Eastern Kentucky University

Encompass

Online Theses and Dissertations Student Scholarship

January 2018

Culture, Religion, and Homonegativity

Erica Cecelia Dawn Leach
Eastern Kentucky University

Follow this and additional works at: https://encompass.eku.edu/etd

Part of the Social Psychology Commons

Recommended Citation
Leach, Erica Cecelia Dawn, "Culture, Religion, and Homonegativity" (2018). Online Theses and
Dissertations. 572.
https://encompass.eku.edu/etd/572

This Open Access Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Scholarship at Encompass. It
has been accepted for inclusion in Online Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Encompass.
For more information, please contact Linda.Sizemore@eku.edu.
 •

STATEMENT OF PERM lSSION TO USE

[n presenting thi thesis in partial fulfillment of the req uirements for a Master of

Science degree at Easte rn Kentucky University, [ ag ree th at the Library sha ll make it

availabl e to borro wers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this document

are allowable without spec ial permission, provided that accurate acknowledgements of

the so urce are made. Permi ssio n for exten ive quotation from or reproduction of thi

document may be gra nted by my maj or professo r. In [his/her] absence, by the Head of

[nterlibra ry Services when, in the opinion of either, the pro posed use of the material is

for scholarl y purposes. ny copying or use of the material in this document for

financi al gain shall not be all owed without my written permission.

Signature:

x:Cu·
Date: I 011 4120Is
 CULTURE, RELIGION, AND HOMONEGATIVITY

BY

ERICA LEACH

Bachelors of Science
Eastern Kentucky University
Richmond, Kentucky

Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of

Eastern Kentucky University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

2018
© Copyright by ERICA LEACH, 2018
All Rights Reserved.

ii
 DEDICATION
I dedicate this thesis to my late mother. You were there for me even when I couldn’t be

there for myself. 起死回生

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to acknowledge Dr. Jonathan Gore. Without him my graduate career

wouldn’t exist nor would this thesis. I would like to acknowledge the country of Japan

for giving me life once more. I would like to acknowledge my cohort. Each and every

one of you have made this year and a half a little easier while also providing me many

stories to tell later on in life. I would like to acknowledge Ashley and Connie as they

helped raise and care for me as my second family. Lastly, I would like to acknowledge

Edgar. He may just be a fat lazy cat, but he’s been there with me through every hardship

I have experienced the last seven years without judgment, animosity, or abandonment.

iv
 ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to connect possible factors that may influence

homonegativity within an individual. Specifically, we hypothesized that a) high amounts

of societal threats and high levels of tightness will predict orthodox orientation, which

will be associated with higher levels of homonegativity, b) high amounts of societal

threats and high levels of tightness will predict intrinsic orientation, which will be rated

with higher levels of homonegativity, c) high amounts of societal threats and high levels

of tightness with extrinsic orientation will predict high on levels of homonegativity, d)

low amounts of societal threats and looseness with extrinsic orientation will predict lower

levels of homonegativity, e) low amounts of societal threats and low levels of tightness

will predict quest orientation, which will have lower levels of homonegativity, f) and low

amounts of societal threats and low levels of tightness will predict secularism, which will

have lower levels of homonegativity. Participants (n=472) completed an online survey of

societal threats, tightness, religious orientation, and homonegativity. The results shown

that societal/perceived threat in hometown areas may predict one’s religious orientation

as well as religious orientation may predict an individual’s level of homonegativity.

v
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE

I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1

II. LITERATURE REVIEW............................................................................................... 4

Homonegativity............................................................................................................. 4

Religion and Homonegativity ....................................................................................... 6

The Role of Cultural Values ....................................................................................... 11

The Intersection of Religious Values, Cultural Values, and Homonegativity ............ 15

Hypotheses .................................................................................................................. 18

III. METHOD ................................................................................................................... 20

Participants.................................................................................................................. 20

Materials ..................................................................................................................... 20

Procedure .................................................................................................................... 22

IV. RESULTS .................................................................................................................. 24

Hypotheses Tests ........................................................................................................ 26

V. DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................. 28

Implications................................................................................................................. 28

Limitations and Future Directions .............................................................................. 30

Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 31

LIST OF REFERENCES .................................................................................................. 32

APPENDICES ................................................................................................................. 37

Appendix A: Recruitment Statement .......................................................................... 38

Appendix B: Consent Statement ................................................................................. 40

vi
Appendix C: Debriefing Statement ............................................................................. 42

Appendix D: Tightness Scale...................................................................................... 45

Appendix E: Intrinsic & Extrinsic Scale ..................................................................... 47

Appendix F: Orthodox & Secularism Scale................................................................ 49

Appendix G: Quest Scale ............................................................................................ 52

Appendix H: Homonegativity Scale ........................................................................... 54

Appendix I: Demographics ......................................................................................... 57

Appendix J: Table 1. Societal Threat and Tightness predicting Religious

Orientation ...................................................................................................... 59

Appendix K: Table 2. Societal Threat, Tightness, and Religious Orientation

predicting Homonegativity ............................................................................. 61

vii
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Sexuality is a prominent part of everyone’s life. Those who are heterosexual

never have the need to think about their sexuality on a regular basis. However, those

who are part of the LGBTQ community have had to face prejudice, fear, and hate for

their sexuality on a daily basis (Gaines, Kim, Yi, & Hardin, 2005). Throughout history,

sexual behavior and romantic relationships that were not heterosexual have resulted in

exile, social ostracism, human testing, physical, mental, and emotional harm, and in

other cases death. Highly conservative societies, such as some found in the United

States, are known to have a strong animosity toward individuals they deem as different.

Within the past years, however, changes for gay rights have become more and

more prevalent within the United States. On June 26th, 2015 the law that legalized gay

marriage across all 50 states, Obergefell vs. Hodge, was passed and soon after the

legalization for homosexuals to be able to adopt children was enacted. This provides

evidence that the values of Americans have gained momentum relating to issues that

involve gay rights.

However, even with these advancements and acceptances of the gay community,

there is still a predominant amount of hate and prejudice that circulates and retracts the

progress society has made. An example of such incident is the mass shooting at the gay

bar Pulse is Orlando, Florida on June 12th, 2016. Omar Mateen entered Pulse, opened

fire, and killed a total of 49 people while injuring 58 other club goers. This has been the

deadliest act of violence against the LGBTQ community. Mateen stated that this attack

was influenced by religion and that he was a “soldier of God.” (Lotan, 2017) Although

1
cases have rarely ever exceeded this level of violence, there are still many instances of

harm caused to the LGBTQ community, many basing their reasoning for such enmity

due to religion. It is still unclear, however, the extent to which religion factors into

homonegativity.

Many people may believe those who are religious are homophobic, but that is

quite far from the truth. There are many people who consider themselves to be part of

the LGBTQ community and are religious. There is homonegativity in nearly all forms

of religion, yet some of those who are religious are accepting or fairly indifferent to

those of the LGBTQ community. Practicing a religion might not ultimately dictate a

person’s perceptions of homosexuality, but the consequences that are in place from the

religion might play a role. These include to the ideology, scriptures, texts, practices, and

reasons for the practice of their religion, and why they hold such an importance for their

religion. Another influence is their religious orientation, or particularly how one

approaches their beliefs and practices. Each one of these is an underlying factor that can

possibly predict a person’s homonegativity toward the gay community. Therefore, it is

important to examine the possible underlying factors.

