Attitudes Toward Homosexuality Among Peninsula Malaysia University Students

ATTITUDES TOWARD HOMOSEXUALITY AMONG PENINSULA MALAYSIA
UNIVERSITY STUDENTS
PETER TAN
A RESEARCH PROJECT
SUBMITTED IN
PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE BACHELOR OF SOCIAL SCIENCE (HONS) PSYCHOLOGY
FACULTY OF ARTS AND SOCIAL SCIENCE
UNIVERSITI TUNKU ABDUL RAHMAN
APRIL 2012
ATTITUDES TOWARD HOMOSEXUALITY AMONG PENINSULA MALAYSIA

UNIVERSITY STUDENTS
PETER TAN
A RESEARCH PROJECT
SUBMITTED IN
PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE BACHELOR OF SOCIAL SCIENCE (HONS) PSYCHOLOGY
FACULTY OF ARTS AND SOCIAL SCIENCE
UNIVERSITI TUNKU ABDUL RAHMAN
APRIL 2012
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I would like take this opportunity to express my appreciation to people who had
contributed supports and motivation along my academic pathway. I am profoundly thankful to
my family for their supports, constant encouragement as well as their kind understanding.
Although sometimes they maybe will questioning and having certain disagreements regarding on
the topic that I choose for this research paper, they will still continuous supporting me neither
morally nor via information giving in order for me continue and succeeded the research. They
made everything possible for me including pursuing my tertiary education at Universiti Tunku
Abdul Rahman (UTAR).
I wish to express my appreciation to my supervisor, Dr Siah Poh Chua for his
consideration in providing precious guidance, assistance and comments along the period upon
the completion for my Final Year Project (FYP).
I would like to send my gratitude to students from UTAR, University Sains Malaysia
(USM), University Putra Malaysia (UPM) and Management and Science University (MSU) who
took part in this research. Furthermore, I wish to send my special thanks to Chong Ying Zhi,
Cheah Chun Fei, Chin Wen Kang, Aizad Putra, Jacky Chow Weng Kit, and William Hoi Wei
Yuan who had helped me during the period of the completion for my FYP. Without them, it will
be impossible for me to conduct the research for my FYP.
Finally, I wish to express my highest gratitude and appreciation to everyone that provided
me ideas, assistance and moral support along the way in my studies and FYP. This FYP had been
completed smoothly and successfully by having all of your facilitations, efforts and
contributions.
PETER TAN
APPROVAL FORM
This research paper attached hereto, entitled Attitudes toward Homosexuality among Peninsula
Malaysia University Students prepared and submitted by Peter Tan in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the Bachelor of Social Science (Hons) Psychology is hereby accepted.
_____________________
Supervisor
Dr Siah Poh Chua
Date:_____________
ABSTRACT
Nowadays, Malaysian was curious about the issues of homosexuality, but many of them do not
really understand homosexuality and making them become disrespect and intolerance toward
homosexual people. Hence, this study was aimed to examine the demographic variables
(educational influence, genders and religious groups) in attitudes toward homosexuality among
peninsula Malaysia students. Quota sampling method was being applied in this study by
controlling three variables consisted with genders, racial and religious groups. Face-to-face
survey method (printed hardcopy) and internet survey (softcopy) were being used in order to
obtain the data and information from the participants. In this research, participants (n=80) were
university students from four Malaysia universities: Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman, Universiti
Putra Malaysia, Univerisiti Sains Malaysia and Management and Science University. The
findings showed that majority of the participants were having neutral attitudes toward
homosexuals. Research suggested that majority of the students (40.00%, n=32) were having the
neutral attitudes toward the homosexuality. The result suggested that there was no significant
difference in attitudes toward homosexuality between genders, t(78)=0.298, n.s. However, there
was a significant difference in attitudes toward homosexuality between religious groups,
t(78)=10.654, p < 0.05. Muslim participants (M=2.40, SD=0.430) significantly higher tendency
to show negative attitudes toward homosexuality than Buddhism participants (M=3.54,
SD=0.526).The findings from this research can be use as fundamental information for Malaysia
to understand on how nowadays university students attitudes toward homosexuals whether they
are tolerance and respect homosexual people or not.
DECLARATION
I hereby declare that the material contained in this paper is the end result of my own work and
that due acknowledgement has been given in the bibliography and references to ALL sources be
they printed, electronic or personal.
Name
: PETER TAN
Student ID
: 09AAB06834
Signed
: ______________________
Date
: 2nd April 2012
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT
DECLARATION
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
iii
LIST OF TABLES
iv
LIST OF GRAPHS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
vi
CHAPTERS
I
II
II
INTRODUCTION
Background of Study
Operational Definition
Problem Statement
Objective of Study
Research Questions
Significance of Study
LITERATURE REVIEW
Attribution Theory and Homosexuality
Educational and Attitudes toward Homosexuality
Gender and Attitudes toward Homosexuality
10
Religious and Attitudes toward Homosexuality
11
METHODOLOGY
15
Participants
15
Apparatus
15
III
Procedure
16
FINDINGS & ANALYSIS
19
Distribution for the universities students attitudes toward
19
homosexuality
Significant differences in attitudes toward homosexuality
21
between genders
Significant differences in attitudes toward homosexuality
22
between religions
IV
DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION
23
23
Genders and Attitudes toward Homosexuality
25
26
Limitations and Recommendations
28
Conclusion
30
REFERENCES
Appendix A
32
Sample of Attitudes toward Homosexuality Scale
36
(ATH Scale) Questionnaire

Appendix B
Original Data
40
Appendix C
Calculation for Significant Difference in Attitudes
46
toward Homosexuality between Genders

Appendix D
Calculation for Significant Difference in Attitudes

toward Homosexuality between Religions
49
LIST OF TABLES
Tables
Page
1.0
Descriptive statistics for participants gender, race and religion
18
2.0
Descriptive statistics for respondents attitudes toward homosexuality
20
3.0
Gender differences in attitudes toward homosexuality
21
4.0
Religious differences in attitudes toward homosexuality
22
LIST OF FIGURE
Figure
1
Page
20
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ATH Scale
Attitudes toward Homosexuality Scale
FEM Scale
Feminism Scale
GLBT
Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender
HAS
Homosexuality Attitudes Scale
FYP
Final Year Project
MSU
Management and Science University
UN
United Nation
UPM
Universiti Putra Malaysia
USM
Universiti Sains Malaysia
UTAR
Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman
Attitudes toward homosexuality
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Background of Study
According to Herek (as cited in Siebert, Chonody, Rutledge, & Killian, 2009)
heterosexuality is frequently deemed as the only acceptable sexual orientation in American
culture, and as a result, sexual bias is conveyed in myriad ways. This kind of belief not only
exists at Western countries, but also at Eastern countries such as Singapore, Malaysia and etc.
This is because people who are heterosexual view heterosexuality as normal while view
homosexuality as abnormal. However, normal people may not define themselves in relation to
homosexuals, gays do, indeed, define themselves in relation normal people (Recio, 2010). In
simple, homosexual people will view homosexuality as a normal sexual orientation, just like
those heterosexual individual views heterosexuality as normal sexual orientation as well. But
until nowadays, not all cultures or countries can accept homosexuality as apart of the normal
sexual orientation since there are researches showing that there are numerous people who are
having the negative attitudes toward homosexuality.
Until the world of today, homosexuality still becomes one of the most debated issues for
the psychologist and other researchers around the world. An extensive literature on adults
attitudes toward gay and lesbian people and beliefs about homosexuality provides evidence that
sexual prejudice is influenced by or related to an individuals gender, religious fundamentalism,
gender role attitudes, and a host of other factors (Horn, 2006). At different times and in different
cultures, homosexual behavior has been variously approved of, tolerated, punished, and banned
(Alagappar & Kaur, 2009). In Belgium, although gay marriage was legalized in 2003, and a law
permitting gay adoption was passed in 2006, that does not indicates that all Belgians become
more respectful or tolerate toward homosexuals. According to Pickery and Noppe (as cited in
Teney & Subramanian, 2010), negative attitudes are indeed still high among certain social
groups. In Thailand 2001, there was an attempt by Mr. Purachai Piamsomboon, Minister of
Interior bring the issue of homosexuality into the policy realm and advocated legalizing samesex marriage, but Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra said the idea was too modern for the Thai
society and preferred to disregard the issue of homosexuality by pretending that gays do not exist
(Pipat, 2005). By looking to the example given from Belgium and Thailand, it is clearly showing
that people are having negative attitudes toward homosexuality neither for Western culture nor
Eastern culture.
In Malaysia, according to Ho (as cited in Alagappar & Kaur, 2009), homosexual
activities have been around for a long time but not discussed in the open until it was highlighted
by the local press especially during the trial of the former Deputy Prime Minister, Anwar Ibrahim
in September 1998. Furthermore, Offord (as cited in Alagappar & Kaur, 2009) stated that in
Malaysia context, homosexuality is illegal, enforced by laws that are inherited from its time as a
British colony. This is due to the fact that Malaysia is an Islamic country that does not condone
homosexuality since the nation proscribes homosexuality as a sin. Gay, Leabian, Bisexual and
Transgender (GLBT) in Malaysia are often seen as immoral and treated as deviants and criminals
(Alagappar & Kaur, 2009). Since homosexuality was considered as illegal, sin and crime in
Malaysia, hence it is punishable with long prison sentences of up to 20 years and caning. This is
supported by the statement of Datuk Hasmy Agam, Malaysian permanent representative to the
United Nation and president of UN Islamic Group, that homosexuality from the religious point
of view is simply wrong and acts against the order of nature (Alagappar & Kaur, 2009). This had
indicates that the Malaysian are showing a very negative attitude towards homosexuality since
Malaysia does not accept same-sex affection and discriminate the people who is having the
homosexual orientation.
Operational Definition
The term homosexuality refers to the sexual behavior between people who are having the
attraction or sexual orientation towards the same sex people. As a sexual orientation,
homosexuality refers to "having sexual and romantic attraction primarily or exclusively to
members of ones own sex"; "it also refers to an individuals sense of personal and social identity
based on those attractions, behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community of others
who share them" (Alagappar & Kaur, 2009). There are different term being used for male and
female who was engaged in homosexuality. The term gay is often used for the representation of
homosexual and it is also referred to the male homosexuality, while female homosexuality is
frequently referred to as lesbian.
Problem Statement
Nowadays in Malaysia, the society lives in the ways with stigmatization toward people
around them. The person who is being stigmatized the most is homosexual individual. When
Malaysians were having stigmatization toward homosexuality, then eventually it will lead them
to have negative attitudes toward them too. Those negative attitudes were actually being shaped
and influenced by the people around us especially those from social institutions such as
universities, colleges and working setting. Influenced from ones family also playing an
important factor in upbringing the perception toward homosexuality. In the past time,
homosexuality was being viewed as illness and should be forced to seek treatment and

