Reconsidering intrinsic religion as a source of Universal compassion.

Several studies have considered the ability of devout Christians to accept homosexual persons while rejecting homosexual behavior. Batson, Floyd, Meyer, and Winner (1999) found that intrinsic Christians were not able to make that distinction. Bassett et al. (2000) found that intrinsic Christians were able to distinguish between the value of homosexual persons and behavior. Both studies used financial help as the measure of acceptance. This study replicated the Batson et al. methodology with some modifications. The basic methodology involves students working at a time-limited task, which might financially benefit another "student." What is varied in the procedure is the description of the other "student" (regarding sexual orientation and what the person intends to do with the money). Results from the study suggested that intrinsic Christians were able to "love the sinner but hate the sin."

**********

Devoutly religious persons often claim to affirm the value of all persons. When people behave contrary to the teachings/values of that faith system, devout believers typically espouse the position of "loving the sinner but hating the sin." For traditional Christians, on the issue of homosexuality, this position has meant accepting gay and lesbian persons while rejecting gay and lesbian behavior. But, are devout Christians really able to make such a distinction? Are devout Christians really able to value persons who consistently act in ways that traditional Christianity has identified as sinful and immoral? Some studies reported in the literature suggest that the answer to that question is no.

For example, researchers (e.g., Fisher, Derison, Polley III, Cadman, &Johnston, 1994; Herek, 1987) report that Christian commitment predicts homonegativism. Herek (1987) measured religious orientation, racism, and attitudes toward lesbians and gay men among white heterosexual university students. Extrinsic faith, taking a utilitarian approach to religious experience, was positively correlated to racism. Intrinsic faith, taking a committed/devout approach to religious experience, did not correlate with racism. However, intrinsic students tended to be more prejudiced toward gays and lesbians than extrinsic students. Herek concluded that Christian commitment fosters tolerance and acceptance of some groups of people but not others. Specifically, gays and lesbians (a group of people whose sexual behavior seems to contradict traditional Christian teaching) were not accepted.

If committed Christians selectively accept some groups and not others, then an interesting question becomes "Why?" Jackson and Esses (1997) reported that when religious fundamentalists considered someone who needed help, and the person who needed help was perceived as a "moral violator," religious fundamentalists advocated personal change rather than other forms of help. The mediating factor for this recommendation seemed to be attributions of personal responsibility/blame. Thus, if committed Christians perceive gay and lesbian persons as moral violators, then committed Christians may make internal attributions about the "bad behavior" of gay and lesbian persons. Such attributions could lead to the conclusion that they are "bad persons." If this is true, one might speculate that it would be difficult for devout Christians to separate the value of persons from the value of behaviors when considering gay and lesbian persons.

Pursuing these issues further, Batson, Floyd, Meyer, and Winner (1999) pointed out a complication in the literature indicating devout Christians have antipathy toward homosexuals. Often, measures of attitudes toward gays and lesbians have not clearly differentiated between the value of homosexual persons and the value of homosexual behavior. To address this issue, Batson et al. gave university students the opportunity to help another same-sex student win a monetary prize. For some of the students, the other student was identified as a homosexual hoping to use the prize to attend a gay pride rally. For some of the students, the other student was identified as a homosexual hoping to use the prize to visit his or her grandparents. For the rest of the students, the sexual orientation of the other student was nor identified and the student was simply presented as wanting to use the prize to visit his or her grandparents. Batson er al. reported that devout university students (i.e., students with high intrinsic fai th) were less willing to help homosexual students. And, this reduced willingness to help was not affected by the anticipated behavior of the students (i.e., attending a gay pride rally or visiting grandparents). Batson et al. concluded that devout Christian students have antipathy for gay and lesbian persons (regardless of behavior).

Yet, there is another literature (e.g., Bassett, Hodak, Allen, Bartos, Grastorf, Sittig, & Strong, 2000; Fulton, Gorsuch, & Maynard, 1999; Kirkpatrick, 1993) that indicates that devout Christians can "love the sinner but hate the sin." Some of these studies begin from the position that devout Christians may really be a heterogeneous group. Specifically, some devout Christians may have antipathy for gay and lesbian persons while other devout Christians may not. For example, Fulton, Gorsuch, and Maynard (also see Kirkpatrick, 1993) measured religious orientation and fundamentalism among Christian college students. In addition, these students responded to anti-homosexual attitude scales and social distance scales. The social distance scales referred to several groups including Christian and non-Christian celibate homosexuals, sexually active homosexuals, celibate heterosexuals, and sexually active heterosexuals. Across the board, fundamentalism predicted anti-homosexual attitudes. However, committed Christian fa ith (with fundamentalism partialled out) presented a more nuanced perspective regarding homosexual attitudes. With these students, intrinsic faith predicted negative attitudes toward sexually active homosexuals but intrinsic faith was independent of attitudes toward homosexuals who were not sexually active.

Bassett et al. (2000) considered the attitudinal heterogeneity and the helpfulness of devout Christians in reference to sexual orientation. Christian college students indicated their attitudes toward four groups of individuals (i.e., gays or lesbians who were Christian/non-Christian and sexually active/celibate). Students who were universally rejecting (i.e., negative toward Christian homosexuals who were celibate or sexually active) or who were selectively rejecting (i.e., negative toward Christian homosexuals who were sexually active but positive toward Christian homosexuals who were celibate) were given an opportunity to donate money in three different ways. As part of the study, participants were given ten dollars and then told that at least half of that money needed to be given away. Money could be donated to a local church that affirmed homosexual persons but not homosexual behavior. Money could be donated to another local church that affirmed homosexual persons regardless of behavior. And/or money coul d be returned to the researchers. Universally rejecting participants were the most likely to give the money back to the researchers. Selectively rejecting participants were the most likely to give the money to the church that affirmed homosexual persons but not homosexual behavior. Apparently, committed Christian students who affirmed the value of homosexual persons but not homosexual behavior were willing "to put their money where their mouth was."

