1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

We all know that we live in a society with a group of different people that has different

perceptions. Like, the negative stereotypical thoughts arise from proximity and social knowledge

of out groups; and in the case of heterosexual-homosexual dynamics, they may also serve as a

safety mechanism used to enforce group superiority and normalcy. Perhaps society still exhibit

ambivalence of the inclusive acceptance of homosexuality today.

Historically, homosexual people have been heavily stigmatized and therefore subject to

harassment and discrimination. However, in recent times, most western countries have made

considerable moves to afford legal rights on a basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity.

While it is difficult to identify tangible evidence that society itself is more inclusive of

homosexuals, recent research suggests that, at least in principle, equal rights for them are well

supported. However, homophobic/transphobic hate crimes (i.e. crimes against people or property

with sexual orientation/gender identity as a motive) are relatively common. (Ellis, 2002;

Hegarty, Pratto & Lemieux, 2004) For example, in the UK from April 2006 to March 2007, the

Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) heard 822 such cases, with 73.5% resulting in convictions.

Homosexual communities exist on every campus. These communities include students,

faculty, staff, administrators, alumni, and members in the surrounding geographical area. There

are many ways that students can be involved in the homosexual community at their campus. The

most easily identifiable form of involvement is participation in formal and non-formal

 2

organizations. homosexual groups tend to be formally organized, and they exist primarily to

serve the needs of the homosexual students on their campus. These groups realize that their

members have common experiences around discrimination, harassment, and loneliness due to

their sexual orientation and gender identity. (Ahmad, 2008)

The widespread of homosexual community has awakening the social perspectives of the

society towards them. It may change their views, perceptions, and beliefs of the homosexual

community. Nowadays the researchers have seen a lot of changes towards that community. On

how they interact, and build their self in the society just for them to be accepted. The present

study was intended to investigate on the attitudes of the senior high students towards the

homosexual in the campus.

Theoretical Framework

In the present study, the researchers will use the functionalist theory of Daniel Katz. He

proposed the theory of attitudes. He takes the view that attitudes are determined by the functions

they serve for us. People hold given attitudes because these attitudes help them achieve their

basic goals. There are 3 components of attitudes according to Daniel Katz. Cognitive - our

thoughts, beliefs, and ideas about something. When a human being is the object of an attitude,

the cognitive component is frequently a stereotype, e.g. “welfare recipients are lazy”. Affective -

feelings or emotions that something evokes. e.g. fear, sympathy, hate. May dislike welfare

recipients. Conative, or behavioral - tendency or disposition to act in certain ways toward

something. Might want to keep welfare recipients out of our neighborhood. Emphasis is on the

tendency to act, not the actual acting; what we intend and what we do may be quite different. A
 3

favorable or unfavorable evaluative reaction toward something or someone, exhibited in one’s

beliefs, feelings, or intended behavior. It is a social orientation - an underlying inclination to

respond to something either favorably or unfavorably.

Because gay people inevitably differ in characteristics irrelevant to their category

membership. Heterosexuals with multiple contact experiences have increased opportunities for

observing such variation and consequently, individuating outgrow members. Such individuation

is likely to reduce intergroup prejudice. Close relationship with gay men or lesbians can provide

heterosexuals with intimate, personally relevant information about gay people. They are likely to

foster personalization of gay people, which helps to reduce prejudice. Discussions with a friend

or relative about the latter’s homosexuality can help to motivate the heterosexual person both to

maintain the relationship and to change his/her attitudes towards gay people generally. Through

this theory, the researchers can elaborate more about the attitudes of heterosexuality towards

homosexuality.

Statement of the Problem

This study aims to determine the attitudes of senior high school students to the Private

institution towards the Homosexuals. Specifically, this study will seek answer to the following

question:

1. What are the attitudes of Senior High School students towards the homosexual?
 4

Significance of the Study

This study will be beneficial to the following groups:

School Heads/Administrators. It could provide information which helps them in

planning different actions resolving some factors that may affect the homosexual community in

the school. It could also help them in realigning the curriculum into more homosexual friendly

subjects.

