A comparison of pro- and anti-nudity college students on acceptance of self and of culturally diverse others.

In contemporary United States, social nudity is not accepted by the majority of people. In all 50 states, strict laws prohibiting nudity in public places exist with very few exceptions. Those exceptions typically include when social nudity occurs on private property (e.g., privately owned "nudist resorts") or on slivers of well-delineated public land designated to be "clothing-optional," such as small sections of public beaches. Clinical psychologists generally view nudity within the family as "pathological" (Negy, 2004; Okami, 1995), and a recent analog study has found that college students tend to perceive an adult to have sexually malicious intentions in an ambiguous situation in which the adult is nude with an unrelated minor in a private swimming pool (Negy, Ferguson, & Orooji, in press).

Despite pervasive public concerns over social nudity, there is a dearth of studies on the consequences of social nudity or even on nudity within the family. Further, the handful of studies that have been done has failed to find demonstrable evidence of deleterious consequences for those who practice family or social nudity. For example, Story (1979) compared self-concepts related to body image between preschool children whose families self-identified as nudists and comparable preschool children whose families self-identified as non-nudists. Children in nudist families had significantly more positive self-concepts related to their physical appearance than children in non-nudist families, with boys from both types of families manifesting higher levels of self-concepts than girls.

Lewis and Janda (1988) surveyed college students on the frequency of seeing others nude during their childhood and sleeping in their parents' bed as children and on their parents' attitudes about sex. The results indicated that those who reported having slept in their parents' bed as children and who commonly were exposed to family nudity in childhood did not manifest higher levels of "sexual adjustment" concerns in young adulthood relative to those who either had not slept in their parents' bed as children or who were not exposed to family nudity. Moreover, exposure to parental nudity as a child was associated with increased comfort related to physical contact and affection with others, as well as an increased likelihood of engaging in casual sex as adolescents and young adults.

In a nonrandom survey with a nonequivalent control group of college students, Smith and Sparks (1986) surveyed 66 young adults who grew up in nudist households. The adult children of nudists and non-nudist college students completed a 100-item questionnaire to assess basic demographic information, nudity and sexual development experiences, indicators of "social pathology" (e.g., treatment for psychiatric conditions), family relations, current sexual functioning, and current nudist experiences. Overall, no significant markers of "pathology" were found to distinguish adult children of nudists from non-nudist college students. Most adult children of nudists described the intrafamilial relations during childhood in similar terms used by non-nudist college students, with one exception. Adult children of nudists reported having participated in "sex play" with siblings or playmates more frequently than non-nudist college students. In addition to a higher frequency of sex play participation among children of nudists, they also reported feeling less guilt about the sex play compared with non-nudist college students who also reported, though to a lesser degree, having participated in sex play as children.

In a review of clinical opinion and empirical studies, Okami (1995) examined childhood exposure to parental nudity, parent-child cosleeping, and exposure to parental sexuality as a child. Regarding exposure to parental nudity, Okami's review of the literature revealed how common psychotherapists and related professionals (e.g., protective service workers, legal professionals) consider nudity in the home to be pathological and a precursor to developmental problems. For example, among 255 psychotherapists and related professionals, Atteberry-Bennett (1987, as reported in Okami) found that 75% considered that intervention was necessary in situations in which a mother commonly appeared nude in front of her 5-year-old son. Fifty-one percent considered professional intervention was necessary in cases in which a father often walked into a bathroom while his 5-year-old daughter was bathing. Okami also documented the absence of empirical findings to justify concerns related to parental nudity.

Thus far, little if any evidence exists supporting the view that exposure to family nudity leads to any psychological or emotional harm. To the contrary, the available data suggest that exposure to family nudity has either no effect or potentially has positive effects such as higher self-concepts and fewer concerns over one's physical appearance. The tendency to engage in more sex play as children and to have casual consenting sex more frequently as older adolescents and young adults is open to debate on whether such behaviors are problematic. In this study, we examined college students' views of social nudity--nudity that goes beyond the family, but occurs in legally sanctioned, designated areas. Two specific questions served as the basis of this study. One, are individuals who are relatively more comfortable with social nudity more self-accepting both psychoemotionally and in regards to the physical appearance of their bodies than individuals who oppose social nudity? Two, are individuals who are relatively accepting of social nudity more open and accepting of culturally diverse groups of people compared with those who do not accept social nudity?