Many would assume that religion is the only factor that can pertain to

homonegativity, however, there are studies indicating that norms and other cultural

factors also play key roles in predicting homonegativity within a population. Such

factors include tightness and looseness (Minkov, Blagoev, & Hofsted, 2013) and

concerns about violation of gender norms (Slaaten, & Gabrys, 2014) that can influence

an individual’s attitudes toward the LGBTQ community. The previous studies have

given some speculation supporting causes that religious values and cultural values,

2
specifically tightness and looseness, may be predictors to homonegativity. The purpose

of this study is to investigate predictors of homonegativity from a multi-level modeling

approach. Specifically, I will examine how societal-level threats and individual-level of

values of tightness and religious values predict homonegativity.

3
 CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

Homonegativity

Homophobia refers to negative attitudes toward people whose sexual orientation

is homosexual. The correct definition of homophobia is those who have fear of

homosexuals and homosexual activities (Ahmend & Bhurga, 2010). Homophobia is a

term that was more accurate for describing how people’s attitudes were in times prior to

and during the AIDS crisis. Many people, predominantly during the 1980s AIDS crisis,

were in fear of catching what was referred to as the “gay disease” as we were still

unsure what this disease was or how it was transferred. Currently, the fear of

homosexuals or anyone part of the LGBTQ community has lessened, but there are still

prominent negative attitudes of the LGBTQ community. Homonegativity is therefore

defined as having a disdain, negative thoughts or attitudes, and discomfort around those

of the LGBTQ community (Doebler, 2015).

Doebler (2015) specified two different sets of homonegativity, further

explaining that homonegativity is not monolithic. One is moralistic homonegativity,

which is adverse attitudes toward homosexual behavior as a whole, whereas

homonegativity intolerance is personal rejection toward homosexuals as an outgroup.

With this in mind, the term of homonegativity is better suited for more accurately

understanding the perceptions and attitudes we will be discussing throughout this study.

Internalizing homophobia, having disdain for oneself for being

homosexual/bisexual or having homosexual tendencies and behaviors, has led to

physical and mental health issues among those in the LGBTQ community (Walch,

4
Ngamake, Bovornusvakool, & Walker, 2016). Chonody, Woodford, Brennan, Newman,

and Wang (2014) focused on predictors of prejudice against gay men and lesbian

women within heterosexual individuals working in the social work department at

universities. Surveys were given to only the heterosexual population and demographics

such as age, religion, race, sex, etc. were recorded. The results demonstrated that race,

religiosity, political ideology, and sexism were key determining factors that predicted

negative attitudes toward homosexual men and women. Specifically, people of color

who rated religion as highly important were more likely to exhibit prejudice against

homosexuals, as were those who were conservative in political beliefs and had sexist

attitudes. Another study, conducted by Minkov et al. (2013), gives evidence to how

conservatism and collectivism factors into prejudice and negative attitudes toward

homosexuality. This study concentrated on how individuals felt toward people engaging

in behaviors they deemed morally reprehensible. When examining personal-sexual

behaviors, individual’s lifestyle choices such as homosexuality, prostitution, abortion,

divorce, euthanasia, and suicide, they found that countries rated lower on national

wealth and higher on conservatism and collectivism were more likely to develop

negative attitudes toward personal-sexual behaviors. With these studies in mind, culture

is a significant predictor of how people develop attitudes towards homosexuals and

homosexual behaviors.

There has been a shift in the acceptance of homosexuals and homosexual

behavior within the American culture. Ahmed and Bhugra (2010) showed that the

assumptions and attitudes of homosexuality have deviated from incorrect notions of

what homosexuality was prior over 30 years ago. Homosexuality in the 1980s used to

5
be perceived as having many negative qualities, such as being an illness, it was

perceived that they preyed on children, forced sexual acts onto others, or were all

promiscuous people who just spread the disease around (mainly pertaining to the AIDS

crisis once again). Some new assumptions include a mixture of positive and negative

ideologies, such as homosexual men are desired to be “one’s gay best friends,” that they

have more disposable income and fewer responsibilities, that gay men are more

groomed, stylish, funny, and cheerful, that they are more sexually active, and that

lesbians mainly look boyish or they will be referred to as “lipstick lesbians.”

Religion and Homonegativity

Religion has been tied with homonegativity in many religions with strict rules

and scriptures created by deities. In most religions, homosexuality is considered a sin,

disgrace, or a person unable to carry on the bloodline or family name. Doebler (2015)

focused on which religious aspects could possibly predict homonegativity, specifically

looking at moralistic homonegativity and homonegativity intolerance. Her findings

were: traditionally believing in a personal God was related to moralistic

homonegativity; belief in a spirit/life force was negatively related to both types of

homonegativity; those who endorse fundamentalist religious claims were more likely

than non-fundamental religious believers to declare homonegativity of both types;

nondenominational religious groups were rated higher with moralistic homonegativity

than the religiously unaffiliated; Muslims were more likely to express moralistic

homonegativity than the other three classified denominations, Catholics, Protestants,

and Jews; practice of religion positively correlated with moralistic homonegativity; and

people living in extremely religious areas were more likely than people living in secular

6
areas to express moralistic homonegativity. In short, religious affiliation and religious

ideologies are related to homonegativity. Mainly, those who are conservative, adhere

strongly to their faith, fear the threat of change, and live in a highly religious area tend

to express more homonegativity than those who are liberal, accepting of change, on a

more individualistic scale of religion, and do not prefer to abide by preset rules and

regulations (Doebler, 2015). Another study provided more evidence that those who had

higher levels of religiosity were more likely to be against gay rights or homosexual

behavior, as well as those who had a conservative political affiliation, high ratings of

sexism, and high ratings of racial prejudice (Hichy, Gerges, Platenia, & Santisi, 2015).

Thus, past research has shown that the more religious one may be, the more likely they

will be against the LGBTQ+ community, but this may not apply to all forms of religious

practice.

Many people would assume that being religious would automatically motivate a

person to be against the LGTBQ community, but this is not true. One aspect that could

be taken into consideration is one’s religious orientation. For the current study, we will

focus specifically on: intrinsic orientation, extrinsic orientation, quest orientation,

orthodox orientation, and secularism and how they may be linked to homonegativity.

Distinguishing the influences of the five religious orientations that may help us to

understand how religion may factor into how an individual or a group acknowledges the

LGBTQ community.

Individuals who rate highly on orthodox religious orientation will live for their

religion and abide by the rules, guidelines, and norms set. However, individuals with

high orthodox religiosity have the strictest rules, punishments, and little leeway when it

7
comes to violations set against scriptures or practices when compared to all religious

orientations (Fullerton & Hunsberger, 1982). They are adamant about what scriptures,

texts, and practices they must follow and have been unaltered since the beginning of

their religion and omit change to the religion. Considering the strict regulations against

change and punishment for norm violation, one can predict that those of orthodox

religious orientation would rate the highest with being sexually prejudiced amongst the

LGBTQ community (Doebler, 2015).

Individuals who rate highly on intrinsic religious orientation are those who live

for their religion. Having a high degree of intrinsic religiosity is associated with

attending church, reading scriptures, and abiding by the rules set by religion happily

while fulfilling what one needs in life (Allport & Ross, 1967). Having a highly intrinsic

religious orientation will influence an individual to follow the rules set for their religion

but they are not as strictly monitored as those who are of orthodox religious orientation

These people also have lower ratings of anxiety and depression while being known to

possess higher rates of self-esteem, support, and meaning of life (Sanders, Allen,

Fischer, Richards, Morgan, & Potts, 2015). Although their ideologies are not as strict as

orthodox, they may have a higher possibility of being more sexually prejudice than

extrinsic, quest, or secular, due to living for their religion and closeness with their

scriptures and practices.

Those who are rate highly on extrinsic religious orientation use their religion for

surface reasons. They practice their religion for means of social identity, for personal

gain, seeking social connections, or for a means of comfort (Brickman & Reichler,

1989; Cohen, 2017). These people will focus on making religion useful for themselves.