Homosexual Student. Currently, the institution has a very limited understanding of

homosexual students at its campus. Therefore, there are only a few initiatives to specifically

serve homosexual students. The existing programs are focused on campus climate and social

interactions among homosexual students. However, more focused outreach initiatives and

interventions could be devised to serve homosexual students based on the research findings.

Additionally, most homosexual initiatives treat all homosexual students as a single population

without paying any attention to differences within the population. If the differences were known,

there would be the possibility to design targeted outreach initiatives them.

Guidance Counselor. This study will be a great help for guidance councilors that deals

with Homosexuals. With this study they can know the numbers of students that accept or not the

homosexuals in the community.

Future researcher. The present study will be a great help for the future researchers that

will be conducting study on homosexuals because they will have background evidence on the

attitudes of teenagers towards that community.

 5

Scope and Limitations

The study will focus on the attitudes of students to the homosexual. This study will be

conducted in a private institution in Digos City. Also, the respondents will only be those

enrolled for the second semester school year 2018-2019. This will be limited to the instrument to

be used to assess attitudes only that could not make finer distinctions between attitudes toward

male and female individuals who identify as homosexuals. It will only focus on perceiving the

result of the views, interaction, and treatment of homosexuality.

Definition of Terms

The following terms are operationally defined to aid in better understanding terms to be

used throughout the study. The definitions are culled from multiple sources, providing a broader

perspective on how the terms are defined and used within the research.

Students Attitudes refers to how the students deal, interact, or treat member of a specific

group.

Homosexuality refers to the gay community, loosely defined grouping of lesbian, gay,

bisexual, transgender, LGBT organizations and subcultures, united by a common culture and

social movements.
 6

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter discuss the current phenomenon, factors and its consequences on the

attitudes toward homosexuals. Next, various past studies on the relationships of variables and

attitudes toward homosexuals were also reviewed.

Evolving Community Attitudes Toward Homosexual People

People identifying as homosexual still face discrimination and prejudice even though

there are some legal protections in place. However, gradual positive shifts in attitude and

acceptance for homosexual people have occurred in the past several years. While there are no

clear specific reasons for the change, there are factors that can be seen as predictors and

indicators of whether a person's attitude is positive or negative towards lesbians and gay men.

The most prevalent indicators revealed in research have been the participants' races, experiences

with homosexuals, religion or faith, political leanings, and gender role beliefs (Brown &

Henriquez, 2008). Two of the trends that were found to point toward acceptance were the age of

the person and how much personal contact that they had had with homosexual persons. In

general, younger people were more accepting of lesbians and gay men (The Pew Research

Center, 2006), although the definition of “young” varied among different studies, including ages
 7

from 10 to 35. More importantly however, interpersonal contact has been a better predictor of

acceptance; the greater the interpersonal contact with lesbians and gay men, the greater the level

of acceptance (Brown & Henriquez, 2008).

While gender has also been a factor in predicting acceptance, with females being more

likely than males to show acceptance, beliefs about gender roles have been a greater factor,

where those that have less stringent interpretations of gender roles are more likely to be

accepting of lesbians and gay men (Parrott, Adams, & Zeichner, 2002). The adherence to

religious beliefs, particularly those that espouse anti-homosexual doctrines has also seen as a

likely determining factor for negative attitudes towards lesbians and gay men (Schulte & Battle,

2004).

While there has been a general increase in acceptance and positive attitudes towards

homosexual people, researchers have found that negative attitudes towards lesbians and gay men

are still prevalent, often leading to discrimination (Brown & Henriquez, 2008). The continuation

of negative attitudes has been found by some researchers to be caused by an inability to form

compromises with “moral values,” allowing for changes in moral belief structures. For people in

this status, changing their beliefs about the morality of homosexuality was largely rated as

“difficult” or “impossible” (Mooney & Schuldt, 2008). This inability to change is similar to the

findings that older generations hold more negative attitudes, because of a continued association

of homosexuality with perversity and mental illness, as it was previously diagnosed medically

until the 1970's.