medication. Even now there are still numerous people who think that homosexuality is a kind of
psychopathology. Since Malaysians are having this kind of negative perception, these will also
cause them to have negative attitudes such as disrespect, intolerance and feel disgust toward
homosexual people. When such negative attitudes occurred, these will leads our society become
bias or showing discrimination behaviors when dealing with known homosexual people, thus, it
will create the inequality and injustice for homosexual people. Hence, at last Malaysians will
discriminating to homosexual people and eventually make Malaysia as the country with
stigmatization toward homosexuality.
Objective of Study
In this research, the researcher attempts to conduct a study regarding on the attitudes
toward homosexuality among the university students in peninsula Malaysia. Therefore, the
purpose of this study was to examine the different demographic variables such as educational
influences, gender differences, and religious differences on the attitudes toward homosexuality
among the university students in peninsula Malaysia.
Research Questions
Research Question 1: What is the distribution for the universities students attitudes toward
homosexuality?
Research Question 2: Whether there is a significant difference between genders in attitudes
toward homosexuality?
Research Hypothesis 2: There is a significant difference between genders in attitudes
toward homosexuality.
Null Hypothesis 2: There is no significant difference between genders in attitudes toward

homosexuality.
Research Question 3: Whether there is a significant difference between religious differences in
attitudes toward homosexuality?
Research Hypothesis 3: There is a significant difference between religious differences in
attitudes toward homosexuality.
Null Hypothesis 3: There is no significant difference between the religious differences in
attitudes toward homosexuality.
Significance of Study
The findings from these studies can be use as the guidance to the researchers in
understanding our current society in Malaysia regarding on their attitudes toward homosexuality,
whether Malaysians are showing the willingness to accept homosexual people are a part of the
society or not. As being mentioned by Fone (as cited in Medley, 2005), this kind of research is
particularly important since attitudes toward homosexuality have been invented, supported, and
advanced by various societal agencies, and these attitudes have been overwhelmingly and
pervasively negative. Malaysia university student is the optimum participant in participating for
this research because university act as one of the social institution in preparing the youngster in
meeting or facing the obstacles in the current social world. Thus, their results in this research
maybe directly or indirectly reflect the perspectives of our current societies towards
homosexuality. Hence, this research is important to the development for nowadays Malaysians
schema because it can help in revealing whether Malaysians are having the tolerance and respect

toward homosexuality, or being disrespect and showing the disgust attitudes when mentioned
about homosexuality.
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
Attribution Theory and Homosexuality
Attribution theory is the theory of how people explain others behavior for example, by
attributing it either to internal dispositions (enduring traits, motives, and attitudes) or to external
situations (Myers, 2010). In the society nowadays, different people will attributes homosexuality
in different scale and perceive homosexuality in various ways. With numerous ways of
attribution, it will lead to the differences in the attitudes toward homosexuality for varying
people. However, misleading attribution will lead to fundamental attribution error. Fundamental
attribution error is the tendency for observers to underestimate situational influences and
overestimate dispositional influences upon others behaviors (Myers, 2010). For the case of
homosexuality, people tend to believe that if an individual is a homosexual because he or she is
born to be in such sexual orientation, then people will view them in different ways as compared
to those whom chose to become homosexual. Such attribution will affect socials attitudes
toward homosexuality. According to Swank and Raiz (2010), people are more intolerant when
they think that others choose to become gay or lesbian; conversely, those who believe that sexual
orientation is due to genes or nature seem more accepting of homosexuals. Hence,
fundamental attribution error might lead people to act differently in the level of acceptance for
homosexual people.
Attribution theory contends that people are more sympathetic to the disenfranchised
when they believe that these individuals dilemma is a result of forces beyond their control;
conversely, the disenfranchised are subject to harsher criticism when others think that these
persons somehow provoked their own hardship (Swank & Raiz, 2010). Hence, with different
approaches of attribution for homosexuality will affect whether nowadays people can really
tolerate and respect gays and lesbians as a part of our society or not. As according to the
attribution theory, human tends to perceive certain kinds of behaviors whether is acceptable or
not based on their norms, culture, belief and schemata. If their schema initially have been fixed
with the negative perceptions toward homosexuality, thus, it will the attribution that
homosexuality is consider as wrong and unacceptable to that particular society.
Negative attitudes toward GLBT people on college campus are still pervasive (Medley,
2005). A homosexual individual will be viewed or treated negatively by other people due to their
sexual orientation preference either inside university or college. For example, in school, students
frequently report hearing negative or homophobic comments from other students and school staff
and a high number of students report that they are harassed on a daily basis by other students
because of their sexual orientation (Horn, 2006). When a homosexual individual had been treated
negatively such as being assault verbally, this will lead them to think and behave negatively as
well. According to DAugelli (as cited in Horn, 2006), this type of victimization can lead to
multiple negative developmental outcomes for youth such as school absence, depression, anxiety,
and suicide.
Although university students may treat homosexual people negatively, there was a
research found out that education increases ones capacity to have compassion and tolerance for
others who are different (Ohlander, Batalova, & Treas, 2005). Educational institution such as
schools not only impact academic achievement but also aim at diffusing social norms such as the
norms surrounding tolerance toward minorities (Teney & Subramanian, 2010). Inglehart (as cited
in Ohlander, Batalova, & Treas, 2005) challenges the idea that education profoundly influences
attitudes and values. Educational institutions such as universities and colleges also act as the
social agents who play the socialization role that encouraging appropriate behavior according to
the values and norms of the people. This is due to the fact that students attitudes can be
influence by ones peer group within the university. Hence, this indicates that university can be a
substantial influenced place for the students attitudes toward homosexuals.
In another study conducted by Herek, and Schulte (as cited in Swank & Raiz, 2010),
studies of undergraduate students have often found a strong correspondence between the
respondents and peers attitudes on matters of homosexuality. Although conversations with gay
men and lesbians of any age or profession seem to lower hostilities, some studies have confirmed
that heterosexual college students display the greatest attitudinal alter when they gather other
students who are homosexual (Swank & Raiz, 2010). However, half a century ago, Kinsey (as
cited in Ohlander, Batalova, & Treas, 2005) suggested that there was a positive association
between educational level and attitudes toward homosexuality. He concluded, (W)e are not sure
that we yet understand what these differences are. Individuals with better levels of education are
less negative toward homosexual relations than are less-educated people. This educational
differential holds not merely for the United States, but for other Western nations (Ohlander,
Batalova, & Treas, 2005). In addition, there was evidence showing that university students will
have more positive attitudes and better acceptance toward homosexuality. University students are
more likely to have in a positive role someone who is homosexual, such as a professor or a
fellow student, compared to those who have not attended college (Ohlander, Batalova, & Treas,
2005). The quality of the University for being positive toward homosexuality might also be
related to the liberal attitudes.
10
However, our understanding of educational differences in attitudes toward homosexuality

