toward LGBTQ population
and hyper masculinity scores and ethnicity scores were met along with the assumption
that the variables are normally distributed . However, there is no certainty to the meeting
43
of assumption that each observation is not determined or influenced by any other
observation in the distribution.
Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation between Negative Attitudes – LGBTQ
and the Hypermasculinity Mean value is 0.227, which represents a weak degree of
correlation between Negative Attitudes – LGBTQ and the Hypermasculinity Mean.
Percentage of variation in the negative attitudes toward the members of the LGBTQ
community as explained by the variation in the independent variable, the hyper
masculinity score in the population, R squared is 5.1%, which is minimal. Table 4
summarizes the analysis results.
Table 4
Hypermasculinity Mean Model Summary (N=158)
Model
R
R Square
Adjusted R Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate
1
.227a
.051
.041
.55670
a. Predictors: (Constant), Hypermasculinity Mean
There is a positive weak correlation, of .227 between negative attitudes toward
LGBQT population and the hypermasculinity scores of the respondents, .which despite
its statistical significance needs to be studied further with random samples and more
rigorous standardized scales to measure the negative attitudes and the hypermasculinity
scores. The fact that as scores on hypermasculinity increases, the scores on negative
44
attitudes also increases is a significant finding in this study. This finding is worthy of
further in depth investigation.
The following table indicates the statistical significance of the regression model
that was applied p < 0.26, which is less than 0.05. However, in the light of the low R
value the results of the ANOVA, despite indicating the regression equation model to be
statistically significant, the regression equation’s capacity to predict the relationship
between the hypermasculinity scores and the negative attitude toward LGBTQ members,
must be treated as a tentative relationship that needs further investigation. The model
applied can statistically significantly predict the outcome variable regression model with
Negative Attitudes – LGBTQ as the dependent variable and Hypermasculinity Mean as
the independent variable (R=. 227, N=158, p<. 05).
Table 5
Hypermasculinity Mean ANOVA (N=158)
Model
Sum of
df
Mean Square
F
Sig.
5.086
.026b
Squares
1
Regression
1.576
1
1.576
Residual
29.132
94
.310
Total
30.709
95
a. Dependent Variable: Negative Attitudes – LGBTQ
b. Predictors: (Constant), Hypermasculinity Mean
45
Table 6
Hypermasculinity Mean Coefficients (N=158)
Model
(Constant)
1
Unstandardized
Standardized
Coefficients
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
.332
.681
.309
.137
t
Sig.
.486
.628
2.255
.026
Beta
Hypermascul
.227
inity Mean
a. Dependent Variable: Negative Attitudes – LGBTQ
In addition a simple regression analysis was conducted to examine the
relationship between negative attitudes towards the LGBTQ students and various
potential predictors such as hypermasculinity. The regression equation is as follows:
Negative attitudes toward LGBT community members= .332+ .309. Thus the attitude
toward members of the LGBT community can be predicted by the following equation
using the hypermasculinity score. The regression equation to make a point prediction is:
Negative attitudes toward LGBT community = .309 + .332 (hypermasculinity).
Additionally the slope is an ascending line with the increase in the independent variable
resulting in the increase in the dependent variable. This relationship is worthy of further
investigation.
For the simple regression analysis using ethnicity as the independent variable to
predict the attitude toward members of the LGBT members, the R value is 0.154, which
46
represents the simple correlation and it indicates a weak positive correlation between
Negative Attitudes – LGBTQ and Ethnicity. The R Square value indicates how much of
the proportion or percentage of variation in the dependent variable, Negative Attitudes –
LGBTQ, can be explained by the independent variable, Ethnicity. In this case, 2.4% thus
indicating that ethnicity is a weak predictor of negative attitudes toward members of the
LGBT community, within the limits of the observations. However this relationship needs
to be studied further using randomized trials or random samples.
Table 7
Ethnicity Model Summary (N=158)
Model
R
R Square
Adjusted R Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate
1
.154a
.024
.016
.63469
a. Predictors: (Constant), Ethnicity
The correlation between negative attitudes Negative Attitudes – LGBTQ as the
dependent variable and Ethnicity as the independent variable (r=. 154, N=158, p<. 05), as
it can be seen in Table 7. The regression equation with ethnicity as the predictor of
attitudes toward LGBTQ community is not statistically significant (p>.05) as indicated
by the significance of the F ratio. The slope of this regression was a negatively sloping
regression line (-.199) which indicates that these two variable are actually moving in the
opposite direction.
