Prejudice against Homosexuality and Locus of Control - DergiPark

Loading...

Prejudice against Homosexuality and Locus of Control Ozanser U¤urlu* Çankaya Üniversitesi ÖZET Bu çal›flman›n amac› eflcinselli¤e iliflkin önyarg›l› tutumlar ile içsel-d›flsal kontrol oda¤›, cinsiyet fark› ve sosyal temas aras›ndaki iliflkiyi araflt›rmakt›r. Türkiye’deki çeflitli üniversitelerden 198 ö¤renci bu çal›flmaya kat›lm›flt›r. Kat›l›mc›lar›n yafl ortalamas› 21.14 (SS = 2.38) de¤erindedir. Kat›l›mc›lar Hudson ve Ricketts’›n 25 maddelik Eflcinselli¤e iliflkin Tutumlar Ölçe¤i, ‹ç-d›fl Kontrol Oda¤› Ölçe¤i ve cinsiyet, sosyal temas ve yafl› içeren demografik bilgi fromunu doldurmufllard›r. Eflcinselli¤e iliflkin önyarg›l› tutumlar sadece d›fl kontrol oda¤›n›n kadere inanç, çaban›n anlams›zl›¤› ve flansa inanç alt faktörleri ile korelayon göstermifltir. ANOVA sonucuna göre, d›fl kontrol oda¤›, cinsiyet fark› ve sosyal temas ana etkileri istatistiksel olarak anlaml› bulunmufltur. Ancak, bu de¤iflkenler aras› etkileflim bulunamam›flt›r. Ayr›ca, yap›lan regresyon analizi sonucuna göre eflcinselli¤e iliflkin önyarg›y› kader inanç alt unsuru anlaml› bir flekilde yordam›flt›r. ANAHTAR KEL‹MELER eflcinsellik, önyarg›, iç-d›fl kontrol oda¤›, sosyal temas ve cinsiyet farklar› ABSTRACT The purpose of the study was to explore the relationship between prejudice against homosexuality, internal-external locus of control, sex differences and social contact. A total of 198 university students from various Turkish universities participated in this study. The mean age of the participants was 21.14 (SD = 2.38). The participants filled Hudson and Ricketts’ 25-item Attitudes toward Homosexuality Scale, Internal-External Locus of Control Scale, and demographic variables including sex differences, social contact and age. The prejudice against homosexuality were only correlated with the sub-factors of external locus of control namely belief in fate, meaninglessness of effortfulness, and belief in chance. The performed ANOVA presented that the main effects of the level of external locus of control, sex differences, and social contact were only statistically significant, but there were no interactions between them. Regression analysis showed that belief in fate was the only significant predictor of the prejudice against homosexuality KEYWORDS homosexuality, prejudice, internal-external locus of control, social contact, and sex differences

Attitudes toward homosexuality and homosexuals have been such a popular research topic because of its importance in terms of inter group relations, prejudice and discrimination toward minority groups.1 Parallel to the existing literature on homosexuality abroad, Turkish

*

Corresponding author. 1. A. L. Ellis and R. B. Vasseur, “Prior Interpersonal Contact with and Attitudes Towards Gays and Lesbians in an Interviewing Context,” Journal of Homosexuality, 25/4 (1993), pp.31-45. ; G. Haddock, M. P. Zanna, and V. M. Esses, “Assessing the Structure of Prejudicial Attitudes: The Case of Attitudes Toward Homosexuals,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65/6 (1993), pp.1105-1118.; G. M Herek and J. P. Capitanio, ‘“Some of My Best Friends...:’ Intergroup Contact, Concealable Stigma and Heterosexuals’ Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, (1996), pp.412-424. ; L. M. Lance, “The Effects Of Interaction with Agy Persons on Attitudes toward Homosexuality,” Human Relations, 40/6 (1987), pp.329-336. Çankaya University Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 10/1 (May 2013), pp.1–12. © Çankaya Üniversitesi ISSN 1309-6761 Printed in Turkey

2

OZANSER U⁄URLU

scientists have also started to pay attention to the issues. Researchers in Turkey have demonstrated that men are more prejudiced against homosexuality than women;2 the participants with high sexism are more prejudiced against homosexuality than are those with low sexism;3 the participants who have no social contact with homosexuals had more negative attitudes toward homosexuality than those who have social contact;4 and religious belief was found to be associated with prejudice against homosexuals.5 In addition, testing the Attribution-value model of prejudice,6 Sakall›7 (2002c) demonstrated that anti-homosexual prejudice was explained by the attributions of controllability and negative cultural value toward homosexuality. The controllability factor seems to be an important one in explaining prejudice against homosexuality as suggested by other researchers in the USA.8 The question that remains unanswered is how the perception of controllability of one’s own behaviours as internal or external, which is locus of control, is related to prejudice against homosexuality? The purpose of the present study is to explore

