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

net/publication/350004626

Attitude Towards Homosexuals: A quantitative study on Young Adults of

Malaysia

Thesis · December 2020

CITATION READS

1 3,079

1 author:

Sateskalavati Malayalam
Wawasan Open University
1 PUBLICATION 1 CITATION

SEE PROFILE

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

Perception and Attitude of Homosexuals: A quantitative study on Adolescents and Young Adults of Malaysia View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sateskalavati Malayalam on 18 June 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Attitude Towards Homosexuals:
A quantitative study on Young Adults of Malaysia

Sateskalavati AP Malayalam
033170008

Research report submitted as part fulfilment for the degree of

Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in Psychology

School of Foundation and Liberal Studies

Wawasan Open University

December 2020
Copyright declaration

Wawasan Open University

Session: July 2020

Report title: Attitude of Homosexuals: A quantitative study on Young Adults of Malaysia

I, Sateskalavati a/l Malayalam declare that this report shall be the property of Wawasan Open
University and I allow copies of it to be made for academic purposes.

(Signature)

Date: 2 December 2020

Originality declaration

I declare that this report titled “Research Title” is my own work except where cited in the references.
The report has not been accepted, and is not being submitted in candidature, for any degree or
other award elsewhere.

(Signature)

(Sateskalavati a/p Malayalam)

Date: 2 December 2020

Table of Content

1. Acknowledgements

2. Abstract

3. Chapter 1: Introduction

4. Chapter 2: Literature Review

5. Chapter 3: Methodology

6. Chapter 4: Data Analysis and Discussion

7. Chapter Five: Conclusions and Recommendations

8. References

9. Appendices

Appendix 1: Questionnaires for demographic details

Appendix 2: Part B Attitude Scale questionnaires

Appendix 3: Part C Duke University Religion Index (DUREL)

Acknowledgement

I would like to express my gratitude to tutors and lecturers of Wawasan Open University for

providing invaluable knowledge and learning experience. Not forgetting Kuala Lumpur Regional

office staffs on providing enormous support and service.

I am profoundly thankful to my family for their supports including my classmates Muniandy

Ramachandran, Kwan Yau Oi and Carolina from Wawasan Open University of KL branch.

Besides providing encouragement and kind support, they consistently motivate and assisting me

along my academic pathway. In addition, my sincere gratitude to Dr Ooi who promptly response

whenever I get panic by providing immediate solution such as Turnitin ID besides approving

extension for TMA2. Also not forgetting Dr Yati who assisted in providing information from

online reading materials pertaining research.

Abstract

Homosexuals are subjected to prejudice, discrimination and mistreatment especially in Malaysia

as their presence regarded illegal. Thus, this study aimed to validate whether homosexuals being

accepted or rejected among Malaysian particularly young adults by examining the influence of

having contact with homosexuals, religiosity and education level of respondents’ attitude

towards homosexuals. A quantitative and correlational survey research design were used by

recruiting forty respondents through convenient sampling. Demographic questionnaire was

employed to collect demographic information and variables were measured using Duke

University Religion Index (DUREL) and Attitudes toward Homosexuality Scale 21 item version

(ATH). Overall, more than half of these respondents scored high in ATH scale denoting more

positive attitude towards homosexuals. Surprisingly, religion and education were found not to

have any significant attitude towards homosexuals. Only one factor, having contact with

homosexuals seems to have relationship on attitude towards homosexuals. In general, the

findings of this study are surprising about the attitude of young Malaysians who accept

homosexuals with open arms and not as gazette by religious preachers, or mass media reports or

statements of politicians. Thus, study accommodate updated information for future studies in

which can be useful on promoting diversity while combatting homosexual victimization.

Keywords: attitude towards homosexuals, intrinsic religiosity, education, contact

 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the study

Homosexuality defined as attraction by someone towards own gender group. Also

known as sexual orientation whereby an individual sexually and romantically attracted towards

same sex such as man attracted to man (known as gay) while female attracted to another female

(known as lesbian) (APA 2015). Historically homosexuality was termed into several

classification in the edition of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder (DSM) that

published by American Psychiatric Association (APA). This can be seen when homosexuality

named as “paraphilia” to “sexual orientation disturbance” and then to “ego-dystonic”

homosexuality (Carr & Spandler 2019). However, APA announced that homosexuality was not a

mental illness or sickness by removing it from DSM (Drescher 2015). The remarkable move by

World Health Organization on dropping homosexuality per se from Internal Classification of

Disease unfortunately was the beginning for social stigmatization of homosexuality (Cochran et

al 2014). It is believed that the argument about homosexuality shifted from psychiatry and

medical towards moral and political realms such media, religious, government and education

institution.

In Malaysia, homosexuals are addressed by various name such as ‘maknyah’, ‘bapok’ and

‘kedi’ describing man who possess female characteristics (Baba 2001). Malay community

labelled ‘Pengkid’, and ‘femme’ on addressing lesbians (Jerome 2013). Homosexuals are

interpreted as an unnatural act, negatively framed by society and various parties such as medias,

politicians, and religious members. For example, a local news reported that homosexuals were

considered serious mental problem because against nature according to Mufti (Che Noh 2018).
Among the negative perception is like considering homosexual as a criminal act in which refers

to an online survey carried from December 2015 to January 2016 whereby 24 percent of

respondents asserted that it is a crime for being homosexuals (Hirschmann 2016). The low level

of acceptance towards these group can also be seen from Pew Research Center that conducted

survey indicating 86 percent respondents are not accepting homosexuality into Malaysia society

(“The Global Divide on Homosexuality” 2013). Dual law implementor country like Malaysia

enforced prison punishment and criminalized under Islamic law (Syariah law) besides Penal

Code Section 377A, Section 377B and Section 377D even though scientific professional

recognized homosexuality as normal variants of human sexuality (Carroll & Mendos 2017).

Homosexual community were made into fringe material because consistently seen as

outgroups and less human than ingroups. They were perceived as interrupter of societal dignity

and so discriminating, or prejudicing considered a reasonable action. Among them are societal

rejection, physical assaults, and discriminatory acts. These resulting homosexuals to be placed at

greater risk for substances abuse, alcohol dependence, depression, suicidal, verbal or physical

neglection of family and friends.

Perception refers interpretation and organization of sensations to produce meaningful

experience. That means individual confronted with stimuli then he/she likely to interpret it into

attitude depending on his/her prior knowledge or experience (Pickens 2005). Perception of

homosexuality determines a person’s experience or knowledge relating to homosexuals and the

relevant attitude (Cao, Wang & Gao 2010). Study revealed heterosexual males were not

comfortable working with homosexual males because they perceived gays being more

effeminate in terms of physical appearance, attitude or behaviour. This enable unfavourable

attitude imposed towards homosexuals since perception decide our attitude toward an issue or an
object that can cloud our judgments of others (Pickens 2005). A simple gesture like not refusing

seat for a homosexual individual in public transportation conveys how an individual exhibits

negative attitude towards another homosexual individual.

Several factors were identified as causal factor of individual’s attitudes towards

homosexuals such as religiosity (Park & Ramírez-Johnson 2016; Ahmad et al 2015) and

education (Nguyen & Blum 2014). For example, religious people tend to hold stronger negative

attitude and do not accept them to be part of the society (Ahmad et al 2015). This research

intends to measure the attitude among adolescents and young adults towards homosexuality.

Only then can determine whether respondents’ attitude towards homosexuals influenced by

traditional values (i.e religiosity) or non-traditional values (i.e education level) to prevent

marginalize and stigmatize homosexuals.

1.2 Research Problem

Existing studies (Manalastas et al; Ng et al 2015; Azrowani et al 2012) asserted citizens

of religious country such as Malaysia protest homosexuality by vigorously seeking the

homosexual group and provide awakening program to ensure they back to normal life. If this

true, then the population of homosexual in Malaysia should decrease instead of increasing.

Establishment of Non-government organization that are working for social justice for

homosexual people such as JusticeForSisters and PTF Malaysia proves acceptance towards

homosexual community does exists in Malaysia. Therefore, this study was conducted with the

intention of exploring attitude of young adults towards homosexuals from the aspect of

religiosity level and education level.

1.3 Research Objectives

General objective

This research aimed to improve attitude of young adults in Malaysia towards

homosexuals by identifying associated factors to this matter.

Specific objective

i) To investigate whether exists relationship between religiosity and attitudes

towards homosexuals among young adults in Malaysia.

ii) To determine whether different level of education have significant relationship

with attitude towards homosexuals.

iii) To determine if knowing someone in contact list that homosexual has a significant

relationship with attitude towards homosexuals.