So, returning to the original question: "Can devout Christians love the sinner and hate the sin?" In reference to gay and lesbian persons, the answers provided by the literature seem conflicted. Within this conflicted literature, the two studies that appear in the most direct disagreement are the Batson et al. (1999) and the Bassett et al. (2000) studies. Both studies attempted to distinguish between homosexual persons and homosexual behavior, and both studies moved beyond attitudes to actual behavior (e.g., helpfulness towards gay and lesbian persons). So, why were the conclusions of these studies so different?

The methodologies of the two studies involved several interesting differences. First, the Batson et al. (1999) students helped persons while the Bassett et al. (2000) students helped institutions. Second, the Batson et al. study was conducted at a state university; the Bassett et al. study was conducted at a Christian liberal arts college. Third, the Bassett et al. study pre-screened students for their tendency to selectively or universally reject homosexual persons and homosexual behavior. And fourth, Batson et al. may not have fully unconfounded their manipulations of homosexual persons from their manipulations of behavior supportive of homosexuality. The critical condition in the Batson et al. study involved an opportunity to help a homosexual student who intended to visit his or her grandparents. Certainly, visiting grandparents does not promote homosexual behavior; but the student could also have been sexually active such that his or her romantic behavior did promote a gay or lesbian lifestyle. Thus, hel ping this student could have been construed by some students as helping someone who was involved in behavior supportive of homosexuality. A clearer test of valuing persons apart from behavior would seem to be responding to someone who was gay/lesbian but who had also made a personal commitment to not be sexually active. Under those conditions, acceptance of the person could not be construed as acceptance of the behavior (since the behavior did not exist).

These differences suggest the need for a follow-up study. Therefore, the main purpose of this project was to replicate the Batson et al. study at a Christian liberal arts college with students who were pretested for their tendencies to universally reject or selectively reject homosexuality. Also, with this replication, a condition was added that was intended to completely unconfound the issues of homosexual persons and homosexual behavior (e.g., someone who was homosexual, celibate, and hoping to visit grandparents).

METHODS

Participants for the first phase of the study were recruited from several psychology classes at a small Christian liberal arts college across two semesters. Participation in the first phase involved responding to a questionnaire. The first page of the questionnaire was a consent form that indicated, in general terms, that the study considered the attitudes of Christians toward gay and lesbian persons. Students were assured that their responses would remain anonymous. Also, participation in the first phase of the study might qualify students to participate in the second phase of the study. Participation in each phase of the study generated modest amounts of extra credit for students.

If students chose to participate in the first phase of the study, then they signed, tore-off, and returned the consent page to the researcher. The questionnaire was completed outside of class and returned to the researcher at a later class. Approximately 75% of the students who could have participated in the first phase of the study during the first semester chose to participate. The participation rate for the second semester was impossible to calculate since some of the students approached in the second semester had already participated and were thus disqualified from participating again.

The questionnaire included: (a) a request for demographic information, (b) a measure of attitudes toward gay and lesbian persons developed by Bassett et al. (2000), and (c) the Crowne and Marlowe Social Desirability Scale (from Robinson and Shaver, 1973). The requested demographic information included: (a) age, (b) gender, (c) year in school, (d) a Likert-like item in which participants indicated their agreement with the statement, "I am a Christian" (response scale endpoints: 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree), (e) church affiliation, (f) frequency of church attendance, and (g) whether or not participants knew someone close to them who was gay or lesbian. In addition, participants reported their birth dates and their mothers' maiden names to provide anonymous identification.

The measure of attitudes toward gay and lesbian persons developed by Bassett et al. (2000) was originally modeled after Hudson and Rickets' (1980) Index of Attitudes Toward Homosexuals: Homophobic Scale. The measure contains 17 items that request participants to estimate how comfortable they would be in everyday and religious settings with gay or lesbian persons. An example of an everyday item was: "If I was living in a college dormitory, I would request to be moved off the floor if I knew that on the floor lived ..." An example of a religious item was: "I would feel comfortable" Participants are asked to imagine that the stimulus person was of the same gender and the stimulus person was characterized in the following four different ways.

1. Celibate homosexual: a homosexual person who does not claim to be a Christian, and who chooses to live his or her life as a sexually non-practicing person.

2. Sexually practicing homosexual in a committed relationship: a homosexual person who does not claim to be a Christian, and the person is involved in a loving, monogamous, and homosexual relationship.

3. Christian celibate homosexual: a homosexual person who claims that Jesus Christ is his or her Lord and Savior, and who chooses to live his or her life as a sexually non-practicing person.

4. Sexually practicing Christian homosexual in a committed relationship: a homosexual person who claims that Jesus Christ is his or her Lord and Savior, and the person is involved in a loving, monogamous, and homosexual relationship. (1)

Thus, participants made four comfort ratings for each item (one for each type of individual). The ratings were on a 5-point scale (5 = strongly disagree, 1 = strongly agree). Some of the items were written in an affirming direction, and some of the items were written in a rejecting direction. Bassett et al. reported Cronbach alpha's that ranged from .86 (for the Christian and practicing individual) to .91 (for the Christian and celibate individual).