is still uncertain (Ohlander, Batalova, & Treas, 2005). This is because there is no consistent
research to show that university or college students hold more positive attitudes towards
homosexuality. Universal measures of years in college have sometimes found that juniors and
seniors are less homophobic than freshmen, whereas other studies have found no such difference
(Swank & Raiz, 2010).
Gender and Attitudes toward Homosexuality
According to Franklin, and Whitley, and Yang (as cited in Tucker & Potocky-Tripodi,
2006), earlier research has shown that there are significant differences in attitudes and behaviors
toward homosexuals across gender. Thus, it is undeniable that that male and female will show
different attitudes toward homosexuality. This is due to the fact that there are strong evidence
that people have differential attitudes toward gay men and lesbians, however, it could also be the
case that the gender differences resulted from differences in how individuals view treating gay
men versus lesbians (Horn, 2006).
Moreover, in various researches conducted by Herek (as cited in Horn, 2006), there was a
strong evidence showing that men have higher levels of sexual prejudice than women. These
results were consistent with the finding by Kite and Whitney (as cited in Lamar & Kite, 1998) in
which men hold more negative attitudes toward homosexuality than do women. At the same
time, this research also showing that mens attitudes toward homosexuality are particularly
negative when the person was being rated as a gay man rather a lesbian. Thus, these reviewed
that although men was showing more negative attitudes toward homosexuality than the women,
men were showing more negative attitudes toward male homosexual rather than female
11
homosexual. Furthermore, Killen et al. (as cited in Horn, 2006) found an evidence that girls are
more likely than boys to judge negative intergroup interactions (e.g., exclusion, teasing) as
wrong because they are unfair or hurtful. Hence, it will be likely that boys would show more
negative attitudes and beliefs toward homosexuality than girls across all the measures. In the
same research, it was found that girls exhibited less sexual prejudice than boys across most
measures (Horn, 2006). This result is similar to other research on prejudice related to sexuality,
as well as the development of prejudice more generally.
In addition, numerous studies provide evidence that women are less prejudiced toward
gay and lesbian people than men (Horn, 2006). This is supported by the research conducted by
Fishbein (as cited in Horn, 2006) on the development of racial and gender prejudice which also
provides evidence that girls are generally less prejudiced than boys. According to Killen et al. (as
cited in Horn, 2006), the findings of the study also broaden this work and provide support for
research on reasoning about intergroup relationships, more generally, in that we also found
gender differences in participants reasoning regarding on the treatment toward gay and lesbian
peers. Thus, future research must evaluate males and females reasoning regarding both gay male
and lesbian peers in order to understand their reason in the treatment toward homosexual people.
In a literature review conducted by Ohlander, Batalova and Treas (2005), it had found out
that attitudes toward homosexuality were closely related with religiosity, and religious behavior
and affiliation are associated with tolerance. When come to the point whether the people with
religion were having negative or positive attitudes toward homosexuality, there were numerous
studies showing different findings. However, most of the studies showed that people with
12
religiosity tend to showed negative attitudes toward homosexuality. This is based on the fact that
religious texts such as Bible and Al-Quran constitute the primary, though not exclusive, basis for
the censure of homosexuality (Yip, 2005). Furthermore, in a research conducted by Parrinder &
Ridgeon (as cited in Yip, 2005), they revealed that Christianity and Islam are scriptural religions
with written texts as the lynchpin of their teachings on, inter alia, sexual morality. Hence, people
with the religion belief usually will be shaped from their own religious belief system and took for
granted for what the religion had taught them to believe what was wrong and right.
In another research conducted by Tucker and Potocky-Tripodi (2006), it was found out
that anti-homosexuality attitudes have been consistently correlated with religion and religiosity.
This is because in most of the religious point of views, homosexuality can be considered as a sin
and totally forbidden by particular religious groups. For example, Muslim community holds a
very strong negative attitude toward homosexuality. This is clearly shown in a study conducted
by Hekma (as cited in Yip, 2005), in the Netherlands, imam Khalil El Moumni declared on
national television that homosexuality was a disease, a sin, and a threat to social fabric, sending
far-reaching ripples throughout Dutch society. According to Yip (2005), Muslims tend to refer to
the religious text in the Quran, which most Muslims consider the literal and unabridged words
of Allah, the Shariah (Whole duty of Mankind [An-Naim, 1990: 11], a text on moral and
pastoral theology; laws for public and private life), the Hadith (Sayings of the Prophet
Muhammad), in order to decide whether a particular behavior or action is considered as wrong or
righteous. In different study conducted by Bouhdiba, and Green and Numrich (as cited in Yip,
2005), they claimed that Islamic discourse hegemonizes heterosexuality within marriage, and
makes homosexuality as a revolt against Allah and violation of nature since The Quran says it
is wrong. Therefore, Muslim people not only having the negative attitudes toward
13
homosexuality, but also the stereotyping and prejudice toward the homosexual action as they
believed that homosexual acts were revolting the balance of the nature and against the rules from
Allah. This is supported by the study conducted by Al-Haqq Kugle (2010) in which progressive
Muslims extend its implied meaning beyond its explicit wording, to condemn also male sexism,
gender injustice, and social stigmatizing of homosexuals. Hence, in the Islamic perspectives,
homosexuality is considered as illegal, sinful, immoral and harmful to the development of the
human well being.
In Malaysia, an individual in the Malays community is enforced to holds the Islamic
religion when he or she once was born in the Malays family. Thus, the term Malays was
usually use to refer Muslim people in Malaysia due to the fact that Malays is compulsory to
become a Muslim as stated in the Perlembagaan Malaysia 1957. Thus, the traditional form of
beliefs in the learning of Islamic will bring a grand impact in shaping the negative attitudes
toward homosexuality as the Quran stated that homosexual is a sin and should be forbidden.
Hence, it is believable that the Malays in Malaysian will shown more negative attitudes toward
homosexual compared to other ethnic groups.
In contrast, in the perspectives of Buddhism, it is interestingly showing that Buddhist
does not forbidden or disallows the practice of homosexuality. In fact, gays and lesbians can also
learn and practice the lessons of Buddhism. According to MacPhillamy (n.d.), the progress of
training and course of training may not differ depending upon sexual orientation. Thus, there is
no sexual orientation prejudice, stereotyping or discrimination occurred in the teaching of
Buddhism. This is because that respect and tolerance have been the Buddhist ideal when it comes
to peoples sexual preferences, and they remain the ideal until today (Anonymous, n.d.)
14
Furthermore, within the same research, it is mentioned that for traditional Buddhism, the
existence of homosexuality was not viewed as an illness or evil as Muslim does, but it is the
natural effects of past karma (MacPhillamy, n.d.). Karma is the explanation in which in our life,
there is a cause and effect of what we had done or performed during our lifetime and it will bring
to the next life if there is unfinished business from the past time. By applying the karmic causes
in describing the emerges of homosexuality, when a karmic stream has been passed down
through many rebirths as one gender, and in this lifetime appears as the other gender, it is
believed that there are habitual inclinations carried over which sometimes cause the current
individual to be sexually more attracted to members of his or her own gender (MacPhillamy,
n.d.).
However, there have been numerous instances where Buddhists have demonstrated
intolerance toward people who have a same-sex orientation (Anonymous, n.d.). Therefore,
nowadays there were actually numerous of Buddhist who views homosexually as either
something negative or neutral, and this leads to different kind of attitudes toward homosexuality.
Although they do not see homosexuality as something positive, it does not indicate that they
viewed homosexuality as negative or illegal. This is because Buddhism is a type of polytheistic
religion whereby Buddhist may view homosexuality on different scale. On the other hand, Davis
(as cited in Doerr, 2010) stated that there were some monotheistic religion such as Muslim
viewed homosexuality as something evil and that whoever is homosexually active, they would be
condemned to hell as a punishment to their behavior.
15
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
Participants
The participants are the undergraduate students which were being chosen from four
selected universities around peninsula Malaysia. The four selected universities are Universiti
Tunku Abdul Rahman (UTAR Kampar, Perak Campus), Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM
Serdang, Selangor Campus), Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM Kubang Kerian, Kelantan
Campus), and Management and Science University (MSU Kuala Lumpur Campus). There
were 80 participants participated for this research. There were 20 participants chosen from each
university. Overall, there were 40 undergraduate male students (20 Malays, 20 Chinese), and 40
undergraduate female students (20 Malays, 20 Chinese) participated in this study. As for religion,
40 undergraduate students were Malays Muslim, and 40 undergraduate students were Chinese
Buddhist. The participants have the mean ages of 21.613.
Apparatus
The questionnaire used in this study was the Homosexuality Attitudes Scale (HAS) or
Attitudes toward Homosexuality Scale (ATH Scale) developed by Kite and Deaux (1986). This
questionnaire correlates with Haddock et al.s (1993) thermometer measure (general measure)
over .90 and work well for global evaluation of lesbians and gay men. The scale has good testretest reliability (r =.71) and excellent internal consistency (alphas >.92). For convergent validity,
the scale correlates (rs =.50) with the Smith, Ferree and Mllers FEM Scale (1975), and the
Spence and Helmreichs Attitude toward Women Scale (1978) (Lamar & Kite, 1998).
16
The ATH Scale assesses stereotypes, misconceptions, and anxieties toward homosexual
people unidimensionally factor representing a favorable or unfavorable evaluation toward
homosexuals (Kite & Deaux, 1986). This questionnaire contains of twenty-one items, and it is in
Likert scale design (1 Strongly Agree to 5 Strongly Disagree). Items 1, 2, 6, 8, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19,
20, and 21 are reverse scored. All scores for each participant will be sum together (after the
scores had been reversed) and divided into 5 measure scores: Discomfort or Negative attitudes
(21 37), Slightly Discomfort or Negative attitudes (38 54), Neutral attitudes (55 71),
Slightly Comfortable or Positive attitudes (72 88), and Comfortable or Positive attitudes (89
105). Attitude scores for "gay male", "lesbian", and "homosexual" targets do not differ
significantly in which it is equally reliable for gay males and lesbian (Kite & Deaux, 1986). The
author claimed that the measure is reliable in relation to either homosexual males or females
(LaMar & Kite, 1998). Hence, ATH Scale can be used as the general measure for entire
homosexual population. However, researchers are advised to specify the target selection and
avoiding "homosexual" as an attitude object (Kite & Deaux, 1986).
Procedure
Approval to conduct the study was granted by UTAR and under the guidance of the
researchers supervisor for the subject of UAPZ3016 STUDENT PROJECT IN PSYCHOLOGY.
In this survey, sample had been selected as the method in conducting the study. Sample means
that the subset of the population used to represent the entire population. In order to obtain the
sample, non-probability sampling (quota sampling method) was being applied in this study. The
samples were being selected from the different population (i.e. Population in UTAR Kampar,
Perak Campus, population in USM Kubang Kerian, Kelantan Campus, population in UPM
Serdang, Selangor Campus, and population in MSU Kuala Lumpur Campus).
17
For the survey method, face-to-face survey and internet survey were being used in order
to gain the data and information in the study. Face-to-face survey was being applied in UTAR in
order to gain a better control of the selection of participants to prevent bias. The researcher
printed out the hardcopy of the questionnaire and distributes in UTAR area (i.e. Block B,
cafeteria, Block D and Block E). While for internet survey was being used in order to have a
greater access to the population from other universities. The softcopy of the questionnaire was
being sent to the participants in USM, UPM and MSU via emailing and Facebook account.
However, the researcher was facing problem in selecting the participants from these universities
as it was difficult to contact them. Thus, a few of helpers was being chosen in each university in
order to help the researcher to distribute the questionnaires and re-collect, and sent back to the
researcher for the analysis and calculation of the results.
Initially, 100 participants were being planned to include inside the study. However, there
were certain students who refused to participate inside the survey and some of the questionnaires
collected were not completely answer by the participants, thus, only 80% of the questionnaires
can be used. Hence, there were 80 samples (each university with 20 samples) being selected
from four universities in peninsula Malaysia. The samples were being divided based on genders
and religious differences. In terms of gender differences, 50% (n=40) of male students and 50%
(n=40) of female students was being carefully selected from the universities from different field
of study, and year and semester of study in order to specifically to investigate for the second
research question. For example, 50% (n=10) of male students and 50% (n=10) of female students
being selected in UTAR; 50% (n=10) of male students and 50% (n=10) of female students being
selected in UPM; 50% (n=10) of male students and 50% (n=10) of female students being
selected in USM; and etc. In terms of religious differences, 50% (n=40) Muslim students, and
18
50% (n=40) Buddhism students were being carefully selected from the universities in order to
specifically to investigate for the third research question. (Refer Table 1.0)
Table 1.0
Descriptive statistics for participants gender, race and religion
Gender
Male
Female
%
50.00
50.00
Race
Malay
Chinese
%
50.00
50.00
Religion
Muslim
Buddhism
%
50.00
50.00
During the process of distributing the survey, in order to avoid sexual orientation bias in
the survey, each participant was being asked that he or she must be a Heterosexual in order to
answer the questionnaire so that a more accurate result can be acquired from the research.
Fortunately, all the participants inside the survey were given a full cooperation in dealing with
the question regarding on their sexual orientation preferences. Some of the participants were
being given a brief explanation regarding to a certain jargon or ambiguous term (i.e. in item 9,
the word voyeurism; and in item 11, the word revolting) inside the questionnaire so that
they can answer the questionnaire with a better understanding. At the end of the survey, each
participant was being debriefed again regarding on the participants confidentially in the study.
After all the questionnaires had been completed and collected, the collected data and information
provided by the respondents were being analyzed, and develop into table and graph.
CHAPTER IV
19
FINDINGS & ANALYSIS

