See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/336069715

Religiosity, Gender Role Beliefs, and Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gays in the
Philippines

Article in North American Journal of Psychology · September 2019

CITATIONS READS

6 15,820

1 author:

Marc Eric Santos Reyes

University of Santo Tomas
66 PUBLICATIONS 338 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Cyberbullying victimisation among late adolescents View project

Student Mental Health View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Marc Eric Santos Reyes on 26 September 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Religiosity, Gender Role Beliefs, and Attitudes
Toward Lesbians and Gays in the Philippines
Marc Eric S. Reyes, Kristine Cate A. Ballesteros,
Patricia Anne A. Bandol, Kaye Angeline H. Jimenez
Sean Derick R. Malangen
University of Santo Tomas

The Philippines is a religious nation and most Filipinos share a collective

religious view stemming from the predominance of Catholicism. This
view includes traditional opinions on gender roles and prohibition of
behaviors associated with non-heterosexuality. Lesbians and gays who
deviate from this traditional norm, tend to become targets of
discrimination and prejudice. Using a correlational design, the present
study aimed to investigate whether religiosity and gender role beliefs
predict attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. A total of 633 Filipinos
who identified themselves as non-LGBT completed the Centrality of
Religiosity Scale, the Gender Role Beliefs Scale-Short Version, and the
Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men Scale-Revised. Correlational
results revealed a significant relationship among religiosity, gender role
beliefs, and attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. Moreover, regression
analysis showed that higher religiosity and more traditional gender role
beliefs predicted significantly higher homonegativity among Filipinos
who identify themselves as non-LGBT. Additionally, participants have
more negative attitudes toward gay men compared to lesbians.

Keywords: Filipinos, religiosity, gender role beliefs, attitudes, LGBT

All over the world, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT)
communities continue to endure injustice and bias. In the Philippines,
there still is a considerable lack of local and national anti-discrimination
laws protecting of the rights of LGBT Filipinos. Numerous proposals
have been made since the 1990s, but none have been successful (United
Nations Development Program [UNDP] & United States Agency for
International Development [USAID], 2014). Thus, LGBT Filipinos are
continuing to experience some forms of discrimination, prejudice and
stigma since most Filipinos have not accepted the view that lesbian, gay,
and bisexual orientations are normal variants of human sexuality
(Psychological Association of the Philippines [PAP], 2011). The
perceptions of most Filipinos are significantly influenced by religious
________________________________
Author info: Correspondence should be sent to: Dr. Marc Eric S. Reyes,
Department of Psychology, University of Santo Tomas, Manila, Philippines
msreyes@ust.edu.ph
North American Journal of Psychology, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 3, 559-572.
NAJP
560 NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY

beliefs, which may be associated with negative attitudes toward LGBT

people.
Religion plays a major role in the lives of Filipinos, especially under
the influence of the Roman Catholic Church (UNDP & USAID, 2014).
Over 80% of the Philippine population belongs to the Roman Catholic
Church. Thus, this religious institution’s beliefs and its influence on
individuals continue to affect the lives of LGBT Filipinos. There are
three predominant religious denominations in the country according to
the Philippine Statistics Authority (2015): Roman Catholicism, Islam
and Evangelicalism. These are composed of 74.2 million, 5.1 million and
2.4 million people, respectively.
Roman Catholicism and Evangelicalism are Christian denominations.
Given their Christian nature, they maintain a traditional view for social
matters. They consider heterosexuality as normal and homosexuality as
deviant and therefore sinful. Between these two, Evangelicals hold an
even more negative attitude for lesbians and gays compared to Roman
Catholics. They hold the value of fundamentalism—the literal
interpretation of the Holy Bible (Bassett, Smith, Newell, & Richards,
1999; Kirkpatrick, 1993). Research shows that religious fundamentalism
is associated with negative attitudes toward lesbians and gays (Vincent,
Parrott & Peterson, 2011). Altemeyer and Hunsberger (1992) defined this
as “the beliefs that there is one set of religious teachings that clearly
contains the fundamental, basic, intrinsic, essential, inerrant truth about
the humanity and deity” (p.118). Evidence shows that religious
fundamentalism is consistently associated with sexual prejudice and
hostility toward lesbians and gays. Furthermore, Vincent et al. (2011)
noted that religious fundamentalism serves as a risk factor for both
negative attitudes toward lesbians and gays and sexual prejudice.
Individuals who belong to different religions exhibit apparent
differences in their level of homonegativity, but in general, people who
are religious are more homonegative (Jäckle &Wenzelburger, 2015).
Religions that have more conventional views hold more negative
attitudes toward homosexuality, which can result in discrimination and
coercion (Harris, Cook, &Kashubeck-West, 2008; as cited in Cardenas,
Barrientos, Gomez, & Frias-Navarro, 2012). This poses a problem for
lesbians and gays because it perpetuates stigmas and negative stereotypes
of their sexual orientation.
The relationship between religious involvement and attitudes toward
homosexuals is present not only on an individual level but on a
community level as well. This relationship crosses over to the collective
level in that being part of an institution with strong prejudices towards
homosexuality are likely to affect the individual’s perspective of the
LGBT population. This is especially true for Muslims and Christians.
 Reyes, Ballesteros, Bandol, Jimenez, &Malangen LGBT 561

