The Nappy Cat Chronicles

[This is my undergraduate Psychology 497 thesis from 2004. The title of the study is not meant to imply an ethnographic comparison. The Greeks in my study were fraternity and sorority affiliates. When I conducted this study I was an active member of the Eta Pi chapter of the Pi Kappa Phi fraternity. A social Greek society membership includes a fair amount of societal stereotyping. Unfortunately, Greeks are one of those least-researched minorities and the research that has been conducted often presents Greek life in the most provocative and simplistic of negative terms. I conducted this study to add to the limited body of knowledge and I found that, although affiliates of fraternities and sororities are similar to male and female non-affiliates in their attitudes toward homosexuality, they experience a strong groupthink style of cohesiveness. I present this in APA format with a few web-worthy modification.]

Greek Versus non-Greek: A Comparison of Attitudes Toward Homosexuality

According to the Center for the Study of the College Fraternity (2000), an average of 17.50% of students per campus are either active members of or pledging into the Greek system. Research into the attitudes toward homosexuality of student members of social Greek societies (fraternities and sororities) has been limited. An ethnographic study conducted by Rhoads (1994) revealed a connection between negative attitudes towards lesbians, gays, and bisexuals (LGBs) and membership in a social Greek society. Further ethnographic research conducted by Rhoads (1995) at a fraternity house revealed that oppressive acts towards homosexuals serve to reaffirm masculinity. Rhoads’ conclusion supported the findings of Sanday (1990) who argues that fraternity members may be hiding “…a deep fear, hatred, and fascination with homosexuality” (p. 122).

Other research suggests that there is no empirical connection between Greeks and non-Greeks and negative attitudes toward homosexuals. With 692 heterosexual students at six liberal arts colleges participating, Hinrichs and Rosenberg (2002) investigated attitudes toward homosexuals and homosexuality as a function of Greek affiliation, sex role attitudes, and contact with and knowledge of LGBs. The researchers found that students who tended to be female with liberal sex role attitudes and positive contacts with LGBs were more accepting of LGBs. The results indicated that on campuses with social Greek societies, Greeks did not have significantly more negative attitudes toward homosexuals than non-Greeks. However, campuses with no social Greek societies had significantly more positive overall attitudes toward homosexuality than campuses with social Greek societies.

Kuriloff and Lottes (1994) investigated the extent to which gender, time in college, and membership in a social Greek society influenced students’ political and social attitudes. The researchers measured attitudes regarding liberalism, social conscience, feminism, male dominance, and intolerance of homosexuality. Subjects were students at an eastern United States university. A questionnaire was mailed to freshman students living in a dormitory in 1987. The same questionnaire was mailed again in 1991 to the same students who were still enrolled at the university. Of the 303 students who completed both surveys, 135 were males, 168 were females, and 35% reported membership in a social Greek society. The results indicated a substantial overall decrease of intolerance of homosexuality for all participants from 1987 to 1991. However, Greeks were not more intolerant of homosexuality than non-Greeks. The researchers concluded that Greek affiliation has little impact on student attitudes over time. Additionally, the researchers concluded that, because only a limited amount research has been conducted on the social and political attitudes of Greeks and non-Greeks, empirical support for the hypothesis that Greeks are more intolerant of homosexuality as compared to non-Greeks may exist.

In a similar study, Pratte (1993) examined differences in attitudes of males and females, college students and non-college students, and subjects of various age groups toward homosexuality. In 1986 and again in 1991, a questionnaire was distributed to 90 randomly chosen subjects. Of the 180 participants, 90 were male and 90 were females. Seventy-five were undergraduates enrolled at a university in the midwest and 105 were from a rural community. Similar to the findings of Lottes and Kuriloff, the results indicated that subjects surveyed in 1986, male subjects, and non-student subjects expressed significantly stronger anti-homosexual attitudes than subjects surveyed in 1991, female subjects, and college student subjects.

An increase in tolerance of homosexuality among college students over a period of time may be a function of proximity and past exposure. Bowen and Bourgeois (2001) hypothesized that knowing LGBs prior to college would contribute to more positive attitudes towards homosexuality. Second, they hypothesized that regardless of past exposures, contact with LGBs in student’s residence halls would result in attitudes that are more positive. Finally, the researchers hypothesized that students would rate their own attitudes as more positive than those of friends or of typical students. Subjects for the study were undergraduates living in two similar coed dormitories in close proximity. One hundred and nine students recruited by mail completed the researchers’ survey. Fifty-one were male and 58 were female. The researchers found that there was a significant positive correlation between the number of homosexuals known before college and current level of comfort with homosexuals. Student’s comfort ratings were significantly higher when they reported LGBs living within their residence hall. Student’s comfort ratings were also significantly higher when they reported LGBs living on their floor. Personal comfort with homosexuals was rated significantly higher than the perceived comfort of their friends and higher than a “typical” student’s comfort. Findings indicated that students who had more exposure to LGBs before college felt more comfortable with LGBs when compared to those with less or no pre-college exposure. However, regardless of past exposure, students who reported LGBs living on their halls or on their floors felt significantly more comfortable than students who reported not knowing any close-proximity LGBs.