The portrayals of homosexual people in media and popular culture have also been

considered a factor in the shift of attitudes. While there are some misconceptions that are still

portrayed, particularly about transgender people being “trapped in the wrong body”, (Alexander,
 8

2005), the characterization of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals has largely moved from their

portrayal as unstable sexual deviates to balanced, attractive, and normal individuals.

The view shown of homosexual people and issues by the media has also been more

focused in the 2000's on activism as the movement for equal rights for HOMOSEXUAL people

grew. Americans are becoming increasingly supportive of civil rights for gays and lesbians

(Brewer, 2003), with the largest struggle centered on the definition of marriage; whether it

should be limited to a man and woman or open to same-sex partners. This attention may have

shifted more support towards same-sex marriage (Moore & Carroll, 2004). In 1999, two-thirds

of Americans were against same-sex marriage (Newport, 1999). Ten years later, an ABC News-

Washington Post (Confessore & Barbaro, 2011), poll showed that those numbers had fallen to

only 51%, while 66% of people between the ages of 18-29 were in full support for same-sex

marriage. Twenty polls that were taken between 1996 and 2009 showed overall that support for

same-sex marriage or some form of relationship recognition has grown sporadically over the past

20 years (Marzullo & Herdt, 2011). At the same time that support is growing for same-sex

marriage, those who oppose it have become further entrenched in their beliefs, particularly older

Americans (Marzullo & Herdt, 2011). Most states, as of today, either ban or do not support

same-sex marriage (Human Rights Campaign, 2012).

Homosexual in Highschool and Higher Institutions

The foundational text that created the predominant expectation for how educators and

scholars should treat homosexuality, including homosexuality of either students or teachers, was

Willard Waller's The Sociology of Teaching, written in 1932. The book, now generally
 9

recognized to have been methodologically lacking, reinforced existing stereotypes by describing

homosexuality as not only deviant and dangerous, but as a contagious disease (Renn, 2010).

Those found to have this “disease” were removed from the academic environment to which they

belonged. The beginnings of a change to this attitude in the school setting occurred when

students identified as homosexual, instead of just being removed from the school, were

convinced to participate in psychological studies in attempts to “cure” their homosexuality.

Instead of finding any cure, the studies eventually concluded that there was nothing wrong

medically or psychologically with the homosexual students (Renn, 2010), eventually leading to

homosexuality being removed in 1973 from the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic

and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (1973).

While homosexuality was no longer officially considered to be a disease or deviant

behavior, schools were still influenced by the values, stereotypes and beliefs of their surrounding

communities. Schools have slowly accepted homosexual students, staff and faculty on the

whole, but still with lingering problems around degrees of heteronormativity and

homonegativity. Government have passed laws to protect students from bullying and

harassment, but these laws vary from state to state, and often do not always include language

specific to gender identity, sex, or sexual orientation. Government that have laws and policies

against bullying and harassment in school based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity.

Even with the legal protections, homosexual youth in K-12 schools have continued to

experience daily harassment and bullying from their peers; however there has begun to be some

movement towards what has been described as the “new gay teenager.” These homosexual

youth are seen as experiencing better relationships with their peers in school, familial acceptance

(particularly with parents), and an increasing range of homosexual role models in society and
 10

media, and at home (Marzullo & Herdt, 2011). Technology, in particular, has aided many

homosexual youths in connecting with other allies, especially those in areas that have small to

nonexistent homosexual communities (Blumenfeld & Cooper, 2010).