Distribution for the universities students attitudes toward homosexuality
Table 2.0 and Figure 1.0 showed the descriptive statistics for respondents attitudes
toward homosexuality. The distribution for respondents attitudes toward homosexuality was
symmetrical based. Majority of the respondents in which there were 40.00% (n=32) having the
Neutral Attitudes toward the homosexuality. Followed by the Slightly Discomfort or Negative
Attitudes toward homosexuality in which there were 30.00% (n=24) of respondents were belong
to this level of attitudes. The percentage for the respondents who were having the Slightly
Comfort or Positive Attitudes was barely lower compared to the Slightly Discomfort or Negative
Attitudes toward homosexuality in which it was about 7.50% (n=6) that differentiate these two
level of attitudes. There was a minority of the respondents belong for both Discomfort or
Negative Attitudes and Comfort or Positive Attitudes toward homosexuality in which there were
3.75% (n=3) for both categories. In a nutshell, it was clearly showing that majority of the
respondents attitudes was under symmetrical distribution.
Table 2.0

Type of Attitudes
Discomfort/Negative
Slightly Discomfort/Negative
Neutral
Slightly Comfort/Positive
Comfortable/Positive
Total
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Percentage (%)
3.75 (n=3 )
30.00 (n=24)
40.00 (n=32)
22.50 (n=18)
3.75 (n=3 )
100.00 (n=80)
40
30
22.5
3.75
Figure 1.0
Significant difference in attitudes toward homosexuality between genders
3.75
20
21
The result for the t-Tests Between Independent Sample Means showed that there was no
significant difference between the male participants (M=2.94, SD=0.702) and female
participants (M=2.99, SD=0.796) in attitudes toward homosexuality, t(78)=0.298, n.s. (refer
Table 3.0)
Table 3.0
Gender differences in attitudes toward homosexuality
Variable
M
Sex
Male 2.94
Female 2.99
SD
t
0.298
df
78
0.702
0.796
Significant difference in attitudes toward homosexuality between religions
p
n.s.

The result for the t-Tests Between Independent Sample Means showed that there is a
significant difference between Muslim participants and Buddhism participants in attitudes
toward homosexuality, t(78)=10.654, p < 0.05. Muslim participants (M=2.40, SD=0.430)
significantly higher tendency to show negative attitudes toward homosexuality than Buddhism
participants (M=3.54, SD=0.526). (Refer Table 4.0)
Table 4.0
Religious differences in attitudes toward homosexuality
Variable
M
Religion
Muslim 2.40
Buddhism 3.54
SD
t
10.654
0.430
0.526
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION
df
78
p
<0.05
22
23

Research suggested that majority of the students (40.00%, n=32) were having the neutral
attitudes toward the homosexuality. As in Malaysia, the society is living under perception that
homosexuality is something disgusting, annoying and abnormal. However, in this study, the
findings shown that although most of them is having the negative perception toward the
homosexuals people, the participants still having the neutral attitudes toward the gays and
lesbians. This maybe due to the fact with the merely exposure of the students in the university
study environment, the students were being influence by their peers on how to treat other people
with respect and tolerance. At the same time, nowadays in Malaysia university and colleges,
there are certain students which are having same sex sexual orientation. Therefore, the
acceptance for the homosexuality people is actually being slightly acceptable by students.
Malaysia educational system tends to treats every person with fairness and justice in
which the local educational institutions such universities and colleges attempt to give opportunity
to every individual regardless of their racial and religious groups, skin color and sexual
orientation preference. Hence, with the trends for openness of the Malaysia educational system,
it is believable that homosexual people will be giving treatments with respect and tolerance to
them as most of the students were showing the neutral attitudes toward the homosexuality in
which they will not showing stereotype, misconceptions and anxieties (i.e. being afraid or scare)
toward homosexuals.
Although majority of the students were showing the negative attitudes toward the
homosexuality, there are still a slight majority of the students (30.00%, n=24), are showing a
slight discomfort or negative attitudes toward the homosexuality. Slight discomfort or negative
24
attitudes mean that the participants were having slight stereotypes, slight misconceptions, and
slight anxieties toward homosexuals. This maybe due to the fact that some of the local
universities still applying the conventional teaching methods in educating the students on how to
perceive the daily life issues. The conventional teaching methods are those educational systems
which are based on the classical, traditional and old-fashioned perceptions and perspectives in
the ways of leading the students on how to view the issues which will be encountered by them in
now or future life.
For example, in family context, if the parent were adopting the authoritarian style and
behavior in educating the children, then their children tends to obey for any knowledge which
will teach to them. This is according to Alwin (as cited in Ohlander, Batalova & Treas, 2005) in
which compared to better-educated parents, less-educated parents are more likely to view
obedience as important preparation for adulthood and less likely to endorse thinking for oneself.
In Malaysia if an individual was not being obedience to the family taught, then he or she will be
viewed as disgrace according to the local context. Thus, Tan (as cited in Alagappar & Kaur,
2009) claimed that for those lower educated students, they will tend to obey to the social norms
and perceive homosexual as a taboo in Malaysia. Therefore, attitudes toward homosexuality
were being influenced by educational background and influences.
Genders and Attitudes toward Homosexuality