The Crowne and Marlowe Social Desirability Scale was reformatted so participants responded to the items using a Likert-like format rather than a true/false format. The response format was a 5-point scale (5 true, 4 somewhat true, 3 = no opinion, 2 = somewhat false, 1 false). For all the participants, the ordering of the Social Desirability Scale and the measure of attitudes toward gay and lesbian persons were randomly counterbalanced.

Participants for the second phase of the study (which largely replicated Batson et al.) were recruited in class a few weeks later. Potential candidates for this phase of the study were identified by their birthdays and their mother's maiden name. Potential candidates were prescreened on social desirability. The reason behind this screening was that participants in the second phase of the study would know that they were involved in a simulation. Our concern was that students high in social desirability might experience difficulty in realistically presenting themselves in this simulation. Therefore, we made an effort to screen-out the top 20% of the students on the social desirability distribution for our samples.

Potential candidates were asked to sign-up for a half-hour time slot with a same gender researcher. Participants understood that they would receive information about another student and then they would have an opportunity to help that student, or someone else, by performing a brief task (circling specified numbers on a page for two minutes). Up to four participants could sign-up for each time slot.

When participants arrived for the second phase of the study, a student researcher of the same gender greeted them. The researcher then shared the following statement with the participants:

We would like to remind you that this part of the research involves a role-play. In other words, the other person in this study is made up, the process is made up, and the notes that you will receive are made up. However, we would like you to use your imagination and become involved in the process. But, please remember that the process and the other person are fictional, not real.

If participants were still willing to continue (nobody discontinued the process), then the researcher gave the participants a written copy of the introduction (presented below) and left the room while participants read the introduction.

This study is concerned with the effects of one person's disclosure of intimate, personal information about him or herself to another person on the other person's performance of tasks that either do or do not have consequences for the discloser. To assist us in trying to understand these effects, you have been asked to take part in this study. There are two of you participating in this study because there are two roles: the Discloser and the disclosure Recipient. You have been randomly assigned to be the Recipient. The other participant, as Discloser, was asked at an earlier session to write two notes disclosing the most intimate, personal information he or she felt comfortable disclosing under the circumstances. (No one is asked to disclose more than be or she feels comfortable disclosing.) One note is for general disclosure and the other for disclosure of thoughts and feelings about the tasks that you will perform. The Discloser was asked to sign only his or her first name to the notes, to assure anonymity. The Discloser was informed about the consequences for each of your tasks only after writing the first disclosure note and before writing the second. Similarly, you will be informed about the consequences for each of your tasks only after you read the first disclosure note and before reading the second.

The researcher then returned to the room and made sure that participants understood their role as recipient.

The participants then received the discloser's first note in a sealed envelope. While the participants read this first note, the researcher stepped out of the room. Gender related information within each note always indicated the discloser was the same gender as the participant. The three possible forms of this first note are presented below.

1 Sexual orientation not specified. I'm supposed to tell you something really personal and revealing-something I wouldn't tell somebody unless I knew them really well. Well, at least writing a note is better than fact-to-face. I guess one thing like that is how I was about coming to RWC, it just seemed so small. I'm a freshman and my high school was pretty big, compared to this. I was really afraid that everyone would be stuck in their cliques and I would not be able to make friends. I was pretty lonely at first, maybe because I was so scared. I didn't make many friends. After a couple of weeks though, I started to be a bit more at ease. Now I really like it here. I've met a lot of cool people and have some really good friends.

2. Gay/lesbian and sexually active. (This statement was the same as the above except for the following material inserted after the sentence about the student being afraid.) To be really honest, I had a special reason for being worried. The reason is I'm a practicing homosexual. I've had previous romantic relationships with other women and I currently have another woman in my life who is very special to me. Last year I couldn't have told anyone that, now I can. Although at Roberts Wesleyan I do have to be careful whom I share this with. Before coming to RWC, I didn't know how lesbians were treated in Rochester.

3. Gay/lesbian and celibate. (This statement was the same as the one that did not specify sexual orientation except for the following material inserted after the sentence about the student being afraid.) To be really honest, I had a special reason for being worried. The reason is I'm a homosexual. I have come to believe that acting on my homosexual tendencies is wrong. Therefore, I choose to be celibate. Last year I couldn't have told anyone that, now I can. Although at Roberts Wesleyan I do have to be careful whom I share this with. Before coming to RWC, I didn't know how gays were treated in Rochester.

After participants had read the first note, the researcher returned to the room and asked the participants to fill out an initial impressions questionnaire of the discloser. Participants rated the discloser on: (a) how similar the discloser was to the participant, (b) how well adjusted the discloser seemed, and (c) how open a person the discloser appeared to be. All ratings were done on a 7-point Likert-like scale (1 = "not at all" and 7 = "extremely"). Once the initial impressions ratings were completed, the researcher then handed the participants the following set of instructions:

You will be given two tasks (A and B). You will have two minutes to perform the two tasks. Your task will be to work from left to right, line by line down a page of random numbers and circle all the 23s and 46s. The work that you do on Task A will have consequences for the other student who is disclosing information to you. The work that you do on Task B will have consequences for some other randomly selected Roberts student. Consequences will be in the form of raffle tickets, each good for one chance at winning a $30.00 gift certificate, which the winner can use however he or she chooses. Each correct response on Task A will provide the disclosing student with one raffle ticket. Each correct response on Task B will provide the randomly selected student with one raffle ticket. Only a relatively small number of people take part in each raffle, so if-as a result of your efforts-the Discloser or the other student receives a number of tickets, then that person has a good chance of winning a $30.00 gift certificat e.