Muslims, along with Christians, hold more negative attitudes toward

homosexuality. For the people in these denominations, there is an inverse
relationship between religious involvement and the acceptance of
homosexuality (Roggemans, Spruyt, Droogenbroeck&Keppens, 2015).
Catholicism, which is another traditionally conservative denomination, is
also most likely to present homosexuality in a negative light. As such,
people in this denomination will likewise be less accepting of
homosexuals (Barringer, Gay &Lynxwiller, 2013; Landicho, Aliwalas,
Buenaventura & Rodriguez, 2014).
Higher participation in religious services, greater belief in the sacred
doctrine, and higher frequency of prayers are all negatively related to
attitude towards homosexuality according to lower scores on the
homosexuality scale used by Barringer et al. (2013). Research by Decoo
(2014) also indicates that greater attendance in religious services or
rituals leads to less social support for homosexuality. On the other hand,
those with no religious preferences are more supportive of
homosexuality.
Possessing negative attitudes toward homosexuality sometimes leads
to the expression of homophobic behavior (Roggemans et al., 2015). The
result is targeting, badgering, intimidating, and sometimes silencing
those who are perceived to be homosexuals (Blumenfeld, 2000; as cited
in Fanucce, 2010).
There are two forms of homonegativity: (1) moralistic
homonegativity which refers to attitudes toward homosexuality as a
behavior and (2) intolerance toward homosexuals as a group which is a
personal rejection of homosexuals based on out-group prejudice. Socio-
demographic variables such as education, age, or gender are related to
these attitudes (Allport & Ross, 1967; Herek, 1987; Pettigrew
&Meertens, 1995). Jäckle and Wenzelburger (2015) said that a person’s
socio-demographic variables indicate a person’s homonegativity.
Likewise, in populations where lesbians and gays have more legal rights,
expression of homonegativity is lower (Jäckle&Wenzelburger, 2015).
The LGBT community becomes a target of homonegativity because
they do not subscribe to the traditional and heterosexual gender roles and
stereotypes. According to DeCarlo (2014), attitudes toward lesbians and
gays are affected by one’s gender role attitudes. Kimmel (1997) stated
that there is an association between traditional gender role attitudes and
attitudes toward lesbians and gays. Support for the traditional male and
female roles were both predictors of negative attitudes toward lesbians
and gays (DeCarlo, 2014). Additionally, societies who have a more
patriarchal culture tend to have more negative views toward people who
violate traditional male gender roles (Kite & Whitley, 1998). Obedience
to traditional gender roles or acquisition of certain gender-role attitudes
562 NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY

also directly affect the personal and societal problems of a people

(Cotten-Huston & Waite, 2000; Herek, 1988; Kerns & Fine, 1994; Stark,
1991. Thus, individuals adapt their own beliefs, interests, and values to
the ones held by the groups they belong to (Gonzalez & Chakraborty,
2012, 2014), for instance, the gender role belief system held by their
religion.
On the other hand, people with anti-traditional views believe in the
opposite - that men are free to show female-typed behaviors and women
are free to show male-typed behaviors. As a result, they evaluate people
who deviate from gender norms more positively, and therefore are more
tolerant, accepting, and supportive of the LGBT community. There has
been a decline in religious attendance that is associated with greater
acceptance of non-traditional women’s roles, which supports the
relationship between gender roles and religiosity (Decoo, 2014).
The present study explored the relationships among religiosity,
gender role beliefs, and attitudes toward lesbians and gays among
Filipinos who identify themselves as non-LGBT. Moreover, we
investigated the difference between the participants who are Catholics
and those who are Evangelicals. According to Astorga (2004) and
Ahmadi (2012), both groups maintain a traditional view toward
homosexuals.
Filipinos may adhere more to traditional masculine behaviors as
dictated by four main rules: men should not be feminine; men should be
respected and admired; men should never show fear; and men should
seek out risk and adventure (Sanchez, Greenberg, Liu, &Vilain, 2009).
Thus, gay men who are perceived as feminine may be viewed negatively
as compared to lesbians. According to Herek (2002), heterosexual men
hold more negative attitudes towards gay men than they do lesbians—a
demonstration of same-sex negativity. Gay men are seen by society as
breaking from traditional masculinity ideology because of their
affectional and sexual orientation. This could explain why gay men tend
to be more negatively valued because there is a belief that men are
superior to women. Thus, men appearing feminine appear to show signs
of weaknesses.
We hypothesize that: (1) Filipinos who are more religious will show
higher homonegativity, and (2) Filipinos who hold a more traditional
gender role belief system will have higher homonegativity; and (3)
Participants’ attitudes toward lesbians will be more positive than their
attitudes toward gay men.
 Reyes, Ballesteros, Bandol, Jimenez, &Malangen LGBT 563

METHOD
Participants
Participants were selected through purposive samplingand
participation was purely voluntary, as such no remuneration was given
for being part of the research.The participants of the study are Filipinos
residing in Metro Manila who identify themselves as non-LGBT. They
were sourcedfrom religious organizations/institutions/churches and from
referrals given by the members. Referrals from friends and relatives were
also sought to add to the research sample. A total of 633 participants (464
females and 169 males), with ages ranging from 18 to 68 years old (M =
23.7, SD = 9.99) signed an informed consent prior to completing the
research questionnaires. Participants were 504 Catholics and 129
Evangelicals; no Muslims became part of the study since they declined
our invitation to take part in the present study when they found out the
research variables. Furthermore, 73.46% of the participants were high
school graduates (n = 465), while 23.7% were college graduates (n =
150), and 2.84% had a postgraduate degree (n = 18). About 67% of the
participants were single (n = 425), 19.59% were in a relationship (n =
124), while 13.27% were married (n = 84).

Measures
The Centrality of Religiosity Scale (CRS; Huber and Huber, 2003).
The CRS measures the subjective importance of religion as well as the
importance of religious meanings in personality (Huber, 2007). The
CRSi-14 version, which was utilized in the present study, is designed to
measure five dimensions of religiosity by having three items per
dimension. The five dimensions are: intellectual (e.g. “How often do you
think about religious issues?”, ideology (e.g. “To what extent do you
believe that God or something divine exists?”), public practice (e.g.
“How often do you take part in religious services?”), private practice
(e.g. “How often do you meditate”) and religious experience (e.g. “How
often do you experience situations in which you have the feeling that
God or something divine is present?”). Eleven items have five response
options which corresponds to the five levels of frequency and intensity
scales: (5) very often, very much so, (4) often, quite a bit, (3)
occasionally, moderately, (2) rarely, not very much, and (1) never, not at
all; Two items have eight response options which corresponds to eight
levels of frequency ranging from (1) never to (8) several times a day.
Lastly, one item has six response options which correspond to six levels
of frequency ranging from (1) never to (6) more than once a week. Total
scores are determined by adding the scores of each item across the scale.
Possible scores range from 14 to 77. Results can be categorized into
“highly-religious,” “religious,” and “non-religious.” The dimensions of
564 NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY

the Centrality of Religiosity Scale (CRS) showed a strong internal

validity (Huber, 2009). The Cronbach’s alpha of the CRSi-14 in the
current study was 0.89.
Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men Scale-Revised (ATLG-R).
This 20-item scale was developed by Herek in 1994; it has 10 items
under the subscale of Attitudes Toward Lesbians (ATL; e.g. “Lesbians
just can’t fit into our society”) and 10 items under the subscale of
Attitudes Toward Gay Men (ATG; e.g. “Male homosexual couples
should be allowed to adopt children the same as heterosexual couples”).
The ATLG-R adopts a 7-point Likert scale response format which
corresponds to the participant’s level of disagreement or agreement to the
statements ranging from (1) Strongly Disagree to (7) Strongly Agree.
Scoring is accomplished by summing numerical values across items for
each subscale (De la Rubia, 2013), with 7 items reverse scored (items
number 2, 4, 7, 11, 15, 17 and 20). Higher scores indicate greater
homonegativism (Rosik, 2007). The entire scale has a .90 reliability
coefficient with subscales having reliabilities greater than .85 for ATG
and 0.77 for ATL (Herek, 1988). The scale has been established to be a
valid and reliable measure of attitudes toward lesbians and gay men
(DeCarlo, 2014). The alpha reliability coefficient of the ATLG-R scale in
the current study is 0.90, and both subscales, ATL and ATG, have
reliability coefficients of .87.
Gender Role Beliefs Scale (GRBS) – Short Version. The GRBS was
developed by Kerr and Holden (1996). Understanding the customary
beliefs about the accepted behavior for both men and women is important
when considering social issues (i.e., feminism, gender role attitudes) and
the GRBS is a widely used tool for evaluating these beliefs (Brown &
Gladstone, 2012). The long version of the GRBS is composed of 20
items, wherein, participants respond to the items using a 7-point scale
ranging from (1) “strongly agree” to (7) “strongly disagree,” with (4)
being “undecided.” Total scores on the scale range from 20 to 140 with
higher scores indicating more feminist (more modern) gender role beliefs
and lower scores indicating more traditional gender role beliefs. The
shortened scale used in the current study has 10 items (e.g., “It is
disrespectful to swear in the presence of a lady,” “The initiative in
courtship should usually come from the man,” and “Swearing and
obscenity is more repulsive in the speech of a woman than a man.”) The
10-item GRBS maintains the scoring system of the original 20-item scale
wherein scores are determined by adding the scores of each number
across the scale. Possible scores range from 10 to 70 with higher total
scores indicating more feminist gender role beliefs. Brown and
Gladstone (2012) found that the 10-item GRBS had strong internal
consistency for both females (α = .81) and males (α = .76). Furthermore,
 Reyes, Ballesteros, Bandol, Jimenez, &Malangen LGBT 565

a strong correlation was found between the total scores on the 10-item
GRBS and the original 20-item version (r = .91). The Cronbach’s alpha
for the scale in the present study was .85.

Procedure
Data gathering commenced after the release of the ethics certificate
from the UST-College of Science’s Ethics Review Committee.
Participants were sourced through referrals to participants who
religiously identified as Catholics, Evangelicals, or Muslims. Participants
who voluntarily agreed and signed the informed consent form answered
psychological tests composed of the Centrality of Religiosity Scale, the
Gender Role Beliefs Scale-Short Version, and the Attitudes Toward
Lesbians and Gay Men Scale-Revised. The data gathered in the present
study was limited to participants who were Catholics and Evangelicals
because Muslims declined to take part in the research. Data were scored,
interpreted, and statistically analyzed utilizing Pearson product-moment
correlation, regression analysis, and a t-test. We made use of the IBM
Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) Version 21 and the Data
Analysis ToolPak of Excel Program of the Microsoft Office 2016 to
interpret the data.

RESULTS
Table 1 presents a profile of the inter-correlations between each
variable. Results show that religiosity, gender-role beliefs, and attitudes
toward lesbians and gays are significantly related.