In the pervious studies, the results showing that male was having negative attitudes
toward homosexuality, while female was having positive attitudes toward homosexuality.
25
However, current research suggested that there was no significant difference between genders in
attitudes toward homosexuality. Hence, this indicates that no matter whether a person is male or
female, he or she will treat homosexuals with the roughly the same attitudes. The finding from
this study inconsistent with the results found by Tucker and Potocky-Tripodi (2006) and Horn
(2006). One of the possible factors for having such contradicted results maybe due to the cultural
difference between Western culture and Eastern culture. As for most of the gender differences in
attitudes toward homosexuality were conducted based on Western context such as in America,
the generalization from the Western findings may not suitable being apply in Eastern context
such as Malaysia.
In addition, self-construal may also play a significant role in the gender differences for
attitudes toward homosexuality. As from the previous research findings, it indicated that Western
culture people were more to independent self-construal, while Eastern culture people were more
interdependent self-construal (Matsumoto, 1999). Therefore, interdependent type of person may
view people with more respect and tolerance as they prefer to work with other people in a
harmony environment. Since Malaysia was based on interdependent culture in dealing with
people daily, thus, Malaysian people will were believed to adopt such self-construal and learned
to treat other people with respect and tolerance. Both male and female in Malaysia had adopted
the interdependent self-construal and affecting them to be no differences in the attitudes toward
homosexuality.
Furthermore, gender role expectation may also be one of the factors in causing the result
of no significant in attitudes toward homosexuality between genders. In the past time, each
gender have different in the societies and people having certain role expectation from them. For
example, men were being expected to be decision maker and main source of income for the
26
family, whereas women were being expect to conform to mens decision and stay in house to do
the house keeping works. However, nowadays, with the promotion for the gender equality, men
and women were being behaved in quite same manners. For example, nowadays women can
work as a police or office executive as men did. Therefore, women and men nowadays were
believed to have quite common in perceptions, belief and perspectives toward homosexuality.
Hence, these might cause both male and female to have roughly the same attitudes toward
homosexuality. At the same time, future researchers should conduct more research regarding on
the attitudes toward homosexuality in genders differences in depth as there were not many
research about it in Malaysia context.
From the findings, it had showed that there was a significant difference between religious
groups (Muslim and Buddhism) and attitudes toward homosexuality among peninsula Malaysia
university students. Result had revealed that Muslim participants (M=2.40, SD=0.430)
significantly having higher tendency to show negative attitudes toward homosexuality than
Buddhism participants (M=3.54, SD=0.526). The findings from this study is consistent with the
study conducted by Alagappar and Kaur, (2009) in which it also showing that Malays Muslim
were displaying a very strong negative attitudes when encountered with known homosexual
people. This is due to the fact that Malaysia is an Islamic country. Therefore, people who live in
Malaysia may tend to adopt the belief system in which they have already mentioned that
homosexuality is strictly being forbidden by Islam. In addition, in a local press media New Strait
Times (as cited in Alagappar & Kaur, 2009), it had clearly saying that no Islamic nation would
think of recognizing the practice of homosexuality in their legal system.
27
Furthermore, in Malaysia which was an Islamic based society, the residents believed that
if an individual choose to be gay or lesbian, the only place they will go after died was to hell and
punishable by they God, Allah. Thus, for Muslim participants, they will conform and adopt the
belief of their Al-Quran (religious scripture), and will definitely said that homosexual is a sin
according to their religious belief. In addition, an officer from Malaysias Islamic Affairs
Department, Abdul Kadir Che Kob described homosexuals as "shameless people" and
homosexuality as a "sin worse than murder (Alagappar & Kaur, 2009). Hence, from the Islamic
point of views, a homosexual is unforgivable for the act of same sex orientation and should be
punish. For example, for the sodomy case of the former Deputy Prime Minister, Anwar Ibrahim,
it had given awareness and warning to the Malaysian especially to Malays Muslim on the
negative consequences if involved oneself in homosexual behavior. Therefore, it is rational to
claim that Muslim participants were showing more negative attitudes toward homosexuality
compared to Buddhism participants.
In contrast, the three main Buddhist traditions, Mahayana, Theravada and Vajrayana were
generally (though not always) quite tolerant toward homosexuality (Malaysia Kini, 2003). Thus,
when the results from the findings showed that the Buddhism participants were showing more
positive attitudes toward homosexual, it was not something unexpected. Buddhism taught is
about tolerance and respect to other individual although they maybe different from us. Hence, the
taught of Buddhism did bring impact to the Buddhist participants on how to respect and
tolerance toward homosexuality, and accept them as who they were. Therefore, the result from
the study was corresponding with the taught of Buddhism.
Limitations & Recommendations
28
This research made a fundamental contribution on the findings between attitudes toward
homosexuality in different variables such as educational influence, gender and religions
differences. However, there were several limitations that being found in this study.
Internet survey
The main concern for this research was the usage of internet survey as one of the methods
in collecting the data. Although the usage of internet survey can have a greater access to the
population from the universities around Malaysia, it had come with several disadvantages. The
disadvantages associated with internet survey research included the potential for the risk of
response rate bias and selection bias, and lack of control over the research setting.
For the response rate bias, the response from the participants via internet was nonsatisfied because during the period of collecting the data from the participants, the participants
seem to be unlikely to joined for the survey and this enforced the researcher to continue to
distributes the survey to more participants in order to achieve the target of getting the sample
which was being fixed initially. This maybe due to the fact that the participants worry that their
survey results will be seen by the helpers which had been recruited in this research, and cause the
participants having the insecure feeling in completing the survey due to their worried that their
results of the survey was not being kept privately and confidential. Hence, in future research, if
the researcher want to recruit helpers in order to distribute and collect the data for the researcher,
the helpers should giving a briefing that they task is to distribute and collect the survey results
only, and shall not be allow to witness the results of the survey; and the same thing should be
explain to the participants that the helpers was only act as the medium in distributing and
collecting the survey results, and the helpers will not review the participants results in order to
29
reassure the worry that maybe rise on them. At the same time, internet survey will be likely
contributes to the selection bias because only the participants that have e-mail account or
Facebook account will be choose whether or not to be participated inside the research. Thus,
those people without e-mail account or Facebook account will be automatically disqualified from
being participated inside the survey. However, since nowadays almost all universities students
are having the e-mail account and also Facebook account, hence, the risk for the selection bias
can be minimize and this will increase the accuracy of the data which was being achieved from
the research.
Furthermore, the researcher was unable to control the research environment by using the
internet survey. This is due to the fact that the researcher was unable to monitor the participants
which are completing the survey and this will raise out to the problem such as whether the
participant that have been selected for the survey is the actual participant which doing the survey
or not. This is because in internet, there is a risk that other people can use the participants e-mail
account or Facebook account in doing the survey and this will affect the inaccuracy of the
stratified random sampling, and eventually lead to the potential of inaccuracy for the research
results. Hence, in future study, if the researcher is planning to use internet survey as the tool in
gaining data, researcher must be aware of the potential risk and try to minimize the limitations
that maybe occur inside the survey by making sure that the participants inside the research is the
actual participants that completing the questionnaire.
Various racial and religious participants
30
The findings from the research had been accomplished with systematic selection of the
participants. However, the results from the research may not able use to generalize to the entire
population in peninsula Malaysia. This is due to the fact that the researcher only selects two
ethnic groups (Malays and Chinese) and two religious groups (Muslim and Buddhism) in for the
study. In Malaysia, there are various ethnic groups other than Malays and Chinese (i.e. Indians,
Pan Asia, Orang Asli and etc.); and various religious groups other than Muslim and Buddhism
(i.e. Hinduism, Christian, Sikh and etc.). Hence, the findings from the study can be only use to
generalize to Malays and Chinese communities, and Muslim and Buddhism communities in
peninsula Malaysia.
In future research, researcher whom wishes to conduct the similar study should take into
consideration by including sample from various racial and religious groups with proper and
systematic selection of the participants so that the results from the findings can be use to
generalize to the entire population in peninsula Malaysia. Furthermore, it is advisable for the
future researchers to include sample from East Malaysia so that the findings can be more
accurate in reflecting the attitudes among the Malaysia students toward homosexuality. By doing
this, the findings from the study will can be use to represents the attitudes toward homosexuality
among Malaysian, instead on peninsula Malaysian.
Conclusion
This study revealed that majority of the university students (UTAR, USM, UPM and
MSU) having neutral attitudes toward homosexuality and the distribution for universities
students attitudes toward homosexuality is symmetrical. Then, current study showed there was
no significant difference between genders (male and female) and attitudes towards
31
homosexuality. Finally, there was a significant difference result between religious groups
(Muslim and Buddhism) and attitudes toward homosexuality among university students.
Nowadays in Malaysia, every human being should be given an opportunity to be treated
fair and equal. We as the Malaysians should not judge other people due to their differences with
us. Malaysians shall not scared stigmatize, disrespect, intolerance and felt disgust toward
homosexual people just because their sexual orientation preference is different than the
heterosexual which is consider as the acceptable sexual orientation in Malaysia. According to
Malaysia Human Rights, every individual in Malaysia have the right to speak, act and choose
what they want as long as it doe not cause harm to other people. Homosexual people also have
their own right in choosing their sexual identity and sexual orientation as long as they do not
cause any harm to other people. Thus, Malaysians should not judge other people without
knowing the actual self of that particular person and shall not displaying any negative attitudes
when approach with known homosexuality as they are also human being who also have feelings,
thoughts and emotions.
References
32
Al-Haqq Kugle, S. S. (2010). Homosexuality in Islam: Critical Reflection on Gay, Lesbian and
Transgender Muslims. Retrieved October 20, 2011 from
http://www.safraproject.org/downloads/ssalhk-homosexuality_islam.pdf
Alagappar, P. N., & Kaur, K. (2009). The representation of homosexuality - A content
analysis in a Malaysian newspaper. Language in India, 9, 24-47. Retrieved October 10,
2011, from http://www.languageinindia.com/oct2009/ponmalarnewspaper.pdf.
Anonymous (n.d.). Buddhism and Gay Culture. Retrieved October 20, 2011 from
http://www.cloudwater.org/uploads/text%20files/Buddhism%20%26%20Gay%20Culture
.pdf
Chan, K. (2008). Gay sexuality in Singaporean Chinese popular culture: Where have all the
Boys gone? China Information, 22(2). Retrieved October 12, 2011, from SAGE
database.
Doerr, N. (2010). Homosexuality in Japan. Peoples and Cultures of Asia. Retrieved October 20,
2011 from
http://www.google.com.my/url?
sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&sqi=2&ve
d=0CFAQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F
%2Fphobos.ramapo.edu%2F~ndoerr%2FHomosexua
lity%2520in%2520Japan%2520by
%2520Marym%2520Mohiby.doc&ei=bbt0T8a0EIKyr
Af_wu3pCg&usg=AFQjCNE7mZMDym8alPxmoBz-n9XdfZyEew
Horn, S. S. (2006). Heterosexual adolescents and young adults beliefs and attitudes about
homosexuality and gay and lesbian peers. Cognitive Development, 21, 420440.
Retrieved May 10, 2011, from ScienceDirect database.
33
LaMar, L., & Kite, M. E. (1998). Sex differences in attitudes toward gay men and lesbians: A
multi-dimensional perspective. The Journal of Sex Research, 35, 189196. Retrieved
May 10, 2011, from JSTOR database.
MacPhillamy, R. D. (n.d.). Can Gay and Lesbian People Train in Buddhism? The Journal of
Shasta Abbey. Retrieved October 20, 2011, from
http://www.obcjournal.org/sites/default/files/Can%20Gay%20and%20Lesbian%20people
%20train%20in%20Buddhism.pdf
Malaysia Kini. (2003). What some religions say about homosexuality? Retrieved March 28,
2012, from http://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/200307310034952.php
Matsumoto, D. (1999). Culture and self: An empirical assessment of Markus and Kitayamas
theory of independent and interdependent self-construals. Journal of Social Psychology,
2,
289310. Retrieved March 28, 2012, from

