Ctia Carvalho

PorIuguese FaiIh and

AIIiIude 1owards
HomosexuaIiIy
lh moderh days religioh ahd homosexualiIy are sIill dissohahI cohcepIs. 1he
re|ecIioh o! Ihe di!!erehce ih sexual oriehIaIioh is IrahslaIed ih sexual
pre|udice. Pre|udice is perceived wheh relaIed Io a hoh domihahI sexual
oriehIaIioh. All Ihose who associaIe Ihemselves wiIh a sexual mihoriIy will
have Io deal wiIh Ihe resulIihg oppressioh o! IhaI sIaIus ahd,
cohsequehIly, wiIh Ihe privilege o! beihg heIerosexual. NegaIive aIIiIudes
Iowards oIher sexual oriehIaIiohs are mosI likely Ihe resulI o! a sysIem o!
belie!s IhaI ihcludes ah elevaIed level o! religiosiIy ahd cohservaIism
cohcerhihg sexualiIy. ResulIs reveal a low level o! !aiIh amohg PorIuguese
people ahd a Iehdehcy Io accepIahce o! homosexualiIy. AlIhough Ihere is
a Irehd Io accepI homosexualiIy, pre|udice sIill exisIs. 1his !ihdihg |usIi!ies
Ihe ihvolvemehI o! psychology pro!essiohals ih Ihe developmehI o!
sIraIegies Io combaI Ihis Iype o! discrimihaIioh ahd social segregaIioh.
Ctia CarvaIho
8orh May 10, 1984, ih Famalico, PorIugal. GraduaIed
ih Psychology ahd MasIer ih Clihical Psychology ahd
HealIh ih UhiversiIy o! 8eira lhIerior. Durihg Iheir
sIudies Ihe ihIeresI ih sciehIi!ic research has emerged,
parIicularly Ihe ih!luehce o! religioh oh humah
behavior. CurrehIly is behavioral Iraiher ahd Ieacher
ih higher educaIioh ih Ahgola.
978-3-659-40965-3
Ctia CarvaIho
Portuguese Faith and Attitude Towards HomosexuaIity
Ctia CarvaIho
Portuguese Faith and Attitude Towards
HomosexuaIity
LAP LAMBERT Academic PubIishing
LAP LAMBERT Academic PubIishing
Impressum / ImprinI
8ibliogra!ische lh!ormaIioh der DeuIscheh NaIiohalbiblioIhek: Die DeuIsche
NaIiohalbiblioIhek verzeichheI diese PublikaIioh ih der DeuIscheh NaIiohalbibliogra!ie,
deIaillierIe bibliogra!ische DaIeh sihd im lhIerheI ber hIIp://dhb.d-hb.de abru!bar.
Alle ih diesem 8uch gehahhIeh Markeh uhd ProdukIhameh uhIerliegeh warehzeicheh-,
markeh- oder paIehIrechIlichem SchuIz bzw. sihd Warehzeicheh oder eihgeIragehe
Warehzeicheh der |eweiligeh lhhaber. Die Wiedergabe voh Markeh, ProdukIhameh,
Cebrauchshameh, Hahdelshameh, Warehbezeichhuhgeh u.s.w. ih diesem Werk berechIigI
auch ohhe besohdere Kehhzeichhuhg hichI zu der Ahhahme, dass solche Nameh im Sihhe
der Warehzeicheh- uhd MarkehschuIzgeseIzgebuhg als !rei zu beIrachIeh wareh uhd
daher voh |edermahh behuIzI werdeh dr!Ieh.
8ibliographic ih!ormaIioh published by Ihe DeuIsche NaIiohalbiblioIhek: 1he DeuIsche
NaIiohalbiblioIhek lisIs Ihis publicaIioh ih Ihe DeuIsche NaIiohalbibliogra!ie, deIailed
bibliographic daIa are available ih Ihe lhIerheI aI hIIp://dhb.d-hb.de.
Ahy brahd hames ahd producI hames mehIiohed ih Ihis book are sub|ecI Io Irademark,
brahd or paIehI proIecIioh ahd are Irademarks or regisIered Irademarks o! Iheir respecIive
holders. 1he use o! brahd hames, producI hames, commoh hames, Irade hames, producI
descripIiohs eIc. eveh wiIhouI a parIicular markihg ih Ihis works is ih ho way Io be
cohsIrued Io meah IhaI such hames may be regarded as uhresIricIed ih respecI o!
Irademark ahd brahd proIecIioh legislaIioh ahd could Ihus be used by ahyohe.
Coverbild / Cover image: www.ihgimage.com
Verlag / Publisher:
LAP LAM8ER1 Academic Publishihg
isI eih lmprihI der / is a Irademark o!
OmhiScripIum CmbH & Co. KC
Heihrich-8ckihg-SIr. 6-8, 66121 Saarbrckeh, DeuIschlahd / Cermahy
Email: ih!o@lap-publishihg.com
HersIelluhg: siehe leIzIe SeiIe /
PrihIed aI: see lasI page
I5N: 978-3-659-40965-3
Zugl. / Approved by: Covilh, UhiversiIy o! 8eira lhIerior, 2012
CopyrighI 2014 OmhiScripIum CmbH & Co. KC
Alle RechIe vorbehalIeh. / All righIs reserved. Saarbrckeh 2014
1

DEDICATION
To my mother and to Pedro.
2

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I am grateful to my family, especially my mother and my cousin Joana.
To my advisor, Henrique Pereira of the UBI by always quick response.
To Mariza Correia by heated debates on the subject.
To Estefnia Sousa for the precious help.
To Raquel Mendes for understanding and every minute ceded to complete this
work.
To all who contributed to the success of this work, my thanks.
To you, you know who, AM MB.

3

Dedication..................................................................................................................... 1
Acknowledgment ......................................................................................................... 2
Index ............................................................................................................................. 3
List of Figures .............................................................................................................. 5
List of Tables................................................................................................................ 6
List of Acronyms.......................................................................................................... 7
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 8
Part I - Theoretical Background.............................................................................. 11
Chapter I - Religion................................................................................................... 11
1.1 Religion, religiousness and spirituality....................................................... 11
1.2 Atheism, agnosticism and theism................................................................ 15
1.3 Religion in study ......................................................................................... 16
1.4 Religion and Prejudice ................................................................................ 18
Chapter II - Attitudes................................................................................................ 20
2.1 Attitudes ...................................................................................................... 20
2.2 The classic tripartite model of attitudes ...................................................... 21
2.3 The attitude study........................................................................................ 22
2.4 Prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination................................................. 24
Chapter III - Sexuality and Homosexuality............................................................ 27
3.1 Sexuality...................................................................................................... 27
3.2 Sexuality in study........................................................................................ 29
3.3 The emergence of the term "homosexuality".............................................. 30
3.4 Theories of homosexuality.......................................................................... 32
3.5 The homosexual prejudice .......................................................................... 34
Part II - Empirical Body........................................................................................... 36
Chapter IV - Presentation of the study .................................................................. 36
4.1 Type of study............................................................................................... 36
4.2 Objectives of research................................................................................. 36
4

4.3 Hypotheses .................................................................................................. 37
4.4 Definition of the variables studied.............................................................. 37
Chapter V - Method .................................................................................................. 39
5.1 Participants ................................................................................................. 39
5.2 Characterization of instruments .................................................................. 44
5.2.1 Sociodemographic Survey ............................................................. 44
5.2.2 Questionnaire Santa Clara Strength of Religious Faith (English
version) (QSCFFR) ................................................................................. 44
5.2.3 Questionnaire assessment of attitudes towards homosexuality
Portuguese (QAAH).44
5.3 Procedures ................................................................................................... 47
5.4 Statistical analysis ....................................................................................... 47
Chapter VI - Results.................................................................................................. 48
Chapter VII - Discussion .......................................................................................... 62
Chapter VIII - Conclusion........................................................................................ 65
Bibliography............................................................................................................... 67
Appendices ................................................................................................................. 77
5

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Frequeny and percental distribution of the sample relative to age
groups9
Figure 2: Percental distribution of the sample relative to gender
Figure 3: Frequency and percental distribution of the sample relative to marital
status40
Figure 4: Frequency and percental distribution of the sample relative to academic
qualifications
Figure 5: Frequency and percental distribution of the sample relative to
profession/occupation
Figure 6: Frequency and percental distribution of the sample relative to the residence
area
Figure 7: Frequency and percental distribution of the sample relative to religious
affiliation
Figure 8: Percental distribution of subjects relative to sexual orientation43
Figure 9: Frequency and percental distribution of the sample in question 23 of the
QAAH
Figure 10: Frequency and percental distribution of the sample in question 28 of the
QAAH

6

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Distribution of sample mean values relative to age...........39
Table 2: Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin and Bartlett Analysis .................45
Table 3: Distribution of the mean values of the sample relative to global Iaith...48
Table 4: Distribution of the mean values of the sample relative to the overall
attitude...............................48
Table 5: Mean values of overall attitude and factors regarding the level of strength of
faith.................................50
Table 6: Mean values of overall attitude and Iactors relating to gender......52
Table 7: Mean values of overall attitude and factors relating to marital status....54
Table 8: Mean values of overall attitude and factors in relation to age groups....56
Table 9: Mean values of overall attitude and factors in relation to qualiIications...59
7

LIST OF ACRONYMS
LGBT Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender
SCSRF Santa Clara Strength of Religious Faith Questionnaire
QSCFFR Questionnaire Santa Clara Strength of Religious Faith
QAH The Portuguese attitude towards homosexuality Questionnaire
QAAH Evaluation Questionnaire of Attitudes of the Portuguese against the
Homosexuality
WHO World Health Organization
EVS European Values Survey
ESS1 European Social Survey
8

INTRODUCTION
Homosexuality is a topic that has accustomed us to the debate, the controversy
and marking extreme positions. The media often reported about gay marriages,
demonstrations and/or claims of their rights and acts of violence of which suffer. It
seems to be a fight where some space was achieved but much more one yearns.
Since the earliest times that sexuality is imposed the "norm", and any behavior
that deviates from this, is not accepted without question or opposition. Thus, Herek
(2000) defined the "sexism" as a negative attitude towards a person because of their
sexual orientation.
This behavior is verified before a sexual orientation non-dominant, as Dermer,
Smith and Barto (2010) stated, everyone who is associated with a sexual minority
(lesbian, gay, and other guidelines) will have to deal with the oppression resulting
from this status and consequently the privilege assigned to be heterosexual (Smith &
Chen-Hayes, 2003).
According to Ceccarelli (2000), practices "against nature" are considered a
sexual assault, good customs and public opinion and bring severe penalties for those
who do not remain in the "normal".
What arises from these considerations, translates into discrimination and
violence directed at those who take the difference, as considered in studies Bockting
and Cesaretti (2001) and LaSala (2006) (McLeland & Sutton, 2008).
Some prominent theorists have argued that cultural ideologies and institutions
(eg rules on the role of gender, religion, laws, language) provide the basis for the
negative beliefs and attitudes of individuals towards homosexuals (Herek, 1987, 2000
2007; Kimmel, 1997, quoted by Vincent, Parrott & Peterson, 2011).
Several companies take such behaviors as undesirable and inconsistent with the
respect for freedom and human dignity. However, the prejudice remains. This
9

inconsistency may be considered one of the reasons that motivate the study of
discrimination, explicit or implied, that insists on perpetuating themselves against
homosexuals.
Several studies have identified predictors of attitudes toward homosexuality,
such as gender, age, educational level, income, urbanity, political ideologies,
personalities of the individuals and to the close contact with homosexuals. However,
in the last 30 years, many researchers sought to understand the role of religion in
prejudice (Batson & Burris, 1994; Batson, Schoenrade, & Ventis, 1993; Gorsuch &
Aleshire, 1974; Hood, Spilka, Hunsberger, & Gorsuch, 1995; Hunsberger, 1995, cited
by Hunsberger & Jackson, 2005), a subject that still attracts attention and curiosity of
many professionals.
Callegher (2010) points out that the tendency of religions impose restrictions
on sexual activity and the possibility of doctrines negatively influence younger
members with regard to the rights of persons with homosexual relationships. As
mentioned Herek (2004), negative attitudes to other sexual orientations are probably
the result of a belief system that includes a high level of religiosity and conservatism
regarding gender and sexuality.
Thus, this research aims to relate the level of strength of faith, gender, marital
status, age and educational qualifications with prejudice homosexual.
Starting from a literature review on which this research is based, in the first
part of this dissertation are addressed themes such as religion, religiosity, spirituality,
atheism, agnosticism and theism and religion and its relationship with prejudice.
Relating to attitude, addresses the classic tripartite model of attitudes, some important
studies in this field, prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination. With regard to
sexuality and homosexuality, are some of the considerations underlying the research
topic, the emergence of the term homosexuality, explanatory theories, and
homosexual prejudice.
10

The second part aims at presenting the empirical study, being presented the
description and characterization of research which include the objectives and
hypotheses, the variables identified and also the method used. Also encompasses the
characterization of participants, the description of the instruments and the procedures
performed for the operationalization of the variables and respective implementation
of the study.
Finally, following the discussion of the results and final considerations, not
forgetting the approach of study limitations.
11