47
Table 8
Ethnicity ANOVA (N=158)
Model
1
Sum of Squares df
Mean Square
F
Sig.
Regression
1.206
1
1.206
2.993
.086
Residual
49.549
123
.403
Total
50.754
124
t
Sig.
12.702
.000
-1.730
.086
a. Dependent Variable: Negative Attitudes – LGBTQ
b. Predictors: (Constant), Ethnicity
Table 9
Ethnicity Coefficients (N=158)
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
(Constant) 2.193
.173
Ethnicity2
.115
Beta
1
-.199
-.154
a. Dependent Variable: Negative Attitudes – LGBTQ
As indicated in table 9, the regression equation with ethnicity as the predictor
variable is as follows: Negative attitudes toward LGBT community (Y) = 2.193-(.199)
(ethnicity).
48
Table 10
Correlation Analysis (N=158)
Negative
Hypermascul Ethnicity
Attitudes –
inity Mean
LGBTQ
Correlation
1.000
.197
-.169
Sig. (2-tailed)
.
.055
.059
N
128
96
125
.197
1.000
-.186
Sig. (2-tailed)
.055
.
.058
N
96
108
104
-.169
-.186
1.000
Sig. (2-tailed)
.059
.058
.
N
125
104
153
Negative
Coefficient
Attitudes –
LGBTQ
Correlation
Hypermasculi Coefficient
Spearman's rho
nity Mean
Correlation
Coefficient
Ethnicity
In addition to the correlations explained as part of the regression analysis this
correlation matrix indicates that there is a negative correlation between ethnicity and
hypermasculinity score (r=-.186, N=158, p=. 05), which is statistically significant.
Although this correlation is relatively weak it is important to consider the role of
49
traditional sex role stereotypes and conceptions of gender in general among various
ethnic groups to understand the variations in attitudes and beliefs toward LGBQT
populations.
Summary
This chapter presented the demographics of the participants of this study. It also
explored the role that hypermasculinity and ethnicity play in predicting negative attitudes
towards LGBTQ campus community and evidenced the fact that while hypermasculinity
score is a relatively significant predictor of negative attitudes toward LGBQT population
than ethnicity. The correlations of both the predictor variables with the dependent
variable of attitudes toward LGBQT community are weak although hypermasculinity has
a higher correlation with negative attitudes toward the LGBQT population than ethnicity.
In the following chapter, the study conclusions, recommendations, implications for social
work practice and limitations of the study are presented in the context of social work
values, principles and the various domains of social work practice.
50
Chapter 5
DISCUSSION
Conclusion, Summary, Recommendations
This chapter provides a summary of the conclusions from this study. It
includes results and interpretations of the relationship between hypermasculinity,
ethnicity and negative attitudes towards LGBTQ community. In addition, the
chapter discusses limitations to the study and provides implications for social
work practice and policy. The chapter ends with suggestions for future research
and recommendations on improving attitudes toward LGBTQ population.
Summary
The purpose of this study was to explore possible predictors of negative
attitudes towards the LGBTQ student community in a college campus such as
hypermasculinity and ethnicity. In order to measure hypermasculinity the
researcher used a modified version of The Hypermasculinity Inventory (HMI –
Modified) composed of 26 forced-choice scale questions used to measure a
macho personality constellation pattern in the participants. To measure attitudes
towards LGBTQ community the researcher used a modification to Herek’s (1988)
Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men (ATLG) scale. Demographic
information such as age, ethnicity, college major and gender were collected as
well. In order to analyze the data a simple regression using ethnicity as the
independent variable and negative attitudes against LGBTQ as the criterion was
conducted. In addition, a second simple regression using hypermasculinity as the
51
independent variable and negative attitudes against LGBT as the criterion was
conducted. Participants were 158 undergraduate students, 107 females (67.7%)
and 58 males (32.3%). The majority of participants reported to be between the
ages of 18 and 24 (77.2%). The major ethnic composition of the sample included
24.1% Latino-Americans, 5.1% African Americans and 41.1% EuropeanAmericans. Pearson’s Product Moment Correlations were conducted to examine
the relationship between the study variables.
