Journal of GLBT Family Studies
For Peer Review Only
Social f actors affecting attitudes toward Same -Sex Marriage in a Greek sample
Journal: Journal of GLBT Family Studies
Manuscript ID: WGFS-2015-0063
Manuscript Type: Original Article
Keywords: same sex marriage, sexual minorities, attitudes, GLBT, sexual prejudice
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/glbtfs Email: [email protected] Page 1 of 19 Journal of GLBT Family Studies
1 2 3 4 Social factors affecting attitudes toward Same-Sex Marriage in a Greek sample 5 6 7 8 9 ABSTRACT- This study examined the role of specific social variables in the 10 11 prediction of negative attitudes toward same sex marriage. Based on previous 12 13 14 research,For it appeared Peer that gender, age, Review political ideology (conservatism), Only religiosity 15 16 and personal contact, are useful variables to examine in predicting attitudes towards 17 18 same sex marriage. The sample ( N= 391) consisted of students and no-students at 19 20 various departments of major Universities in Athens. The Greek version of the Same- 21 22 23 Sex Marriage Scale (ATSM) was used along with a brief demographics questionnaire. 24 25 Correlation Analysis showed that more tolerant attitudes toward same sex marriage 26 27 were associated with religiosity, political self designation, gender, age, contact with 28 29 LGBT individuals, indicating that those who have less tolerant attitudes toward same 30 31 sex marriage tend to be men, individuals with higher levels of religiosity, older, not 32 33 34 having a previous contact with LGBT individuals and politically conservative. 35 36 Regression analysis revealed religiosity, political self designation, gender, age and 37 38 personal contact with LGBT individuals to be independent predictors of attitudes 39 40 toward same sex marriage. 41 42 43 Key words: same sex marriage, attitudes, sexual minorities, 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 1 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/glbtfs Email: [email protected] Journal of GLBT Family Studies Page 2 of 19
1 2 3 Introduction 4 5 One of the major public issues around the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender 6 7 (LGBT) rights in Greece over the last years has been the issue of political marriage 8 9 10 and legal recognition of partnership status for same sex couples. In a heated debate 11 12 most political actors have claimed that Greek society is not ready to accept the 13 14 introductionFor of legal Peer recognition of Reviewsame sex couples (Pavlou, Only 2009). 15 16 According to LGBT organizations and activist campaigns, the Greek 17 18 19 Constitution and Civil Code in regard to unions through marriage use the term 20 21 ‘persons’ and not sexes and therefore do not prohibit same sex marriage, but such 22 23 argument is of doubtful legal validity. In fact, the NCHR, in its 2004 report on gay 24 25 rights, considering such impasse, recommended to the Greek government to recognize 26 27 the same sex couples so that they cease to be discriminated against on matters of 28 29 30 inheritance, tax, social security, health and welfare, pensions, and work (Pavlou, 31 32 2009). In November 2008 the Greek Parliament voted in favor of Act 3719/2008 that 33 34 allowed civil unions only in for partners of different sex. This Act is considered 35 36 discriminatory on the grounds that it does not offer legal recognition for the relation 37 38 39 between two same-sex adults, or their children. This lack of legal recognition of 40 41 diverse forms of families results in discrimination in a number of areas of life. For 42 43 instance same-sex partners are not recognized as next of kin in inheritance rights, 44 45 social security rights, taxation and pensions. In any case, the lack of official 46 47 recognition of same-sex civil partnerships in Greece, in contrast with other EU 48 49 50 member states, impedes the application of Directive 2004/38/EC to de facto partners 51 52 of Greek citizens in cases of relocation to another EU member state (Pavlou, 2009). 53 54 Past cross-national European surveys, using single item measures on the issue, 55 56 suggested that the vast majority of Greek citizens (84%) opposed same-sex marriage 57 58 59 60 2 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/glbtfs Email: [email protected] Page 3 of 19 Journal of GLBT Family Studies
