Franky Eastman Disseration intro FINAL

Francesca Eastman
Project in Psychology
W1277436
1
UNIVERSITY OF WESTMINSTER COURSEWORK COVERSHEET FORM
CA1
I confirm that I understand what plagiarism is and have read and understood the
section on Assessment Offences in the Essential Information for Students. The work
that I have submitted is entirely my own (unless authorised group work). Any work
from other authors is duly referenced and acknowledged.
STUDENTS MUST COMPLETE THIS SECTION ONLY IN FULL AND IN CAPITALS
Surname EASTMAN Forename FRANCESCA
Registration
No:
W 1 2 7 7 4 3 6 Course PSYCHOLOGY
Module Title Project Module
Code
1 P S Y 6 2 8
Assignment
No:
1 Date
Submitted
31 03 2015
Project
Supervisor:
JO BORRILL
Joint
Assignments:

Francesca Eastman
W1277436
2
Tutor’s summary comments and feedback to student(s):
All marks are subject to confirmation by the relevant Subject Board
Date Stamp
24hrs late/Over 24
MARK:

Francesca Eastman
W1277436
3

Francesca Eastman
W1277436
4
Attitudes Towards Gay Men and Lesbians
and Support for Gay Men and Lesbians
Human Rights Among University Students
in the UK andUSA
Francesca Eastman
W1277436
1PSY628.Y
Jo Borrill
“This report is submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements of the University of Westminster for the
award of BSc (Hons) Psychology”
‘This project is entirely my own work’ 
Signed: Francesca Eastman_____________________
Date: __30/3/2014____________

Francesca Eastman
W1277436
5
Acknowledgments
In addition, a thank you to Dr Jo Borril, who helped with this research
and for being my supervisor. A thank you to Carol Pearson, who has
been very supportive through out this year. I would also like to thank
Chantal Gautier for being the module head of this project and providing
all the information that was need. Also, to all the other members of the
University of Westminster’s psychology staff, for teaching me many
things over the years. Last of all a thank you to the University of
Westminster for approving this work and letting their facilities to be used
while this research was being undertaken.

Francesca Eastman
W1277436
6
Contents
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………………..1
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………….1
Students’ attitudes and support towards gay men and their human rights…..
……………………………………………………………………………………….2
Professionals’ attitudes and support towards gay men and their human rights
………………………………………………………………………………………..3
Countries attitudes and support towards gay men and their human rights……
…………………………………………………………………………………………4
Statistics………………………………………………………………………………5
Focus of investigation……………………………………………………………….7
Method……………………………………………………………………………….8
Design………………………………………………………………………………...8
Participants…………………………………………………………………………..9
Measures……………………………………………………………………………..9
Procedure…………………………………………………………………………...11
Ethics………………………………………………………………………………..12
Analysis……………………………………………………………………………..12
Results……………………………………………………………………………...13
Hypotheses one……………………………………………………………………13
Hypotheses two…………………………………………………………………….14

Francesca Eastman
W1277436
7
Hypotheses three…………………………………………………………………..15
Hypotheses four……………………………………………………………………19
Other variables……………………………………………………………………..22
Multiple regression.………………………………………………………………..34
Discussion…………………………………………………………………………35
Limitations…………………………………………………………………………..38
Delimitations………………………………………………………………………..39
Everyday application, interventions and further research……………………..40
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………42
References…………………………………………………………………………43
Appendix…………………………………………………………………………...47

1
Attitudes Towards Gay Men and Lesbians and Support for Gay Men and
Lesbians Human Rights Among University Students in the UK and USA
Abstract
SLGHR and ALTG-R-5S scales were used to measure, compare and contrast
Oklahoma USA students and London UK students attitudes towards gay men
and lesbians and their support for homosexuals human rights. It was found
that the Oklahoma USA students had less negative attitudes and showed the
same level of support for gay men and lesbian’s human rights than the UK
students. It was found that religiosity is a predicting factor; in the USA group
and as whole, religious participants showed less support for homosexuals
human rights. Non-religious participants as a whole, and the USA students
had more negative attitudes towards gay men and lesbians than the religious
participants. Women where found to harbor more negative attitudes towards
homosexuals than men. This investigation shows that past research may be
outdated, as it shows opposite to what previous researchers found.
Introduction
The attitudes of Individual’s appear to becoming increasingly positive towards
gay men lesbians and bisexuals according to the media, news and laws. For
example, the legalizing of same-sex marriage in the UK in 2014 and most
states in the USA, seem to show that support of gay men and lesbian’s
human rights are improving. However, despite legislation being in place such
as, The Equality Act of 2010 in the UK and the Matthew Shepard and James
Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 in the USA, people in both
countries still have negative attitudes towards gay men and lesbians, and
show little support for their human rights. Fifteen states in the USA still ban
same-sex marriage and in the UK one in six lesbian, gay and bisexual people
have experienced a homophobic hate crime or incident over the last three
years (April Guasp; Anne Gammon and Gavin Ellison, Gay British crime
survey 2013).

Francesca Eastman
W1277436
2
Students’ attitudes and support towards gay men and their human
rights
There have been many studies investigating students attitudes towards gay
men and Lesbians, (Costa; Anselmo; Ferreira; Pereira & Leal, (2014);Wu
&Kwok, (2012); Gelbal & Duyan, (2006) and Schellenberg; Hirt & Sears,
(1999)).The study that this investigation is most similar to is Ellis et al, (2014),
who found that ‘ a small percentage of respondents expressed negative
attitudes towards lesbians and gay men’. They also found that a majority of
the participants where not very supportive of homosexuals human rights. The
studies above, (Costa; Anselmo; Ferreira; Pereira & Leal, (2014); Wu &Kwok,
(2012); Gelbal & Duyan, (2006) and Schellenberg; Hirt & Sears, (1999)),
investigated students in foreign countries including Portugal, Greece and
Turkey.
There are few studies done in the United Kingdom investigating University
students attitudes towards gay men and lesbians. Meredith G.F. Warthen
(2012), studied the understanding of college students attitudes towards
Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals in the USA. They found
that females have a greater supportive attitude towards gay men, but have
negative attitudes towards lesbians. The overall sense of the idea that being
gay is a choice and same-sex parenting, were both negatively related to
attitudes, for both gay men and lesbians. Gay men, lesbians and bisexuals
have a positive correlation with attitudes towards homosexual people. Brenda
(2007), investigated college student’s attitudes towards gay men and lesbians
in the USA. They found that students had negative attitudes towards
homosexual people due to the fear of AID and HIV. Ellis, Kitzinger and
Wilkinson (2002), studied attitudes towards lesbians and gay men and
support for lesbian and gay human rights among psychology students at
Sheffield Hallam University. Ellis et al (2002), found that a small percentage

Francesca Eastman
W1277436
3
2
of their participants expressed negative attitudes towards gay men and
lesbians however, the participants as a whole showed little support for lesbian
and gay men’s human rights Also, Ellis (2002), only studied psychology
students, which means the sampling method that was used has issues as it is
not representative of a population as a whole, due to the sample only being
psychology students. Additionally, Schellenberg et al (1999), found that
psychology students had less negative attitudes towards gay men and
lesbians compared to other students. These studies do not compare countries
against each other they only focus on one.
Costa et al (2014), studied attitudes towards same-sex parenting and gay and
lesbian rights in Portugal and Costa et al, (2014), found that the ‘majority of
students were against same-sex parenting, gay and lesbian equal rights, and
believed that homosexuality has a social environmental basis.’ Hans et al,
(2012), studied university students in Kentucky USA, found a positive
correlation between attitudes towards gay men and lesbian and experinces of
interaction with homosexual individuals. Selahattin; Gelbalveli and Duyan,
(2006), investigated Turkish university students attitudes towards both
lesbians and gay men. They found there were negative attitudes towards
lesbians and gay men, however attitudes towards lesbians where more
positive. Also, gender differences and religion affected attitudes. Schellenberg
et al, (1999) has similar findings to Duyan, (2006), with university students in
Canada. Schellenberg et al, (1999), found that woman have greater positive
attitudes towards gay men and lesbians than males and also greater positive
attitudes towards lesbians than gay men.
Professionals’ attitudes and support towards gay men and their human
rights
Many studies have investigated specific groups of people. Vivien and Lim,
(2014) studied gender differences in Singapore students attitudes towards
homosexuality. They found that women have a positive attitude compared to