TABLE 1 Means, SDs, & Correlations for the Study Variables

M SD R GRB ATL ATG ATLG

R 56.9 11.0 1
GRB 48.9 10.7 -.38 1
ATL 24.0 10.4 .31 -.55 1
ATG 27.2 12.0 .34 -.52 .88 1
ATLG 51.2 21.7 .34 -.55 .96 .97 1
Note: Numbers rounded to the nearest 10th. All coefficients significant at .01

Three separate regression analyses were used to determine if

religiosity and gender-role beliefs together predict the participants'
attitude toward lesbians, attitude toward gays, and total attitude towards
lesbians and gays.
Regression analysis was again used in order to determine if religiosity
and gender-role beliefs together predict the participants' attitude toward
lesbians, attitude toward gays, and total attitude towards lesbians and
566 NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY

gays. Results revealed that both religiosity and gender-role beliefs

together did predict attitudes toward lesbians (R2= .308, F = .141.37),
attitudes toward gay men (R2= .289, F = 129.22), and attitudes toward
lesbians and gay men altogether (R2= .317, F = 147.52).
The present study further determined whether a difference exists
between the Filipino participants’ attitudes toward lesbians and their
attitude towards gay men. We found a significant difference between
attitudes toward lesbians (M = 23.98; SD = 10.39) and attitudes toward
gays (M = 27.19; SD = 12.04) indicating more negativity toward gay men
t(632) = 58.06, p < .001.

DISCUSSION
In line with the present study’s research questions, our hypotheses
were supported that: (1)Filipinos who are more religious will show
higher homonegativity, and (2) Filipinos who hold a more traditional
gender role belief system will have higher homonegativity; and (3) the
participants’ attitudes toward lesbians will differ from their attitudes
toward gay men.
According to Klocke and Lamberty (2015), religiosity has played a
huge part in society’s way of life. It has been regarded as a source from
which people base their thoughts, feelings, actions, and identities. These
beliefs are related to the roles they play both at home and at work. But all
gender role beliefs—whether traditional or liberalized, are related to
people’s stereotypes, which in turn shape the way they interact with
others. Religious individuals typically believe in the sacred doctrine of
their church and attach their identity strongly with their religious
denomination (Jäckle&Wenzelburger, 2015). As a result of complying
with their religious doctrine, highly religious individuals develop certain
belief systems that involve abortion, prostitution, divorce and
homosexuality. Additionally, those people who hold more traditional
views, tend to act negatively toward those people who violate traditional
gender roles because they maintain a rigid masculinity-femininity
distinction (Klocke&Lamberty, 2015).
We found that religiosity predicts attitudes toward lesbians, attitudes
toward gays, and attitudes toward lesbians and gays collectively. Thus,
participants who are more religious tend to reject the lifestyle and
behavior patterns of lesbians and gay men. Vincent et al., (2011) noted
that religious fundamentalism is related to negative attitudes toward
lesbians and gays. Greater attendance in religious service or rituals is
associated with less support for the LGBT community (Decoo, 2014).
Thus, people who are more religious tend to exhibit more rejection
towards lesbians and gays because they adapt as their own, the
 Reyes, Ballesteros, Bandol, Jimenez, &Malangen LGBT 567

