Running Head: NAZARENES ATTITUDES TOWARD HOMOSEXUALS 25
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Running Head: NAZARENES ATTITUDES TOWARD HOMOSEXUALS 1
Nazarenes’ Attitudes Toward
Individuals Who Identify As Homosexual
Reginald G. Watson
Regent University
Dissertation Proposal
Spring, 2011
Lee Underwood, Ph.D. Running Head: NAZARENES ATTITUDES TOWARD HOMOSEXUALS 2
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION Statement of the problem
Few topics in the church fan the flames of controversy and debate as does the issue of homosexuality. Sheler (2000) called it “the most divisive social issue among churches since slavery (p. 50). Attitudes of individuals in the Church (e.g., Fundamentalist, Evangelical, and
Catholic) fall along a continuum of intolerance to tolerance to acceptance.
During the 1960’s interest in the study of issues related to homosexuality began to develop. Since the late 70’ and early 80’s research examining the attitudes—socially, culturally, and religiously—toward individuals who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender has increased exponentially. The literature spans almost three decades of investigation. The research on the attitudes demonstrated toward GLBT individuals has included studies conducted on heterosexual’s attitudes (Herek, 2002; Larsen, Reed & Hoffman, 1980), gender differences
(Herek, 1998, 2002), race and ethnicity (Schulte & Battle, 2004; Herek, 1985), cultural differences (Furnham & Saito, 2009), and religious attitudes toward gay and lesbian individuals
(Adamczyk & Pitt, 2009; Kirkpatrick, 1993) to name a few.
The literature indicates that attitudes toward homosexuals are generally negative; however, there are subtle differences in attitudes based on gender. For example, heterosexual women tend to be more tolerant and accepting of homosexual relationships-gay or lesbian—than do heterosexual men (Herek, 1984, 2002). Heterosexual men on the other hand, while more disapproving of gay relationships tended to be more accepting of lesbian relationships (Herek,
2002). Running Head: NAZARENES ATTITUDES TOWARD HOMOSEXUALS 3
Other studies (e.g., Schulte and Battle, 2004) have shown that while ethnicity and even race has very little effect on attitudes toward homosexual relationships, religious attitudes influence attitudes toward gay men and lesbian woman significantly. Schulte and Battle (2004) comment that when “predicting attitudes toward gay men, ethnic differences were never present, while religious attitudes were always statistically significant (p. 128).
A search of the literature reveals much information on the broader topic of homosexuality as well as the social and religious attitudes toward individuals who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. Both religion and frequency of church attendance are correlated with negative attitudes toward homosexuality. Larsen, Reed & Hoffman (1980) state that, “those attending church were often less positive in their attitudes toward homosexuality than those attending rarely or never (p. 252). Furthermore, these authors observe that much of the opposition to homosexuality issues from a religious base and that regular church attendance “is inversely correlated to heterosexual attitudes toward homosexuality (Larsen, Reed, and Hoffman,
1980, p. 248). A study conducted by Adamczyk and Pitt (2009) concluded the following:
Research done on the United States typically points to religion as one of the strongest
predictors of attitudes about homosexuality (Olsen et., 2006; Schulte and Battle, 2004;
Burdette, Ellison, and Hill, 2005; Rowatt et al., 2006).
Across the world, personal religious beliefs and affiliation are typically seen as powerful predictors of attitudes about homosexuality. Most religions tend to categorize behaviors associated with homosexuality as “unnatural”, “ungodly”, and “impure” [Yip, 2005]. Because of this framing, active religious involvement, regular exposure to religious literature, and frequent interaction with religious friends are likely to encourage anti-homosexual attitudes [Olson et al., Running Head: NAZARENES ATTITUDES TOWARD HOMOSEXUALS 4
2006; Sherkat and Ellison, 1997; Scheitle and Adamczyk, 2009] (Adamczyk and Pitt, 2009, pp.
338 & 39).
Ironically, for an institution (i.e, the Church) whose foundational tenants are love, grace and forgiveness, it has often demonstrated negative attitudes and has been decidedly unreceptive
—even rejecting—of homosexual individuals. This unfortunate fact is found rather consistently in the literature (Larson, Reed, & Hoffman (1980, p. 248-249). If the Church hopes to become a positive influence for Christ with the homosexual population it must let go of its fear, prejudice and judgment toward homosexuals and begin to demonstrate the scriptural mandate to love. Jay
Bakker (2010) states that, “Just as former generations had to overcome their supposedly ‘God- endorsed’ racist and sexist attitudes, so we [the Church] have to overcome our narrow- mindedness on this issue in order to experience (and share) the full potential of God’s love” (p.
50). Although one may agree with Bakker, one must also recognize that change occurs slowly, sometimes painfully and that individuals must be “brought along” in their thinking. While it may be easy to criticize the church, one must be careful not to respond to the church the way it has tended to respond to the homosexual community. Attitudes toward the church must also be love, acceptance and information to help dispel many of the preconceived ideas and myths associated with homosexual individuals. In so doing, this may help to model and reframe the church’s understanding of and response to the GLBT community.
Ignorance and misunderstanding typically breed fear and anxiety, and the fear of a thing is almost always bigger than then thing itself. One of the ways the church can overcome its fear of and resistance to homosexual individuals often begins with getting to know a gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender individual. Studies (cf., Herek, 1984) have shown that most of anti-gay attitudes are, “opinions and beliefs are formed without the benefit of personal contact” (p. 8). Running Head: NAZARENES ATTITUDES TOWARD HOMOSEXUALS 5
Research such as this indicates that “personal contact,” with (vis-à-vis) a gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender individual may help to reduce fear, stereotyping, and negative attitudes.