Conclusion
The present study examined the relationship between the hypermasculinity
construct and negative attitudes towards LGBTQ campus community. The
primary purpose of the study was to explore factors such as hypermasculinity and
ethnicity, which can potentially predict negative attitudes towards LGBTQ
campus community. The null hypothesis suggesting no significant correlation
between hypermasculinity and negative attitudes towards LGBTQ people exists
was tested in conjunction with the alternative hypothesis stating that
hypermasculinity attitudes are significantly correlated with negative attitudes
towards LGBTQ people. Furthermore, a simple regression using ethnicity as the
independent variable and negative attitudes against LGBTQ people as the
dependent variable was conducted to test the hypothesis that ethnic background is
significantly correlated with negative attitudes towards LGBTQ campus
community.
The study evidenced the fact that hypermasculinity score is a relatively
52
significant predictor of negative attitudes toward LGBQT population than ethnicity.
The correlations of both the predictor variables with the dependent variable of
attitudes toward LGBQT community are weak although hypermasculinity has a
higher correlation with negative attitudes toward the LGBQT population than
ethnicity.
The regression analysis results suggested that the capacity to predict the
relationship between hypermasculinity and negative attitudes towards LGBTQ
campus community was statistically significant but in need of further
examination. The fact that the scores in the hypermasculinity scale increase as the
negative attitudes towards LGBTQ campus community increase is important to
note. In the research, hypermasculinity attitudes have been associated to other
significant risk factors such as child maltreatment (Teicher et all., 2006),
physically and sexually coercive behavior (Bogaert & Fisher, 1995), verbally
aggressive behavior, alcohol abuse (Norris et all., 1999) and intimate partner
violence (Ryan, 1995). In addition, theoretically, hypermasculinity results from
gender role socializations (Cowell & Burgers, 1996) in which cultural
expectations of maleness produce a norm for men to follow (Bergman, 1991).
Feminist theory suggests that this norm creates a confrontational relationship with
femininity, or anything other than, which is seen as deficient thus producing
negative attitudes and prejudice. This rationale proposes hypermasculinity
attitudes as potential predictor of homophobia in college campuses that needs to
be further assessed in the research.
53
Secondly, the results of the simple regression model examining the
relationship between ethnicity and negative attitudes towards LGBTQ community
was not statistically significant. Moreover the slope of the regression was
negative, indicating that people who identify as Caucasian move further away in
the slope from negative attitudes towards LGBTQ people, than people who
identify as non-Caucasian. This specific finding needs to be studied further using
randomized trials or random samples. Research on the topic of attitude
development suggests that positive attitudinal changes are associated with direct
exposure to LGBT students (Herek, 1984). This can potentially explain why this
results came about, it can be speculated that people who identify as Caucasian in
this study had more exposure to LGBTQ people on campus or in the community.
Not only that, but as indicated in the literature review, their social realty about
LGBTQ people was affected possibly by previous positive interactions with
homosexual persons (Herek, 1984). The research on this topic is somewhat dated,
further information needs to be obtained to study the differences in attitude
development in current college students.
Limitations
More information is needed to meet all the assumptions of the regression
analysis. Despite the reasonable study sample size, not all of the assumptions of
the regression analysis have been met due to the nature of the sample. be collected
in order to predict the influence of college major and age to negative attitudes
towards LGBTQ students. The participants in the study are undergraduate
54
students who possibly, did not have much exposure to terms pertaining to the
present study- terms such as transgender, hypermasculinity, LGBTQ, and
heterosexism. In addition, the wording of the questionnaire possibly could have
been confusing for some participants and could have influenced the way they
answer. Stronger instrumentation is needed to measure the study variables in
specific terms. Lastly, the correlations between the study variables are weak
although they are statistically significant. A significant correlation indicates the
existence of a relationship, but does not provide enough to the causal nature of the
relationship. Further research needs to be explored n the area for predictors of
negative attitudes in college campus.