You will be given two minutes to work on the tasks. You can divide this time between the two tasks in any way you choose. You can spend all of your time on Task A, all on Task B, or you can spend some time on each. Each correct response on Task A will provide the Discloser with one raffle ticket for a $30.00 gift certificate; each correct response on Task B will provide some other student with one raffle ticket.

The researcher made sure participants understood the nature of the task and the resulting lottery process. Then, participants received a second sealed letter from the discloser. The researcher explained to the participants that the discloser had written the second letter after she/he understood the potential consequences of the Recipient performing Task A and/or Task B. The researcher left the room while participants read this second letter. The letter took one of the following two forms.

1. Attending gay pride rally. I was hoping that at least one of the two tasks would have consequences for me because I could really use $30 right now. I've been saving every penny I can for weeks to try to get enough money to take a trip to NY City. There's going to be a gay pride rally and I want to be there. I wasn't sure I'd be able to save enough in time to go, but $30 would sure help out a lot! I really want to go. The money would be great!

2. Visiting grandparents. I was hoping at least one of the two tasks would have consequences for me because I could really use $30 right now. I've been saving every penny I can for weeks to try to get enough money to take a trip to NY City. My grandparents live there and I want to visit them. $30 would sure help out a lot! I really want to go so the money would be great!

After participants read the second note, the researcher then placed Tasks A and B on the table and left the room for two minutes. A clock had been placed in the room for those participants who did not have a watch. After the two minutes, the researcher collected both tasks and gave participants a final questionnaire. The first part of the questionnaire contained Gorsuch and McPherson's (1989) measure of religious orientation (intrinsic faith, extrinsic-personal faith, and extrinsic-social faith) and Batson and Schoenrade's (1991) measure of quest faith. The response format for both measures was a 5-point Likert-like scale (1 = "false" and 5 = "true"). The second part of the questionnaire involved responding to the following items using the same 5-point Likert scale: (a) "I put real effort into the tasks," (b) "I found the tasks challenging," (c) "I accept gay and lesbian people and it is important for them to be able to express their sexual desires in same-sex relationships," (d) "I accept gay and lesbian peo ple but I believe that it is not appropriate for them to express their sexual desires in same-sex relationships," (e) "It is important to accept gay and lesbian persons regardless of their behavior. I accept people even if I don't agree with their behavior," and (f) "I can't accept gay or lesbian people because I believe gay and lesbian behavior is wrong." The last part of the questionnaire involved two short answer questions: (a) "Why did you choose to divide your time between the tasks as you did?" and (b) "What do you recall about the two students you were asked to do the tasks for?"

Summary of Methods. In the first phase of the study, participants responded to a questionnaire containing a measure of attitudes toward gay and lesbian persons and the Crowne and Marlowe Social Desirability Scale. Participation in the second phase of the study was limited to individuals who were not high in social desirability. Participants in the second phase of the study received information about another student (the discloser) who might have received $30 through the participants' efforts. There were four versions of this information: (a) the other student was gay/lesbian, actively involved in a romantic relationship, and wanted to use the money to attend a gay pride rally; (b) the other student was gay/lesbian, actively involved in a romantic relationship, and wanted to use the money to visit grandparents; (c) the other student was gay/lesbian, celibate, and wanted to use the money to visit grandparents, and (d) the other student was probably heterosexual and wanted to use the money to visit grandparents. Each participant received only one version of this information. The primary dependent variable was the proportion of numbers correctly circled on a task that could benefit the discloser. These procedures largely replicated those of Batson, Floyd, Meyer, and Winner (1999) except for four main differences: (a) participants were pretested on their attitudes toward gays and lesbians and on social desirability, (b) participants knew they were involved in a simulation, (c) participants could experience the second phase of the study alone or in groups of up to three other people, and (d) we added the experimental condition of a discloser who was a gay/lesbian person and celibate.

RESULTS

Twenty-four percent of the students who completed the first phase of the study also accepted the invitation to participate in the second phase. The invitation to participate in the second phase of the study was limited to those students who were in the bottom 80% of the distribution of social desirability scores across both semesters. (2) Fifty-seven percent of the participants in the second phase were female (compared to 68% for the first phase). The average age for the "second-phasers" was 20.0, and the modal year in school was first year (compared to 20.2 and first year for the first phase). When asked to agree or disagree (5 = strongly agree) with the statement "I am a Christian," the average response for the second-phasers was 4.4 (compared to 4.5 for the first phase). The modal response for church attendance amongst second-phasers was "once a week" (the same for the first phase students). And, the average total social desirability score for the second-phasers was 101.5 out of a possible total score of 1 65 (the minimum score was 75, and the maximum score was 115). For all of the first phase participants, the average total social desirability score was 106.6 (the minimum score was 70, and the maximum score was 154).

When the second phase participants evaluated the discloser, a one-way ANOVA for independent groups revealed there was no statistically significant effect for similarity (interestingly the average scores for all four stimulus persons were below the midpoint of the scale). However, there were statistically significant effects for the rating of adjustment (F(3, 64) 2.76, p <.05) and the rating for openness (F(3, 64) = 4.73, p < .005). The participants perceived the gay/practicing student who was attending the gay pride rally as the least adjusted (mean = 4.0, the midpoint of the seven-point scale) and the not-gay student visiting grandparents as the most adjusted (mean = 5.2). Post hoc comparisons, using the Bonferroni t test, revealed this comparison approached traditional levels of significance (p < .06). Further, the participants perceived the not-gay student visiting grandparents as the least open (mean = 3.5) and the gay/celibate student visiting grandparents as the most open (mean = 5.2). This comparison was statistically significant using the Bonferroni t (p [less than or equal to] .005).

