INSERT YOUR RESEARCH TITLE HERE

_______________________________________

A Research Paper
Presented to the English Department
NAVOTAS NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL
M. Naval St., Sipac-Almacen, Navotas City

______________________________________

By:

Name of Group Member

Name of Group Member
Name of Group Member
Name of Group Member
Name of Group Member
Name of Group Member
Name of Group Member
S.Y. 2019-2020
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The researcher expresses her gratitude in the completion of her term paper to the following

individuals whose help contributed much in having made this study a success.

To Our Almighty God, whose grace and providence are always abounding; if not for His

consistent faithfulness and guidance, this work by the researcher will not be successfully done.

The researcher will always be grateful for His every day blessings and divine intervention.

Dr. Maria Cusipag, the researcher’s Language Testing and Assessment Professor, for her

guidance and consideration during the preparation of this study. Her kindheartedness and

compassion helped the researcher in her difficult times during the school term.

Dr. Maria Cristina A. Robles, the Principal of Navotas National High School, for

allowing the researcher to administer the reading test to the student-respondents.

Her students, for their willingness to participate in the researcher’s study and for their

consistent support and help.

Her family and friends, for their constant love and support to the researcher, for never

giving up, and for understanding the researcher especially during the most crucial times.

J.G.S.C.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1

ACKNOWLEDGMENT --------------------------------------------------- 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS ------------------------------------------------ 3

LIST OF TABLES --------------------------------------------------------- 5

LIST OF FIGURES -------------------------------------------------------- 6

LIST OF APPENDICES -------------------------------------------------- 7

CHAPTER 1 THE PROBLEM AND A REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Introduction ------------------------------------------------------------------- 8

Review of Related Literature ----------------------------------------------- 11

Conceptual Framework ------------------------------------------------------ 24

Statement of the Problem ---------------------------------------------------- 25

Significance of the Study ---------------------------------------------------- 25

Scope and Limitations ------------------------------------------------------- 26

Definition of Terms ---------------------------------------------------------- 27

CHAPTER 2 METHOD

Research Locale --------------------------------------------------------------- 28

Research Design --------------------------------------------------------------- 31

Research Instrument ---------------------------------------------------------- 32

Respondents of the Study ---------------------------------------------------- 32

Data Gathering Procedure --------------------------------------------------- 33

Statistical Treatment of Data ------------------------------------------------ 33

CHAPTER 3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ---------------------------- 35

CHAPTER 4 SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 43

Conclusions ------------------------------------------------------------------ 45

Recommendations ----------------------------------------------------------- 46

References ------------------------------------------------------------------- 48

List of Appendices ---------------------------------------------------------- 50

 LIST OF TABLES

Table

1 Profile of the Respondents According to Gender -------------------------- 35

2 Profile of the Respondents According to Age -------------------------- 35

 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

1 Research Paradigm ---------------------------------------------------- 24

2 Navotas National High School Location Map ---------------------- 30

3 Navotas National High School Façade and Faculty Members ------- 31

 LIST OF APPENDICES

A Letter to the School Principal ---------------------------------- 49

B Reading Comprehension Test ------------------------------- 50

C Raw Data of Reading Comprehension Test Result --------- 61

D Table of Specifications ------------------------------- 63

 CHAPTER 1

THE PROBLEM AND A REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Introduction

Today’s workforce is increasingly diverse in terms of personal characteristics such as race,

ethnicity, gender, national origin, religion, gender identity, and sexual orientation. However, sexual

orientation and gender identity have long been regarded as one of the most sensitive subjects and

the attitudes towards, and experiences of, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT)

individuals are not widely understood. Self-disclosure was defined by Collins and Miller (1994)

as the “act of revealing personal information about oneself to another” (p. 457), and disclosures

often involve surprising, if not stigmatizing, information such as criminal activity, marital

infidelity, or sexual orientation (see Derlega, Metts, Petronio, & Margulis, 1993; Ludwig, Franco,

& Malloy, 1986). Disclosing one’s sexual orientation is one of the toughest issues that gay men

and lesbians face because it involves considerable emotional turmoil and a fear of retaliation and

rejection (Bohan, 1996; Cain, 1991; Ellis & Riggle, 1996; Franke & Leary, 1991; Goffman, 1963;

Kronenberger, 1991; Wells & Kline, 1987). The stigma and discrimination lived by the LGBT

population (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) have resulted into serious human rights

violations, hampering the eradication of violence and of diseases such as AIDS. In the workplace,

stigma and discrimination influence the levels of efficiency and production, of workplace well-

being and influence the access to and permanence in decent work.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) people face tremendous difficulties growing

up in a society where heterosexuality is often presented as the only acceptable orientation and

homosexuality is regarded as deviant. They continue to face discrimination and exclusion across

the world in all spheres of life. While the world is facing progress in several and diverse aspects,
many lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people still worry that revealing their sexuality at

work will have negative consequences. Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people who are

'out' at work waste little energy hiding aspects of their personalities, meaning they feel more

confident and progress within the business. However, many remain in the closet. This is due to

homophobia (the fear or hatred of homosexuality). Some of the factors that may reinforce

homophobia on a larger scale are moral, religious, and political beliefs of a dominant group. In

some countries, homosexuality is illegal and punishable by fines, imprisonment, life imprisonment

and even the death penalty.

Although many societies have made significant strides in human rights advocacy; lesbians,

gays, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights struggle to find universal acceptance.