8
Contrary to those who are intrinsic as they live for their religion, religion lives to suit

them. Primarily, religion is meant to make one feel or look better as a person (Edwards,

Flere, & Klanjsek, 2008). These people are more focused on their image or self. They

will tend to bend the will of religion around them. One can infer that they will be

apathetic to homonegativity against the LGBTQ community. For example, Hall, Matz,

and Wood (2010) discovered that those who rated highly on extrinsic religious

orientation and fundamentalism were more likely to be racist while those who rated

highly on intrinsic or quest were not. This suggested social-cognitive motives had an

influence on religiosity.

Individuals who rate highly on quest orientation are merely searching for

answers or for a meaning of life. These people feel that they have questions regarding

religion and the existence of life (Edwards, 2008). They are not specifically tied to a

religion but may experiment with various religious beliefs, mainly in hopes of finding

something that is worth living for, or giving meaning to their life. They are mainly

focused on finding answers to their questions, rather than focusing on other situations.

With this in mind, they will not be adamant about norm violation and will rate low on

levels of homonegativity.

Secularism is the belief that religion is without value and not suitable for one’s

personal life and meaning: the antithesis of religion itself (Yinger, 1967). They also

believe that there should be the separation between religion and one’s personal activities

(Limberg, 2013). These people believe in separation of religious ideologies and

government running (Hichy et al., 2015). Agnosticism, atheism, and other systems of

beliefs that do not involve scriptures, deities, or practices are included. This has

9
provided support that secularists will mainly be for advocating gay rights amongst the

LGBTQ community, considering religiosity and political orientation are strong factors

in predicting attitudes toward same-sex marriage and adoption by gays and lesbians

(Hichy et al. , 2015). Specifically, religiosity is a major determining factor in attitudes;

those who were highly secular in their ideologies were more supportive of gay rights.

With all of the evidence presented, one can begin to speculate which religious

values may have stronger ties to homonegativity than others. Religious scriptures and

practices that advise staying away from homosexual behavior will create an animosity

toward those who partake in homosexual behavior. Those who consider religion to be of

high priority in their life will follow the scriptures and regulations strictly and oppose

those who do not or will possibly push their religion onto others. Individuals whose

religious values are not high priority in their life may not find homosexuality to be as

big of a problem as those who are highly religious, being that they do not strictly follow

religious scriptures or go by religious practices (Doebler, 2015). For those who have no

religious values, such as agnostics, atheists, etc., they have no religious scriptures or

practices to abide by and may rate the lowest when it comes to homonegativity.

Homonegativity has not arisen primarily from religious orientation alone,

otherwise it would be clear that those who are religious would rate highly on

homonegativity and vice versa. Culture may instead be the underlying factor that

explains homonegativity. As a person’s religion may alter to the individual’s liking

toward others, the culture that one experiences while developing through life will very

rarely change, especially on a macro-level. A determining factor in the development of

homonegativity might be rooted within one’s culture and the values it emphasizes. The

10
next section will concentrate on how macro-level societal threats, along with cultural

values, may predict how religion and homonegativity are formed.

The Role of Cultural Values

Cultural values are what define a community. It is based on spiritual beliefs and

practices, norm guidelines, and material, emotional, and intellectual characteristics

(Minkov et al., 2013). This is how culture varies across the world as people develop

their own beliefs, governments, and social norms. Based on of Hofstede’s (2011)

model, culture and values have been determined through six different dimensions:

uncertainty avoidance (stress in society to face an unknown future), power distance

(solutions to the basic problem of human inequality), individualism/collectivism

(integration of individuals to primary groups), indulgence/restraint (restraint against

humanistic desires), time orientation (focusing on the past, present, or future), and

gender norms (masculinity and femininity). Hofstede (2011) focused on how these six

distinct characteristics can predict how a country copes with problems, threats, or

differences with other cultures. He stated that, as technology progresses, culture will

begin to become even more similar, rather than radicalizing into different cultures. This

shows how different values of cultures can be altered and influenced.

Tightness is defined as the degree to which strong societal norms are developed

and how a society reacts to an individual or group opposing the societal norms created

(Gelfand, Nishii & Raver, 2006). Tightness (and its opposite, looseness) can shift and

change, but what develops them in the first place? Which factors play into tightness and

looseness? Gelfand et al. (2006) stated that tightness develops from threats to a

community, such as famine, ecological disasters, warfare, etc.; for a society to survive

11
and thrive, rules and regulations are created in reaction to threats against the society.

One such response occurred with TSA and plane regulations after the terrorist attack of

September 11th. After this grievous attack threatened the United States as a whole, rules

and regulations among air travel become stricter and the amount of security increased.

This suggests that, when something disastrous and drastic has happened, the members

of a society will then believe following the rules and norms created is a sufficient way

of survival and adaptation. With little to no threat within a society or culture, tightness

will start to diminish as there is no need for such rules, regulations, or strict restrictions

against a set of norms.

Other factors that can influence how a culture develops or how a culture can

adapt to change is tightness and culture. Spanning over a total of ten years, Mandel and

Realo (2015) focused on a new set of rules and regulations formed after the joining of

the EU and NATO, but also focused on the reduction of borders among the countries,

which in turn would boost intercultural values, material well-being, self-direction, and

importance of hedonism. They found that tightness didn’t vary among those with

different languages, was rated higher among people with lower education as opposed to

higher education. For those between the ages of 30-44 years of age levels of tightness

had increased, and the tightness among men had risen more than among women

(Mandel & Realo, 2015). This suggests that men with lower education felt more threat,

indicating that levels of education and gender are strong predictors when it comes to

developing tightness.

A culture’s ecology also plays a role in the development of cultural tightness or

looseness. Cultural Ecosystems Theory pertains mainly to how ecological factors, such

12
as natural disasters or geographical locations, can influence how culture develops within

a society (Jackson & Gelfand, 2017). This theory partially explains the development of

cultural tightness and looseness; when faced with societal threats, a culture will become

much tighter whereas fewer threats will result in looser cultures. Cultural Ecosystems

Theory proposes that a society’s culture will mold and adapt to what is needed for the

culture to thrive, such as creating more water regulations when there is a drought. It also

focuses on singular groups and how norms shift due to ecological factors. Both Cultural

Ecological Theory and tightness/looseness complement each other on assessing how a

culture will develop and alter their values to fit their survival needs. While the

tightness/looseness focuses on the characteristics that are within a tight or loose culture,

Cultural Ecosystem Theory adds geographic and ecological factors that tightness/

looseness leaves out, which is useful when explaining cultural differences.

In reactions to ecological threats, tightness and looseness will adjust by fitting

the needs of the culture. Pertaining to religion, Triandis (2017) suggested how tightness

and looseness can influence religious beliefs and norms. Mainly focusing on how

religion interacts with tighter cultures, Triandis (2017) speculated gods would a.) be

more punitive, b) there will be more rules and punishments would mainly pertain to

these rules, c) have more elaborate rituals, d) have sacred texts that are seen as literal

and pronouncements of supernatural entity, e) deities will severely punish for non-

conformity, f) deities observe every move of an individual, g) religious authorities

control the acts of individuals and, h) they pay more attention to what an individual

does rather than what they truly believe. With all of this in mind, Triandis (2017)

proposed that tightness is associated with religiosity. This gives some conjecture that

13
ecological changes can influence tightness within a culture in turn can influence the

religiosity of a culture or an individual. Gelfand et al. (2006) stated that there are some

missing links between tightness and looseness that other studies should look into

further, specifically focusing on the ecological theory system. Further studies should be

conducted using Cultural Ecosystem Theory and the already established scales of

tightness and looseness to have a clearer understanding of how it would work in the test

setting.