1 2 3 (European Commission, 2006). Greece also tops the list of the European Union 4 5 member states where discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation is particularly 6 7 widespread (Hanneke Van den Akker et al., 2012). According to Pavlou (2009) age, 8 9 10 sex, education and political orientation are decisive factors for negative attitudes. The 11 12 elderly, men, less educated and conservative individuals are far more negative and 13 14 intolerantFor towards LGBTPeer individuals. Review Only 15 16 This study examines the association between Attitudes Toward Same-Sex 17 18 19 Marriage Scale (ATSM; Pearl & Galupo, 2007) and theoretically relevant 20 21 demographic, psychological, and personality variables in a sample of Greek 22 23 population. 24 25 26 27 Research on attitudes toward same –sex marriage 28 29 30 Women seem to be more in favor of same-sex marriage than men ( Brumbaugh, 31 32 Sanchez, Nock, & Wright, 2008). Herek (2002) found that male and female 33 34 respondents’ attitudes toward the civil rights of sexual minorities differed in 35 36 accordance with whether the target was gay or lesbian. For example, no difference 37 38 39 was found between heterosexual men and women in their level of support for lesbian 40 41 marriage. For gay men, however, heterosexual male respondents evidenced 42 43 significantly greater opposition. Further research also suggests that heterosexual men 44 45 and women differ in their attitudes toward same-sex marriage (Lannutti & Lachlan, 46 47 2008; Moskowitz et al. 2010 ). In particular, Moskowitz et al, (2010) suggest that men 48 49 50 show a clear preference for lesbian marriage over gay male marriage. 51 52 Regarding political self designation (i.e., as right-wing conservative or left- 53 54 wing liberal) and support for gay and lesbian human rights, in United States, 55 56 Democrats and Independents are more likely than Republicans to believe that same- 57 58 59 60 3 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/glbtfs Email: [email protected] Journal of GLBT Family Studies Page 4 of 19
1 2 3 sex marriages should be recognized as a legal form of marriage (Gallup, 2003) and 4 5 are less likely to favor a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a 6 7 heterosexual institution (Gallup, 2006). Political conservatism seems particularly 8 9 10 important to those who are opposed to same sex marriage (e.g., Brumbaugh, Sanchez, 11 12 Nock, & Wright, 2008). According to Pavlou (2009) in Greece conservative 13 14 individualsFor are far morePeer negative and Review intolerant towards LGBT Only rights. 15 16 Attitudes towards same sex marriage are also uniquely related to religious 17 18 19 beliefs. Same-sex marriage policies are potentially more likely to invoke a morality- 20 21 based response from religiously affiliated individuals than are anti-discrimination 22 23 laws involving sexual orientation (Barclay & Fisher, 2003; Wald, Button, & Rienzo, 24 25 1996 in Pearl & Galupo, 2007; Walls, 2010). Those who self describe as highly 26 27 religious are much more likely to oppose same-sex marriages than those who are less 28 29 30 religious (Brumbaugh et al.; Gallup, 2006). 31 32 Research data also show that individuals who report greater interpersonal 33 34 contact with LGBT individuals consistently express more positive attitudes (Eldridge 35 36 et al., 2006; Hinrichs & Rosenberg, 2002). In particular Haider-Markel & Joslyn 37 38 39 (2008) found that gay friendships were connected to a respondent’s belief that lesbian, 40 41 gay and bisexual couples should have the same marital rights as heterosexual couples. 42 43 Moreover, another study found that individuals were inclined to vote against anti-gay 44 45 marriage referendums when they had interpersonal contact with lesbian, gay and 46 47 bisexual acquaintances and couples (Barth et al., 2009). According to Pavlou (2009) 48 49 50 Greek respondents tend to have a less diverse range of friends and acquaintances than 51 52 is evidenced for the EU as a whole and only 16% declare to have friends or 53 54 acquaintances who are homosexuals. 55 56 57 58 59 60 4 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/glbtfs Email: [email protected] Page 5 of 19 Journal of GLBT Family Studies