Participants in the second phase of the study responded to religious orientation scales (intrinsic, extrinsic-social, extrinsic-personal, and quest) and four items measuring attitudes toward gay and lesbian persons. Some of the descriptive statistics for these items are reported in Table 1. The response format for all these items was a five-point scale (with "5" being the highest value). For the religious orientation scales, which contained multiple items, responses to those items were averaged to create overall scores that conformed to a five-point scale (with "5" being the highest value).

Consideration of the table makes it clear that responses to some of the items/scales were dramatically skewed. Participants clearly affirmed intrinsic faith items and acceptance of gay and lesbian persons regardless of their behavior (only 7.4% [intrinsic faith] and 23.9% [accept regardless] of participants were at or below the theoretical midpoint for the item/scale). Participants clearly rejected extrinsic-social faith and not accepting gay and lesbian persons (82.4% [extrinsic-social] and 80.6% [not accepting] of participants were at or below the midpoint for the item/scale).

Among the four attitudinal items, believing that it was important for gay and lesbian people to express their sexual desires in same-sex relationships was directly related to accepting gay and lesbian persons regardless of their behavior [r(67) = .32, p < .01], inversely related to accepting gay and lesbian persons but still believing it was not appropriate for those persons to express their sexual desires in same-sex relationships [r(67) = -.49, p < .001], and inversely related to not accepting gay or lesbian people because of their behavior [r(67) = -.32, p < .01]. There was also an inverse relationship between accepting gay and lesbian persons regardless of their behavior and not accepting gay or lesbian people because of their behavior [r(67) = -.54, p <.001].

Among the religious orientation scales, the only statistically significant relationship was a direct relationship between extrinsic-social and quest faith [r(68) = .26, p < .05]. Between the attitudinal items and the religious orientation scales, the only significant relationship was between intrinsic faith and acceptance of gay and lesbian persons but not gay and lesbian behavior [r(67) = .26, p < .05]. People higher in intrinsic faith were more likely to say they accepted gay and lesbian persons but that it was inappropriate for those persons to express their sexual desires in same-sex relationships.

The key aspect of the second phase of the study was the consideration of how willing participants would be to help a gay or lesbian person. As an indication of willingness to help, we divided the number of correctly circled items for the discloser by the possible number of correctly circled items. Thus, the higher the resulting proportion, the greater the willingness of the participant to help the discloser. The resulting mean helping scores across the four disclosing persons were: (a) gay/practicing and visiting grandparents = .40 (n = 17), (b) gay/practicing and attending a gay pride rally = .31 (n = 15), (c) gay/celibate and visiting grandparents = .42 (n = 19), and (d) not gay and visiting grandparents = .54 (n = 17). A one-way ANOVA for independent groups revealed a statistically significant difference for helping between the four disclosers [F(3, 64) = 3.53, p < .05]. Post hoc analyses, using the Bonferroni t, revealed only one significant comparison between the gay/practicing and attending a gay pride rally discloser and the not gay discloser.

An important qualification to the above findings was the reality that our sample was very skewed on the measure of intrinsic faith. With our participants, 93% placed themselves above the conceptual midpoint of the intrinsic faith scale. As a result, our sample probably was analogous to what Batson et al. (1999) identified as "high intrinsics." Batson et al. did a median-split (the median was 5.23 on a nine-point scale) to separate "high" from "low" intrinsics. Since we used a five-point scale, the comparable cut- off for our participants would have been 2.93 on our five-point scale. Using only those participants who were above the Batson et al. cut-off, we reanalyzed the helping data. The resulting ANOVA was significant [F(3,60) = 4.66, p [less than or equal to] .005]. The mean helping scores across the four disclosing persons were: (a) gay/practicing and visiting grandparents = .40 (n = 17), (b) gay/practicing and attending a gay pride rally = .31 (n = 15), (c) gay/celibate and visiting grandparents = .48 (n = 15), and (d) not gay and visiting grandparents = .54 (n = 17) [see Figure 1, Bassett et al. #1]. Post hoc analyses, using the Bonferroni t, revealed one significant comparison between the gay/practicing and attending a gay pride rally discloser and the not gay discloser (p [less than or equal to] .005) and a marginally significant comparison between the gay/practicing and attending a gay pride rally discloser and the gay/celibate discloser (p [less than or equal to] .08).

It should be noted that our measure of helping was different from that used by Batson et al. Their helping score was calculated by taking the number of correct responses for the discloser and dividing that value by the sum of the number of correct responses for the discloser and the number of correct responses for the other unidentified student. Using the Batson et al. method for calculating helping behavior produced the following average scores across the four disclosing persons: (a) gay/practicing and visiting grandparents = .72, (b) gay/practicing and attending a gay pride rally = .61, (c) gay/celibate and visiting grandparents = .79, and (d) not gay and visiting grandparents = .86 [see Figure I. Bassett et al. #2]. A one-way ANOVA with this measure was only marginally significant, F(3, 60) 2.20, .05 [less than or equal to] p [less than or equal to] .10. But the pattern of means in Figure 1 makes it clear that both versions of the helping dependent variable produced comparable results.

