Abstract
This study aimed to determine variables which make college students more or less
likely to perceive homosexuality in another college student. Hypotheses
suggested that the tendency to ascribe homosexuality would be related to
voluntary association and participants’ contact with LGBT individuals; but that
the tendency would not be related to political ideology or political
affiliation. Participants read a vignette about a college student of undisclosed
sexuality and made a decision about his sexuality based on variations in the
vignette. Significant results indicated that college students’ tendency to
ascribe homosexuality was not related to political ideology or political
affiliation, as hypothesized. Non-significant results indicated that college
students’ tendency to ascribe homosexuality was not related to voluntary
association or participants’ previous contact with LGBT individuals. This study
suggests that straight allies do not pay a price for voluntarily associating
with their gay friends.
Keywords: sexual orientation,
courtesy stigma, Millenial generation
“For social scientists, the opportunity to serve in a life-giving purpose is a
humanist challenge of rare distinction.” (King, 1967, par. 3). Martin Luther
King, Jr. articulated this phrase as a call-to-arms for social scientists and
his words ring true today. Yet, the struggle has transitioned from one minority
group to another. Society has entered another area of social justice, and
psychology sits at the center of the issue. There are multiple facts that call
attention to LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) concerns and rights in
our society:
3.5% of Americans classify as LGBT (Stark, 2012).
48% of Americans oppose same-sex marriage today, but 68% of Americans opposed
same sex marriage in 1996 (Stark, 2012).
About one third of American LGBT youth have attempted to commit suicide (Robin,
Brener, Donahue, Hack, Hale, & Goodenow, 2002).
Over 80% of LGBT students have reported that faculty and staff make no effort to
stop verbal abuse and harassment in the classroom (GLSEN, 2003).
In 2005, more than 1 in every 10 cases of hate crimes was related to sexual
minority status (Robin et al., 2002).
Although these statistics highlight serious repercussions of homosexuality, it
is fundamentally important to note that they may also apply to people other than
homosexuals. Those who perpetrate these acts of abusedo not possess concrete
knowledge of another’s sexual identity; instead, these acts are based on
perceived homosexuality. It is
possible that a prejudiced person would act out against someone they perceive to
be a homosexual - maybe a feminine man or a masculine woman - even if that
person is heterosexual. This study sought to better understand the conditions in
which the label of homosexuality is applied to individuals in everyday life. Are
people perceived as homosexual when they act in a certain way, speak in a
certain way, or live in a certain way? This study aimed to determine variables
which make college students more or less likely to perceive homosexuality in
another college student.
Background: Nature vs. Nurture
The most basic question in the discourse on homosexuality is whether or not it
is “natural;” in other words, are people gay/lesbian because they were made that
way, or because they choose to be that way. Past research (Sarantakos, 1998) has
characterized this debate as essentialists versus social constructionists.
Essentialists believe that homosexuality comes from a fundamental component of
one’s identity and that it is unchangeable and fixed. Further, they posit that
homosexuals ‘come out’ when they accept themselves as gay or lesbian. Finally,
they support their argument by referencing the ineffectiveness of reparative
therapy (designed to adjust homosexuals back to the normal state of
heterosexuality). In fact, reparative therapy has increased the likelihood of
clients attempting suicide (Schidlo & Schoredor, 2002).
In contrast, social constructionists posit that one’s sexual identity is
not a fixed element of personality and that “what seems to be a self-discovery
is better considered as self-construction” (Sarantakos, 1998, p. 23). In
addition, they strongly suggest that sexuality constantly shifts and adjusts
throughout life, which would support their position of sexuality as a social
construct. A significant factor in one’s attitude towards LGBT people has been
between those who see it as a natural component of personality versus those who
see it as an unnatural component. This distinction strongly affects one’s
perception and attitude towards homosexuals.
Generational Differences
As indicated by a CBS News poll in May (Reals, 2012), there is a strongly
defined generational gap when considering attitudes towards the LGBT community.
On average, 38% of people stated that same-sex couples should be allowed to
marry, but when we striate the survey by age, we see a huge shift. In people
aged 18-44, 53% believed that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry; in
people aged 45 and over, only 24% believed that same-sex couples should be
allowed to marry. It is interesting to note that the 18-44 group had an almost
identical approval of same-sex marriage as did proclaimed Democrats when
considering the poll’s sampling error: 53% and 58%, respectively. In other
words, younger people are just as liberal as Democrats on the issue of same-sex
marriage.