Discrimination of LGBT persons in the workplace is a significant factor in the differences in

socioeconomic status for LGBT persons. Gay and transgender individuals suffer from

socioeconomic inequalities in large part due to pervasive discrimination in the workplace.

In the Philippines, the presence of the LGBT is recognized, but their acceptance in the

society is still vague. For decades, the LGBT in the Philippines want was to be respected and be

treated equally and these LGBTs continued to fight for the passing of laws that will protect their

rights as individuals (IGLHRC, 2013). As far as the workplace is concerned, various studies have

shown that LGBT employees face discrimination in the workplace. However, little is understood

about how a non-inclusive workplace may be affecting productivity, performance and a company's

bottom line.

The workplace in Navotas National High School, situated at M. Naval St., Sipac-Almacen,

Navotas City, is no different from any other workplaces. This secondary school is composed of

139 teachers from all the learning areas. The 15% of the teacher population of Navotas National
High School is composed of the teachers who already disclosed their gender preference,

particularly those who are gays, lesbians, and bisexuals.

This study aims to determine the moral reasoning, particularly the level of acceptance of

the teachers in Navotas National High School towards the Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual (LGB)

Individuals in the workplace.

Review of Related Literature

This part is concerned with the related literature and studies regarding the moral

reasoning, particularly level of acceptance, towards LGB individuals that are used as a support

throughout this research.

Self-disclosure of Gender Preference in the Workplace

Self-disclosure was defined by Collins and Miller (1994) as the “act of revealing personal

information about oneself to another” (p. 457), and disclosures often involve surprising, if not

stigmatizing, information such as criminal activity, marital infidelity, or sexual orientation (see

Derlega, Metts, Petronio, & Margulis, 1993; Ludwig, Franco, & Malloy, 1986). Disclosing one’s

sexual orientation is one of the toughest issues that gay men and lesbians face because it involves

considerable emotional turmoil and a fear of retaliation and rejection (Bohan, 1996; Cain, 1991;

Ellis & Riggle, 1996; Franke & Leary, 1991; Goffman, 1963; Kronenberger, 1991; Wells & Kline,

1987). At the same time, those who remain closeted report lower levels of psychological well-

being and life satisfaction (Garnets & Kimmel, 1993; Lane & Wegner, 1995; Savin-Williams &

Rodriquez, 1993), increased health risks (Cole, Kemeny, Taylor, & Visscher, 1996; Kalichman &

Nachimson, 1999), and extensive and energy-draining activities focused on covering up their
stigmatized identity (e.g., see Ellis & Riggle, 1996). Given this vulnerability to discrimination, the

stakes involved with disclosing a gay identity at work are quite high.

Disclosure has been found to result in reports of verbal harassment, job termination, and

even physical assault (D’Augelli & Grossman, 2001; Friskopp & Silverstein, 1996). In fact, one

study of 416 gay men and lesbians revealed that 75% reported being attacked or physically

threatened as a result of disclosing their sexual identity (D’Augelli & Grossman, 2001).

Discrimination in the Workplace

Today, businesses’ employees are increasingly diverse in terms of race, ethnicity, sex,

national origin, religion, gender identity, and sexual orientation, among other characteristics. The

impact of that diversity is much discussed in the global economy, and the “business case for

diversity” has become a modern business mantra. In short, the business case posits that a diverse

workforce (or in more nuanced versions, a well-managed diverse workforce) will lead to lower

costs and/or higher revenues, improving the corporate bottom line. In recent years, businesses have

engaged in sustained efforts to implement policies aimed at creating safe and productive

workplaces for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees.

However, according to the study conducted by Human Rights Campaign Foundation in

Washington, significant numbers of LGBT employees continue to experience a negative

workplace climate that appears to be unaffected by organizational policies and which varies by

location, manager and work team.

The majority of LGBT workers (51 percent) hide their LGBT identity to most at work, the

simplest indication that more work needs to be done to translate inclusive policies into an inclusive

climate. Hiding one’s LGBT identity is even more pronounced among younger workers.
 Only 5 percent of LGBT employees ages 18 to 24 say they are totally open at work,

compared to more than 20 percent in older age cohorts. Employees who are not open at work

experience more negative outcomes from their workplace environment that affect productivity,

retention and professional relationships. For example, 54 percent of LGBT employees who are not

open to anyone at work report lying about their personal lives, compared to 21 percent of

employees open about their LGBT identity. LGBT workers’ inability to participate honestly in

everyday conversations hinders trust and cohesion with their co-workers and superiors.

An employee’s sexual orientation or gender identity are often unavoidable in casual, non-

work-related conversations among co-workers. A total of 89 percent of LGBT employees say

conversations about social lives come up at least once a week; 80 percent confront conversations

involving spouses, relationships and dating at least once per week; and, 50 percent say the topic

of sex arises at least once a week. These frequent conversations are the most likely to make LGBT

employees feel uncomfortable: Fewer than half feel very comfortable talking about any of these

topics.

Derogatory comments and jokes still happen at work and are a major indicator that it is

unsafe to be open about their sexual orientation or gender identity at work.

A total of 58 percent of LGBT workers say someone at work makes a joke or derogatory

comment about LGBT people at least once in a while. Similarly, jokes and derogatory comments

about other minority groups are equally indicative of a negative climate. About two-thirds (62

percent) of LGBT employees say negative comments about minority groups are made at least once

in a while at work.