Next we looked at helping behavior as a function of religious orientation using actual median-splits for our data. These analyses used our measure of willingness to help and revealed the following. A significant one-way ANOVA for high intrinsic faith (median = 3.75 on a five-point scale), F(3,36) = 2.90, p [less than or equal to] .05. The resulting helping means were: (a) gay/practicing and visiting grandparents .38 (n = 11), (b) gay/practicing and attending a gay pride rally = .33 (n = 10), (c) gay/celibate and visiting grandparents .39 (n = 9), and (d) not gay and visiting grandparents = .56 (n = 10). Post hoc analyses, using the Bonferroni t, revealed one significant comparison between the gay/practicing and attending a gay pride rally discloser and the not gay discloser (p [less than or equal to] .05). The ANOVA for low intrinsic faith was nor significant.

There was a significant one-way ANOVA for high quest faith (median = 3.0 on a five-point scale), F(3,35) = 3.23, p [less than or equal to] .05. The resulting helping means were: (a) gay/practicing and visiting grandparents = .38 (n = 9), (b) gay/practicing and attending a gay pride rally = .30 (n = 9), (c) gay/celibate and visiting grandparents .44 (n 10), and (d) not gay and visiting grandparents = .58 (n = 11). Post hoc analyses, using the Bonferroni t, revealed one significant comparison between the gay/practicing and attending a gay pride rally discloser and the not gay discloser (p [less than or equal to].05). The ANOVA for low quest faith was not significant.

There was a significant one-way ANOVA for low extrinsic-social faith (median 2.0 on a five-point scale), F(3,33) = 4.82, p[less than or equal to] .01 The resulting helping means were: (a) gay/practicing and visiting grandparents = .39 (n = 8), (b) gay/practicing and attending a gay pride rally = .25 (n = 10), (c) gay/celibate and visiting grandparents = .40 (n = 12), and (d) not gay and visiting grandparents = .65 (n = 7). Post hoc analyses, using the Bonferroni t, revealed one significant comparison between the gay/practicing and attending a gay pride rally discloser and the not gay discloser (p .05). The ANOVA for high extrinsic social faith was not significant.

There was also a significant one-way ANOVA for low extrinsic-personal faith (median = 3.0 on a five point scale), F(3,26) 3.29, p .05. The resulting helping means were: (a) gay/practicing and visiting grandparents = .38 (n = 8), (b) gay/practicing and attending a gay pride rally = .21 (n = 7), (c) gay/celibate and visiting grandparents = .45 (n = 10), and (d) not gay and visiting grandparents = .48 (n = 5). Post hoc analyses, using the Bonferroni t, revealed two marginally significant comparisons between: (a) the gay/practicing and attending a gay pride rally discloser and the not gay discloser (p[less than or equal to] .08), and (b) the gay/practicing and attending a gay pride rally discloser and the gay/celibate discloser (p[less than or equal to] .07). The ANOVA for high extrinsic-personal faith was not significant.

We then considered if attitudes toward gay and lesbian persons and/or religious orientation (intrinsic, extrinsic-social, extrinsic-personal, and quest) predicted helping. These analyses involved correlating the gay and lesbian attitudinal items and the religious orientation scales with helping for each discloser. The only correlations that came close to statistical significance were for the gay/practicing discloser who wanted to attend a gay pride rally. There was a tendency for accepting gay/lesbian persons regardless of their behavior, extrinsic-social faith, and extrinsic-personal faith to predict higher levels of helping for that discloser [r(14) = .49, p < .08; r(15) = .51, p < .06; r(15) = .49, p <.07, respectively].

Finally, one unexpected finding occurred with the measure of attitudes toward gay and lesbian persons administered to all participants in the first phase of the study. The measure contained 17 items, and participants evaluated each item in the context of four possible stimulus persons. When scoring the measure, people who score below the midpoint for the "Christian celibate homosexual" and above the midpoint for the "sexually practicing Christian homosexual in a committed relationship" are considered 'selectively accepting' of gay and lesbian persons (i.e., they accept the person but reject the behavior). People who score below the midpoint for both stimulus persons are considered 'universally accepting' of gay and lesbian persons (i.e., they accept the person regardless of the behavior). People who score above the midpoint for both stimulus persons are considered 'universally rejecting' of gay and lesbian person (i.e., they reject the person regardless of the behavior). This measure was not used in analyzin g the data for the second phase of the study because very few of the second phase participants met the criteria for being selectively accepting. However, among the first phase participants, it was interesting to note that the balance between those participants who were universally accepting and universally rejecting changed dramatically from the fall semester to the spring semester. In the fall semester, 53 (36%) participants were universally accepting while 93 (64%) were universally rejecting. The next semester, 48 (79%) participants were universally accepting while 13 (21%) were universally rejecting. A chi square analysis revealed this change in proportions was statistically significant [chi-square(1, N = 159) = 30.14, p[less than oe equal to].001].

DISCUSSION

Batson et al. (1999) found that high intrinsics responded alike to gay disclosers who were intending to visit grandparents or intending to attend a gay pride rally. Both were given less help than a not-gay discloser. As a result, Batson et al. concluded that high intrinsic Christians do not distinguish between the value of gay behavior and the value of gay persons. With gay and lesbian persons, high intrinsic Christians do not "love the sinner but hate the sin." Our data suggested a somewhat different pattern. Using Batson et al.'s cut-off for high intrinsic faith, our high intrinsics were clearly less helpful to the gay discloser who wanted to attend a gay pride rally (compared to the not-gay discloser). But, our high intrinisics did not seem to put the other gay students (gay and visiting grandparents and gay/celibate) in the same category as the gay student visiting a gay pride rally.