In the United States, the cultural fabric has diversified dramatically over the past three decades, leading to increased contact with culturally dissimilar others. Intercultural contact holds the promise of eroding social biases and mistrust, yet, thus far, it is unclear if intercultural tension along ethnic, religious, and other cultural group lines is subsiding or increasing. This research is important and timely, because as the United States struggles to accommodate diverse lifestyles and practices (e.g., gay marriage), those who are "pro-nudity" or who self-identify as social nudists often are ignored as a culturally viable social group. Moreover, comfort with social nudity--which, as previously stated, may be related to overall self-acceptance--may increase greater social tolerance of diverse cultural groups.

It was hypothesized that pro-nudity students would be more self-accepting than anti-nudity students. This hypothesis was made based on the idea that students who are comfortable with nudity in the presence of others ought to be more comfortable and accepting of themselves overall. Self-acceptance was defined by psychological self-acceptance in a global way and by acceptance of their bodies' appearance (sometimes referred to as "body image"). It also was hypothesized that pro-nudity students would be more tolerant of ethnically and culturally diverse groups of people than anti-nudity students. This prediction is based, in part, on the assumption that pro-nudity students will be found to be more comfortable with themselves; as alluded to above, greater self-acceptance theoretically ought to generalize to acceptance of other dissimilar groups. Tolerance for culturally diverse people was measured on four dimensions: ethnic prejudice, religious bigotry, negative attitudes toward disabled people, and homonegativity.

Finally, if pro-nudity students are found to be more accepting of culturally diverse others, exploratory analyses will be pursued to determine if students' attitudes on three important dimensions--commitment to a religion (religiosity), openness to sexuality, and political tendencies--might account for all or some of the observed findings differentiating those in favor from those not in favor of social nudity. Religious, sexual, and political attitudes are believed to influence how people respond to multiple topics and behaviors beyond the religious, sexual, and political boundaries (Lippy, 1994; Robinson, Shaver, & Wrightsman, 1991).

Methods

Participants

Participants were 384 undergraduate students (187 males, 194 females, 3 unreported) at a large, state university in the southeastern region of the United States. Their mean age was 19.2 years (SD = 1.72). Regarding ethnicity, 267 students self-identified as non-Hispanic White, 50 as Hispanic/Latino/a, 30 as African American, 25 as Asian American, and 12 as "Other." Regarding religious affiliation, 262 reported being Christian, 42 as Agnostic, 22 as Atheist, 12 as Jewish, 5 as Islamic, 5 as Buddhist, 2 as Hindu, and 34 as "Other." The majority (84.9%) were either freshmen or sophomores. Among all students, only 16 indicated that they considered themselves as "nudists." Among those who subsequently qualified for the pro-nudity and anti-nudity groups described below, only 10 of the pro-nudity students and none of the anti-nudity students considered themselves as "nudists." Participation was voluntary and was compensated with extra credit in students' respective general psychology courses.

Materials

Demographic information. On a sheet of paper, all participants reported their age, gender, ethnicity, religious affiliation, and class standing (1 = freshman, 2 = sophomore, 3 = junior, 4 = senior).

Self-acceptance. All participants completed the self-acceptance (SA) subscale of the Psychological Well-Being scale (Ryff, 1989; Ryff & Keyes, 1995). This subscale contains 14 items and is designed to measure respondents' subjective level of feeling pleased with their past and current life, as well as with themselves in a global way. Responses to statements are made using a 6-point Likert scale, with response options ranging from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree." Higher scores reflect higher levels of self-acceptance. A sample item is "For the most part, I am proud of who I am and the life I lead." Based on the present sample of participants, this subscale obtained a Cronbach reliability coefficient of .85.

Body image. To assess respondents' attitudes toward their appearance and bodies, all participants completed the state version of the Physical Appearance State and Trait Anxiety scale (PASTAS; Reed, Thompson, Brannick, & Saco, 1991). The PASTAS contains 16 specific body parts (e.g., buttocks, hips, hands, etc.), to which respondents rate the extent to which the parts cause them to feel anxious, concerned, or nervous. Using a 5-point Likert scale, response options are "never," "rarely," "sometimes," "often," and "always." High scores indicate more anxiety and a lack of acceptance of one's body. Based on the present sample of participants, the PASTAS obtained a Cronbach reliability coefficient of .89.