http://www.davidmatsumoto.com/content/1999%20Culture%20and%20Self.pdf
Medley, C. L. (2005). Attitudes toward Homosexuality at Private Colleges. Unpublished

manuscript, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Retrieved March 28,
2012, from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-08202005120200/unrestricted/finalthesissubmission90105.pdf
Myers, D. G. (2010). Social Psychology. (10th ed.). Singapore: McGraw-Hill.
Ofreneo, M. A. P., & de Vela, D. S. (2010). Spheres of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
struggles: A comparative feminist analysis. Gender, Technology and
197215. Retrieved October 12, 2011, from SAGE database.
Development, 14(2),
34
Ohlander, J., Batalova, J., & Treas, J. (2005). Explaining educational influences on attitudes
toward homosexual relations. Social Science Research, 34, 781799. Retrieved May 10,
2011, from ScienceDirect database.
Pipat, K. P. (2005). Gender and Sexual Discrimination in Popular Thai Buddhism. Journal for
Faith, Spirituality and Social Change, 1(1). Retrieved October 20, 2011 from
http://www.fsscconference.org.uk/journal/1-1/pipat.pdf
Recio, E. M. (2010). A unified theory on homosexual identity. Social Construction of Sexuality.
Retrieved 10 May, 2011, from http://www.polywog.org/sociology/sexuality/sctrev.pdf
Siebert, D. C., Chonody, J., Rutledge, S. E., & Killian, M. (2009). The index of attitudes toward
homosexuals 30 years later: A psychometric study. Research on Social Work Practice,
19(2), 214-220. Retrieved October 12, 2011, from SAGE database.
Swank, E., & Raiz, L. (2010). Attitudes toward gays and lesbians among undergraduate social
work students. Journal of Women and Social Work, 25(1), 1929. Retrieved October 10,
2011, from SAGEPub database.
Teney, C., & Subramanian, S.V. (2010). Attitudes toward homosexuals among youth in
multiethnic Brussels. Cross-Cultural Research, 44(2), 151-173. Retrieved October 12,
2011, from SAGE database.
Terrizzi Jr., J. A., Shook, N. A., & Ventis, W. L. (2010). Disgust: A predictor of social
conservatism and prejudicial attitudes toward homosexuals. Personality and Individual
Differences, 49, 587592. Retrieved 10 May, 2011, from ScienceDirect database.

Tucker, E. W., & Potocky-Tripodi, M. (2006). Changing Heterosexuals' Attitudes toward
Homosexuals: A Systematic Review of the Empirical Literature. Research on Social
Work Practice, 16(2), 176-190. Retrieved October 12, 2011, from SAGE database.
Yip, A. K. T. (2005). Christians' and Muslims' strategy of constructing sexuality-affirming
queering religious texts: An exploration of British Non-heterosexual Hermeneutics.
Sociology, 39(1), 4765. Retrieved October 12, 2011, from SAGE database.
35
36
Appendix A
Research Title:
What is Your Attitudes

towards Homosexuality?
Name of Researcher: Peter Tan
Dear participant,
I am Peter Tan, University Tunku Abdul Rahman (UTAR) undergraduate student in
Psychology. You are chosen to participate in the research as stated above, but if you would to
decline or withdraw from the research, you are allowed to do so. The time needed to finish this
survey questions are about 10-15 minutes. The information that you give will be kept in private
and confidential for research purpose. Your cooperation is highly appreciated. Thank you for
your participation.

Demography Information
Please circle the relevant information.
Age
: ______
Gender
: Male / Female
University
: UTAR / USM / UPM / MSU
Field of Study : _________________ (i.e., Psychology, Engineering, etc.)

Year
:1/2/3
Semester
:1/2/3
Ethnic Group : Malays / Chinese __________

Religion
: Muslim / Buddhism
37
38
Survey Questions
Directions:
1. Read the following items.
2. Circle on the number to indicate how much you agree/disagree to the following items.
1
Strongly Agree
2
Agree
3
Neutral
4
Disagree
5
Strongly Disagree
1.
2.
No.
Items
I would not mind having a homosexual friend.
Finding out that an artist was gay would have no effect on my
1
1
Scale
2 3
2 3
4
4
5
5
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
appreciation of his/her work.

I wont associate with known homosexuals if I can help it.
I would look for a new place to live if I found out my roommate was gay.
Homosexuality is a mental illness.
I would not be afraid for my child to have a homosexual teacher.
Gays dislike members of the opposite sex.
I do not really find the thought of homosexual acts disgusting.
Homosexual are more likely to commit deviant sexual acts, such as child
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
10.
molestation, rape and voyeurism (Peeping Toms), than are heterosexuals.

Homosexuals should be kept separate from the rest of society (i.e.,
11.
separate housing, restricted employment).

Two individual of the same sex holding hands or displaying affection in
12.
public revolting.
The love between two males or two females is quite different from the
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
love between two persons of the opposite sex.