Focusing primarily on tightness within a culture and how one reacts to

homosexual activity or attitudes towards homosexuals, Slaaten and Gabrys’s (2014)

results showed how students were more likely to call someone a gay-related name for a

gender norm violation, stupid behavior, or to hurt an individual. This shows how

tightness also relates to homonegativity as there are violations of social norms,

specifically gender norms, to which the punishment is using gay-related terms in a

negative connotation. This negative connotation is in reference that being gay or doing

actions that are considered “gay” is a violation of norms on its own. There needs to be

more research relating tightness and homonegativity.

A predominant factor within a culture is gender norms. As norms are set up

within a culture, whether it be a tight or loose culture, each culture will have its own

views on how a male and female should play a role in society. For example, Slaaten and

Gabrys (2014) focused on the usage of gay-related name-calling in children as a

reaction to norm violation. Students rated how frequently they called a person a gay-

related name from violation of gender norms (boys being too feminine, girls being too

masculine), for foolish behavior, in order to hurt, criticize, or belittle someone, to tease

14
in a positive way, or refer to their suspected or actual sexual orientation. The study also

focused on whether boys would be more subjected to such name calling than girls. The

results demonstrated that 40% of the time students usesd gay-related names would be

for the violation of gender norms, more than to belittle someone, refer to sexual

orientation, or tease in a positive way (such as being mean for liking another student)

and be equally as likely to say for stupid or disliked behavior. As hypothesized, boys

were also more likely to be subjected to gay-related name-calling than girls, mainly due

to stricter gender norms for boys than girls. This study has shown that following gender

norms play an important factor in how people perceive a situation and how to react to

the situation. This can be taken into consideration when an individual is faced with a

homosexual or something that relates to homosexuality.

The Intersection of Religious Values, Cultural Values, and Homonegativity

Cultural values and religion tend to coincide with one another. Culture can

affect how religion is practiced, while a religion can completely alter how a culture is

formed. This can leave some confusion as to which influences the other more. Roccas

(2005) created a set of ten values that may factor in culture relating to religion. These

include self-direction, stimulation, hedonism, achievement, power, security, conformity

and tradition (both co-occur with each other), benevolence, and universalism. The

findings of this study present a positive correlation between one’s religiosity and

conservative values, self-restriction, order, and their resistance to change. Hedonistic

values were negatively associated with religiosity as they are perceived as possible

threats to social order and opposing self-regulation of temptations. The results also

acknowledged that those who are devoted to their religion tend to rate their values as a

15
high importance which indicates motivations to avoid uncertainty and low importance

to values that engage in change. This gives more evidence on how conservative,

specifically tight cultures, want to avoid threats such as uncertainty and change and turn

to religion for guidance and peace.

Culture plays a predominant role on every individual as it can influence people’s

perceptions and attitudes of people, events, or concepts. Culture is a major determining

factor that can influence an individual’s attitude toward homosexuality. Minkov et al.

(2013) focused primarily on how cultural factors shape attitudes toward controversial

topics. The researchers questioned people on what they felt was and was not justifiable.

Fixating on negative attitudes toward homosexuality, results showed that national

wealth, lower levels of geographic variables (such as the distribution, composition, and

variation of the population), education, and conservatism were all associated with

homonegativity (Minkov et al., 2013). Conservatism is therefore a byproduct of a tight

culture, as members abide by stricter rules and tend to negate anything that goes against

social norms or change.

Tightness appears to be a major factor in predicting levels of homonegativity.

As tightness focuses primarily on following a strict set of norms, guidelines, and is

related to having rigid consequences for going against norms, one may speculate on

how tightness can influence perceptions of homosexuality. Homosexuality on its own is

considered going against the social norm, either by not abiding by gender roles or

participating in “unnatural” same sex relationships (Slaaten, 2014). Coming from a tight

cultural background, one might develop homonegativity toward an individual due to the

individual breaking of an important social norm.

16
 Another important factor in relating to culture is focusing on how collectivism

ties into religion. Religion as a whole consists of multiple people believing in the same

deity or continuing with practices for what they believe in, such as attending church,

praying, and doing ritualistic things relating to their religion. As a result, religions have

created communities, which creates a sense of group understanding or a collectivistic

community. However, some religions focus more on the individual than the group as a

whole, thus leading to a religion being more individualistically focused. Cohen and Hill

(2007) focused on the religious cultural aspects affect collectivism and individualism

within specific religions. They stated that Protestant religious groups perceive the

relationship with God on an individualistic level, while religions that focus more

primarily on rituals and traditions are more collectivistic. They found that Protestant’s

relationship with God had correlated with individualism, while religions that have

mainly communal traditions, such as Catholicism and Judaism, rated higher with

collectivism. This demonstrates how religion can affect cultural factors. Focusing on

values, Cohen and Hill (2007) focused on relating religious values along with

horizontal/vertical individualism-collectivism. They found a high relationship amongst

collectivism and conservative values, alongside with higher collectivist tendencies

coincided with higher espousal of tradition and conformity. They also found

individualism positively correlated with openness to changing of values, namely

hedonism, and self-direction; additionally, supported the hypothesis that individualistic

and collectivistic values affected religiosity. This once again gives evidence that there

are variations within religions that resemble the variations across cultures (see also

Cukur & Carlo, 2004).

17
 As previously stated, tightness and strong religious practice tend to coincide

with one another. One may see that the tighter the culture is the stricter rules,

regulations, traditions, and practices are relating to the religion (Triandis, 2017). There

is also evidence supporting that looser cultures will be more accepting of change in

traditions and practices, while having less severe punishments for violating any norms

or rules based on scriptures or practices. Past research has provided evidence that

religion and culture are partners in their mutual influence. Both tend to coincide with

one another as specific traits, specifically tight and loose traits, tend to be incorporated

into certain religious practices.

Hypotheses

The current study took into consideration the possible link between religion and

homonegativity due to underlying factors likely caused by cultural tightness. Many

studies have been conducted that focus primarily on links between religion and

homonegativity, but little has been done to see if there are other factors, such as cultural

tightness, that may be a determining factor along with other societal threats. The current

study conducted a multi-level analysis assessing how societal-level variables (i.e.,

threats) and individual-level variables (i.e., cultural tightness) interacted with one

another to predict an individual’s religious orientation, which then predicted an

individual’s rate on homonegativity. Specifically, we hypothesized that a) high amounts

of societal threats and high levels of tightness would predict orthodox orientation,

which would be associated with higher levels of homonegativity, b) high amounts of

societal threats and high levels of tightness would predict intrinsic orientation, which

would be rated with higher levels of homonegativity, c) high amounts of societal threats

18
and high levels of tightness with extrinsic orientation would predict high on levels of

homonegativity, d) low amounts of societal threats and looseness with extrinsic

orientation would predict lower levels of homonegativity, e) low amounts of societal

threats and low levels of tightness would predict quest orientation, which would have

lower levels of homonegativity, f) and low amounts of societal threats and low levels of

tightness would predict secularism, which would have lower levels of homonegativity.

19
 CHAPTER III

METHOD

Participants

Participants for this study were 472 individuals (Age ranging from 18-74, with

an average age of 37 and a standard deviation of 13.176. Gender consisted of 207 male,

261 female, 2 transgender men, 2 gender variant) were provided a recruitment statement

(see appendix A), a consent statement (see appendix B), and self-report questionnaire

online via Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk). Studies on Mturk have revealed it to be

externally valid for studies not fixated within on area (Newman, Joseph, & Feitosa,

2015). Participants consisted of a total of 90.7% heterosexual, 6.6% homosexual, 1.7%

bisexual, and 1.1 other rating. Participants also consisted of 79.5% of Caucasian

individuals, 7.3% black or African American individuals, 6.6% of Asian, 5.8% Native

American or Alaskan Native, and .9% reported other for ethnicity. Each participant was

rewarded a small incentive of $0.25 and debriefed (see appendix C) upon completion of

the online survey.