School and university administrations have been found to be passive to homosexual

issues, but not outright hostile (Ressler & Zosky, 2008). A number of issues which affect the

quality of life of the homosexual community are essentially ignored in planning and operation of

school campuses. These issues include safety on campus, censorship in classrooms (both self-

censorship and external), verbal harassment, and selective bathroom use, particularly for

transgender students (Rankin, 2003). These omissions create environments which, while not

overtly anti-homosexual, can cause homosexual students to become much more selective with

whom and where they socialize, work, and study. Homosexual students do feel that they are

more likely to find allies on campus than open hostility, but in contrast they often find the

surrounding community to be less friendly and open (Ressler & Zosky, 2008).

Life in school campus, however, can lead to transitions and encounters with varieties of

lifestyles and ways of thinking that may serve to re-socialize students away from the hometown

attitudes and parental influences with which they arrived, sometimes prompting them to become

actively engaged in promoting social change (Renn, 2007).

Studies have found that there is a significant relationship between time spent in school

and attitudes towards homosexual students. Upper level students are more likely to show

support for homosexual students and issues rather than first- or second-year students (Schott-

Ceccacci, Holland, & Matthews, 2009). Often this increase with age of support for homosexual

students mirrored an increase in interpersonal contact with homosexual students and community

(Schott-Ceccacci, et al., 2009).

 11

Non-Acceptance, Bullying and Harassment in Highschool Campuses

While it is sometimes difficult to perceive changing attitudes towards homosexual

people, it is easier to identify specific ways and cases where discrimination or homophobia

continues. As of 2008, gays and lesbians were not protected from hate crimes or workplace

discrimination. The prevalence and nature of the harassment and bullying that homosexual youth

encountered in school, was such that some described in studies as part of their “normal routine,”

something dealt with daily and expected. In another study, over 85% claimed that they were

harassed due to their sexual orientation or gender identity. Twenty percent (20%) reported

actually being physically attacked in school, with little response from teachers or administrators

(Biegel & Kuehl, 2010). Researchers have found that the homophobic bullying often perpetuates

itself, as in cases where, attempting to counter the homophobic bullying against themselves,

children would harass others to prove their heterosexuality. This bullying would also manifest

itself as sexual harassment in the students’ attempts to prove not only their heterosexuality, but

often their masculinity or femininity (Espelage, Basile, & Hamburger, 2012).

Both sexual orientation and identification with perceived gender roles were found to play

large parts in the basis for homophobic bullying. Male students that experienced homophobic

bullying often identified male teens in traditional gender roles, such as “jocks,” as the most likely

to bully them as to their perceived sexual orientation and masculinity. In contrast, the same

students felt that on the whole, their female peers were more likely to be accepting of peers of

differing sexuality or gender norms (Heffner, 2010).

Students were found to be reluctant however to report homophobic bullying, as it could

be viewed as a sign of revealing that they identify as homosexual, whether or not the student
 12

was. This fear was not only applied to interpretations by peers, but also by parents and

guardians. Many feared possible repercussions from parents, including physical violence or

being forced to leave their home (Blumenfeld & Coooper, 2010). In addition to comprising

almost 40% of the teen runaway populations, homosexual youth have been found to have suicide

rates at least three times higher than other youth. The discrepancy in the suicide rate between

homosexual youth and their non-homosexual peers is considered in large part due to homophobic

bullying (Biegel & Kuehl, 2010). When interviewed, some homosexual youth have themselves

stated that they would have much higher self-esteem if they had never encountered homophobia

(Heffner, 2010).

Research into both school policies and legal documents from court proceedings have

found that many schools have failed to provide effective deterrence to sexual harassment and

homophobic bullying of their students, and, in general, have also failed to address the needs and

issues that affected their homosexual student populations (Biegel & Kuehl, 2010). Staff and

faculty have often been found to be insensitive to the differing experiences of the homosexual

youth at the schools. As a result, the difficulties and problems experienced by the homosexual

youth have often been treated in the same way as problems experienced by non-homosexual

youth, although the total experiences of the different groups of students may not have been

comparable at all (Heffner, 2010).