Francesca Eastman
W1277436
4
men, however overall participants had a negative attitude towards
homosexuals. Akhan & Barlas, (2013), studied health care providers.
Papadaki; Plotnikof and Papapaki, (2013), and Berkman & Zinberg, (1997),
studied the attitudes of social worker students towards gay men and lesbians.
Papadaki et al (2013), found that 10% of participants in Greece fell into the
negative category. Oliver, Beth, Hyde & Shibley (1995) found the same result
using a meta-analysis. Carlsson, Marianne; Innala, Sune ; Rondahl; Gerd
Carlsson, Marianne(2004), studied the attitudes of nurses and student nurses
in Sweden towards lesbians and gay men. They found that 62% expressed
positive attitudes. Nurses expressed the most positive attitudes, whereas the
assistant nursing students expressed the least positive attitudes. Various,
other studies have investigated different groups of peoples attitudes towards
gay men and lesbians such as, Klamen, Grossman, & Kopcz, (1999), and
Douglas, Kalman & Kalman, (1985), studied medical trainees. Fretz, (1975),
looked into police officers.
Countries attitudes and support towards gay men and their human
rights
Others have studied the attitudes of a country as a whole towards gay men
and lesbians (Hosking & Warwick, 2014). Takacs & Szalma, (2011), studied
homophobia in 26 European countries and found that the introduction of
same-sex partnership legislation can lead to a decease in anti-homosexual
attitudes. Gerhards, (2010), studied 27 European countries and found that the
religious heritage of the country has a strong impact on the attitudes towards
gay men and lesbians. Several studies have been investigated into the
attitude of students towards gay men and lesbians, (Costa; Pedro Alexandre;
Almeida, Rute; Anselmo, Cátia; Ferreira, André; Pereira, Henrique; Leal,
Isabel (2014); Kersey and Kimerberly, (2012); Wu &Kwok, (2012); Hans,
Kersey, & Kimberly (2012); Gelbal & Duyan, (2006); Schellenberg; Hirt &
Sears, (1999)). Herek & Glunt, (1993), said that ‘negative attitudes towards
homosexuals are prevalent in America’.

Francesca Eastman
W1277436
5
The studies above have many empirical issues. Such as the Ellis et al (2014)
study, where out of 226 participants only 12% where male. Yet they claimed
that males were significantly more negative towards homosexuals (p<0.002).
Plus, only 13% of the participants were non-white, however the attitude of
non-white participants towards gay men and lesbians were more negative
than white participants (p<0.001). Also 8% were religious, but again were
found to have greater negative attitudes then non-religious participants
(p<0.04). Duyan (2006), had 75.15% for participants between moderate and
high religious beliefs. They found the higher religious beliefs the greater the
degree of negativity towards gay men and lesbians (p<0.001). Costa et al
(2014), 54% of participants were male and 46% female. 43% said they where
atheist and 39% said they were catholic. Hans et al, (2012), participants were
95% white and two thirds female. Due to these studies having an unequal
number of participants of each gender, ethnicity and religious beliefs their
results maybe flawed, which means the results are unreliable. This
investigation hopes to correct and address these issues.
Statistics
In 2005, a survey done by the HM Treasury and the Department of Trade and
Industry, found that 3.6million people where homosexual in Britain, (6% of the
population). In the period of April 2011 to March 2012, The Integrated
Household Survey, produced by the Office of National Statistics (ONS), found
1.5 per cent of the surveyed UK population identified themselves as Gay or
Lesbian and 0.4 per cent identified themselves as Bisexual. Plus, that 2.7 per
cent of 16- to 24-year-olds in the UK identified themselves as Gay, Lesbian or
Bisexual, compared with 0.4 per cent of 65-year-olds and over. In 2012, the
ONS used the integrated household survey to ask 180, 000 adults about their
self perceived sexual identity. They found 1.1 per cent were lesbian or gay,
and 0.4 per cent were bisexual. 58 per cent were male and 42 per cent were
female. The figures also found that, 0.3 percent of males surveyed classed
themselves as bisexual, and 1.5 per cent as gay. Plus, 0.5 per cent of the
females were bisexual and 0.7 per cent classed themselves as lesbians.

Francesca Eastman
W1277436
6
London has the highest proportion of gay men, lesbians and bisexuals with
2.5 percent of the adult population in 2013.
Same sex marriage became legal in the UK in March 2014. In April 2011 The
Williams Institute review found 3.8 percent of American adults identified
themselves being in the Lesbian, Gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT)
community; however, 1.7 percent identified themselves as lesbian or gay, 1.8
percent bisexual, and 0.3 percent transgender. In 2012 the LGBT community
adult percentage in Oklahoma was 3.4 percent. In 2010 there were 6,134
same-sex couple households in Oklahoma. In Oklahoma same-sex marriage
became legal in October 2014
Gay British Crime Survey 2013 conducted by Stonewall, which studied 2,500
lesbians, gay and bisexuals found one in six lesbian, gay and bisexual people
had experienced a homophobic hate crime or incident over the last three
years. It found “Harassment, insults and intimidation are most common,
reported by more than eight in ten lesbian, gay and bisexual people who have
suffered a hate crime or incident”. This shows in 2013, hate crimes and
incidents against homosexuals were a serious issue. A large proportion of
those who committed these homophobic hate crimes and incidents were
young. Half of those who experienced a hate crime or incident claimed that
the attacker was a stranger under the age of 25 years. Two in three victims
who experienced a hate crime or incident say it was committed by a male
stranger. In addition, two thirds felt heterosexual people were much less likely
to be at risk of being intimidated, harassed or insulted than gays or bisexuals.
Two thirds of lesbian, gay and bisexual people who experienced a hate crime
or incident between 2010 and 2013 did not report it to anyone. Less than one
in ten victims who did report the homophobic hate crimes and incidents to the
police said it led to a conviction. As a consequence only one in five
homosexuals or bisexuals are confidant that their Police and Crime
Commissioner will address homophobic hate crime in their area.
The law on same-sex marriage has only recently become legal in both the

Francesca Eastman
W1277436
7
United Kingdom and Oklahoma. This study investigates whether the attitudes
of students towards gay men and lesbians have changed positively and their
support for human rights is more positive. More homosexuals feel comfortable
in ‘coming out’ since the change of law. Even though in 2013 individuals were
showing negative attitudes towards lesbians and gay men. There is not a
study specifically on Oklahoma students, so this investigation will be original
in this context, to see Oklahoma students as a whole, on their attitudes
towards gay men and lesbians.
Focus of investigation
The focus of this investigation is to study the factors that affect the attitude of
University students attitudes toward gay men and lesbians and their support
for gay men and lesbians rights. The main factor investigated is religion, to
find if it has an impact on students’ attitudes. Other factors included are
gender, age, and year of study at university. University students from the
University of Westminster in the United Kingdom and students from
Southwestern Oklahoma State University in America will be used to compare
the two differing groups of students.
This investigation will have as equal as possible participants for each factor. It
will have more or equal male participants to make it fair, and will look at all
students at these universities to get a wider view. As mentioned above this
study focuses on religion, which means this investigation will be concentrating
on different factors and will be comparing two different countries, which has
not been done before.
This study asks the following questions;
 Does religion impact on individuals’ attitudes towards gay men and
lesbians?
 Does religion impact on individuals’ views on human rights for