conventional views, beliefs, interests, and values held by their religious

denomination.
Our study revealed significant negative relationships between our
participants’ gender role beliefs and attitudes toward lesbians and gay
men, implying that greater non-traditional gender role beliefs among the
participants resulted in less homonegativity or rejection toward lesbians
and gay men. Individuals who support more traditional male and female
roles have more negative attitudes toward lesbians and gays (DeCarlo,
2014; Kimmel, 1997). Support for the traditional male and female roles
were both predictors of negative attitudes toward lesbians and gays
(DeCarlo, 2014). Additionally, societies who have a more patriarchal
culture tend to have more negative views on people who violate
traditional male gender roles—homosexuals, because these roles are
mostly rigid or inflexible (Kite & Whitley, 1998).
Super and Jacobson (2011) mentioned that “religious abuse” subdues
or manipulates LGBT people through shaming, stigmatizing, rejecting,
ousting, exorcising, and even ex-communicating. The authority of a
religious denomination along with the presence of its entire community is
a special and powerful force (Barnes & Meyer, 2012). As a result, lesbian
and gay youth have been found to experience psychological
maladjustment when religious beliefs cause stress due to being a sexual
minority (Lindahl & Malik, 2013). According to Ream and Savin-
Williams (2005), LGBT people may be harmed emotionally, mentally,
and spiritually, either choosing to remain within a religion or in choosing
to leave a religion.
In the current study, we found that our participants seem to have less
homonegativity toward lesbians as compared to gay men. Filipinos may
adhere more to traditional masculine behaviors as dictated by four main
rules: men should not be feminine; men should be respected and
admired; men should never show fear; and men should seek out risk and
adventure (Sanchez, Greenberg, Liu, &Vilain, 2009). Thus, gay men who
are perceived as feminine may be viewed negatively as compared to
lesbians. Furthermore, men may envy gay men because the latter are not
constrained by masculine stereotype. According to Herek (2002),
heterosexual men hold more negative attitudes towards gay men than
they do lesbians—a demonstration of same-sex negativity.
Gay men are seen by society as breaking from traditional masculinity
ideology because of their affectional and sexual orientation. This could
explain why gay men tend to be more negatively valued because there is
a belief that men are superior to women. Thus, men appearing feminine
show signs of weaknesses or are viewed as being subservient.
In summary, we found that religiosity, gender-role beliefs, and
attitudes toward lesbians and gays are significantly related. To expound,
568 NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY

the more religious a person is, the more traditional their gender-role
beliefs are. Furthermore, the more an individual adheres to non-
traditional roles, the less rejecting they are of lesbians and gays.
Furthermore, UNDP (2014) reported that there were at least 28
LGBT-related killings in the country in 2011. Thus, acceptance of LGBT
community is still at the surface level and complete acceptance is still in
progress in the Philippines.

Limitations and Future Directions

The present study is not without its share of limitations, one of which
is the absence of Muslim participants. Future researchers who are
interested in studying similar variables are encouraged to include other
religious denominations. Individuals outside of Metro Manila may have
views that are different from those expressed in the present study. The
small sample size may have limits in the ability of the results to
generalize the religiosity and gender role beliefs on attitudes toward
lesbians and gays on non-LGBT Filipinos.
We recommend including other variables that might be associated
with one’s attitude towards lesbians and gays. According to Detenber,
Ho, Neo, Malik, and Cenite (2013), educational attainment is
significantly associated with more positive attitudes toward lesbians and
gays. Additionally, a study by Perales found that lower cognitive ability
was associated with greater prejudice toward same-sex couples (2018).
Swank and Raiz (2010) found that a belief that sexual orientation is
determined by choice led people to view lesbians and gay men in a more
negative light. Perhaps educating the public about the evidence that
sexual orientation is determined in part by biological and genetic factors
might reduce some of the negativity towards lesbians and gay men.

REFERENCES
Ahmadi, S. (2012). Islam and homosexuality: Religious dogma, colonial rule,
and the quest for belonging. Journal of Civil Rights and Economic
Development, 26(3), 537-563.
Altemeyer, B. & Hunsberger, B. (1992). Authoritarianism, religious
fundamentalism, quest, and prejudice. International Journal for the
Psychology of Religion,2(2),113-133.
Astorga, M. C. A. (2004). Doctrine and worship as the formative ground of
Christian morality. Landas, 18(1), 94-124.
Barnes, D., & Meyer, I. (2012). Religious affiliation, internalized homophobia,
and mental health in lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 82(4), 505-515.
Barringer, M., Gay, D., &Lynxwiller, J. (2013). Gender religiosity, spirituality,
and attitudes toward homosexuality. Sociological Spectrum: Mid-South
Sociological Association, 33(3), 240-257.
 Reyes, Ballesteros, Bandol, Jimenez, &Malangen LGBT 569