PART I THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
CHAPTER I - RELIGION
1.1 Religion, religiousness e spirituality
Successive devaluations were observed in the scientific study of religion.
Presumably, religious belief and faith would be lower levels of science and reveal
ignorance of the causes of natural phenomena (Guerriero, 2005, cited by Santos,
2008).
For Catalan (1999), the overall goal of the Psychology of Religion is to identify
religious behavior, to explore religious differences, to understand religious behavior
toward other human phenomena and devise a psychological structure of religious
behavior (Rodrigues, 2008).
According to Emmons and Paloutzian (2003, cited by Neto, 2008) Psychology
of Religion has become a relevant topic in the last decades of the twentieth century
and even more so with the publication of several articles and the creation in 1976 of
Psychology of Religion and Spirituality (Division 36), of the American Psychological
Association (APA).
According to Paiva (2005), the term 'spirituality was introduced in the study
of Psychology of Religion by the School of Nijmegen in the Netherlands, before the
appearance oI 'Psychology oI Spirituality. Spirituality is now studied in the
overlapping concepts of religion and religiosity. The theoretical and methodological
approach that dominated at the time was the humanist current. In this context, Anglo-
Saxon professionals turned to the development of instruments to measure spirituality.
Nevertheless, it was only with the emergence of the Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders in 1994, that religious or spiritual problems were
considered. Only later scientific journals have been paying particular attention to the
issue, as did the American Psychologist in 2003, covering topics such as religion,
spirituality and health (Bomfim, 2009).
12

Several Psychology dictionaries from the 1990s do not reference terms such as
religion, religiosity and/or spirituality, which foresees a difficulty for researchers in
the field to address the issue objectively (Bomfim, 2009).
To clarify the concepts, religion involves a social/institutional organization
founded in supernatural beliefs and practices (Santos, 2008). For Barros (2000) it is
one of the most important dimensions of human life, for "It influences the meaning of
life and death, the way we view the world and men, the joys and the suffering, how
one lives one's family life (attitude toward divorce, abortion, number of children,
etc..), the way he or she interprets and lives sexuality, tolerance and racism, politics,
line of work" (p. 5).
According to Glock (1962, cited by Neto, 1997) religion presents five basic
dimensions. Attendance at religious services or practices refers to the "ritualistic
dimension"; direct knowledge of the essential reality that derives from experience or
religious emotion presents itself as the "experiential dimension", the belief system as
the "ideological dimension" and the mastery of doctrines and sacred texts as the
"intellectual dimension" and the "consequential dimension" that reveals itself in good
works and effects from other dimensions. As states Leal (2005), religion is
understood as the intersection of the sacred and the profane, as the construction of
moral codes that become institutionalized, guiding the lives of those who claim to be
religious and, indirectly, those who do not consider themselves religious or followers
of some religion or do not believe in the existence and transcendent action (Bomfim,
2009).
The distinction between the religiosity and spirituality constructs has always
presented itself as controversial. According to Neto (2008), the definition process
must be based on different levels of analysis, among which are included in the
individual, social, cultural and global. The non-consideration of one of the levels can
compromise its study and understanding.
13

Religiosity, as defined by Lukoff (1992), corresponds to the adherence to
beliefs and practices related to an organized religious institution (Faria & Seidl,
2005). Spirituality refers to the person who believes, values or has devotion for a
considered superior power. However, he or she does not necessarily have religious
beliefs or devotion associated with a religion (Worthington, Kurusu & McCullough,
1996, cited by Faria & Seidl, 2005).
For Santos (2008) religiosity is fundamentally seen as a social phenomenon,
while spirituality is assumed as individual, even taking into account the context.
However, the former also can be described as an individual aspect of the human
being, since each individual can describe his or her religiousness. Thus, religiosity
and spirituality are interconnected constructs that share some characteristics
(Doswell, Kouyate & Taylor, 2003; Miller & Thoresen, 2003 cited by Santos, 2008).
Chatters, Levin and Taylor (1992) presented three dimensions for religiosity.
The "organizational religiosity" comprising religious behaviors that occur in the
context of the religious establishment and performance of religious duties or
functions, the "non-organizational religiosity" that encompasses private or informal
religious behaviors that occur outside the context of a religious institution and the
"subjective religiosity" that is associated with the psychological aspects of religiosity,
i.e., beliefs, knowledge and attitudes to religious experience, self-reports and personal
meaning attributed to one's own religion (Funai, 2010).
Also with regard to the construct of religiosity, it is pertinent to discriminate
intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity, a classification presented by Allport and Ross. For
Payne (1991, cited by Neto, 1997), the first corresponds to the commitment where
religion is seen as an end, lived unselfishly, more concerned with the principles than
with the consequences. As for the extrinsic dimension, Kahoe (1985) believes that it
is the religion of comfort and social convention, it is utilitarian, self-serving, referring
religion to non-religious goals. In short, the intrinsically motivated person lives the
religion, while the extrinsically motivated uses religion (Allport & Ross, 1967, cited
by Neto, 1997). As Hathaway and Pargament (1990, cited by Panzini, 2004) argued,
14

in the intrinsic orientation, belief and faith are fully internalized and deeply
experienced. In the extrinsical, there is a subordination of religion to non-religious
purposes.
All Humanity assumes itself as historically, ethnically and linguistically
diverse. The same is true in religion. This immense diversity persists between atheists
and religious, between different forms of religion (Christian and Buddhist) between
religious branches with common points (Jews and Muslims), between internal
expressions of the same religion, and between geographic and historical expressions
of the same faith e.g., Spanish Catholics and American Catholics (Silva, 2004).
Religion and its heterogeneity, instills in each individual a unique style and various
religious behaviors. In this sense, Fowler (1994, cited by Neto, 1997) defined
religious experience as individual, since, before the same belief, underlie distinct
behaviors among individuals.
The religious belief which seems inseparable from any religion, Eliade (1996,
cited by Baltazar, 2003) defines it as a set of valid meanings, which are not
susceptible of concise description. However, they organize the rites and religious
practices. To opt for a certain creed and to defend certain religious beliefs and
practices should intersect with absolute freedom. According to Silva (2004), that
freedom must include the freedom of not believing, of expressing atheism,
agnosticism or a simple indifference toward religious values. To Zamorra and
Kuenerz (2002, cited by Santos, 2008) "religious belief is not a mistake (...) but it is a
way of viewing the world, with its own criteria of truthfulness and trustworthiness,
the relevant to faith" (p. 79). The person who states to be a believer, will be so, if
their conduct is effectively consistent with the assumptions of the belief itself. As
Barros (2000) mentioned: "Only when there is coherence between faith and life, is a
person is truly religious. Otherwise, he or she is said to be or seems to be religious,
but in reality is not" (p. 139).
15

With regard to the construct 'Iaith, we cannot neglect the contribution oI
Fowler (1981) with his theory on the developmental stages of faith, composed of six
stages which was based on a new concept of faith. For the author, faith is a universal
feature of all human beings, regardless of each one's religion or choice of religion
itself, agnosticism or atheism. From birth, every individual is able to have faith (Neto,
2008).
1.2 Atheism, theism and agnosticism
Atheism in general, presents itself as a critique and denial of metaphysical
beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism,
which affirms the existence of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate it. Atheism
is further distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question of whether
or not there is a God.
A common core of Judaism, Christianity and Islam is the affirmation of the
existence of one and only one God. The followers of these religions believe that there
is a God who created the universe and has absolute sovereignty over all his creation,
which includes, of course, humans.
The varieties of atheism are numerous and all atheists reject any belief
(Nielsen, K., 2010).
For Barros (2000), atheism is an option against religious attitude and presents
various forms. The "common atheism" that takes in slogans and prejudices against
God, the "practical atheism" where money, pleasure and power are in themselves the
true gods, the "existential or humanistic atheism" dominated by the belief that God
must die for man to live, the "angry or militant atheism" that started with Nietzsche
declaring death to God, the "ethical atheism" which is based on disbelief in God
because there is evil and suffering in the world, the "scientific atheism" based on the
idea that one day science and technology will replace God, "the sociological or
economic atheism" referring to religion as the opium of the people, and finally, the
16

"psychological atheism" which derives from the conception of religion as an
"obsessional neurosis" or a futureless "illusion".
Vergote (1966) listed the psychological processes that most are most present in
atheism, namely, defense from the divine, to the extent that, from the earliest times,
the divine and the sacred were seen as threats; the praise of reason, since God is
opposed to reason that admits no mystery or eternal truths, the myth of the wayward
son, as Nietzsche claimed, Man as a being rebellious by nature, and the legitimation
of pleasure (sexual or otherwise) because of all the religious contestation (Barros,
2000).
1.3 The study of religion
The Hebrews, a people considered as pronatalist, once encouraged procreation
and repressed non-reproductive sex, were also submerged in a rigid division of
gender roles, condemning any reversal of gender and transvestism. It is important to
mention here what was reported about the Biblical cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.
People who affectively related with others of the same sex or practiced intercourse
without reproductive purposes came to be called sodomites and constituted a threat to
the principles of the Hebrew culture (David, 2005).
Analyzing the Bible and books of the Old Testament we realize that
homosexuality is vued as a sin, since it favored monogamous marriage or celibacy. In
Islamic countries, homosexuality is an untouched subject. The punishment for those
who have this orientation is imprisonment or death (David, 2005).
Currently, the doctrine of the Church is opposed to certain values and
undertaken behaviors within modern mindsets, such as sexuality (especially
paradigmatic question that results from the confrontation of worldviews and moral
sensibilities), but also others, such as divorce, bioethics, euthanasia, homosexuality,
new family models, etc. (Menndez, 2007).
17

Nowadays, there are several studies trying to find the relationship between
religiosity, spirituality or faith in a particular belief, and sexual behaviors. The central
idea presented in these studies' hypotheses is the protective character of religiosity
and / or spirituality with regards to risky sexual behaviors. In this perspective, the
delaying of sexual initiation, the adoption of behaviors such as monogamy, that
prevent disease and other complications (Rostosky, Wilcox, Wright & Randall,
2004), the use of condoms and other contraceptive methods among young people
(Whitehead, 2001) would be a result of the protective factor of religion and
religiosity, respectively (Santos, 2008).
For religious people, health and its relationship to sexual behaviors such as
premarital sex and the use of contraceptive methods, particularly condoms, is
monitored and controlled by rules. As stated by Roberts (2003), there seems to be a
close relationship between the sexual behavior of many Catholic women and the
doctrinal guidance of this Church. However, these women are not dissatisfied with
their religion and accept living with that incongruousness. We know that the Catholic
Church is against all sexual behavior without reproductive purposes, being thus
intolerant of the use of contraceptive methods (Santos, 2008). Citing the same author,
in 2005, the World Health Organization (WHO) presented data on youth in
developing countries, in cultures greatly influenced by religion, where there are high
percentages of teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.
In the United States, most teenagers consider themselves religious and that
religious precepts and traditions influence their decision making about sexual
behavior (Whitehead, 2001, cited by Santos).
Portugal, with regard to religion stands out compared to other European
countries. In the European Value Survey (EVS) and the 1999-2000 European Social
Survey (ESS1), the high degree of confidence that the Portuguese lay in the Church
must be highlighted, they are the Europeans who trust this institution the most, and
81% profess the Catholic religion, surpassed only by Poland. The Portuguese have a
high religious identification with Catholicism, their religious practice is not as high as
18

their Catholic identity (although higher than the average of the eight countries),
expressed more in prayer than in individual assistance to mass, a high level of belief
in God clearly related to the personal God of the Catholic tradition, while
simultaneously keeping more skepticism than faith in the beliefs of the afterlife.
1.4 Religion and prejudice
Some studies associate the positive aspects of religiosity to the development of
discriminatory attitudes. This consideration will be a nonsense for the main religious
guidelines call for religious tolerance, respect and love for one's neighbor.
Characteristics such as race, ethnicity, gender and sex should find understanding and
respect in religion (Oliveira, 2007).
Neto (1998, p. 552) on the connection of religion and prejudice said: "The link
religion-prejudice disappears, however, when religion is seen in terms of ethical
commitment and not as belonging to a Church or an orthodoxy."
Several studies indicate that religion has a powerful influence on attitudes
toward homosexuality in many countries (Adamczyk & Pitt, 2009).
Fisher et al. (1994, cited by Felson, 2011) showed that people who identify
with conservative Protestant denominations are more likely than Catholics or Jews to
perceive sexual relations between individuals of the same sex as immoral. For
Whitley (2009), in general, people who show a greater religious commitment are also
more likely to believe that homosexual activity is immoral.
Opinions on the legality of marriage between people of the same sex are
closely related to opinions about the morality of sexual relations between adults of
the same sex (Cochran & Beeghley, 1991; Olson, Cadge & Harrison, 2006, quoted by
Felson, 2011).
More conservative people tend to see people of the same sex and sex between
these as a violation of basic values, and to oppose to gay marriage. Liberals, who are
19

generally more secular, tend to perceive homosexuals as a disadvantaged minority,
considering gay marriage as a civil right (Felson, 2011).
Throughout this chapter, we realize religion plays a major role in the lives of
individuals, even those who claim to be atheists or agnostics, which immediately
permeates their existence.
Values, traditions, habits and rituals shape life in society and determine the
decision making of its actors. Therefore, it is imperative to understand how the
individual reacts and adapts to new ways of feeling, thinking and acting in a
constantly changing society. Starting from this consideration, it is essential to address
the concept of attitude. Parales and Vizcano (2007, cited by Alvarez & Jurgenson,
2009) argue that attitudes are individual manifestations designating internal and
neuronal processes which, in turn, guide the action. Thus, their study is a prerequisite
for understanding and predicting behavior.
20