Ethnic prejudice. To assess participants' prejudice against ethnically dissimilar people, they completed the 10 items from the Multiethnic Climate Inventory (MCI; Johnson & Johnson, 1996). The 10 items making up the subscales cultural encapsulation (a desire to associate only with members of one's own race or ethnic group) and cultural hostility (a dislike for those belonging to dissimilar ethnic groups) were used in this study because they conjointly measure the construct of ethnic prejudice (Negy, Shreve, Jensen, & Uddin, 2003). The MCI was considered an appropriate scale for measuring ethnocentrism because only a handful of instruments exist that attempt to measure ethnic prejudice. Moreover, they typically only measure Whites' prejudice toward non-Whites--usually African Americans. In contrast, the MCI was written in a way that makes the scale appropriate for individuals irrespective of their race or ethnicity, and was worded to assess prejudice against no single group in particular. A sample item is, "I want to do social things with only people of my race and culture." Respondents indicate their agreement to statements using a 5-point Likert scale format, with response options ranging from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree." Higher scores reflect more ethnic prejudice in relation to dissimilar cultural or ethnic groups. Based on the present sample of participants, the MCI obtained a Cronbach reliability alpha of .73.

Religious bigotry. To measure negative attitudes toward religiously dissimilar groups, all participants completed the Multireligious Climate Inventory (MRCI). This 10-item questionnaire was adapted from the MCI scale of Johnson and Johnson (1996), which measures ethnic prejudice. Each item was modified so that instead of referring to an ethnically or culturally dissimilar group, the item was in reference to religiously dissimilar groups. A sample item is, "I want to live in a neighborhood only with people who are of my own religious background." The response format was a 5-item Likert scale, ranging from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree," with higher scores reflecting more prejudice (or less tolerance) toward dissimilar religious groups. Based on the present sample of participants, the MRCI obtained a Cronbach reliability coefficient of .82.

Attitudes toward disabled people. To assess discomfort or prejudice against disabled individuals, all participants completed the Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons (ATDP)--Form O (Yuker & Block, 1986; Yuker, Block, & Younng, 1966). The ATDP consists of 20 statements to which respondents indicate their agreement using a 6-point Likert scale, with response options ranging from "I agree very much" to "I disagree very much." A sample statement is, "Disabled people cannot have a normal social life." Higher scores reflect more negative attitudes toward disabled people. Based on the present sample of participants, the ATDP obtained a Chronbach reliability coefficient of .77.

Attitudes toward lesbians and gays. All participants completed the Heterosexual Attitudes Toward Homosexuality (HATH) questionnaire (Larsen, Reed, & Hoffman, 1980). This is a 20-item scale assessing attitudes and beliefs in response to gay and lesbian people. Participants respond to items using a 5-point Likert scale, with response options ranging from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree." Higher scores reflect higher levels of homonegativity. A sample item is, "I avoid homosexuals whenever possible." Based on the present sample of participants, this scale obtained a Cronbach reliability coefficient of .94.

Attitudes toward social nudity. To assess attitudes toward social nudity, all participants completed the Attitudes Toward Social Nudity scale (ATSN). This 10-item questionnaire was designed by the present authors to assess respondents' views on the acceptability of social nudity in public, but legally sanctioned, settings. The ATSN uses as a 5-point Likert scale response format, with response options ranging from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree." Higher scores reflect more acceptance or openness about social nudity. A sample item is, "I would be 'ok' attending a clothing-optional beach or resort." The items were divided with respect to being presented in an affirmative or a negative direction to control for response set biases. Based on the present sample of participants, the ATSN scale obtained a Cronbach reliability coefficient of .78. At the bottom of this scale, one yes-no question and one multiple choice question were presented to respondents. The yes-no question was, "Do you consider yourself to be a 'nudist' or 'naturalist?'" The multiple choice question was, "If 'yes,' how many times have you ever visited a 'clothing-optional' locale (e.g., a nudist beach, nudist resort, nudist park, etc.)?" Response options were "never," "once," "2 to 5 times," and "more than 5 times."

Religiosity. To assess participants' commitment to religion, they completed seven items developed by Batson, Schoenrade, and Ventis (1993) that assess respondents' intrinsic reasons for believing in a religion. A sample item is, "When it comes to religious questions, I feel driven to know the truth." Response options for these items ranged from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree." Higher scores reflect more religiosity. Based on the present sample of participants, this scale obtained a Cronbach reliability coefficient of .85.

