Research Group
The study group of the research consisted of 202 students studying in different departments of Çukurova University.
a total of 320 students, including girls (63%) and 118 boys (37%); students age
The average was calculated as 22.14. 11% of those in the study group are villages, 6%
town/subdistrict, 25% stated that they live in a district, 15% in a city and 42% in a metropolitan city.
It is seen that the students in the study group are mostly from the Mediterranean Region (66%).
This region is followed by Southeast (12%), Central Anatolia (8%), Eastern Anatolia (6%), Aegean (3%),
Black Sea (3%) and Marmara (2%) regions follow.
Data Collection Tools
Hudson and Ricket Homophobia Scale (HRRS): HRHÖ measures attitudes towards homosexual individuals.
It is a 25-item scale developed by Hudson and Ricketts (1980) in order to In research,
The Turkish form of the scale, which consists of 24 items adapted by Sakallı and Uğurlu (2001), was used.
Internal consistency coefficient calculated for the Turkish version of the scale. 94 (Sakallı and Uğurlu, 2001). in scale
Each item is rated from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). from scale
A high score indicates a high level of homophobia.
Bem Gender Role Inventory (BCRE): The BCRE was originally 20 femininity, 20 masculinity and 20 social
consists of an item of likability and these items are presented in a single scale in mixed order.
is implemented. The extent to which these items describe themselves as “1. Not at all Appropriate,
7: Totally Appropriate.
Two separate scores are obtained from the (F) and Masculinity (M) scales. The median of these scores
According to the median, which of the androgen, masculine, feminine and ambiguous gender roles the subject has?
is determined. Femininity score is above the median of femininity, masculinity score is masculine
those above the median are androgynous; femininity score below the median, masculinity score
those above the median are masculine; femininity score above the median, masculinity score above the median
those below are feminine and those with two points below the median of two have ambiguous gender roles.
(Dökmen, 1999).
Sanberk, İ., Çelik, M., & Gök, M. (2016). Gender and gender roles of university students’ homophobia levels
in terms of examination. Journal of Human Sciences, 13(3), 4011-4019. doi:10.14687/jhs.v13i3.4044
4014
Analysis of Data
Two-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used for unrelated samples in the analysis of the data.
The homogeneity of the variances was checked with the Levene F Test and the homogeneity of the variances was determined.
found to be met. Since the variances are homogeneous, the groups with significant differences
Scheffe test as Post Hoc Test in order to determine from which groups the difference originates.
used. The upper margin of error for all results was accepted as 0.05 and 0.01.
RESULTS
The main main effects of university students’ homophobia levels on gender, gender roles and both
The findings obtained in this study, which aimed to determine the common effects of the variable, are given below.
presented.
The descriptive statistics of the scores of the students from the Homophobia Scale are given in Table-1.
Two-factor ANOVA results for the comparison of the edge and pore averages of the
It is given in 2.
Table 1.
Descriptive Statistics of Scores Received from the Gender Role and Homophobia Scale by Gender
Woman
Male
Total
n
x
S
n
x
S
n
x
S
Masculine
16
107.94
18.24
56
120.23
16.66
72
117.50
17.66
Feminine
74
115.26
17.36
–
–
–
74
115.26
17.36
androgynous
52
109.40
20.73
29
115.52
17.79
81
111.59
19.84
Uncertain
60
107.52
17.40
31
108.09
17.55
91
107.71
17.36
Total
202
110.87
18.55
116
115.81
17.77
318
112.67
18.39
According to the results of the analysis of variance, the average score of the women from the Homophobia Scale
There is a significant difference between (X=110.87) and men’s mean score (X=115.81) (F(1-311)=6.12,
p<.05). Accordingly, it was revealed that gender had a significant main effect on homophobia.
As can be understood from the averages, homophobia levels of male gender compared to female gender
is higher.
Table 2.
Two-Factor Anova Results on the Scores from the Homophobia Scale by Gender and Gender Role
Source of Variance
sd
KT
KO
F
P
η2
Gender
one
1970.27
1970.27
6.12
.014
.019
Gender role
3
4465.40
1488.47
4.62
.004
.043
Gender*gender role
2
1075.87
537.93
1.67
.190
.011
Error
311
100160.50
322.06
Total
318
4144320.00
When the mean scores of students showing different gender roles are compared, there is no significant difference between them.
it is seen that there are differences (F(3-311)=4.62, p<.01). According to this result, gender role on homophobia
has a significant fundamental effect. To see which gender roles there are significant differences
According to the multiple comparison test, the average homophobia of those who show masculine gender roles
(x=117.50) significantly higher than the mean of those with ambiguous gender roles (x=107.71).
high (p<.01). However, homophobia scores of those in the masculine gender role are higher than androgynous and feminine
Sanberk, İ., Çelik, M., & Gök, M. (2016). Gender and gender roles of university students’ homophobia levels
in terms of examination. Journal of Human Sciences, 13(3), 4011-4019. doi:10.14687/jhs.v13i3.4044
4015
It was determined that those in gender roles did not differ significantly from homophobia scores.