Purpose of the study
During an initial investigation of the research literature, a wealth of information was discovered about the attitudes demonstrated toward individuals who identify as homosexual.
However, it quickly became apparent that no specific research has been conducted on the attitudes of Nazarenes (a protestant, evangelical, holiness denomination) toward individuals who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. While it has been suggested that the current study be broadened to include all Evangelical Christians’ attitudes toward individuals who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender, the scope of such as study is too broad for the present study. Therefore, this study will focus on a single denomination’s—the Church of the
Nazarene—attitudes toward individuals who identify as GLBT. The purpose of this study then is to determine whether Nazarenes respond with acceptance or non-acceptance individuals who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender.
To help identify these attitudes the following research questions will be considered:
Research Question 1.) Do Nazarenes respond with acceptance or non-acceptance to individuals who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual and/or transgender? and, Research Question 2.) What are the underlying variables that contribute to the attitudes Nazarenes demonstrate toward the GLBT community? These research questions will be based on the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 1.)
Nazarenes demonstrate negative attitudes (e.g., non-acceptance) toward individuals who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender; and, Hypothesis 2.) Underlying variables such as age, gender, educational level, political affiliation, relational status, geographical location, length of time in the Nazarene church, theological orientation (liberal, moderate, conservative) and sexual Running Head: NAZARENES ATTITUDES TOWARD HOMOSEXUALS 6 orientation contribute to Nazarenes’ negative attitudes (e.g., non-acceptance) of individuals who identify as Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and/or Transgender.
LITERATURATE REVIEW
Research on the Etiology of Homosexuality
Questions regarding the influences, causes and origins of homosexuality have revealed little substantial evidence as to any single contributing factor. Sheldon, Pfeffer, Jayaratne,
Feldbaum and Petty (2007) observe that “recent scientific and media attention has been focused on research attempting to discern potential origins of homosexuality” (p. 112). Moreover, one of the ongoing discussions concerning the etiology of homosexuality is the question of “nature verses nurture.” Yarhouse (2010) identifies four factors that potentially influence or contribute to homosexuality: biology, childhood experiences, environmental influence, and adult experiences
(p. 63). Which of these has the most influence on a homosexual orientation is yet uncertain.
Arguments have been made attesting that each is a contributing factor, although teasing out whether genetics or experiences or environment or personal choice plays the larger role has been difficult.
A study of American Psychiatric Association (APA) members, conducted by Vreeland,
Gallagher and McFalls (1995), identified “12 of the most common theories of male homosexuality” (p. 507). These twelve theories were then subdivided into two categories: biogenic theories (nature) and environmental (nurture) theories. The biogenic theories included
“genetic inheritance, structural differences in the hypothalamus, prenatal hormone development, Running Head: NAZARENES ATTITUDES TOWARD HOMOSEXUALS 7 and brain organization” (p. 508). Environmental theories were reported to include: “dominant mother, weak father, seduction by a same-sex adult, parent’s cross-dressing of the child, parent’s wish for an opposite-sex child, parent’s martial relationship, being an only child, and birth order”—respectively (p. 511). Of the twelve theories identified for this study, biogenic theories were ranked highest as potential causal reasons for the development of male homosexuality.
As such, questions concerning the genetic predisposition toward a homosexual orientation have been conducted with twin studies, although the results have proved largely inconclusive (Vreeland, Gallagher, and McFalls, 1995, p. 508). Likewise studies conducted on the hypothalamus of both heterosexual and homosexual men have revealed varied results.
Research investigating prenatal hormone development, specifically androgen deficiency and estrogen levels, suggested that “homosexual men processed estrogen differently than heterosexual men [Glaude, Green, & Hellman] (p. 508). According to Vreeland, Gallagher, and
McFalls (1995) “brain organization has also been linked to male homosexuality” (p. 508). These studies have indicated that male homosexuals are more predisposed toward “left-handedness” than heterosexual males which, according to these authors, suggest more left-hemisphere orientation among homosexual men (p. 508). Despite these various studies, Sheldon, Pfeffer,
Jayaratne, Feldbaum and Petty (2007) argue that the genetic research on the causes of homosexuality have offered no definitive evidence to suggest a clear “genetic basis for homosexuality” [Byne, 1994; McGuire, 1995; Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 2001], (p. 114).
Childhood experiences have also been indicated as a possible influence in the cause of, or predisposition toward homosexuality. These childhood experiences include the kind of relationship(s) the child had with his/her parent(s). For example, if a male child had an “absent, distant, or critical father and an over-involved or a ‘close-binding’ mother” has been suggested to Running Head: NAZARENES ATTITUDES TOWARD HOMOSEXUALS 8 contribute to homosexuality (Yarhouse, 2010, p. 71). Again, however, there is no clear consensus that these types of parent-child dynamics predispose an individual toward a homosexual orientation.
Childhood sexual experiences have also been the subject of research to investigate the causes of homosexuality. Studies have shown that individuals who report “a history of childhood sexual abuse were three times more likely to report a homosexual orientation than those who did not report childhood sexual abuse (Yarhouse, 2010, p. 73).
Research on the etiology of homosexuality has also included psychosocial factors and personal choice as possible contributing factors to homosexual orientation for both gays and lesbians. Sheldon et.al (2007) suggested that psychological—and sociological—studies investigate the roles of individual choice and decision making, identity development, societal hierarchies, gender role stereotypes, role expectations, and conformity in the etiology of homosexuality [Bem, 1996; Cass, 1979; Laumann, Gagnon, Michael, & Michaels 1994; Peplau
& Chohran, 1990; Troiden, 1984] (p. 114). The authors comment that, “of the various theories offered to explain the origins of homosexuality, however, it is clear that no single account has won the favor of the scientific community” (p. 114).