Francesca Eastman
W1277436
8
homosexual people?
 Is there a difference in attitudes towards gay men and lesbians
between the USA and UK students?
 Is there a difference in support for human rights for homosexual people
between USA and UK students?
The hypotheses are;
 The USA participants will show greater negative attitudes towards gay
men and lesbians then the UK participants.
 The USA will show less support for gay men and lesbians’ human
rights than UK participants.
 Religious individuals show greater negative attitudes towards gay men
and lesbians.
 Religious individuals will show less support for human rights for gay
men and lesbians.
Method
Design
Quantitative research methods were used to conduct this research. The
survey is representative of a subset of individuals, at one specific point in
time, so it is a cross-sectional design as, a longitudinal design would not have
been relevant. It is an independent design, as it uses two separate groups of
participants; one in each condition.
The levels are group one, were students from the University of Westminster
(51 participants) and the second group were students from Southwestern
Oklahoma State University (51 participants). There were four independent

Francesca Eastman
W1277436
9
variables, which are ‘what group the participants are in’, ‘religiosity’, ‘age’ and
‘gender’. The dependent variables were the scores the participants received
on the attitudes towards lesbians and gay men scale (ALTG-R-5S, Herek,
1984) and the support for lesbians and gay men human rights scale (SLGHR
Ellis, Kitzinger &Wilkinson, 1999).
Participants
102 participants took part who were students studying at either a University in
London UK or University in Oklahoma USA. 21 participants dropped-out of the
study, the reasons are unknown, however, could be due to many factors such
as participant effort, or/and the participant felt uncomfortable. 51 participants
were from The University of Westminster, 12 of the participants were males
and 39 were females. 51 participants were from Southwestern Oklahoma
state university, with 23 participants were males and 28 were females. From
The University of Westminster 18 participants classed themselves as religious
with 13 of these claiming it has an impact on their lives. 11 participants were
aged between 18-21, 36 participants were aged between 22-25, none being
aged between 26-30 years old and 3 participants were 30+ years old. 31 of
these were undergraduates, 7 were postgraduate with, 43 being in their final
year. Out of the 51 Participants from Southwestern Oklahoma state university
27 classed themselves as religious with 23 claiming it has an impact on their
lives. 13 were aged between 18-21, 26 were between the ages of 22-25, 10
were aged between 26-30 years old and 3 were 30+ years old. 30 of these
participants were undergraduates, and 19 participants were postgraduate and
16 of these participants were in their final year.
To obtain the UK University students a link for the online questionnaire was
put on a social media website, Facebook and the University’s e-mail was used
to send the questionnaire to other Westminster students. To retrieve the USA
University students I had a gateway contact that was a student of the
Oklahoma USA University, who posted the online questionnaire onto the
Southwestern Oklahoma State University Facebook page.

Francesca Eastman
W1277436
10
Measures
The questionnaire was devised using two different surveys. The first survey
was The Attitudes Towards Lesbians and Gay Men Scale short version
(ALTG-R-5S; Herek, 1984) this was used for looking at participants’ attitudes
towards gay men and lesbians. The second survey was the Support of
Lesbian and Gay Human Rights Scale (SLGHR) this was used to look at
participants’ willingness and active support for the human rights of lesbian and
gay men. These two surveys are used to compare the participants’ views with
their actions. However, the SLGHR was adapted to fit in with either the UK
laws or Oklahoma’s laws for gay men and lesbians depending on where the
participant was studying. For example, a question was added for both groups
whether it was right for their country/state to make same-sex marriage legal or
questions were removed that were not relevant to their area.
Religiosity was on a scale, the higher the score the greater the religiosity.
However, this was scrapped when it came to data collection due to it not
being representative. The first question used in this scale was used for the
analyses; ‘Do you consider your self to be religious?’ Age had four levels, 18-
21,22-25,26-30 and 30, gender had two levels; male and female. There were
two dependent variables, what score the participant received in SLGHR scale
(25 items, possible score of 125, the higher the score the less support for gay
men and lesbians) and what score the participants received in the ALTG-R-
5S scale (10 items, possible score of 50, higher the score the greater the
negative attitudes towards gay men and lesbians). The operational definition
of religiosity was defined by weather the participant classes themselves as
religious.
All scales used closed questions, to get an accurate answer. All the studies
mentioned above also used cross-sectional design and closed questions (Ellis
et al (2014) Costa et all (2014), Röndahl et al (2004), and Gelbal (2006)).

Francesca Eastman
W1277436
11
Participants answered these statements with how much they agreed or
disagreed with them using a scaling of one to five with strongly agree being
one and strongly disagree being 5 for the SLGHR survey. However, some
questions were reversed scoring for the SLGHR survey those questions
where 3,6,8,13,18, 20 and 22. The ALTG-R-5S survey had a different scaling
of one being strongly disagree and five being strongly agree. Some questions
were reversed scoring those questions were, 3,5,7 and 9 were reversed
measuring. An example of an SLGHR statement is ‘A person’s sexual
orientation should not block that person’s access to basic rights and
freedoms’. An example of a ALTG-R-5S statement is ‘Male homosexuality is
merely a different kind of lifestyle that should not be condemned.’
A separate survey was devised to measure age, sex, year of study; weather
the student was a postgraduate or undergraduate and religiosity. The survey
was conducted online with qualtrics survey software.
Papadaki et al (2013), only used the ATLG scale, which is the long version of
ATLG-R-5S, the short version was chosen, as the results from the ATLG-R
are not directly comparable for this investigation. In addition, the ALTG-R-5S
requires less respondent effort, which meant a lower drop out rate, which in
turn meant more reliable results and it is highly correlated with the long
version.
Procedure
As this is an independent study, the independent variables are, the
participant’s age, sex, religiosity and the University the participant attends.
The dependent variables were the participant’s score on SLGHR scale and
the participant’s score on the ALTG-R-5S.
At the beginning of the questionnaire the participants were given instructions
on what to expect in the questionnaire “You will be asked to complete a short
questionnaire which will ask you to answer questions covering areas such as
your age, gender, religious beliefs, what university you attend and your
feelings on gay men and Lesbians rights. The whole procedure should take

Francesca Eastman
W1277436
12
around 15 minutes to complete.” Participants were asked if they had read all
the instructions and if they were consenting to participant in the questionnaire,
if they tick ‘no’ in this section they could not continue with participating in the
study.
Once all the participants had completed the survey the data was collected in
IBM SPSS Statistics version.
Ethics
The university psychology department ethics committee ethically approved
the ethics for this research.
All participants were told at the beginning that they had the right to withdraw
at anytime and their data would be destroyed. It was explained if they did not
want to, they need not answer questions that they felt uncomfortable
answering, plus that all participants were anonymous and that all data is
confidential.
At the end all participants were debriefed with a thank you, and the
researchers e-mail address incase the participants had any questions or were
affected by the questionnaire. The e-mail address was also given at the
beginning of the questionnaire.
The research could be a sensitive topic for some participants. A
participant could be homosexual and not ready to accept it. They could
have experienced prejudice or/and are uncomfortable with the topic of
their human rights being discussed. It might be a taboo subject. Ethical
guidelines of confidentiality, anonymity and debriefing were followed: no
identifying information was requested; all data was number based;
participants were given the researchers e-mail for information if they were
affected.
Analysis