Members of stigmatized groups are discredited, face negative social identities, and are

targeted for discrimination (Crocker, Major, & Steele, 1998; Goffman, 1963). Some individuals
have stigmas that are readily discernible, such as stigmatized racial identities, obesity, and physical

disfigurements (Jones et al., 1984). One of the most critical challenges faced by workers with

invisible stigmas is whether to disclose their stigmatized identity to others in the workplace.

Although this decision can be stressful for many individuals with invisible stigmas, it has been

identified as one of the most difficult career challenges faced by lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB)

employees (cf. Button, 2001, 2004; ChrobotMason, Button, & DiClementi, 2001; Griffith & Hebl,

2002; Ragins, 2004).

In the study conducted by Barrett and Lewis in 2012, the three most frequently reported

types of discrimination based on the respondent’s sexual identity were remarks (27%), ridicule

(27%) and jokes (25%). When more than one co-worker were involved discrimination consisted

of remarks (59%), ridicule (56%) and jokes (58%). Furthermore, single co-workers most

frequently carried out discrimination in written form with threats of physical abuse (100%), as well

as verbal threats (57%) and telephone threats of physical abuse (67%).

If respondents had experienced discrimination in their current workplace more than three

times, the types of discrimination were: death threats (80%), threats of physical abuse via

telephone (67%), property damage (33%), verbal threats of sexual abuse (30%), verbal threats of

physical abuse (29%) and verbal threats of sexual abuse via telephone (25%).

Work Environment

A recent comprehensive analysis, however, suggests that overt, formal displays of

discrimination are becoming less frequent (Dovidio & Gaertner, 2000). A field study by Hebl,

Foster, Mannix, and Dovidio (2002), for instance, found no differences in hiring rates but found

that employers spoke fewer words, terminated interactions, and engaged in more nonverbal

discrimination with gay/lesbian than heterosexual applicants. Thus, discrimination in the

workplace may still exist, but may manifest itself in more subtle ways. Such results, coupled with

the fact that many organizations (e.g., over half of Fortune 1000 companies) are beginning to

include sexual orientation as a protected class and offer diversity training (e.g., see also Baker,

Strub, & Henning, 1995; Neely Martinez, 1993; Powers, 1996), establish the need to better

understand the changing workplace that gay and lesbian workers are experiencing.

At present, it seems that gay/lesbian workers face a double-edged sword when managing

their stigmatized sexual identity at work—they face problems if they don’t disclose, and they face

problems if they do. A study by Day and Schoenrade (1997) examined how communication about

sexual orientation is related to critical work attitudes.

They found that “out” workers had higher job satisfaction, were more committed to their

organization, perceived top management to be more supportive of their rights, experienced less

conflict between work and home, and had lower role conflict and lower role ambiguity. Day and

Schoenrade’s (1997) research demonstrated benefits to disclosure in the workplace; however, their

research focused primarily on the relationship between disclosure and work attitudes.

A number of studies have examined the psychological and work outcomes associated with

the disclosure of a gay identity at work (cf. reviews by Ragins, 2004; Ragins & Wiethoff, 2005;

Welle & Button, 2004). These studies have tested the prediction that disclosure is associated with

positive outcomes, the rationale being that employees who disclose at work should achieve

congruence in their public and private identities (Ellis & Riggle, 1995), obtain a sense of

psychological wholeness and well-being (Reynolds & Hanjorgiris, 2000), and be relieved of the

debilitating strain of secrecy involved with leading a double life (Fassinger, 1995; Griffin, 1992).

Although this view seems reasonable, the research has produced surprisingly inconsistent results.

Disclosure has been found to have positive, negative, and nonsignificant effects on work attitudes,
psychological strain, and compensation (cf. review by Ragins, 2004). One reason for these

puzzling findings is that researchers know little about the processes underlying the disclosure of a

gay identity at work. In part, this is because research on sexual orientation in the workplace is a

very new area of scholarship that needs theoretical guidance (cf. critique by Creed, 2006).

It is promising that a number of new conceptual models have emerged that use stigma

theory as a unifying framework for understanding the disclosure dilemmas faced by employees

with invisible stigmas.

These models shed important new light on the disclosure process by proposing that fear of

negative repercussions affects disclosure and that this fear may lead to psychological distress and

decreased job performance even in the absence of actual discrimination (cf. Bowen & Blackmon,

2003; Clair et al., 2005; Croteau, 1996; Ragins, in press, 2004). This perspective reconciles the

inconsistent research findings on the disclosure of a gay identity at work by offering the idea that

work attitudes may be affected not only by the degree to which individuals disclose their sexual

orientation but also by the underlying fears that may be associated with disclosure. The role of fear

in the disclosure of an invisible stigma has not been empirically assessed but offers significant

promise for understanding the experiences of LGB employees, particularly those who have not

disclosed, or not fully disclosed, their sexual identity at work.

In the Philippines, the governing law between employers and employees is known as the

Labor Code of the Philippines, also known as Presidential Decree 442. While several articles of

the Code have been amended, its main policy is the protection of workers. However, LGBT people

in the Philippines encounter discriminatory practices that affect their employment status. Ocampo

(2011) noted that there are no statistics to show the extent of employment-related sexual

orientation and gender identity (SOGI) discrimination in the Philippines.

 Government agencies that should be involved in issues of SOGI discrimination do not

report on LGBT discrimination. As such, “SOGI discrimination is a category of workplace

discrimination that has not become part of mainstream policy dialogues.”