2. O. C. Ç›rako¤lu, “Perception of Homosexuality among Turkish University Students: The Role of Labels, Sex Differences and Prior Contact,” The Journal of Social Psychology, 146/3 (2006), pp.293-305.; V. Duyan and G. Duyan, “Turkish Social Work Students’ Attitudes Toward Sexuality,” Sex Roles, 52/9,10 (2005), pp.697-706.; N. Sakall›, “The Relationship Between Sexism and Attitudes toward Homosexuality in a Sample of Turkish College Students,” Journal of Homosexuality, 42 (2002), pp.53-63.; N. Sakall›, and O. U¤urlu, “Effects of Social Contact with Homosexuals on Heterosexual Turkish University Students’ Attitudes towards Homosexuality,” Journal of Homosexuality, 42/1 (2001), pp.53-61. 3. N. Sakall›, “The Relationship between Sexism and Attitudes toward Homosexuality in a Sample of Turkish College Students,” Journal of Homosexuality, 42 (2002a), pp.53-63. 4. O. C. Ç›rako¤lu, “Perception of Homosexuality among Turkish University Students: The Role of Labels, Sex Differences and Prior Contact.”; N. Sakall› and O. U¤urlu, “Effects of Social Contact with Homosexuals on Heterosexual Turkish University Students’ Attitudes towards Homosexuality,” Journal of Homosexuality, 42/1, (2001), pp.53-61.; N. Sakall› and O. U¤urlu, “The Effects of Social Contact with a Lesbian Person on the Attitude Change Toward Homosexuality in Turkey,” Journal of Homosexuality, 44/1 (2002), pp.111-118. 5. Saraç, L. “The Relationship between Homophobic Attitudes and Religiosity among Turkish Physical Education Teacher Majors.” Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 3 (2012), pp.277-287. 6. C. S. Crandall, S. D’Anello, N. Sakall›, E. Lazarus, G. W. Nejtardt, and N. T. Feather, “An Attributionvalue Model of Prejudice: Anti-fat Attitudes in Six Nations.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27 (2001), pp.30-37. 7. N. Sakall›, “Application of the Attribution-value Model of Prejudice to Homosexuality,” The Journal of Social Psychology, 4/2, (2002c). pp.264-271. 8. J. E. Aguero, L. Bloch, and D. Byrne, “The Relationships Among Sexual Beliefs, Attitudes, Experience and Homophobia,” Journal of Homosexuality, 10 (1984), pp. 95-107.; B. E. Whitley, “‘The relationship of Heterosexuals’ Attributions for the Causes of Homosexuality to Attitudes toward Lesbians and Gay Men.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16 (1990), pp.369-377.

PREJUDICE AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY AND LOCUS OF CONTROL

how locus of control accepted as an enduring predisposition of individuals might influence prejudice against homosexuality in Turkey. Since individual differences influence how people perceive and form attitudes toward other groups9 locus of control which is also an enduring individual difference may also influence how people perceive and like/dislike homosexuals. In terms of locus of control, as Rotter10 (1966) argued people differ regarding the amount of control they feel and have over the reinforcement and punishments they receive. People with internal locus of control feel that reinforcement or an outcome of their behaviour is contingent on their own behaviour or personal characteristics.11 The internal locus of control sub-factor covers the issues of personal responsibility of one’s own behaviour. Good outcomes need effort and determination, whereas negative outcomes are results of one’s own fault and laziness. However, people with external locus of control feel that the reinforcement is a function of chance, luck or fate, and is under the control of powerful others.12 The external locus of control includes “belief in chance”, “meaninglessness of the effortfulness,” “belief in fate,” and “belief in an unjust world.”13 Belief in fate sub-factor includes the issues of religiosity by stating that having religious beliefs help individuals to deal with difficulties in their lives. When the literature on locus of control is examined, findings from different studies show that positive issues like health preventive behaviours14 are related with the internality of locus of control, whereas external locus of control is associated with psychological symptomatology,15 and greater belief in paranormal phenomena including traditional 9. O. Klein, M. Snyder, and R. W. “Livingston, Prejudice on the Stage: Self-monitoring and the Public Expression of Group Attitudes.” British Journal of Social Psychology, 4, (2004), pp.299-314.; M. R. Smith, and R. A. Gordon, “Personal Need for Structure and Attitudes toward Homosexuality.” The Journal of Social Psychology, 138 (1998), pp.83-87. 10. J. B. Rotter, “Generalized Expectancies for Internal vs External Control of Reinforcement.” Psychological Monographs, 80/1 (Whole No. 609), (1966) 11. J. B. Rotter, “Internal vs. External Control of Reinforcement: A Case History of a Variable.” American Psychologist, 45 (1990), pp.489-493. 12. J. B. Rotter, “Internal vs. External Control of Reinforcement: A Case History of a Variable.” 13. I. Da¤, “Kontrol Oda¤› Ölçe¤i (KOÖ): Ölçek gelifltirme, güvenirlik ve geçerlik çal›flmas› (Locus of Control Scale: Scale development, reliability and validity study),” Türk Psikoloji Dergisi (Turkish Journal of Psyhcology), 17/49 (2002), pp.77-92. 14. M. J. Quadrel, and R. R. Lau, “Health Promotion, Health Locus of Control and Health Behavior: Two Field Studies.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19 (1989), pp.1497-1521. 15. I. Da¤, “Kontrol Oda¤›, Ö¤renilmifl Güçlülük ve Psikopatoloji ‹liflkileri (The Relations Among Locus of Control, Learned Resourcefulness and Psychopathology),” Türk Psikoloji Dergisi (Turkish Journal of Psychology), 7 (1992), pp.1-9.