CHAPTER II ATTITUDES
2.1 Attitudes
Several social psychologists define attitude as a fairly stable set of mental
visions and assessments for an idea, object or person (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993, quoted
by Gleitman, Fridlund & Reisberg, 2003).
According to Coimbra and Castro (2001) it is a socially acquired and relatively
durable predisposition to respond positively or negatively. They are combinations of
beliefs, feelings or evaluations and any predisposition to act in certain ways
(Gleitman et al., 2003). To Ajzen (1988, cited by Mendona & Tamayo, 2003),
attitude is a "predisposition to respond favorably or unfavorably to an object, person,
institution or event" (p. 4).
Attitudes are formed and develop in the process of socialization.
Unconsciously, the individual will internalize the prevailing attitudes of the society in
which he or she lives. The social context is predominant in their forming, either by
social influences, personal experiences and how each individual analyzes and
evaluates them. Parents who are role models in the individuals` childhood, pairs in
adolescence and adulthood and the mass media, transmit a set of beliefs, values and
attitudes that lead to their adoption (Coimbra & Castro). As Oliveira (2007) argued,
the origins of attitudes are cultural, familiar and personal, that is, we tend to assume
the attitudes that prevail in the culture in which we grow, the majority of which
acquired within the family structure. Neto (1998), in addition to social learning,
indicates other sources of attitudes shaping such as the learning through direct
experience and observation of the behavior itself. The unique experiences of each
individual and the analysis and reflection of their own behavior play a decisive role in
the repetition and/or changing of their attitudes.
Attitudes have four characteristics. The "direction" that designates the positive
or negative sense of the object of the attitude. The individual positions him or herself
in favor or against, feeling attraction or repulsion. Associated with the "direction"
21

there is the "intensity" opposing extreme positions. The "dimension" of the attitude
enables us to understand whether it is a simple or a complex object yet undefined.
And lastly, the "accessibility" which refers to the probability of the attitude being
automatically activated when the individual is faced with its object. The latter is also
associated with strength, shape and the frequency with which it shows on individual
behavior (Neto, 1998).
The strength of attitude is very important when trying to understand the
behavior of individuals. According to Bassili (1993, 1995) and Kraus (1995), people
behave more consistently with their strong attitudes rather than with the weak one
(Gleitman et al. 2003). As indicated in Drucker (2005), the higher the consistency of
a cognitive attitude is (Adelson, 1968), the greater will its tendency to predict a
behavior and lower the cognitive dissonance be (Festinger, 1957), or minor the
discomfort felt by the individual in relation to the perception of oneself and the
world, which in turn enhances the occurrence of errors in causal attribution (Well,
1970).
2.2 Classic, tripartite model of attitudes
The classic, tripartite model of Rosenberg and Hovland (1960) considers that
attitudes have three components. The "affective component", which is characterized
by positive or negative feelings that the individual has in relation to the situation,
person or object concerned. The "cognitive component", which refers to thoughts and
beliefs about the situation, person or object, and the "behavioral component", which
translates into the individual's predisposition to behave and act in a certain way
because of the situation, person or object (Mendona & Tamayo, 2003).
The functions of psychological attitude are structured and supported by these
components. The process of defining social groups, the establishment of identities
and aid in the thinking and behavior of the individual in general are considered by
Neto (1998) as their functions.
22

To Adelson (1968), the attitude can assume an "instrumental" function, that we
maintain for practical reasons; the "knowledge" that gives meaning to the obtained
information; that of "expression of values" which translates values and self-concepts;
that of " defense of the ego" whose purpose is to protect us from anxiety or threats to
self-esteem, and that of "social adjustment" that aids in the process of social inclusion
in the community (Drucker, 2005).
2.3 The study of attitude
Relating the concept of attitude to the subject under study, the existence of two
types of attitudes toward sexuality according to Lpez and Fuertes (1999) are visible.
The "conservative" attitude that sees sexuality in reproductive terms, and the "liberal
attitude", which does not reduce sexuality to reproduction but includes other
resources as pleasure, feelings, form of communication, among others (Albuquerque
& Ramos, 2007).
Citing Machado Pais, Villaverde Cabral and Vala (2000) in the study of the
attitudes and religious practices of the Portuguese, it is essential to discriminate the
dimension of morality and sexuality. From this resulted the finding that the intensity
of religious practice is associated with the rejection of liberal attitudes towards sexual
and marital life. Among other findings, it was found that practicing Catholics (about
25% of the surveyed population) are those who reject homosexuality the most (87%).
A 1996 study by Hunsberger on the influence of belonging to non-Christian
religions (Muslim, Hindu and Jewish) and biased attitudes against gay men, showed
positive correlations between religious fundamentalism, authoritarianism and
prejudice against homosexuals. Thus, the most fundamentalist and authoritarian
subjects expressed more prejudiced attitudes toward homosexuality, regardless of
their type of religion.
23

Barret and Barzan (1996) through their analysis of the religious rhetoric, found
that western religious institutions consider homosexuals as sinners, as undesirable
individuals and, as such, cannot participate in religious activities (Pereira, 2004).
According to Neto (2008), by analyzing gender, studies show that religious
principles have a greater impact on female than male behavior, more vigorously
influencing women's views and relevance in their lives (Sheeran & Spears, 1996;
Batson Schoenrade & Ventis, 1993).
A study by sociologist Maria Machado entitled "Homophobia and Violence: a
study of the speeches and actions of Brazilian religious traditions in relation to the
LGBT", between October 2007 and October 2008, demonstrated with some
restrictions, that the Catholic Church, among the submitted religions (Catholic,
Evangelical, Spiritism, African-Brazilian and Jewish) is the one with the closest
rhetoric to an inclusive, not homophobic practice, as it doesn't consider
homosexuality as being caused by a pathological phenomenon or the result of
'Iorces and "demonic" religious and spiritual Iactors (BomIim, 2009).
Kim, D'Andrea, Sahu and Gaughen (1998), considered homosexuality as one
of the most studied topics in the last two decades in the United States. The public
recognition of sexual identity, the struggle against prejudice and discrimination,
social and political interest which underlies the emergence of several organizations
that defend the rights of homosexuals, the association of sexual behavior of
homosexuals to the AIDS epidemic and the growing acceptance of homosexuality in
contemporary society can be described as the major factors that arouse interest in
their study. In response to this activism there is increasing violence directed at its
actors (D'Augelli, 1989; Eliason & Randall, 1991; Norris, 1991).
By studying the factors that contribute to more positive attitudes towards
homosexuals, Wells and Franken (1987) found among North American college
students that individuals who have more accurate information about homosexuality,
show more positive attitudes, i.e. the more one is familiar with the lifestyle of
24

homosexuals the greater its acceptance is. However, it is important to note that the
attitudes and knowledge of individuals on the subject may be influenced by ethnic
diversity, as Herek (1984) considered.
In a study of Frank and McEneaney (1999), it was found that in the last 20
years, in 86 countries, as well as a trend towards decriminalization of relations
between people of the same sex, a change in how they are treated. In certain
countries, the "Constitution" provides a set of rights to homosexuals, in others, there
is severe punishment (Lacerda, Pereira & Camino, 2002).
According to Santos (1999, cited by Lacerda, Pereira & Camino, 2002), in
most countries, racism is strictly forbidden and any manifestation of racism is
discouraged. However, although these discriminatory actions are disapproved, what
has emerged is its increase (Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986; Katz & Hass, 1988; Kinder &
Sears, 1981; McConahay, 1983; Pettigrew & Meertens, 1995; Vala, Brito & Lopes,
1998, 1999).
2.4 Prejudice, stereotypes and discrimination
Since the 1920s social psychologists are interested in understanding prejudice.
Underlying this interest was the discrimination against minorities. For Gordon
Allport (1954, cited by Lima & Vala, 2004), the prejudice can be defined as a hostile
attitude against an individual simply because he belongs to a socially devalued group.
To Augoustinos and Reynolds (2001, quoted by Pereira, 2004), from the
analysis of the latest definitions of prejudice, two aspects stand out. The first defines
prejudice as a negative orientation towards members of a certain group. The second
refers to something that is aversive, unjustified, irrational, erroneous and inflexible.
According to Lacerda, Camino and Pereira (2002), the definition of prejudice
has evolved. Classically, prejudice has been studied as a psychological characteristic
of the individual. To Hovland and Sears in 1940, prejudice was a pent-up frustration
25

that got shifted toward weaker groups; the development of an authoritarian
personality to Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson and Sanford (1950); the
unwillingness to openmindness to Rokeach (1960); the lack of contacts with
members of minority groups to Allport (1954). Later, theorists of social cognition
studied it as an error in processing information (Hamilton, 1979; Hewstone, 1990;
Pettigrew, 1979; Ross, 1977; Schaller, 1991). In the perspective of intergroup
relations, Tajfel (1972) and Tajfel, Flament, Billig and Bundy (1971) explained
prejudice as a result of the insertion of the individual in a social category. Belonging
to a social category leads to assigning positive attributes to members of this group
and negative members of another group (Hogg & Abrams, 1990; Hogg & Abrams,
1988; Tajfel, 1978). As explained by the theory of social identity by Tajfel (1982),
which assigns a favorable image of the in-group and the out-group unfavorable.
Regarding stereotypes, they are a set of simple beliefs, widespread in an
excessive and wrong way that often are associated with social groups (Neto, 1998). In
this sense, prejudice and stereotyping are the psychosocial bases justifying the
discriminatory act. This, reporting Myers (2000), translated into a set of actions
planned and based on prejudices against members of a particular group (Pereira,
2004).
From the study of Pettigrew and Meertens (1995) about prejudice against racial
minorities in Europe, there are two essential aspects to retain. The first aspect regards
the fact that the prejudice appears composed of two dimensions: the "blatant
prejudice" and the "subtle" one. The blatant consists of two factors: the perception of
threat and rejection of close relationships. The subtle features three components: the
perception that the out-group does not share the values of hard work and success,
marked cultural differences, and denial of positive emotions in relation to members of
the out-group. The second aspect to retain from the combination of these dimensions,
which were derived from three types of individuals: "blatantly prejudiced" (with high
rejection of proximity and denial of positive emotions), the "subtly prejudiced" (with
little rejection and denial of the proximity and of positive emotions), and the
26

"egalitarian or not prejudiced" (with low rejection of proximity and of the expression
of positive emotions).
Lacerda, Pereira and Camino (2002) concluded in their study that religious
affiliation does not influence the distinction between blatant and subtle prejudice. But
the religious explanations and its relationship with the ethical and moral explanations
of homosexuality are the organizing factors of this distinction.
The approach to topics such as attitude and prejudice allow us to understand
how the basis of discriminatory behavior which suffer some individuals is built, often
associated with minorities, whether racial, ethnic and/or sexual. Being sexism the
object of the present study, the analysis of constructs such as sexuality,
homosexuality, and their explanations is of utmost importance.
27

CHAPTER III SEXUALITY E HOMOSEXUALITY
3.1 Sexuality
Until the nineteenth century, the limits on what was or not sexual were not well
established. Sex was seen as wrong but this defined behavior did not encompass the
various dimensions of what is now called "sexuality" (Chalar-Silva, 1989, quoted by
Nedeff, 2001).
Only in the late twentieth century, with input from various disciplines such as
medicine, psychology, psychoanalysis, anthropology, sociology, ethology and
education did an interdisciplinary structure of what we today refer to modern
sexology be composed (Serapion, 1997, cited by Nedeff, 2001). Thus, the human
sexual behavior as an interaction between biological, psychological and sociocultural
was characterized.
As Bozon (2004), Foucault (1999) and Giddens (1993) acknowledged,
sexuality is not limited to sexual conduct or practices for the purpose of biological
reproduction of the species because it extends to aspects of cultural, social and
political dimensions of the environment in which it is experienced (MINAYO &
Zucco, 2009).
According to Gagnon and Simon (1973), from the social sciences perspective,
sexuality, like any other field of life, depends on socialization, on learning certain
rules and regulations associated to cultural settings (Heilborn & Brando, 1999).
Understanding the construction of identity and the sexual and gender role that
manifest themselves from birth is a matter of utmost importance in human sexuality.
For Diamond (2002, cited by Almeida & Carvalheira, 2007), "sex" refers to the
anatomical structure and the term "gender" is related to psychosocial aspects of sex.
Money (1988, cited by Cardoso, 2008) proposed the concept of gender
identity/role as an overarching concept that defines the being from categories such as
28

male/female or intersex, masculine/feminine or androgynous, bisexual or monosexual
(heterosexual or homosexual), encompassing a personal, social and legal concept.
Silva (1999) defines gender identity as a set of features built into the social and
cultural sphere by a given society; defining what are the accepted gestures, behaviors,
attitudes, modes of dress, talk and walk, for both men and women. For this author,
there are only two types of gender - male and female (Nedeff, 2001).
According to Almeida and Carvalheira (2007), the development of the sexual
identity can be seen in three dimensions: gender identity, the social and sexual roles
and sexual orientation. Gender identity develops from birth to three years old. The
second dimension, social and sexual roles, refers to the culturally associated
characteristics with being male and female. Certain behaviors and actions are
expected and they comply with the social norm - social roles. Moreover, gender roles
are related to what is expected of a "boy-girl" depending on the social circumstances.
This dimension manifests from three to seven years of age. The last component, the
sexual orientation, can manifest itself on the preference for opposite-sex, same sex or
both - heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality, respectively.
It is pertinent to clarify other concepts, namely, the sexual attraction that
corresponds to a physiological and/or psychological stimulation through the feelings,
fantasies or romantic love (Felson, 2011).
Sexual orientation and sexual identity are basically synonyms. However, in
Western societies, they are theoretically distinct. The sexual preference is determined
by the gender of the person by whom the individual feels attracted. In turn, sexual
identity is a reflected judgment and a status (Felson, 2011).
In the United States, same-sex attraction is more common among women than
men while the preference for the same sex is more common among men than women.
Approximately 2-4% of men prefer other men as sexual partners, and about 1-2% of
women prefer other women as sexual partners (Weill, 2009). Bisexuality is rare
29

among men, but slightly more common among women (Rahman & Wilson, 2003)
(Felson, 2011).
3.2 Study of sexuality
According to Heilborn and Brando (1999), the studies of sexuality are closely
related to gender studies, the development of which is associated with social feminist
and gay liberation movements.
Gato, Leme and Leme (2010) reported that in recent years, Portugal witnessed
a series of legal changes with regard to the civil rights of sexual minorities through
the efforts of the associations for the defense of LGBT rights. The approval of the
non-marital partnerships and civil marriages between same-sex and the inclusion of
sexual orientation in the principle of equality of the "Constitution" have shown a
juridical and legal evolution. However, and parallel to this progress, there was a high
level of prejudice against homosexuals.
The European Value Survey (EVS) in 1999 shows that the Portuguese tend not
to accept homosexuality, with a score below the midpoint (on a scale of 1 to 10)
(Ferreira, 2003). More recently, other studies point towards the perception that the
Portuguese feel uncomfortable with the idea of having a homosexual neighbor and
are less likely to know or be friends with a homosexual person, when compared with
the European average (Eurobarometer, 2008).
The study by Herek and Capitanio (1996) established the relationship between
interpersonal contact and gay prejudice and revealed that the heterosexual subjects
manifest more favorable attitudes toward homosexuals when they a good deal of
contact with individuals with this sexual orientation.
With regard to gender, male subjects have higher levels of prejudice against
homosexual persons, including studies among higher education students (Gato, Leme
& Leme, 2010).
30