Recommendations
The following recommendations are suggested to improve attitudes towards
LGBTQ population on campus. Detailed specific data pertaining to hyper
masculinity and ethnicity identifications must are needed to understand the extent
to which preconceptions and socialization patterns of gender role identifications
and ethnic group identifications influence prejudice, attitudes and negative
assumptions about the other than the self.
Policy makers and program planners need to actively maximize LGBTQ
equity on campus. In order to prevent discrimination towards LGBTQ students
change needs to happen at the micro level to provide Educational Programming
on GLBTQ issues and concerns and include sexual orientation and gender
identity issues in student orientation programs.
55
As universities operate as systems of constituents, all stakeholders must be
educated about the underlying assumptions about beliefs and attitudes. Sexual
orientation and gender identity issues must be included in new faculty/staff
orientations. Additionally workshops/programs need to be developed to address
GLBTQ issues within residence life, especially geared toward resident assistants.
These workshops/programs can be structured to address
homophobia/heterosexism within fraternities, sororities and intercollegiate
athletics.
Continuous education of the university community needs to occur through
lectures, concerts, symposia, and other activities to increase GLBTQ awareness
on campus. Provide training for campus health care professionals to increase their
sensitivity to issues of sexual orientation and gender identity and the special
health needs of GLBTQ individuals.
Training sessions for public safety officers on GLBTQ issues and
concerns and anti-GLBTQ violence must include discussion of sexual orientation
and gender identity or expression in the institution’s nondiscrimination clause.
Such measures can be advocated through single stall gender-neutral restroom
facilities and developing visible scholarships targeting GLBT students. Preventive
measures need to include integrating GLBTQ concerns into university
documents/publications (grievance procedures, housing guidelines, application
materials) and creating a GLBT alumni group within the existing alumni
organization.
56
Social Work Implications
While the purpose of this study was to identify the role of
hypermasculinity as possible predictor of negative attitudes towards the LGBTQ
community in a college campus, the intent is to use this broader understanding of
LGBTQ students to increase the body of knowledge around this population. This
can be beneficial within the field of social work, and will hopefully be used to
create positive change in the form of improvements made to the systems that
serve LGBTQ students and members of the community. The findings proposed in
the present study, speculate a number of implications for the field of social work,
both in terms of advocacy on the macro level, and in providing direct services to
clients/students in clinical social work.
In terms of social justice advocacy, this profession would do well to work
toward a broader conception of social justice and translate this into actions such
as create a documentation form in police services for reporting hate crimes
committed against GLBT population. Social workers can professionally create
avenues for providing a clear, safe, visible means of reporting acts of intolerance
with special attention to including openly GLBTQ people on university
committees. Social workers can also act to respond visibly and expeditiously to
acts of intolerance directed at GLBT members of the community.
Most importantly, social workers need to actively explore the needs of this
vulnerable population through research, in order to best advocate for this group.
Specifically research on gender roles and its effect of people who do not conform
57
to normative gender roles. One implication of this research is the need for
additional programs and services that meet the needs of this population. Social
workers should advocate for the creation of LGBTQ-specific programs and
services in schools, and should promote anti-discrimination practices around
sexual orientation and gender expression in college campuses, improve mental
health treatment and engagement of the LGBTQ campus community and provide
safe/friendly housing programs for all students. Additionally, as a profession there
is a need to address the fragmentation of information about resources, thereby
improving access to services. The need for cultural competency training around
LGBTQ population is suggested as a way of decrease negative attitudes and
prejudice against LGBTQ students. Cultural incompetence on behalf of service
providers serves as a barrier for this population in accessing needed services.
While this research serves as a guiding point to shed light on problems within the
higher education system, the impact of these problems should be further
researched and fully addressed in order to truly understand predictors of
homophobia and discrimination in our communities.
58
Appendix A
Human Subjects Approval Letter
59
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
DIVISION OF SOCIAL WORK
To: Nicolas Caballero
Date: February 21, 2013
From: Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects
RE: YOUR RECENT HUMAN SUBJECTS APPLICATION
We are writing on behalf of the Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects from the
Division of Social Work. Your proposed study, “Attitudes and Beliefs Towards LGBTQ
Community in a College Campus.”