Another way to think of our findings is to conceptualize the three gay discloser conditions in our study as representing the dimension of "gay behavior." On the high end of the dimension would be the gay discloser who wanted to attend a gay pride rally. On the low end of the dimension would be the gay/celibate discloser who wanted to visit grandparents. In between, would be the gay discloser who wanted to visit grandparents. Looking at helping behavior along that dimension for high intrinsics (using Batson et al.'s cut-off for high intrinsic), there seemed to be a clear linear function (gay/rally = .31, gay/grandparents = .40, gay/celibate = .48). The low end of this dimension (gay/celibate = .48) was not statistically different from the not-gay discloser (.54). Thus, our data suggest that high intrinsics do make a distinction between the value of gay behavior and gay persons.

So, why does our data seem to lead to a different set of conclusions than the data reported by Batson et al. (1999)? There are at least three possibilities. First, our procedures involved a simulation, while the Batson et al. procedures involved deception. Simulation activities can be vulnerable to self-presentation concerns. Batson, Schoenrade, and Ventis (1993) have expressed particular concern that the "good actions" of people with intrinsic faith may be motivated by a concern about "looking good" in their own eyes and the eyes of others. We made an effort to minimize the possibility of participants "acting good" simply because they wanted to "look good" by pre-screening our participants in the second phase of the study for social desirability. However, even with social desirability taken into consideration, our participants may still have felt like they were "acting." Our simulation methodology may have simply had a "less than real" quality for our participants, thus producing "less than real" data. On a n encouraging note, the informal observations of the researchers and the responses to the qualitative items suggested that participants did become actively involved in our procedures.

Second, thinking of different types of religious orientation in nomothetic terms may sometimes cause one to "miss the point." With some social issues, the ideographic differences may be more interesting. Gorsuch (1994) suggests that intrinsic religious commitment can best be conceptualized in motivational terms. And, Gorsuch further suggests that there may be several different motivations for someone embracing intrinsic faith. Different motivations for being a devout Christian might moderate how Christians perceive and live out some of the teachings of the faith. Thus, different motivational foundations for Christian commitment might affect how Christians think about and relate to gay and lesbian persons. If this is true (and if those motivations were not evenly distributed across the two samples), then one might expect different patterns of helping for gay and lesbian persons across the two samples.

Third, the samples for the two studies varied dramatically in the distribution of intrinsic faith. With the Batson et al. participants, the cut-off for the median-split with intrinsic faith corresponded to about the mid-point of the scale (5.28 on a nine-point scale). In contrast, our participants seemed to be especially skewed on the dimension of intrinsic faith (93% fell above the mid-point of our five-point scale for intrinsic faith). Thus, in an environment where "everyone" is high intrinsic, intrinsic faith may have somewhat different implications than in an environment where many people are not high intrinsic. Griffin, Gorsuch, and Davis (1987) have suggested that there may be "regional" cultural norms for what it means to be a "true believer." Within the same faith system, certain types of prejudice may be more or less acceptable depending upon the congregational or cultural setting. For example, Griffin, Gorsuch, and Davis found approval of prejudice against Rastafarians among Seventh-Day Adventists on the Caribbean island of St. Croix. Thus, what it means to be a "true believer" at a small Christian liberal arts college may differ in some ways from what it means to be a "true believer" at a large state university. If so, then high intrinsic faith might predict somewhat different attitudes toward gay and lesbian persons across the two settings.

Fourth, the notion espoused by some devout Christians that homosexual behavior is 'sinful' may not be 'politically correct' at most state colleges and universities. If that is true, then those Christians may become defensive over the issue of homosexuality. Such defensiveness could have some interesting implications. For example, the continuum model of impression formation (see Fiske & Neuberg, 1990) predicts that when people meet someone new an initial impression is formed in a rather automatic fashion. This initial impression is based upon minimal, readily accessible, information. A more individuated impression is only formed if people are motivated and able to do so. Being defensive about some attribute of the stimulus person should affect people's motivation to form more individuated impressions. Thus, if devout Christians at a large state university are more defensive about the issue of homosexuality, then those Christians might process the basic information that someone is gay/lesbian, ignore any other information, and form an impression using only the sexual orientation of the individual. For those Christians, the behavior of gay/lesbian individuals might be irrelevant because that information is essentially ignored.

Another way in which defensiveness might be relevant is psychological reactance (see Brehm & Brehm, 1981). When social pressure becomes so blatant that people sense their freedom is constrained, these people may reassert their freedom by adopting views that are contrary to the social pressure. If devout Christians on state campuses feel pressured to take a more open and accepting view of homosexuality, then some of those devout Christians may rebel by becoming even more homonegative. Such individuals may disregard any qualifying information about homosexual persons and may simply be less willing to help any gay/lesbian individuals.

The idea that some devout Christians on state campuses may be defensive over the issue of homosexuality predicts a higher rate of homonegativism among those students relative to sexual orientation attitudes among students on Christian college campuses. Is there any evidence to support that notion? For example, R. Sorenson (personal communication, October 27, 2001) reported a study assessing attitudes toward divorce, non-marital sex, abortion, suicide, and homosexual practice among clinical psychology graduate students attending Christian and secular graduate programs. Students in the secular programs showed more conservative (less accepting) attitudes than students in Christian programs. Perhaps devout Christians on secular campuses are more homonegative than their peers on Christian campuses.