Other studies, such as LaMar and Kite (1998), indicate that there are
differences in how gay men and women are victims of prejudice. Heterosexual
women maintain a similar behavior towards gay men and women, unlike
heterosexual men who are more hostile towards men than to women. This
consideration may be related to the appreciated or even imposed virility and/or
masculinity according to certain cultural standards (David, 2005; Basow & Theodore,
2000).
With regard to educational level, there is a tendency for more educated people
to accept gay people better, even if they continue to evaluate them less positively
within the social norm (Gato, Fontaine & Carneiro, 2010).
3.3 Appearance oI the term 'homosexuality
The term "homosexual" was introduced in scientific literature in 1869 by
Karoly Maria Benkert (Cascais, 2004; Naphy, 2006; Prez-Sancho, 2005). However,
one of the most influential authors of this era, when the first psychiatric and medical
studies about homosexuality appeared, the German neurologist Richard Kraft-
Ebbing, in 1886 through the work Psychopathia Sexualis (Adelman, 2000; Naphy,
2006; Meyenburg & Sigusch, 1977; Prez-Sancho, 2005) proposed an explanatory
theory of homosexuality which would be the assumption of a nervous system
degeneration. Kraft-Ebbing also considered two types of homosexuality:
"constitutional" and "acquired" (Frazo & Rosrio, 2008).
In Portugal, we should emphasize the study of Egas Moniz (1913) which
considered as causes of homosexuality a set of hereditary, educational and social
factors (Pacheco, 2000). Only from the late nineteenth century with the advent of
what Foucault (1976/1994) has called the Scientia Sexualis, the first medical and
scientific discourses about homosexuality were appeared, most of them directly or
indirectly with a pathological character (Frazo & Rosrio, 2008).
31

In the early 70s, both the American Psychiatric Association and the American
Psychological Association found that homosexuality is not a disease. Some years
later, the third edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
did not include homosexuality as a paraphilia, as happened with the World Health
Organization through the ICD-10 in 1993. There is thus a depathologization.
Nevertheless, there is still prejudice in the attitudes of the professionals of
psychological sciences. As stated by Leal (2004, cited by Matias, 2007), although
homosexuality has been detached from the pathological, this did not eliminate all the
uncertainties underlying a series punitive codes and a nosological, "scientifically"
recognized, framework that marked the performance of the professionals for several
years.
For Mohr and Weiner (2006), homosexual and bisexual orientations are still
considered by some psychotherapists as a sign of psychopathology (Matias, 2007).
It is pertinent to clarify other terms, including "homophobia", described by
Weinberg in 1972 as a reaction of panic felt by those who share a space with
homosexuals (Gato, Leme & Leme, 2010).
For Blumenfeld (1992) homophobia can be understood in four levels. The
"personal homophobia" that encompasses the personal system of beliefs,
"Interpersonal homophobia" which refers to behaviors such as verbally and
physically assaulting a homosexual; "institutional homophobia" which portrays the
ways in which government, educational and/or religious organizations systematically
discriminate homosexuals, and the "cultural homophobia" which refers to the social
norms that operate in a culture in order to legitimize oppression and discrimination
(Lozano Verduzco & Daz-Loving, 2009).
According to Herek (2008) we should choose to use the term "sexual
prejudice" to the extent that it refers to any negative attitude towards sexual
orientation, whether heterosexual, bisexual or homosexual (Lozano Verduzco &
Daz-Loving, 2009).
32

Morin (1977, cited by Gato, Leme & Leme, 2010) suggested the term
"heterosexism", defining it as a belief system that conceives heterosexuality as more
'natural' and/or superior to homosexuality. In this sense, Braun (2000, cited by
Dermer, Smith, & Barto, 2010) indicates that the result of a vision of heterosexuality
as a social norm, a cultural and behavioral stance is that this implies that all other
sexual orientations and practices are abnormal or deviant.
In turn, Morrison and Morrison (2002) proposed the term modern
homonegativity" in relation to beliefs that sustain the most contemporary expressions
of prejudice against homosexuals. Note that this term is based on three core beliefs:
discrimination against gay men and women no longer exists; rights claimed by gays
and the lesbians are unnecessary, and gays and lesbians exclude themselves by taking
an extreme position with regard to their sexual preference (Gato, Leme & Leme,
2010).
3.4 Explanatory theories on homosexuality
The given explanations for homosexuality are varied and still keep some
nonconformist scholars occupied.
The biological explanations redound around genetics and sex hormone levels
during the prenatal development. Some studies justify these explanations.
To Pillard and Weinrich (1986), and Bailley Banishay (1993, cited by Perrin et
al., 2004), there would be a higher incidence of homosexual relatives in the families
of gay and lesbian families than in heterosexuals (Frazo & Rosrio, 2008).
Other studies such as Hammer, Hu, Magnuson and Pattuci (1993, cited by
Perrin et al., 2004) report the existence of a genetic marker (Xq28) for
homosexuality, located on the X chromosome of male homosexuals (Frazo &
Rosrio, 2008).
33

The hypothesis of hormonal differences during prenatal development is based
on the different concentrations of androgens during certain periods of prenatal
development. Let's say the role of androgens would be that of the feminization or
masculinization of the brain.
It is noteworthy that conceptual and methodological limitations were pointed
out to all of the studies cited here (Frazo & Rosrio, 2008).
Freud, steeped in psychoanalysis, presented the first psychological
explanations of homosexuality, assuming that it results from an unresolved Oedipus
complex during child development.
The neo-Freudians continued to argue that homosexuality would be associated
with a fixation at an early stage of psychosexual development, characterized by same-
sex attraction and narcissism. Through psychoanalysis came more theories to argue
that homosexuality is related to inadequate parenting, where parental conflict,
divorce, poor parenting, or the existence of role models could generate improper
sexual psychosexual fixations from where a same-sex attraction would come (Ellis,
1996, cited by Perrin, 2004) (Frazo & Rosrio, 2008).
Within the behavioral current, some theories argue that homosexuality results
from sexual contact between persons of the same sex before contact with people of
the opposite sex. These experiences being positive and providing sexual pleasure
strengthen and increase homosexual practice (Gagnon & Simon, 1973, quoted by
Prez-Sancho, 2005) (Frazo & Rosrio, 2008).
In the study of Lacerda, Pereira and Camino (2002) five sets of beliefs about
the nature of homosexuality were identified. The "religious beliefs" where the
representation of homosexuality is of sinful nature, the "ethical and moral beliefs"
where the tendency for violating moral values is the basis for the explanation of
homosexuality, the "psychological beliefs" that present psychological factors as
explanatory of homosexuality, the "biological beliefs" that are based on hereditary,
34

hormonal and gestational factors, and the "psychosocial beliefs" based on identity and
not essentializing factors.
More important than looking for the cause of homosexuality is to fit it in the
variety and diversity of human sexuality (Frazo & Rosrio, 2008).
3.5 Homosexual prejudice
According to Matias (2007), a greater openness toward to people who identify
themselves not heterosexual is seen. However, this attempt of integration and
acceptance clashes against a series of myths that permeate a homophobic society as is
the Portuguese.
Would a child who grows up in a homosexual family have struggle to define
their sexual orientation or would he or she become homosexual?
Several authors refuted that hypothesis, as Bailey, Bobrow, Wolfe and Mikach
(1995) and Golombok and Tasker (1996) by concluding that the majority of
homosexual couples' children are heterosexual. Clarke (2001) stated that we cannot
forget that, in addition to the parents, children are socialized by other individuals who
influence the construction of gender and sexuality (Matias, 2007).
Another question that arises, is that children with homosexual parents have
adjustment difficulties due to social stigma and discrimination, which calls parenting
into question. According to Alarco (2000, p. 230, quoted by Gato, Fontaine &
Carneiro, 2010), "it seems that the greatest risk for these families is the segregating
attitude of heterosexual society".
Leal (2004, cited by Matias, 2007) points out that variables such as ethnicity,
social status and physical characteristics are also segregated, but do not prevent
access to parenting.
Children with homosexual parents are not exclusively in contact with role
models of the same sex as their parents, although one might think otherwise, and this
35

contributes to a wrong idea about their socialization (Clarke, 2001; Golombok,
Spencer, & Rutter, 1983, quoted by Matias 2007).
To Matias (2007) this is a situation that is not unique to gay parents but
includes other family structures as are separated couples and single parents.
Data available through the Eurobarometer (2006) point to the fact that only
19% of the Portuguese agree to allow adoption by gay couples compared to 32% of
EU citizens.
From the literature review of this dissertation we must highlight the complexity
of human behavior. For its study and prediction one must consider numerous factors,
internal and/or external to the subject, changing as a result of life in society. The way
of acting of a people will be understood if we consider the way one lives and feels
religion and sexuality. Even today, these constructs dictate rules and motivate
individuals to act, sometimes in intolerable ways.
36

PART II EMPIRICAL BODY
CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION OF THE STUDY
Prejudice infiltrates the entire existence of the human being. To understand its
manifestation in more or less evolved societies has awaken the interest of scholars
from various fields.
This research aims to relate the level of religious faith (regardless of what
religion individuals profess), gender, age, marital status and educational
qualifications with the strength and the overall attitude of the identified factors in
prejudice toward homosexuality.
4.1 Type of study
This is a descriptive study, in the sense that it seeks to describe relationships
between variables within the sample.
The sample is non-probabilistic for convenience reasons.
4.2 Objectives of research
Taking literature review into account, the following are the guiding objectives
of this research:
To analyze how the sample is distributed at the level of faith, regardless of the
religion the subjects profess;
To analyze if the level of faith, to a greater or lesser strength, relates to the
attitude towards homosexuals;
Bearing the identified factors in the instrument for attitude measuring in mind,
to identify those that point to greater prejudice;
To analyze the extent to which age, gender, marital status and educational
qualifications relate to greater or lesser prejudice;
37

4.3 Hypotheses
The collection of information associated with the topic under study allows the
formulation of several hypotheses, which we intended to test in order to confirm or
refute them. Thus, the hypotheses are:
H1: the subjects with higher strength of faith present a greater prejudice
compared to subjects with lower strength of faith in their general indicated attitude;
H2: the subjects with higher strength of faith present factor values indicating
greater prejudice compared to subjects with lower strength of faith;
H3: men have a more prejudiced global attitude compared to the one presented
by women;
H4: men present factor values indicating greater prejudice compared to
women;
H5: the married subjects have a more prejudiced overall attitude compared to
the one presented by the subjects with other marital statuses;
H6: the married subjects present factor values indicating greater prejudice
compared to those presented by the subjects classified in other marital statuses;
H7: the subjects with more qualifications present values in overall attitude and
factors that indicate a greater acceptance of homosexuality compared to less educated
subjects;
H8: the older subjects present values in the overall attitude and factors that
indicate a greater prejudice compared to younger subjects;
4.4 Definition of the variables under study
To carry out the research one must define the dependent and independent
variables. Thus, in order to assess the impact of the independent variables on the
dependent variables, the independent variables are as follows:
38

Strength level of faith;
Gender;
Marital status;
Age;
Qualifications.
For their part, the dependent variables are as follows:
Overall attitude;
Factors (acceptance, legal framework, parentality, intimacy, meaning and
morality).
44