__X_ approved as
_ _ _EXEMPT __X__ MINIMAL RISK
Your human subjects approval number is: 12-13-037 . Please use this number in all
official correspondence and written materials relative to your study. Your approval
expires one year from this date. Approval carries with it that you will inform the
Committee promptly should an adverse reaction occur, and that you will make no
modification in the protocol without prior approval of the Committee.
The committee wishes you the best in your research.
Professors: Maria Dinis, Jude Antonyappan, Teiahsha Bankhead, Serge Lee, Kisun Nam, Maura
O’Keefe, Dale Russell, Francis Yuen
Cc: Antonyappan
60
Appendix B
Consent Form
61
CONSENT FORM
The research study you are being asked to participate in is entitled “ Attitudes and Beliefs
Towards LGBTQ Community in a College Campus” This is a correlational study
measuring attitudes and beliefs about LGBTQ community in college campus. The
questionnaire consists of 46 likert scale questions and it should take you about 20 minutes
to complete.
I understand that my name will not be linked to any data acquired. I understand that this
study will feature a number of surveys, some of which may request information that may
be of a personal nature. I am 18 years old or older. The data collected from this study will
be kept confidential and no other person other than the ones mentioned in this consent
form will be able to review that data. These rights include the right to confidentiality and
to withdraw from this study at any time, for whatever reason and at no penalty. To ensure
my confidentiality, all surveys will only be accessible to the primary researcher and will
be subsequently destroyed one year after the analysis of data is conducted. The researcher
has informed me that the study will look at attitudes and beliefs and my participation in
this research will add to the scientific literature.
This is a study considered to be exempt, there will be no discomfort or harm while
completing the questionnaire. If any discomfort may arise while completing the
questionnaire please contact the Counseling and Psychological Services (CAPS) on
campus at tel: 95819-6045
If you wish to know more information or the results of the study please contact the
primary researcher after May 31, 2013. The primary researcher of this study is Nicolas
Caballero. He can be reached via e-mail at nc2389@saclink.csus.edu . Nicolas Caballero
is under the supervision of Professor Jude Antonyappan and she may be reached at
916-278-7171, e-mail judea@saclink.csus.edu
By putting an “X” over the line I acknowledge that I have read the content of this page
and that I consent the use of this information for the study.
____________________________________________
Please sigh with an “X” over the line to provide consent.
62
Appendix C
Study Questionnaire
63
Demographics

Age
o 18-24
o 25-30
o 31-35
o 36-40
o 41-45
o 46-50
o 50 +

Sex
o Female
o Male
o Transgender

M/F

F/M
o Other

College Major
o _______________________________________

Ethnic Background
o ________________________________________
64
Instructions
You are asked to select one of the alternatives as true or more true for you. Sometimes it
may be difficult to agree with either alternative, as neither may seem very desirable to
you -- it may be the case that you agree with both alternatives, but you are still asked to
select the one item that most represents you and your opinion. The forced-choice format
solves some technical problems of measurement, but it is not always subjectively
comfortable to complete. Although you are, of course, free to refuse to answer any item,
the scientific purposes of the research are best fulfilled through you cooperation. In
addition the language use in some of the questions might be considered offensive by some
people, others may find the language representative of comments overheard in society. It
is not the author intent to offend anyone’s sensibility or to endorse any of the alternative
attitudes and beliefs as scientifically or socially valid. Rather, the intent of the inventory
is to measure your personal preferences in order to investigate beliefs, attitudes, and
behavior in a domain specific to the LGBTQ community.
1. transgender people just can’t fit into our society
Strongly Agree
2
3
4
Strongly
Disagree
2. After I’ve gone through a really dangerous experience
my knees
feel weak
and I shake
all over
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I feel high.
3. A woman’s homosexuality should not be cause for job discrimination in any
situation
Strongly Agree
2
3
4
Strongly
Disagree
65
4. I’d rather
gamble than
play it safe.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
play it safe
than gamble.
5. Female homosexuality is detrimental to society it breaks down the natural
division between the sexes
Strongly Agree
2
3
4
Strongly
Disagree
6. Call me a name and
I’ll pretend
not to hear
you.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I’ll call you
another.
7. State laws regulating private, consenting lesbian behavior should be
loosened
Strongly Agree
2
3
4
Strongly
Disagree
8. In love and war
you should
still play by
the rules.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
anything goes.