Materials

Each variable was measured using Likert scales that consist of values 1 to 5

(strongly disagree, 5= strongly agree) unless otherwise specified for a measurement.

Societal Threat. To assess societal-level threats within an individual’s culture

this study looked at their demographics provided by their zip code then analyzed

specific variables, via city_data.com, that can relate into a person’s tightness or

looseness. Demographics analyzed consisted of unemployment, crime, air pollution,

percentage below the poverty level, percentage below high school, and fatal accidents.

20
Each threat indicator was standardized, and the sum of those z scores were used as the

Societal Threat score.

Tightness. To assess levels of cultural tightness this study used Gelfand’s

cultural tightness scale (Gelfand et al., 2011). This 6-item scale takes into consideration

societal norms that are clearly defined within a culture and are pervasive within the

nations. This scale was used cross-culturally measuring the tightness and looseness of

33 countries with questions relating to their cultural norms, such as “In this country, if

someone acts up in an inappropriate way, others will strongly disapprove,” (see

appendix D). For this study, the questions were altered to ask “in my hometown” rather

than “in my country.”

Intrinsic and Extrinsic Orientation. Both intrinsic and extrinsic orientation

were measured using the Age-Universal Scale (Cohen, Mazza, Johnson, Enders,

Warner, Pasek, & Cook, 2017). To measure intrinsic orientation, this study used an 8-

item subscale on how committed individuals are to their religious beliefs and to what

extent their religion is the master motive in their life (see appendix E). Questions

relating to how religion plays a role in an individual’s life, such as “My whole life

approach is based around my religion.” To measure extrinsic orientation, we used a 6-

item subscale that measured the extent an individual acknowledges the reason behind

the usage of their religion, whether it be for personal gain or for social approval (also

see appendix E). The subscale asked such questions as “I pray mainly to gain relief or

protection.”

Orthodox/Secularism Orientation. Orthodox orientation was measured using

the Christian orthodoxy scale (Fullerton & Hunsberger, 1982). This scale has 24 items

21
relating to the degree of which an individual accepts the religious beliefs central to the

Christian religion (see appendix F). The scale had questions such as “The Bible is the

word of God given to guide man to grace and salvation” and other queries pertaining

dominantly to orthodox Christian values. Reverse coded items were used to determine

secularism (also see appendix F). Items for secularism orientation included questions

such as “Most of the religions in the world have miracle stories in their traditions; but

there is no reason t believe any of them are true, including those found in the Bible.”

Quest Orientation. Quest orientation was measured using Baston’s 12-item

Interactional scale (Baston & Schoenrade, 1991). This scale determined quest

orientation by measuring the individual’s readiness to face existential questions, how

open they are to change, and their positive perception of doubt. This scale had queries

such as “God wasn’t very important for me until I began to ask questions about the

meaning of my own life.” (See appendix G).

Homonegativity. Moralistic homonegativity was measured using Herek’s scale

on Attitudes toward Homosexuality (Rosik, 2007). This scale assessed how an

individual feels toward homosexuals and homosexuality on a Likert scale of 1 to 9 (1

=strongly disagree, 9 = strongly agree). This scale consisted of 20 items assessing a

person’s general attitude toward homosexual men and women, such as “female

homosexuality is a sin” and “sex between two men is just plain wrong.” (See appendix

H).

Procedure

Participants accessed the self-report questionnaire via Amazon Mechanical Turk

(MTurk). This is a site used by Amazon to which individuals from across the country

22
are able to access online questionnaires for incentives. Participants provided their

demographic information, such as race, age, location, etc (see appendix I). After the

demographics section was filled out the participants were to continue on to fill out and

answer the remaining sections of the questionnaire. After the participants finished the

survey, they were then debriefed and awarded $0.25 for their time and effort for the

questionnaire.

23
 CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

This study focused primarily on links between religion and homonegativity in

relation to predominant factors influenced by tightness within one’s culture. The current

study conducted a multi-level analysis to assess how societal-level factors (i.e., threats)

along with individual-level factors (i.e., cultural tightness) connect with one another in

order to predict an individual’s religious orientation, in turn predicting an individual’s

level of homonegativity. For this study we hypothesized that a) high amounts of societal

threats and high levels of tightness will predict orthodox orientation, which will be

associated with higher levels of homonegativity, b) high amounts of societal threats and

high levels of tightness will predict intrinsic orientation, which will be rated with higher

levels of homonegativity, c) high amounts of societal threats high levels of tightness

with extrinsic orientation will predict high on levels of homonegativity, d) low amounts

of societal threats and looseness with extrinsic orientation will predict lower levels of

homonegativity, e) low amounts of societal threats and low levels of tightness will

predict quest orientation, which will have lower levels of homonegativity, f) and low

amounts of societal threats and low levels of tightness will predict secularism, which

will have lower levels of homonegativity.

We used Hierarchal Linear Modeling (HLM) to analyze the data. First, we

entered societal threats (Level 2) and tightness (Level 1) as predictors and of the

religious orientation variables as the outcome variables (see appendix J). The

orientations we focused on in this study were orthodox orientation, intrinsic orientation,

extrinsic orientation, quest orientation, and secularism. We tested the model based on

24
societal threat indicators on hometown zip codes and current zip codes separately to

investigate differences.

Societal threat based on current location zip codes, shown no significant

findings 1(see appendix J). However, societal threat based on hometown zip codes

resulted in statistical significance for some religious orientations. Specifically, orthodox

orientation, intrinsic orientation, and extrinsic orientation were predicted by higher

levels of societal threats (see appendix J). In turn, lower levels of societal threats

predicted secularism. Higher levels of cultural tightness also predict secularism (see

appendix J). These results alone provide evidence that influential threats in one’s

society may influence one’s religious orientation.

Next, societal threats were entered (Level 2), as well as tightness (Level 1), and

the five religious orientation variables (all Level 1) as the predictor variables and

homonegativity (Level 1) as the outcome. Again, the data was analyzed using societal

threats based on current and hometown zip codes separately (see appendix K).

As with the results from the first level of analysis, societal threats based on

current zip code were positively associated with homonegativity. When looking at the

predictors for societal threats based on hometown zip codes, nearly all of the predictors

(excluding quest orientation), influenced individual’s levels of homonegativity (see

appendix K). Higher levels of tightness, orthodox, extrinsic, secular and perceived

threat each predicted higher levels of homonegativity. However, higher levels of

intrinsic orientation predicted lower levels of homonegativity. This provides insight on

1
All tables are presented in appendices at the end of this thesis.
25
how certain religious orientations can factor into higher levels of homonegativity while

others may not.

Hypothesis Tests

The hypothesis that high amounts of societal threats and high levels of tightness

predicted orthodox orientation, which is associated with higher levels of

homonegativity was mostly supported (See appendices J and K), but tightness was

negatively associated with orthodox orientation.

The hypothesis that high amounts of societal threats and high levels of tightness

will predict intrinsic orientation, which will be rated with higher levels of

homonegativity was only partially supported. Higher levels of threat did influence

intrinsic orientation, but levels of tightness did not; higher levels of intrinsic orientation

also predicted lower levels of homonegativity, which was unexpected.

The hypothesis that high amounts of societal threats and high levels of tightness

with extrinsic orientation will predict high on levels of homonegativity was partially

supported. Moderate levels of threat did influence extrinsic orientation, but tightness did

not; extrinsic orientation also predicted homonegativity, as predicted.