Sexual Opinion Survey. To measure openness to sex and sexuality, participants completed the Sexual Opinion Survey (SOS; Fisher, Byrne, White, & Kelley, 1988). This is a 21-item questionnaire to which participants indicate their agreement with statements using a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree." High scores reflect erotophilia--the tendency to be comfortable with and have an interest in sexually related topics and activities, whereas low scores reflect erotophobia--which is a relative absence of comfort or interest in sexually related topics and activities. A sample item is, "I personally find that thinking about sexual intercourse is arousing." Based on the present sample of participants, the SOS obtained a Cronbach reliability of .86.

Conservative-Liberalism scale. To measure participants' relative position on the construct of "conservatism-liberalism," they completed the 7-item Conservatism-Liberalism scale (Mehrabian, 1996). This scale was developed to assess general "right-left" political orientation without reliance on specific and period-sensitive political issues. Participants indicate their level of agreement with statements using a 5-point Likert scale, with response options ranging from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree." This scale was scored so that higher scores reflect more liberal political inclinations. A sample item is, "I cannot see myself ever voting to elect conservative candidates." Based on the present sample of participants, this scale obtained a Cronbach alpha of .75.

Social desirability. Because prejudicial attitudes and attitudes related to sexual topics generally are considered socially unacceptable, assessing such attitudes in the form of self-reports may be compromised by participants responding to such questions in a socially desirable manner (Cozby, 2003; Paulhus, 1991). Because of this concern, a measure of social desirability was included in this study so that the response set of social desirability could be controlled for in the analyses. Participants completed the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale-Short Form (M-C SDS). The M-C SDS is a true-false, 13-item abbreviated version of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Reynolds, 1982), and is designed to measure attempts by participants to be perceived in a positive manner. A sample item is, "No matter who I'm talking to, I'm always a good listener." Higher scores reflect a greater tendency to respond to test items in a socially desirable manner. Based on the present sample of participants, the M-C SDS obtained a Cronbach alpha of .63. It is noted here that this reliability coefficient is considered marginal against traditional psychometric standards (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).

Procedures

The study was made available to willing student participants in multiple general psychology courses. Students were informed of the gist of the study and invited to participate. All students present agreed to participate and were provided with an informed consent form to read and sign, and they subsequently completed the questionnaires in class. The principal researchers were present and available to answer any participants questions.

Results

Establishing the Pro-Nudity and Anti-Nudity Comparison Groups

Possible scores on the ATSN scale ranged from 1 (opposed to social nudity) to 5 (accepting of social nudity). Obtained ATSN scores from all 384 student participants ranged from 1.30 to 4.80, with a mean score of 2.93 (SD=.63). Observation of a frequency table revealed that the distribution of scores resembled a normal bell-shaped curve. To establish two groups of students that appropriately could be characterized as "pro-nudity" and "anti-nudity," students were divided into quartiles based on the entire sample's mean and standard deviation on the ATSN scale. Specifically, those who scored greater than 1 standard deviation above the mean ATSN score (>3.56) formed the "pro-nudity" group (n = 59). They represented 15.4% of the entire sample and their mean ATSN score=3.90 (SD=.34). Those who scored less than -1 standard deviation of the ATSN mean score (<2.30) formed the "anti-nudity" group (n = 64). They represented 16.7% of the sample, and their mean ATSN score = 1.98 (SD = .31). Data from students falling within the middle two quartiles were not included in the data analyses.

Are "Pro-Nudity" Students More Accepting of Themselves Than "Anti-Nudity" Students?

Table 1 shows the means and standard deviations of the self-acceptance variables obtained by pro-nudity and anti-nudity students. It was hypothesized that pro-nudity students would be more accepting and comfortable with themselves--both psychoemotionally and physically--than anti-nudity students. To test this hypothesis, a multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was conducted on the data. The independent variable (IV) was student group (pro-nudity vs. anti-nudity), and the dependent variables (DVs) were self-acceptance (SA) and body image (PASTAS). Social desireability (M-C SDS) scores were used as a covariate in order to control for socially desirable responding. The hypothesis was partially supported. The effect of student group was significantly associated with the DVs (using Wilks' lambda, F [2, 117]=3.88, p < .05, effect size r [Rosenthal & DiMatteo, 2001]=.18). Univariate tests indicated that pro-nudity students were significantly more satisfied with their body image (M=.91, SD=.71) than anti-nudity students (M = 1.12, SD = .52), (F [1, 118]=4.27, p < .05, effect size r =. 19). The two groups did not significantly differ on self-acceptance (F [1, 118] = 1.11, p > .05, effect size r = .10).