9. Female homosexuality is a sin
Strongly Agree
2
3
4
Strongly
Disagree
66
10. When I go to parties
I like wild,
uninhibited
parties.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I like quiet
parties with
good
conversations.
11. The growing number of queer people indicates a decline in
American morals
Strongly Agree
2
3
4
Strongly
Disagree
12. Some people have told me
I take foolish
risks.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I ought to take
more chances.
13. Female homosexuality in itself is not problem, but what society makes of it can be
a problem
Strongly Agree
2
3
4
Strongly
Disagree
14. So-called effeminate men
are more
artistic and
sensitive.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
deserve to be
ridiculed.
15. Female homosexuality is a threat to many of our basic social institutions
67
Strongly Agree
2
3
4
Strongly
Disagree
16. Using drugs or alcohol to “encourage” a woman to have sex with you is
gross and
unfair.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
OK if you can
get away with
it
17. Female/Male homosexuality is an inferior form of sexuality
Strongly Agree
2
3
4
Strongly
Disagree
18. I like
fast cars and
fast lovers.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
dependable
cars and
faithful lovers.
19. Lesbians are sick
Strongly Agree
2
3
4
Strongly
Disagree
20. So-called prick teasers
should be
forgiven.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
should be
raped.
21. Male homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt children the same as
heterosexual couples
68
Strongly Agree
2
3
4
Strongly
Disagree
22. When I have had a few drinks
I mellow
out.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I look for
trouble.
23. I think male homosexuality are disgusting
Strongly Agree
2
3
4
Strongly
Disagree
24. Any man who is a man
needs to
have sex
regularly.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
can do without
sex.
25. Male homosexuals should not be allowed to teach in schools
Strongly Agree
2
3
4
Strongly
Disagree
26. When I have a drink or two
I feel ready
for whatever
happens.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I like to relax
and enjoy
myself.
69
27. Male homosexuality is a perversion
Strongly Agree
2
3
4
Strongly
Disagree
28. When it comes to taking risks
I like to play
it safe.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I’m a high
roller.
29. Just as in other species, male homosexuality is a natural expression of sexuality in
human men
Strongly Agree
2
3
4
Strongly
Disagree
30. In conflicts with others
I win by not
fighting.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I fight to win.
31. If a man has homosexual feelings, he should do everything he can to overcome
them
Strongly Agree
2
3
32. Getting into fights
4
Strongly
Disagree
70
is natural for
me.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
never solves an
issue.
33. I would not be too upset if I learned that my son were homosexual
Strongly Agree
2
3
4
Strongly
Disagree
34. When I feel like fighting I
try to think
of
alternatives.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
go for it.
35. Homosexual behavior between men is just plain wrong
Strongly Agree
2
3
4
Strongly
Disagree
36. Given what I know about fighting,
it’s just
stupid.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
he who can,
fights; he who
can’t runs
away.
37. The idea of male homosexual marriages seems ridiculous to me
Strongly Agree
2
3
4
Strongly Disagree
71
38. When I’m bored
I watch TV or
read a book.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I look for
excitement.
39. Male homosexuality is merely a different kind of lifestyle that should not be
condemned
Strongly Agree
2
3
4
Strongly Disagree
40. I like to
drive safely,
avoiding all
unnecessary
risks.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
drive fast,
right on the
edge of
danger.
41. So-called pick-ups should
expect to put
out.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
42. Lesbians have a particular lifestyle
9
choose their men
carefully.
72
and should be
respected for
it.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
but really
just need a
good, stiff
cock.
43. In my opinion
I only want to
have sex with
someone who
is in total
agreement.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I never feel bad
about my tactics
when I have sex
44. If someone challenges you to a fight,
there’s no
choice but to
fight.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
it’s time to
talk your
way out of
it.
45. I would prefer to be a
famous
scientist.
2
3
4
5
6
7
46. If you insult me,
8
9
famous WWF
wrestler.
73
be prepared
to back it up.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I’ll try to
turn the
other
cheek.
74
References
Aberson, C. L., & Dora, J. (2003). Reactions to gay men: Contact and overcorrection in
an employee selection simulation. Current Psychology: Developmental,
Learning, Personality, and Social, 22, 164–174.