5.2 Instrument characterization
5.2.1 Sociodemographic Survey
This survey aims to collect data such as age, gender, marital status, education,
profession or occupation, residence area, religion and sexual orientation (Appendice
2).
5.2.2 Santa Clara Strength of Religious Faith Questionnaire (portuguese version)
(QSCFFR)
The original questionnaire developed by Plante and Boccaccini (1997) consists
of 10 items that assess the strength of religious faith regardless of affiliation, ie,
contains no reference to a specific religion, and thus can be used in any population.
Items are rated on a 4-point scale, with 1 point awarded when the answer is marked
"Strongly disagree", 2 points for "Disagree", 3 points for "Agree" and 4 points for
"Strongly agree".
The more the score approaches the maximum value (40 points) the greater the
power of faith and the opposite when the minimum score is verified (10 points).
Regarding the psychometric validity of this instrument, there is a good internal
consistency with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.96.
The translation of the instrument was provided by the author who authorized its
use in this research and psychometric validation (Appendice 3 and 6).
5.2.3 Questionnaire assessment of the attitudes of the Portuguese against
homosexuality (QAAH)
This instrument was developed by Pereira, H. (2010) and consists of 33 items
rated on a 5-point scale to assess attitudes toward homosexuality. Thus, when the
chosen answer is "Totally disagree" 1 point is assigned, for "moderately disagree" 2
45

points are assigned, 3 points for "Did not agree nor disagree", 4 points for "agree
moderately", and 5 points for "strongly agree". Also in regard to its scoring, this
questionnaire provides reverse items (1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23,
25, 28, 29, 30 and 31) which are listed in reverse order, that is, the answer that would
originally be given in points 5 will get 1 point, 4 point becomes 2 points, 3 points
remains the same, 2 points become 4 points and 1 point becomes 5 points.
The closer the score is to 165 points (maximum possible score) the greater is
the acceptance of homosexuality. In turn, the lower the score the greater the
prejudice toward homosexuals (Appendice 4).
Regarding the psychometric validity of the questionnaire, it presents an
excellent internal consistency with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.95.
Factor analysis by extracting the principal components resulted in 6 factors.
The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure verified the sampling adequacy for the analysis
(KMO=0.968). The Bartlett's test of sphericity [X
2
(528)=13053,804, p<0,001],
indicated that correlations between items are sufficient to perform the analysis. This
shows that six factors followed the Kaiser eigenvalue criterion greater than 1 and
62.07% of the variance explained (see Table 2).
Table 2: Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin and Bartlett Analysis
The first factor that we classify as "Acceptance" includes 10 items (1, 3, 5, 8,
15, 16, 18, 20, 24, 29) and refers to issues related to the acceptance or rejection of
homosexual persons, as for example, the consideration that these people should not
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy 0.968
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 13053.804
Df 528
Sig.
0.000
46

assume positions of responsibility, are more likely to commit deviant acts, or are
psychologically maladjusted.
Factor 2 classified as "Legal framework" which includes 6 items (9, 10, 11, 13,
14, 26), which addresses issues related to the legal recognition of marriage or gay
marriage.
Factor 3 rated "Parentality" which includes 7 items (23, 25, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33),
it refers to the homosexuals' ability for the exercise of parenting, the influence that
they can have on their children's sexual orientation and the right to adopt children.
Factor 4 is "Intimacy", with 5 items (17, 19, 21, 22, 27) that focus on issues
related to interpersonal contact and intimate relationships between and/or
homosexuals.
Factor 5 classified as "Meaning" consists of 4 items (2, 4, 6, 7) that address
issues related to the importance attached to the sexual orientation of people.
Finally, factor 6, classified as "Morality" which includes item 12 of the
questionnaire referred to morality and competence of the people who assume to be
gay.
We analyzed the internal consistency of each factor, registering for the factor
"Acceptance" a Cronbach's alpha of 0.90 for "Legal framework" and "Parentality"
Cronbach's alphas of 0.89, which predicts a very good psychometric validity. The
"Intimacy" and "Meaning" factors feature Cronbach alphas that indicate an
acceptable internal consistency (0.77 and 0.62, respectively). As regards the
"Morality" factor, this is only represented by one item which does not allow this
calculation.
47

5.3 Procedures
A website was created where the questionnaires were available of which the
responses that were considered in the sample were collected from the 21/02/2011
until the 11/07/2011.
The advertising of the internet page was made by publication on the author of
the study's personal blog, mailing lists and through the portal ILGA PORTUGAL -
Lesbian Intervention, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered (Appendice 5).
Always ensuring the anonymity and confidentiality of data, each subject had to
accept to continue their participation after taking note of the objectives of the study
and informed consent (Appendice 1).
5.4 Statistical Analysis
For the statistical analysis of the obtained data, we used the SPSS version 17.0
(Statistical Package for the Social Sciences).
We used the basic descriptive statistics, including measures of central tendency
(mean, median and mode).
We used t tests and ANOVAS in inferential analysis, specifically for the
comparison of means between groups, and also statistics for the validation of
psychometric instruments (Cronbach's alpha, factor analysis, variance).
48

CHAPTER VI RESULTS
The overall faith presents: M=21.90; SD=8.26; Md=23.00 and Mo=10
(corresponding to a frequency of 119 subjects). The Minimum recorded value was 6
and the Maximum 40 (see Table 3). Considering 25 points as the cutoff point for the
power of faith, we find that the Median (Md) observed was slightly lower.
Table 3: Distribution of the mean values of the sample relative to global faith
The overall attitude registers M=131.93; SD=23.60 Md=138.00 and Mo=143.
The minimum obtained value was 43 and the maximum was 164.00 (see Table 4).
For this variable the established cutoff point was 99 and the observed has a much
higher Md value.
Table 4: Distribution of the mean values of the sample relative to the overall attitude
a) Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown
N Minimum Maximum M Md Mo SD
Global
faith
794 6 40.00 21.91 23 10 8.26
N Minimum Maximum M Md Mo SD
Overall
attitude
797 43.00 164.00 131.93 138 143 23.60
49

Relationship between the level of faith of the subject and the overall attitude and
factors
To evaluate the relations between the variables 'Level oI Iaith, 'Attitude and
'Global Iactors, we proceeded to compare means between level of faith groups. Two
groups were created, one representing a low level of faith (1-23) and another
representing a high level of faith (24-40). There was [t(792)=5.395, p<0.001], so one
can assume that there are statistically significant differences in overall attitude. The
group with a low level of faith has higher values (M=135.92; SD=21.73) compared
with the group with a high level of faith (M=126.98; SD=24.91).
The relationship between the level of faith and the factor "Acceptance"
registers [t(792)=4.354, p<0.001], so there are statistically significant differences as
the group with the lowest level of faith is where there are higher mean values:
(M=45.40; SD=6.15) compared to the group with the highest level of faith (M=43.28;
SD=7.59).
With regard to the level of faith and the factor "Legal framework", we
registered [t(792)=6.729, p<0.001], which also translates statistically significant
differences. Mean values are also higher for the group with low level of faith
(M=25.28; SD=5.32) compared to (M=22.50; SD=6.33) for the group with high level
of faith.
The relationship between the level of faith and the "Parentality" factor
presented [t(792)=5.361, p<0.001], so there are statistically significant differences
between groups in level of faith in what concerns this factor. The group with a low
level of faith has a lesser prejudice regarding the ability of homosexuals to exercise
parenting (M=27.36; SD=6.56) and the group with high level of faith registers greater
prejudice (M=24.72; SD=7.33).
Concerning the level of faith and the "Intimacy" factor, the following was
observed [t(792)= 4.090, p< 0.001], so here too there are statistically significant
differences. The group of low level of faith has lower prejudice for Intimacy
50

(M=17.18; SD=4.56) compared with the group of high level of faith (M=15.85;
SD=4.57).
When comparing the level of faith and the "Meaning" factor the following was
found [t(792)=1.359, p=0.174], so there are no statistically significant differences
between groups in levels of faith. However, the group of low level of faith has higher
values (M=17.20; SD=2.63) compared to the group with a high level of faith
(M=16.95; SD=2.61).
Regarding the level of faith and the "Morality" factor, it was found that
[t(784)=-1.940, p=0.053], so it is considered that there are no statistically significant
differences. But, contrary to what was noted earlier, the group of high level of faith
presents higher values for morality (M=3.72; SD=1.31) compared with the group of
low level of faith (M =3.53; SD=1.48) (see Table 5).
Table 5: Mean values of overall attitude and factors regarding the level of strength of faith
Low level of faith High level of faith
M SD M SD t p
Overall attitude
135.92 21.73 126.98 24.91 5.395 <0.001*
Acceptance
45.40 6.15 43.28 7.59 4.354 <0.001*
Legal Framework
25.28 5.32 24.72 7.33 6.729 <0.001*
Parentality
27.36 6.56 24.72 7.33 5.361 <0.001*
Intimacy
17.18 4.56 15.85 4.57 4.090 <0.001*
Meaning 17.20 2.63 16.95 2.61 1.359 0.174
Morality 3.53 1.48 3.72 1.31 -1.940 0.053
*p<0.05
51

Relationship between the gender of the subjects and the overall attitude and
factors
To evaluate the relationship between the variables gender, attitude and global
factors, we proceeded to compare means between groups where there was [t(787)=-
5.738, p<0.001], therefore, statistically significant differences for overall attitude
were found. Women have higher values (M=135.05; SD=20.23) compared to men
(M=124.81; SD=28.62).
For the factor "Acceptance" we found [t(787)=-6.968, p<0.001], so there are
also significant differences, with women being the ones with higher values
(M=45.56; SD=5.59) compared to men (M=41.95; SD=8.74).
With regard to the factor "Legal framework", from [t(787)=-3.872, p<0.001],
we observe statistically significant differences for gender, and once again, women
stand out because they have higher values (M=24.58; SD=5.49) than men (M=22.82;
SD=6.75).
Considering the ability to exercise "Parentality", it was found that [t(787)=-
4.877, p<0.001], which again indicates statistically significant differences. This
factor, women are also the ones who have higher mean values (M=26.99; SD=6.36)
compared to men (M=24.37; SD=8.10).
For "Intimacy", there are statistically significant differences [t(787)=-2.465,
p=0.014], with women scoring higher values (M=16.83; SD=4.35) than men
(M=15.96; SD=5.04).
For "Meaning" it appears that women are display greatest acceptance
(M=17.49; SD=2.18) compared to men (M=16.16; SD=3.24), and these differences
are statistically significant [t(787)=-6.732, p<0.001].
Finally, the "Morality" factor where there are no statistically significant
differences [t(780)=-0.572, p=0.567], but women also have less prejudice (M=3.64;
SD=1.45) compared to men (M=3.58; SD=1.30) (see Table 6).
52

Table 6: Mean values of overall attitude and factors relating to gender
Feminin Masculin
M SD M SD t P
Overall attitude
135.05 20.23 124.81 28.62 -5.738 <0.001*
Acceptance
45.56 5.59 41.95 8.74 -6.968 <0.001*
Legal Framework
24.58 5.49 22.82 6.75 -3.872 <0.001*
Parentality
26.99 6.36 24.37 8.10 -4.877 <0.001*
Intimacy
16.83 4.35 15.96 5.04 -2.465 0.014*
Meaning 17.49 2.18 16.16 3.24 -6.732 <0.001*
Morality 3.64 1.45 3.58 1.30 -0.572 0.567
*p<0.05
Relationship between marital status of the subjects and the overall attitude and
factors
To evaluate the relationship between the variables marital status, attitude and
global factors, we proceeded to compare means between groups and it was found that
[F(5.791)=6.668, p< 0.001], reflecting significant differences in overall attitude.
Among the marital statuses taken into account, the "Other" category has higher
values (M=152.60; SD=7.23), followed by the "Unmarried partners" (M = 142.30,
SD=17.57), "Widowers" (M=132.53; SD=18.92), "Unmarried" (M=132.40;
SD=23.16), "Divorced" (M=128.00; SD=26.68) and, finally, with less expressive
mean values , the "Married" (M=125.09; SD=25.43).
Concerning the "Acceptance" factor we found that [F(5.791)=3.694, p=0.003],
so the differences between the marital statuses are statistically significant, as is the
case for the overall attitude, the values presented by categories follow the same order,
ie, with a more pronounced acceptance is the "Other" category (M=49.10; SD=2.51),
53

then the "Unmarried partners" (M=46.58; SD=4.47), "Widowers" (M=46.08;
SD=4.48), "Unmarried" (M=44.54; SD=6.92), "Divorced" (M=43.11; SD=7.64), and
"Married" (M=43.05; SD=7,49).
As for the "Legal framework", there are statistically significant differences
[F(5.791)=7.380, p<0.001]. The same order is found in relation to the average values
of each category, as mentioned in the overall attitude and acceptance. Thus, the
"Other" category (M=29.20; SD=1.14), the "Unmarried partners" (M=26.45;
SD=4.06), "Widows" (M=24.46; SD=5.44), "Unmarried" (M=24.27; SD=5.77),
"Divorced" (M=22.57, SD=6.61), and "Married" (M=22.09; SD=6.69).
In "Parentality" was found that [F(5.791)=6.327, p<0.001] which is indicative
of statistically significant differences. However, the order in which the categories
appear marital status in relation to the average values does not resemble the situations
described above. The "Other" category again stands out with higher values
(M=32.40; SD=3.10), followed by the "Unmarried partners" (M=28.85; SD=5.98),
"Unmarried" (M=26.41; SD=6.73), "Divorced" (M=25.51; SD=7.64), "Widows"
(M=24.54; SD=7.70), and finally "Married" (M=24.06; SD=7.92).
The "Intimacy" also shows statistically significant differences between the
categories of marital status [F(5.791)=6.062, p0.001|. This Iactor`s categories
follow the same order of "Parentality". Higher average values in "Other" (M=20.10;
SD=2.38), followed by the "Unmarried partners" (M=18.60; SD=4.33), "Unmarried"
(M=16.66; SD=4.50), "Divorced" (M=16.43; SD=5.19), "Widowers" (M=15.62;
SD=2.93), and "Married" (M=15.28; SD=4.76).
No statistically significant differences were found in marital status in relation
to the "Meaning" [F(5.791)=2.005, p=0.076]. Still, the higher average values are
presented in the "Widowers" (M=18.00; SD=1.47) and "Other" (M=18.00; SD=1.70),
followed by "Unmarried partners" (M=17.63; SD=2.18), "Unmarried" (M=17.11;
SD=2.61), "Married" (M=16.75; SD=2.71), and "Divorced" (M=16.43; SD=3.35).
54