The generational gap is also unique to this study because of the historical
context. From 1947 to 1997, a comprehensive analysis of Time and News Week
magazine articles by Bennet (ascited in Blackwell, 2008, p. 653) found that
“nearly every article was resoundingly critical of gays and lesbians both in
language and in content.” Eight years ago, a national survey (Capehart, 2012)
found that 31% of respondents stated that same-sex marriage should be legal,
while 60% stated that it should be illegal. Just this year, when asked the same
question, 48% of respondents stated that same-sex marriage should be legal, and
44% stated that it should be illegal. There is an undeniable rise in support for
same-sex marriage; if the trend continues, there will be no other time better to
do research than the moment when opinions are basically tied.
It is important to remember that this research project pertains specifically to
college students. Current polls show that 35% of the Silent Generation (68-85)
support gay marriage, 38% of Baby Boomers (49-67) support gay marriage, and 49%
of Generation X support gay marriage (Pew-Forum, 2013). Although no more than
half of those above the age of 32 support gay marriage, 70% of the Millenial
Generation (32 and under) support gay marriage (Pew-Forum 2013). These
statistics show that the Millenial Generation (including current college
students) support same-sex marriage. This study takes that knowledge into
consideration by suggesting that the Millenials being sampled will also have
less prejudice towards the LGBT population.
Allport’s Contact Hypothesis
In 1954, Allport changed the landscape of psychology with his work on
prejudice, specifically his theory of contact hypothesis (Bowen & Bourgeois,
2001). He suggested that people become more accepting and less discriminatory of
a group of people once they actually know those people. In other words, more
familiarity and experience with a different group leads to better understanding
and less stereotypical thoughts. Past research has studied the effect of contact
with LGBT people before college (Bowen & Bourgeois, 2001). They found that
attitudes towards homosexuals improved drastically when they lived in the same
residence halls, took a class to familiarize themselves with the LGBT community,
or simply interacted with homosexuals in the classroom. This theory has been
used in reference to many different minority groups, specifically ethnic
minorities (Bowman, 2012) and it will be interesting to see how it relates to
sexual orientation minorities.
Cross-Cultural Background
Research relating to attitude formation toward the LGBT community is not
limited to the United States. In fact, many nations have conducted research
concerning this topic; two of the most relevant studies come from Turkey and
China. Cirakoglu (2006) found that college-aged students in Turkey applied
varying attitudes towards labels relating to the LGBT community, such as
“lesbian,” “gay,” or “homosexual.” Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)
testing strongly suggested that students’ attitudes were directly impacted by
their gender, the label, and level of contact. In addition, Cao, Wang, and Gao
(2010) researched the correlation between Chinese students’ perception of LGBT
individuals and their attitudes towards the LGBT community. Significant results
indicated that there are multiple independent variables which impact attitude,
including perception, area of study, and contact. These studies are
representative of the world-wide interest in the topic of attitude formation
towards the LGBT community.
Relevancy
College students are relevant in this overarching discussion for reasons
more than that they are easy to sample. For instance, LGB college students are
impacted by the manner in which their peers and faculty treat them. Schmidt,
Miles, and Welsh sought to better understand the influence of homosexuality on
students’ college experience (2011). They found that college is different for
heterosexual students than it is for LGB students, as evidenced by the ways they
spend their time and the activities in which they participate. In addition,
their study strongly indicated that LGB students experience greater confusion on
career choices and that career confusion is strongly predicated on perceived
discrimination and social support. Also, college students serve as a unique
population because of their impact on professional LGBT individuals in one of
the safest working environments: the college campus. In other words, college
students’ attitudes towards the LGBT community have a direct impact on LGBT
professors on college campuses. Previous research indicates that college
students tend to view LGBT professors as biased (Anderson & Kanner, 2011). The
same study posited two cognitive structures that relate to this topic: subtle
prejudice and expectancy violation; both constructs were significantly supported
by the data collected in the study. Keeping in mind the unique role of college
students in the arena of attitude formation towards the LGBT community, this
paper seeks to understand the variables involved in perceiving homosexuality.