1.4 Research Hypothesis

a) There is a significant negative relationship between intrinsic religiosity and attitudes

toward homosexuals among young adults in Malaysia. Whereby highly religious

individual exhibit more negative attitude towards homosexuals.

b) There is a significant relationship between education and attitudes toward

homosexuals among undergraduate students in Malaysia. Whereby highly educated

individual behaves positively towards homosexuals.

c) The is significantly positive relationship between knowing someone as homosexual

with attitude towards homosexuals. Whereby individual who have known contact for

being homosexuals will likely produce high score in attitude scale (ATH).
1.5 Research Questions

i) Does individual religiosity level influence his/her attitude towards homosexuals?

ii) Does different level of education have significant relationship with attitude at

homosexuals?

iii) Is there significant relationship between having contact with homosexual and

respondents’ attitude towards homosexuals?

iv) Is it true that the more a person have contact with homosexuals tend to exhibit

more positive attitude?

1.6 Significance of Study

Little research being done pertaining homosexuality in multiracial and multireligious

settings like Malaysia. Notably religion, cultural, customs and beliefs including discussing sexual

issues openly considered social taboo besides strong opposition from religion preachers and

higher authority are existing obstacles that refrain for an effective and accurate sampling. Take

note existing studies that discussed negative attitude that caused by external factors such as

religion, education, gender beliefs are not validated from time to time. This is important on

ensuring whether identified factors evolve or not as that will likely influence the results. Thus,

this study investigates how people’s attitude towards homosexual can be influenced by religion,

and education.
1.7 Definition of Terms

1.7.1 Religiosity

1.7.1.1 Conceptual definition: Religiosity can be described as a person’s level of

faithfulness towards his/her religion beliefs. Religiosity can be termed as dimensions of
religiosity instead of its synonyms.

1.7.1.2 Operational definition: This study measured by using the intrinsic religiosity
subscale from The Duke University Religion Index (DUREL). High score corresponds to high
level of religiosity.

1.7.2 Attitudes toward homosexuals.

1.7.2.1 Conceptual definition: Attitudes toward homosexuals can be defined as the

perception or thought toward homosexuals. Negative perceptions cause negative attitude whereas
positive perceptions cause positive attitude that directed towards homosexuals.

1.7.2.2 Operational definition: Attitude towards homosexuals referred to the respondents‟

scores on Attitudes toward Homosexuality Scale (ATH Scale) indicating the higher the score
means the more positive attitude of that individual.

1.7.3 Young adults

1.7.3.1 Conceptual definition: Individual’s age ranging from 15 to 30 known as young

adults in Malaysia context (Yunus & Landau 2019). Usually person age ranging from late teens
to late early thirties can be regarded as young adults.

1.7.3.2 Operational definition: For this study individual who pursuing higher education in
university or colleges instead of school, seeking for job opportunity or employed were selected
as research participants.
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

Exhortation of being homosexual is not Asian value, but western thing was challenged

when historical record revealed the opposite. According to (Peletz 2006), Asia including

peninsular Malaya had rich sexual diversity and gender. Their presence was important and

known to serve in the palace of Sultans by the name like ‘Sida-sida’ or ‘pawang’. Being Malay

androgynous priests, they played important role in safeguarding woman, oversee ritual protocols

while guarding the palace’s spiritual ‘relationship’ between mortals and divinity. Hence, despite

being in male-bodied priest they undertook weird behaviour like clothing as women and

therefore engaged in same-sexual relationship (Mayang & Sarah, 2019).

The question is why community who were once known to be influential have now been

criticized and outcaste? Previous studies stated religion plays vital role on influencing perception

and attitude of the common people towards homosexuals (Ahmed et al 2015; Azrowani et al

2012). Therefore, the definition of homosexual, attitude and perception of homosexuality will be

reviewed. Moreover, related variables (education and religiosity) in relation to perception and

attitude towards homosexuals using previous studies also reviewed.

2.2 Homosexual, perception, and attitude by definition

Homosexual is one of sexual orientation that refers of a person’s sexual attraction

towards own gender. Simply means that a man finds another man attractive instead of woman if

he is homosexual. Commonly labelled as lesbian for woman who attracted to another woman and

sexually attracted between men known to be gay. Later on after removing the term from mental

illness, homosexual was redefined as homosexuality referring person’s sexual, mental,

emotional, and social interest in a person of the same sex, which may or may not be manifested

in their explicit behaviour by American Psychological Association (Cochran 2014).

Homosexuals usually can be divided into various subs categories namely as lesbians, gay,

bisexual and transgender. In Malaysia, gay named as ‘maknyah’, ‘bapok’ and ‘kedi’ on

describing man who possess female characteristics (Baba 2001). Meanwhile a lesbian named as

‘Pengkid’, and ‘femme’ when describing female who possess male characteristics (Jerome 2013).

Perception known as interpretation and organization of sensations to produce meaningful

experience. That means individual confronted with stimuli then he/she likely to interpret it into

meaningful experience depending on his/her prior knowledge or experience (Pickens 2005).

Perception of homosexuality determines a person’s experience or knowledge relating to

homosexuals and the relevant behaviours (Cao, Wang & Gao 2010). For example, heterosexual

males claimed for not being comfortable working with homosexual males because they

perceived gays being more effeminate in terms of physical appearance, attitude or behaviour. In

Malaysia, gender difference seems to influence the perception, whereby male sport spectators

reported for not responding positively towards homosexual compare to female sports spectators

although conclude that homosexuality viewed negatively because regarded as sinful act

(Azrowani et al 2012).
 The argument that homosexual as ‘Western’ culture in which against conservative and

traditioned based countries will another example of perception towards homosexuals. This seems

true when the finding of (Feng et al 2012) agrees that positive perception regarding

homosexuality derived from exposure from Western movie and videos. Homosexual perceived to

be sexually deviant behaviour often linked with HIV infection although heterosexuals are the

main contributor. When the Ex-Prime Minister publicly rejected the homosexual community by

stating, “it is compulsory for us to fight LGBT” clearly shows government exhibit negative

political perception (Human Rights Watch, 2013). However, what a person interpret may be

different from reality. It is because attitude is the other element that influence an individual’s

perception. After all perception decide our attitude toward an issue or an object and that can

cloud our judgments of others (Pickens 2005). It should be noted that perceptual towards

homosexual seem to evolve in accordance to time. Perception changes progressively from seeing

homosexual as criminal behaviour to non-criminal behaviour and from seeing homosexual as

pathological changes to nonpathological (Cao, Wang, & Gao 2010; Landicho et al 2014).

Attitude means ability or tendency of a person to respond positively or negatively

towards a certain issue, an object, idea or situation. Attitude as mentioned by (Pickens 2005), it

refers as mind set or ability of an individual on reacting or behaving which caused by experience

and temperaments. An individual’s response to his/her surrounding depending on readiness of

mental state, organized experience and exerting directive. It is true human holds various attitudes

towards surrounding has its own characteristics whereby no two attitudes will influence a person

in the same way. Meaning some attitude obtained through inheritance (Olson, Vernon, Harris, &

Jang, 2001) while some other attitude obtained from direct/indirect experiences (De Houwer,

Thomas, & Baeyens, 2001). (Perkins 2005) stated that attitude can be divided into three
components namely as an affect (a feeling), cognition (a thought or belief), and behaviour (an

action). Thus, when addressing someone’s attitude it means we are referring his/her beliefs,

values, motivations, emotions, personality and behaviour. For instance, attribute enable us place

emotion, beliefs and thought towards people or an object (eg., “I hate lesbians”). We can view

from resulting attitude of a person’s perception. For example, when the Mufti of Islamic State

department who described homosexual as ‘against nature’ and ‘sinful’ is because of religious

beliefs (Che Noh 2018). Existing studies indicated that individual with higher level of religion

knowledge express more negative attitudes toward homosexuals (Besen & Zicklin, 2007; Ng et

al., 2015). A simple gesture like not refusing seat for a homosexual individual in public

transportation is an example of an individual’s attitude towards another homosexual individual.

2.3 Religiosity influence attitude towards homosexuality.

Survey by Pew Research Centre resulted approximately 9% shows acceptance towards

homosexuals while the remains reject this community. Acceleration of gay population whereby

out of 10 Malaysian men, 3 reported to be gay freaks the Malaysia government resulted minister,

Datuk Baharum Mohamad to suggest a gay rehabilitation centre (Fridae, 2012). Interference

from religious institution of Saint Lucia, or political party cum government to name a few that

play roles in combating homosexuality by influencing the public’s perception and attitude. For

example, the study on identifying causal attitudes towards homosexuality on nursing students in

Malaysia can be picked as example of how religion beliefs impacted attitude and perception

towards homosexual (Ng et al 2015). Research which comprised 495 nursing students from

University Malaya Medical Centre (UMMC) denoted religion played vital role on influencing

participants attitude at homosexuals. Using Homosexual Attitude Scale, Duke University

Religion Index and demographic as instruments, previous researchers discovered Muslim

participants associated with negative perception and attitude towards homosexual community

because such practice contradict with the belief of Islamic religion.