Bassett, R. L., Smith, H. L., Newell, R. J., & Richards, A. H. (1999). Thou shalt
not like sex: Taking another look at religiousness and sexual attitudes.
Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 18(3), 205-216.
Brown, M.J., & Gladstone, N. (2012). Development of a short version of the
Gender Role Beliefs Scale. International Journal of Psychology and
Behavioral Sciences.doi: 10.5923/j.ijpbs.20120205.05
Cardenas, M., Barrientos, J., Gomez, F. & Frias-Navarro, D. (2012). Attitudes
toward gay men and lesbians and their relationship with gender role beliefs in
a sample of Chilean university students. International Journal of Sexual
Health, 24(3), 226-236.
DeCarlo, A. (2014). The relationship between traditional gender roles and
negative attitudes toward lesbians and gay men in Greek-affiliated and
independent male college students. Theses and Dissertations. Retrieved from
https://preserve.lehigh.edu/etd/1469/
Decoo, E. (2014). Changing Attitudes Toward Homosexuality in the United
States from 1977 to 2012. All Theses and Dissertations. Retrieved from
https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/4091/
Detenber, B. H., Ho, S. S., Neo, R. L., Malik, S., &Cenite, M. (2012). Influence
of value predispositions, interpersonal contact, and mediated exposure on
public attitudes toward homosexuals in Singapore. Asian Journal of Social
Psychology, 16(3), 181–196.
Fanucce, M. L., & Taub, D. J. (2010). The relationship of homonegativity to
LGBT students’ and non-LGBT students’ perceptions of residence hall
climate. The Journal of College and University Student Housing, 36(2), 25-
41.
France-Presse, A. (2014, May 12). PH Tolerates gays but abuses continue, says
UN backed study. Inquirer. Retrieved from https://news.abs-
cbn.com/nation/05/12/14/ph-tolerates-gays-abuses-continue-study
Hamilton, L. (2007). Trading on heterosexuality: College women's gender
strategies and homophobia. Gender and Society, 21, 145-172. doi:
10.1177/0891243206297604
Hearn, J. (1996). Is masculinity dead? A critique of the concept of
masculinity/masculinities. In Understanding Masculinities (Ed.), M. Mac
anGhaill. Buckingham, Open University Press.
Herek, G. M. (2002). Gender gaps in public opinion about lesbians and gay men.
Public Opinion Quarterly, 66, 40-66. doi: 10.1086/338409
Herek, G. M. (1988). Heterosexuals' attitudes toward lesbians and gay men:
Correlates and gender differences. The Journal of Sex Research, 25, 451-411.
doi: 10.1080/00224498809551476
Higa, D., Hoppe, M. J., Lindhorst, T., Mincer, S., Beadnell, B., Morrison, D. M.,
… Mountz, S. (2012). Negative and Positive Factors Associated With the
Well-Being of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Questioning
(LGBTQ) Youth. Youth & Society, 46(5), 663–687.
Huber, S. (2009). Religion monitor 2008: Structuring principles, operational
constructs, interpretive strategies. In what the world believes: Analysis and
commentary on the 2008 religion monitor (pp. 17-51). Gütersloh: Verlag
Bertelsmann-Stiftung
570 NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY

Huber, S. (2007). Are religious beliefs relevant in daily life? In H. Streib (ed.),
Religion inside and outside traditional institutions (pp. 211-230). Lieden:
Brill. Academic Publishers
Human Rights Watch. (2017). "Let us just be" Driscimination Against LGBT
Students in the Philippines. New York: Author.
Jäckle, S. &Wenzelburger, G. (2015). Religion, Religiosity, and the Attitudes
Toward Homosexuality—A Multilevel Analysis of 79 Countries. Journal of
Homosexuality, 62(2), 207-241.
Jewell, L. M., & Morrison, M. A. (2012). Making sense of homonegativity:
Heterosexual men and women’s understanding of their own prejudice and
discrimination toward gay men. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 9(4),
351–370.
Johnson, R. (2001). Toward a new classification of nonexperimental quantitative
research. Educational Researcher,30, 3-13. doi:10.3102/
0013189X030002003.
Kimmel, M. S. (1997). Masculinity as homophobia: Fear, shame and silence in
the construction of gender identity. In M. M. Gergen& S. N. Davis (Eds.),
Toward a new psychology of gender (pp. 223-242). Florence, KY: Taylor &
Frances/Routledge.
Klocke, U., &Lamberty, P. (2015). The traditional-antitraditional gender-role
attitudes scale (TAGRAS): Development and validation. Manuscript
submitted for publication, Institute of Psychology, Humboldt-Universität zu
Berlin, Germany.
Kugle, S. A. (2009). Homosexuality in Islam: Critical reflection on gay, lesbian,
and transgender Muslims. London, UK: Oneworld.
Landicho, D., Aliwalas, M., Buenaventura, M. & Rodriguez, L. (2014).
Religiosity and attitudes towards homosexuals among adolescents. Asia
Pacific Journal Multidisciplinary Research, 2(3), 153-160. Retrieved from
www.apjmr.com
Manalastas, E. J., Ojanen, T. T., Torre, B. A., Ratanashevorn, R., Hong, B. C. C.,
Kumaresan, V., &Veeramuthu, V. (2017). Homonegativity in southeast Asia:
Attitudes toward lesbians and gay men in Indonesia, Malaysia, the
Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. Asia-Pacific Social Sciences
Review, 17(1), 25-33. Publisher's Version
Nierman, J., Thompson, A. & Mahaffey, A. (2007). Gender role beliefs and
attitudes toward lesbians and gay men in Chile and the U.S. Sex Roles, 57(1-
2), 61-67.
Perales, F. (2018). The cognitive roots of prejudice towards same-sex couples:
An analysis of an Australian national sample. Intelligence, 68, 117–127. doi:
10.1016/j.intell.2018.03.012
Pettigrew T.F.., Meertens R.W. (1995). Subtle and blatant prejudice in western
Europe. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25(1), 57–75.
Philippine Statistics Authority. (2015). Household Population by Religious
Affiliation and by Sex 2010 [Table 1.10]. Retrieved from
https://psa.gov.ph/sites/default/files/2015%20PSY%20PDF.pdf
Psychological Association of the Philippines. (2011).
Ream, G. L., &Savin-Williams, R. C. (2005). Reconciling Christianity and
positive non-heterosexual identity in adolescence, with implications for
 Reyes, Ballesteros, Bandol, Jimenez, &Malangen LGBT 571

psychological well-being. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Issues in Education,

2(3), 19–36.
Roggemans, L., Spruyt, B., Droogenbroeck, F.P., &Keppens, G. (2015). Religion
and negative attitudes towards homosexuals: an analysis of urban young
people and their attitudes towards homosexuality. YOUNG Editorial Group.
23(3), 254–276.
Rosik, C.H. (2007). Ideological concerns in the operationalization of
homophobia, part 1: An analysis of Herek’s ATLG-R scale. Biola University.
Journal of Psychology and Theology, 35(2), 132-144.
Sánchez, F. J., Greenberg, S. T., Liu, W. M., &Vilain, E. (2009). Reported effects
of masculine ideals on gay men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 10(1),
73–87.
Seidler, V.J. (1994). Unreasonable Men: Masculinity and Social Theory.
London: Routledge.
Super, J. T., & Jacobson, L. (2011). Religious abuse: Implications for counseling
lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals. Journal of LGBT Issues in
Counseling, 5(3/4), 180–196.
Swank, E., &Raiz, L. (2010). Attitudes toward gays and lesbians among
undergraduate social work students. Affilia, 25(1), 19-29.
Tang, X., & Poudel, A. (2018). Exploring challenges and problems faced by
LGBT students in Philippines: A qualitative study. Journal of Public Health
Policy and Planning, 2(3), 9-17.
UNDP & USAID (2014). Being LGBT in Asia: The Philippines Country Report.
Bangkok.
Vincent, W., Parrott, D. & Peterson, J. (2011). Effects of traditional gender role
norms and religious fundamentalism on self-identifies heterosexual men’s
attitudes, anger, and aggression toward gay men and lesbians. Psychology of
Men and Masculinity. 12(4), 383-400.
 572 NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY

View publication stats