Courtesy Stigma
Goffman defined courtesy stigma as “the tendency for a person to be
stigmatized or devalued based on his or her association with a stigmatized
person” (Sigelman, 1991). Throughout this study, the phrase “engaging in
courtesy stigma” is equivalent to a belief that the new college student is
homosexual. Sigelman (1991) first studied this concept in relation to
homosexuality in a project very similar to the current study. In that project,
Sigelman performed a 2(roommate sexuality: gay or straight) x 2 (choice:
voluntary roommates or assigned roommates) between-subjects design. Participants
were read one of four vignettes. Each vignette contained a story about Paul, a
high school graduate of undisclosed sexual orientation getting ready to attend
college. In the control condition, Paul is openly gay; in the second control
condition, Paul rooms with a straight man. In the two test conditions, Paul
rooms with an openly gay man. In one of those test conditions, Paul chose to
room with the gay man; in the other test condition, Paul is assigned to room
with the gay man. When Sigleman (1991) performed an ANOVA (one-way analysis of
variance), the results indicated a significant difference in perceived
homosexuality, F (3, 108) = 9.41, p < .001. The results suggested that there was
a strong difference between the condition in which Paul chose to room with a gay
man compared to the condition in which Paul was assigned to room with the gay
man. In other words, participants saw Paul as gay more often when he chose to
room with a gay man, compared to when he was assigned to room with a gay man.
Hypotheses
This study is predicated on four separate research hypotheses. The
Political Awareness Hypothesis (1) states that college students at a midwestern
institution will judge policy issues in a manner consistent with their
self-reported party affiliation. The Affiliation Hypothesis (2) states that the
self-reported political party affiliation of college students at a midwestern
institution will not indicate their tendency to engage in courtesy stigma. The
Ideology Hypothesis (3) states that in college students at a midwestern
institution, the tendency to engage in courtesy stigma is not related to their
political ideology. The Choice hypothesis (4) states that college students at a
midwestern institution are more likely to engage in courtesy stigma if the
questionable person chooses to
associate with the stigmatized person. The Contact hypothesis (5) stated that
college students at a midwestern institution will be more likely to engage in
courtesy stigma if they have little or no association with LGB individuals.
Operationalized Variables
The following independent variables will be measured by self-reported
test items: age, gender, ethnicity, number of close friends who identify as
LGBT, number of close family members who identify as LGBT, political
affiliation, and political opinions on public policy topics (used later to
create a scale of political ideology). The dependent variable (participant’s
tendency to engage in courtesy stigma) will be measured by participants’
agreement with the statement “If Carter is rooming with Dawson (who is openly
gay), Carter is almost certainly gay. on a 7-point Likert scale.
Method
Participants
One hundred twenty students from a midwestern university participated in
the study; they did not receive any class credit or reward of any kind. This
study includes 42 men (35%) and 77 women (64.2%); one participant chose to
withhold his or her gender. Breakdown of the 118 who reported ethnicity was as
follows: 79.2% Caucasian, 9.2% African American, 0.8% Latino, 2.5% Asian
American, and 5.8% selected “other” as their ethnicity. 46 (38.3%) participants
identified as Democrat, 36 (30%) identified as Republican, and 36 (30%) selected
“other;” two chose to withhold political party affiliation.
Materials
In order to test participants’ tendency to engage in courtesy stigma,
this project used a between-subjects design. In other words, participants
received one of the two conditions and had no knowledge of the comparison. There
were two conditions. In condition 1, Paul was assigned to room with an openly
gay man. In this condition, the manipulated text stated: “Before coming to
college, he was assigned to a roommate in the dorms named Dawson. Two weeks
after college began, Dawson told Carter that he is gay. Carter stated it wasn’t
a big deal to him and he did not have any problems rooming with a gay guy.”
In condition 2, Paul chose to room with
an openly gay man. In this condition, the manipulated text stated: “Before
coming to college, Carter had to choose his roommate. After the school gave him
a few options, he chose to room with an openly gay guy named Dawson who had a
lot of similar interests.”
Before reading the survey, participants were asked to rate their
agreement with six different public policy statements. This portion of the
survey fulfilled two functions: it acted as filler statements to obscure the
research hypothesis; and, it allowed the experimenter to analyze political
ideology in relation to the test hypothesis. The public policies included
statements on six different topics: the definition of marriage, raising taxes on
the wealthiest 5% of Americans, the validity of the estate tax, the Affordable
Care Act (“Obamacare”), immigration, and assault weapons ban. There were three
social issues and three economic issues. In order to increase validity and avoid
position preference, three of the statements were phrased in a liberal-leaning
manner, while three were phrased in a conservative-leaning manner.
After reading the vignette, participants were asked to answer multiple questions
about Dawson and Carter’s rooming situation, such as their potential to be good
roommates, Carter’s likeability as a friend, and Carter’s femininity. There were
five questions in total, including the primary question: “If I had to guess
Carter’s sexuality, I would classify him as gay.” The other four questions were
unrelated to the research hypothesis, but they served as excellent filler
statements to confound the research hypothesis.