Francesca Eastman
W1277436
13
For all the Hypotheses independent t-test was used to test if there was a
significant difference between mean scores for each condition. Then
other variables were analysed to see if they were significant. For gender
an independent t-test were also used. To see if age, year of study and
sexual orientation were significant a compare means and one-way
ANOVA were used. For all variables and conditions apart from
hypotheses one and two all participants where tested as a whole then
USA and the UK separately. For Hypotheses one and two, all
participants where analysed to compare the USA and UK participants
against each other. A multiple regression was used to test the
independent variables that were significant to see if these variables were
predictors for dependent variables.
Results
Hypotheses one: The USA participants will be significantly more negative in
their attitudes towards gay men and lesbians than the UK participants.
The USA participants (Mean=29.057) reported less negative attitudes towards
gay men and lesbians than the UK participants (mean=31.784) (Descriptive
shown in table 1). The mean difference between conditions was 2.727 at the
95% confidence interval for the estimated populations mean difference is
between 1.33 and 4.11. The effect size was large (d=0.70). An independent t-
test showed that the difference between conditions was significant (t=3.896, df
=101, p=. 000, one-tailed). Graph 1 shows an error bar, which shows that
there is no overlap, which is indicative of a significant difference between
groups, meaning hypothesis one is rejected; the UK participants have a
greater negative attitude than the USA. However, there is a significant
difference in results between the USA and UK participants.
Table 1: Shows the descripivites for hypotheses one
Descriptives USA UK
Mean 29.057 31.784

Francesca Eastman
W1277436
14
SD 3.294 3.785
Hypotheses two: The USA participants will be significantly more negative in
their support for gay men and lesbians human rights then the UK participants
The USA participants (Mean=55.673) reported similar support towards gay
men and lesbians than the UK participants (mean=55.725) (Descriptive shown
in table 2). The mean difference between conditions was 0.052 and the 95%
confidence interval for the estimated populations mean difference is between -
2.23 and 2.34. The effect size was small (d=0.01) .An independent t-test
showed that the difference between conditions was not significant (t=. 45, df
=101, p=. 482, one-tailed). Graph 2 shows an error bar, which shows that
there is a large overlap, which is not indicative of a significant difference
between groups. This means hypotheses two is rejected, as there is not a
significant difference in results between the USA and UK participants.
Graph 1: Shows an error bar, which shows that is
no overlap which is indicative of a significant
difference between groups, 1 being the UK and 2
the USA

Francesca Eastman
W1277436
15
Graph 2: shows that is a large overlap, which is not indicative of a significant
difference between groups. With 1 being the UK and 2 being the UK.
Table 2: Shows the descriptives for hypotheses two
Descriptives USA UK
Mean 55.673 55.725
SD 7.640 3.131
Hypotheses Three: Religious individuals show greater negative attitudes
towards gay men and lesbians.
All participants that were analysed stated whether they were religious or not
religious. The religious participants (Mean=27.80) reported less negative
attitudes towards gay men and lesbians then the non-religious participants
(mean=31.37) (Descriptive shown in table 3). The mean difference between
conditions was 3.572 and the 95% confidence interval for the estimated
population mean difference is between -5.186 and 1.959. The effect size was
large (d=2.57) .An independent t-test showed that the difference between

Francesca Eastman
W1277436
16
conditions was significant (t=4.401, df =87, p=. 000, one-tailed). ). Graph 3.
Shows an error bar, which shows that there is no overlap, indicative of a
significant difference between groups. Meaning hypotheses three is rejected,
as there is a significant difference in results between religious and Non-
participants in the direction that was not predicated.
Table 3: Shows the descriptives for hypotheses three, participants as a whole.
Descriptives Non-religious Religious
Mean 31.372 27.800
SD 3.258 4.254
Graph 3: shows an error bar, which shows that there is no overlap, indicative
of a significant difference between groups. (1, religious, 2, non-religious, 3,
don’t know, don’t know is not used in the analyses).
The USA participants were analysed separately, the religious participants
(Mean=26.200) reported less negative attitudes towards gay men and
lesbians than the non-religious participants (mean=30.434) (Descriptive

Francesca Eastman
W1277436
17
shown in table 4). The mean difference between conditions was 4.234 at the
between -2.228 and 16.241. The effect size was large (d=1.305). An
independent t-test showed that the difference between conditions was
significant (t= -4.263, df =41, p=. 000, one-tailed). Graph 4 shows an error
bar, which shows that is no overlap, which is indicative of a significant
difference between groups. Which means hypotheses three is rejected.
However, there is a significant difference in scores, which was not in the
direction predicated.
Table 4: Shows the descriptives for hypotheses three, USA participants.
Mean 30.434 26.200
SD 2.676 3.805
Graph 4: Shows an error bar, which shows that is no overlap, which is
indicative of a significant difference between groups. (1, religious, 2, non-
religious, 3, don’t know, don’t know is not used in the analyses)

Francesca Eastman
W1277436
18
The UK participants were analysed separately. The religious participants
(Mean=31.000) reported the same score on attitudes towards gay men and
lesbians than the non-religious participants (mean=31.972) (Descriptive
shown in table 5). The mean difference between conditions was -.972 and the
between -3.45 and 1.506. The effect size was large (d=3.439). An
independent t-test showed that the difference between conditions was not
significant (t=-.790, df =44, p=. 21, one-tailed). Graph 5, shows an error bar,
shows that is a large overlap, which is not indicative of a significant difference
between groups. Which means hypotheses three is rejected there is not
significant difference between groups.
Table 5: Shows the descriptives for hypotheses three, UK participants.
Mean 31.972 31.000
SD 3.484 3.265

Francesca Eastman
W1277436
19
Graph 5: Shows an error bar, shows that is a large overlap, which is not
religious, 3, don’t know, don’t know is not used in the analyses).
Hypotheses Four: Religious individuals will show less support for human
rights for gay men and lesbians.
All participants that were analysed stated whether they were religious or not
religious. The religious participants (Mean=59.400) reported less support for
the human rights gay men and lesbians than the non-religious participants
(mean=53.949) (Descriptive shown in table 6). The mean difference between
conditions was 5.450 and the 95% confidence interval for the estimated
population mean difference is between -2.983 and 7.919. The effect size was
large (d=5.536). An independent t-test showed that the difference between

Francesca Eastman
W1277436
20
conditions was significant (t=4.390, df =87, p=. 000, one-tailed). Graph 6
shows an error bar, showing that is no overlap, indicative of a significant
difference between groups. This means hypotheses four is accepted; as the
religious participants scored significantly higher than the non-religious
participants.
Table 6: Shows the descriptives for hypotheses four.
Mean 53.949 59.400
SD 5.392 5.816
religious, 3, don’t know, don’t know is not used in the analysis).
The USA participants were analysed separately. The religious participants
(Mean=61.300) reported less support gay men and lesbians human rights
than the non-religious participants (mean=51.565) (Descriptive shown in table
7). The mean difference between conditions was 9.734 and the 95%
confidence interval for the estimated population mean difference is between
5.634 and 13.834. The effect size was large (d=2.126). An independent t-test
showed that the difference between conditions was significant (t= 4.79, df

Francesca Eastman
W1277436
21
=41, p=. 000, one-tailed). Graph 7 shows an error bar, which shows that there
is no overlap, which is indicative of a significant difference between groups.
The religious participants scored significantly higher than the non-religious
participants.
Table 7: Shows the descriptives for hypotheses four, USA participants
Mean 51.565 61.300
SD 7.222 5.894
The UK participants were analysed separately. The religious participants
(Mean=55.600) reported the same scores for support for gay men and
lesbians’ human rights than the non-religious participants (mean=55.472)
(Descriptive shown in table 8). The mean difference between conditions was

Francesca Eastman
W1277436
22
0.127 and the 95% confidence interval for the estimated populations mean
difference is between -2.122 and 2.378. The effect size was large (d=3.400).
An independent t-test shows that the difference between conditions was
insignificant (t=. 114, df =44, p=. 454, one-tailed). Graph 8: Shows an error
bar, shows that there is a large overlap, which is not indicative of a significant
difference between groups. There is no significant difference in scores
between the two groups.
Table 8: Shows the descriptives for hypotheses four, UK participants
Mean 55.472 55.600
SD 3.047 3.405
Graph 8: Shows an error bar, which shows that is a large overlap, which is not
Other variables:

Francesca Eastman
W1277436
23
Gender was analysed using an independent t-test to see if it was a significant
variable. All participants were analysed first. The male participants
(Mean=28.914) reported the greater positive attitude towards gay men and
lesbians than the female participants (mean=31.164) (Descriptive shown in
table 9). The mean difference between conditions was -2.249 and the 95%
confidence interval for the estimated population mean difference is between -
3.764 and -.731. The effect size was large (d=3.718). An independent t-test
showed that the difference between conditions was significant (t=2.940, df
=100, p=. 002, one-tailed).
Table 9: Shows the descriptives for gender variable
Descriptives Male Female
Mean 28.914 31.164
SD 4.552 3.116
The USA participants were analysed separately. The male participants
(Mean=27.130) reported the greater positive attitude towards gay men and
lesbians than the female participants (mean=30.535) (Descriptive shown in
table 10). The mean difference between conditions was -3.405 at the 95%
5.343 and -1.467. The effect size was large (d=0.99). An independent t-test
shows that the difference between conditions was significant (t=3.531 df =49,
p=. 000, one-tailed).
Table 10: Shows the descriptives for hypotheses three
Mean 27.130 30.535
SD 4.159 2.687
The UK participants were analysed separately; the male participants
(Mean=32.333) reported the same score on attitudes towards gay men and

Francesca Eastman
W1277436
24
lesbians as the female participants (mean=31.615) (Descriptive shown in
table 11). The mean difference between conditions was 0.717 and the 95%
1.480 and 2.915. The effect size was large (d=3.382). An independent t-test
showed that the difference between conditions was not significant (t=0.656 df
=49, p=. 257, one-tailed).
Table 11: Shows the descriptives for sex in the UK participants
Mean 32.333 31.615
SD 3.171 3.353
Gender for support for the human rights for gay men and lesbians was
analysed as a whole. The male participants (Mean=55.600) reported the
same support for gay men and lesbians’ human rights than the female
participants (mean=55.791) (Descriptive shown in table 12). The mean
difference between conditions was -0.156 and the 95% confidence interval for
the estimated population mean difference is between -2.624 and 2.242. The
effect size was large (d=5.940). An independent t-test showed that the
difference between conditions was not significant (t=-0.156, df =100, p=. 438,
one-tailed).
Table 12: Shows the descriptives for gender as a whole for support of gay
men and lesbians’ human rights
Mean 55.600 55.791
SD 8.008 4.402
Gender for support for the human rights of gay men and lesbians was
analysed In the USA. The male participants (Mean=55.826) reported the
same support for the human rights of gay men and lesbians than the female
participants (mean=55.642) (Descriptive shown in table 13). The mean

Francesca Eastman
W1277436
25
difference between conditions was 0.183 and the 95% confidence interval for
the estimated populations mean difference is between -4.219 and 4.219. The
effect size was small (d=0.023) .An independent t-test showed that the
difference between conditions was not significant (t=-0.84, df =49, p=. 467,
one-tailed).
Table 13: Shows the descriptives for gender in USA
Mean 55.826 55.642
SD 9.721 5.742
Gender was analysed for the support of the human rights for gay men and
lesbians In the UK. The male participants (Mean=55.166) reported the same
support as the female participants (mean=55.877) for the rights of gay men
and lesbians (Descriptive shown in table 14). The mean difference between
conditions was –0.703 and the 95% confidence interval for the estimated
population mean difference is between -2.818 and 1.356 The effect size was
large (d=3.212) .An independent t-test showed that the difference between
conditions was not significant (t=-0.703, df =49, p=. 242, one-tailed).
Table 14: Shows the descriptives for sex in UK
Mean 55.166 55.877
SD 2.979 3.193
The year the participants were in at university was analysed to see if it was a
significant variable and scores on the ALTG-R-5S scale. There was a
statistically significant effect of year of study (F (3,71)= 4.947, p>=. 004). See
graph 21 for error bar.
The year the participants were in at university in the USA were analysed to

Francesca Eastman
W1277436
26
see if it was a significant variable on the ALTG-R-5S scale. There was not a
statistically significant effect of year of study (F (3,36)= 1.181, p>=. 331). See
Graph 21: Shows an error bar, which shows that is a large overlap, which is
not indicative of a significant difference between groups. (1=year one, 2=year
two, 3=year three, 4=year four).
not indicative of a significant difference between groups. (1=year one, 2=year
two, 3=year three, 4=year four).

Francesca Eastman
W1277436
27
The year the participants were in at university in the UK was analysed to see
if it was a significant variable and scored on the ALTG-R-5S scale. There was
not a statistically significant effect of year of study (F (3,31)= 1.368, p>=. 271).
See graph 23 for error bar.
The year the participants were in at university as a whole was analysed to see
if it was a significant variable and scored on the SLGHR scale. There was not
a statistically significant effect of year of study (F (3,71)= .301, p>=. 825). See
The year the participants were in at university in the USA was analysed to see
statistically significant effect relating to differing ages (F (3,36)= .529, p>=.
665). See graph 25 for error bar.

Francesca Eastman
W1277436
28
Graph 23: Shows an error bar, which shows that is a large overlap, w
hich is not indicative of a significant difference between groups (one or more
error bar calculations yielded infinite results. These error bars have been
removed from the chart). . (1=year one, 2=year two, 3=year three, 4=year
four).

Francesca Eastman
W1277436
29
not indicative of a significant difference between groups. . (1=year one,
2=year two, 3=year three, 4=year four).
not indicative of a significant difference between groups. . (1=year one,
2=year two, 3=year three, 4=year four).

Francesca Eastman
W1277436
30
The year the participants were in at university in the UK was analysed to see
a statistically significant effect of ages (F (3,31)= 3.621, p>=. 024). See graph
26 for error bar.
not indicative of a significant difference between groups (one or more error
bar calculations yielded infinite results. These error bars have been removed
from the chart). . (1=year one, 2=year two, 3=year three, 4=year four).

Francesca Eastman
W1277436
31
The participants’ sexual orientation was analysed as a whole to see if it was a
significant variable and scored on the ALTG-R-5S scale. There was not a
statistically significant effect of ages (F (3,99)= .622, p>=. 603). See graph 27
for error bar.
The USA participants’ sexual orientation was analysed separately to see if it
was a significant variable and scored on the ATLG-R-5S scale. There was not
a statistically significant effect of ages (F (2,48)= .992, p>=. 378). See graph
28 for error bar.
The UK participants’ sexual orientation was analysed separately to see if it
was a significant variable and scored on the ALTG-R-5S scale. There was not
a statistically significant effect of ages (F (3,47)= 1.095, p>=. 360). See graph
29 for error bar.
not indicative of a significant difference between groups.

Francesca Eastman
W1277436
32
not indicative of a significant difference between groups

Francesca Eastman
W1277436
33
The participants’ sexual orientation was analysed as a whole to see if it was a
significant variable and scored on the SLGHG scale. There was not a
statistically significant effect of ages (F (3,99)= 1.837, p>=. 145). See graph
30 for error bar.
The USA participants’ sexual orientation was analysed separately to see if it
was a significant variable and scored on the SLGHG scale. There was not a
statistically significant effect of age (F (2,49)= 3.323, p>=. 044). See graph 31
for error bar.
The UK participants’ sexual orientation was analysed separately to see if it
was a significant variable and scored on the SLGHG scale. There was not a
statistically significant effect of ages (F (3,47)= .437, p>=. 728). See graph 32
for error bar.