Society’s Attitude Towards LGB Individuals

A person’s negative attitudes toward lesbians, gay men, and their sexualities, including

beliefs that being gay/ lesbian is wrong, unnatural, pathological, or sinful, is called heterosexism

(Herek, 1995). Heterosexual attitudes, sometimes called homophobia or anti-gay prejudice, are

often reflective of a larger, more cultural heterosexist ideology that privileges only heterosexual

forms of sexuality, relationships, and living. Heterosexism includes the belief that same sex

relationships are wrong or dysfunctional, that lesbians and gay men are less capable than

heterosexuals as parents or professionals, and that lesbians and gay men do not deserve the same

civil rights as heterosexuals, including marriage, adoption, and protection from discrimination.

A number of social psychological studies have shown that the construct of heterosexist

attitudes is highly complex and not unidimensional. In a meta-analysis of sex differences in

heterosexist attitudes, Kite and Whitley (1996) identified three factors (1) attitudes toward

lesbian/gay individuals, (2) attitudes toward same-sex sexual behavior, and (3) attitudes toward

lesbian and gay people’s civil rights.

A number of sources suggest that Filipinos have rather negative attitudes toward lesbians,

gay men, and their sexualities.

Observations made by activists and members of NGO sector, for example, point to prejudice and

discrimination against lesbians in many domains including healthcare, education, work, and

religion (Women’s Feature Service Philippines, 2001). Likewise, as Holmes (1993) asserted:
 No psychologist in her right mind could ignore (the topic of being gay

because) there is too much unnecessary anguish connected with being

different here in the Philippines. There is too much cruelty and hypocrisy

that takes place in a country that purports to be Christian. There are too

many families that cause unspeakable pain to their gay members in a nation

that claims that the family is the very bedrock and foundation of its society

(p. xv).

Qualitative research with lesbian/gay participants supports these observations. Using 33

focus group and 13 in-depth interviews with Filipino adolescents in Metro Manila and Luzon,

Gastardo-Conaco, Jimenez and Billedo (2003) found that young Filipino lesbians and gay men

report experiences of heterosexism, especially in contexts like the home, school, and religion.

These experiences, according to one recent survey of gay male college students by Mostajo, Saz-

Page, and Rasing (2005), may include being called by terms like bakla instead of one’s name,

being subjected to anti-gay jokes, being forced to enter intimate relationships with others of the

opposite sex, and being considered sick or abnormal.

Even research that does not specifically focus on gay and lesbian concerns points to the

existence of heterosexual views among Filipinos. In their study of Filipino

pagkalalake/masculinity using interviews with 32 father-son pairs from various areas in the

Philippines, Aguiling-Dalisay and her colleagues (2000) found that being gay was considered by

participants as “sinful” and antithetical to being a “real” man. Similarly, in their field research on

sexual risks among Filipinos young adults in Manila and Iloilo, Tan, Ujano-Batangan, and Cabado-

Española (2001) noted that many participants held strongly negative views of being gay/ lesbian,

with gay sex being described as “unnatural” or “filthy” (“baboy”). In the words of these
researchers: “On the surface, homosexuality seems to be tolerated (in Filipino society) but our

research shows that there is strong resentment of and discrimination against gay men and lesbians”

(p. 116).

Change in Attitude Towards Homosexuals

Since the early 1990s, however, there has been a dramatic liberalization in attitudes towards

homosexuality. Disapproval of homosexuality dropped by ten to fifteen percentage points through

the 1990s. The percentage believing homosexuality is ‘always wrong’ dropped from 76% in 1991

to 66% in 1993 and then to around 60% in the late 1990s (American Enterprise Institute 2004).

The most recent data show that in 2002 those considering homosexuality to be ‘always wrong’

constituted just over 50% of the population, while over 30% of the population now believe

homosexuality is ‘not wrong at all’ (American Enterprise Institute 2004).

While the majority of the American population still finds homosexuality unacceptable, it

has become significantly more tolerant. Interestingly, the most recent data suggest that the

conservative politics of the George W. Bush administration have not (yet) reversed the trend

towards greater acceptance of homosexuality (American Enterprise Institute 2004). However, the

relatively stable level of acceptance since the mid-1990s suggests that the liberal trend may have

reached a plateau, with the American population roughly evenly split on acceptance of

homosexuality.

Dejowski (1992) and Loftus (2001) have shown that some of the shifts in attitudes towards

homosexuality can be attributed to two factors. The first is demographic change, particularly the

growth of a more educated population. The second is cultural ideological change, the decreasing

willingness to restrict the civil liberties of all unpopular groups. In addition, Loftus suggests that

the liberalization in attitudes can be attributed to the political activism and visibility of queer
communities; a possible backlash in the 1990s against the success of the radical religious right in

the 1980s; the role of other liberal movements, such as the civil rights and women’s movements,

in increasing awareness of discrimination against disempowered groups; and the expansion of

media coverage of gay and lesbian issues (2001; see also Dejowski 1992; Scott 1998). Other

factors that may have influenced attitudinal trends include the declining influence of religion

(Altemeyer 2001; Scott 1998) and shifts in attitudes towards sexual morality generally (Ficarrotto

1990; Scott 1998; Simon 1995; Smith 1992).

With regard to the latter, however, it must be noted that while attitudes towards premarital sex

have undergone a dramatic liberalization, attitudes towards extramarital sex have remained

constant and negative attitudes towards homosexuality have only declined slowly (Scott 1998;

Smith 1992). Improved understanding of the AIDS risk may also have reduced hostility towards

homosexual people (Altemeyer 2001; Scott 1998).