Procedure
Participants were asked to complete the four page survey during class
periods. Participants were informed that they could withdraw from the study at
any time, if they became overly uncomfortable; they were also informed verbally
and in written instruction that all responses were anonymous. After completion
of the surveys, the experimenter debriefed the participants and answered any
questions regarding the research study. Data were collected in accordance with
the ethical standards of the American Psychological Association (American
Psychological Association, 2010).
Results
To test the hypothesis that college students at a midwestern institution
will judge policy issues in a manner consistent with their self-reported
political party affiliation, a party affiliation (Republican, Independent,
Democrat) by political ideology one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was
performed. Results indicated a
significant difference in political ideology based on political party
affiliation, F (2,113) = 22.441, p < .001. In other words, there is significant
difference between Democrats, Independents, and Republicans when judging public
policy issues. The hypothesis is supported.
To test the hypothesis that the self-reported political party affiliation of
college students at a midwestern institution will not indicate their tendency to
engage in courtesy stigma, a party affiliation (Republican, Independent,
Democrat) by courtesy stigma one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed.
Results indicated a non-significant difference in courtesy stigma based
on political party affiliation, F
(2,115) = 2.331, p < .102. In other words, there is no difference between
Democrats and Republicans when judging Carter’s sexuality. The hypothesis is
supported.
To test the hypothesis that the tendency to engage in courtesy stigma is not
related to their political ideology, a political ideology (conservative,
moderate, liberal) by courtesy stigma one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was
performed. Results indicated a
non-significant difference in courtesy stigma based on political ideology, F
(2,115) = .917, p < .554. In other words, there is no difference between
political Conservatives, Moderates, and Liberals when judging Carter’s
sexuality. The hypothesis is supported.
To test the hypothesis that college students at a midwestern institution are
more likely to engage in courtesy stigma if the questionable person
chooses to associate with the
stigmatized person, an independent samples t-test was performed.
Results indicated a non-significant difference in courtesy stigma between
condition 1 (assigned roommates; M = 3.0, S.D. = 1.39) and condition 2
(voluntary roommates; M = 2.97, S.D. = 1.41), T (118) = .13, p = 0.494. In other
words, there is no statistical difference in courtesy stigma when comparing the
assigned roommate condition and the voluntary roommate condition. The hypothesis
is not supported.
In order to test the hypothesis that college students at a midwestern
institution will be more likely to engage in courtesy stigma if they have little
or no association with LGB individual, a total homosexual acquaintances (low,
medium, high) by courtesy stigma one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was
performed. Results indicated a non-significant difference in courtesy stigma
based on total acquaintances in one’s life. The hypothesis was not supported.
Discussion
The first hypothesis predicted that college students are consistent in their
political party affiliation and their political ideology; there were significant
results to support this assertion. This hypothesis suggests that college-aged
Millenials are politically cognizant of current issues and party stances that
they can make informed and consistent decisions. In the future, it would be
interesting to see if this consistency results in increased political activism.
The second and third hypotheses suggested that political ideology and
political party affiliation will not influence one’s tendency to engage in
courtesy stigma. Both hypotheses were supported with significant statistical
results, which may indicate that homosexuality is becoming less of a partisan
issue. One may even posit that college-aged Millenials are becoming more liberal
on social issues or that they see homosexuals as full citizens who deserve the
same rights and privileges as heterosexual citizens.
The fourth hypothesis suggested that choice makes a difference in one’s tendency
to engage in courtesy stigma. This hypothesis was strongly refuted by the data,
which may be interpreted as a very positive development. If this data is
replicated in other studies, it would imply that homosexuals’ straight
acquaintances do not need to avoid contact with their friends. This result may
be the most significant of any in this study. It indicates that there is very
little cost to being a straight ally to LGBT individuals. In other words,
homosexuals’ friends need not be concerned about receiving a stigma of
homosexuality simply because they choose to spend time with their gay friends.
The final hypothesis suggested that people will be less likely to engage in
courtesy stigma if they have acquaintances in the stigmatized population. This
hypothesis was not supported by the data, but that may be a positive
development. If people tend to not engage in courtesy stigma - no matter their
prior contact with the stigmatized population - it could mean that individuals
do not need that personal touch to avoid prejudice. It could indicate that
people are less biased, even without having encountered an LGBT individual to
change their mind. The contact hypothesis operates on the idea that people will
lose their prejudices once they come into contact with individuals from the
stigmatized group. We can think of the contact hypothesis as a paired-samples
t-test, with the contact acting as the intervention. Before the intervention
(contact with the stigmatized group), individuals will hold higher levels of
prejudice. After the intervention, individuals tend to hold lower levels of
prejudice. If participants were strongly avoidant of courtesy stigma - even
without prior contact - it may indicate that the prejudices did not exist to
begin with - that the intervention made no difference because there were no
prejudices to lower in the first place.