Under the context of Western cultural setting, research was conducted in US to explain

cross-national variation, selecting religion and culture variable in determining public’s opinion

towards homosexuality using the idea of cultural sociology and the sociology of religion’s anti-

ascetic hypothesis (Adamczyk & Pitt 2009). Dealing with data size about 45 824 adult

participants from 33 countries, researchers noticed non-Muslim believers and free thinkers

exhibited positive attitude accepting homosexuals. In other word, researchers reasoned that

heavy penalties imposed to whoever encourage unacceptable act like homosexualism. In

addition, researchers stated that individuals who are not religious but resides with Muslim

community or nation then they too may be less tolerant towards homosexuality. Thus, those from

conservative background that emphasize religion perspective tend to ignore the contribution of

biology or environment towards homosexuality (Sheldon et al 2007).

Question arise whether if only Islamic beliefs against homosexual since as to what

researcher concluded from their findings (Adamczyk & Pitt 2009). The study that investigate

religion in relation to homosexual was to because of strong influence of religious institution

(Williams, Forbes, Placide, & Nicol 2020). Similar to Malaysia, Saint Lucia also well-known for

homophobic legislation. That study examines impact of religion and religious institution towards

homosexual community of Saint Lucia as part of seeking social justice (Williams et al 2020).

Christianity being the main religion for the former nation that ruled by British Colony whereby

researchers used semi-structured interview to collect data. Finding shows religious institutions

play active roles in upholding ‘buggery law’ (homophobic law) since religion served as

fundamental for the living of that society of that nation. Being a gay seems wrongful act in the
society so social exclusion and violence imposed towards these minorities. Researchers found

religion sustains legislation and systemic discrimination towards homosexuals and therefore

asserts to conceptualize advocacy strategies by engaging as allies in order to protect homosexual

rights.

On the other hand, another literature seems contradicted the assumption that homosexuals

rejected due to the presence of religion. This is because a study by Landicho, Aliwalas,

Buenaventura & Rodriguez (2014) revealed that intrinsic religiosity does not influence attitudes

towards homosexuals. Researchers explained over the years, homonegativity reduced and that is

why research participants demonstrated positive attitude towards homosexuality.

In short, religion being medium enabling the formation of belief then it is likely to

develop attitude when people were told that they were right. For instance, by cultivating to

devotees that religious forbidden homosexuality, people’s perception formed. The perception

formed as “my religion taught me not to support homosexual” will leads to form a set of attitudes

that against homosexuality such as discrimination and prejudice. Baumeister and Bushman

(2011) described this as belief perseverance. It simply means it is difficult to amend or modify an

idea once they are formed. That is why religion serves as personal commitment which named as

intrinsic religiosity (Koenig & Büssing, 2010). Undoubtedly the presence of religion makes huge

differences whereby unfavourable perception and attitudes imposed at homosexual.

2.3 Education influence towards attitude and perception towards homosexuality

Definition of education according to John Dewey

An American who served as philosopher psychologist and educational reformer, mentioned

education means all one with growing; it has no end beyond itself. Socrates defined education as

bringing out the ideas of universal which are latent in the mind of every man (NA 2020).

Perception can be addressed as “an individual’s awareness which being formed from

knowledge or experience”. Meanwhile attitude denoted as “predisposition or tendency to react

positively or negatively towards objects, person, situation or an idea” (Ahmad 2015).

That means education in which categorized into formal and informal learning, serves the same

purpose which is to shape values and habits. Consciously, learning enable the development of

skills and thought which later determine the attitude of the society (Carl 2019).

That is why education is responsible in providing knowledge, idea that generate

perception of that person. Depending on developed perception, individual exhibit correspond

attitude resulting from the gained education (be it formal or informal) tend to develop perception,

in which may appear to be negative or positive towards an idea, object, or this case

homosexuality.

Education institutions expected to use an effective education in order to produce students

can become personally empowered while committed to the common good. This seems agreeable

when one of the oldest and prestige higher learning institution like Harvard University said to

influence students’ thinking, attitudes, and values (Pascarella & Terenzini 2005). Nevertheless,

outlined syllabus can be seen that education provide support equality of gender differences,

ethnicities, religion denomination and physical disabilities through co-curricular activities and

diversified on-campus programming (Landicho et al 2014). Discrimination and prejudice

towards homosexuality happen when misunderstanding and ignorance takes place from failure of

education system. Therefore, emphasizing effective and efficient of delivering formal education

was expected to avoid negative consequences as mentioned earlier. Probably that explain on why

researchers believed that people with higher education have the ability on accepting differences

towards opinion or thoughts because possess open minded personality (Lambert et al 2006).

Unfortunately, findings from existing studies suggested mixture of arguments. In some

studies education reported has direct influence towards homosexuality (Chi & Hawk 2016;

Adamczyk & Pitt 2009; Feng et al 2012; Manaslastas et al 2017) while negative or no significant

influence were reported in some other studies (Dawkins 2012; Azrowani et al 2012; Manaslastas

et al 2017).

In the context of Malaysia education system, commendable effort has been initiated

via formal education within school settings. Relevant ministries structured training, education as

well as co-curricular activities with intention of promoting healthy and responsible lifestyle from

through subjects like Science, Biology, Moral and Islamic Education (Low 2009). To date,

locating published literature which investigating impact of education towards homosexuality in

Malaysia seems difficult because numbers of research were conducted using Malaysia students

under different variables limited to gender role belief and religiosity. Therefore, review on

education towards homosexuality in relation to perception and attitude studies were picked from

other countries.
 Feng et al (2012) investigated adolescents’ and young adults’ perception of

homosexuality from three Asian cities namely as Hanoi, Shanghai and Taipei. Investigation were

involving about 17,016 participants with age ranging from 15 to 24 years old and cross-sectional

survey using interviews and self-computer-based interviews. The aim of this study was to reduce

the dissemination of negative perspective of homosexual. Largely because existence of

homosexual community considered to jeopardize human reproduction besides breaching the

maintenance of family line by breaking the living rule of how man and women should be. It was

argued that people’s perception about homosexuality especially about sexual orientation and

homosexuality mainly influenced by their existing knowledge that learnt from media like

Internet, movies or published medium like books. In case not effort made on gaining knowledge

about homosexuality at their to under then this likely leads more not favouring perception. In

return, negative perception occurs and become the causal for discrimination, prejudice, and

physical and verbal abuse while contribute to marginalization of homosexual individuals.

Findings from this research showed that both group (adolescents and young adults) exhibited

positive perception towards homosexuality when possess better education status. Thus,

researchers concluded that exposure to various social norms like sexual orientation enable

individual to accept lifestyle of homosexuality with open heart (Feng et al 2012).

In the Western cultured based country like the America, literature review conducted on

study performed by (Lambert et al 2006). This research carried among university students within

age range of 18 to 69 years old comprised of 52 percent female and 48 percent male participants.

Research was conducted under sample size of 364 whereby participants selected from freshmen,

sophomores, juniors, and seniors with varying majors. To examine attitudes towards

homosexuality among participants assessment was carried out using survey and demographic
questionnaires. Education level of participants were labelled as lower level students (0) referring

freshmen and sophomores. On the other hand, junior and senior students were labelled as upper

level students (1). It was hypothesized that upper level students (1) will demonstrate positive

attitudes towards homosexuality against low level students who regarded with less

knowledgeable (Lambert et al 2006). Obtained result from research seem true with hypothesized

statement. Research finding reported that positive attitude expressed by upper level students by

reasoning higher level knowledge gained by this group instead of lesser education level from

freshmen and sophomores’ group. Researchers also reported that upper level students more

likely to have homosexual friends to explain further. Other researchers also agreed to (Lambert

et al 2006) view that the standard of education of an individual is closely related to exhibiting

attitude which means the higher education level of the individual then the more positive

perception and attitude can be seen on an issue such as signing in petition to request

government's invasion in combatting anti-homosexual sentiments (Roper & Halloran 2007).

Thus, Lambert et al (2006) opinioned that higher education provides liberalizing effect in which

producing open-minded, empathic, and tolerant individuals.

Similar study was conducted by examining homonegativity in Southeast Asia by

emphasizing attitude towards homosexuals in countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines,

Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam (Manaslastas et al 2007). This research used available data

from World Value Survey (WVS) a multi-national interview-based survey that investigates

people’s beliefs and values concerning a wide range of social issues including homosexuality.

Research participants were selected using multistage cluster sampling with minimum age of 18

years old and above and represent their country, this case Southeast Asian countries. A total

sample size of 9,182 participants were finalised for this study. Investigation were focusing on
identifying and measuring the level homonegativity of participants by accessing social exclusion

and moral acceptability-based questions. Notably, these surveys were translated from English to

local languages and back translated to ensure conceptual equivalence. Obtained data were

analysed using cross-tabulation analysis and cross-national comparisons on determining

homonegative attitudes in Southeast Asian. Treated as dichotomous variable participants were

expected to provide responses towards gender, age, education and religiosity. Finding shows

education variable showed mixture responses meaning supported and opposed the hypothesis.