The hypothesis that low amounts of societal threats and low levels of tightness

will predict quest orientation, which will have lower levels of homonegativity, was not

supported. Neither threat nor tightness predicted quest orientation; likewise, quest

orientation was unrelated to homonegativity.

For the hypothesis that low amounts of societal threats and low levels of

tightness will predict secularism, which will have lower levels of homonegativity, was

26
partially supported. Low threat levels did predict secularism, but high tightness also

predicted secularism; secularism in turn predicted moderate levels of homonegativity.

Lastly, our results also provided evidence detailing that low levels of societal

threat and tightness did predict homonegativity; moderate level of perceived threat also

predicted homonegativity.

27
 CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to identify cultural and personal factors that

predict homonegativity. The study focused on how culture and religion play a role in

developing animosity toward the gay community. The results provided evidence that

supports some of the hypotheses. Mainly, societal threats were linked with all religious

orientations except quest orientation. However, tightness was only related to secularism.

Religious orientations, in turn, differentially predicted homonegative attitudes. We

found that orthodox, extrinsic, and secular orientations were positively associated with

homonegativity, whereas intrinsic orientation was negatively associated with

homonegativity; quest orientation was unrelated to homonegativity. We also found that

higher levels of societal threats, tightness, and perceived threat were positively

associated with homonegativity even while accounting for religious orientations.

Implications

Most studies prior to this one focused on how culture influences religious

practices or how religion influences homophobia. No prior studies focused on

connecting culture, religion, and attitudes toward anyone of gay community. Even so,

these past studies focused more on broader terms of culture, religion, or homophobia.

This study was a collection of culture, religion, and attitudes toward anyone of the gay

community as it primarily focused on how these three varying dimensions interrelate

and influence one another. This study provides evidence as to how societal factors, such

as environmental threats, have influenced individual’s need for religion (Cohen & Hill,

2007), how threats may influence conservatism/religiosity within an area (Roccas,

28
2005, Cohen & Hill, 2007, Triandis, 2017), as well as how threats and tightness alone

can specifically influence perceptions of controversial topics, such as morality or

adherence to gender norms within the gay community (Minkov et al., 2013).

This is the first study to relate culture, religious orientation, and homonegativity.

More so, the current study created a multilevel analysis to analyze the varying levels of

tightness and threat on one’s religious orientation to see how religious orientation

influences homonegativity as well as provide evidence of the direct effect of tightness

and threat against homonegativity. In accordance with Minkov et al. (2013) and Slaaten

and Gabrys (2014), we were able to provide further evidence that tightness promotes

negative attitudes toward the gay community, but this is only the case for one’s

hometown culture rather than current culture. Thus, we were able to provide evidence

relating reasons as to why an individual might feel animosity toward a certain group, as

we have seen in the study conducted by Mandel and Realo (2015). Those who are in

high threat areas, having high unemployment or low levels of education, may feel

threatened enough to create animosity toward another group.

The results of this study provided substantial evidence relating religion to

homonegativity. Specifically, this study confirmed how orthodox religious orientation is

strongly linked with homonegativity and negative attitudes toward the gay community;

this provided further support for Doebler’s (2015) finding. We also found that those of

intrinsic orientation were to be more accepting of the gay community, in accordance

with Allport and Ross (1967). Specifically, those with an intrinsic orientation tend to

practice religion in a guided way that benefits everyone and not just themselves. This

study has further shown that those who were more extrinsic were more likely to have

29
animosity toward an outgroup, specifically against the gay community in this instance,

in accordance with Edwards (2008). Extrinsic individuals may be more focused on

outward appearances and what people can do for them, thus could more likely conform

to the norm of being against the gay community. For secularism, we found that even

though one may be separate from religion (Yinger, 1967), one may still be

homonegative. This evidence gives a counter argument to the Hichy et al.(2015) study

suggestion that, due to secularism being a separation of religion, highly secular

individuals would be more accepting of the gay community.

Presented with the evidence from this study, one may use this knowledge to

better alleviate the animosity that may associate between groups of religious individuals

and the gay community. The current study has shown that some individuals with

specific religious orientations, not all religious orientations, feel negatively about

homosexuality. Those in the gay community may use this knowledge when considering

areas to live in peacefully and feel safe so as to avoid this animosity that has followed

the gay community. Members of the gay community can find areas that are lower in

levels of societal threat, perceived threat, and tightness and consider these areas as

possible places to live. Religious members of the gay community may also further look

into the type of religious orientations of churches to see which congregations they may

be accepted into (e.g., intrinsic types of churches might be more accepting while

orthodox and extrinsic ones are not).

Limitations and Future Directions

This study used self-reports when gathering data. Self-reports are not the most

reliable in the sense that individuals are vulnerable to social desirability. This study also

30
focused primarily on the Christian faith and the orientations within Christianity. Not

only did this study focus on one specific faith, this study last only focused primarily on

the gay community as an outgroup. This study was also conducted in a period where

political climate is still debating strongly about gay rights. These results could have also

varied in other time periods.

Future studies can repeat this study in varying ways. Future studies may add in

other possible cultural factors that might predict an individual’s religious orientation or

focus on how religious orientation and cultural tightness or threat might also affect the

animosity and negative attitudes toward other groups (e.g. race). Future studies may

also attempt to see how this study would take place in other cultures, such as those in

Asia or Europe, to see how cultural factors may play a role. Gathering a larger sample

size would also provide a better representation of the population basing on this study.

Conclusion

In conclusion, homonegativity can be predicted by some, but not all religious

orientations. Specifically, those with orthodox, extrinsic, and secularism orientations

were more likely to be homonegative where as those with a highly intrinsic orientation

were less likely to be homonegative. Homonegativity can also be predicted directly by

societal threats, perceived threats, and tightness, but an individual’s upbringing, relating

to threats present in their hometowns, is more influential to their religious orientation

level of homonegativity than their current location. The findings of this study will be

substantially beneficial to the gay community/friends/family as well as other religious

groups by knowing how societal and religious factors can influence attitudes. We may

now take one step further into bettering the future for the gay community.

31
 LIST OF REFERENCES

Ahmed, S. & Bhugra, D. (2010). Homophobia: An updated review of the literature.

Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 25, 447-455.

doi:10.1080/14681994.2010.515206

Allport, G. W. & Ross, J.M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 432-443. doi:

10/1037/h0021212

Baston, C. & Schoenrade, P. A., (1991) Measuring religion as Quest I & II. Validity and

reliability concerns. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 30, 416-447.

doi: 10.2307/1387277

Brickman, C. & Reichler, A. (1989). Time Orientation: Past, Present, and Future

Perceptions. Psychological Reports, 64, 1199-1205. doi:

10.2466/pr0.1989.64.3c.1199

Chonody, J. M., Woodford, M., Brennan, D., Newman, B. & Wang, D (2014). Attitudes

toward gay men and lesbian women among heterosexual social work faculty.

Journal of Social Work Education, 50, 136-152. doi: N/A

Cohen, A.B. & Hill, P.C. (2007). Religion as culture: Religious individualism and

collectivism among American Catholics, Jews, and Protestants. Journal of

Personality, 75, 709-742. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2007.00454.x

Cohen, A.B., Mazza, G.L., Johnson, K.A., Enders, C.K., Warner, C.M., Pasek, M.H., &

Cook, J.E. (2017). Theorizing and measuring religiosity across cultures.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43, 1724-1736.