Francesca Eastman
W1277436
34

Francesca Eastman
W1277436
35
Multiple regressions
For all the participants as a whole, to test if other variables were significant for
the ALTG-R-5S scale,a multiple regression using the enter method was used.
A significant model emerged: F= (3,98) = 13.418, p<. 000. This model
explains 26.9% of the variance (Adjusted R²=. 269). Table 15, gives
information for the predictor variables entered into the model. Where the
participants were living and if the participants classed themselves as religious
were significant.
Table 15: The unstandardized and standardised regression coefficients for the
variable entered into the model.
B SE B β t Sig
Religion 2.076 .522 .344 3.997 .000*
Sex 1.250 .704 .157 1.774 .079
Living -2.230 .663 -.294 -3.362 .001*
*p=.005

Francesca Eastman
W1277436
36
For all the participants as a whole to test if other variables were significant for
the SLGHR scale a multiple regression using the enter method was used, a
non significant model emerged: F= (3,98) = 3.698, p<. 015. This model
explains 7.4 % of the variance (Adjusted R²=. 074). Table 16 gives information
for the predictors variables entered into the model. If the participants classed
themselves as religious were significant.
Table 16: The unstandardized and standardised regression coefficients for the
variable entered into the model.
B SE B β t Sig
Religion -3.004 .904 -.324 -3.322 .001*
Sex .809 1.220 .660 .663 .509
Living -.238 1.149 -.020 -.207 .836
*p<.005
Discussion
Compared to other studies, which have used the ATLG or the ALTG-R-5S
and SLGHR scales, the results were dissimilar in most areas. (Ellis et al,
2008, Gross et al, 2005, Marianne et al , 2004 & Sung-mook, 1984).
It was found that students in the USA have less negative attitudes towards
gay men and lesbians. These findings contradict other research such as those
of, Lisa J. Schulte & Juan Battle, (2008), who studied whether ethnic
differences (African Americans versus European Americans) in attitudes
toward gays and lesbians were a function of religious attendance. They
concluded that attitudes toward homosexuals were not a function of ethnicity
but of religious attendance and the affect of the “Black church. Meredith G.F.
Warthen (2012), studied college students’ attitudes towards the LGBT
community of individuals in the USA. They found negative attitudes towards
lesbians. The overall sense of the idea that being gay is a choice and same-
sex parenting, were both negatively related to attitudes, for both gay men and
lesbians. To support this research, Hewitt and Moore (2009), found that

Francesca Eastman
W1277436
37
individuals from America tended to have less negative attitudes toward gay
men and lesbians if they themselves believed that being homosexual was
biological. Hans et al, (2012), studied university students in the USA, found a
positive correlation between attitudes towards gay men and lesbian and
experinces of interaction with homosexual individuals. This could explain the
findings from this investigation.
Hegarty (2002), studied US and UK students and their attitudes and beliefs on
sexual orientation, this research found that only the American groups
immutable beliefs and tolerant attitudes significantly correlated and only in the
British group that participants’ judgments about the sexual orientation beliefs
related to their personal attitudes and beliefs. Sexual orientation was reported
in more positive terms in the US than in Britain (Conrad & Markens, 2001).
However, it was found that where the participants lived was one of the most
important in predicating individuals’ attitudes towards homosexuals.
It was found that there were no significant difference in support of gay men
and lesbians’ human rights between the USA and the UK. Again, this does not
support research carried out before (Takacs, 20011 & Gerhards, 2010). To
support this research Southhall, Anderson, Nagel, Polite and Southhall
(2010), found that in four universities in the southeastern United States, that
homophobia within the athletes has decreased significantly. Emmer et al
(2005), found more support than expected in the USA. However, despite it not
being significant, the correlation was still high with a great difference in
standard deviations, plus the UK participants had a smaller range of scores
than the USA. Which shows that the USA had more extreme views on support
for gay men and lesbians’ human rights. The UK was consistent with their
support.
This study has shown that religion has had an impact on attitudes towards
gay men and lesbians in the USA and as a whole, however not in the direction
that was predicted. This study shows that religious people in the USA have
less negative attitudes towards gay men and lesbians than the religious
participants. This was not what past research has found Christopher G.

Francesca Eastman
W1277436
38
Ellison, Gabriel A. Acevedo and Aida I. Ramos-Wada (2011), studied U.S
Latinos and there attitudes towards same-sex marriage found that strong
opposition to same-sex marriage among Latino conservatives, Protestants
and members of sectarian groups even compared with devout Catholics (also
see John, 2014).
It was found that as a population whole people who claimed that they were
religious supported gay men and lesbians human rights significantly less. This
was also found in the USA participants, however not in the UK. This supports
past studies (Anarfi, 2014, Derek at al, 2013 & Mcfeely, 1999,). This could be
due to the fact the USA strictly follow religion, in comparison to the UK. This
can be seen in, Fisher (1994), they noted that Baptists, fundamentalists, and
Christians show greater prejudice than Catholics, Jews, and many Protestant
denominations, as the UK has more Catholics and Protestants then the USA
this could be a factor (also see Brenda, 2007 & Schulte & Juan, 2004).
However, it was found that religion was the most important factor in predicting
individual’s’ attitudes and support for homosexuality.
The only two other variables that were found to affect participants’ attitudes
towards gay men was gender. Males were found to hold more positive
attitudes than females as a whole in the USA. This does not support past
research (Duyan, 2006, Steffens, 2005, Rondahl, 2004 & Viviekn, 2002).
Many different elements could be the reason to this situation. Perhaps, males
have become better adjusted to the 21st century. Bos, Picavet & Sandfort,
(2012), found that children were affected by parental pressure to behave in
accordance with their gender. They furthered this theory by showing that there
were more negative attitudes toward gender-nonconforming behavior by
peers, which means these gender differences could be due to parental
pressure. Also the participants’ academic year was a significant factor. It was
found the year which participant had the most negative attitudes were third
and fourth year students. Again, this does not support the idea that when the
subject attends higher education, they tend to have a more positive attitude
toward homosexuality (Costa et al 2014 & Lambert 2006). Lambert at el

Francesca Eastman
W1277436
39
(2006) claims that education needs greater research to be able to define it as
a factor for support for gay men and lesbians’ human rights (also see
Papadaki, 2013).
Thus, the results from this research show that overall people’s attitudes and
support towards gay men and lesbians has grown increasingly positive.
Despite some groups of participants showing greater negative attitudes
towards gay men and lesbians; females, non-religious participants, and
participants who have been in higher education support towards gay men and
lesbians’ human rights such as religious participants has increased. The
scores for both surveys are still low (Gross, 2005), which as such overall
attitudes and support have increased. This could be due to people becoming
more open and understanding due to new laws that have been put in place.
Also because of the education taken place in schools, for example, within sex
education from a young age, pupils will discuss both homosexual and
heterosexual relationships.
The UK appears to have a less positive attitude towards gay men and
lesbians. This could be due to the USA being more aware of issues that the
homosexual community has to deal with so they demonstrate a greater
understanding (Suman & Walters, 2008), yet USA is only significant for
religious participants to have weaker support. This could be due to the
religious USA participants being covertly having negative attitudes however
show this through their support (Battle & Schulte, 2004).
Limitations
The main limitation of this research is the unequal ratio of male and females in
the UK group, as this is not representative; this prevented this study from
having a larger spectrum of results. It means that the issue of gender could
not be a fair comparison for the UK for a relationship with either outcome
variable. This also meant that it was not possible to compare sex’s against