Attitudes Toward Homosexuality in Other Nations

International Social Surveys conducted in the 1990s show that there are stark national

differences in attitudes towards homosexuality. Summaries compiled by Widmer et al (1998) and

Kelley (2001) show that people in the Netherlands are by far the most accepting of homosexuality,

with two-thirds of the population considering homosexuality ‘not wrong at all’. Dutch liberalism

may be attributable to a progressive church, a strong and long-standing gay movement, a secular

population, a strong public commitment to pluralism and frank discussion of sexuality in the media

(Widmer et al 1998: 356).

Substantial percentages of the populations of Spain (somewhat surprisingly), the Czech

Republic, Canada and Norway are also accepting of homosexuality. Australia, Britain and New

Zealand fall in the middle of the spectrum, with just over half the populations of these countries
considering homosexuality to be ‘always wrong’. The United States is among the least accepting

countries, sharing the honors with conservative religious nations such as Poland, Northern Ireland

and Ireland; Eastern European nations such as Hungary, Bulgaria and Slovenia; and the

Philippines.

The same demographic characteristics predict intolerance across the nations surveyed, with

those who are young, female, well-educated and less religious generally the most tolerant of

homosexuality. In terms of religion, Scott argues that attitudes vary across countries according to

the extent to which the organized church has retained its moral authority, rather than according to

the national religion per se (1998). However, by this measure, relatively secular countries such as

Britain and Australia should perhaps be more tolerant than they are (see Scott 1998: 839). Richer

countries tend to be more tolerant than countries which are less economically developed (Kelley

2001). Widmer et al have shown that attitudes towards homosexuality are not necessarily

predicted by attitudes towards other types of sexual behavior, such as premarital and extramarital

sex (1998). A ‘simple permissive-non-permissive dichotomy’ is insufficient to account for national

differences in sexual values. Homosexuality is generally more accepted than extramarital sex, but

attitudes towards homosexuality are more varied across nations and more polarized within nations.

For example, Germany and Austria are very permissive of teen and premarital sex, but only

moderately accepting of homosexual sex. For countries such as the Netherlands, the Czech

Republic and Canada, the relationship is reversed (Widmer et al 1998: 354). These variations occur

within nations as well. For example, women are generally more sexually conservative than men

but are more accepting of homosexuality (Scott 1998; Smith 1992). Kelley concludes that

Australian attitudes towards homosexuality are ‘unexceptional’.

Australia is ‘not as tolerant as some prosperous, irreligious nations (like the Netherlands), nor as

intolerant [as] some poor, religious nations (like Chile and the Philippines). Rather it is middle of

the road. Over time, Australian opinion, like that in other nations, is likely to shift slowly but

steadily towards greater tolerance’ (2001: 20).

Workplace Acceptance and Culture of Inclusion

Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people who are 'out' at work waste little energy

hiding aspects of their personalities, meaning they feel more confident and progress within the

business. Research conducted outside the workplace has shown that those individuals who disclose

their identity to others tend to have higher psychological adjustment and life satisfaction (e.g., see

SavinWilliams & Rodriquez, 1993; D’Augelli & Hershberger, 1993; Ellis & Riggle, 1996; Garnets

& Kimmel, 1993). Employees who disclose may be able to establish closer and more honest

relationships with coworkers and feel accepted for who they are. The supportiveness of an

organization will also influence job-related attitudes. Specifically, an organization that is gay

supportive and recognizes the needs of workers will likely have a positive effect on workers’

attitudes and their general well-being (Croteau & Lark, 1995; Hallowell, Schlesinger, & Zornitsky,

1996; Rynes, 1990). Button’s (2001) work showed initial evidence for this in that policies

affirming and recognizing sexual diversity in the workplace resulted in less workplace

discrimination.
Conceptual Framework

The initial process involved in the present study included the following: First, the

researcher asked the respondents to answer a survey questionnaire that includes questions on the

respondents’ profile such as age, gender, educational background, and teaching experience.

Afterwards, the Homosexual Attitude Scale was administered. The Homosexual Attitude

Scale (HAS) is a Likert scale that assesses people’s stereotypes, misconceptions, and anxieties

about homosexuals; constructed by M.E. Kite and K. Deaux in their study in 1986. The measure

contains a unidimensional factor representing a favorable or unfavorable evaluation of

homosexuals. The scale has excellent internal consistency (alphas >.92). It has a good test-retest

reliability (r= .71).

Lastly, is the presentation of the gathered results which aims to know if there is a moral

reasoning, particularly the level of acceptance of Navotas National High School Teachers

towards these LGB individuals in the workplace.

INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT

Secondary School  Profile of the respondents as to Results of the
Teachers at Navotas Age, Gender, Educational Frequency Count,
National High
Background, and Teaching Percentage, and
School
 Profile Experience Weighted Mean of
 Level of  Teachers’ Level of Acceptance Teachers’ Level of
Acceptance of LGB Individuals in the Acceptance of LGB
through Kite Workplace through Frequency Individuals in the
Homosexuality Count, Percentage, and Weighted Workplace
Attitude Scale Mean

Figure 1. Research Paradigm

Statement of the Problem

This study aimed to analyze the moral reasoning, particularly the level of acceptance of

the Secondary School Teachers at Navotas National High School, situated at M. Naval St.,

Sipac-Almacen, Navotas City.

Specifically, this study sought answers to the following questions:

1. What is the profile of the teacher-respondents as to:

1.1. Age;

1.2. Gender

1.3. Educational Background; and

1.4. Teaching Experience

2. What is the level of acceptance of the respondents towards LGB individuals in the

workplace?