3

4

OZANSER U⁄URLU

religious and superstitious beliefs.16 The relationship between external locus of control and paranormal issues covering traditional religious beliefs might lead one to argue that external locus of control may be related with attitudes toward homosexuality. The items measuring external locus of control, especially belief in fate sub-factor covers the issues of religion stating that religious beliefs function as a necessary way to deal with difficulties in life, and fate determines one’s life. Consequently, it is possible to argue that people with external locus of control who believe that the outcomes of their own behaviours mostly depend on fate are more likely to be prejudiced against homosexuals, since religiosity,17 and the connected ideologies to religiosity such as authoritarianism,18 sexism,19 sexual conservatism,20 and conservatism21 are associated with negative attitudes toward homosexuality. The current study aims to explore how the sub-factors of locus of control are associated with people’s prejudice attitudes toward homosexuality. In addition, in tune with the earlier studies conducted in Turkey,22 sex differences and social contact variables are also included 16. I. Da¤, “The Relationship Among Paranormal Beliefs, Locus of Control and Psychopathology in a Turkish College Students.” Personality and Individual Differences, 26 (1999), pp.723-737.; J. J. Tobacyk, E. Nagot, and M. Miller, “Paranormal Beliefs and Locus of Control: A Multidimensional Examination.” Journal of Personality Assessment, 52 (1988), pp.241-246. 17. G. M. Herek, “Religious Orientation and Prejudice: A Comparison of Racial and Sexual Attitudes.” Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 13/1 (1987), pp.34-44.; L. Saraç, “The Relationship between Homophobic Attitudes and Religiosity among Turkish Physical Education Teacher Majors.”; L. Schulte and J. Battle, “The Relative Impotance of Ethnicitiy and Religion in Predicting Attitudes towards Gays and Lesbians.” Journal of Homosexuality, 47/2 (2004), pp.127-142.; M. J. Shen, L. A.Yelderman, M. C. Haggard and W. C Rowatt, “Disentangling the Belief in God and Cognitive Rigidity/Flexibility Components of Religiosity to Predict Racial and Value-violating Prejudice. A Post-Critical Belief Scale Analysis.” Personality and Individual Differences, 54/3 (2013), pp. 89-395. ; W. W. Wilkonson, and A. C. Roys, “The Components of Sexual Orientation, Religiosity, and Heterosexual’s Impression of Gay Men and Lesbians.” The Journal of Social Psychology, 145/1 (2005), pp.65-83. 18. B. E. Whitley, and S. E. Lee, “The Relationship of Authoritarianism and Related Constructs to Attitudes toward Homosexuality,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30/1 (2000), pp.144-170. 19. D. J. Parrott, H. E. Adams and A. Zeichner, “Homophobia: Personality and Attitudinal Correlates.” Personality and Individual Differences, 32 (2002), pp.1269-1278.; N. Sakall›, “The Relationship between Sexism and Attitudes toward Homosexuality in a Sample of Turkish College Students.” 20. T. J. Ficarrotto, “Racism, Sexism, and Erotophobia: Attitudes of Heterosexuals Toward Homosexuals.” Journal of Homosexuality, 19/1 (1990), pp.111-116. 21. P. C. L. Heaven and L. N. Oxman, “Human Values, Conservatism and Stereotypes of Somosexuals.” Personality and Individual Differences, 27/1 (1999), pp.109-118. 22. N. Sakall›, “The Relationship between Sexism and Attitudes toward Homosexuality in a Sample Of Turkish College Students.”; N. Sakall›, “Application of the Attribution-value Model of Prejudice to Homosexuality.” The Journal of Social Psychology, 4/2 (2002c), pp.264-271.; N. Sakall› and

PREJUDICE AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY AND LOCUS OF CONTROL

in the present study to examine whether sex differences and social contact interact with the locus of control.