Francesca Eastman
W1277436
40
each other and against the US and UK participants as it would have been
equal this would have the same issues as comparing the UK alone.
As some questions were taken out, revised andor add to adapt to the two
different countries, the validity of the SLGHR andor ALTG-R-5s may have
been tampered. Which mean that the overall results may not be accurate or
reliable. Due to both SLGHR and ALTG-R-5s having a high validity and re-test
accuracy this should not have had a large affect.
Social desirability bias could have had an effect, as the topic is a sensitive
one and can be seen as taboo. Individuals may be concerned about seeming
homophobic. This means that the participants may have responded to the
questions in a way they believed that is socially correct. This is why the
SLGHR and the ALTG-R-5s were used to compare what individual’s say and
what individuals do. In addition, the study was made anonymous.
There could be possible confounder effects. As it is unknown what conditions
the participants participated in the study. This means the participants may
have been in a rush, distracted, unwell and/or technical difficulties e.g.
watching television, or computer being slow. However, these are out of the
researchers control.
Delimitations
There are certain things that were not done in this study, such as a pilot study.
This was due to a strict time frame; also it did not seem necessary as the
SLGHR survey and ALTG-R-5s survey have high validity and high levels of
internal consistency. The ALTG-R-5s survey also reliably correlated with other
theoretically relevant constructs (e.g., Herek, 1994, 2009; Herek & Capitanio,
1996, 1999a, 1999b).
Only a certain population was studied (students), because the researcher was
interested in students’ attitudes and support for gay men and human rights,

Francesca Eastman
W1277436
41
plus students were easily accessible. If the general population was studied,
variables would not be able to be compared with validity as there would have
not been enough participants in each group e.g. age, occupation, for it to be a
valid variable.
This study used a quantitative method instead of qualitative methods.
Quantitative methods are more time affective and use a wider and greater
number of participants to make the results more representative of a target
population. As this study is investigating whether students in the USA would
be likely to have more negative attitudes towards homosexuals than the UK
students that means qualitative methods would have not worked. As this
study uses USA participants the snow ball effect would have had to be used
to interview participants over the phone, if qualitative method were used which
would have been time consuming and unpredictable on participant numbers.
Plus, as this topic is sensitive to some individual’s participants will be more
truthful on an anonymous survey than interview so social desirability would
have a lesser effect.
There are no studies available that have only used the SLGHR survey to
investigate individual’s support for gay men and lesbians’ human rights.
However, many studies have used the ALTG-R and the SLGHR survey
together to get a greater accuracy of results (Ellis et al (2014) Costa et all
(2014), Röndahl et al (2004), and Gelbal (2006)). These studies used both so
the results are comparable against each of the surveys.
Everyday application, interventions and further research
It is important to point out that this research shows more positive results than
many other studies conducted in the past. This could be due to many
reasons, such as the universities themselves could be seen as more liberal,
thus, attractive more liberal students. Where the university is located could
reflect the resident’s views of homosexuality, (e.g. Oklahoma is more liberal
than Texas), and this trend may be reflected in the students in this study. In

Francesca Eastman
W1277436
42
the 1970’s negative attitudes and support for gay men and lesbians were
higher than middle to late 1990s (Religious Tolerance, 2003). However, there
is still an issue with some students’ attitudes towards gay men and lesbians
such as women as a whole and in USA, more educated and non-religious
students. In addition, the religious students as a whole and in the USA are in
issue with less support for the gay community. This can become an issue as
these students could be going onto to work in sectors where it is needed to
accept homosexuality. For example, the nursing students in Rondahl et al
(2004), research these students may become practitioners, policy makers,
managers, service, funding workers in the future, working directly with, or
influencing the lives of homosexuals. This negative attitude toward
homosexuality plus lack of support by some means if the human rights gay
men and lesbians are not supported in principle, they are unlikely to be
supported in practice. Our attention should, therefore, turn to improving the
attitudes of students in relation to lesbian and gay issues. It is unknown how
much interaction these students have had with gay men and lesbians.
However, it is seen as one of the most important ways to improve students’
attitudes towards gay men and lesbians (Nuray et al, 2008 & Hauitt, 2002),
this means that it may not be how well educated someone is but how much
interaction they have encountered with gay men and lesbians. As not all
courses teach the issues gay men and lesbians have to deal with it is
important students should be taught by other social groups privileges, this has
been shown to increases support and decrees negative attitudes in students,
especially in white males, therefore should be a integrated part of the
curriculum (Suman, 2008), by inviting lesbian and gay speakers (Berkman &
Zinberg, 1997; Geasler,Croteau,; Long, 1996).
Further research needs to be investigated in many other areas of this topic
such as specific university courses in both countries, specific religious groups,
and gender, as this research has found that it is now females who are
becoming more negative in attitudes towards gay men and lesbians, also to
why this may be. A longitudinal research would be useful to see and examine
the change in attitudes and support over time, following a large cohort of

Francesca Eastman
W1277436
43
students throughout their whole degree, using qualitative and quantitative
research to understand the ‘why’ and reason be hide these new findings, and
to gather information on their social experiences and academic. If universities
see it necessary, they themselves could examine the effects of the lectures
that are torte and what influences their students to have negative attitudes
and little support for gay men and lesbians to able to put innervations in place.
Conclusion
It is interesting to note that overall the results from this research are wholly
positive. This indicates that supportive attitudes towards gay men and
lesbians are increasing in university students in the USA and the UK.
However, it must be said that there are some students that still hold negative
towards gay men and lesbians, covertly and overtly. This needs to be
addressed through initiatives such as giving students the opportunity to
interact with gay men and lesbians. Further research is needed to investigate
the reasons for the negative attitudes and lack of support. How is it that there
has been a rise in positive attitudes and support? More research needs to be
conducted into these new findings to elaborate on what was found.
Word count: 9301

Francesca Eastman
W1277436
44
References:
Anarfi, John K. (2014). Religiosity and attitudes toward homosexuality: Views
of Ghanaian university students. Research in the Social Scientific Study of
Religion, 25 (25), 173-201.
Battle, Juan Schulte, Lisa J. (2004). The relative importance of ethnicity and
religion in predicting attitudes towards gays and lesbians. Journal of
Homosexuality , 47( 2),127-141.
Berkman, C. S., & Zinberg, G. (1997). Homophobia and heterosexism in
social workers.Social Work. 42 (4), 319-332.
Bos, Henny M. W ; Picavet, Charles & Sandfort, Theo G. M.(2012).
Carlsson, Marianne ., Innala, Sune ., Rondahl, Gerd. (2004). Nurses' attitudes
towards lesbians and gay men. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 47(4), 386-392.
Chadee, Derek., Joseph, Chezelle ., Peters, Claire ., Sankar, Vandana .,Nair,
Nisha & Philip, Jannel.(2013).Religiosity, and Attitudes Towards Homosexuals
in a Caribbean Environment. Social and Economic Studies, 62(1/2), 1-
28,249,263-266.
Costa,A.P .,Alemeida, R., Anselmo, C., Ferreira, A., Pereira, H. & Leal, I.
(2014). University Students' Attitudes Towards Same-Sex Parenting and Gay
and Lesbian Rights in Portugal, Journal of Homosexuality, 61, 1667-1686
Dawne Moon. (2014). Beyond the Dichotomy: Six Religious Views of
Homosexuality. Journal of Homosexuality, 61(9), 1215-1241.
Derison, D., Polley, Cf., Cadman, J Johnston., D, V H Winston & Son Inc &
Fisher, Rd. (1994). Religiousness, Religious Orientation, And Attitudes
Towards Gays And Lesbians. Journal Of Applied Social Psychology, 24(7),
614-630.
Ellis, S.J, kizinger, C. & Wilkinson, S. (2002). Attitudes Towards Lesbians and
Gay Men and Support for Lesbian and Gay Human Rights Among Psychology
Students, Journal of Homosexuality, 44(1), 121-138.
Erinc Hewitt & Leslead Moore. (2002). The Role of Lay Theories of the
Etiologies of Homosexuality in Attitudes Towards Lesbians and Gay Men.
Journal of Lesbian Studies, 6(3-4), 58-72.
Ethnicity, Gender Socialization, and Children’s Attitudes Toward Gay Men and
Lesbian Women. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43(7), 1082-1094.
Fisher, R. D., Derison, D., Polley, C. F & Cadman, j. (1994). Religiousness,
Religious Orientation, and Attitudes Towards Gays and Lesbians. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 24 (7), 614.