The only significant difference observed was between those in masculine and ambiguous gender roles; other gender
Homophobia scores do not differ significantly between roles. Also, gender and gender
It was determined that the common effect of the role role did not cause a significant difference in the homophobia score (F(2-311)=1.67,
p>.05). When we look at the eta square values, the effect of gender on homophobia is 02%.
It is seen that the effect of the role of the role on homophobia is 04%.
ARGUMENT
The aim of this study is to determine the gender, gender roles and both variables of university students.
to examine whether it has a common effect on the level of homophobia. The first finding
Biological gender males are significantly more homophobic than females.
it is. This finding obtained in this study is in line with the findings of previous studies.
overlap (Kite & Whitley, 1996; 1998; Bakır-Ayğar, Gündoğdu & Ayğar, 2015; Sakallı &
Uğurlu, 2001; Cullen, Wright and Alessandri, 2002; Güney et al., 2004; Çırakoğlu, 2006; Lozano,
Verduzco & Diaz-Loving, 2009; Gormley and Lopez, 2010; Costa and Davies, 2012). Herek (1994)
Based on many research findings, women are less prejudiced than men.
reveals.
Another finding reached as a result of this study is that university students’ homophobia levels are
their differentiation depending on their gender role. Looking at the source of the difference, masculine gender
that those who show their role are more homophobic than those who show ambiguous gender roles.
finding has been reached. Gender roles are appropriate for men and women as prescribed by society.
It is the learning of behavior patterns that are important (Kolanowski, 2009). Spoden (1993)
He argues that the rigid sexual role stereotypes he presents towards homophobia are related to homophobia. Thus
Buston and Hart (2001) state that homophobia is a part of heterosexual identity.
According to Herek (2000), men with very open masculinity (masculine gender roles are dominantly
more stereotypical judgments about those of their own and opposite sex)
has. Therefore, men who typically reflect their own gender tend to be more homophobic.
can show. Accordingly, individuals reflecting the traditional norm of masculinity are more likely to be homosexuals.
they may have a more hostile attitude towards them (Simon, 2008). Indeed, in this study
Findings support this view. However, in terms of the gender role of homophobia,
It should be taken into account that there are also study findings showing that there is no differentiation (Cullen et al., 2002).
In fact, eta square values calculated for gender and gender role variables in this study,
It is seen that the explanatory power on homophobic tendency is not very high.
One of the expected findings as a result of the research is that men showing masculine gender roles
It was found that they would show a more pronounced homophobic tendency than men who showed a gender role.
However, none of the 118 male university students in the sample played the feminine gender role.
This comparison could not be made because In fact, this finding is related to men’s own gender.
shows that they do not deviate from their specific gender roles. male-dominated and
The emergence of such a finding in a traditional society (Aktaş, 2013) is understandable.
is the case. On the other hand, women show the gender roles that society has designed for them.
However, it can also show roles designed for men. women in society (masculine
the fact that they began to take on relatively more roles (in the public sphere with codes)
may have mediated them to show gender-specific ascribed roles. Being masculine by women
less societal objections to men being feminine than
density (Kite and Whitley, 1998). In other words, it is less common for men to be feminine.
is tolerated.
Sanberk, İ., Çelik, M., & Gök, M. (2016). Gender and gender roles of university students’ homophobia levels
in terms of examination. Journal of Human Sciences, 13(3), 4011-4019. doi:10.14687/jhs.v13i3.4044
4016
Another important finding of the study is that gender and gender roles affect homophobia.
no joint effect. Homophobic tendencies of university students for each variable
Why did these two variables not cause a difference in common?
It is one of the interesting findings. One possible reason for this is biological sex.
The conceptual distinction between gender roles and gender roles is not clear. Thus
In a study conducted in Turkey (Çelik, Yurtal, & Akgül, 2016), gender and gender role
concepts are not consciously evaluated by the society, both concepts are equivalent or
reveals that it is used closely. However, biological sex is determined by the social environment.
While not determined, gender is affected by the value judgments of the society in which one lives.
According to this, a man can reflect the feminine gender role and a woman can reflect the masculine gender role more dominantly.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The findings of this study were found to be more common for men and those with masculine gender.
It shows he’s homophobic. Homophobia is only one of the variables discussed in this study.
is not affected. In a patriarchal and traditional society like Turkey, the key concept is homophobia.
and other variables that may be effective in the development of this type of phobia (acquaintance with a homosexual person)
being, where he spent most of his life, age, religiosity, attitude towards sexuality,
There is a need for studies that take into account such as political orientation and personality traits.
In addition, the sample of this study consists of university students; different sample groups
It is thought that it would be useful to repeat this study on can be done
One of the studies is examining the internalized homophobia of homosexuals. Moreover
There is a need to conduct experimental studies against homosexuals or to reduce homophobia.
is heard.
