SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Cankaya University Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences / 2013 / Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 1

Prejudice against Homosexuality and Locus of Control

Ozanser UĞURLU
Editörden
Pages
1–12
Publication Date
2013-02-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Regression analysisshowed that belief in fate was the only significant predictor of the prejudice against homosexuality

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The purpose of the study was to explore the relationship between prejudice against homosexuality,internal-external locus of control, sex differences and social contact.
📊
Key Findings & Data:A total of 198 university studentsfrom various Turkish universities participated in this study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Regression analysisshowed that belief in fate was the only significant predictor of the prejudice against homosexuality
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:ANAHTAR KEL‹MELEReflcinsellik · önyargı · iç-dıfl kontrol oda¤ı

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to explore the relationship between prejudice against homosexuality,internal-external locus of control, sex differences and social contact. A total of 198 university studentsfrom various Turkish universities participated in this study. The mean age of the participants was 21.14(SD = 2.38). The participants filled Hudson and Ricketts’ 25-item Attitudes toward Homosexuality Scale,Internal-External Locus of Control Scale, and demographic variables including sex differences, socialcontact and age. The prejudice against homosexuality were only correlated with the sub-factors of externallocus of control namely belief in fate, meaninglessness of effortfulness, and belief in chance. The performedANOVA presented that the main effects of the level of external locus of control, sex differences, and socialcontact were only statistically significant, but there were no interactions between them. Regression analysisshowed that belief in fate was the only significant predictor of the prejudice against homosexuality

Özet

Bu çalıflmanın amacı eflcinselli¤e iliflkin önyargılı tutumlar ile içsel-dıflsal kontrol oda¤ı, cinsiyet far- kı ve sosyal temas arasındaki iliflkiyi arafltırmaktır. Türkiye’deki çeflitli üniversitelerden 198 ö¤renci bu ça- lıflmaya katılmıfltır. Katılımcıların yafl ortalaması 21.14 (SS = 2.38) de¤erindedir. Katılımcılar Hudson ve Ricketts’ın 25 maddelik Eflcinselli¤e iliflkin Tutumlar Ölçe¤i, ‹ç-dıfl Kontrol Oda¤ı Ölçe¤i ve cinsiyet, sos- yal temas ve yaflı içeren demografik bilgi fromunu doldurmufllardır. Eflcinselli¤e iliflkin önyargılı tutumlar sadece dıfl kontrol oda¤ının kadere inanç, çabanın anlamsızlı¤ı ve flansa inanç alt faktörleri ile korelayon göstermifltir. ANOVA sonucuna göre, dıfl kontrol oda¤ı, cinsiyet farkı ve sosyal temas ana etkileri istatis- tiksel olarak anlamlı bulunmufltur. Ancak, bu de¤iflkenler arası etkileflim bulunamamıfltır. Ayrıca, yapılan regresyon analizi sonucuna göre eflcinselli¤e iliflkin önyargıyı kader inanç alt unsuru anlamlı bir flekilde yordamıfltır

🔖

Cite This Article

UĞURLU, O., Editörden, E. (2013). Prejudice against Homosexuality and Locus of Control. Cankaya University Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 1, 1–12. https://ajindex.com/articles/58344

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (8)

  1. Aguero, J. E., L. Bloch, and D. Byrne. “The Relationships Among Sexual Beliefs, Attitudes, Experience and Homophobia,” Journal of Homosexuality, 10 (1984), pp.95-107.
  2. Akrami, N., B. Ekehammar, and T. Araya. “Classical and Modern Racial Prejudice: A Study of Attitudes toward Immigrants in Sweden,” European Journal of Social Psychology, 30 (2000), pp.521–532.
  3. Crandall, C. S., S D’Anello, N. Sakall›, E. Lazarus, G. W. Nejtardt, N. T. Feather. Attribution-value Model of Prejudice: Anti-fat Attitudes in Six Nations,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27 (2001), pp.30-37. Ç›rako¤lu, O. C. “Perception of Homosexuality Among Turkish University Students: The Role of Labels, Sex Differences and Prior Contact,” The Journal of Social Psychology, 146/3 (2006), pp.293-305. Da¤, I. “Rotter’in ‹ç-D›fl Kontrol Oda¤› Ölçe¤i’nin Üniversite Ö¤rencileri ‹çin Güvenirli¤i ve Geçerli¤i (Validitiy and Reliability of Rotter’s Internal-External Locus of Control Scale with Turkish University Students),” Psikoloji Dergisi (Turkish Journal of Psychology), 7 (1991), pp.10-16. Da¤, I. “Kontrol Oda¤›, Ö¤renilmifl Güçlülük ve Psikopatoloji ‹liflkileri (The Relations Among Locus of Control, Learned Resourcefulness and Psychopathology),” Türk Psikoloji Dergisi (Turkish Journal of Psychology), 7 (1992), pp.1-9. Da¤, I. “The Relationship among Paranormal Beliefs, Locus of Control and Psychopathology in a Turkish College Students,” Personality and Individual Differences, 26 (1999), pp.723-737. Da¤, I. “Kontrol Oda¤› Ölçe¤i (KOÖ): Ölçek Gelifltirme, Güvenirlik ve Geçerlik Çal›flmas› (Locus of Control Scale: Scale Development, Reliability and Validity Study),” Türk Psikoloji Dergisi (Turkish Journal of Psyhcology), 17/49, (2002), pp.77-92.
  4. Duyan, V., and G. Duyan. “Turkish Social Work Students’ Attitudes Toward Sexuality,” Sex Roles, 52/9,10 (2005), pp.697-706.
  5. Ellis, A. L. and R. B. Vasseur. “Prior interpersonal contact with and attitudes towards gays and lesbians in an interviewing context,” Journal of Homosexuality, 25/4 (1993), pp.31-45.
  6. Ficarrotto, T. J. “Racism, Sexism, and Erotophobia: Attitudes of Heterosexuals Toward Homosexuals,” Journal of Homosexuality, 19/1, (1990), pp.111-116.
  7. Glick, P., and T. S. P. Fiske. “The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating Hostile and Benevolent Sexism,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70 (1996), pp.491-512.
  8. Haddock, G., M. P. Zanna, and V. M. Esses. “Assessing the structure of prejudicial attitudes: The case of attitudes toward h