Finally, the "Morality" presents statistically significant differences
[F(5.783)=6.574, p<0.001], with "Unmarried partners" that stand out by their mean
values (M=4.25; SD=1.09), followed by the "Divorced" category (M=4.06;
SD=1.13), "Married" (M=3.92; SD=1.21), "Widowers" (M=3.85; SD=1.28), "Other"
(M=3.80; SD=1.69) and "Unmarried" (M=3.43; SD=1.46) (see Table 7).
Table 7: Mean values of overall attitude and factors relating to marital status
Unmarried Married Divorced
M SD M SD M SD F p
Overall attitude
132.40 23.16 125.09 25.43 128.00 26.68 6.668 <0.001*
Acceptance
44.54 6.92 43.05 7.49 43.11 7.64 3.694 0.003*
Legal Framework
24.27 5.77 22.09 6.69 22.57 6.61 7.380 <0.001*
Parentality 26.41 6.73
24.06 7.92 25.51 7.64 6.327 <0.001*
Intimacy
16.66 4.50 15.28 4.76 16.43 5.19 6.062 <0.001*
Meaning
17.11 2.61 16.75 2.71 16.43 3.35 2.005 0.076
Morality
3.43 1.46 3.92 1.21 4.06 1.13 6.574 <0.001*
Unmarried
partners
Widower Other
M SD M SD M SD F p
Overall attitude
142.30 17.57 132.53 18.92 152.60 7.23 6.668 <0.001*
Acceptance
46.58 4.47 46.08 4.48 49.10 2.51 3.694 0.003*
Legal Framework
26.45 4.06 24.46 5.44 29.20 1.14 7.380 <0.001*
Parentality
28.85 5.98 24.54 7.70 32.40 3.10 6.327 <0.001*
55

*p<0.05
Relationship between the subjects age and the overall attitude and factors
To evaluate the relationship between age, overall attitude and factors, we
proceeded to compare means between groups where there are no statistically
significant differences for the overall attitude [F(3.793)=1.777, p=0.150], with higher
mean values for the age group of 22 to 40 years (M=132.97; SD=23.56), followed by
the age group up to 21 years (M=131.11; SD=20.46), the group of 41 to 65 years
(M=127.96; SD=26.95) and, finally, the group aged over 65 years (M=115.50;
SD=10.61).
No statistically significant differences were found for the factor "Acceptance"
[F(3.793)=1.784, p=0.149]. The group aged from 22 to 40 years presents more
expressive means (M=44.75; SD=6.80), the group aged up to 21 years (M=44.38;
SD=6.22) the group over 65 years (M=43.50; SD=4.95) and with the lowest average
values, the group aged from 41 to 65 years (M=43.09; SD=8.03).
As for the age groups and the "Legal framework" factor there are statistically
significant differences [F(3.793)=3.090, p=0.026], being the group aged up to 21
years the one presenting the average values of greater prominence (M=24.42;
SD=5.29), followed by the group aged from 22 to 40 years (M=24.26; SD=5.91), the
group of 41 to 65 years (M=22.63; SD=6.66) and with a lower score, the group aged
over 65 years (M=18.50; SD=9.19).
For "Parentality" [F(3.793)=1.487, p=0.217] was observed, so there are no
statistically significant differences. Still, the group aged up to 21 years presented the
Intimacy
18.60 4.33 15.62 2.93 20.10 2.38 6.062 <0.001*
Meaning
17.63 2.18 18.00 1.47 18.00 1.70 2.005 0.076
Morality
4.25 1.09 3.85 1.28 3.80 1.69 6.574 <0.001*
56

highest values (M=26.37; SD=6.35), the group of 22 to 40 years (M=26.33;
SD=6.95) the group of 41 to 65 years (M=25.38; SD=8.20), and the group over 65
years (M=18.00; SD=5.66).
Regarding age and the "Intimacy" factor we recorded [F(3.793)=2.559,
p=0.054], therefore, no statistically significant differences were present. The age
group from 22 to 40 scored higher average values (M=16.87; SD=4.65), followed by
the group aged up to 21 years (M=16.04; SD=4.21), the group of 41 to 65 years
(M=15.85; SD=4.73) and the group with ages above 65 years (M=13.50; SD=2.12).
For the factor "Meaning" there were no statistically significant differences
either [F(3.793)=0.691, p=0.558]. However, in this case the group with higher
average values was of the age above 65 years (M=18.50; SD=0.71), followed by the
group aged from 22 to 40 years (M=17.15; SD=2.60), the group of 41 to 65 years
(M=16.96; SD =2.88) and with lower scores, the group up to 21 years (M=16.87;
SD=2.50).
The factor "Morality" shows statistically significant differences between age
groups [F(3.785)=9.583, p<0.001], with group 41 to 65 years presenting higher
average values (M=4.08; SD=1.12), followed by the group of 22 to 40 years
(M=3.64; SD=1.41), the group with more than 65 years (M=3.50; SD=0.71) and with
lower scores, the group up to 21 years (M=3.12; SD=1.48) (see Table 8).
Table 8: Mean values of overall attitude and factors in relation to age groups
Less than 21
years old
22 to 40 years
old
41 to 65 years
old
More than 65
years old
M SD M SD M SD M SD F P
Overall
attitude
131.11 20.46 132.97 23.56 127.96 26.95 115.50 10.61 1.777 0.150
Acceptance
44.38 6.22 44.75 6.80 43.09 8.03 43.50 4.95 1.784 0.149
57

*p<0.05
Relationship between educational attainment and the overall attitude of the
subjects and factors
To evaluate the relationship between the variables qualifications, attitude and
global factors, we proceeded to compare means between groups, and it was observed
that there are statistically significant differences in overall attitude [F(5.791)=4.227,
p=0.001], with graduates showing greater acceptance of homosexuality (M=134.54;
SD=22.17), followed by subjects with postgraduate (M=133.31; SD=23.39), those
with qualifications up to 12th grade (M=126.78; SD=24.24), up to the 9th grade
(M=122.63; SD=27.16), the bachelors (M=121.48; SD=33.73), and finally, with
evidence of higher prejudice, the subjects with qualifications up to 6 years
(M=121.40; SD=20.07).
Regarding the factor "Acceptance", there are also significant differences
[F(5.791)=4.641, p<0.001]. Here, also, the graduates have a more expressive mean
(M=45.21; SD=6.38), followed by postgraduates (M=44.91; SD=6.69), those with up
to 12 years (M=43.02; SD=7.47), up to 6 years (M=42.00; SD=6.32), the bachelors
(M=40.9; SD=9.32) and subjects with qualifications up to 9th grade with lower
(M=40.38; SD=8.18).
Legal
Framework
24.42 5.29 24.26 5.91 22.63 6.66 18.50 9.19 3.090 0.026*
Parentality
26.37 6.35 26.33 6.95 25.38 8.20 18.00 5.66 1.487 0.217
Intimacy
16.04 4.21 16.87 4.65 15.85 4.73 13.50 2.12 2.559 0.054
Meaning
16.87 2.50 17.15 2.60 16.96 2.88 18.50 0.71 0.691 0.558
Morality
3.12 1.48 3.64 1.41 4.08 1.12 3.50 0.71 9.583 <0.001*
58

For the "Legal framework" we found that [F(5.791)=3.175, p=0.008], there are
statistically significant differences regarding this factor as well. Once more the
graduates have higher average values (M=24.7; SD=5.73), followed by subjects with
postgraduate (M=23.97; SD=5.76), with qualifications until the 12th grade
(M=23.18; SD=6.19), up to 6 years (M=22.40; SD=3.85), up to 9 years (M=22.25;
SD=6.94), and the bachelors with values less expressive (M=21.04; SD=7.76).
With regard to the "Parentality" we observed that the differences were
statistically significant [F (5, 791)=2.889, p=0.014]. Higher average values for
graduates (M=26.89; SD=6.67), with postgraduate (M=26.37; SD=7.38), up to 12
years (M=24.97; SD=6.92), up to 9 years (M=24.25; SD=8.22), with a bachelor
degree (M=23.70; SD=9.08), and up to 6 years (M=22.40; SD=8.32).
As for the factor "Intimacy" no statistically significant differences were
recorded [F(5.791)=1.989, p=0.078]. However, postgraduates have higher acceptance
(M=16.91; SD=4.82) followed by graduates (M=16.88; SD=4.43), the bachelors
(M=16.26; SD=5.70), up to 12 years (M=15.73; SD=4.49), up to 9 years (M=15.38;
SD=5.29) and up to 6 years (M=15.00; SD=4.30).
In the "Meaning" factor there are statistically significant differences
[F(5.791)=3.055, p=0.010]. Graduates with higher average values (M=17.34;
SD=2.45), postgraduates (M=17.16; SD=2.57), up to the 9th grade (M=17.00;
SD=2.45), up to 12 years (M=16.63; SD=2.82), with a bachelor degree (M=15.96;
SD=3.57), and up to 6 years (M=15.60; SD=3.44).
Finally, the factor "Morality" with [F(5.783)=5.333, p<0.001], therefore,
statistically significant differences are evident. Postgraduates with higher average
values (M=4.02; SD=1.21), followed by subjects who have until 6th grade (M=4.00;
SD=1.73), up to 9th grade (M=3.86; SD=1.46), bachelors (M=3.61; SD=1.41),
graduates (M=3.56; SD=1.45) and up to 12th years (M=3.29; SD=1.43) (see Table 9).
59

Table 9: Mean values of overall attitude and factors in relation to qualifications
*p<0.05
Up to the 6th
year
Up to the 9th
year
Up to the 12th
year
M SD M SD M SD F p
Overall attitude
121.40 20.07 122.63 27.16 126.78 24.24 4.227 0.001*
Acceptance
42.00 6.32 40.38 8.18 43.02 7.47 4.641 <0.001*
Legal
Framework
22.40 3.85 22.25 6.94 23.18 6.19 3.175 0.008*
Parentality
22.40 8.32 24.25 8.22 24.97 6.92 2.889 0.014*
Intimacy
15.00 4.30 15.38 5.29 15.73 4.49 1.989 0.078
Meaning
15.60 3.44 17.00 2.45 16.63 2.82 3.055 0.010*
Morality
4.00 1.73 3.86 1.46 3.29 1.43 5.333 <0.001*
Bachelor Graduation Postgraduate
M SD M SD M SD F p
Overall attitude
121.48 33.73 134.54 22.17 133.31 23.39 4.227 0.001*
Acceptance
40.91 9.32 45.21 6.38 44.91 6.69 4.641 <0.001*
Legal
Framework
21.04 7.76 24.71 5.73 23.97 5.76 3.175 0.008*
Parentality
23.70 9.08 26.89 6.67 26.37 7.38 2.889 0.014*
Intimacy
16.26 5.70 16.88 4.43 16.91 4.82 1.989 0.078
Meaning
15.96 3.57 17.34 2.45 17.16 2.57 3.055 0.010*
Morality
3.61 1.41 3.56 1.45 4.02 1.21 5.333 <0.001*
62

CHAPTER VII DISCUSSION

The obtained results indicate that the sample has a low level of strength of faith
and willingness to accept homosexuality. Thus, we can assume that the absence of
religious commitment or the absence of religious practice can be related to attitudes
of tolerance towards homosexuals. However, the sample shows some peculiarities,
such a high proportion of Catholic subjects (71.3%) and a low expression of violence
and discrimination against homosexuals. As the study of Maria Machado in Brazil
states, among various religious affiliations, Catholicism is the one that promotes
inclusion the most and is emphasized as not being homophobic (Bomfim, 2009).
With regard to the relationship between faith and attitudes toward
homosexuality, the sample reveals that subjects who have a higher level of faith are
those who demonstrate a greater prejudice toward homosexuals. Regarding the
factors, the group with the highest level of faith evidenced greater rejection in
relation to homosexuals, lower acceptance of the legal recognition of marriage and
unions between these couples, greater prejudice towards the ability to exercise
parenting and adoption and greater prejudice in regards to intimate relationships
between and/or with homosexuals. Regarding the "Meaning" and "Morality" factors,
although the differences are not significant; in the first, the group with the highest
faith presents a biased attitude to the importance of sexual orientation, but in the
second, this same group reveals acceptance in relation to morality and suitability of
homosexuals. It should be noted that this factor does not show a good psychometric
validity, which may affect the result. These considerations are in line with several
studies, notably that of Machado Pais, Villaverde Cabral and Vala (2000) where was
found that the intensity of religious practice is associated with greater rejection of
liberal attitudes regarding sexuality; Whitley`s study (2009) which states that subjects
with greater religious commitment would be more prejudiced, and the study of Herek
and Gonzalez-Rivera (2006, cited by Lozano Verduzco & Daz-Loving, 2009) who
63

believe that people who practice a religion are more homophobic. The hypothesis for
the relationship between these variables is confirmed.
With regard to gender, men stand out by their biased attitude shown in the
results of the attitude to global factors. The results clearly point to bias in men and
greater acceptance in women. Despite the absence of significant differences in factor
"Morality" once more men are showing lower acceptance compared to women. These
results are consistent with other investigations where men were considered as the
most prejudiced (Gato, Leme & Leme, 2010; Kite & Whitley, 1996; Kunkel &
Temple, 1992). The hypothesis is confirmed.
Regarding marital status we found that there are statistically significant
diIIerences in overall attitude and all Iactors except 'Meaning. Married people
revealed to be more prejudiced and the "Other" category that reflects other marital
states (affective commitment, dating, etc.) presents itself as having a more tolerant
attitude to global acceptance of gay people, the legal recognition of marriage and
unions between homosexuals, homosexual parenthood and intimacy. As for the
morality and ethics of homosexuals, not forgetting the limitations of the psychometric
factor, it appears that unmarried have higher prejudice and the subjects classified as
'civil union have an attitude oI greater acceptance. Only the Iactor 'Meaning
shows no statistical signiIicant values, with the category 'Widowers presenting a
greater acceptance of homosexual orientation and divorcees demonstrating greater
prejudice. It should be noted regarding the relationship between these variables there
are no references to similar studies with which we can compare the results.
Regarding the subjects age, the literature indicates that older subjects are more
homophobic (Anderssen, 2002; Dance, 2008; Davies, 2004; Herek & Gonzalez-
Rivera, 2006; Kite & Whitley, 1998 Toro-Alfonso & Varas-Daz, 2004 cited by
Verduzco & Lozano Daz-Loving, 2009). The results show some uncertainties with
regard to these considerations. Significant statistical differences were found in two
factors, the prejudice being evident for the older (over 65) in recognition of
unmarried couples and gay marriage, but the factor "Morality", the prejudices
64

subjects are much younger (up to 21 years). In overall attitude and other factors,
although there are no significant differences, it appears that the older generations are
the most prejudiced. Thus, there is no unequivocal evidence enabling confirm the
hypothesis.
Regarding qualifications, the results indicate for the overall attitude that
subjects with higher qualifications are more tolerant and the subjects with lower
levels of knowledge demonstrated greater prejudice. The same is true regarding
"Acceptance", "Parentality", "Meaning" and "Morality". In the 'Legal framework
one can see that acceptance is evident in graduates, but bachelors are the most
prejudiced. With regard to the factor "Intimacy", no significant differences were
found, however, the acceptance is higher in higher degrees of knowledge and
prejudice is more evident among those with lower qualifications. These results
coincide with what was found in the study of Gato, Fontaine and Carneiro (2010),
Grapes (2006) and Lambert, Ventura, Hall and Cluse-Tolar (2006) where there was a
greater acceptance of homosexuality among the most educated. Therefore, we accept
the hypothesis.
For other analyzed data, it was found that approximately half of the sample
agrees with the influence of the sexual orientation of parents over the sexual
orientation of children and approximately 60% of the sample agrees with the ban on
adoption by gay parents, regardless of the circumstances. These results confirm the
data obtained in the 2006 Eurobarometer where a small percentage of Portuguese
agreed to the adoption by homosexual couples.
65