Environmental influences have also been suggested as contributing factors to homosexuality (Yarhouse, 2010, p. 74). It has been argued that children raised by same-sex parents are more likely to adopt a homosexual orientation; however, research indicates this is not necessarily the case. Yarhouse (2010) states, “Most children raised by same-sex parents are heterosexual, and most adult homosexuals were not raised by same-sex parents; so, again, we want to resist the tendency to make declarations about general causes of homosexuality” (p.76). Running Head: NAZARENES ATTITUDES TOWARD HOMOSEXUALS 9
The American Psychological Association makes the following statement concerning the etiology of homosexuality:
There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons an individual develops a
heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined
the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual
orientation, no findings emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation
is determined by any one particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture
both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their
sexual orientation (Yarhouse, 2010, p. 79).
History of DSM Classifications and Changes
The first edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (1952), also known as the DSM, identified homosexuality as a mental disorder. Homosexuality was listed under the category of “psychopathic personality with pathological sexuality.” The second edition published nearly ten years later, classified homosexuality as a “sociopathic personality disturbance” (Robertson, 2004, p. 163). This was due in part because at the time of the development and writing of the DSM, Freudian psychoanalytic theory dominated descriptions of human behavior. Since homosexuality was considered a deviation from normal human sexual behavior, it was categorized as a mental illness. However, much of this understanding about homosexuality was influenced by societal mores and skewed research designs.
Two notable psychoanalysts and outspoken proponents of the psychoanalytic view of homosexuality were Irving Beiber and Charles Socarides. The research they used to support the pathological view of homosexuality was suspect because the research had been conducted with Running Head: NAZARENES ATTITUDES TOWARD HOMOSEXUALS 10 men who were either hospitalized or incarcerated. Eventually, their research was criticized due to its lack of “scientific integrity and validity” (Robertson, 2004, p.164).
Consequently, the need for more rigorous scientific inquiry was recognized. Alfred
Kinsey and Evelyn Hooker began this process. Kinsey developed the “Kinsey Scale” an instrument that placed heterosexuality and homosexuality along a scaled continuum from zero
(0) to six (6). The interviewee’s answers were ranked according to the individual’s heterosexual
(0) and/or homosexual (6) activity. Regarding the Kinsey scale, Robertson (2004) states:
In Kinsey’s survey, the prevalence of same-sex interactions and fantasy by self-identified
heterosexuals resulted in a shift in the conceptualization of homosexuality as deviant and
sick. If normally functioning individuals had these thoughts and behaviors, then perhaps
previously held views of homosexuality should be questioned (p.164).
Kinsey’s work paved the way for Evelyn Hooker’s quasi-experimental study—published in 1958—in which she compared the “psychological adjustment” of heterosexual and homosexual men using the Rorschach and Thematic Apperception Test. The results of Hooker’s study called into question the popular belief that homosexuality was a pathological illness. From the study Hooker drew the following three conclusions:
1. Homosexuality as a clinical entity does not exist. Its forms are as varied as
heterosexuality.
2. Homosexuality may be a deviation in the sexual pattern that is with the normal range
psychologically. Running Head: NAZARENES ATTITUDES TOWARD HOMOSEXUALS 11
3. The role of particular forms of sexual desire and expression in personality and
development may be less important than has frequently been assumed [cited in
Mondimore, 1996, p. 93] (Robertson, 2004, p. 164).
During 1973 the APA declassified homosexuality as a mental or emotional disorder and
“removed it from the official manual that lists mental and emotional disorders. Two years later the American Psychological Association followed suit and passed a resolution supporting this removal” (http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx). Although the revised edition of the DSM-II (1974) no longer listed homosexuality in its classifications of mental disturbances the category was redefined as Sexual Orientation Disturbance (Spitzer, 1981, p. 210). According to Robertson (2004) this, “marked the profession’s movement away from a role of imposing social and religious mores. The profession endorsed a more scientific and nondiscriminatory stance in research and therapy with homosexual individuals” (p. 164).
The category of “sexual orientation disturbance” was replaced with the publication of the
DSM-III (1980) with “Ego-Dystonic Homosexuality.” Publications of the DSM-IV (1994) and
DSM-IV-TR (2000) do not include a category specific to homosexual relationships. But as
Hughes (2006) observes even though homosexuality had been removed from the DSM as an abnormality by the APA in 1973, there are those who believe the APA simply gave it another name: “Gender Identity Disorder” (DSM-IV-TR #302.85) (p. 196). Nevertheless, these latest editions of the DSM demonstrate “the acceptance [of homosexuality] as a normal sexual orientation and a greater understanding of the identity development of gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals by the APA” (Robertson, 2004, p. 165). It was from this point forward that research began to focus more on the attitudes of heterosexuals toward gays and lesbians (Rosik, 2007, p.
132.) Running Head: NAZARENES ATTITUDES TOWARD HOMOSEXUALS 12
Prevalence of Homosexuality
Hughes (2006) stated that the prevalence of homosexuality and lesbianism have become a topic of considerable interest (p. 195). The author suggested that a couple of reasons for the awareness in the increase in prevalence of homosexuality and lesbianism is that more individual’s are “coming out” or identifying as gay or lesbian (p. 197). Hughes (2006) also attributed the greater emphasis given to homosexuality and lesbianism through the media,
Hollywood, television and movies depicting and advocating same-sex relationships (p. 197).
Butler’s study (2005) of same-sex partnering in the United States indicated an increase in the prevalence of lesbian relationships between 1988 and 2002. During the years 2000 and 2002,
“an average of 3.35 percent of women (ages 18-59) reported having a same-sex partner during the previous 12 months. The estimated rate for similarly-aged men . . . also averaged 3.35 percent for 2000 and 2002 (p. 441).