Summary

The acceptance of homosexual people by the rest has been a slow progression, marked by

fits and spurts of acceptance, followed by reactionary discrimination, but ultimately has
 13

progressed towards greater acceptance and equality. Discrimination and harassment are still

faced by many, especially youth in K-12 schools and in higher education. Heteronormativity and

homonegativity in higher education continue to impede homosexual students in their learning

process, by interfering with their sense of safety and self-worth. While on-campus housing

facilities are often the environment where students experience growth in their self-identity, these

can be areas where homosexual students can experience the most harassment and discrimination.

Potentially, this gives homosexual students a living community where they do not have to limit

their expression of identity for fear of homonegativity or be excluded from the community

identity through heteronormativity (Bleiberg, 2004).

 14

CHAPTER III

METHODS

This chapter will explain the research design used to frame this study. Target population

and location of the study were also outlined and followed by the method of sample size

calculation. The sampling method used to recruit respondent of the study was discussed as well.

Next, the detail of the research procedure and measures used in this study were presented. The

data processing and analysis plan were stated at the end of this chapter.

Research Design

This study will use descriptive research design. According to Shields and Rangarajan,

2013, this design is used to describe characteristics of a population or phenomenon being

studied. It does not answer questions about how/when/why the characteristics occurred. Rather it

addresses the "what" question. Thus, this will be used to determine the attitude of student toward

homosexual community.
 15

Setting and Respondent

The respondents of the study will be the 323 selected Senior High School students. They

are chosen as respondents of the study because of their age and their big population. The study

will be conducted in one of the premiere private schools in Digos City, Davao del Sur.

Sampling Procedure

Through non-probability sampling, the researchers will choose among the students in the

campus that could highly participate in this present study. Also, in choosing the respondents, the

researchers will get the information and data that is needed in this present study. A non-

probability sampling technique is that samples are selected based on the subjective judgment of

the researchers and also the researchers are competent enough that there will be no biases among

the choosing respondents

Measures

In this study, the research instrument will be adapted from the Homosexuality Attitude

Scale (HAS) of Kite & Deaux. The Homosexuality Attitude Scale (HAS) is a Likert scale that

assesses people's stereotypes, misconceptions, and anxieties about homosexuals. The measure

contains a unidimensional factor representing a favorable or unfavorable evaluation of

homosexuals.
 16

The questionnaire consisted of mostly closed ended questions where-as closed ended

questions had options which were determined by researcher. Finally, the data will be collected

using self-administered questionnaires. This present study will used mixed methods and at the

same time using descriptive design.

The questionnaire will be subjected into change for solidity purposes. Some items will be

revised by changing the words for the participant’s level of comprehension. The participants

will answer the questionnaire by checking the desired scale. The following qualitative forms will

be interpreted using the following scale:1-Strongly Disagree, 2- Disagree, 3-Neutral, 4-Agree,

and 5- Strongly Agree.

To interpret the mean scores that will be obtained from the responses on HAS

questionnaire the following scales will be used as follows:

Range Description Interpretation

4.01-5.0 Very High Students demonstrate very positive regard
to the members of homosexual
community.

3.51-4.00 High Students demonstrate a positive regard to

the members of homosexual community.

2.51-3.50 Neutral Students demonstrate a somewhat positive

regard to the members of homosexual
community.

1.51-2.50 Low Students demonstrate a negative regard to

the members of homosexual community.

1.0-1.50 Very Low Students demonstrate very negative

regard to the members of homosexual
community.
 17

Procedure of the study

As part of the protocol, a letter or permission will be sent the principal where this study

will be conducted for the consent in conducting study. Once approved and permitted by the

institutional administrators, a coordination letter will be sent to the office of the Registrar

requesting for retrieval of list of the Senior High student enrolled in the current school year per

strand.

To ensure security from any legal issues, a letter of permission will be sent to the authors

of the HAS questionnaire. Once approved and permitted, it will be floated to the participants. In

the data gathering, cooperation and honesty of the participants in answering each item statement

will be highly requested.