A second piece of evidence is our rather surprising finding that acceptance of gay and lesbian individuals seemed to vary as a function of semester. Compared to the fall semester, participants in the spring semester reported a higher level of universal acceptance of gay and lesbian persons. If attending a Christian liberal arts college increases acceptance of gay and lesbian persons and a comparable effect does not occur on state campuses, then the gap should widen between devout Christians on the two types of campuses regarding this issue of homonegativism.

Because this finding for universal acceptance was unexpected, it deserves further comment. Casual observation suggests that the faculty of this Christian liberal arts college takes a more liberal/accepting view of gay and lesbian individuals than the incoming first year students at the college. The college faculty may provide a reference group that encourages students to shift their position on this issue (see Batson, Schoenrade, & Ventis, 1993). But, if the key to this shift is changing reference groups, then this shift toward universal acceptance may prove temporary.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

TABLE 1

Descriptve Statistics for Attitudinal Items and Religious Orientation
Scales in the Second Phase of the Study

Item                            N   Mean    Std.      % at or
                                          Deviation  below the
                                                     midpoint

Intrinsic faith                 68  3.75     .54        7.4%
Extrinsic-social faith          68  2.18     .91       82.4%
Extrinsic-personal faith        68  3.13     .86       44.1%
Quest faith                     68  3.02     .67       50.0%
I accept gay and lesban         67  2.40    1.28       73.1%
people and I accept gay and
lesbian sexual behavior
I accept gay and lesbian        67  3.52    1.37       37.3%
people but not gay and lesbian
behavior
I accept gay and lesbian        67  3.97    1.25       23.9%
people regardless of their
behavior
I can't accept gay and lesbian  67  1.97    1.27       80.6%
people because their sexual
behavior is wrong

Note: All items used a five-point response scale (1 = false, 3 = no
opinion, 5 = true).

(1.) The description of the stimulus persons represented a slight modification from the descriptions used by Bassett et al. (2000).

(2.) During the process of collecting data during the second semester, it was discovered that an error had been made when calculating the social desirability scores for students during the first semester. Items that should have been reverse scored were not. As a result, nine out of forty-nine students were mistakenly included in the second phase of the study that first semester. To resolve this problem, social desirability scores were correctly calculated for participants from both semesters and a new cut-off was established. This new cut-off eliminated from the second phase of the study anyone with a social desirability score in the top 20% of the distribution of social desirability scores for both semesters (this actually produced a more rigorous cut-off score than had been used during the first semester). As a result, 34 participants remained in the second phase of the study from the first semester, and another 35 participants were added during the second semester.

REFERENCES

Bassett, R. L., Hodak, E., Allen, J., Bartos, D., Grastorf, J., Sittig, L, & Strong, J. (2000). Homonegative Christians: Loving the sinner but hating the sin. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 19, 258-269.

Batson, C. D., Floyd, R. B., Meyer, J. M., & Winner, A. L. (1999). "And who is my neighbor?:" Intrinsic religion as a source of universal compassion. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 38(4), 445-457.

Batson, C. D., & Schoenrade, P. (1991). Measuring religion as quest: Reliability concerns. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 30, 430-447.

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

Brehm, S., & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. New York: Academic Press.

Fisher, R. D., Derison, D., Polley III, C. F., Cadman, J., & Johnston, D. (1994). Religiousness, religious orientation, and attitudes towards gays and lesbians, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24,614-630.

Fiske, S. T., & Neuberg, S. L. (1990). A continuum of impression formation, from category-based to individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 1-74). New York: Academic Press.

Fulton, A. S., Gorsuch, R. L., & Maynard, E. A. (1999). Religious orientation, antihomosexual sentiment, and fundamentalism among Christians. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 38, 14-22.

Gorsuch, R. L. (1994). Toward motivational theories of intrinsic religious commitment, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 33, 315-325.

Gorsuch, R. L., & McPherson, S. E. (1989). Intrinsic/extrinsic measurement: I/E-revised and single-item scales. Journal for the Scientific Study a/Religion, 28,348-354.

Griffin, G. A. E., Gorsuch, R. L, & Davis, A. (1987). A cross-cultural investigation of religious orientation, social norms, and prejudice. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 26, 358-365.

Herek, G.M. (1987). Religious orientation and prcjudicc: A comparison of racial and sexual attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 13,34-44.

Hudson, W. W., & Rickets, W. A. (1980). A strategy for the measurement of homophobia. Journal of Homosexuality, 5, 357-372.

Jackson, L. M., & Eases, V. M. (1997). Of scripture and ascription: The relation between religious fundamentalism and inter-group helping. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 893-906.

Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1993). Fundamentalism, Christian orthodoxy, and intrinsic religious orientation as predictors of discriminatory attitudes. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 32, 256-268.

Robinson, J. P., & Shaver, P. R (1973). Measures of social psychological attitudes. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.

AUTHORS

BASSETT, RODNEY L. Address: Roberts Wesleyan College, 2301 Westside Dr., Rochester, NY 14624. Title: Professor of Psychology. Degrees: BA, Seattle Pacific University; MA, PhD, Ohio State University. Specializations: Integration of psychology and Christianity, psychology of religion.

DAVID BALDWIN, JULIE TAMMARO, DANALYN MACKMER, CHANTELLE MUNDIG, ANDREW WAREING, and DONI TSCHORKE were students at Roberts Wesleyan College at the time of the research.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Rod Bassett at Roberts Wesleyan College, 2301 Westside Drive, Rochester, NY 14624. Electronic mail may be sent via Internet to [e-mail]. Portions of this paper were presented at the 109th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association at San Francisco, California.