The way homosexuality is defined is important to empirical research statistics. For example, if the definition of homosexuality includes “any” homosexual act or attraction, rather than exclusive same sex relationships the estimated percentages of gay and lesbian individuals increases. Black, Gates, Sanders and Taylor (2000) report “the incidence rate of homosexual desire is 7.7% for men and 7.5% for women [but] the rate at which men identify themselves as gay is 2.8% and the rate at which women identify themselves as lesbians is 1.4%” (p. 140).
These percentages are consistent with the rate (3.0%) at which men have exclusively gay sexual relationships and the percentage of women (1.6%) who have exclusively lesbian sexual relationships (Black, et al., p. 140). It should be noted that these percentages were reported on
1990 census data. Nevertheless, these figures, 2-3% for men and 1-2% for women, are consistent Running Head: NAZARENES ATTITUDES TOWARD HOMOSEXUALS 13 with more recent research data which was gathered and analyzed by the General Social Survey
(GSS) reported on in 2006 (Smith, 2006).
Demographics
The Gallup Organization conducted a survey in 2002 in which Americans were asked to estimate the percentage of gay men and lesbian women living in the U.S. The results from the survey, based on telephone interviews with 1007 respondents indicated that American believe that approximately 21 percent of men are gay and 22 percent of women are lesbians (Gallup,
2002). Gallup acknowledges that based on the survey Americans seem to overestimate the gay/lesbian population in the U.S.
More stringent studies were conducted by the Williams Institute gathering data from its
American Community Survey and U.S. Census reports. The current (2011) population of the
United States is 310 million. According to an article published by the Williams Institute, there are an estimated 8.8 million gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals living in the United States
Gates, 2006, p. 1) which accounts for approximately 2.8 percent of the U.S. population being homosexual. The 8.8 million was determined by analyzing the number of identified same-sex couples living in the U.S. who completed the American Community Survey (ACS) in 2005.
(Note: the data gathered on the ACS is derived from a sample of 1.4 million of the U.S. population; whereas, the U.S. Census data is gathered from the full U.S. population.) An analysis of the data gathered by the ACS indicated that the number of same-sex couples rose by more than 30 percent between the year 2000 and 2005. Results of the 2000 Census indicated that there were approximately 600,000 same-couples residing in the U.S. That number grew to nearly
777,000 by 2005 (Gates, 2006, p.1). Of these same-sex couples approximately 413,000 (53 Running Head: NAZARENES ATTITUDES TOWARD HOMOSEXUALS 14 percent) were male and 364,000 (47 percent) were female (Gates, 2006, p. 2). During these five years one of the geographical locations to experience the largest increase in self-identified same- sex couples were the states that comprise the Midwest. States with the highest population of gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals are California, Florida, New York, Texas, Illinois and the
District of Columbia.
Assessment Measures Identifying Attitudes about Homosexuality
One of the most common and most frequently used instruments used to identify underlying attitudes of heterosexual individuals toward homosexuals, i.e., gay and lesbian individuals, is the Attitudes Towards Gay Men and Lesbian scale (ATLG) developed by Dr.
Gregory Herek (1988). Referring to Herek’s ATLG scale, Rosik (2007) comments, “Although numerous scales have been developed to measure attitudes toward homosexuality, arguably the most influential of these has been Herek’s Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men (ATLG
Scale” (p. 134). This scale was designed to access the affective responses of heterosexual individuals toward homosexuality as well as the affective responses toward gay men and lesbian women. According to Herek, the “full ATLG consists of 20 statements, 10 about gay men (ATG subscale) and 10 about lesbians (ATL subscale)”
(http://www.psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/atlg.html). The 20-item inventory measures responses on a Likert-scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The ATLG is appropriate for use with adult heterosexuals in the United States.
Studies by Herek (1987, 1988) indicate that ATLG subscales have shown high levels of internal consistency. Full-scale alpha levels are at .90. Test –retest reliability was strong at .90 for the 20-item full scale ATLG. Validity of the ATLG demonstrates a significant correlation Running Head: NAZARENES ATTITUDES TOWARD HOMOSEXUALS 15 between high scores (i.e., negative attitudes) and high religiosity, lack of contact with gay and lesbian individuals, adherence to traditional sex-role beliefs, dogmatism, and adherence to traditional family ideology (Herek, 1987).
Herek acknowledges that development of the ATLG involved an extensive factor analysis, item analysis and construct validity studies (Herek, 1984, 1987, 1988, 1994). During the initial development of the 20-item ATLG, a 10-item shorter version was also constructed— the ATLG-S. The short version showed a high correlation with the longer version of the ATLG
(r=.97) (Herek, 1998). Studies have shown that the ATLG and its subscales demonstrated high levels of internal consistency, although alpha levels are somewhat higher when the longer version is used. These alpha levels are typically greater than .85 on the subscales and .90 on the full ATLG scale (Herek, 1987, 1988). Test-restest reliability for the full scale ATLG was strong at .90. Likewise the validity of the ATLG demonstrated a consistent correlation with other theoretical constructs. For example, more negative attitudes were correlated with religiosity, one’s lack of contact or personal knowledge of homosexual individuals, one’s adherence to traditional gender roles and family values as well as high levels of dogmatism (Herek 1987,
1988, 1994). A revised version of the ATLG was developed when Herek made some minor modifications to five of the items on the original ATLG in an effort to “update and clarify their meaning” (Rosik, 2007, p. 135). The revised scale is known simply as the ATLG-R. These minor revisions did not appear to have changed the “psychometric properties of the original scale” (Rosik, 2007, p. 135).