Researcher hypothesized higher education will produce lower level of homonegativity. Higher

level of education seems to be associated with low level of homonegativity from participants of

countries like the Philippines and Thailand. Meanwhile Indonesia and Malaysia recorded high

level of homonegativity where respondents, especially with higher level of education such as

secondary education exhibiting rejection of homosexual neighbours than those with only primary

education (Manaslastas et al 2007). Researchers concluded that the obtained results differs by

country whereby public opinion differs because partly associated with differences in dominant

religion.
2.4 Theoretical Framework

To conduct present study, attribution theory was selected as guideline for theoretical

framework. It is because people make attribution by internal disposition and external situation.

This theory suitable to be applied as people explain the cause of behaviour due to personal

factors like traits, abilities or feeling. For example, when Sam purse was stolen in supermarket, if

he believed that the incident happened because of not being careful towards on belongings then

he made internal attribution. However, if he believed that theft occurred because Sam being

targeted by the thief indicating that he made an external attribution.

Similar to that, when someone rejects homosexual due to against of religion teachings

then that person is making an external attribution. Notably external situation happens because of

external forces like situational or environment features and not within internal control.
2.5 Conceptual Framework

The main objective of this study was to examine the relationship between religiosity,

education in which influence the attitudes and perception toward homosexuals among

Malaysians young adults. The independent variables (IV) for this research were intrinsic

religiosity and education while the dependent variable (DV) was attitudes toward homosexuals.

internal
attribution

Religiosity Education

Attitude

& Perception

Figure 2.5.1 Conceptual Framework of Religiosity, education belief and attribution theory.
 CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

Discussion on this chapter comprises of data collection process, analysis method besides

elaborating reliability and validity of used tools on this research.

3.2 Sampling technique

Convenience sampling was selected as sampling method. Besides easy, this seem the

only option available for researcher as impacted with lockdown. Limited access to socialise

disabled researcher on getting larger sample size. Although convenience sampling is an easy way

of getting information, but the current pandemic of Covid-19 left researcher with no option but

experiencing lockdown with limited number of contacts.

3.3 Research Participants

This field of study focuses to study attitude of heterosexual young adults who’s age

ranges between 19 to 35 years. Research participants are recruited using convenient sampling

with no restriction on education background. This work is in progress therefore the sample size

cannot be finalized. Thus, several key control that being imposed such as checking heterosexual

individual are the one participating in the survey, age limit between 19 to 30 and any education

background.
3.4 Research Instruments

For virtual meeting, electronic gadgets like mobile phones and laptop were used with

strong network coverage. Plus, online application like Watsapp and Zoom will be used to launch

virtual meeting were used as tools for this research.

a) SPSS

Statistical Package for Social Science Statistics is a software that used to analyse

collected data. Data collected from demographic questionnaire, religiosity level from

(DUREL) and attitude score towards homosexuals (ATH). This software will assist on

determining whether significant relationship exist on identified variables.

b) Socio-demographic Questionnaire

Information regarding gender, age, sexual orientation, religion, current occupation will be

asked. Participants require to tick the correct or suitable box.

c) Duke University Religion Index (DUREL)

This tool measures the level of religiosity, meaning higher the score indicates high level

in religion. This can be used to measure three aspects which are organizational religious, non-

organizational religious activity and intrinsic religiosity. Intrinsic religiosity is measured in the

continuing three items. The initial two items will be measure with with a 6-point Likert scale

while the remaining three items are measured with a 5-point Likert scale. Scores of each subscale

are calculated separately. So higher points denote higher level of religiosity in each three

subscales. This study will utilise the item three intrinsic religiosity. This tool (three-item Intrinsic

Religiosity subscale) discovered to have a Cronbach‟s alpha of 0.75 (Koenig & Büssing, 2010).
d) Attitudes toward Homosexuality Scale (ATH Scale)

This tool developed by Kite and Deaux (1986) is a standard scale use to assess

stereotypes, misperception and anxieties towards homosexual people (using a likert design

ranging) contains favourable or unfavourable. Then, participants can rate each item from 1

Strongly Agree to 5 Strongly Disagree. 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). This tool reported to have good test-retest reliability (r =.71) with excellent internal

consistency (alphas >.92). Besides that, on convergent validity, the scale correlates (rs =.50) with

the Smith, Ferree and Mller’s FEM Scale (1975), and the Spence and Helmreich’s Attitude

toward Women Scale (1978) (Lamar & Kite, 1998).

3.5 Research Procedures

Using face-to-face survey information were collected from participants virtually due to social

distancing issue. No physical questionnaires distributed to participants. Meetings are arranged

virtually subject to strong Internet coverage. In this virtual meeting, participants will be

explanation about the given question and to answer, researcher will mark the answer on behalf

on participants. Being in ‘lockdown condition’ physical meeting with research respondents to

issue cannot be done. Moreover, requesting these participants to respond via online such as

Google Form Questionnaire likely to cause delay in getting responds. Thus, to prevent missing

respondents replies, or inadequate numbers of responses, researcher arranged to live face-to-face

survey with advance appointment.

Research participants consists of adults whereby given information were not confidential or

sensitive. This is because questionnaires prepared anonymity with no identification information

were requested. In addition, no regulation imposed on this study to obtain college ethical

committee approval.

The session begin virtually begins where participants asked whether he/she is ‘heterosexual’

in order to avoid sexual orientation bias. Next, participants were briefed about jargon words in

questionnaires like ‘voyeurism’ and ‘revolting’. That explanation useful for participants to

answer questionnaires accurately besides avoiding bias and inaccurate data collection. Collected

data saved into database for further analysis in SPSS.

 CHAPTER 4

DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Introduction

This chapter introduce the background of research participants and the relevant

distribution of variables for this study. In addition, the findings from this study will be presented

as well.

4.2 Descriptive Statistics

A total of 40 research participants who live around Klang Valley were recruited on

studying the attitude towards homosexuals.

Respondents’ background obtained from Table 4.2.1 via demographic details of

research participants. Recruited participants’ age range from 19 years old as minimum to 30

years as maximum. Thus, consists of average age of 26.075 (SD=3.63). Gender of participants

recorded as 19 females (47.5%) and 21 males (52.5%). They are from three major ethnic groups

in Malaysia which are Malays 12 people (30%), Chinese 12 people (30%) and Indian 16 people

(40%). Followed by their religion belief as Islamic for 18 people (45%), Buddhism for 4 people

(10%), Hinduism for 10 people (25%) and Christianity for 8 people (20%). Participants

education level showed as SPM for 10 people (25%), Diploma for 11 people (27.5%), Degree for

17 people (42.5%) and Masters holder for 2 people (5%). Occupation details of participants

tabulated as Unemployed for 3 people (7.5%), Working staff 29 people (72.5%) and Students for

8 people (20%). Lastly for knowing someone by research participant contact list who attracted

with same sex recorded Yes for 21 people (52.5%) and NO for 19 people (47.5%)
Table 4.2.1 Demographic details of participants (N=460)
N (%) Mean SD Min Max
Age 40 26.08 3.63 19 30

Gender 1.48 0.51

Male 21 (52.5)
Female 19 (47.5)
Ethnic 2.1 0.84
Malay 12 (30)
Chinese 12 (30)
Indian 16 (40)
Religion 2.2 1.22
Islam 18 (45)
Buddhism 4 (10)
Hinduism 10 (25)
Christianity 8 (20)
Education 3.27 0.91
SPM 10 (25)
Diploma 11 (27.5)
Degree 17 (42.5)
Masters 2 (5)
Occupation 1.88 0.52
Student 8 (20)
Working 29 (72.5)
Unemployed 3 (7.5)
Know anyone 1.45 0.50
in contact that
attracted to
same sex
relationship
Yes 21 (52.5)
No 19 (47.5)
 The distribution description of participants’ attitude towards homosexuality were

recorded into descriptive statistics as shown in Table 4.2.2 and Figure 4a. Whereby the majority

75 % (n=30) respondents were Comfortable or Positive Attitudes toward homosexuality.

Followed by 10% (n =4) of respondents who captured Neutral Attitudes toward the

homosexuality. A slightly lower percentage found for Discomfort or Negative Attitudes than

Neutral Attitudes which were 7.5% (n =3). Meanwhile on Slightly Comfortable or Positive

Attitudes, there were 5% (n= 2) respondents and the lowest percentage recorded for Slightly

Discomfort or Negative Attitudes toward homosexuality about 2.5 % (n=1) respondent. To

summarise, the negatively skewed data distribution indicated that more than one half of

respondents reacts positively and feeling comfortable towards homosexuality.