Limitations
If this study is repeated in the future, there are a few alterations that would
improve the quality of the results. First, this study largely neglects the
second component of courtesy stigma - the devaluation of individuals acquainted
with the stigmatized group. In other words, this study does not measure the
tendency of participants to devalue the questionable individual (Carter); it
only measured the tendency of participants to describe him as gay. Second, in
studying political party affiliation, this study equated “Other” (political
party) with “moderate” political
ideology. After performing the research, it would be much more accurate to list
“Independent” as a political party instead of assuming that “Other” is
equivalent to “Independent.” Third, this study is not generalizable to the
general population. We must keep in mind that the sample population was 100%
college students, who tend to be more educated and more liberal than the general
population. Also, we should remember that Millenials are very unique in their
views on this topic, as discussed above.
Implications
When we view this project in the larger schema of social psychology, it does add
to the literature. It shows that courtesy stigma is not stagnant from the
Sigelman study (1991) to the current study. It shows that the millennial
generation is perhaps more open-minded than previous generations in terms of its
views on same-sex marriage. In addition, this study combines psychology and
political science to analyze the intersection of courtesy stigma, homosexuality,
civil rights, and political behaviors. These areas of social science are too
often kept separate; this study shows us that a more holistic approach offers a
much better analysis and a broader picture of human behavior. Finally, this
study suggests that straight allies in college do
not have to pay a price for their
acceptance and tolerance of lifestyles different from their own. It shows that
this sample of college students refrained from ascribing perceived homosexuality
without data to support that suggestion. Most importantly, it suggests that
homosexual college students can experience a safe environment in institutions of
higher education. They may not have to worry about their friends being treated
differently because of them. This research may provide hope that gay college
students may have a safe environment to explore their identity while maintaining
their friendships.
References
Anderson, K.J., & Kanner, M. (2011). Inventing a gay agenda: Students’
perceptions of lesbian and gay professors.
Journal of applied Social Psychology,
41.
Blackwell, C. W. (2008). Nursing implications in the applications of conversion therapies on gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender clients. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 29 (6), 651-655.
Bowman, N.A., & Griffin, T.M. (2012). Secondary transfer effects of interracial contact: The moderating role of social status. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 18 (1), 35-44.
Bowen, A.M., & Bourgeois, M.J. (2001). Attitudes toward lesbian, gay, and
bisexual college students: The contribution of pluralistic ignorance, dynamic
social impact, and contact theories.
Journal of American College Health, 50 (2), 35-44
Cao, H., Wang, P., Gao, Y. (2010). A survey of Chinese university students’ perceptions of attitudes towards homosexuality. Social Behavior & Personality: An international journal, 38 (6), 721-728.
Çirakoğlu, O. (2006). Perception of homosexuality among Turkish university
students: the roles of labels, gender, and prior contact.
Journal of Social Psychology, 146
(3), 293-305.
GLSEN. (2003). The 2003 national school climate survey: the school related
experiences of our nations’ lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth
Lamar, L. & Kite, M. (1998). Sex differences in attitudes toward gay men and
lesbians: A multidimensional perspective.
The Journal of Sex Research, 35 (2), 189-196
Reals, T. (2012, May 14). CBS News. Retrieved from
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57433493-503544/poll-most-americans-support-same-sex-unions/
Robin, L., Brener, N.D., Donahue, S.F., Hack, T., Hale, K., Goodenow, C. (2002)
Associations between health risk behaviors and opposite-, same-, and both-sex
sexual partners in representative samples of Vermont and Massachusetts high
school students. Archive of Pediatric and
Adolescent Medicine, 156 (4), 349-355
Sarantakos, S. (1998). Sex and power in same-sex couples.
Australian Journal of Social Issues,
33 (1), 17-36.
Schidlo, A., & Schroeder, M. (2002). Changing sexual orientation: A consumers’ report. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33 (3), 249-259.
Schmidt, C.K., Miles, J.R., Welsh, A.C. (2011). Perceived discrimination and social support: The influences on career development and college adjustment of LGBT college students. Journal of Career Development, 38 (293).
Stark, C. (2012, May 12). CNN Library. Retrieved from
http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/ 11/politics/btn-same-sex-marriage/index.html