Another instrument that has been used to measure the attitudes of heterosexuals toward homosexuals is a scale developed by Larsen, Reed and Hoffman (1980) known as the
Heterosexual Attitudes Toward Homosexuality (HATH) Scale. The HATH scale is a 20- item Running Head: NAZARENES ATTITUDES TOWARD HOMOSEXUALS 16 measure using a Likert-type scale for measuring attitudes. Although less noteworthy than
Herek’s ATLG scale, the HATH scale indicated “high internal reliability coefficients” (Larsen,
Reed, Hoffman, 1980, p. 255). To test the validity of the HATH scale, researchers administered the scale to a group of college students. Although the researchers warn that generalizing to the larger population requires caution, the results they obtained from their study resulted in
“promising construct validity” (p. 255).
The Homosexuality Attitude Scale (HAS) developed by Kite and Deaux (1986) is a multi- dimension measure that assesses among four factors: Condemnation/Tolerance, Morality,
Contact, and Stereotypes (cf., mkite.iweb.bsu.edu/scales.htm#comp). The HAS utilizes a Likert- type scale to assess individual’s attitudes about homosexuality. According to Kite and Deaux
(1986), the scale demonstrates internal consistencies (alpha = >.93) with test-retest reliability of
(r =.71) (p. 137).
Views and Attitudes About Homosexuality
Herek (1984) observed that, “as prejudice against lesbians and gay men becomes more widely recognized as a social issue, its accurate assessment becomes more important for social scientists (p. 39). With regard to societal attitudes toward homosexuality Adolfsen, Iedema and
Keuzenkamp (2010) suggest that there are two broad categories of attitudes about homosexuality
(p. 1239). One way of classifying these attitudes is to delineate the themes that are relevant to homosexuality (p. 1239). These themes include: 1) equal rights and civil liberties for homosexual individuals, 2) homosexual individuals, and 3) homosexual behavior (p. 1239). The second way of categorizing or classifying distinctions regarding homosexuality is between cognitive, behavioral and affective responses or attitudes toward homosexuals (p. 1239). Each of these Running Head: NAZARENES ATTITUDES TOWARD HOMOSEXUALS 17 encompasses a variety of elements, e.g., homophobia, homo-negativity, personal knowledge of or interaction with a homosexual individual, religious beliefs and values, etc.
Socio-Demographic Predictors of Attitudes
According to Brown and Henriquez (2008) there are both direct and indirect effects that influence heterosexual’s attitudes toward gay and lesbian individuals (p. 193). Some of these include: race, religious orientation, political affiliation, religiosity, and ideas about gender roles.
Society continues to hold certain negative views about homosexuality. The Gallup organization conducted a survey in 2006. From this study it was determined that 41% of the
American population had a negative view of homosexuality. Moreover, 38% of participants surveyed felt that there should be less acceptance of homosexuality as a viable alternative lifestyle.
Brown and Henriquiz’s (2006) research indicates that some studies have shown that
Blacks tended to hold more negative attitudes toward gay and lesbian individuals than either
Hispanics or Whites (p. 195). However, when religious attitudes are factored in, these racial differences disappear (p. 195). Consequently, religiosity rather than race accounts for negative attitudes toward gay and lesbian individuals. In fact, “research has found that higher levels of religiosity are strongly correlated with negative attitudes toward homosexuals (Brown and
Henriquez, 2006, p. 195). Conservative political orientation/affiliation also accounts for more negative attitudes toward gays and lesbians. From their study, Brown and Henriquez (2006) make the following observation, “being more religious and more politically conservative were both moderately associated with anti-gay attitudes” (p. 199). Running Head: NAZARENES ATTITUDES TOWARD HOMOSEXUALS 18
Gender has also been found to be an indicator of attitudes toward homosexuals. Females tend to be more accepting of homosexuals overall, regardless of whether it is a gay or lesbian relationship. On the other hand, males tend to demonstrate more negative attitudes, although males tend to be posses more negative attitudes about gay relationships than about lesbian relationships. While true in a general sense, one study conducted by Parrot, Adams & Zeichner
(2002) found that “gender role beliefs” may be a more important factor in predicting attitudes toward homosexuals than gender by itself (as cited in Brown and Henriquez, 2006, p. 195).
Interpersonal contact is also a predictor of attitudes toward gays and lesbians. Herek (1993) and
Herek and Glunt (1993) found that individuals who know or have some contact with a homosexual person are more likely to possess more positive attitudes toward gays and lesbians.
Brown and Henriquez (2006) state the following conclusion from their study: “Our results lend support to the notion that interpersonal contact with gays and lesbians is the best predictor of attitudes toward gays and lesbians (p. 199).
In a paper written by Herek (2007) the author argues that empirical research has demonstrated that several of the aforementioned indicators are correlated to heterosexual’s attitudes toward gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals. These Herek refers to as “correlates of sexual prejudice” (p. 912) and include differences in attitudes based on gender and amount or extent of interpersonal contact with homosexual individuals. As previously mentioned, women tend to demonstrated more positive attitudes toward homosexuals than do men, and personal contact with or knowledge of a homosexual person correlates with more positive attitudes toward gay people than do heterosexuals who do not (Herek, 2007, p. 913). Although studies have shown that heterosexual’s attitudes toward homosexuals tend to be more positive and show less sexual prejudice when they know and engage in open dialog regarding gay, lesbian, bisexual, and Running Head: NAZARENES ATTITUDES TOWARD HOMOSEXUALS 19 transgender issues, sexual prejudice in the United States continues. Herek (2007) cites a General
Social Survey which indicated that as recently as 2004, 57% of the American population regarded homosexual behavior as “always wrong” (p. 911).