3. What are the moral reasons of the respondents on their level of acceptance towards LGB

individuals in the workplace?

Significance of the Study

This research was conducted to determine the moral reasoning, particularly the level of

acceptance of Navotas National High School Teachers towards LGB individuals in the workplace.

This study will be beneficial to the following:

School Administrators and Guidance Counselors. This study will help school

administrators formulate in-school policies that will benefit all employees regardless of their

gender preference.

Teachers. Through this study, teachers will be able to understand what most LGB

individuals are going through, most especially if these LGB individuals belong in their own
workplace. They will become more aware and sensitive with their dealings toward these LGB

individuals in the workplace.

LGB Individuals. This study will enable LGB individuals to be understood by the people

around them, particularly in their workplace. This study can help in preventing stigma and

discrimination that most LGB individuals experience.

Future Researchers. Future researchers who will conduct similar studies will also benefit

from this paper. This paper provides a comprehensive study of the moral reasoning of people

within the work environment and their level of acceptance of LGB individuals in their workplace.

Scope and Limitation of the Study

This study aimed to determine the moral reasoning, particularly the level of acceptance of

Navotas National High School Teachers towards LGB individuals in the workplace. To define the

respondents, the researcher used a random sampling method using Slovin’s Formula with 5%

margin of error identifying one hundred three (103) out of one hundred thirty-nine (139) teachers

with permanent status in Navotas National High School.

The study focuses on the following scope of topics throughout the whole research: The profile

of the teacher-respondents as to Age, Gender, Educational Background, and Teaching Experience;

The Moral Reasoning particularly the level acceptance of the respondents towards LGB

individuals in the workplace, as revealed by the Homosexual Attitude Scale.

The main instrument used in conducting the research is the Homosexuality Attitude Scale

(Kite and Deaux, 1986) answered by one hundred three (103) random Secondary School Teachers

at Navotas National High School which will serve as the data for knowing the result of this study.
 On the other hand, the researcher only defines moral reasoning in terms of five terms in

context; LGB, Acceptance; and the results gathered don’t affect the general character of the

teacher-respondents.

Definition of Terms

The following are the terms defined operationally and conceptually to give enlightenment to

the researcher in this study.

Moral Reasoning is defined as being the process in which individual tries to determine the

difference between what is right and what is wrong in a personal situation by using logic. This is

an important and often daily process that people use in an attempt to do the right thing. (Kohlberg,

1983)

Acceptance is the action or process of being received as adequate or suitable, typically to be

admitted into a group.

LGBT is the initialism that stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender. In use since the

1990s, the term is an adaptation of the initialism LGB, which was used to replace the term gay in

reference to the LGBT community beginning in the mid-to-late 1980s.

 CHAPTER 2

METHOD

This chapter is concerned with the methodology that will be employed to carry out the

study. It provides a detailed description of the participants that will be sampled, the instruments

and procedures that will be used in collecting the data, the methods that were employed in

processing the data, as well as the statistical analysis which will be applied in the study.

Research Locale

The study was conducted in Navotas National High School located at Navotas City,

The history of Navotas National High School dates to 1983 when Mayor Victor Javier conceived

of founding a school whose aim was to provide free but quality education to children of Navotas.

Formerly known as Navotas Municipal High School, the school found its place into a 2,255-

square meter land area near the police headquarters, where the National Manpower Education

Building was located. Through the quiet and relentless efforts of the mayor and the community,

classes were opened on June 1983 with only 180 students and seven (7) faculty members headed

by its first principal, Dr. Cecilia M. Saenz. Two years after its opening, there was an

overwhelming increase in student population. Mayor Javier extended all the possible assistance

to look after the welfare of the students. He ordered the construction of four rooms at the sports

complex to temporarily house the additional eight sections. Faculty members were likewise,

increased to twenty-two (22).

However, with the turn of events in the political system, Mayor Felipe C. Del Rosario, Jr.

took Mayor Javier’s post. The new OIC painstakingly continued all the objectives and hard work

left by the former mayor. A new four-room building was put-up. In 1987, the school produced

its first batch of graduates.

 The implementation of Free Secondary Education in 1990 signaled the tremendous

overflow of students to the school. The school’s population increased to 4,460. To help ease the

problem of lack of classrooms, Engr. & Mrs. Pascual Roque donated another four-room

building. In addition to this an eight-room elementary school building was turned over to NNHS

to cope with the increasing number of students.

Because of the government’s thrust in democratizing access to education, the local

government put-up a ten-room building at Tangos (Tangos Annex). To cope with the growing

number of students, the school, with the support of LGU, NGO, and other organizations, the

creation of several annexes in Navotas namely NNHS Tulay Annex, NNHS San Roque Annex,

NNHS Kaunlaran Annex, NNHS San Rafael Annex, and NNHS Tanza Annex saw fruition. All

of these annexes eventually became independent national high schools under the leadership of

the respective principals.

When Dr. Saenz was promoted to principal IV, she was transferred to Malabon National

High School and Mrs. Lucila O.de Guzman took over her post. She retired from the service in

2000, Dr. Rosa G. Centeno was assigned as the new principal. She spearheaded the special

science curriculum in S.Y. 2004-2005.

It was during this time when Dr. Saenz was assigned back to NNHS as principal while Dr.

Centeno was transferred to Malabon National High School. The retirement of Dr. Saenz in

November 24, 2008 paved the way for the designation of Dr. Maria Cristina A. Robles as the

new school principal of Navotas National High School.