1 2 3 Age seems to be particularly important to individual attitudes regarding same- 4 5 sex marriage irrespective of gender. Galupo and Pearl (2007) found that positive 6 7 attitudes towards same-sex marriage were most likely to be reported by younger 8 9 10 participants. In another research sixty-one percent of young adults between the ages of 11 12 18-29 held the view that gay marriages should be recognized legally, compared to 13 14 22% ofFor those over agePeer 65 (Gallup, 2003).Review Only 15 16 The above variables consistently have been emphasized in the literature and 17 18 social discourse as primary factors for resisting legal recognition of same-sex 19 20 21 marriage (e.g. Brumbaugh et al., 2008; Gallup, 2003; 2006; Pearl & Paz-Galupo, 22 23 2007). 24 25 26 27 Purpose and Hypotheses 28 29 Since there is no study in Greece regarding attitudes toward same-sex marriage and 30 31 32 possible social variables that best predict them the main purpose of this study was the 33 34 examination of Greek attitudes toward same-sex marriage using a validated scale and 35 36 the relationship of these attitudes to other psychosocial and personality variables (e.g., 37 38 political self designation, religiosity, gender, age, interpersonal contact with LGBT 39 40 41 individuals). In particular, it was hypothesized (H1) that women would report more 42 43 tolerant- positive attitudes than men towards same-sex marriage. In addition, (H2) it 44 45 was predicted that more tolerant attitudes toward same-sex marriage would be related 46 47 to lower levels of religiosity, (H3) lower levels of political right-wing conservatism 48 49 and (H4) interpersonal contact with LGBT individuals and (H5) young age. 50 51 52 Method 53 54 Participants and Procedure 55 56 57 58 59 60 5 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/glbtfs Email: [email protected] Journal of GLBT Family Studies Page 6 of 19
1 2 3 We collected data from 391 participants from various places (e.g. coffee 4 5 places) of major universities in Athens (Panteion university, university of Athens, 6 7 Athens polytechnic, economics university of Athens). 8 9 10 Participants were asked to state their gender as “woman”, and/or “man” and/or 11 12 “blank text” (how do you currently describe your gender?). Participants had the 13 14 option Forto ‘select all Peerthat apply’. No Reviewparticipant used more than Only one selection and no- 15 16 one used the choice of a preferred term (blank text). As regards sexual orientation, 10 17 18 19 participants identified themselves as homosexual and 18 as bisexual. It should be 20 21 noted that 9 students also refused to participate in the study for no particular reason. 22 23 Participants’ age ranged from 18 – 78 years, with a mean age of 26.97 years 24 25 (SD=10.18). All the participants were nationals of Greece, described their ethnicity as 26 27 Greek and identified themselves as white (Table 1). All participants were treated in 28 29 30 accordance with the ethical standards of the American Psychological Association 31 32 (APA, 2002). 33 34 35 Procedure 36 37 Participation was voluntary and anonymous. Participants were approached 38 39 40 individually by a field researcher while waiting for classes, in student cafeterias, the 41 42 library, etc. The researcher first informed and then waited -but not supervised- for the 43 44 completion of the questionnaire somewhere near and then debriefed those who 45 46 participated. No other information was requested from participants. Participants were 47 48 provided with an envelope in order to assure that their answers were anonymous 49 50 51 along with a copy of the consent form. The procedure lasted approximately 5 52 53 minutes. All data were collected during October and November 2013. 54 55 Materials 56 57 58 59 60 6 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/glbtfs Email: [email protected] Page 7 of 19 Journal of GLBT Family Studies
1 2 3 Attitudes toward same-sex marriage was assessed using the Greek version of 4 5 Attitudes Toward Same-Sex Marriage scale (Grigoropoulos & Kordoutis, in press). 6 7 This scale consists of 17 items that are measured on a five point Likert-type scale with 8 9 10 response options ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). Possible 11 12 scores ranged from 17 (highly negative attitudes) to 85 (highly positive attitudes). 13 14 Based onFor the present Peer sample of participants, Review this scale obtained Only a Cronbach reliability 15 16 estimate of .95. 