Types of attitudes (Response) Percentage (%)

Discomfort/Negative 7.5 (n= 3)
Slightly Discomfort/Negative 2.5 (n= 1)
Neutral 10 (n=4)
Slightly Comfort/Positive 5 (n=2)
Comfortable/Positive 75 (n=30)
Total 100.00 (n=40)

Table 4.2.2 Distribution of participants attitude towards homosexuals.

Frequency distribution of variables under study can be referred to Table 4.2.3 whereby

the scores of attitudes towards homosexual, level of intrinsic religiosity and reproduction

knowledge of research participants were calculated and displayed. The mean values and standard

deviations (SD) of all scales used in this study were tabulated resulting attitudes towards

homosexuals to have mean score of 83.275 (SD=18.198), Meanwhile intrinsic religiosity scored

mean score as 8.225 (SD=2.29) and reproduction knowledge have mean score of 3.7 (SD=1.16).
Note. SD: Standard Deviation; Min: Minimum; Max: Maximum
n (%) Mean SD Min Max
Attitude towards 83.28 18.20 29 101
homosexuals

10 (25)
Low (< 84)
High (≥ 84) 30 (75)

Intrinsic religiosity 8.22 2.30 4 15

Low (< 8) 16 (40)
High (≥ 8) 24 (60)
Education level 3.28 0.91 2 5

Low (<3) 10 (25)

High (≥3) 30 (75)
Known contact 1.45 0.50 1 5
Yes 21 (52.5)
No 19 ( 47.5)
Table 4.2.3 : Frequency distribution of attitudes toward homosexuals, intrinsic religiosity, and
reproduction knowledge (N=40)
4.3 Research Hypotheses / Objectives

This section, data of 40 respondents who completed their questionnaires will be analysed

using correlation analysis, independent t-test and linear regression based on the research

questions of the study.

4.3.1 To investigate whether exists relationship between religiosity and attitudes towards
homosexuals among young adults in Malaysia.

Duke University Religion Index (DUREL) scores and Attitudes toward Homosexuality

Scale (ATH Scale) scores were compared. The mean score for (DUREL) is 8.225 and for (ATH)

is 83.275. The minimum score recorded as 4.0 for (DUREL) and 29.0 for (ATH). Meanwhile the

maximum score for (DUREL) is 14.0 and (ATH) is 101.0. Lastly the standard deviation shows

(DUREL) scores as 2.293 and (ATH) as 18.20.

Variable Mean Minimum Maximum Standard

Deviation
DUREL scores 8.23 4 14 2.29

ATH scores 4.375 1 5 1.23

Table 4.3.1.1 Descriptive statistic of DUREL and ATH scores

A Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was computed to assess the

relationship between the religiosity level using DUREL score and attitude towards homosexuals

using ATH scores. There was negatively weak correlated between variables, r = -0.375, n=40,

p=0.017 as shown in Fig 4a. A scatterplot summarized the results Fig 4b as no correlation and no

significance.
 Therefore, the objective is not accepted since the no relation and significant relationship

between religion and attitude towards homosexuals. Which mean any increase or decrease in

religious score from DUREL scores that does not impact the attitude towards homosexual from

ATH score. Fig 4b shows points on scatter plot not trending up or down but scattered randomly

which explains that no correlation between variables.

Fig 4a

Fig 4b
4.3.2 To determine whether different level of education have significant relationship with attitude

towards homosexuals.

Table 4.3.2.1 shows respective means of each education level towards ATH scores. The

order from least ATH score to most scored ATH that represent acceptance of homosexuality as

follows: Diploma (M= 4.18; N=11) followed by SPM (M=4.40; N=10) then Degree (M=4.47;

N=17). So, the most scored is Masters level (M=4.5; N=2).

Attitudes scores

Education Mean (M) Frequency (N) Standard Deviation

SPM 4.40 10 1.35

Diploma 4.18 11 1.47

Degree 4.47 17 1.13

Masters 4.5 2 0.71

Table 4.3.2.1 Descriptive Statistics of ATH scores for all level of education.

A One-way ANOVA was conducted to compare the influence of education level and the

scores of attitudes towards homosexuals. An analysis of variance showed that the influence of

education level on homophobia was not significant, F (3, 36) = 0.123, p = 0.946. The ANOVA

determined that there was no significant difference for ATH scores among education level.

Attitude score (ATH)

Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig
Between 0.603 3 0.201 0.123 0.946
group
Within 58.77 36 1.63
group
Total 59.37 39
Table 4.3.2.2 ANOVA table of ATH scores between Education level.
4.3.3 To determine if knowing someone in contact list as homosexual has a significant

relationship with attitude towards homosexuals.

The independent t-test was used to determine the mean difference of ATH scores among

Known contact (Yes= 1) and Unknown contact (No =0). The result is tabulated below in Table

4.3.3.1. The total number of respondents in the study was N=40, whereby 22 admitted of

knowing someone in their contact list who is attracted to same sex relationship while 18

confirmed of not knowing anyone in their contact list who attracted to same sex relationship. So,

people who already had contact with homosexual are actually more by 4 than people who never

had contact with homosexuals. The results show that there was a significant difference in mean

score for Yes known contact (M=4.77) and No known contact (M=3.89); t (38) = 1.242,

p=0.015. The mean difference of ATH scores for Yes and No group of Known contact is 13.83.

So, knowing someone in contact list such as friends, family or relatives who are

homosexual does have influence on attitude towards homosexuals. Meaning more positive

attitude towards homosexuals when he/she already have contact. Therefore, the hypothesis that

there is a significant relationship between known contact and attitude towards homosexuals is

accepted.

Known N Mean Mean Sig t df

contact Difference
ATH Yes 22 89.5 13.83 0.015 2.56 38
scores
ATH No 18 75.67 13.83 2.434 26.513
scores
Table 4.3.3.1 Independent T-test for ATH scores between Known contact.
4.4 Discussion of Results

There have been number of studies carried out for attitudes towards homosexuals, the

scope tend to focus on attitude of undergraduate students and medical professionals (Ng et al

2015; Fong et al 2019) reported how homosexuals perceived and treated negatively. Question

arise how a multicultural and religious country like Malaysia allow the existence of homosexual

community? Logical speaking ‘There is no smoke without fire’ which means the population of

homosexuals will never visibly increase if there is no acceptance among Malaysian society.

Thus, this study was carried out in order to ascertain this doubt. Attitude were assessed to

variables of education, religion (religiosity scale)and contact (with homosexual) via demographic

questionnaires (see appendix A), while use Attitudes towards Homosexuality (ATH) scale and

Duke University Religion Index (DUREL) to assess attitude and religiosity (see appendix B and

C).

Tabulated data in Table 4.2.2 show 25% responded negative or lower score for young

adults’ attitude towards homosexual, leaving the majority 75% that achieve positive or higher

score on attitude towards homosexuals. Research objectives and hypotheses were tested whereby

result revealed only one hypothesis was met while two more rejected. The only accepted

hypothesis, having relationship with known for homosexual proved to have significant

relationship with attitude towards homosexuals. While results for other two hypotheses,

religiosity and education level proved no significant relationship or influence on attitude towards

homosexuals.
Hypothesis 1: There is a significant negative relationship between intrinsic religiosity and

attitudes toward homosexuals among young adults in Malaysia. Whereby highly religious

individual exhibit more negative attitude towards homosexuals.

Finding of this hypothesis seems contradict with existing studies (Ahmad et al 2015; Ng

et al 2015) that strongly argued Malaysians disapproval towards homosexuals due to religion.

Existing data shows respondents who score high score in religiosity tend to score both type of

attitude score, high and low score in attitude towards homosexuals. While it make sense that high

score religiosity with low score in attitude is true with (Ahmad et al 2015, Azrowani et al 2012)

but investigation was carried out why another result occur which was high score religiosity with

high score of attitude. This outcome seems similar to findings with (Batson, Denton, and

Vollmecke 2008) they nailed that younger people were mitigating the refusal of conservative

interpretation of own religion towards homosexuality by being consistent with universal

compassion of religious tradition. In other word, being less prejudice leads to positively reacting

towards homosexuals. In this study, respondents score high on following questionnaires (item no

7: I do not really find the thought of homosexual acts disgusting), (no 13: Homosexuality, as far

as I am concerned, is not sinful), (item no 17: I would not decline membership in an

organization just because it had homosexual members), (no 18: I would vote for a homosexual in

an election for public office) and (item no 19: If I knew someone were gay, I would still go ahead

and form a friendship with that individual) overall exhibit less prejudice. Besides that,

(Droogenbroeck, Spruyt, Siongers, & Keppens, 2016) defended that being intolerant towards

homosexuals not related to being religious but depending on how religion being experienced.
 Furthermore, sense of curiosity also another factor on why young adults exhibit higher

score towards homosexuals while being religious. This can be seen when working young adults

high in religiosity level tend to score high this attitude questionnaire (item no 14: I would not

mind being employed by a homosexual). Notably majority respondents are working adults 72.5%

(Table 4.2.1) who are attached to MNC (Multinational corporation) companies where employers

highly enforce workforce diversity for greater efficiency and company profits. For example,

HSBC Hong Kong gave rainbow makeover to their brand icon, the pair of lions (Cheung 2016).