NNHS was given an Excellence in Educational Transformation Award in 2012 by the

Bayan Academy.
 At present, NNHS has three thousand six hundred fifty-three (3,653) students and one

hundred thirty-nine (139) faculty members from all learning areas.

Figure 2. Vicinity Map of Navotas National High School,

M. Naval St., Navotas City 1485, Philippines

Research Design

The descriptive method of research, with the use of a Likert scale on Homosexuality

Attitude Scale, was used in conducting this study. According to an article by University of South

Carolina, a descriptive research design helps provide answers to the questions of who, what,

where, when, and how associated with a particular research problem; a descriptive study cannot

conclusively ascertain answers to why. Descriptive research is used to obtain information

concerning the status of the phenomena and to describe “what exists” with respect to variables

or conditions in a situation.
 One hundred three (103) Secondary School Teachers in Navotas National High School

were used as respondents in this study. They were chosen by random sampling method using

Slovin’s Formula identifying one hundred three (103) out of one hundred thirty-nine (139)

teachers with 5% (0.05) margin of error.

Research Instrument

The research instrument of this study is a survey questionnaire in a form of a Likert

Scale. There were two sets of questionnaires. The first one is the Demographic Profile which

includes the Age, Gender, Educational Attainment, and Teaching Experience.

The second set measured their level of acceptance using the Homosexual Attitude Scale

which was constructed and validated by M.E. Kite and K. Deaux in their study in 1986. The

researcher made a modification on the test particularly on the number assignment of the

responses. From 1 as STRONGLY AGREE, 2 as AGREE, 3 as NEUTRAL, 4 as DISAGREE,

and 5 as STRONGLY DISAGREE in the original scale by Kite and Deaux; the researcher

modified it to 5 as STRONGLY AGREE, 4 as AGREE, 3 as NEUTRAL, 2 as DISAGREE, and

1 as STRONGLY DISAGREE. However, this is for statistical purposes only.

The Homosexuality Attitude Scale assesses stereotypes, misconceptions, and anxieties

toward homosexual people uni-dimensionally (favorable or unfavorable) using a Likert

design. Participants rate each of the twenty-one items from 5 Strongly Agree to 1 Strongly

Disagree. The author has stated that the measure is reliable concerning either homosexual males

or females.

The measure contains a unidimensional factor representing a favorable or unfavorable

evaluation of homosexuals. The scale has excellent internal consistency (alphas >.92). It has a

good test-retest reliability (r= .71).

 These two sets of questionnaires were used by the researcher in gathering data for this

study:

Part I. Demographic Profile of the Respondents- It consists of four items that identify their

Age, Gender, Educational Attainment, and Teaching Experience

Part II. Homosexuality Attitude Scale- The questionnaire is composed of twenty-one structured

items which focuses on assessing the level of acceptance of the respondents towards LGB

individuals, and it is scored by a 5-point Likert scale.

Respondents of the Study

The researcher’s target participants were one hundred three (103) Secondary School

Teachers in Navotas National High School. They were chosen by random sampling method

using Slovin’s Formula identifying one hundred three (103) out of one hundred thirty-nine (139)

teachers with 5% (0.05) margin of error. The researcher used fishbowl technique to identify the

one hundred three (103) respondents of this study. The purpose of this study is to find out the

moral reasoning of the teachers, particularly their level of acceptance towards LGB individuals

in the workplace.

Data Gathering Procedure

The researcher secured permission from the principal and guidance counselor of Navotas

National High School regarding her intent to conduct a survey to the selected teacher-

respondents. After finishing all the necessary letters to be presented, the researchers explained

the purpose and instructions to answer the survey questionnaires. The responses of the

participants were tallied and computed based on the Statistical Formula to identify the aligned

results.
The analysis of the result of the survey will be done to determine the moral reasoning as well as

the level of acceptance of the respondents towards LGB individuals in Navotas National High

School.

Statistical Treatment of Data

The researcher employed descriptive statistics in the data treatment. Particularly;

Percentage. The percentage is used to determine the quantitative relation to the whole

response. The process of gathering the percentage was dividing the frequency by the total

number or respondents. To compute for the percentage;

% = f / N * 100

Where:

F number of occurrence observed

N Total number of respondents

Weighted Mean.

Where:

(Sometimes call the X-bar) is the symbol for the mean.

(The Greek letter sigma) is the symbol for summation.

X is the symbol for the scores.

N is the symbol for the number of scores.

 CHAPTER 3

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter presents the analysis of data obtained through a survey using a questionnaire

pertaining the specific problems of this study. In this chapter, tables are being presented to back

up the study that was conducted by the researcher.

Table 1

Profile of the Respondents

Age Frequency %
Below 21 22 21.35
21-30 37 35.92
31-40 31 30.09
41-50 7 6.79
Above 50 6 5.85
Total 103 100.00

Gender Frequency %
Male 22 21.36
Female 81 78.64
Total 103 100.00
Teaching Experience Frequency %
Below 5 years 31 30.09
6-10 years 47 45.63
11-15 years 13 12.62
16-20 years 8 7.78
Above 21 years 4 3.88
Total 103 100.00

Educational Background Frequency %

Bachelor 73 70.87
MA 4 3.88
MS 0 0.00
MaEd 26 25.25
PhD 0 0.00
EdD 0 0.00
Total 103 100.00
 This table shows the profile of the respondents. The total number of respondents is one

hundred three (103).