I see the gay movement as a positive thing.
Homosexuality, as far as Im concerned, is not sinful.
I would not mind being employed by a homosexual.
Homosexuals should be forced to have psychological treatment.
The increasing acceptance of homosexuality in our society is aiding in the
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
18.
deterioration of morals.
I would not decline membership in an organization just because it had
19.
20.
homosexual members.
I would vote for a homosexual in an election for public office.
If I knew someone were gay, I would still go ahead and form a friendship
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
21.
with that individual.

If I were a parent, I could accept my son or daughter being gay.
~ Thank you for your participation ~

~ Have a nice day ~
39
40
Appendix B
Original Data
Sampl
e
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
Age
Gender
Race
Religion
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
23
23
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
23
20
23
23
20
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
Total
Score
80
91
103
73
57
50
50
51
55
52
65
83
70
67
60
57
31
67
67
58
70
67
75
55
73
Mean
Score
3.81
4.33
4.90
3.48
2.71
2.38
2.38
2.43
2.62
2.48
3.09
3.95
3.33
3.19
2.86
2.71
1.48
3.19
3.19
2.76
3.33
3.19
3.57
2.62
3.48
Item
1
4
5
5
3
1
4
3
2
4
3
3
5
4
3
3
3
1
2
4
3
4
4
4
3
4
Item
2
5
5
5
4
1
2
4
2
4
3
4
5
4
3
3
3
1
3
4
2
4
4
3
4
2
Item
3
5
5
5
4
3
2
4
4
4
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
1
3
3
3
2
3
4
2
3
Item
4
5
5
5
4
3
3
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
3
5
1
4
4
5
3
2
3
1
1
Item
5
4
5
5
4
5
1
2
1
1
1
4
4
5
3
4
4
1
5
4
1
4
3
4
4
5
Item
6
3
3
5
3
5
1
1
1
2
1
1
4
2
3
1
1
1
3
2
3
2
2
4
4
2
Item
7
4
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
4
4
3
3
4
3
3
4
4
2
3
3
4
3
5
Item
8
3
3
5
2
3
4
3
5
2
2
3
4
4
2
3
2
1
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
2
Item
9
4
5
5
5
1
2
2
4
3
4
4
3
4
4
4
3
1
3
2
3
4
4
4
3
5
Item
10
5
5
5
5
5
3
1
4
3
3
4
5
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
2
4
4
4
5
5
Item
11
3
1
3
4
4
3
2
4
2
2
2
3
3
4
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
4
2
1
5
Item
12
3
3
5
3
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
3
4
3
3
2
1
4
2
1
3
3
4
3
3
Item
13
3
5
5
3
2
1
1
4
2
3
3
5
3
3
2
2
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
Item
14
4
1
5
5
5
1
2
1
1
3
3
5
3
3
2
1
1
3
3
1
3
3
4
2
1
Item
15
4
5
5
4
1
4
4
4
3
3
3
5
4
3
3
3
1
2
3
2
3
2
4
3
5
Item
16
5
5
5
4
3
5
2
1
4
2
4
5
4
5
3
2
1
3
4
2
4
4
4
3
4
Item
17
4
5
5
4
4
1
2
1
2
2
3
1
2
3
3
2
1
4
3
3
3
4
2
3
4
Item
18
4
5
5
4
1
2
4
2
3
5
4
4
4
3
3
4
3
2
4
4
4
4
4
2
5
Item
19
3
5
5
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
5
4
3
4
1
3
Item
20
3
5
5
4
1
4
3
2
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
1
3
4
5
4
3
4
3
4
41
Item
21
2
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
3
3
1
1
1
3
1
3
3
2
4
1
2
Sampl
e
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Age
Gender
Race
Religion
23
23
20
23
23
20
20
20
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
Total
Score
70
66
81
71
66
77
78
83
83
76
72
86
102
70
87
86
56
71
86
56
58
39
48
49
48
71
78
65
76
69
Mean
Score
3.33
3.14
3.86
3.38
3.14
3.67
3.71
3.95
3.95
3.62
3.43
4.10
4.86
3.33
4.14
4.09
2.67
3.38
4.09
2.67
2.76
1.86
2.29
2.33
2.29
3.38
3.71
3.09
3.62
3.29
Item
1
4
3
4
4
4
5
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
5
4
3
2
2
2
3
1
2
2
1
4
5
3
4
4
Item
2
4
4
5
4
3
5
4
5
5
1
5
5
5
3
4
4
3
3
1
1
3
1
1
2
1
4
4
3
4
3
Item
3
3
3
4
4
3
5
5
1
4
5
2
5
3
4
4
3
2
2
5
2
1
5
2
3
4
3
4
4
4
3
Item
4
3
2
3
5
2
5
4
4
4
5
4
3
5
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
3
5
2
2
1
4
3
2
4
3
Item
5
4
3
5
3
3
5
2
4
4
5
4
5
5
3
5
4
3
4
4
2
4
1
2
1
1
3
4
2
3
4
Item
6
2
2
4
1
4
2
4
2
4
4
3
2
5
4
4
2
2
3
3
1
3
1
1
1
1
2
3
3
3
3
42
Item
7
5
3
2
4
3
4
5
5
5
4
3
5
5
3
5
5
2
4
4
1
4
3
1
1
2
4
4
3
3
4
Item
8
3
3
2
3
4
2
5
4
4
3
3
2
5
3
5
5
2
4
4
1
3
1
1
1
2
2
4
3
4
3
Item
9
4
4
5
3
3
4
3
5
4
3
3
4
5
3
5
5
2
4
4
1
4
1
2
1
1
3
4
4
5
4
Item
10
4
4
4
5
4
5
5
5
5
4
3
5
5
4
5
5
3
4
4
2
3
1
1
2
1
4
4
5
5
4
Item
11
3
3
4
2
3
2
3
4
3
3
4
4
5
3
4
3
2
4
5
2
3
1
1
1
1
4
2
3
3
2
Item
12
2
3
2
4
2
2
4
4
4
2
3
4
5
2
4
3
3
4
5
1
3
1
2
2
2
4
2
2
4
2
Item
13
4
3
4
2
3
2
3
4
4
4
3
4
5
3
5
5
3
3
4
4
2
1
4
3
3
2
3
2
3
3
Item
14
4
3
4
2
4
4
4
5
3
3
3
4
5
3
4
3
3
3
5
3
2
1
3
4
3
4
4
4
4
3
Item
15
4
3
4
5
3
4
4
5
5
4
3
5
5
4
5
5
2
5
5
3
3
1
3
3
4
4
4
3
3
3
Item
16
4
3
1
4
4
5
3
5
3
3
4
5
5
3
1
3
3
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
5
4
4
4
Item
17
3
3
5
4
3
4
3
1
3
3
3
4
5
3
2
5
4
5
5
5
2
1
3
3
3
1
4
3
4
3
Item
18
3
4
5
4
4
4
5
5
4
4
3
4
5
4
4
5
3
4
4
4
3
5
4
4
3
4
4
3
4
4
Item
19
3
3
5
1
2
2
3
3
4
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
3
4
5
5
2
1
2
3
3
4
4
3
3
4
Item
20
3
4
5
5
2
5
4
5
5
5
5
4
5
4
4
5
3
3
5
3
3
5
3
2
3
4
4
3
2
4
43
Item
21
1
3
4
2
3
1
1
2
1
3
3
3
5
3
4
3
2
3
5
5
2
1
2
2
2
5
3
3
3
2
Sampl
e
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Age
Gender
Race
Religion
20
20
20
20
20
26
23
23
23
23
26
23
26
23
23
26
23
23
26
23
23
26
23
26
23
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
Total
Score
68
43
33
48
50
39
63
53
49
56
60
40
43
62
55
43
43
51
59
35
52
42
46
50
44
Mean
Score
3.24
2.05
1.57
2.29
2.43
1.86
3.00
2.52
2.33
2.67
2.86
1.90
2.05
2.95
2.62
2.05
2.05
2.55
2.81
1.67
2.47
2.00
2.19
2.49
2.10
Item
1
5
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
3
2
1
1
4
3
1
3
4
5
1
5
4
2
2
2
Item
2
3
3
1
1
2
1
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Item
3
4
1
1
4
2
2
4
4
2
2
3
1
2
4
4
3
4
4
4
2
4
2
4
4
3
Item
4
4
2
1
1
1
1
3
2
2
3
3
2
2
3
3
2
3
3
4
1
4
2
3
3
2
Item
5
3
1
4
1
1
1
5
4
4
2
3
1
1
4
2
1
2
3
3
1
2
2
1
1
2
Item
6
3
1
1
1
3
1
4
3
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
2
1
2
44
Item
7
5
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
2
2
4
4
2
3
4
4
3
3
3
4
3
3
Item
8
2
1
2
3
3
3
3
1
2
3
4
2
2
2
4
1
3
2
2
4
2
4
1
1
2
Sample
Gender
Item
9
1
5
3
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
2
2
1
2
4
2
4
3
3
1
Item
10
2
4
3
2
2
4
3
2
2
4
4
2
2
3
4
2
4
2
3
2
3
4
3
2
1
Item
11
2
3
2
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
3
3
3
1
Item
12
2
2
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
3
1
2
Item
13
2
1
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
1
1
1
3
Item
14
2
1
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
3
: UPM=1, UTAR=2, USM=3, MSU=4