32
Cukur, C. & Carlo, G. (2004). Religiosity, Values, and horizontal and vertical

individualism-collectivism: A study of Turkey, the United States, and the

Philippines. The Journal of Social Psychology, 144, 613-634.

doi:10.3200/SOCP.144.6.613-634

Dobler, S. (2015). Relationships between religion and two forms of homonegativity in

Europe- A multilevel analysis of effects of believing, belonging and religious

practice. Public Library of Science, 10, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0133538

Edwards, K.J., Flere, S., & Klanjsek, R. (2008). Religious orientation in three central

European environments: Quest, intrinsic, and extrinsic dimensions. The

International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 18, pg. 1-21. doi:

10.1080/10508610701719280

Fullerton, J. (1982). A unidimensional measure of Christian Orthodoxy. Journal for the

Scientific Study of Religion, 21, 317-326. doi:10.2307.1385521

Gaines, S., Kim, M., Yi, J. & Hardin, D.(2005). Cultural value orientations, Internalized

homophobia, and accommodation in romantic relationships. Journal of

Homosexuality, 50, 97-117. doi:10.1300/J082v50n01_05

Gelfand, M., Nishii, L.H.,& Raver, J.L. (2006). On the nature and importance of

cultural tightness and looseness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1225-1244.

doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1225

Gelfand, M (2011) Differences between tight and loose cultures. Science, 332, 1100-

1104. doi: 10.1126/science.1197754

33
Hall, L. D., Matz, C.M., & Wood, W. (2010). Why don’t we practice what we preach?

A meta-analytic review of religious racism. Personality of Social Psychology

review, 14, 126-139. doi: 10.1177/108868309352179

Hichy, Z., Gerges, M., Platenia, S., & Santisi, G.(2015). The role of secularism of state

on the relationships between Catholic identity, political orientation, and gay

rights issues. Journal of Homosexuality, 62, 1359-1373.

doi:10.1080/009183369.2015.1060068

Jackson, J.C. & Gelfan, M.J. (2017). On the evolution of tightness-looseness in cultural

ecosystems. Religion, Brain & Behavior, 7, 155-158. doi:

10.1080/2153599X.2015.1132252

Limberg, B. (2013). Religion, spirituality, and secularism in multicultural contexts.

Internationalizing multiculturism: Expanding professional competencies n a

globalized world, 143-170. doi: 10.1037/14044-006

Loftus, J. (2001) America’s liberalization in attitudes toward homosexuality. American

Sociological Revie,. 66, 762-782. doi: 10.2307/3088957

Lotan, G. T., Minshew, C., Lafferty, M., & Gibson, A. (2017, May 31) Orlando

nightclub shooting timeline: four hours of terror unfold. Orlando Sentinel.

Retrieved from

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/pulse-orlando-nightclub-shooting/os-

orlando-pulse-nightclub-shooting-timeline-htmlstory.html

Mandel, A. & Realo, A. (2015). Across-time change and variation in cultural tightness-

looseness. Public Library of Science, 10.

34
Minkov, M., Blagoev, V., & Hofsted, G. (2013). The boundaries of culture: Do

questions about societal norms reveal cultural differences? Journal of Cross –

Cultural Psychology, 44, 1094-1106. doi: 10.1177/0022022112466942

Newman, D., Joseph, D., & Feitosa, J. (2015). External validity and multi-organization

samples: Levels-of-analysis implications of crowdsourcing and college student

samples. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science

and Practice, 8, 214-220. doi:10.1017/iop.2105.28

Roccas, S. (2005). Religion and value systems. Journal of Social Issues, 61, 747-759.

doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2005.00430.x

Rosik, C.H. (2007). Ideological concerns in the operationalization of homophobia, part

I: An analysis of Herek’s ATLG-R Scale. Journal of Psychology and Theology,

35, 132-144.

Sanders, P. W., Allen, G. E., Fischer, L., Richards, P. S., Morgan, D. T., Potts, R.W.

(2015) Journal of Religion and Health, 54, 871-887. doi: 10.1007/s10943-015-

0043-4

Slaaten, H. & Gabrys, L. (2014). Gay-related name calling as a response to the violation

of gender norms. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 22, 28-33. doi:

10.3149/jms.2201.28

Strickland, B.R. & Weddell, S.C. (1972) Religious orientation, racial prejudice, and

dogmatism: A study of Baptists and Unitarians. Journal for the Scientific Study

of Religion, 11, 395-399. doi: 10.2307/1384680

Triandis, H.C. (2017). Cultural and religious diversity. Religion, Brain & Behavior, 7,

164-166. doi:10.10180.2153599X.2015.1132247

35
Walch, S., Ngamake, S. Bovornusvakool, W. & Walker S. (2016). Discrimination,

internalized homophobia, and concealment in sexual minority physical and

mental health. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 3, 37-48.

doi: 10.1037/sgd00000146

36
APPENDICES

37
 APPENDIX A:

Recruitment Statement

38
 Appendix A: Recruitment Statement

“My Culture and My Beliefs”

“My Culture and My Beliefs” is a brief, online study that asks you about your culture

and personal beliefs.

39
 APPENDIX B:

Consent Statement

40
 Appendix B: Consent Statement

“My Culture and My Beliefs”

I am a graduate student in the Psychology Department at Eastern Kentucky

University. Today you will be asked to complete a survey about your culture, religious

orientation, and acceptance toward homosexuality as well answer some demographic

questions. Your overall participation should take between 5 to 10 minutes to complete.

Participation is voluntary and you have the right to refuse to answer any

question or withdraw from the study at any time without giving prior notice and without

penalty. Your responses are anonymous. If you would like to know the results of this

study, you may contact me at erica_leach5@mymail.eku.edu.

If you wish to participate in this study, please go on to the next page to begin.

41
 APPENDIX C:

Debriefing Statement

42
 Appendix C: Debriefing Statement

“My Culture and My Beliefs”

Thank you for participating in this study! The purpose of this study was to

understand how one’s societal threats interact with their cultural tightness (how harshly

a culture reacts to an individual opposing a norm), which in turn would influence one’s

religious orientation (how one practices their religion and what their religion means for

them) thus predicting one’s levels of homonegativity (Whether an individual perceives

homosexuals/homosexuality in a positive or negative manner). This study tested the

hypothesis that the tighter an individual’s culture, along with societal threats, will

predict orthodox and intrinsic religious orientations which in turn will be rated with

higher levels of homonegativity. Looser cultures will predict extrinsic, quest, and

secularism will be rated with lower levels of homonegativity. High amounts of societal

threats creates tight cultures which in turn creates rules and regulations, which coincides

with religious orientation. With a person’s religious orientation, we will then be able to

predict their levels of homonegativity. We will use a multi-level analysis based on the

self-reported measures to analyze the data. Scales include Cohen’s Religiosity Scale,

Fullerton and Hunsberger Orthodox Scale, Baston’s Quest Orientation Scale, Gelfand’s

tightness scale, and Herek’s scale on intolerance and moralistic levels of

homonegativity.

With this information we hope to learn more about how one’s culture can

influence their religion which in turn will predict their attitudes toward homosexuals.

We hope that participating in this study made you think about your own culture,

religion, and attitudes.

43
 If you have any questions, please contact us. Erica Leach, the graduate student

focusing on this project, can be reached at erica_leach5@mymail.eku.edu.

44
APPENDIX D:

Tightness scale

45
 Appendix D: Tightness scale

1. There are many social norms that people are supposed to abide by in my

hometown.

2. In my hometown, there are very clear expectations for how people should act in

most situations.

3. People agree upon what behaviors are appropriate versus inappropriate in most

situations in my hometown.

4. People in my hometown have a great deal of freedom in deciding how they want

to behave in most situations. (Reverse coded)

5. In my hometown, if someone acts in an inappropriate way, others will strongly

disapprove.

6. People in my hometown almost always comply with social norms.

46
 APPENDIX E:

Intrinsic & Extrinsic scale

47
 Appendix E: Intrinsic & Extrinsic scale

1.) I enjoy reading about my religion.

2.) It is important to me to spend time in private thought and prayer.