17 18 19 The basic demographics questionnaire included questions on gender, age, and 20 21 sexual orientation (homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, other/please specify). One 22 23 item measured religiosity factors. Participants were asked to state their frequency of 24 25 attendance at religious services on a scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (frequently), 26 27 (Hinrichs & Rosenberg, 2002; Olson et al., 2006). One item tapped the political 28 29 30 conservatism –liberalism dimension. Participants were asked to self-identify as 31 32 political conservatives (described as more conventional social beliefs, approval of 33 34 authoritarian aggression to maintain social order and submission to government 35 36 authority) – or not conservative (described as resistance to conformity and tradition, 37 38 39 no approval of authoritarian aggression to maintain social order and no submission to 40 41 government authority). Respondents indicated on a bipolar scale ranging from (1) 42 43 extremely not conservative to (7) extremely conservative, whether they ‘‘think of 44 45 themselves politically as not-conservatives or conservatives”. Higher scores indicated 46 47 greater conservatism. Interpersonal contact was tapped by a dichotomous measure. 48 49 50 Respondents stated whether they have ever had any friends, relatives or close 51 52 acquaintances that were LGBT individuals (1= Yes, 2= No) (i.e. Herek, 2002). 53 54 55 56 Results 57 58 59 60 7 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/glbtfs Email: [email protected] Journal of GLBT Family Studies Page 8 of 19
1 2 3 4 5 Descriptive Statistics 6 7 Scores on the total 17-item ATSSM scale ranged from 16-80 points, with higher 8 9 10 scores reflecting more positive attitudes. The mean score was 52.87 (SD=15.4), 11 12 indicating that participants do tend to hold positive attitudes, as measured by this 13 14 scale, asFor the mean scorePeer was above Reviewthe average. Only 15 16 17 18 19 Correlation Analysis 20 21 Table 2 provides the intercorrelation matrix between the measures of the study. As 22 23 shown in the table, attitudes toward same sex marriage were negatively associated 24 25 with frequency of attendance at religious services (i.e. Newman 2002; Herek & 26 27 Capitanio, 1995; Horvath & Ryan, 2003;Van de Meerendonk and Scheepers, 2004). , 28 29 30 political self designation (i.e Van den Akker et al., 2012) , gender (i.e. Moskowitz et 31 32 al. 2010), age (i.e. Gallup, 2003) and previous contact with GLBT individuals 33 34 (i.e.Barth et al.,2009; Eldridge et al., 2006; Herek, 2000; Hinrichs & Rosenberg, 35 36 2002; Plugge-Foust & Strickland, 2000), indicating that individuals who have more 37 38 39 tolerant attitudes toward same sex marriage tend to be women, to be individuals who 40 41 scarcely attend religious services, young, having contact with LGBT individuals and 42 43 mainly liberals. 44 45 T test was used to examine differences in attitudes toward same sex marriage for 46 47 males and females. Results showed that males (M=49,75, SD=15.39 ) held 48 49 50 significantly less tolerant attitudes (t=3.69, df= 39, 2-tailed p= .000) than females 51 52 (M=55,34, SD=14.98). 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 8 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/glbtfs Email: [email protected] Page 9 of 19 Journal of GLBT Family Studies
1 2 3 Multiple Regression Analysis 4 5 Multiple linear regression analysis was used to examine the association between 6 7 predictor variables and the ATSM Scale . The assumptions of regression analysis 8 9 10 were tested and were not violated (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001; see Appendix A for 11 12 more details). 13 14 ATSMFor served as the Peer criterion variable Review and gender, age, political Only self designation, 15 16 religiosity, personal contact with a GLBT individual as simultaneous predictors. 17 18 19 The analysis showed that religiosity (b= -.272, t= -6,047 p< .01), contact with LGBT 20 21 individuals (b= -.260, t= -6,076 p< .01), political self-designation (b= -.231, t= -5,062 22 23 p< .01), gender (b= -.170, t= -3,927 p< .01) and age (b= -.125, t= -2,176 p< .01) were 24 25 significant predictors of attitudes toward same sex marriage. As a set, the variables 26 27 accounted for 33% of the variance in the model, F(7,382) = 28,471, p<.001.(Table 3). 28 29 30 31 32 33 Discussion 34 35 The results demonstrated that people who scored higher on measures of 36 37 religiosity were more likely to hold less tolerant attitudes toward same-sex marriage 38 39 than those who scored lower on the religiosity scale. Religiosity seems an important 40 41 42 variable in predicting attitudes toward same sex marriage issues because religious 43 44 institutions exert a significant influence on individuals’ attitudes (Olson et al., 2006). 