CHAPTER VIII CONCLUSION
Studying this area allowed us access to the understanding of many of the
reasons that are behind intolerant behaviors as is sexual prejudice.
The results point to low faith and low prejudice among the Portuguese, which
confirms religious faith as a predictor of negative attitudes toward homosexuals, as
Adamczyk and Pitt (2009) and Whitley (2009) found in their studies. However, it
appears that the Portuguese with higher strength of faith are those that display a
greater homosexual prejudice. Starting from this consideration, it is noteworthy that
the sample consists of a considerable number of subjects whose religious affiliation is
Catholic, which underlies the need of a deeper investigation on the relationship of
this particular religious affiliation, its doctrines and principles with the results.
With regard to gender, the results were predictable according to the literature.
Men have higher bias when compared with women. This ideals of masculinity
imposed by the society in which the individual is present contribute to this fact by
promoting intolerance and discrimination.
The marital status indicates that the married Portuguese have higher prejudice
compared to the other marital states. Perhaps this fact results from a conservative
view of the experience of relationships and sexuality. Further investigations should
be considered arising from this assumption.
Regarding age, though we have no evidence enabling a generalization, it
appears that the younger generations show a greater acceptance of homosexuality. In
the future, it would be interesting to see if the young are less conservative than the
older and thus more tolerant toward sexuality and if this attitude stems from a more
or less religious practice.
Regarding qualifications, as mentioned in the theoretical review, the more
educated subjects are more tolerant. The high qualiIications oI this study`s subjects is
66

remarkable, which makes the inclusion of subjects representing other levels of
knowledge indispensable, in future research, in order to objectively analyze its
relationship with this kind of prejudice.
The data regarding homoparenting is curious. Given that the sample has tends
toward the acceptance of homosexuality, the finding that more than half of the
subject is against adoption is remarkable. Do they advocate for the preservation of the
family and its structure according to the assumptions of religion, or on the other hand,
is prejudice behind this subtle refusal? This could be the starting point for further
investigations in this field.
Starting from the analysis of the data obtained by the instrument that assesses
the attitudes of the Portuguese toward homosexuality, it will be interesting to
understand the importance of interpersonal contact with homosexuals and their role in
the manifestation of prejudice among the Portuguese. Studies in other populations
indicate that living with homosexuals, getting to know their habits and lifestyle
creates greater acceptance of homosexuality (Castro-Convers, Gray, Ladany &
Metzler, 2005; Herek & Capitanio, 1996; Lemm, 2006).
Another important contribution of this research lies in the psychometric
validation of the used instruments, the Questionnaire of Santa Clara of Religious
Faith Strength (QSCFFR) and the Assessment Questionnaire of Attitudes of the
Portuguese regarding Homosexuality (QAAH).
We cannot ignore some conceptual limitations, including the method of data
collection that took place exclusively through the internet, conditioning the sample,
the observed "missing values", the factor "Morality" is represented by only one item
(question 12), compromised its psychometric validity.
Prejudice translates into acts of physical and/or psychological inducing
physical and mental suffering on its victims. Some studies show that homosexuals are
exposed to greater risk and often suffer from low self-esteem, depression, substance
abuse, school dropout, suicide, anxiety, stress (Buffie, 2011; Fisher, 1996). In this
67

sense, it is for mental health professionals to get involved in prevention, development
and implementation of assessment and intervention models and aimed at minimizing
the effects of stigmatization.
68

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adamczyk, A., & Pitt, C. (2009). Shaping attitudes about homosexuality: The role of
religion and cultural context. Social Science Research, 38(2), 338-351.
doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.01.002
Albuquerque, M. & Ramos, S. (2007). A sexualidade na deficincia mental profunda
um estudo descritivo sobre atitudes de pais e profissionais. Retrieved
March 21, 2011, in: http://www.psicologia.com.pt/artigos/textos/A0367.pdf
Almeida, J. & Carvalheira, A. (2007). Flutuaes e diferenas de gnero no
desenvolvimento da orientao sexual: Perspectivas tericas. Anlise
Psicolgica, n3, srie XXV, Julho-Setembo: 243-350.
lvarez, P., & Jurgenson, J. (2009). Validacin de una escala para medir actitudes
ante la sexualidad en la poblacin mexicana. (Spanish). Archivos
Hispanoamericanos De Sexologa, 15(1), 13-21.
Baltazar, D. (2003). Um estudo sobre a recorrncia s crenas religiosas pelos
pacientes psiquitricos e os efeitos na conduo do tratamento pelos
profissionais de sade mental. Thesis presented at the Escola Nacional de
Sade Pblica. Retrieved June 13, 2011, in:
http://teses.icict.fiocruz.br/pdf/vargasdm.pdf
Barros, J. (2000). Psicologia da Religio. Coimbra: Almedina.
Bomfim, P. (2009). Discriminao e preconceito: identidade, cotidiano e
religiosidade de travestis e transexuais. Dissertation submitted for the
degree of Master in Universidade Catlica de Braslia. Retrieved February 5,
2011, in:
http://www.bdtd.ucb.br/tede/tde_busca/arquivo.php?codArquivo=1138
69

Buffie, W. C. (2011). [Commentary on] Public Health Implications of Same-Sex
Marriage. American Journal Of Public Health, 101(6), 986-990.
doi:10.2105/AJPH.2010.300112
Callegher, J. D. (2010). Attitudes toward Homosexuality among Catholic-Educated
University Graduates. Catholic Education: A Journal Of Inquiry And
Practice, 13(3), 306-328.
Cardoso, F. (2008). O conceito de orientao sexual na encruzilhada entre sexo,
gnero e motricidade. Revista Interamericana De Psicologa, 42(1), 69-79.
Castro-Convers, K., Gray, L. A., Ladany, N., & Metzler, A. E. (2005). Interpersonal
Contact Experiences with Gay Men: A Qualitative Investigation of 'Fag
Hags' and Gay-Supportive Heterosexual Men. Journal Of Homosexuality,
49(1), 47-76. doi:10.1300/J082v49n01_03
Ceccarelli, P. R. (Setembro de 2000). Sexualidade e preconceito. Revista
Latinoamericana de Psicopatologia Fundamental, III, pp. 18-37.
Coimbra, J. L., & Castro, M. G. (2001). Psicologia (2 ed.). Porto: Edies ASA.
Davi, E. H. (Janeiro/Junho de 2005). Intolerncia e homossexualidade: as marcas da
homofobia na Cultura Ocidental. Caderno Espao Feminino , 13, pp. 119-
137.
Dermer, S. B., Smith, S. D., & Barto, K. K. (2010). Identifying and correctly labeling
sexual prejudice, discrimination, and oppression. Journal Of Counseling &
Development, 88(3), 325-331. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2010.tb00029.x
70

Drucker, C. (2005). Religiosidade, crenas e atitudes em idosos deprimidos: em um
servio de sade mental em So Paulo, Brasil. Dissertation submitted to
obtain the title of Master of Gerontology in Universidade Estadual de
Campinas. Retrieved October 13, 2011 in:
http://www.amebrasil.org.br/html/ClaudiaDrucker-TESECOMPLETA.pdf
Eurobarmetro (2006). Eurobarmetro 66. Opinio Pblica na Unio Europeia.
Relatrio nacional Portugal. Retrieved April 20, 2012, in:
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb66/eb66_pt_nat.pdf
Eurobarmetro (2008). Discrimination in the European Union 2008, Results for
Portugal. Retrieved October 15, 2011, in:
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_296_sheet_pt.pdf
Faria, J. & Seidl, E. (2005). Religiosidade e enfrentamento em contextos de sade e
doena: Reviso da literatura. Psicologia: Reflexo e Crtica, 3(18), 381-
389. Retrieved June 29, 2006, by SciELO Brasil.
Felson, J. (2011). The Effect of Religious Background on Sexual Orientation.
Interdisciplinary Journal Of Research On Religion, 71-33.
Fisher, J. (1996, October). The effect of an educational program on teacher and
school counselor knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs regarding homosexuality
and gay youth. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A, 57,
Frazo, P., & Rosrio, R. (2008). O coming out de gays e lsbicas e as relaes
familiares. Anlise Psicolgica, 1 (XXVI), 33-35.
Funai, A. (2010). Uso do lcool e religiosidade em estudantes de enfermagem.
Dissertation submitted to the Escola de Enfermagem de Ribeiro Preto da
Universidade de So Paulo to obtain the title of Master of Science. Retrivied
71

September 12, 2011, in:
http://www.teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/22/22131/tde-09032010-
161913/fr.php
Gato, J., Fontaine, A.M., & Carneiro, N. S. (2010). Percepo de futuros profissionais
de reas psicossociais sobre o desenvolvimento psicolgico de crianas
educadas em famlias homoparentais. In Actas do VII Simpsio Nacional de
Investigao em Psicologia, Universidade do Minho, Portugal. Retrieved
April 20, 2012, in:
http://www.actassnip2010.com/conteudos/actas/PsiFam_3.pdf
Gato, J., Leme, V., & Leme, A. (2010). Atitudes relativamente homossexualidade
em Portugal e no Brasil. Retrieved January 22, 2012, in:
http://hdl.handle.net/10216/26671
Gleitman, H., Fridlund, A. J., & Reisberg, D. (2003). Psicologia (6 ed.). (D. R. Silva,
Trad.) Lisboa: Fundao Calouste Gulbenkian.
Grapes, K. (2006). Ignorant Discrimination: How Education Levels Affect Attitudes
Toward Homosexuality and Gay Rights. Sociological Viewpoints, 2251-59.
Heilborn, M. L., & Brando, E. R. (1999). Introduo: Cincias Sociais e
Sexualidade. In M. L. Heilborn, Sexualidade: o olhar das cincias sociais
(pp. 7-17). Rio de Janeiro: Editora Zahar.
Herek, G. M. (1984). Beyond 'homophobia': A social psychological perspective on
attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. Journal Of Homosexuality, 10(1-2),
1-21. doi:10.1300/J082v10n01_01
72

Herek, G. M., & Capitanio, J. P. (1996). 'Some of my best friends': Intergroup
contact, concealable stigma, and heterosexuals' attitudes toward gay men and
lesbians. Personality And Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(4), 412-424.
doi:10.1177/0146167296224007
Herek, G. M. (2000). The Psychology of Sexual Prejudice. Current Directions In
Psychological Science (Wiley-Blackwell), 9(1), 19-22.
Hunsberger, B. (1996). Religious Fundamentalism, Right-Wing Authoritarianism,
and Hostility Toward Homosexuals in Non-Christian Religious
Groups. International Journal For The Psychology Of Religion, 6(1), 39.
Hunsberger, B., & Jackson, L. M. (2005). Religion, Meaning, and Prejudice. Journal
Of Social Issues, 61(4), 807-826. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2005.00433.x
Kim, B. K., D'Andrea, M. J., Sahu, P. K., & Gaughen, K. S. (1998). A multicultural
study of university students' knowledge of an attitudes toward
homosexuality. Journal Of Humanistic Education & Development, 36(3),
171.
Kite, M. E., & Whitley, B. r. (1996). Sex Differences in Attitudes toward
Homosexual Persons, Behaviors, and Civil Rights: A Meta-analysis.
Personality And Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(4), 336-53.
Kunkel, L. E., & Temple, L. L. (1992). Attitudes towards AIDS and homosexuals:
Gender, marital status, and religion. Journal Of Applied Social Psychology,
22(13), 1030-1040. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb00940.x
Lacerda, M., Pereira, C., & Camino, L. (2002). Um estudo sobre as formas de
preconceito contra homossexuais na perspectiva das representaes sociais.
Psicologia: Reflexo E Crtica, 15(1), 165-178. doi:10.1590/S0102-
79722002000100018
73