Basow, S., & Johnson, K. (2000). Predictors of Homophobia in female College Students .
Sex Roles, 42(5/6), 391-404.
Bogaert, A. F., & Fisher, W. A. (1995). Predictors of university men’s number of sexual
partners. The Journal of Sex Research, 32(2), 119–130.
Britzman, D. (1997). What is this thing called love?: New discourses for understanding
gay and lesbian youth. In S. de Castell & M. Bryson (Eds.), Radical
interventions: identity, politics, and differences on educational praxis (pg. 183207). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Brown, R. D., Clarke, B., Gortmaker, V., & Robinson-Keilig, R. (2004). Assessing the
campus climate for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) students
using a multiple perspectives approach. Journal of College Student Development,
45, 8–26.
Brown, R. D., Clarke, B., Gortmaker, V., & Robinson-Keilig, R. (2004). Assessing the
campus climate for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) students
using a multiple perspectives approach. Journal of College Student
Butler, J. (1991). Imitaton and gender subordination. In D. Fuss (ed.), Inside/out: Lesbian
theories, gay theories (pg.13-31).
75
California Postsecondary Education Commission -- Program Review. (n.d.). California
Postsecondary Education Commission - Home Page. Retrieved March 28, 2012,
from http://www.cpec.ca.gov/Reviews/ProgramReview.asp
Cowan, G., Heiple, B., Marquez, C., Khatchadourian, D., & McNevin, M. (2005).
Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward hate crimes and hate speech against gays and
lesbians:
Craig, S., Tucker, E., & Wagner, E. (2008). Empowering Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and
Transgender Youth: Lessons Learned From a Safe Schools Summit. Journal of
Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 20(3), 237-252.
Davies, M. (2004). Correlates of Negative Attitudes Toward Gay Men: Sexism, Male
Role Norms, and Male Sexuality . The Journal of Sex Research, 41(3), 259266.Development, 45, 8–26.DOI: 10.1080/00918369.2011.605728
Dunkle, J., & Francis, P. (1990). The Role of Facial Masculinity/Femininity in the
Attribution of Homosexuality . Sex Roles, 23(3/4), 157-167.
Evans, N. J. (2001). The experiences of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths in university
communities. In A. R. D’Augelli & C. Patterson (Eds.), Lesbian, gay, and
bisexual identities and youth: Psychological perspectives (pp. 181–198). New
York: Oxford University Press.
Ferfolja, T. (2007). Schooling Cultures: Institutionalizing Heteronormativity and
Heterosexism . International Journal of Inclusive Education, 11(2), 147-162.
Fyfe, B. (1983). "Homophobia" or homosexual bias reconsidered. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 12, 549-554.
76
Grossman, A., Haney, A., Edwards, P., Alessi, E., Ardon, M., & Howel, T. (2009).
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Youth Talk about Experiencing and
Coping with School Violence: A Qualitative Study. Journal of LGBT Youth, 6,
24–46.
Groth, A.N. (1979). Men who rape. New York: Plenum.
Herek, G. (1988). Heterosexuals' attitudes Toward Lesbian and Gay Men: Correlates and
Gender Differences . The Journal of Sex Research, 25(4), 451-477. Journal of
Homosexuality, 58, 1159-1164.
Herek, G. (1998). Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men Scale. In C. Davis, W.
Yarber, R. Bauserman, G. Schreer, and S. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of Sexuality
Related Measures (pp. 392-394). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Izard, C.E. (1977). Human emotions. New York: Plenum Press.
Johnson, G. M., & Knight, R. A. (2000). Developmental antecedents of sexual coercion
in juvenile sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and
Treatment, 12(3), 165–178.
Lock, J., & Kleis, B. (1998). Origins of Homophobia in Males Psychosexual
Vulnerabilities and Defense Development . American Journal of Psychotherapy,
52(4), 425-436.
McConahay, J. B. (1986). Modern racism, ambivalence, and the Modern Racism Scale.
In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism
(pp. 99–125). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
77
McCreary, D. (1994). The Male Role and Avoiding Femininity . Sex Roles, 31(9/10),
517-531.
Morrison, M. A., & Morrison, T. G. (2002). Development and validation of a scale
measuring modern prejudice toward gay men and lesbian women. Journal of
Homosexuality, 43(2), 15–37.