METHOD PARTICIPANTS

A total of 198 Turkish university students (98 females) participated in this study. Participants’ age range was from 17 to 34 with a mean of 21.14 (SD = 2.38). The mean age of female participants was 20.52 (SD = 1.80) and of male participants was 21.74 (SD = 2.70). All participants indicated that they were heterosexuals. Most of the students were from urban backgrounds and from middle- to upper-income families ( 20.7 % slightly below middle class, 41.4 % middle-class, 30.8 % slightly above middle-class, and 7.1 % upper-class).

MEASURES

Attitudes toward Homosexuality Scale: A 25-item scale developed by Hudson and Ricketts23 (1980) measuring attitudes toward homosexual persons was used in the study. The scale was translated from English into Turkish by Sakall› and U¤urlu24 (2001) and used in several studies of Sakall›.25 One item about walking comfortably through gay section of town was excluded from the scale, because there was no a predominantly gay section of the city of Ankara. Cronbach’s alpha for the whole scale for the present study was found as .94. The participants were asked to indicate their agreement or disagreement O. U¤urlu, “Effects of Social Contact with Homosexuals on Heterosexual Turkish University Students’ Attitudes Towards Homosexuality.”; N. Sakall›, and O. U¤urlu, “The Effects of Social Contact with a Lesbian Person on the Attitude Change toward Homosexuality in Turkey.” 23. W. W. Hudson, and W. A. A. Ricketts, “Strategy for the Measurement of Homophobia.” Journal of Homosexuality, 5 (1980), pp.357-372. 24. N. Sakall›, and O. U¤urlu, “Effects of Social Contact with Homosexuals on Heterosexual Turkish University Students’ Attitudes towards Homosexuality.” 25. N. Sakall›, “The Relationship between Sexism and Attitudes toward Homosexuality in a Sample Of Turkish College Students.”; N. Sakall›, “Application of the Attribution-value Model of Prejudice to Homosexuality.”; N. Sakall›, and O. U¤urlu, “The Effects of Social Contact with a Lesbian Person on the Attitude Change Toward Homosexuality in Turkey.”

5

6

OZANSER U⁄URLU

with each item using a 6-point scale, 1 being “Strongly disagree” and 6 being “Strongly agree”. Higher scores on the scale indicate having higher prejudicial attitudes toward homosexuality. Locus of Control Scale: A 47 item scale of Locus of Control26 was used in the study. Da¤27 (1991) adapted Rotter’s Internal-External Locus of Control Scale into Turkish. Later, Da¤ developed a newer Turkish version of Locus of control scale with Likert type response format. The scale has 5 factors as “personal control (internal locus of control; α= .87),” “belief in chance (α= .79),” “meaninglessness of the effortfulness (α= .76),” “belief in fate (α= .74),” and “belief in an unjust world (α= .61).” By using the present data set, the Cronbach’s Alphas for the sub-factors of locus of control were .84, .78, .69, .72, and .61 respectively. Demographic Information Form. Participants were asked to indicate their sex, age, their sexual preferences (heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual), and whether they have a homosexual friend (yes or no). The number of subjects who had a homosexual friend was 81, while the number of subjects who did not have any homosexual friends was 117.

PROCEDURE

Students from various universities from Turkey, predominanty from Ankara, participated in the study. They completed an online questionnaire. Participants were ensured that their responses were confidential. After completing the questionnaire, participants were provided with a debriefing about the aims of the study.

RESULTS THE CORRELATIONS BETWEEN THE VARIABLES

In order to explore the relationship between the variables, a correlation analysis was performed. As seen in Table 1, the results showed that prejudice against homosexuality 26. I. Da¤, “Kontrol Oda¤› Ölçe¤i (KOÖ): Ölçek gelifltirme, güvenirlik ve geçerlik çal›flmas› (Locus of Control Scale: Scale development, reliability and validity study).” 27. I. Da¤, “Rotter’in ‹ç-D›fl Kontrol Oda¤› Ölçe¤i’nin Üniversite Ö¤rencileri Için Güvenirli¤i ve Geçerli¤i (Validitiy and Reliability of Rotter’s Internal-External Locus of Control Scale with Turkish University Students).” Psikoloji Dergisi (Turkish Journal of Psychology), 7 (1991), pp.10-16

PREJUDICE AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY AND LOCUS OF CONTROL

TABLO 1—Correlations between the Variables 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Sex differences (1)

--

Social Contact (2)

.06

--

Personal control (3)

-.00

.09

--

Belief in chance (4)

.05

.09

.38**

--

Meaninglessness (5)

-.03

.12

.47**

.54**

--

Belief in Fate (6)

.03

.34** .15*

.34**

.38**

.00

.37**

.48** .15*

.19*

.20** .50** .02

Belief in an Unjust world (7) -.14* Prejudice (8)