Sexual Stigma and Sexual Prejudice
Most forms of prejudice (i.e., race, ethnicity, religion, etc.) in today’s socio-political climate are considered inappropriate. However, prejudice demonstrated toward homosexuals is not always considered so. Herek (2007) argued that sexual prejudice in the United States is “not generally regarded as undesirable or inappropriate” (p. 906). In light of this Herek constructed a conceptual framework addressing the twin themes of sexual stigma and prejudice. According to
Herek (2007) sexual stigma is defined as the following:
the negative regard, inferior status, and relative powerlessness that society collectively
accords to any nonheterosexual behavior, identity, relationship, or community. Sexual
stigma is socially shared knowledge about homosexuality’s devalued status in society.
Regardless of their own sexual orientation or personal attitudes, people in the United
States and many other societies know that homosexual desires and behaviors are widely
regarded in negative terms relative to heterosexuality. . . . Thus sexual stigma is
conceptualized as a cultural phenomenon that exists independently of the attitudes of any
one individual. It creates a social context in which such attitudes are formed, maintained,
expressed, and changed (p. 907).
Sexual stigma also occurs at the individual level within which there are three “key manifestation of sexual stigma” (Herek, 2007, p. 908). These are as follows: enacted stigma, felt stigma, and internalized stigma. Enacted stigma may be understood as explicit, outward Running Head: NAZARENES ATTITUDES TOWARD HOMOSEXUALS 20 behaviors/actions directed at homosexual individuals that are derogatory, denigrating or dehumanizing in nature such as “antigay epithets, shunning, ostracism, overt discrimination and violence” (Herek, 2007, p. 908). All forms of enacted sexual stigma exact a psychological toll on the victim. Felt stigma is the perceived awareness/feeling of being unsafe in a climate where enacted stigma is possible. Consequently, felt stigma often motivates individuals to modify their behavior or portray one’s self differently than one knows him/herself to be. This can include pretending to be heterosexual rather than homosexual. These behavior modifications are done in an attempt to prevent having to experience some form of enacted sexual stigma. Internalized stigma is defined as “an individual’s personal acceptance of sexual stigma as a part of his or her own value system and self-concept” (Herek, 2007, p. 910). Here the individual accepts society’s negative views of homosexuality for him/herself and thereby holds negative attitudes about oneself and one’s homosexual desires. This internalized stigma has also been referred to as internalized homophobia (Herek, 2007, p. 911).
Heterosexism, Homophobia and Homonegativism
One of the ways that sexual stigma manifests itself can be defined by the word heterosexism. Heterosexism is a based on the belief that heterosexual relationships, attitudes, behaviors are the only normal or correct way of expressing one’s sexuality. Consequently, heterosexism is a “cultural ideology embodied in institutional practices” (Herek, 2007, p. 907) that denigrate and stigmatize any form, expression or demonstration of nonheterosexual behavior. Therefore, heterosexism carries a negative connotation of bias and prejudice.
Heterosexism can be manifested at the collective (societal) level or on the individual level.
Collectively this can be seen when society’s institutions, e.g., religion, law, medicine, etc., work to prevent equality for sexual minorities (Herek, 2007, p. 907). Running Head: NAZARENES ATTITUDES TOWARD HOMOSEXUALS 21
Heterosexual’s Attitudes Toward Homosexuals
Affect of Race on Attitudes
Affect of Culture on Attitudes
Affect of Geographical Location
Counseling Gay, Lesbians, Bisexual and Transgender Individuals
Ethical Concerns
Reparative Therapy
Reorientation Therapy
Secular Counseling Methods
Christian/Biblical Views of Homosexuality
Religion’s Influence on Attitudes
Religious Individualism
Authoritarianism
Fundamentalism
Shaping Attitudes with Religion
History of the Church’s Response to Homosexuality
Spirituality of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Individuals Running Head: NAZARENES ATTITUDES TOWARD HOMOSEXUALS 22
The Pull Toward Gay Positive Churches
Who Are The Nazarenes?
Historical Overview
Manual Statements
Sexuality
Homosexuality
Current Views on Homosexuality
Official Statement from the Board of General Superintendents Running Head: NAZARENES ATTITUDES TOWARD HOMOSEXUALS 23
CHAPTER II
METHODS
I. Purpose of Study
The purpose of this study is to discover the attitudes of individuals who identify with or consider themselves as belonging to the Church of the Nazarene. This study will examine the attitudes Nazarenes espouse toward homosexuals and individuals who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender and determine whether Nazarenes respond with acceptance or non- acceptance to individuals who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender. Running Head: NAZARENES ATTITUDES TOWARD HOMOSEXUALS 24
This chapter will provide an overview of the methods and procedures that will be used to conduct this study. To begin, a definition of the terms homosexual, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender will be presented in section II. Section III will outline the research questions considered for this study. The hypotheses of this research will be provided in section IV. Next a description of the research methods and statistical analyses utilized to analyze the data is discussed in section V. In section VI the independent variables are delineated followed by a description of the dependent variable(s). An explication of the instrument used to measure attitudes and an outline of the demographic survey will be provided in section VII. Participants and Procedures will be considered in sections VIII and IX respectively.
II. Definition of Terms
a. Homosexual
A homosexual may be defined as any individual who is attracted to other individuals of
the same sex. Homosexual also refers to any individual who engages in primarily or
exclusively same sex behavior and who either primarily or exclusively engages in
intimate same sex relationship(s), e.g., a male with a male(s) or a female with a female(s).
b. Gay
The term gay usually refers to men who are attracted to other individuals of the same sex
and/or men who engage in primarily or exclusively same gender (male) relationships.