LaMar, L., & Kite, M. (1998). Sex Differences in Attitudes Toward Gay Men and
Lesbians: A Multidimensional Perspective. Journal Of Sex Research, 35(2),
189-196.
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(4), 1-30.
Lemm, K. M. (2006). Positive Associations Among Interpersonal Contact,
Motivation, and Implicit and Explicit Attitudes Toward Gay Men. Journal
Of Homosexuality, 51(2), 79-99. doi:10.1300/J082v51n02_05
Lima, M. & Vala, J. (2004). As novas formas de expresso do preconceito e do
racismo. Estudos de Psicologia, 9(3), 401-411. Retrieved May 02, 2011, em:
http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/pdf/261/26190302.pdf
Lozano Verduzco, I., & Daz-Loving, R. (2009). Factores asociados a la expresin de
la homofobia en la Ciudad de Mxico. Archivos Hispanoamericanos De
Sexologa, 15(2), 45-66.
Machado Pais, J., Villaverde Cabral, M., & Vala, J. (2000). Atitudes e prticas
religiosas dos portugueses. Lisboa: ICS/ISSP.
Matias, D. (2007). Psicologia e orientao sexual: Realidades em transformao.
Anlise Psicolgica, 25(1), 149-152.
Mcleland, K. C., & Sutton, G. W. (2008). Sexual orientation, mental health, gender,
and spirituality: prejudicial attitudes and social influence in faith
communities. Journal Of Psychology & Theology, 36(2), 104-113.
74

Mendona, H. & Tamayo, A. (2003). Construo e validao de um instrumento para
a medida de atitude em a relao retaliao organizacional. Avaliao
Psicolgica, 2(2), 147-153.
Menndez, M. (2007). Religiosidade e valores em Portugal: comparao com a
Espanha e a Europa catlica. Anlise Social, XLII(184), 757-787. Retrieved
April 9, 2011, in: http://www.scielo.oces.mctes.pt/pdf/aso/n184/n184a04.pdf
Nedeff, C. (2001). Contribuies da sexologia sobre a sexualidade infantil nos dois
primeiros anos de vida: uma reviso bibliogrfica. (Portuguese). Psicologia:
Teoria E Prtica, 3(2), 83-91.
Neto, F. (1997). Psiquiatria e religio A prevalncia de transtornos mentais entre
ministros religiosos. Thesis for obtaining the title of teacher presented to the
Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de So Paulo. Retrieved June 25,
2006, in: http://www.hojenet.org/htm/profissional_arquivos.htm
Neto, F. (1998). Psicologia social. Vol. I. Lisboa: Universidade Aberta.
Neto, M. (2008). Relao entre religiosidade e orientao moral de homens e
mulheres. Dissertation submitted for the degree of Master in Universidade
de Lisboa. Retrieved February 23, 2011, in:
http://repositorio.ul.pt/bitstream/10451/1311/1/19577_ulfc091293_tm_Tese
Eugenia_080423_Versao_final.pdf
Nielsen, K. (2010). Atheism. Em Encyclopdia Britannica. Retrieved May 2, 2011,
in: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/40634/atheism
Oliveira, E. (2007). Atitudes dos alunos brancos em relao a alunos negros.
Dissertation submitted for the degree of Master in Universidade Aberta.
Retrieved March 15, 2012, in:
http://repositorioaberto.uab.pt/handle/10400.2/626
75

Panzini, R. (2004). Escala de coping religioso-espiritual (Escala CRE): traduo,
adaptao e validao da escala RCOPE, abordando relaes com sade e
qualidade de vida. Unpublished dissertation for the degree of Master in
Psychology in Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul. Retrieved
December 12, 2011, in: http://hdl.handle.net/10183/7100
Pereira, A. (2004). Representaes Sociais do Homossexualismo e Preconceito
contra Homossexuais. Dissertation submitted for the degree of Master in
Universidade Catlica de Gois. Retrieved January 23, 2011, in:
http://tede.biblioteca.ucg.br/tde_arquivos/11/TDE-2006-11-23T133435Z-
236/Publico/Annelyse%20dos%20Santos%20Lira%20Soares%20Pereira.pdf
Pereira, A., Monteiro, M., & Camino, L. (2009). Estudo da validao das escalas de
crenas sobre a natureza da homossexualidade e de preconceito contra
homossexuais. (Italian). Laboratrio De Psicologia, 7(1), 21-32.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Meertens, R. W. (1995). Subtle and blatant prejudice in western
Europe. European Journal Of Social Psychology, 25(1), 57-75.
Plante, T. G., & Boccaccini, M. T. (1997). Reliability and Validity of the Santa Clara
Strength of Religious Faith Questionnaire. Pastoral Psychology, 45(6), 429-
437.
Plante, T. G., & Boccaccini, M. T. (1997). The Santa Clara Strength of Religious
Faith Questionnaire. Pastoral Psychology, 45(5), 375-387.
Rodrigues, C. (2008). Psicologia da religio na investigao cientfica da atualidade.
(Portuguese). Cincias Da Religio: Histria E Sociedade, 6(2), 36-71.
Santos, E. (2008). Comportamento sexual e religiosidade: um estudo com jovens
brasileiros. PhD thesis in the Postgraduate Program in Psychology
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil. Retrieved July 3, 2011,
76

in:http://www.msmidia.com/CEPRUA/arquivos/Tese_ElderCerqueiraSantos
_biblioteca.pdf
Silva, E. (2004). Religio, Diversidade e Valores Culturais: conceitos tericos e a
educao para a Cidadania. Rever revista de estudos da religio, 2, 1-14.
Retrieved May 2, 2011, in: http://www.pucsp.br/rever/rv2_2004/p_silva.pdf
Theodore, P. S., & Basow, S. A. (2000). Heterosexual masculinity and homophobia:
A reaction to the self?. Journal Of Homosexuality, 40(2), 31-48.
doi:10.1300/J082v40n02_03
Vincent, W., Parrott, D. J., & Peterson, J. L. (2011). Effects of traditional gender role
norms and religious fundamentalism on self-identified heterosexual men's
attitudes, anger, and aggression toward gay men and lesbians. Psychology Of
Men & Masculinity, 12(4), 383-400. doi:10.1037/a0023807
Wells, J. W., & Franken, M. L. (1987). University Students' Knowledge about and
Attitudes toward Homosexuality. Journal Of Humanistic Education And
Development, 26(2), 81-95.
Whitley, J. E. (2009). Religiosity and Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men: A
Meta-Analysis. International Journal For The Psychology Of
Religion, 19(1), 21-38. doi:10.1080/10508610802471104
Zucco, L., & de Souza Minayo, M. (2009). Sexualidade feminina em revista(s).
(Portuguese). Interface - Comunicao, Sade, Educao, 13(28), 43-54.
77

APPENDICES
78

APPENDICE 1 - INFORMED CONSENT
In preparing the Master dissertation in Clinical and Health Psychology,
University of Beira Interior, we intend to investigate the influence of religion on
attitudes towards homosexuality Portuguese.
To collaborate is required to complete the following questionnaire.
At no time will your personal identification required and all data collected will
be treated anonymously and confidentially. At its discretion, may at any time
withdraw its participation.
Thank you for your cooperation.
79

APPENDICE 2 - SOCIODEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY
Please answer the following questions. All responses anonymous and
confidential.
Age: _______ Sex : Feminin Masculin
Qualifications:
Up to the 4th year Up to the 6th year Up to the 9th year Up to the 12th year
Bachelor Graduation PostGraduate
Civil status:
Unmarried Married Divorced Unmarried partners Widower Other
As identified in relation to their sexual orientation:
Straight Bisexual Homosexual Do not know/no answer

Occupation/profession:__________________________
Residence area:
Minho-Lima Cvado Ave
Alto Trs-os-Montes Baixo Vouga Baixo Mondego
Do-Lafes Pinhal Interior Sul Oporto
Serra da Estrela Beira Interior Norte Tmega
Beira Interior Sul Pennsula de Setbal Entre Douro e Vouga
Cova da Beira Mdio Tejo Douro
Lisbon Lezria do Tejo Pinhal Litoral
Pinhal Interior Norte Alto Alentejo Baixo Alentejo
Alentejo Litoral Alentejo Central Algarve
Madeira Azores
80

APPENDICE 3 - SANTA CLARA STRENGTH OF RELIGIOUS FAITH
QUESTIONNAIRE
Please answer the following questions about religious faith using the scale below.
Indicate the level of agreement (or disagreement) for each statement.
1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree 3 = agree 4 = strongly agree
_____ 1. My religious faith is extremely important to me.
_____ 2. I pray daily.
_____ 3. I look to my faith as a source of inspiration.
_____ 4. I look to my faith as providing meaning and purpose in my life.
_____ 5. I consider myself active in my faith or church.
_____ 6. My faith is an important part of who I am as a person.
_____ 7. My relationship with God is extremely important to me.
_____ 8. I enjoy being around others who share my faith.
_____ 9. I look to my faith as a source of comfort.
_____ 10. My faith impacts many of my decisions.
Thank you for your cooperation.
81

APPENDICE 4 - QUESTIONNAIRE ASSESSMENT OF THE ATTITUDES
OF THE PORTUGUESE AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY (QAAH) (PEREIRA,
H., 2010)
The objective of this research is to understand the attitudes of the Portuguese towards
homosexuality. To do so, we need your cooperation by completing the questionnaire presented
below.
There are no right or wrong answers, just your opinion counts. Please answer according to
how they feel, since all responses are anonymous and confidential.
To answer, put a cross (X) in the box corresponding to your answer. Note that when
referring to "gay people" we are talking about women (lesbians), men (gays) and bisexual men and
women who are in the process of expressing their sexuality and identity in its homoerotic aspect.
From already thank you very much for your cooperation.
1 2 3 4 5
1. Homosexual persons should not have professional or political positions of
responsibility.
2. Do not mind having a neighbor who was homosexual.
3. Homosexual persons are dangerous to children and young people.
4. Homosexual persons should not be discriminated against in the
workplace.
5. Homosexual persons are more likely than heterosexuals to commit deviant
acts, e.g. child sexual abuse.
6. If I found out that a person I admired was homosexual, it would not affect
my opinion of that person.
7. I would not mind a teacher of my child was homosexual.
8. The growing acceptance of homosexual persons in our society is
contributing to deterioration of morality.
1 Totally disagree
2 Moderately disagree
3 Did not agree nor disagree
4 Agree moderately
5 Strongly agree
82

1 2 3 4 5
9. I think the state should pass a law that allows a person to marry another of
the same sex, the same legal circumstances that apply to the contract of
marriage between persons of the opposite sex.
10. Marriage between persons of the same sex puts the family institution in
danger.
11. I think homosexual persons should not be allowed to marry.
12. I believe that homosexual persons are morally and ethically reputable.
13. I think homosexual persons just should not have access to any form of
civil recognition of their unions.
14. I think homosexual persons should not be allowed to marry, but should
be able to maintain access to common law marriages.
15. I believe that homosexual persons are psychologically maladjusted.
16. To me, the existence of homosexual persons in our society is perfectly
acceptable.
17. The idea of two men or two women to have intimate relationships
disturbs me.
18. I would feel uncomfortable if I had to work closely with a homosexual
person.
19. Homosexual persons tend to adopt specific roles in their intimate
relationships (e.g. someone makes a man or woman).
20. Do not mind having homosexual friends.
21. The idea of two men or two women to show affection in public is
uncomfortable for me.
22. I would feel comfortable if I knew a person of the same sex find me
attractive.
23. The adoption of a child by a homosexual couple could influence the
sexual orientation of that child.
24. The quality of love between people of the same sex is the same as
opposite sex.
25. A mother or homosexual father has less capacity than a mother or a
heterosexual father.
26. I think the movement of associations defending the rights of homosexual
persons is a positive thing.
27. Well accept the fact that my child being homosexual.
83

Thank you for your cooperation.
28. I think the State should prohibit a homosexual couple to adopt a child
under any circumstances.
29. Homosexual persons should have psychological treatment to change their
sexual orientation.
30. The psychological well-being of a child will be affected negatively if you
have two mothers or two fathers.
31. It is preferable that a child living in a reception center to be adopted by a
couple of homosexual persons.
32. A couple of homosexual people who are motivated to adopt a child will
have the same capabilities to create a child than a heterosexual couple
people.
33. I think the state should allow the adoption of children by homosexual
couples since their capabilities maternity/paternity by the court or be
evaluated by psychologists.
84

APPENDICE 5 - AUTHORIZATION FOR DISSEMINATION IN
ASSOCIAO ILGA PORTUGAL

LGBT Center centro@ilga-portugal.pt
25/02/11
for me
Dear Ctia,
Their study was published on the site ILGA Portugal in the space below:
http://ilga-portugal.pt/participar/estudos-decorrer.php
Regards,
Ana Chhaganlal
(coordination of the LGBT Center)
Tel: +351927247468
Visit us at the LGBT Center
Wednesday to Saturday - from 18h to 23h
Rua de S. Lazaro, 88, 1150-333 Lisboa
Subway: Martim Moniz | Bus: 790
Email: centro@ilga-portugal.pt
Tel: +351218873918
ILGA PORTUGAL
Intervention Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered
http://www.ilga-portugal.pt/
-
Subscribe to Our Troops @ @ associad in http://www.ilga-portugal.pt/participar/inscricao-
socio.php
Your contribution is really important for our work - help us do better!
86

Buy your books fast and straightforward online - at one of worlds
fastest growing online book stores! Environmentally sound due to
Print-on-Demand technologies.
Buy your books online at
www.get-morebooks.com
Kaufen Sie Ihre Bcher schnell und unkompliziert online auf einer
der am schnellsten wachsenden Buchhandelsplattformen weltweit!
Dank Print-On-Demand umwelt- und ressourcenschonend produzi-
ert.
Bcher schneller online kaufen
www.morebooks.de
VDM Verlagsservicegesellschaft mbH
Heinrich-Bcking-Str. 6-8 Telefon: +49 681 3720 174 info@vdm-vsg.de
D - 66121 Saarbrcken Telefax: +49 681 3720 1749 www.vdm-vsg.de