The survey method will be given to the participants in coordination with the Senior High

School faculty department. It will be part of the entry interview that will be conducted in the first

semester of the school year.

After the questionnaire will be completely answered, all the data will be collected,

tabulated or scored and subjected to statistical treatment.

Data Analysis

In getting the results of the participants’ Homosexuality Attitude Scale, as well as the

profile of the participants, Descriptive Statistics will be used. This statistical tool would help in

computing the frequency and mean scores.

 18

Statistical Treatment

The present study will use descriptive statistics in collecting data and also in analyzing

the variables within this study. In getting the attitudes of 323 respondents, it is easy to interpret

through using descriptive statistics.

 19

REFERENCES

Alexander, J. (2005). Transgender rhetorics: (Re)composing narratives of the gendered body.

College Composition and Communication, 57(1), 45-82.

Biegel, S., & Kuehl, S. J. (2010). Safe at school: Addressing the school environment and LGBT
safety through policy and legislation. East Lansing, MI: Great Lakes Center for
Education Research and Practice.

Bleiberg, S. (2004). A case for mixed-sex university housing policies. The Journal of College
and
University Student Housing, 33(1), 3-9.

Brewer, P. R. (2003). The shifting foundations of public opinion about gay rights. The Journal of
Politics, 65(4), 1208-1220.

Brown, M. J., & Henriquez, E. (2008). Socio-demographic predictors of attitudes towards gays
and lesbians. Individual Differences Research, 6(3), 193-202.

Confessore, N., & Barbaro, M. (2011). New York allows same-sex marriage, becoming largest
state to pass law, The New York Times.

Espelage, D. L., Basile, K. C., & Hamburger, M. E. (2012). Bullying perpetration and
subsequent
sexual violence perpetration among middle school students. Journal of Adolescent
Health, 50, 60-65.

Heffner, P. S. (2010). The subjective life experiences of identified or perceived male GBTQ
adolescents in high school settings: a retrospectives study. California State University,
Sacramento, Sacramento, CA.

Human Rights Campaign. (2012). Marriage and relationship recognition, state laws. Retrieved
from http://www.hrc.org/laws-and-legislation/state.

Kite, M.E., & Deaux, K. (1986). Attitudes toward homosexuality: Assessment and behavioral
consequences. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 7, 137-162.

Marzullo, M. A., & Herdt, G. (2011). Marriage rights and LGBTQ youth: The present and future
impact of sexuality policy changes. Journal of the Society for Psychological
Anthropology,
39(4), 526-552.

Mooney, C. Z., & Schuldt, R. G. (2008). Does morality policy exist? Testing a basic assumption.
 20

The Policy Studies Journal, 36(2), 199-218.

Moore, D. W., & Carroll, J. (2004). Support for gay marriage/civil unions edges upward, Gallup
News Service.

Newport, F. (1999). Some change over time in American attitudes towards homosexuality, but
negativity remains, Gallup News Service.

Parrott, D. J., Adams, H. E., & Zeichner, A. (2002). Homophobia: Personality and attitudinal
correlates. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 1269-1278

Rankin, S. R. (2003). Campus climate for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people: A
national perspective. New York City, NY: The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
Policy Institute.

Renn, K. A. (2010). LGBT and queer research in higher education: The state and status of the
field. Educational Researcher, 9(2), 132-141.

Ressler, P., & Zosky, D. (2008). Benign heteronormativity limits LGBT students' social and
academic engagement: Illinois State University.

Schott-Ceccacci, M., Holland, L., & Matthews, T. L. (2009). Attitudes toward the LGBT
community in higher education. Spaces for Difference: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2(1),
36-47.

Schulte, L. J., & Battle, J. (2004). The relative importance of ethnicity and religion in predicting
attitudes towards gays and lesbians. Journal of Homosexuality, 47(2), 127-142.

The Pew Research Center. (2006). Less opposition to gay marriage, adoption and military
service.