Such action cannot openly argue because of the existing religious condemnation and

criminalized under the law of Malaysia (Manalastas et al 2017) deterred these employers on

willingly express dissenting thinking in which related to openness to experiences. In other word,

individuals of high in openness in experience tend to demonstrate higher level of curiosity

because of vivid emotions where prejudice or other negative attitudes has no place (Cullen,

Wright and Alessandri 2002). In short, this explain why no correlation significant relationship

exist between religiosity and attitude towards homosexuals among young adults.
Hypothesis 2: There is a significant relationship between education and attitudes toward

homosexuals among undergraduate students in Malaysia. Whereby highly educated individual

behaves positively towards homosexuals.

The mentioned hypothesis was made to cater the need of investigating which education

level likely influence attitude towards homosexuals in which differs from existing studies where

investigating gender differences (Manalastas et al 2017; Azrowani et al 2012). Obtained result

showed education shows no significant relationship in attitude towards homosexuals. The idea to

test this variable (education) against attitude towards homosexual was to due strong argument

from existing study (Cao, Wang, and Gao 2010) who mentioned educated individidual are open-

minded because accept new thoughts and opinions so can they can promote positive attitude to

homosexuality. Moreover, the aim of this study is to eliminate prejudice against homosexuals.

Result revealed education level of research participants did not correspond symmetrically

towards attitude but contain mixture attitude responds. Meaning neither positive nor negative

relationship towards attitude to homosexual. For example, secondary education level (SPM)

recorded higher attitude score than diploma holder. Which mean lower academic qualification

scores higher score for attitude comparatively to higher academic qualification. Meanwhile,

Masters level respondents held the highest attitude score compare to any other education level.

Obtained findings conflicts with past research (Feng et al 2012) stated that higher education

significantly associates with positive perception and attitude towards homosexuals.

Hypothesis 3: The is significant relationship between knowing someone as homosexual with

attitude towards homosexuals. Whereby individual demonstrate higher score of attitudes towards

homosexual when have known contact of being homosexuals.

Independent T-Tests was conducted to assess attitudes in relation to contact with

homosexual. The variable contact assessed by asking respondents on the demographic

questionnaire “Do you know anyone in your contact list (like family members, relatives, friends,

or colleagues) who are attracted to same sex relationship?” (Refer Appendix A). Thus,

respondents who affirm of knowing and having contact with homosexuals were classified as

‘Yes’ and who denied the question by not having any contact with at least one homosexual

classified as ‘No’. Almost half 52.5% responded ‘Yes’ and 47.5% responded ‘No’ which shows

little difference occurred in this variable that is 5%. The finding seems synonym with existing

studies (Collier, Henny, & Sandfort, 2012; Detenber, Ho, Neo, Malik, & Cenite, 2013) that

stated individuals who have contact with homosexuals held more positive attitude towards

homosexuals. According to (Dawkins 2012) being in contact with homosexuals fosters

interpersonal relationship and personal frame of references since heterosexual individuals

helping themselves to move beyond own personal biases. Thus, that explain on how overall

respondents exhibits more positive attitude towards homosexuals.

 CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1 Introduction

This chapter summarise and concludes the major findings of research questions, research

limitation, implication of the results and recommendations.

5.2 Summary and Conclusion

Homosexuals have been negatively portrayed and mistreated by society and government

of Malaysia. This research intended to identify factors that contribute young adults’ attitude to

homosexual. Thus, intrinsic religiosity, education and having contact with homosexuals were

identified factor that likely to influence young adults’ attitude towards homosexual.

Total of 40 individuals who stay in Klang Valley with mean age of 26.08 (SD=3.63) were

recruited through convenient sampling. This study used quantitative approach and correlational

survey design. Chosen instrument were Duke University Religion Index (DUREL) and Attitudes

toward Homosexuality Scale (ATH) to measure intrinsic religiosity and how favourable or

unfavourable attitude towards homosexuals. Majority of them were Indian (40%), followed by

Malays and Chinese (30%) respectively. In religion group, majority were from Islam (45%),

followed by Hinduism (25%), Christianity (20%) and lastly Buddhism (10%). The result of

correlation test showed no correlation and no significant relationship present between religiosity

and attitude towards homosexuals. The study also found that education differences does not

influence young adults’ attitude towards homosexuals despite having multitudes of research

which support the hypothesis. The final variable was tested using Independent T-Test revealed

significant relationship occur between having contact with homosexual tend to impact young

adults’ attitude towards homosexual.

 This study was conducted in the effort to identify type of attitude imposed by young

adults towards minority group known as homosexuals. Despite being religious, some individuals

exhibit higher positive. These people think that their actions are not against the teachings of

religion because they are taught to respect the human rights of others. Although hypothesis of

education influence on attitude towards homosexuals fail, this is an indication that people are no

longer justifying homosexual from gender differences in which claimed and contradict with

existing study (Ng et al 2015). The unexpected results gained from this study likely to serve as

platform for better dimensions in relation to homosexuals.

5.3 Research Implication

This study has implications for the any professions such as teachers, medical practitioner

including students and the religion bodies.

5.3.1 Theoretical Implication

To conduct present study, attribution theory was selected as guideline for theoretical

framework. The process of explaining one’s own behaviour and the behaviour of other people is

called attribution. So, attribution theory can be defined as theory of how people make attribution.

According to Myer (2010), this theory formed by two kind of explanation which are internal

disposition and external situations. Internal disposition known as process that caused behaviour

to happen due to the person’s internal personality characteristics which being the cause and does

not involve external forces. Meanwhile, external situation means causes the behaviour to happen

because of external forces like situational or environment features and not within internal

control. The attribution theory got extended when B.Weiner furthered the theory’s concept by

introducing the concept of controllability (Whitehead 2014). Simply means any behaviour

defined as ‘controllable’ then whoever imitate that attitude considered personal responsibility
while behaviour labelled ‘uncontrollable’ then the shown behaviour regarded less liable

(Whitehead 2014). Stigmatizing minority group like homosexual is an example of attributions of

controllability (Detenber et al 2012).

Whitehead (2014) postulated attitude was influenced by number of factors whereby

religious beliefs was one of the powerful predictors. Usually individual’s religiosity denoted as

causal attribution about homosexuality that form attitude negatively. For example, religious

people usually against homosexuality because perceived as sinful act and against nature.

Research conducted by (Patrick 2012 ) mentioned religious bodies responsible on influencing the

explanation pertaining homosexual by framing negatively so then assumption that homosexual is

crime and against nature is developed among those who attend churches frequently. Therefore,

from the perspective of causal attribution intrinsic religiosity shaped homosexuals negatively.

The discussion placed by (Manaslastas et al 2007) about findings about negative attitude

towards homosexuality in Malaysia using education as causal attribution seems did not meet the

hypothesis of this study as well. Whereby no significant relationship recognises to present

between non religion education (formal education) with attitude towards homosexuals in this

study. The presence of attribution theory can be seen when explaining people’s attitude towards

homosexuals by looking into the influence of education especially non-religious education

including sex reproduction knowledge will later influence his or her attitude. For example,

research of (Feng et al 2012) found higher education level and having more sexual and

reproduction health knowledge individuals have open attitude towards homosexuals. That means,

those with lower education unable to accept that homosexuality from the biology perspective as

they view homosexual as “controlled behaviour” and exhibit more unfavourable attitude towards

homosexuals.
 On the other hand, when having contact with homosexual become the causal attribution

then participants tend to be more tolerant towards homosexual individual by believing it due to

‘equally fair and square’ treatment (Swank & Raiz 2010). Even findings of Baunach and Burgess

(2010) revealed type of contact that research respondents had on determining positive attitude. In

other word, numbers of contact or how intimate the relationship with homosexual people likely

plays important role in reducing negative attitude as that leads to discrimination and hate crime.

Interaction that formed from contact enable to foster interpersonal relationship while dispel

stereotypic depictions. Based on attribution theory, people with ‘equality’ belief accept the role

of homosexuals where no space for prejudice.

In attribution theory, people will perceive certain behaviour as acceptable or not

according to their norms, beliefs or cultures. If their perception been fixed with the negative

perceptions concerning homosexuality from the beginning, it will attribute that homosexuality is

wrong and unacceptable to them. Thus, external factors such as high level of education or

religious exposure or more contact with homosexual will never influence an individual who

score positive attitude towards homosexual when he/she practices non-prejudice behaviour in

which regarded as internal attribution. In short having different approaches of attribution for

homosexuality we can determine whether people nowadays able to tolerate and provide respect

for homosexuals. In case initial perception been fixed negatively, then most likely that become

an attribution that consider homosexuality as deviant act and unacceptable by society.