To further examine these findings, zero-order correlations were calculated between attitudes toward social nudity and the self-acceptance variables using data from all 384 participants. For these analyses, the measure of attitudes toward social nudity was treated as a continuous variable. Higher acceptance of social nudity significantly correlated with less body image concerns (r = -.16, p < .01), but it was not significantly linked to self-acceptance (r = -.00, p > .05).

Are "Pro-Nudity" Students More Tolerant of Cultural Diversity Than "Anti-Nudity" Students?

Table 2 shows the means and standard deviations of the tolerance of cultural diversity variables obtained by pro-nudity and anti-nudity students. It was hypothesized that pro-nudity students would be more accepting of dissimilar groups of people compared with anti-nudity students. To test this hypothesis, a MANCOVA was conducted on the data. The IV was student group (pro-nudity vs. anti-nudity), and the DVs were ethnic prejudice (MCI), religious bigotry (MRCI), negative attitudes toward the disabled (ATDP), and homonegativity (HATH). M-C SDS scores were used as a covariate in order to control for socially desirable responding. The hypothesis was partially supported. A significant effect for student group was associated with the DVs (F [4, 115] = 10.04, p < .001, effect size r = .28). Univariate tests indicated that, as a group, pro-nudity students were significantly more accepting of religiously dissimilar others (M = 1.82, SD=.56) than anti-nudity students (M = 2.30, SD = .53), F (1, 118) = 25.98, p < .001, effect size r = .42. Pro-nudity students also were significantly more accepting of gays and lesbians (M = 1.73, SD = .64) than anti-nudity students (M = 2.45, SD = .88), F(1, 118)=25.48, p < .001, effect size r=.42. A trend that approached, but did not reach, statistical significance suggested that pro-nudity students tended to be more accepting of ethnically diverse others (M = 1.83, SD=.64) than anti-nudity students (M=2.04, SD=.62), F (1, 118)=3.45, p<.06, effect size r=.17. The two groups did not significantly differ in their attitudes toward the disabled (F [1, 118]=.13, p > .05, effect size r = .03).

Again, zero-order correlations were calculated between attitudes toward social nudity and the four cultural diversity variables using data from all 384 participants. Higher acceptance of social nudity significantly, albeit mildly, correlated with less prejudice toward ethnically dissimilar others (r = -.11, p < .05). Higher acceptance of social nudity significantly correlated with less prejudice toward religiously dissimilar others (r = -.27, p< .001) and gays and lesbians (r = -.34, p < .001). Attitudes toward social nudity did not significantly correlate with attitudes toward the physically disabled (r = -.07, p > .05).

Exploring the Influences of Religiosity, Openness to Sexuality, and Political Tendency

To explore possible influences on the two groups' discrepant attitudes toward culturally diverse others, we measured religiosity, openness to sexuality, and political tendency. To initially establish that these variables were important in distinguishing the two student groups, a MANCOVA was conducted on the data. The IV was student group (pro-nudity vs. anti-nudity), and the DVs were religiosity, openness to sexuality (SOS), and political tendency. M-C SDS scores were used as a covariate in order to control for socially desirable responding. A significant effect for student group was associated with the DVs (F [3, 109] = 40.50, p < .001, effect size r = .52). Univariate tests indicated that, as a group, pro-nudity students were significantly less religious (M=2.60, SD=.91) than anti-nudity students (M=3.93, SD=1.19), F (1, 111)=25.98, p<.001, effect size r = .44; were significantly more open to sex and sexuality (M=5.40, SD=.79) than anti-nudity students (M=3.70, SD=.98), F (1, 111)=110.93, p < .001, effect size r=.71; and were more politically liberal (M= 3.20, SD=.65) than anti-nudity students (M=2.56, SD=.81), F(1, 111)=20.69, p < .001, effect size r=.40. (Table 3 shows the means and standard deviations of the religiosity, openness to sexuality, and political tendency variables obtained by pro-nudity and anti-nudity students.)

