Homophobia

Homophobia among University Students The term homophobia, or sotimes referred to as homonegativity and sexual prejudice, refers to an unreasonable fear, avoidance, and discrimination of paederastics. Society has greatly changed their views on homosexuality over the years, yet homophobia calm down exists today. Ex xsive research has been conducted on homosexuality and how it affects our association. A previous suck in aimed at mensuration homophobia examined belles-lettres on the topic since 1987.It was found that firearm society has seen a reduction in homophobia over the early(prenominal) twenty five years, discrimination still stay to be an issue (Ahmad & Bhugra, 2010). Another study was conducted at a university that examined the impact of college sexuality classes on students attitudes toward homosexuality. This study used a comparison group and had thespians of some(prenominal) groups take two muckles, one at the offset of the semester and one at the end.This stud y found that a sexuality curriculum can help to castrate homophobia by exposing students to accurate information (Rogers, McRee & Arntz, 2009). However in that location continues to be issues with measuring such a metier theme for reasons such as, measuring an attitude is serious to do, and acquiring honest responses can also be a ch wholeenge. The present study aims at measuring homophobia among university students by asking a wide set of oppugns roughly the central theme. Methods ParticipantsParticipants were ( ) male and ( ) female undergrad psychology students from a California university. Materials A persuasion was developed around six main themes. Those sixt themes were and thence divided among six groups, three in individually lab, and each group developed five to decennium questions that would meter their assigned theme, and research five to ten more questions from research articles. Seventeen questions were developed to measure homophobia. One question asked if marriage between homosexual individuals is acceptable.Another question asked whether homosexual couples are as answer to raise children as heterosexual couples. Another question asked the participant if they would end a friendship upon discovering a friend was gay. Most answers were presented on a likert scale, utilise anchors 1= potently check up on 2=agree 3= incomplete agree nor disagree 4=disagree 5=strongly disagree. 1=strongly agree 2=agree 3=neither agree nor disagree 4=disagree 5=strongly disagree. However to ensure developmentd reliability, some questions were deleted and replaced with new ones and the suss out was administered a second time.Procedure The survey was posted on psychsurveys. org for three days. Participants were emailed a come to to access to and complete the survey. After the survey was complete, a reliability analysis was done, and some of the questions were replaced with new ones. Participants then had another three days to log bandaging into the s urvey and re-take it. Results Discussion In order to increase this scales reliability, a larger survey should be used in the future to prize homophobia, with more in depth questions about feelings and attitudes around homophobia.Directly asking participants whether or not they are homophobic would create a floor effect because it is flimsy that anyone would identify themselves as homophobic. Instead, many carefully suasion out questions should be used. Developing questions to assess a feeling like homophobia is a difficult task. Questions compulsion to be worded in such a little way as to not lead the participant into answering untruthfully. Questions need to be neutral so that the participant does not feel pressured to answer a certain way.In addition, the answer format was not holy man for all questions in the homophobia section of the survey. Answers were mostly report on a likert scale for statistical purposes, while open-ended responses may have been more insightful. Furt hermore, the pattern used in the current study was all college students from California. Had this survey been administered to non-students from a more conservative state, or at a religious gathering, the results that were obtained may have been greatly different. Conclusion ReferencesMcCann, P. D. , Minichiello, V. , & Plummer, D. (2009). Is homophobia inevitable? Evidence that explores the constructed nature of homophobia, and the techniques through which men unlearn it. Journal of Sociology, 45(2), 201-220. Retrieved from http//jos. sagepub. com. libproxy. csun. edu/ confine/45/2/201. full. pdf html (McCann, Minichiello & Plummer, 2009) Ahmad, S. , & Bhugra, D. (2010). Homophobia An updated review of the literature. internal and relationship therapy, 25(4), 447-455. Retrieved from http//web. bscohost. com. libproxy. csun. edu/ehost/detail? emailprotected&vid=1&hid=122&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ== (Ahmad & Bhugra, 2010) Rogers, A. , McRee, N. , & Arntz, D. (2009). Using a col lege human sexuality course to combat homophobia. awaken education, 9(3), 211225. Retrieved from http//web. ebscohost. com. libproxy. csun. edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer? emailprotected&vid=1&hid=122 (Rogers, McRee & Arntz, 2009)