45 46 Frequent churchgoers might be exposed to messages, in their religious institution, 47 48 mainly condemning LGBT rights. The second most powerful variable was 49 50 interpersonal contact with LGBT individuals. A finding consistent with previous 51 52 53 studies (i.e. Barth et al., 2009; Haider-Markel & Joslyn , 2008). Respondents who had 54 55 an LGBT friend would be more positive toward LGBT rights than those who don’t. 56 57 This finding is consistent with intergroup contact hypothesis (Allport , 1954). 58 59 60 9 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/glbtfs Email: [email protected] Journal of GLBT Family Studies Page 10 of 19
1 2 3 Specifically, the more individuals have positive contact and interaction with 4 5 dissimilar people, the less likely they maintain negative stereotypes about the group to 6 7 which the individuals belong, and in turn, are more likely to appreciate and respect 8 9 10 dissimilar others. Political conservatism was also negatively correlated with attitudes 11 12 toward same-sex marriage. Research demonstrates that identifying as a political 13 14 liberal Forpredicts support Peer for LGBT rightsReview issues. According toOnly Haberberle (1999) 15 16 support for gay rights has traditionally been associated with liberals, while opposition 17 18 19 has typically been associated with conservatives. More conservative individuals tend 20 21 to favor traditional values, are submissive to established authorities and the social 22 23 norms these authorities endorse, and act aggressively toward outgroups (Altemeyer, 24 25 1998). Accordingly, LGBT persons might be seen as a threat to social norms, 26 27 traditional values, order, cohesion, and stability. Age is another demographic variable 28 29 30 that predicts attitudes toward same-sex marriage. Avery et al. (2007) suggest that this 31 32 is related to the fact that older people tend to have more conservative political 33 34 orientations than younger people 35 36 As hypothesized, results revealed gender differences as women reported more 37 38 39 positive attitudes toward same-sex marriage than men. As regards gender differences 40 41 toward LGBT rights in general one reason might be the concept of sexual prejudice, 42 43 which involves individual’s attitudes toward their own gender and sexuality (Herek, 44 45 2000, 2002). Taking in account the fact that the vast majority of the participants were 46 47 heterosexuals we can argue that according to Herek (2000) many heterosexuals 48 49 50 experience same-sex attractions and become anxious because of homosexuality’s 51 52 stigmatized status in society. Additionally, because homosexuality is often associated 53 54 with gender inversion (i.e., gay men are more like women than heterosexual men), 55 56 heterosexuals are fearful of being labeled homosexual because such a label might 57 58 59 60 10 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/glbtfs Email: [email protected] Page 11 of 19 Journal of GLBT Family Studies
1 2 3 suggest that they are not a “real” man or a “real” woman. As a consequence 4 5 heterosexuals adopt homophobic attitudes to assure themselves and others that they 6 7 are not (stigmatized) homosexuals (Herek, 2000). Herek (2000, 2002) pointed out that 8 9 10 heterosexual men feel these pressures more than heterosexual women, thus, 11 12 explaining why their attitudes toward homosexuality (particularly gay men) are more 13 14 negativeFor than women’s. Peer Review Only 15 16 As with any measure of attitudes on controversial issues, future research 17 18 19 should investigate issues of social desirability factor into participants’ responses on 20 21 the ATSM. 22 23 This study demonstrated that participants with less positive and tolerant 24 25 attitudes toward same sex marriage are more likely to be conservative, more religious, 26 27 older, mainly men and have no contact with LGBT individuals. The current study and 28 29 30 its findings add to a growing literature regarding LGBT rights in different countries 31 32 and cultural backgrounds and provide a more nuanced picture of how the Greek 33 34 public views LGBT rights. Ideally, results from this project could contribute to 35 36 initiatives to promote and help LGBT-rights advocates in securing civil rights and 37 38 39 benefits for same sex families. 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 11 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/glbtfs Email: [email protected] Journal of GLBT Family Studies Page 12 of 19