.17*

-.25** .40** .07

8

----

** P < .01, * p <.05 Note . Meaninglessness = Meaninglessness of the Effortfulness, Prejudice= Prejudice against homosexuality; Scales ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Higher scores on Locus of Control Sub-factors indicate high internal vs external locus of control; Higher scores on Prejudice against Homosexuality indicate more prejudice. Coding for Sex differences 1 = Males, 2 = Females; Coding for Social Contact 1 = Participants who have a homosexual friend, 2= Participants who does not have any homosexual friends.

was significantly correlated with social contact (r = .40), belief in fate (r = .50), sex differences (r = -.25), meaninglessness of the effortfulness (r = .20), and belief in chance (r = .19). THE EFFECTS OF LOCUS OF CONTROL. SEX DIFFERENCES, AND SOCIAL CONTACT ON THE PREJUDICE AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY

Since “prejudice against homosexuality” was only significantly correlated with “belief in fate”, “meaninglessness of effortfulness”, and “belief in chance”, the sub-factors of “external locus of control” were combined and a new variable called “external locus of control” was created. By using median split (Median = 3.2083), external locus of control was categorized into two groups as scoring low or high . Later a 2 (sex differences: male vs female) X 2 (social contact: present vs absent) X 2 (the level of external locus of control: low vs high) ANOVA was performed on the dependent variable, prejudice against homosexuality. The results showed that there were no significant three-way or

7

8

OZANSER U⁄URLU

two-way interactions. However, the main effects of the external locus of control, sex differences, and social contact were statistically significant. First of all, the participants who were high on external locus of control (M = 4.41, SD = .99) were more prejudiced against homosexuality than were those who were low on the external locus of control (M = 3.95, SD = 1.14; F (1, 179) = 10.86, η2 = .06, p < .01). Second of all, male participants (M = 4.47, SD = 1.04) were more prejudiced against homosexuality than the female participants were (M = 3.93, SD = 1.07; F (1, 179) = 16.46, η2 = .08, p < .01). Finally, the participants who did not have any homosexual friends (M = 4.55, SD = .97) had more negative attitudes toward homosexuality than did those who had a homosexual friend (M = 3.66, SD = 1.04; F (1, 179) = 42.27, η2 = .19, p < .01). Additionally, a multiple linear regression analysis was performed to explore whether belief in fate sub-factor explains the prejudice against homosexuality more than belief in chance and meaninglessness of effortfulness does, in order to provide support for the argument made in the introduction section, suggesting that external locus of control can be related with attitudes toward homosexuality since the items measuring external locus of control, especially belief in fate sub-factor covers the issue of religion. The regression analysis showed that the belief in chance (β = .03, t = .39, ns), meaninglessness of effortfulness (β = .02, t = .23, ns), and belief in fate (β = .47, t = 6.64, p < .05) were significantly predicted the prejudice against homosexuality (R2 = .23, F (3, 179) = 18.63, p < .01). As seen, the analysis showed that the only significant predictor was belief in fate, but not the others.

DISCUSSION The present study explored how the sub-factors of locus of control, which is accepted as an individual characteristic, influence people’s negative attitudes toward homosexuality. Sex differences and social contact variables were also included in the present study to examine whether sex differences and social contact show any interactions with the locus of control. First, a correlation analysis was performed. Then, depending on the correlation results, the three significant sub-factors of external locus of control were combined and a new variable called external locus of control was created, and an ANOVA was run. The results showed that there were no three-ways or two-ways interactions between sex differences, social contact and the level of external locus of control. The main effects of the level of external locus of control sex differences, and social contact on the prejudice against homosexuality were only statistically significant.

PREJUDICE AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY AND LOCUS OF CONTROL