: Male=1, Female=2
Item
15
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
3
4
5
3
2
1
4
Race
Religion
Note: Item(s) 1, 2, 6, 8, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20 and 21 scored had been reversed
Item
16
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
4
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
3
1
2
Item
17
4
1
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
3
Item
18
2
4
1
1
1
3
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
2
2
2
3
4
3
4
4
4
4
3
3
Item
19
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
2
1
1
3
2
3
2
2
1
1
3
: Malays=1, Chinese=2
: Muslim=1, Buddhism=2
Item
20
3
1
5
2
2
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
2
3
4
3
4
3
3
4
3
5
3
2
3
45
Item
21
2
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
Gender
Appendix C
Calculation for
Difference in
toward
between
Male
S2
(117.75240)]
= 0.493
Female
S2
(119.56240)]
= 0.633
Standard
differences
Sum
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Male
(x)
3.81
4.33
4.90
3.48
2.71
2.38
2.38
2.43
2.62
2.48
3.33
3.19
3.57
2.62
3.48
3.33
3.14
3.86
3.38
3.14
4.09
2.67
3.38
4.09
2.67
2.76
1.86
2.29
2.33
2.29
1.86
3.00
2.52
2.33
2.67
2.86
1.90
2.05
2.95
2.62
117.75
2.94
Female
(y)
3.09
3.95
3.33
3.19
2.86
2.71
1.48
3.19
3.19
2.76
3.67
3.71
3.95
3.95
3.62
3.43
4.10
4.86
3.33
4.14
3.38
3.71
3.09
3.62
3.29
3.24
2.05
1.57
2.29
2.43
2.05
2.05
2.55
2.81
1.67
2.47
2.00
2.19
2.49
2.10
119.56
2.99
0.70
0.79

x
y
14.52
9.55
18.75 15.60
24.01 11.09
12.11 10.18
7.34
8.18
5.66
7.34
5.66
2.19
5.90
10.18
6.86
10.18
6.15
7.62
11.09 13.47
10.18 13.76
12.74 15.60
6.86
15.60
12.11 13.10
11.09 11.76
9.86
16.81
14.67 23.62
11.42 11.09
9.86
17.14
16.73 11.42
7.13
13.76
11.42
9.55
16.73 13.10
7.13
10.82
7.62
10.50
3.46
4.20
5.24
2.46
5.43
5.24
5.24
5.90
3.46
4.20
9.00
4.20
6.35
6.5
5.43
7.9
7.13
2.79
8.18
6.1
3.61
4
4.2
4.77
8.7
6.18
6.86
4.41
365.89 382.06
46
Significant
Attitudes
Homosexuality
Genders
[365.8939
[382.0639
deviation

diff
= (0.70240) +(0.79640)
= 0.168
= (2.94-2.99) 0.168
= 0.298
df
= ( 40-1) + (40-1)
= 78
C. V. = 1.990
Results:
t-Tests is smaller than the critical value; therefore, we fail to reject the null hypothesis.
Conclusion:
The result for the t-Tests Between Independent Sample Means showed that there was no
significant difference between the male participants (M=2.94, SD=0.702) and female
participants (M=2.99, SD=0.796) in attitudes toward homosexuality, t(78)=0.298, n.s.
Differences between genders and attitudes toward homosexuality
Variable
M
Sex
Male 2.94
Female 2.99
SD
0.702
0.796
t
0.298
df
78
p
n.s.
47
48
Appendix D
Calculation for Significant Difference in Attitudes toward Homosexuality between Religions
Religion
Muslim
S2
(95.87240)]
=
Buddhism
S2
(141.44240)]
=
Standard
differences
diff
(0.52640)
=
t
0.107
=
df
= ( 40= 78
C. V. = 1.99
Results:
Sum
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Muslim
(x)
2.38
2.38
2.43
2.62
2.48
2.71
1.48
3.19
3.19
2.76
2.76
1.86
2.29
2.33
2.29
3.24
2.05
1.57
2.29
2.43
1.86
3.00
2.52
2.33
2.67
2.86
1.90
2.05
2.95
2.62
2.05
2.05
2.55
2.81
1.67
2.47
2.00
2.19
2.49
2.10
95.87
2.40
0.430

Buddhism
(y)
x
y
3.81
5.66
14.52
4.33
5.66
18.75
4.90
5.90
24.01
3.48
6.86
12.11
2.71
6.15
7.34
[237.003.09
7.34
9.55
3.95
2.19
15.60 39
3.33
10.18 11.09
0.185
3.19
10.18 10.18
2.86
7.62
8.18
3.33
7.62
11.09
3.19
3.46
10.18 [510.953.57
5.24
12.74
39
2.62
5.43
6.86
3.48
5.24
12.11 0.277
3.33
10.50 11.09
deviation
3.14
4.20
9.86
3.86
3.38
3.14
3.67
3.71
3.95
3.95
3.62
3.43
4.10
4.86
3.33
4.14
4.09
2.67
3.38
4.09
2.67
3.38
3.71
3.09
3.62
3.29
141.44
3.54
0.526
2.46
14.67
5.24
11.42
5.90
9.86
3.46
13.47
9.00
13.76
6.35
15.60
5.43
15.60
7.13
13.10
8.18
11.76
3.61
16.81
4.20
23.62
8.70
11.09
6.86
17.14
4.20
16.73
4.20
7.13
6.50
11.42
7.90
16.73
2.79
7.13
6.10
11.42
4.00
13.76
4.77
9.55
6.18
13.10
4.41
10.82
237.00 510.95
49
(0.43040) +
0.107
(2.40-3.54)
10.654
1) + (40-1)
50
t-Tests is bigger than the critical value; therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected.
Conclusion:
The result for the t-Tests Between Independent Sample Means showed that there is a significant
difference between Muslim participants and Buddhism participants in attitudes toward
homosexuality, t(78)=10.654, p < 0.05. Muslim participants (M=2.40, SD=0.430) significantly
higher tendency to show negative attitudes toward homosexuality than Buddhism participants
(M=3.54, SD=0.526).
Differences between religious and attitudes toward homosexuality
Variable
M
Religious
Muslim 2.40
Buddhism 3.54
SD
0.430
0.526
t
10.654
df
78
p
<0.05

Attitudes Toward Homosexuality Among Peninsula Malaysia University Students

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Attitudes Toward Homosexuality Among Peninsula Malaysia University Students

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ATTITUDES TOWARD HOMOSEXUALITY AMONG PENINSULA MALAYSIA

ATTITUDES TOWARD HOMOSEXUALITY AMONG PENINSULA MALAYSIA

: 2nd April 2012

Attribution Theory and Homosexuality

Educational and Attitudes toward Homosexuality

Gender and Attitudes toward Homosexuality

Religious and Attitudes toward Homosexuality

FINDINGS & ANALYSIS

Distribution for the universities students attitudes toward

DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION

Educational and Attitudes toward Homosexuality

Genders and Attitudes toward Homosexuality

Religious and Attitudes toward Homosexuality

Limitations and Recommendations

(ATH Scale) Questionnaire

Calculation for Significant Difference in Attitudes

toward Homosexuality between Genders

Calculation for Significant Difference in Attitudes

Descriptive statistics for participants gender, race and religion

Descriptive statistics for respondents attitudes toward homosexuality

Gender differences in attitudes toward homosexuality

Religious differences in attitudes toward homosexuality

Attitudes toward Homosexuality Scale

Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender

Homosexuality Attitudes Scale

Final Year Project

Management and Science University

Universiti Putra Malaysia

Universiti Sains Malaysia

Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman

Attitudes toward homosexuality

Attitudes toward homosexuality

Attitudes toward homosexuality

Attitudes toward homosexuality

Attitudes toward homosexuality

Null Hypothesis 2: There is no significant difference between genders in attitudes toward

Attitudes toward homosexuality

Attitudes toward homosexuality

Attitudes toward homosexuality

Attitudes toward homosexuality

Attitudes toward homosexuality

However, our understanding of educational differences in attitudes toward homosexuality

Attitudes toward homosexuality

Attitudes toward homosexuality

Attitudes toward homosexuality

Attitudes toward homosexuality

Attitudes toward homosexuality

Attitudes toward homosexuality

Attitudes toward homosexuality

Attitudes toward homosexuality

Attitudes toward homosexuality

FINDINGS & ANALYSIS

Attitudes toward homosexuality

Significant difference in attitudes toward homosexuality between genders

Attitudes toward homosexuality

Significant difference in attitudes toward homosexuality between religions

Attitudes toward homosexuality

Attitudes toward homosexuality

Educational and Attitudes toward Homosexuality

Attitudes toward homosexuality

Genders and Attitudes toward Homosexuality

Attitudes toward homosexuality

Attitudes toward homosexuality

Attitudes toward homosexuality