1 2 3 References 4 5 6 Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: 7 8 AddisonWesley. 9 10 11 Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other “authoritarian personality.” In L. Berkowitz 12 13 (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 47–92). Orlando, FL: 14 For Peer Review Only 15 16 Academic Press. 17 18 19 American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of 20 21 psychologists and code of conduct. Retrieved June 26, 2012, from 22 23 http://www.apa.org/ethics/. 24 25 26 Avery, A., Chase, J., Johansson, L., Litvak, S., Montero, D., & Wydra, M. 27 28 (2007). America’s changing attitudes toward homosexuality, civil unions, and same 29 30 31 gender marriage. Social Work , 52 , 71–79. 32 33 Barclay, S.,& Fisher, S. (2003). The states and the differing impetus for 34 35 divergent paths on same-sex marriage. Policy Studies Journal , 31 (3), 331-352. 36 37 Barth, J., Overby, L. M., & Huffmon, S. (2009). Community context, personal 38 39 40 contact, and support for an anti-gay rights referendum. Political Research Quarterly , 41 42 62 , 355–365. 43 44 Brumbaugh, S. M., Sanchez, L. A., Nock, S. L. & Wright, J. D. (2008). 45 46 Attitudes toward gay marriage in states undergoing marriage law transformation. 47 48 Journal of Marriage and Family, 70 , 345-359. 49 50 51 Eldridge, V., Mack, L., & Swank, E. (2006). Explaining comfort with 52 53 54 homosexuals in rural America. Journal of Homosexuality , 51 (2), 39–56. 55 56 57 58 59 60 12 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/glbtfs Email: [email protected] Page 13 of 19 Journal of GLBT Family Studies
1 2 3 Gallup (2003, November 11). How would same-sex marriages affect society? 4 5 Retrieved April 210, 2014 from http://www.gallup.com/poll/9670/How-Would- 6 7 SameSex-Marriages-Affect-Society.aspx. 8 9 10 Gallup (2006, May 22). Americans still oppose gay marriage. Retrieved April 10, 11 12 2014 from http://www.gallup.com/poll/22882/Americans-Still-Oppose-Gay-Marriage.aspx. 13 14 ForGalupo, M. PeerP. & Pearl, M. (2007).Review Bisexual Attitude sOnly Toward Same-Sex 15 16 Marriage, Journal of Bisexuality , 7(3-4), 149-163 17 18 Grigoropoulos & Kordoutis ( in press). Reliability and validity of the Greek 19 20 translation of the Same-Sex Marriage Scale. Journal of LGBT Family Studies . 21 22 23 Haeberle, S. H. (1999). Gay and lesbian rights: Emerging trends in public 24 25 opinion and voting behavior. In E. D. B. Riggle & B. L. Tadlock (Eds.), Gays and 26 27 lesbians in the democratic process (pp. 146–169). New York: Columbia University 28 29 Press 30 31 32 Hanneke van den Akker., Rozemarijn van der Ploeg., and Peer Scheepers. 33 34 (2012) Disapproval of Homosexuality: Comparative Research on Individual and 35 36 National Determinants of Disapproval of Homosexuality in 20 European Countries. 37 38 International Journal of Public Opinion Research. 39 40 Haider-Markel, D., & Joslyn, M. (2008). Beliefs about the origins of 41 42 43 homosexuality and support for gay rights. Public Opinion Quarterly , 72 , 291–310. 44 45 Herek, G.M. (2000). The psychology of sexual prejudice. Current Directions 46 47 in Psychological Science , 9(1), 19-22. 48 49 Herek, G. M. (2002). Gender gaps in public opinion about lesbians and gay 50 51 52 men. Public Opinion Quarterly , 66 , 40–66. 53 54 Herek, G. M., & Capitanio, J. P. (1995). Black heterosexuals’ attitudes toward 55 56 lesbians and gay men in the United States. Journal of Sex Research, 32 , 95–105. 57 58 59 60 13 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/glbtfs Email: [email protected] Journal of GLBT Family Studies Page 14 of 19
1 2 3 Horvath, M. & Ryan, A. M. (2003, February). Antecedents and potential 4 5 moderators of the relationship between attitudes and hiring discrimination on the basis 6 7 of sexual orientation. Sex Roles , 48 (3/4), 115-130. 8 9 10 Hinrichs, D. W., & Rosenberg, P. J. (2002). Attitudes toward gay, lesbian, and 11 12 bisexual persons among heterosexual liberal arts college students. Journal of 13 14 HomosexualityFor, 43 (1),Peer 61–84. Review Only 15 16 Lannutti, P. J., & Lachlan, K. A. (2008). Assessing attitudes toward same-sex 17 18 19 marriage: Scale development and validation. Journal of Homosexuality , 53 , 113–133. 20 21 Moskowitz, A., D., Gerulf Rieger, D., & Michael E. Roloff, E., M. (2010): 22 23 Heterosexual Attitudes Toward Same-Sex Marriage, Journal of Homosexuality , 57 :2, 24 25 325-336. 