The correlation analysis demonstrated that the prejudice against homosexuality was correlated with belief in fate, meaninglessness of effortfulness, and belief in chance. Internal locus of control and belief in an unjust world were not correlated with the prejudice against homosexuality. In addition, the level of external locus of control main effect suggested that the participants high on external locus of control were more prejudiced against homosexuality than were those low on external locus of control. However, examination of the correlation between the sub-factors of locus of control and the prejudice against homosexuality showed that the strongest correlation was between the prejudice against homosexuality and belief in fate. Further, regression analysis also demonstrated that belief in fate was the only significant predictor of the prejudice against homosexuality. Thus, people who think that fate determine one’s life and who think that religious beliefs are necessary to deal with difficulties in life are more prejudiced against homosexuality. The regression analysis supported the argument that the religious connotation of the beliefs in fate sub-factor become a more important issue in explaining the prejudiced attitudes toward homosexuality, consistent with the earlier studies on the association between conservative,28 religious,29 sexist30 ideologies and the prejudice against homosexuality. In short, the results showed that only belief in fate is associated with the prejudice against homosexuality because of its inclusion of religiosity. Other sub-factors of locus of control were not associated with the prejudice. In terms of sex differences, ANOVA results demonstrated that men are more prejudiced against homosexuality than are women. This particular result was consistent with the earlier studies in abroad,31 and in Turkey.32 When the prejudice literature is examined, 28. P. C. L. Heaven, and L. N. Oxman, “Human Values, Conservatism and Stereotypes of Somosexuals.” Personality and Individual Differences, 27/1 (1999), pp.109-118. 29. G. M. Herek, “Religious Orientation and Prejudice: A Comparison of Racial and Sexual Attitudes.”; L. Saraç, “The Relationship between Homophobic Attitudes and Religiosity among Turkish Physical Education Teacher Majors.”; W. W. Wilkonson, and A. C. Roys, “The Components of Sexual Orientation, Religiosity, and Heterosexual’s Impression of Gay Men and Lesbians.” 30. Sakall›, N. “The Relationship between Sexism and Attitudes toward Homosexuality in a Sample Of Turkish College Students.” 31. M. E. Kite, and B. E. Whitley, “Sex Differences in Attitudes toward Homosexual Persons, Behaviour, and Civil Rights: A Meta-Analysis.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22 (1996), pp. 336-353.; B. E. Whitley, “The Relationship of Sex-role Orientation to Heterosexuals’ Attitudes toward Homosexuals.” Sex Roles, 17/1, 2 (1987), pp.103-113. 32. Sakall›, N. “The Relationship between Sexism and Attitudes toward Homosexuality in a Sample of Turkish College Students.”; N. Sakall›, “Pictures of Male Homosexuals in the Heads of Turkish College Students: The Effects of Sex Differences and Social Contact on Stereotyping.” Journal of Homosexuality, 43/2 (2002b), pp.111-126.

9

10

OZANSER U⁄URLU

many research show that males were more likely to present explicit negative attitudes toward issues such as racism33 and sexism,34 which are also relevant to prejudice against homosexuality.35 Finally, consistent with the earlier results in abroad,36 and in Turkey,37 the participants who did not have any homosexual friends were more prejudiced against homosexuality than were who have a homosexual friend. As argued in the existing literature,38 having a homosexual friend might lead people to perceive similarity between heterosexuals and homosexuals. In addition, the positive attitudes of the participants who have a homosexual friend might result from their deviancy from the accepted social norms about appropriate sexual behaviours. If the participants have any social contact with homosexual individuals, then it is easier for them to indicate their positive attitudes toward homosexuality. In summary, the present study showed that the high external locus of control including belief in fate, meaninglessness of effortfulness, and belief in chance is associated with prejudice against homosexuality, but only belief in fate which is relevant to religiosity significantly predicted the prejudice. In addition, social contact and sex differences are found to be important correlates of the prejudice. Future studies should focus on the issue at hand by considering the relationship between external locus of control and religiosity or religious orientation. It seems that the fate and religiosity items in the external locus of control scale determine the degree of prejudice against homosexuality. In addition, it is necessary to gather more information about how non-college students perceive the issues of homosexuality and how other personality characteristics impact the attitudes toward homosexuality.

33. N. Akrami, B. Ekehammar and T. Araya, “Classical and Modern Racial Prejudice: A Study of Attitudes toward Immigrants in Sweden.” European Journal of Social Psychology, 30 (2000), pp.521–532. 34. P. Glick, and T. S. Fiske, “The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating Hostile and Benevolent Sexism.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70 (1996), pp.491-512. 35. G. M. Herek, “Religious Orientation and Prejudice: A Comparison of Racial and Sexual Attitudes.”; Sakall›, N. “The Relationship between Sexism and Attitudes toward Homosexuality in a Sample of Turkish College Students.” 36. A. L. Ellis, and R. B. Vasseur, “Prior interpersonal Contact with and Attitudes towards Gays and Lesbians in an Interviewing Context.”; G. M. Herek, and J. P. Capitanio, ‘“Some of My Best Friends...:’ Intergroup Contact, Concealable Stigma and Heterosexuals’ Attitudes toward Lesbians and Gay Men.”; L. M. Lance, “The Effects Of Interaction with Agy Persons on Attitudes toward Homosexuality.” 37. O. C. Ç›rako¤lu, “Perception of Homosexuality among Turkish University Students: The Role of Labels, Sex Differences and Prior Contact.; N. Sakall›, and O. U¤urlu, “Effects of Social Contact with Homosexuals on Heterosexual Turkish University Students’ Attitudes Towards Homosexuality.” 38. N. Sakall›, and O. U¤urlu, “Effects of Social Contact with Homosexuals on Heterosexual Turkish University Students’ Attitudes Towards Homosexuality.”