Mosher, D.L., & Tomkins, S.S. (1988). Scripting the macho man: Hypermasculine
socialization and enculturation. Journal of Sex Research, 25, 60-84.
Mosher, D.L., Sirkin, M. (1992). Vicarious emotional responses of macho college males.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7, 165-174.
Mosher, D.L., Sirkin, M. (1992). Vicarious emotional responses of macho college males.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7, 165-174.
Neisen, J. (1990). Heterosexism: Redefining Homophobia for the 1990s. Journal of Gay
& Lesbian Psychotherap, 1(3), 21-35.
Norris, J., George, W. H., Davis, L. C., Martell, J., & Leonesio, R. J. (1999). Alcohol and
hyper- masculinity as determinants of men’s empathic responses to violent
pornography. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 683–701.
Old-fashioned and modern heterosexism. Journal of Homosexuality, 49(2), 67–82.
Parrot, D.J., & Zeichner, A. (2003). Effects of Hypermasculinity on Physical Aggression
Against Women. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 4, 70-78.
Parrott, D. J., Adams, H. E., & Zeichner, A. (2002). Homophobia: Personality and
attitudinal correlates. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 1269–1278.
78
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students. Vol. 2. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Rankin, S. (1998). The campus climate report: Assessment and intervention strategies. In
R. Sanlo (Ed.), Working with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender college
students: A handbook for faculty and administrators (pp. 277–284). Westport,
CT: Greenwood Press.
Rankin, S. (2003). Campus climate for LGBT people: A national perspective. New York:
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute.
Rankin, S. (2005). Campus climates for sexual minorities. New Directions for Student
Services, 111, 17–23.
Ray, A. L., & Gold, S. R. (1996). Gender roles, aggression, and alcohol use in dating
relation- ships. The Journal of Sex Research, 33(1), 47–55.
reaction to the self? Journal of Homosexuality.
Robinson, D. T., & Schwartz, J. P. (2004). Relationship between gender role conflict and
attitudes toward women and African-Americans. Psychology of Men and
Masculinity, 5, 65–71.
Ryan, K. M. (1995). Do courtship-violent men have characteristics associated with a
“battering personality?” Journal of Family Violence, 10, 99–120.
Seidman, S. (1996). The Politics of Inside/out: Queer Theory, Posttructuralism, and a
Sociological Approach to sexuality . Queer theory/sociology (pp. 194-212).
Cambridge, Mass: Blackwell.
79
Sullivan, J. P., & Mosher, D. L. (1990). Acceptance of guided imagery of marital rape as
a function of macho personality. Violence and Victims, 5, 275–286.
Swim, J. K., Aiken, K. J., Hall, W. S., & Hunter, B. A. (1995). Sexism and racism: Oldfashioned and modern prejudices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
68, 199–214.
Teicher, M. H., Samson, J. A., Polcari, A., & McGreenery, C. E. (2006). Sticks, stones,
and hurtful words: Relative effects of various forms of childhood maltreatment.
American Journal of Psychiatry, 163(6), 993–1000.
Theodore, P. S., & Basow, S. A. (in press). Heterosexual masculinity and homophobia: A
Tierney,W.,& Dilley, P, (1998). Constructing Knowledge: Educational research and gay
and lesbian studies. InW.Pinar (Ed.), Queer Theory in education (pg.49-71).
Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
Tougas, F., Brown, R., Beaton, A. M., & Joly, S. (1995). Neosexism: Plus ça change,
plus c’est pareil. [The more things change, the more they are the same].
Personality and So- cial Psychology Bulletin, 21, 842–849.
Tougas, F., Desruisseaux, J. C., Desrochers, A., St-Pierre, L., Perrino, A., & de la Sablonnière, R. (2004). Two forms of racism and their related outcomes: The bad and
the ugly. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 36, 177–189.
Vass, J. S., & Gold, S. R. (1995). Effects of feedback on emotion in hypermasculine
males. Violence and Victims, 10(3), 217–226.
80
Watson, D., Clark, L., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief
measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070
Wright, P. J., & McKinley, C. J. (2010). Services and information for sexually
compulsive students on college counseling center websites: Results from a
national sample. Journal of Health Communication