 5.3.2 Practical Implication and Suggestion

In this country, Malaysia limited information available pertaining homosexuals. Thus,

organizing awareness on educating public for better understanding can use this study as

referencing platform. This is because finding shows how well public are accepting homosexuals.

Emphasize need to give whether attitude towards homosexuals can help to reduce prejudice and

discrimination or not. Moreover, it is recommended to reconduct the studies previously made to

determine the validity of the facts of their study. This is because the change of time can change

the opinion that influences the actions of the individual towards the minority.

5.4 Limitation and Suggestion

Any study will certainly have flaws as well as this study. Data collection methods can

be improved by allowing research participants to fill in the feedback where bias likely to happen.

Using convenient sampling and obtained results might not accurately reflect the attitude of

studied population (young adults) whereby bias may take place when generalizing findings. For

future studies, random sampling is highly recommended on studying people’s attitude towards

homosexuality. In addition, the scope of this study could have broader perspectives instead of

having lesser variables such as education, religiosity and having contact. Thus, including such as

gender differences and difference in socioeconomics that served as mediated exposure of

homosexual study is recommended for future studies. Ratio of any level of educated people

could have been considered where more lesser educated individuals to be recruited for future

study. Furthermore, longitudinal research design method can be considered for future study since

this method allow us to detect causes and effects on studied variables.

Referencing

“30% of Malaysian men are gay, „gay rehab needed: Malaysian official”. (2012). Retrieved from

http://www.fridae.asia/gay-news/2012/03/23/11617.30-ofmalaysian-men-are-gay-gay-

rehab-needed-malaysian-official

Adamczyk, A and Pitt, C (2009) Shaping attitudes about homosexuality: The role of religion and

cultural context. Social Science Research, 38(2), 338–351.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.01.002

Ahmad, M I , Adnan, H , Abd Satar, J , Wan Sulaiman, W S , Jaafar, W , Abidin, J and Zain, W

(2015). Faktor Dan Cara Gaya Hidup Serta Kemungkinan Kembali Pulih Dalam

Kalangan Lesbian : Satu Kajian Kes (Lifestyle Factors and Possible Recovery among

Lesbians: A Case Study ). Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities. 10. 1-15, ISSN:

1823-884x

Altemeyer B. (2001). Changes in attitudes toward homosexuals. Journal of homosexuality, 42(2),

63–75. https://doi.org/10.1300/j082v42n02_04

American Psychological Association & National Association of School Psychologists. (2015).

Resolution on gender and sexual orientation diversity in children and adolescents in

schools. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/about/policy/orientation-diversity.aspx

APA. (n.d.). Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender. Retrieved October 28, 2020, from
https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt
Azrowani U, M R, Azlina, Z, Omar Fauzee, MS, & Rozita, A L (2012) Perception towards

Homosexual Athletes in Malaysia. International Proceedings of Economics Development

& Research;2012, P25, 53, 25. doi:10.7763/IPEDR. 2012. V53. 6. Retrieved from

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Perception-towards-Homosexual-Athletes-in-

Malaysia-Ulia-Fauzee/d18f238f62b7473ef42c72a2a1ad9c423af553ea?p2df

Baba, I (2001). Gay and Lesbian Couples in Malaysia. Journal of Homosexuality, 40(3-4), 143–

163. doi: 10.1300/j082v40n03_08

Batson, C. Daniel, Drew M. Denton, and Jason T. Vollmecke. 2008. Quest religion, anti-

fundamentalism, and limitedversus universal compassion.Journal for the Scientific Study

of Religion47(1):135–45

Baunach, D. M., & Burgess, E. O. (2010). Southern (dis)comfort: Sexual prejudice and

contactwith gay men and lesbians in the south. Sociological Spectrum, 30, 30-64. doi:

10.1080/02732170903340893

Besen, Y and Zicklin, G (2007) Young men, religion and attitudes towards homosexuality.

Journal of Men, Masculinities and Spirituality, 1(3), 250-266. Retrieved from

http://www.jmmsweb.org/issues/volume1/number3/pp250-266

Cao, H, Wang, P and Gao, Y (2010) A Survey of Chinese University Students’ Perceptions of

and Attitudes Towards Homosexuality. Social Behavior and Personality: An International

Journal, 38(6), 721–728. doi:10.2224/sbp.2010.38.6.721

Carl, S (2019). Types of Education: Formal, Informal & Non-formal. Retrieved October 07,

2020, from http://www.passionineducation.com/types-of-education-formal-informal-non-

formal/
Carr, S., & Spandler, H. (2019). Hidden from history? A brief modern history of the psychiatric

“treatment” of lesbian and bisexual women in England. The Lancet Psychiatry.

doi:10.1016/s2215-0366(19)30059-8

Carroll, A., & Mendos, R. (2017, May). State Sponsored Homophobia. A World Survey of Sexual

Orientation Laws: Criminalisation, Protection and Recognition. International Lesbian,

Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA). Retrieved from

https://www.refworld.org/docid/59e615f64.html

Che Noh, N (2018) LGBT dianggap penyakit mental, amat membimbangkan - Mufti Selangor.

BH Online. Retrieved August 21, 2020, from

https://www.bharian.com.my/berita/nasional/2018/09/470188/lgbt-dianggap-penyakit-

mental-amat-membimbangkan-mufti-selangor

Cheung, H. (2016). Hong Kong rainbow lions spark LGBT rights debate. Retrieved November

25, 2020, from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-38221400

Chi, X and Hawk, S T (2016) Attitudes toward Same-Sex Attraction and Behavior among

Chinese University Students: Tendencies, Correlates, and Gender Differences. Frontiers

in Psychology, 7. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01592

Cochran, S. D., Drescher, J., Kismödi, E., Giami, A., García-Moreno, C., Atalla, E., . . . Reed, G.

M. (2014). Proposed declassification of disease categories related to sexual orientation in

theInternational Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems(ICD-

11). Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 92(9), 672-679.

doi:10.2471/blt.14.135541
Collier, K. L., Henny, M. W., & Sandfort, G. M. T. (2012). Intergroup contact, attitudes toward

homosexuality, and the role of acceptance of gender non-conformity in young

adolescents. Journal of Adolescents, 35(4), 899-907. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.

12.010

Cullen, J M, Wright, L W, & Alessandri, M (2002). The Personality Variable Openness to

Experience as It Relates to Homophobia. Journal of Homosexuality, 42(4), 119–134. doi:

10.1300/j082v42n04_08

Dawkins, M (2012) Do attitudes toward lesbians and gay men differ among heterosexual

collegiate student-athletes and student non-athletes?

De Houwer J, Thomas, S, and Baeyens, F (2001). Association learning of likes and dislikes: A

review of 25 years of research on human evaluative conditioning. Psychological Bulletin,

127(6), 853-869.

Detenber, B. H., Ho, S. S., Neo, R. L., Malik, S., & Cenite, M. (2013). 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. doi:

10.1111/ajsp.12006

Droogenbroeck, F. V., Spruyt, B., Siongers, J., & Keppens, G. (2016). Religious Quest

Orientation and Anti-Gay Sentiment: Nuancing the Relationship Between Religiosity and

Negative Attitudes Toward Homosexuality Among Young Muslims and Christians in

Flanders. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 1-14. doi:10.1111/jssr.12303

 Feng, Y, Lou, C, Gao, E, Tu, X, Cheng, Y, Emerson, M R and Zabin, L S (2012) Adolescents’

and Young Adults’ Perception of Homosexuality and Related Factors in Three Asian

Cities. Journal of Adolescent Health, 50(3), S52–S60.

doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.12.008

Foong A, Liow J, Nalliah S, Low, W Y, Samy A and Fazli K Z (2019). Attitudes of Future

Doctors Towards LGBT Patients in Conservative Malaysian Society. Sexuality & Culture.

24. 10.1007/s12119-019-09685-5.

Hirschmann, R. (2016, October 18). Malaysia: Opinion on legality of being LGBT member

2016. Retrieved September 11, 2020, from

https://www.statista.com/statistics/720687/opinion-on-legality-of-being-lgbt-member-in-

malaysia/

Jerome, C (2013) The Complexity of Malay Muslims Identity in Dina Zaman’s I Am Muslim.

GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 13(2), 169-179. ISSN: 1675-8021

Koenig, H G, and Büssing, A (2010) The Duke University Religion Index (DUREL): A Five-

Item Measure for Use in Epidemological Studies. Religions, 1(1), 78-85.

doi:10.3390/rel1010078

Lambert, E G, Ventura, L A, Hall, D E, & Cluse-Tolar, T (2006) College students’ views on gay

and lesbian issues: Does education make a difference? Journal of Homosexuality, 50, 1-

30. doi: 10.1300/J082v50n04_01

Landén, M., & Innala, S. (2002). The effect of a biological explanation on attitudes towards

homosexual persons. A Swedish national sample study. Nordic journal of psychiatry,

56(3), 181–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/080394802317607156

Landicho, D L C, Aliwalas, M RG, Buenaventura, M J B and Rodriguez, L M (2014) Religiosity

and attitudes towards homosexuals among adolescents. Asia Pacific Journal of

Multidisciplinary Research| Vol, 2(3). Retrieved from

https://research.lpubatangas.edu.ph/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/APJMR-Religiosity-

and-Attitudes-towards-Homosexuals-among-Adolescents.pdf

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.

Mayang, A and Sarah, N (2019) Europe Solidaire Sans Frontières. Retrieved October 03, 2020,

from http://www.europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article49802

McGee, R. W. (2016). Does Religion Influence Views Toward Homosexuality?: An Empirical

Study of 16 Countries. Retrieved from SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2799871

Merriam-webster. (n.d.). Homosexual. Retrieved October 28, 2020, from https://www.merriam-

webster.com/dictionary/homosexual

Myers, D. G. (2010). Social Psychology. (10th ed.). Singapore: McGraw-Hill

Ng, C G, Yee, A, Subramaniam, P, Loh, H S, & Moreira, P (2015) Attitude toward

homosexuality among nursing students in a public university in Malaysia: The religious

factor. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 12(1), 182-187. doi: 10.1007/s 13178-015-

0182-0
 Nguyen, T. Q., & Blum, R. W. (2014). Homosexuality Tolerance Among Male and Female

Vietnamese Youth: An Examination of Traditional Sexual Values, Self-Esteem, and

Demographic/Contextual Characteristics. Journal of Adolescent Health, 55(6), 823–829.

doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.07.011

Olson, J M, Vernon, P A, Harris, J A, Harris, J A and Jang, K L (2001) The heritability of

attitudes: A study of twins. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(6), 845–

860

Park, J R, & Ramírez-Johnson, J (2016). The Impact of Education on Views of Homosexuality in

the Senior Clergy of Hidalgo County, Texas. Journal of Religion and Health, 55(3), 778–

786. doi:10.1007/s10943-015-0173-8

Pascarella, E T, and Terenzini, P T (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of

research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Patrick, A. A. (2012). Religious participation and attitudes towards homosexual marriage and

civil unions (Unpublished master thesis). Retrieved from

http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/gs_rp/281

Peletz, M (2006) Transgenderism and Gender Pluralism in Southeast Asia since Early Modern

Times. Current Anthropology, 47(2), p 312

Pickens, J (2005) Attitudes and Perceptions. Organizational Behavior in Health Care. Retrieved

August 21, 2020, from

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267362543_Attitudes_and_Perceptions
Sheldon, J P, Pfeffer, C A, Jayaratne, T E, Feldbaum, M & Petty, E M (2007). Beliefs about the

etiology of homosexuality and about the ramifications of discovering its possible genetic

origin. Journal of homosexuality, 52(3-4), 111–150.

https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v52n03_06

Slootmaeckers, K., & Lievens, J. (2014). Cultural Capital and Attitudes Toward Homosexuals:

Exploring the Relation Between Lifestyles and Homonegativity. Journal of

Homosexuality, 61(7), 962–979. doi:10.1080/00918369.2014.870848

Swank, E, & Raiz, L (2010) Attitudes toward gays and lesbians among undergraduate social

work students. Journal of Women and Social Work, 25(1), 19–29. Retrieved October 10,

2020, from SAGEPub database.

The Global Divide on Homosexuality. (2013, June 4). The Global Divide on Homosexuality.

Retrieved September 11, 2020, from

https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2013/06/04/the-global-divide-on-homosexuality/

Whitehead, A L (2014) Politics, Religion, Attribution Theory, and Attitudes Toward Same-Sex

Unions. Social Science Quarterly, 95(3), 701–718. doi:10.1111/ssqu.12085

Wienke, C., & Hill, G. J. (2013). Does Place of Residence Matter? Rural–Urban Differences

and the Wellbeing of Gay Men and Lesbians. Journal of Homosexuality, 60(9), 1256–

1279. doi:10.1080/00918369.2013.806166

Williams, C C, Forbes, J R, Placide, K and Nicol, N (2020). Religion, Hate, Love, and Advocacy

for LGBT Human Rights in Saint Lucia. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 17(4),

729-740. doi:10.1007/s13178-020-00429-x
 World Report 2013 – Malaysia. (2013). Human Rights Watch. Retrieved from

http://www.ecoi.net/local_link/237150/346153_en.html

Youthpolicy. (2014). Malaysia: Factsheets. Retrieved October 28, 2020, from

https://www.youthpolicy.org/factsheets/country/malaysia/

Yunus, A., & Landau, E. (2019, July 03). 'Youth' now defined as those between 15 and 30: New

Straits Times. Retrieved November 29, 2020, from

https://www.nst.com.my/news/nation/2019/07/501288/youth-now-defined-those-between-

15-and-30
 Appendix 1
Part A Demographic details

Instruction: Kindly fill in your personal detail. Tick on your preference box

1. Are you homosexual or heterosexual?

2. Age: ________

3. Gender: Female Male

4. Ethnicity:
Chinese Indian

Malay Others:
Pls state:____________

5. Religion : Islam Hindu Buddhism

Sikhism Christianity

Others Pls state:____________

s:

6. Education level :
UPSR SRP/PMR/PT3 SPM/ O Diplom
level a
Degree Masters

7. Occupation:
Students Others Pls state:____________
s:

8. Do you know anyone in your contact list (like family members, relatives, friends, or
colleagues) who are attracted to same sex relationship?

Yes No
 Appendix 2
Part B

Directions: Please read the following items and circle on the number to indicate how much you
agree/disagree to the following statement.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

No. Items Scale

1. I would not mind having a homosexual friend. 1 2 3 4 5
2. Finding out that an artist was gay would have no effect on my 1 2 3 4 5
appreciation of his/her work.
3. I would not associate with known homosexuals if I can help it. 1 2 3 4 5
4. I would look for a new place to live if I found out my roommate 1 2 3 4 5
was gay.
5. Homosexuality is a mental illness. 1 2 3 4 5
6. I would not be afraid for my child to have a homosexual teacher. 1 2 3 4 5
7. I do not really find the thought of homosexual acts disgusting. 1 2 3 4 5
8. Homosexual are more likely to commit deviant sexual acts, such as 1 2 3 4 5
child molestation, rape than are heterosexuals.
9. Homosexuals should be kept separate from the rest of society (i.e., 1 2 3 4 5
separate housing, restricted employment and no toilet sharing).
10. Two individual of the same sex holding hands or displaying 1 2 3 4 5
affection in public revolting.
11. The love between two males or two females is quite different from 1 2 3 4 5
the love between two persons of the opposite sex.
12. I see the gay movement as a positive thing. 1 2 3 4 5
13. Homosexuality, as far as I am concerned, is not sinful 1 2 3 4 5
14. I would not mind being employed by a homosexual 1 2 3 4 5
15. Homosexuals should be forced to have psychological treatment. 1 2 3 4 5
16. The increasing acceptance of homosexuality in our society is aiding 1 2 3 4 5
in the deterioration of morals.
17. I would not decline membership in an organization just because it 1 2 3 4 5
had homosexual members.
18. I would vote for a homosexual in an election for public office. 1 2 3 4 5
19. If I knew someone were gay, I would still go ahead and form a 1 2 3 4 5
friendship with that individual.
20. If I were a parent, I could accept my son or daughter being gay. 1 2 3 4 5
 Appendix 3
Part C : Duke University Religion Index (DUREL)

Instruction: Please circle to rate your opinion on each statement

1. How often do you attend church or other religious meetings?

Never Once a year Several times in Several times Once a More than once in
or less a year in a month week a week
1 2 3 4 5 6

2. How often you spend for private/personal religious activities like prayers, meditation or
classes like bible study/ devaram/ recite quran class?
Never Once a year Several times in Several times Once a More than once in
or less a year in a month week a week
1 2 3 4 5 6

3. In my life, I experience the presence of the Divine (i.e., God)

Definitely Tend to be Unsure Tend to be Definitely

not true not true true true of me
1 2 3 4 5

4. My religious belief is what really lie behind my whole approach to life.

Definitely Tend to be Unsure Tend to be Definitely

not true not true true true of me
1 2 3 4 5

5. I try hard to carry my religion over into all other dealings in life.

Definitely Tend to be Unsure Tend to be Definitely

not true not true true true of me
1 2 3 4 5

View publication stats