26 27 Newman, B. S., Dannenfelser, P. L., & Benishek, L. (2002). Assessing 28 29 30 beginning social work and counseling students’ acceptance of lesbians and gay men. 31 32 Journal of Social Work Education , 38 (2), 273-288. 33 34 Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using Multivariate Statistics 35 36 (4 th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon 37 38 39 Olson, L., Cadge, W., & Harrison, J. (2006). Religion and public opinion 40 41 about same-sex marriage. Social Science Quarterly , 87 , 340–358. 42 43 Pearl, M. L. and Galupo, M. P. (2007) Development and validation of the 44 45 attitudes toward same-sex marriage scale. Journal of Homosexuality , 53 (3), 117-134. 46 47 Pavlou, M. (2009) Homophobia in Greece. Love for Equality. Retrieved June 48 49 50 12, 2014 from http://www.i-red.eu/resources/publications 51 52 files/ired_homophobia_in_greece2009--6.pdf 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 14 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/glbtfs Email: [email protected] Page 15 of 19 Journal of GLBT Family Studies
1 2 3 Plugge-Foust, C., & Strickland, G. (2000). Homophobia, irrationality, and 4 5 Christian ideology: Does a relationship exist? Journal of Sex Education & Therapy , 6 7 25 (4), 240–244. 8 9 10 Van den Akker, H., van der Ploeg R., & Scheepers P. (2013) Disapproval of 11 12 Homosexuality: Comparative Research on Individual and National Determinants of 13 14 DisapprovalFor of Homosexuality Peer in 20Review European Countries. InternationalOnly Journal of 15 16 Public Opinion Research. 25 (1), 64-86. 17 18 19 Van de Meerendonk, B., & Scheepers, P. (2004). Denial of equal civil rights 20 21 for lesbians and gay men in the Netherlands, 1980–1993. Journal of Homosexuality , 22 23 47 (2), 63–80. 24 25 Walls, N. E. (2010). Religion and Support for Same-Sex Marriage: 26 27 Implications from the Literature. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services 22 : 112 – 28 29 30 131 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 15 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/glbtfs Email: [email protected] Journal of GLBT Family Studies Page 16 of 19
1 2 3 Appendix A 4 5 Visual inspection of data plots showed that variables had normal distributions. The 6 7 assumptions of no multicollinearity and independence of errors were checked using 8 9 10 the SPSS available procedures (Collinearity diagnostics and Durbin- Watson test). 11 12 Each of the VIFs was near one, suggesting a lack of multicollinearity. The value for 13 14 the Durbin-For Watson Peer test was 1.702 suggestingReview that the assumption Only of independence 15 16 has been met (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 16 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/glbtfs Email: [email protected] Page 17 of 19 Journal of GLBT Family Studies
1 2 3 4 5 Table 1 6 7 8 Demographic characteristics 9 10 11 Mean (SD) 12 13 14 N= For Peer 391 Review Only 15 16 Gender 17 18 Female 218 19 20 Men 173 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Students 293 28 29 Not- students 98 30 31 Age 26.97 (10.18) 32 33 34 Religiosity 3.12 (.99) 35 36 Contact 1.36 (.48) 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/glbtfs Email: [email protected] Journal of GLBT Family Studies Page 18 of 19
1 2 3 4 5 6 Table 2 7 8 Pearson correlation matrix for study variables 9 10 11 12 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14 For Peer Review Only 15 1.ATSM -.349** -.404** -.181** -.366** .62 -.238** 16 2. religiosity .322** -.180** .088 .018 .103* 17 18 3. political self- .072 .181** -.056 .232** 19 20 designation 21 4. gender .136** -.041 .081 22 23 5. personal contact -.011 .134** 24 25 with a GLBT 26 6. sexual -.032 27 28 orientation 29 30 7. age 31 32 33 34 35 36 Note : * p < .05, ** p < .01. 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/glbtfs Email: [email protected] Page 19 of 19 Journal of GLBT Family Studies
1 2 3 4 5 6 Table 3 7 8 9 Linear regression of variables predicting Attitudes Same Sex Marriage 10 11 12 Variable b SE( b) β 13 14 genderFor Peer Review -5.269 1.342Only .170* 15 16 17 age -.190 .087 -.125* 18 19 Religiosity -4.592 .759 -.272* 20 21 Political self-designation -.2.986 .590 -.231* 22 23 Contact with GLBT -8.329 1.371 -.260* 24 25 2 26 Note : R = .34. * p<.01. 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/glbtfs Email: [email protected]