Next, three separate MANCOVAs were conducted alternating religiosity, openness to sexuality, and political tendency as covariates. Student group (pro-nudity vs. anti-nudity) was the IV, and ethnic prejudice (MCI), religious bigotry (MRCI), attitudes toward the disabled (ATDP), and homonegativity (HATH) were the DVs. For all three MANCOVAs, in addition to the exploratory variable, M-C SDS scores were used as a covariate in order to control for socially desirable responding. With religiosity entered as a covariate, student group continued to be significantly associated with an effect on the DVs (F [4, 112]=4.12, p < .01, effect size r=.19). Moreover, univariate tests continued to indicate that the two groups significantly differed on both religious bigotry (p < .001) and homonegativity (p < .05). With political tendency entered as a covariate, student group continued to be significantly associated with an effect on the DVs (F [4, 112]=4.88, p < .001, effect size r = .20). Again, univariate tests continued to indicate that the two groups significantly differed on both religious bigotry (p < .01) and homonegativity (p < .01). Finally, with openness to sexuality entered as a covariate, student group approached, but was no longer statistically significantly associated with, an effect on the DVs (F[4, 112] = 2.25,p < .07, effect size r= .14). The results from these exploratory analyses suggest that differences in religious bigotry and homonegativity between pro- and anti-nudity students were not explained by religiosity or political tendency, but likely were a function of differences in general openness to sexuality.

Discussion

It was hypothesized that pro-nudity students would, on average, be more accepting of themselves than anti-nudity students. The hypothesis was partially supported. The two groups did not differ in their levels of psychological self-acceptance, but they did significantly differ on comfort with their body image. This hypothesis had been made based on the view that those who indicate feeling at ease being nude in the presence of others ought to be more accepting and secure with themselves in a general sense compared with those who express discomfort with being nude while with others. The finding that pro-nudity students were more accepting of their physical appearance parallels the findings observed in previous research that had examined exposure to family nudity as a child and children's subsequent self-concepts related to their body image (e.g., Story, 1979). Nonetheless, the absence of an association between comfort with social nudity and psychological self-acceptance suggests that comfort with social nudity may not generalize to how people think and feel about themselves as individuals. Perhaps individuals' attitudes about being nude in sanctioned social settings are independent of their general self-esteem and cognitively based self-appraisals.

It also was hypothesized that pro-nudity students would be more tolerant of culturally dissimilar groups of people than anti-nudity students. As with the previous hypothesis, this hypothesis was only partially supported. On average, pro-nudity students expressed significantly more tolerance toward religiously dissimilar others than anti-nudity students, and they held significantly more positive attitudes toward gays and lesbians than anti-nudity students. The two groups of students did not significantly differ in their levels of acceptance of ethnically dissimilar people or the disabled population, although a trend suggested that pro-nudity students tended to be less ethnically prejudiced than anti-nudity students (this last finding was more apparent based on a zero-order correlation analysis using data from all 384 participants). These findings mirror, to some degree, the findings related to comfort with social nudity and self-acceptance. People's views about social nudity may, on average, be unrelated to their views of other people, with the exception of religious and sexual minorities. Among many religious individuals, social nudity has a negative connotation because nudity is inextricably linked to sex, which, in turn, may be thought of as unacceptable behavior (e.g., "sin"; Bullough, 2001; Fox, 1995). This may explain why the anti-nudity students--though equally tolerant of ethnically and physically diverse others--expressed significantly less tolerance for religiously dissimilar people and for gays and lesbians. Homosexuality and discrepant religious views are counter to, and probably threaten, the convictions and comfort level of those who follow the tenants of mainstream Christianity, which was the predominant religion of students in this study.

In order to explore possible influences that may have explained, even if partially, the differences in views toward religiously diverse others and gays and lesbians (and to a lesser degree, views toward ethnically diverse others) held by pro- and anti-nudity students, we measured the students' views on religiosity, openness to sexuality, and political tendency. These three domains typically are considered areas for which people's values are emotionally laden and polemic; it also is believed that people's views in the three domains influence their views toward specific topics or behaviors (Lippy, 1994; Robinson et al., 1991). Pro-nudity students indicated that they were significantly less religious, more open to sexuality, and more liberal in political ideology than anti-nudity students. These results were not surprising, but then they were used in an effort to distill the obtained findings with regards to how the two student groups differentially viewed religiously diverse others and gays and lesbians.