PREJUDICE AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY AND LOCUS OF CONTROL

REFERENCES Aguero, J. E., L. Bloch, and D. Byrne. “The Relationships Among Sexual Beliefs, Attitudes, Experience and Homophobia,” Journal of Homosexuality, 10 (1984), pp.95-107. Akrami, N., B. Ekehammar, and T. Araya. “Classical and Modern Racial Prejudice: A Study of Attitudes toward Immigrants in Sweden,” European Journal of Social Psychology, 30 (2000), pp.521–532. Crandall, C. S., S D’Anello, N. Sakall›, E. Lazarus, G. W. Nejtardt, N. T. Feather. Attribution-value Model of Prejudice: Anti-fat Attitudes in Six Nations,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27 (2001), pp.30-37. Ç›rako¤lu, O. C. “Perception of Homosexuality Among Turkish University Students: The Role of Labels, Sex Differences and Prior Contact,” The Journal of Social Psychology, 146/3 (2006), pp.293-305. Da¤, I. “Rotter’in ‹ç-D›fl Kontrol Oda¤› Ölçe¤i’nin Üniversite Ö¤rencileri ‹çin Güvenirli¤i ve Geçerli¤i (Validitiy and Reliability of Rotter’s Internal-External Locus of Control Scale with Turkish University Students),” Psikoloji Dergisi (Turkish Journal of Psychology), 7 (1991), pp.10-16. Da¤, I. “Kontrol Oda¤›, Ö¤renilmifl Güçlülük ve Psikopatoloji ‹liflkileri (The Relations Among Locus of Control, Learned Resourcefulness and Psychopathology),” Türk Psikoloji Dergisi (Turkish Journal of Psychology), 7 (1992), pp.1-9. Da¤, I. “The Relationship among Paranormal Beliefs, Locus of Control and Psychopathology in a Turkish College Students,” Personality and Individual Differences, 26 (1999), pp.723-737. Da¤, I. “Kontrol Oda¤› Ölçe¤i (KOÖ): Ölçek Gelifltirme, Güvenirlik ve Geçerlik Çal›flmas› (Locus of Control Scale: Scale Development, Reliability and Validity Study),” Türk Psikoloji Dergisi (Turkish Journal of Psyhcology), 17/49, (2002), pp.77-92. Duyan, V., and G. Duyan. “Turkish Social Work Students’ Attitudes Toward Sexuality,” Sex Roles, 52/9,10 (2005), pp.697-706. Ellis, A. L. and R. B. Vasseur. “Prior interpersonal contact with and attitudes towards gays and lesbians in an interviewing context,” Journal of Homosexuality, 25/4 (1993), pp.31-45. Ficarrotto, T. J. “Racism, Sexism, and Erotophobia: Attitudes of Heterosexuals Toward Homosexuals,” Journal of Homosexuality, 19/1, (1990), pp.111-116. Glick, P., and T. S. P. Fiske. “The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating Hostile and Benevolent Sexism,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70 (1996), pp.491-512. Haddock, G., M. P. Zanna, and V. M. Esses. “Assessing the structure of prejudicial attitudes: The case of attitudes toward homosexuals,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65/6 (1993), pp.1105-1118. Heaven, P. C. L. and L. N. Oxman. “Oxman, Human Values, Conservatism and Stereotypes of Somosexuals,” Personality and Individual Differences, 27/1, (1999), pp.109-118. Herek, G. M. “Religious Orientation and Prejudice: A Comparison of Racial and Sexual Attitudes,” Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 13/1 (1987), pp.34-44. Herek, G. M., and J. P. Capitanio. “‘Some of My Best Friends...:’ Intergroup Contact, Concealable Stigma and Heterosexuals’ Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, (1996), pp.412-424. Hudson, W. W., and W. A. Ricketts. “Ricketts, Strategy for the Measurement of Homophobia,” Journal of Homosexuality, 5 (1980), pp.357-372. Kite, M. E., and B. E. Whitley. “Sex Differences in Attitudes toward Homosexual Persons, Behaviour, and Civil Rights: A Meta-Analysis,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22 (1996), pp.336-353. Klein, O., M. Snyder, and R. W. Livingston. “Livingston, Prejudice on the Stage: Self-monitoring and the Public Expression of Group Attitudes,” British Journal of Social Psychology, 4 (2004), pp.299-314. Lance, L. M. “The Effects Of Interaction with Agy Persons on Attitudes toward Homosexuality,” Human Relations, 40/6 (1987), pp.329-336. Quadrel, M. J. and R. R. Lau. “Health Promotion, Health Locus of Control and Health Behavior: Two Field Studies,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19 (1989), pp.1497-1521. Parrott, D. J., H. E. Adams, and A. Zeichner. “Homophobia: Personality and Attitudinal Correlates,” Personality and Individual Differences, 32 (2002), pp.1269-1278.