3.) I have often had a strong sense of God’s presence.

4.) I try hard to live all my life according to my religious beliefs.

5.) My whole approach to life is based on my religion.

6.) Although I believe in my religion, many other things are more important in life.

7.) Although I am religious, I don’t let it affect my daily life.

8.) It doesn’t matter much what I believe so long as I am good.

9.) I attend religious services because it helps me to make friends.

10.) I attend religious services mainly because I enjoy seeing other people I know

there.

11.) I pray mainly to gain relief or protection.

12.) What religion offers me most is comfort in times of trouble or sorrow.

13.) Prayer is for peace and happiness.

14.) I attend religious services mostly to spend time with friends.

48
 APPENDIX F:

Orthodox & Secularism Scale

49
 Appendix F: Orthodox & Secularism scale

1.) God exists as Farther, Son and Holy Spirit.

2.) Man is not special creature made in the image of God, he is simply a recent

development in the process of animal evolution.

3.) Jesus Christ was the divine Son of God.

4.) The Bible is the word of God given to guide man to grace and salvation.

5.) Those who feel that God Answers prayers are deceiving themselves.

6.) It is ridiculous to believe that Jesus Christ could be both human and divine.

7.) Jesus was born of a virgin.

8.) The Bible may be an important book of moral teachings, but it was not more

inspired by God than were many other such books in the history of Man.

9.) The concept of God is an old superstition that is no longer needed to explain

things in the modern area

10.) Christ will return to the earth someday.

11.) Most of the religions in the world have miracle stories in their traditions; but

there is no reason to believe any of them are true, including those found in the

Bible.

12.) God hears all of our prayers.

13.) Jesus Christ may have been a great ethical teacher, as other men have been in

history, but he was not the divine son of God.

14.) God Made man of dust in His own image and breathed life into him.

15.) Through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, God provided a way for the

forgiveness of man’s sins.

50
16.) Despite what many people believe, there is no such thing as a God who is aware

of Man’s actions.

17.) Jesus was crucified, died, and was buried but on the third day he arose from the

dead.

18.) In all likelihood there is no such thing as a God-given immortal soul in Man

which lives on after death.

19.) If there ever was such a person as Jesus of Nazareth, he is dead now and will

never walk the earth again.

20.) Jesus miraculously changed real water into real wine.

21.) There is a God who is concerned with everyone’s actions.

22.) Jesus’ death on the cross, if it actually occurred, did nothing in and of itself to

save mankind.

23.) There is really no reason to hold to the idea that Jesus was born of a virgin

Jesus’ life showed better than anything else that he was exceptional, so why rely

on old myths that don’t make sense.

24.) The Resurrection proves beyond a doubt that Jesus was the Christ of Messiah or

God.

51
APPENDIX G:

Quest Scale

52
 Appendix G: Quest Scale

Readiness to face existential questions without reducing their complexity.

1.) I was not very interested in religion until I began to ask questions about the

meaning and purpose of my life.

2.) I have been driven to ask religious questions out of a growing awareness of the

tensions in my world and in my relation to my world.

3.) My life experiences have led me to rethink my religious convictions.

4.) God wasn’t very important for me until I began to ask questions about the meaning

of my own life.

Self-criticism and perception of religious doubt as positive

5.) It might be said that I value my religious doubts and uncertainties.

6.) For me, doubting is an important part of what it means to be religious.

7.) I find religious doubts upsetting.

8.) Questions are far more central to my religious experience than are answers.

Openness to change

9.) As I grow and change, I expect my religious also to grow and change.

10.) I am constantly questioning my religious beliefs.

11.) I do not expect my religious convictions to change in the next few years.

12.) There are many religious issues on which my views are still changing.

53
 APPENDIX H:

Homonegativity Scale

54
 Appendix H: Homonegativity Scale

1.) I would not mind working with a lesbian/gay man.

2.) I would feel uneasy if I found out that my doctor was not heterosexual.

3.) Gay people make me nervous.

4.) I would be hesitant to support lesbian and gay individuals for fear of being

perceived as one.

5.) I would not vote for a homosexual in an election for public office.

6.) I feel that you cannot trust a person who is homosexual.

7.) I would feel uncomfortable knowing my daughter’s or son’s teacher was

homosexual.

8.) It does not matter to me whether my friends are gay or straight.

9.) I don’t mind companies using openly lesbian/gay celebrities to advertise their

products.

10.) If I were a parent, I could accept my son or daughter being gay.

11.) Two individuals of the same sex holding hands or displaying affection in public

is disgusting.

12.) Lesbians and gay men who are “out of the closet” should be admired for their

courage.

13.) Lesbians and gay men still need to protest for equal rights.

14.) I see the gay movement as a positive thing.

15.) Organizations who promote gay rights are necessary.

16.) A sexual education curriculum should include all sexual orientations.

17.) Teachers should try to reduce their student’s prejudice toward homosexuality.

55
18.) I find it desirable that homosexual individuals have become more visible in

society.

19.) Being raised in a homosexual home is quite different from being raised in a

heterosexual home.

20.) I believe same-sex parents are capable of being good parents as heterosexual

parents.

21.) Same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt children the same as heterosexual

couples.

22.) When I hear about romantic relationships, I tend to assume that the partners are

of the opposite sex.

23.) Celebrations such as “gay pride day” are ridiculous because they assume an

individual’s sexual orientation should constitute a source of pride.

24.) Legalization of same-sex marriages will dismantle the fundamental foundations

of society.

25.) Gay men and lesbian women should undergo therapy to change their sexual

orientation.

26.) Homosexuality is a psychological disease.

27.) Lesbians and gay men could be heterosexual if they really wanted to.

28.) Homosexuality is an inferior form of sex

56
APPENDIX I:

Demographics

57
 Appendix I: Demographics

1.) What is your age?

2.) What is your gender? (Male/ Female, Trans man, Trans woman, Gender variant,

Other)

3.) What is your sexual orientation? (Heterosexual, Homosexual, Bisexual, Other)

4.) What is your ethnicity?

5.) What is your highest level of education? (Less than high school, high school,

GED, some college, vocational training, Associates degree, Bachelor’s degree,

Master’s degree, Professional Degree, Doctorate degree)

6.) How much does religion influence you?

7.) What is your zip code?

8.) How long have you lived at this zip code?

9.) How threatened are you by unemployment?

10.) How threatened are you by crime?

11.) How threatened are you by air pollution?

12.) How threatened are you by poverty?

13.) How threatened are you by natural disasters?

58
 APPENDIX J:

Table 1. Societal Threats and Tightness Predicting Religious Orientations

59
 Appendix J: Table 1

Societal Threat and Tightness predicting Religious Orientation

Orthodox Intrinsic Extrinsic Quest Secular

Predictors: Current Hometown Current Hometown Current Hometown Current Hometown Current Hometown

60
Societal
.031 .059** .002 .034** .006 .030* -.007 .018 -.007 -.047
Threat:

Tightness: .05 -.70+ .10 -.27 .47+ -.47 .29 -.14 -.05 .75*

* p < .05 ** p < .01 +p<.06

 APPENDIX K:

Table 2. Societal Threat, Tightness, and Religious Orientation predicting

Homonegativity

61
Appendix K: Table 2

Societal Threat, Tightness, and Religious Orientation predicting Homonegativity

Homonegativity

Predictor Variables: Current Zip Code: Hometown Zip Code:

Societal Threat .03** .02**

Tightness .12 .18**

Orthodox -.13 .97**

Intrinsic .29 -1.68**

Extrinsic .05 .57**

Quest -.13 .10

Secular -.05 .39*

Perceived Threat .12 .52**

* p < .05 ** p < .01 +p<.06

62