These relationships may be sexual or non sexual; however, the preference for intimate
relationship is generally shared between men.
c. Lesbian Running Head: NAZARENES ATTITUDES TOWARD HOMOSEXUALS 25
The term lesbian usually refers to women who engage in primarily or exclusively same
gender (female) relationships. These relationships may be sexual or non sexual; however
the preference for intimate relationship is generally shared between women.
d. Bisexual
The term bisexual usually refers to either men or women who engage in either/both
gender (male or female) relationships. These relationships may be sexual or non sexual.
A bisexual male may engage in or participate in sexual relationships with either/both men
or women. Likewise, a female may engage or participate in sexual relationships with
either/both women or men.
e. Transgender
The term transgender is usually ascribed to individuals whose gender expressions and or
gender identity varies from the traditional understanding/expectations of the individual’s
birth sex. For example, a person who by birth is male feels/believes that his true gender is
female or an individual, who at birth was female, feels/believes that her true gender is
male. Some transgender individuals pursue surgical procedures for sexual reassignment
in an effort to reconcile his/her physical sexual attributes with the gender the individual
believes him/herself to be. Transgender has also been referred to as an “umbrella term”
encompassing transvestites, transsexuals, cross-dressers, etc.
III. Research Questions
For the purposes of this study the following research questions will be considered: Running Head: NAZARENES ATTITUDES TOWARD HOMOSEXUALS 26
1. What are the general attitudes Nazarenes hold about individuals who identify as
homosexual?
2. Do Nazarenes respond with acceptance or non-acceptance to individuals who identify
as gay, lesbian, bisexual and/or transgender?
3. What are the underlying variables (e.g., age, gender, educational level, political
affiliation, relational status, geographical location, length of time in the Nazarene church,
theological orientation [liberal, moderate, conservative] and sexual orientation) that
contribute to the attitudes Nazarenes demonstrate toward the GLBT community?
4. Which of the underlying variables viz., age, gender, educational level, political
affiliation, relational status, geographical location, length of time in the Nazarene church,
theological orientation (liberal, moderate, conservative) and sexual orientation studied
influence Nazarenes attitudes most?
IV. Hypotheses
The aforementioned research questions will be based on the following hypotheses:
1. Nazarenes demonstrated negative attitudes (e.g., non-acceptance, intolerance) toward
homosexuals.
2. Nazarenes demonstrate negative attitudes (e.g., non-acceptance) toward individuals
who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender.
3. Underlying variables such as age, gender, educational level, political affiliation,
relational status, geographical location, length of time in the Nazarene church, theological
orientation (liberal, moderate, conservative) and sexual orientation contribute to Running Head: NAZARENES ATTITUDES TOWARD HOMOSEXUALS 27
Nazarenes’ negative attitudes (e.g., non-acceptance) of individuals who identify as gay,
lesbian, bisexual and/or transgender.
V. Research Methods and Statistical Analyses
For the purposes of this study an experimental factorial design will be used to determine the effect of the independent variables, age, gender, educational level, political affiliation, relational status, geographical location, length of time in the Nazarene church, theological orientation (liberal, moderate, conservative) and sexual orientation on the dependent variable of attitudes Nazarenes demonstrate toward homosexuals and individuals who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.
A logistic regression will be utilized to analyze the data. A logistic regression will indicate a stronger likelihood of accepting or rejecting GLBT individuals based on the scores of each of the contributing demographic factors, i.e., predictor variables (age, gender, educational level, political affiliation, relational status, geographical location, length of time in the Nazarene church, theological orientation, i.e., liberal, moderate, or conservative and sexual orientation) used for this study.
A one way chi square test will be examined as an additional analysis to determine the split or distribution of Nazarenes who demonstrate an attitude of acceptance toward individuals who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. This analysis will also provide results about Nazarenes who demonstrate an attitude of non acceptance toward individuals who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender.
Two more statistical analyses that will be considered are a standard multiple regression and a hierarchical multiple regression. A standard multiple regression will be conducted to Running Head: NAZARENES ATTITUDES TOWARD HOMOSEXUALS 28 determine the effect of each of the independent variables (age, gender, educational level, political affiliation, relational status, geographical location, length of time in the Nazarene church, theological orientation, i.e., liberal, moderate, conservative and sexual orientation) on the dependent variable, viz., Nazarene’s attitudes toward individuals who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. A hierarchical multiple regression will be performed in order to determine the specific order and influence of the aforementioned independent variables have on the dependent variable of Nazarene’s attitudes of acceptance or non acceptance demonstrated toward individuals who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender.
VI. Independent and Dependent Variables
A demographic survey seeking information regarding age, gender, educational level, political affiliation, relational status, geographical location, length of time in the Nazarene church, theological orientation (liberal, moderate, conservative) and sexual orientation will be distributed. These factors comprise the nine independent variables for the study. The type of data for this study will be non-parametric. The independent variables gender, relational status, geographical location and political affiliation is nominal data. Ordinal data will include education level and age. Length of time in the Nazarene church is ratio data.
The dependent variable for this study is Nazarenes’ attitudes toward individuals who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, and/or transgender. The Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay
Men-Revised scale developed by Gregory Herek will be used to gather the data.
VII. Instruments
Two instruments will be distributed to Nazarenes throughout the United States. The first of the two instruments will be the revised edition of the Attitudes Toward Lesbians And Gays Running Head: NAZARENES ATTITUDES TOWARD HOMOSEXUALS 29
(ATLG-R). The Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men (ATLG-R) Scale measures the attitudes of heterosexuals toward gay men and women. The ATLG identifies heterosexuals' affective responses to homosexuality and to gay men and lesbians. The ATLG is a 20-item response scale based on Likert scores raging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The
ATLG subscales have shown high levels of internal consistency. Full-scale alpha levels are at .
90. Test –retest reliability was strong at .90 for the full scale ATLG. The ATLG validity shows a significant correlation between high scores (negative attitudes) and high religiosity, lack of contact with gay and lesbian individuals, adherence to traditional sex-role beliefs, dogmatism, and adherence to traditional family ideology. (Herek, 1987).