11

12

OZANSER U⁄URLU

Rotter, J. B. “Generalized Expectancies for Internal vs External Control of Reinforcement,” Psychological Monographs, 80/1(Whole No. 609), (1966). Rotter, J. B. “Internal vs. External Control of Reinforcement: A Case History of a Variable,” American Psychologist, 45 (1990), pp.489-493. Sakall›, N. “The Relationship between Sexism and Attitudes toward Homosexuality in a Sample of Turkish College Students,” Journal of Homosexuality, 42 (2002a), pp.53-63. Sakall›, N. “Pictures of Male Homosexuals in the Heads of Turkish College Students: The Effects of Sex Differences and Social Contact on Stereotyping,” Journal of Homosexuality, 43/2 (2002b), pp.111-126. Sakall›, N. “Application of the Attribution-value Model of Prejudice to Homosexuality,” The Journal of Social Psychology, 4/2, (2002c), pp.264-271. Sakall›, N. and O. U¤urlu. “Effects of Social Contact with Homosexuals on Heterosexual Turkish University Students’ Attitudes towards Homosexuality,” Journal of Homosexuality, 42/1 (2001), pp.53-61. Sakall›, N. and O. U¤urlu. “The Effects of Social Contact with a Lesbian Person on the Attitude Change toward Homosexuality in Turkey,” Journal of Homosexuality, 44/1, (2002), pp.111-118. Saraç, L. “The Relationship between Homophobic Attitudes and Religiosity among Turkish Physical Education Teacher Majors,” Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy,3 (2012), pp.277-287. Schulte, L., and J. Battle. “The Relative Impotance of Ethnicitiy and Religion in Predicting Attitudes towards Gays and Lesbians,” Journal of Homosexuality, 47/2 (2004), pp.127-142. Shen, M. J., L. A. Yelderman, M. C. Haggard, and W. C. Rowatt. “Disentangling the Belief in God and Cognitive Rigidity/Flexibility Components of Religiosity to Predict Racial and Value-violating Prejudice. A Post-Critical Belief Scale Analysis,” Personality and Individual Differences, 54/3 (2013), pp. 89-395. Smith, M. R., and R. A. Gordon. Personal Need for Structure and Attitudes toward Homosexuality,” The Journal of Social Psychology, 138 (1998), pp.83-87. Tobacyk, J. J., E. Nagot, and M. Miller. “Paranormal Beliefs and Locus of Control: A Multidimensional Examination,” Journal of Personality Assessment, 52 (1988), pp.241-246. Whitley, B. E. “The Relationship of Sex-role Orientation to Heterosexuals’ Attitudes toward Homosexuals,” Sex Roles, 17/1,2 (1987), pp.103-113. Whitley, B. E. “‘The relationship of Heterosexuals’ Attributions for the Causes of Homosexuality to Attitudes toward Lesbians and Gay Men,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16 (1990), pp.369-377. Whitley, B. E., and S. E. Lee. “The Relationship of Authoritarianism and Related Constructs to Attitudes toward Homosexuality,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30/1 (2000), pp.144-170. Wilkonson, W. W., and A. C. Roys. “The Components of Sexual Orientation, Religiosity, and Heterosexual’s Impression of Gay Men and Lesbians” The Journal of Social Psychology, 145/1 (2005), pp.65-83.

Loading...

Prejudice against Homosexuality and Locus of Control - DergiPark

Prejudice against Homosexuality and Locus of Control Ozanser U¤urlu* Çankaya Üniversitesi ÖZET Bu çal›flman›n amac› eflcinselli¤e iliflkin önyarg›l› tutu...

81KB Sizes 0 Downloads 0 Views

Recommend Documents

Demystifying prejudice against homosexuality True or False Quiz
I can identify a gay or lesbian at first sight. False. Some boys are weaker than others and some girls are stronger than

different patterns of prejudice toward homosexuals and homosexuality
homosexuals. As predicted, intrinsic orientation was associated with prejudice toward homosexuality, but not toward homo

Redalyc. Social Norms and Prejudice against Homosexuals
Portugal. Annelyse Pereira, Maria Benedicta Monteiro, Leoncio Camino. Social Norms and Prejudice against Homosexuals The

GROWING AND FLOWERING CONTROL OF - Locus – UFV
Aos professores José Geraldo Barbosa e Sebastião Martins Filho pela co- orientação, disponibilidade e sugestões sempre p

Ancient homophobia: Prejudices against homosexuality in classical
Athenian masses against homosexuality in the second half of the fifth century BC. It ... classes; prejudices against hom

Contoh alat ukur Locus Of control (Locus of control Scale) ~ (Dunia
Mar 3, 2013 - Answer the following questions the way you feel. There are no right or wrong answers. Don't take too much

Control system root locus plot
Supervisi pendidikan di sekolah dasar. Theo neological frighten their masters indeed. Skye aphorise crossed his bractead

social work professionals' emotional intelligence, locus of control and
from a psychological perspective on the social work profession and its professionals, behavioural research findings in o

Relationships Among Health Locus of Control, Coping Methods, and
13 items - Therefore, to solve dysmenorrhea-related issues among middle school female students, nursing interventions to