When religiosity and political tendency were treated as covariates in separate MANCOVAs, the original findings between pro- and anti-nudity students were unaffected. The difference in acceptance of cultural diversity observed between pro- and anti-nudity students continued to be statistically significant, suggesting that religiosity and political tendency did not account for previously obtained group differences. In contrast, when openness to sexuality was treated as a covariate, student group differences no longer achieved statistical significance, suggesting that observed differences between pro- and anti-nudity students regarding attitudes toward religiously dissimilar people and gays and lesbians likely reflected differences in their general openness toward sexuality.

Various comments are in order to try and contextualize these findings. We believe it is challenging, if not impossible, to completely disentangle peoples' attitudes toward nudity, sexuality, and even religiosity in contemporary United States because, as stated above, nudity for many Americans is linked to sex, and sex is linked to religion. Moreover, both sex and religion are fundamental to most humans' lives. For many adherents to some of the world's dominant religions (e.g., Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism), sex ought to be regimented and restricted to the confines of procreation within a marriage (Bullough, 2001). For individuals who are opposed to social nudity, social nudity likely is symbolic of a lifestyle engaged in by individuals who are perceived to eschew anti-nudists' religious convictions and values (it bears noting that the pro-nudity students in this study were not absent of having faith; a full 64.5% reported being affiliated with a religion [compared with 95.3% of the anti-nudity students]). Pro-nudity students' lowered levels of religiosity may simply suggest that they are less rigid in their adherence to religiously based regimens and prohibitions.

Based on the present findings, it seems reasonable to suggest that individuals who are comfortable and accepting of social nudity tend to be relatively less religious, more politically liberal, and more open to sexuality than individuals who are less accepting of social nudity. Also, those who are comfortable with social nudity tend to be more accepting of their bodies' appearances and more tolerant of religious and sexual minorities, and to some degree, of ethnically dissimilar others, compared with individuals opposed to social nudity. These findings add to the scant empirical literature on attitudes about nudity and contribute to the creation of a fuller picture of those who are comfortable with social nudity. Anecdotally, vocal opponents of social nudity commonly argue their position on this matter with moral superiority, yet these results suggest that opponents to social nudity may actually be more prejudiced against social and religious groups that are dissimilar from their own group membership(s) than those who are more accepting of social nudity. Increased tolerance toward diverse social groups that is possibly manifested by pro-nudity people is more in line with the ideals of a democratic and pluralistic society and better serves the interests of a multicultural nation such as the United States.

References

Atteberry-Bennett, J. (1987). Child sexual abuse: Definitions and intervention of parents and professionals. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Education, University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

Batson, C. D., Schoenrade, P., & Ventis, W. L. (1993). Religion and the individual." A socio-psychological perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bullough, V. (2001). Religion, sex, and science. Some historical quandaries. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 26, 254-258.

Cozby, P. C. (2003). Methods in behavioral research (7th ed). Boston: McGraw Hill.

Fisher, W. A., Byrne, D., White, L. A., & Kelley, K. (1988). Erotophobia-erotophilia as a dimension of personality. Journal of Sex Research, 25, 123-151.

Fox, T. (1995). Sexuality and Catholicism. New York: George Braziller.

Johnson, P., & Johnson, R. (1996). The role of concrete-abstract thinking levels in teachers' multiethnic beliefs. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 29, 134-140.

Larsen, K. S., Reed, M., & Hoffman, S. (1980). Attitudes of heterosexuals toward homosexuality: A Likert-type scale and construct validity. The Journal of Sex Research, 16, 245-257.

Lewis, R. J. & Janda, L. H. (1988). The relationship between adult sexual adjustment and childhood experiences regarding exposure to nudity, sleeping in the parental bed, and parental attitudes toward sexuality. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 17, 349-362.

Lippy, C. H. (1994). Being religious, American style: A history of popular religiosity in the United States. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Mehrabian, A. (1996). Relations among political attitudes, personality, and psychopathology assessed with new measures of libertarianism and conservatism. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 18, 469-491.

Negy, C. (2004). Therapy with dissimilar clients: Issues to consider along this road more traveled. In C. Negy (Ed.), Cross-cultural psychotherapy: Toward a critical understanding of diverse clients (pp. 3-22). Reno, NV: Bent Tree Press.

Negy, C., Ferguson, C. J., & Orooji, B. A. (in press). Gender, erotophobia and religiosity: Influences on judgments of culpability in an ambiguous sexual scenario. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Negy, C., Shreve, T. L., Jensen, B. J., & Uddin, N. (2003). Ethnic identity, self-esteem, and ethnocentrism: A study of social identity versus multicultural theory of development. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 9, 333-344.