Francesca Eastman
W1277436
45
Geasler, M. J., Croteau, J. M., Heineman, C. J., & Edlund, C. J. (1995). A
qualitative study of students’ expression of change after attending panel
presentations by lesbian, gay, and bisexual speakers. Journal of College
Student Development, 36 (5), 483-492.
Gelbal, S, & Duyan, V. (2006). Attitudes of University Students toward
Lesbains and Gay men in Turkey. Sex Roles, 55, 573-579.
Gerhards, J. (2010). Non-Discrimination towards Homosexuality The
European Union's Policy and Citizens' Attitudes towards Homosexuality in 27
European Countries. International Sociology, 25, (1), 5-28
Gregory M. Herek. (987, 1988, 1994 ). The Attitudes Toward Lesbians and
Gay Men Scale. Retrieved on March 2015 from :
http://lgbpsychology.com/html/atlgfile.pdf
Gross, Emmar & Byrnes, Edward Cahoon. (2005). A Study of Attitudes
Towards Gays and Lesbians in the State of Utah, U.S.A. Journal of GLBT
Family Studies, 1(3), 53-84.
Hans, Jason D., Kersey, Megan & Kimberly, Claire. (2012). Self-Perceived
Origins of Attitudes Toward Homosexuality. Journal of Homosexuality, 59(1),
4-17.
Hegarty, P. (2002). 'It's not a choice, it's the way we're built': Symbolic beliefs
about sexual orientation in the US and Britain. Journal Of Community &
Applied Social Psychology, 12(3), 153-166.
Hong, Sung-mook.(1984).Australian Attitudes towards Homosexuality: A
Comparison with College Students. The Journal of Psychology, 117(1), 89-95.
Journal Of Homosexuality, 41(1), 157-172.
Janie K. Long. (2004).Heterosexism in supervision. Family Process, 35, 377-
388.
Judit Takács & Ivett Szalma. (2011). Homophobia and same-sex partnership
legislation in Europe. Equality Diversity and Inclusion: An International
Journal, 30(5), 356-378.
Karen M Harbeck. (2014). Coming Out of the Classroom Closet: Gay and
Lesbian Students, Teachers, and Curricula. New York, USA: Routledge.
Kathryn R. Macapagal,. Abbey K. Valvano,. Lauren Penwell-Waines,.
Christina K. Wilson,. Lindsey M. West & Lara M. Stepleman. (2014). Attitudes
Toward HIV Among Health Professions Students in the Southeastern United
States: Implications for Interprofessional Education. Health and
Interprofessional , 2(2) , 1 065.

Francesca Eastman
W1277436
46
Lambert, Ericg ., Ventura, Loisa .,Hall, Daniele & Cluse-tolar,
Terry.(2006).College Students' Views on Gay and Lesbian Issues: Does
Education Make a Difference? Journal of Homosexuality, 50(4),1-30.
Latife Utaş Akhan & Gül Ünsal Barlas. (2013). Study of health care providers
and attitudes against homosexual, bisexual individuals. International Journal
of Human Sciences, 10(1), 434.
Lim, Vivienk. G. (2002). Gender Differences and Attitudes Towards
Homosexuality .Journal of Homosexuality, 43(1), 85-97.
Long, J. K. (1996). Working with lesbians, gays, and bisexuals: Addressing
March 2015, from http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_poll3.htm.
Meredith G. F. Worthen. (2012). Understanding College Student Attitudes
toward LGBT Individuals. Sociological Focus, 45 (4), 285-305.
Mitchell, Brenda C. (2007). Exploring levels of homophobia in minority college
students. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and
Social Sciences, 67(12-A), 5.
Moreno, Alexander ., Herazo, Edwin ., Oviedo, Heidi & Campo-Arias,
Adalberto. (2015). Measuring Homonegativity: Psychometric Analysis of
Herek’s Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men Scale (ATLG) in Colombia,
South America. Journal of Homosexuality, 1-12.
Oliver, Mary Beth ., Hyde, Janet Shibley Steinberg, Robert J. (1995).Gender
Differences in Attitudes Toward Homosexuality: A Reply to Whitley and Kite.
Psychological Bulletin, 117(1), 155-158.
Papadaki, V., Plotnikof, K. & Papadaki, E. (2013). Social Worker students'
Attitudes towards Lesbians and Gat Men: The Case of the Social Work
Department in Crete, Greece, social Work Education, 32(4), 453-467.
Religious Tolerance. (2003). U.S. public opinion polls on homosexuality.
Retrieved in March from: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_poll4.htm
Röndahl, Innala, & Carlsson. (2004). Nursing staff and nursing students‘
emotions towards homosexual patients and their wish to refrain from nursing,
if the option existed. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 18(1), 19-26.
Sakalli, Nuray & Ugurlu, Ozanser. (2002). Effects of Social Contact with
Homosexuals on Heterosexual Turkish University Students' Attitudes Towards
Homosexuality. Journal of Homosexuality, 42(1), 53.
Schellenberg, E.G, Hirt, J. & Sears,A. (1999). Attitudes Toward Homosexuals
Among Students at a Canadian University. Sex Roles, 40, 139-150.
Schulte, Lisaj & Battle, Juan. (2004). The Relative Importance of Ethnicity and

Francesca Eastman
W1277436
47
Religion in Predicting Attitudes Towards Gays and Lesbians. Journal of
Homosexuality, 47(2), 127-142.
Selahattin Gelbalveli Duyan. (2006). Attitudes of University Students toward
Lesbians and Gay Men in Turkey. Sex Roles, 55 (7-8),573-579
Simoni, Jm & Walters, Kl. (2001). Heterosexual identity and heterosexism:
Recognizing privilege to reduce prejudice. PubMed, 41(1),157-72.
Sneddon, I & Kremer, J. (1992). Sexual behavior and attitudes of university
students in Northern Ireland. Archives of sexual behavior, 21(3), 295-312.
Southall, Richard ,. Anderson, Eric ,. Nagel, Mark ,. Polite, Fritz & Southall,
Crystal. (2011). An investigation of ethnicity as a variable related to US male
college athletes' sexual-orientation behaviors and attitudes. Ethnic and Racial
Studies, 34(2), 293.
Steffens, Melaniec . (2005). Implicit and Explicit Attitudes Towards Lesbians
and Gay Men. Journal of Homosexuality,49(2),39-66.
Stonewall & Sam Dick. (2008). Homophobia Hate Crime. The Gay British
Crime survey. Retrieved in March, 2015 from:
http://www.stonewall.org.uk/documents/homophobic_hate_crime__final_repor
t.pdf
Stonewall; Anne Gammon & Gavin Ellison. (2013). Homophobia Hate Crime.
The Gay British Crime survey. Retrieved in March, 2015 from:
https://www.stonewall.org.uk/documents/hate_crime.pdf
Worthen, Meredith G. F. (2012). Understanding College Student Attitudes
toward LGBT Individuals. Sociological Focus, 45(4), 285-305.
Wu, J & Kwok, DK. (2012). Psychometric properties of attitudes towards
lesbians and gay men scale with Chinese university students. Psychological
Reports, 110(2), 521-526.
Yang, A. (1997). Attitudes towards homosexuality. Public Opinion Quarterly,
61(3), 477-507.

Franky Eastman Disseration intro FINAL

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (8)

Similar to Franky Eastman Disseration intro FINAL

Similar to Franky Eastman Disseration intro FINAL (20)

Franky Eastman Disseration intro FINAL