In a similar study, Herek and Capitanio (1996) obtained similar results from a two-wave national telephone survey. Subjects were randomly selected and were telephoned between 1990 and ‘91 and were telephoned again one year later. Participants indicated their attitudes toward gay males during the first wave and attitudes toward gay males and lesbians during the second wave. Findings were generally similar between both waves and revealed that heterosexual participants with contact with gay males had more positive attitudes toward gay males than those without contact. Those with more and closer relationships had more positive attitudes toward gay males.

Louderback and Whitley Jr. (1997) attempted to explain why males tend to tolerate female homosexuality more so than male homosexuality. They theorized that males place a high erotic value on lesbianism, place a low erotic value on male homosexuality, and have more “traditional” sex-role attitudes. They further theorized that concurrent control of the perceived erotic value of homosexuality and sex-role attitudes would reveal that males have similar attitudes toward lesbians and gays. Subjects were undergraduates from a university in the midwest. Of the 167 subjects surveyed, 58 were males and 109 were females. Participants completed a test booklet in classrooms in same-sex groups of 5 to 20 individuals. Attitudes toward homosexuals were measures by the Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men (ATLG) scale, a 20-item survey created by Herek (1984). The instrument includes two subscales, the Attitudes Toward Lesbians (ATL) and Attitudes Toward Gay Men (ATG) scales. An 8-item instrument developed by the researchers measured the perceived erotic value of homosexuality. Two subscales, one referring to lesbian sexuality and one referring to gay male sexuality were comprised of four items each. Sex-role attitudes were measured by the 30-item Attitudes Toward Roles of Men and Women (ATRMW) scale. This instrument has two subscales of 15 items each: the Attitudes Towards Women (ATW) and Attitudes Towards the Male’s Role (AMR) scales. The data revealed that females responded similarly on the ATLG and the perceived erotic value of homosexuality measures. On the other hand, males were more tolerant of lesbian sexuality and perceived it to be more erotic and they were less tolerant of gay male sexuality and perceived it to be less erotic. However, when the perceived erotic value and sex-role attitude scores were controlled for both males and females, the adjusted means closely resembled each other. Female’s scores remained nearly unchanged. However, scores for males were similar to females’ scores towards lesbians and gay males as measured by scores on the ATLG. The researchers concluded that because heterosexual males do not view gay male homosexuality as erotic, heterosexual males may be more likely to discriminate against gay males. Heterosexual females do not view either lesbian or gay male sexuality as erotic and therefore may discriminate equally against both.

In addition to overt intolerance, college students may be unwittingly intolerant of homosexuality. Aberson, Emerson, and Swan (1999) hypothesized that because the descriptor “gay male” may cause a desire to appear sympathetic, participants will overcompensate and prefer a gay male to a straight male in a controlled situation. Bias against a gay male will only become apparent when there is an opportunity to express negative feelings toward gay males in situations where there exists a justification that is not based on sexuality. Participants were undergraduates attending various small, private colleges in southern California. Of the 260 participants, 113 were males and 143 were females. Four subjects did not indicate gender. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions: heterosexual-no justification (55), gay-no justification (51), heterosexual-justification (76), and gay-justification (78). Each group was told that their evaluations of an applicant for a new HIV-AIDS education program would affect the hiring process. The duration of the interview videos was five minutes. The actor described himself as acquiring HIV from a brief but sexually intense relationship with either a man or woman depending upon the condition. In bother justified bias conditions, when asked, “Why do you feel college students can relate to you?” the actor answered, “Look, I was a college students. I know how completely stupid and totally naïve college students are.” In both unjustified bias conditions, the actor answered, “Look I was a college student.” Participants were fully debriefed and duplicity was revealed after participation in the study. The evaluation measure was a 29-item instrument. Subjects responded to items on 7-point scales. The instrument included two subscales: 19 items that indicated positive traits and 10 items that indicated negative traits about the interviewee. A 7-item instrument measured attitudes toward homosexuals. Subjects responded to these items on 5-point scales. The results revealed that the gay male was rated significantly more favorable overall than the heterosexual male. The gay male in the justified bias condition was more favored than the heterosexual male in the same condition. The researchers found that participants did not rate the gay male negatively regardless of condition. However, the gay male tended to be rated higher on negative trait items and the heterosexual male in the no justification condition tended to be rated higher on positive trait items. The findings led Aberson et al. to conclude that there was evidence of a covert form of bias in which the participants elevated the heterosexual man and did not diminish the gay man.

While many strides have been made to afford homosexuals equal rights, prejudice, discrimination, and victimization still exist. In a study conducted by Norris (1992) at Oberlin College, findings indicated widespread victimization of LGBs. A survey distributed by mail was completed by 869 students of whom 26.3% of females and 15.7% of males claimed a lesbian, gay, or bisexual sexual orientation. Of the two groups, 80% of females and over 70% of males either had denied their sexual orientation or were verbally insulted for being perceived as homosexual. On the other hand, 95.5% of students supported the active campus presence of LGBs. Norris theorized that this paradox results from support of equal rights by a majority but the practice of equal rights by a minority.

Due to the lack of prior research in this area and due to the high rate of victimization of homosexuals, the purpose of this study is to examine attitudes towards homosexuals as a function of Greek affiliation. The researcher hypothesized that Greeks would score significantly higher on measures of intolerance towards homosexuality than non-Greeks.