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. R. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Okami, P. (1995). Childhood exposure to parental nudity, parent-child co-sleeping, and "primal scenes": A review of clinical opinion and empirical evidence. The Journal of Sex Research, 32, 51-64.

Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. A. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (vol. 1, pp. 17-60). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.

Reed, D. L., Thompson, J. K., Brannick, M. T., & Saco, W. P. (1991). Development and validation of the Physical Appearance State and Trait Anxiety Scale (PASTAS). Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 5, 323-332.

Reynolds, W. M. (1982). Development of reliable and valid short-forms of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38, 119-125.

Rosenthal, R. & DiMatteo, M. R. (2001). Meta-analysis: Recent developments in quantitative methods for literature reviews. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 59-82.

Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1991). Measures of political attitudes. San Diego: Academic Press.

Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1069-1081.

Ryff, C. D. & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 719-727.

Smith, D. C., & Sparks, W. (1986). The naked child. Growing up without shame. Los Angeles: Elysium Growth Press.

Story, M. D. (1979). Factors associated with more positive body self-concepts in preschool children. Journal of Social Psychology, 108, 49-56.

Yuker, H. E. & Block, J. R. (1986). Research with the attitudes toward disabled persons scales (ATDP) 1960-1985. Hempstead, NY: Hofstra University.

Yuker, H. E., Block, J. R., & Younng, J. H. (1966). The measurement of attitudes toward disabled persons. Human Resource Study, 7, x, 170.

Charles Negy and Samantha Winton

Department of Psychology, University of Central Florida 

Correspondence should be addressed to Charles Negy, Department of Psychology, University of Central Florida, P.O. Box 161390, 4000 Central Florida Blvd., Orlando, FL 32816. E-mail: [e-mail]

Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations on Self-Acceptance
Variables by Pro- and Anti-Nudity Students

                                 Student Group

                           Pro-Nudity   Anti-Nudity
                           (n = 59)     (n = 64)
Variable
Self-acceptance (a)
  Mean (SD)                4.31 (.81)      4.48 (.78)
Body image (b)              .91 (.71)    1.12 * (.52)

Note: * p < .05.

(a) Self-acceptance measured by Ryff's (1989) Self-Acceptance subscale
of the Psychological Well-Being Scale.

(b) Body image measured by Physical Appearance State and Trait Anxiety
Scale (PASTAS; Reed et al., 1991).

Table 2. Means and Standard Deviations on Acceptance of Culturally
Diverse Variables by Pro- and Anti-Nudity Students

                                 Student Group

                           Pro-Nudity   Anti-Nudity
                             (n = 59)     (n = 64)
Variable
Ethnic prejudice (a)
  Mean (SD)                1.83 (.64)     2.04 (.62)
Religious bigotry (b)      1.82 (.56)   2.30 * (.53)
Disability attitudes (c)   3.01 (.51)     3.03 (.53)
Homonegativity (d)         1.73 (.64)   2.45 * (.88)

Note: * p < .001.

(a) Ethnic prejudice measured by Multiethnic Climate Inventory (MCI:
Johnson & Johnson, 1996).

(b) Religious bigotry measured by Multireligious Climate Inventory
(MRCI; adapted from MCI of Johnson & Johnson, 1996).

(c) Disability attitudes measured by Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons
(ATDP; Yuker et al., 1966).

(d) Homonegativity measured by Heterosexual Attitudes Toward
Homosexuality (HATH; Larsen et al., 1980).

Table 3. Means and Standard Deviations on Religiosity,
Openness to Sexuality, and Political Tendency Variables by
Pro- and Anti-Nudity Students

                                     Student Group

                               Pro-Nudity    Anit-Nudity
                                (n = 59)      (n = 64)
Variable
Religiosity (a)
  Mean (SD)                    2.60 (.91)   3.93 * (1.19)
Openness to sexuality (b)      5.40 (.79)   3.70 * (.98)
Political tendency (c)         3.20 (.65)   2.56 * (.81)

Note: * p < .001.

(a) Religiosity measured by 7-item scale (Batson et al., 1993).

(b) Openness to sexuality measured by Sexual Opinion Survey
(SOS; Fisher et al., 1988).

(c) Political ideology measured by Conservatism-Liberalism scale
(Mehrabian, 1996).