The second instrument will be a demographic survey designed to acquire the following information from each participant: age, gender, educational level, political affiliation, relational status, geographical location, length of time in the Nazarene church, theological orientation
(liberal, moderate, conservative) and sexual orientation.
VIII. Participants
Participants will include individuals from Nazarene churches, Nazarene colleges and the
Nazarene Theological Seminary all located in the United States. A sample size of 1000 (or more) participants is desired in order to allow for greater generalizability across the Nazarene denomination in the U.S. Ideally, Nazarenes from across the U.S. will choose to participate.
This researcher believes various demographic variables such as geographic location, e.g.,
California/West Coast vs. East Coast vs. the Midwest (a.k.a. The Bible Belt) will reveal an influence on attitudes.
IX. Procedure Running Head: NAZARENES ATTITUDES TOWARD HOMOSEXUALS 30
Hardcopy versions of the instruments will be mailed to (#?) Nazarene churches, Nazarene colleges/universities and the Nazarene Theological Seminary, in the United States for distribution to individuals interested in taking part in this study. Electronic distribution of the instruments using SurveyMonkey or some other e-format may also be utilized.
The paper and pencil version of the Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men-Revised scale may be downloaded, printed and used with the permission of the author and developer
Gregory Herek.
WORKING BIBLIOGRAPHY
Answers to Your Questions about Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality, American Psychological Association, www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html#whatcauses.
Black, D., Gates, G., Sanders, S., and Taylor, L. (2000). Demographics of the gay and lesbian population in the United States: Evidence for available systematic data sources,” Demography (37)2, 139-154.
Brown, M. and Henriquez, E. (2008). Socio-demographic predictors of attitudes towards gays and lesbians, Individual Differences Research (6)3, 193-202.
Butler, A. (2005). Gender differences in the prevalence of same-sex partnering: 1988-2002, Social Forces (84)1, 417-446.
Gallup Organization (2002).What Percentage of the Population is Gay? Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/6961/what-percentage-population-gay.aspx.
Gallup Organization (2006). Gallup’s pulse of democracy: Constitutional amendment defining marriage as only between a man and a woman. Retrieved from www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=1651.
Gates, G. (2006). Same-sex couples and the gay, lesbian, bisexual population: New estimates from the American community survey, The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law, UC Los Angeles. Retrieved from: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/8h08t0zf. Running Head: NAZARENES ATTITUDES TOWARD HOMOSEXUALS 31
Hewitt, E., and Moore, L. (2002). The role of lay theories of the etiologies of homosexuality in attitudes towards lesbians and gay men, Journal of Lesbian Studies 6(3), 58-72. doi: 10.1300/J155v06n03_06.
Herek, G.M. (1984). Attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: a factor analytic study, Journal of Homosexuality10, 39-51.
Herek, G.M. (1987). Can functions be measured? A new perspective on the functional approach to attitudes, Social Psychology Quarterly 50, 285-303.
Herek, G.M. (1987). Religion and prejudice: A comparison of racial and sexual attitudes, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 13, 56-65.
Herek, G.M. (1988). Heterosexuals' attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: Correlates and gender differences, Journal of Sex Research 25, 451-477.
Herek, G.M. (1994). Assessing heterosexuals' attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: A review of empirical research with the ATLG scale. In B. Greene, & G.M. Herek (Eds.) Lesbian and Gay Psychology: Theory, Research, and Clinical Applications (206-228). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Herek, G. M. (2000). The psychology of sexual prejudice. Current directions in psychological science 9, 19-22.
Herek, G. M. (2007). Confronting sexual stigma and prejudice: Theory and practice. Journal of Science Issues 63, 905-925.
Hughes. J. (2006). A general review of recent reports on homosexuality and lesbianism, Sexuality and Disability (24), 195-205. doi: 10.1007/s11195-006-9025-5.
Kite, M. and Deaux, K. (1986). Attitudes toward homosexuality: Assessment and behavioral consequences, Basic and Applied Social Psychology 7(2), 137-162.
Marmor, J. (1998). Homosexuality, Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy 2(4), 19-28. doi:10.1300/J236v02n04_03.
Parrott, D., Adams, H., & Zeichner, A. (2002). Homophobia: Personality correlates of homophobia, Personality and Individual Differences, 32(7), 1269-1278.
Robertson, P. (2004). The historical effects of depathologizing homosexuality on the practice of counseling, The Family Journal 12(2), 163-169. doi: 10.1177/1066480703261976.
Rosik, C. (2007). Ideological concerns in the operationalization of homophobia, part 1: An analysis of Herek’s ATLG-R scale, Journal of Psychology and Theology (25)2, 132-144. Running Head: NAZARENES ATTITUDES TOWARD HOMOSEXUALS 32
Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality, American Psychological Association, Retrieved from: http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx.
Sheldon, J. Pfeffer, C., Jayaratne, T., Feldbaum, M. and Petty, E. (2007). Beliefs about the etiology of homosexuality and about the ramifications of discovering its possible genetic origin, Journal of Homosexuality 52(3), 111-150. doi: 10.1300/J082v52n03_06.
Spitzer, R. (1981). The diagnostic status of homosexuality in DSM-III: a reformulation of the issue, The American Journal of Psychiatry 138, 210-215. Vreeland, C., Gallagher, B., McFalls, J. (1995). The beliefs of members of the American Psychiatric Association on the etiology of male homosexuality: A national survey, The Journal of Psychology 129(5), 507-517.
Yarhouse, M. (2010). Homosexuality and the Christian: A guide for parents, pastors and friends. Bethany House Publishers: Bloomington, MN.