As to Age. The respondents whose age is below twenty-one (21) are twenty-two (22)

comprise twenty-one-point thirty-five percent (21.35%) of the total population. Thirty-seven

(37) teacher-respondents are within 21-30 age range comprise thirty-five-point ninety-two

percent (35.92%) of the total respondents. Meanwhile, there are thirty-one (31) respondents

within the age range of 31-40 which comprise thirty-point zero nine percent (30.09%) of the

total population. There are seven (7) teacher-respondents within 41-50 age range which

comprise six-point seventy-nine (6.79%) percent of the total population. Six (6) teacher-

respondents or at least five point eighty-five (5.85%) percent of the total population are above

50 years old. Thus, most of the selected teachers are between 21 to 30 years old.

As to Gender. There were twenty-two (22) male teacher-respondents, they comprise

twenty-one-point thirty-six percent (21.36%) of the total number of respondents. On the other

hand, there were eighty-one (81) female teacher-respondents, and they comprise seventy-eight-

point sixty-four percent (78.64%) of the total respondents. Therefore, most of the respondents

are female.

As to Educational Background. There were seventy-three (73) teachers who finished

Bachelor’s Degree or seventy-point eighty-seven percent (70.87%) of the total respondents.

Twenty-five point twenty five (25.25%) or twenty-six teachers (26) graduated with Master’s

Degree in Education, and four (4) teachers finished their degree in Master of Arts which

comprise the three point eighty-eight percent (3.88%) of the total population. In general, most

of the respondents finished their Bachelor’s Degree.

 Furthermore, as to Teaching Experience. The teacher-respondents with below 5 years

teaching experience are thirty-one (31) which comprise thirty-point zero nine percent (30.09%).

Forty-seven (47) teacher-respondents or forty-five-point sixty-three percent (45.63%) belong to

the group with 6-10 years of teaching experience. There are thirteen (13) teacher-respondents

with 11-15 years of teaching experience or twelve-point sixty-two percent (12.62%). Eight (8)

teacher-respondents or seven-point seventy-eight percent (7.78%) belong to the group with 16-

20 years teaching

experience. And, four (4) teachers with above 21 years teaching experience comprise three-

point eighty-eight percent (3.88%) of the total population. In general, most of the respondents

have 6-10 years of teaching experience.

Table 2

The table shows the tabulation of the responses of the participants in the survey

questionnaire. Each column shows the responses in percentage and how each response differs from

one another as identified by the weighted mean (WM).

It aims to identify whether the selected teacher-respondents has high level of acceptance towards

LGB individuals in the workplace or otherwise.

 Q1. WOULD NOT MIND HAVING A HOMOSEXUAL FRIEND
Agree
22%

Strongly Agree
78%

Figure 4

Figure 4 shows the response of the participants regarding an item (Q1) in the survey

questionnaire by Kite and Deaux (1986). 77.66% or 78% of the total number of participants with

a weighted mean of 4.78 would not mind having a homosexual friend. This result corresponds to

the participants’ responses on Q3 which states “I won’t associate with known homosexuals if I can

help it.”. Results of Q3 shows that 60.19% of the participants disagree with this notion, while

35.92% of the participants strongly disagree.

 Q5. HOMOSEXUALITY IS A MENTAL ILLNESS.
Strongly
Agree
21%
Strongly
Disagree
40%

Disagree
39%

Figure 5

Figure 5 shows the response of the participants regarding “homosexuality as a mental

illness” (Q5). Responses show with a weighted mean of 2.24 that 39.80% of the participants

strongly disagree with this notion, 38.83% of the participants disagree. However, 21.35% of the

participants responded strongly agree. Item Q5 in the survey can be associated with the

responses of the participants in Q16. Q16 states that “Homosexuals should be forced to have

psychological treatment.” With a weighted mean of 1.37, participants’ responses are gauged

toward 63.10% that is strongly agree and 36.89% that is disagree. Since, 39.80% strongly agree

and 38.83% disagree with the notion that homosexuality is not a mental illness, therefore

homosexuals should not be forced to have psychological treatment.

Results, as shown in Table 2, state that 100% of the total respondents strongly disagree that

homosexuals should be kept separate from society; that would still go ahead and form a

friendship with an LGB individual as stated in Q20 in the survey questionnaire, and they see gay

movements as a positive thing (Q13).

This ideological change, as mentioned by Dejowski (1992) and Loftus (2001) in their

studies, made some shifts in attitude towards homosexuality. Loftus suggests that the
liberalization in attitudes can be attributed to the political activism and visibility of queer

communities; a possible backlash in the 1990s against the success of the radical religious right

in the 1980s; the role of other liberal movements, such as the civil rights and women’s

movements, in increasing awareness of discrimination against disempowered groups; and the

expansion of media coverage of gay and lesbian issues (2001; see also Dejowski 1992; Scott

1998).

Figure 6

Heterosexual attitudes, sometimes called homophobia or anti-gay prejudice, are often

reflective of a larger, more cultural heterosexist ideology that privileges only heterosexual forms

of sexuality, relationships, and living (Herek, 1995). Moreover, in a heterosexual society,

aberrant acts are often associated with homosexuals.

In this study, as shown in Figure 6, results show that 95.14% of the total respondents

disagree with the notion that homosexuals are more likely to commit deviant sexual acts

compared to heterosexuals.
 Figure 7

Since the early 1990s, however, there has been a dramatic liberalization in attitudes towards

homosexuality. Disapproval of homosexuality dropped by ten to fifteen percentage points through

the 1990s. The percentage believing homosexuality is ‘always wrong’ dropped from 76% in 1991

to Q14. HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT SINFUL.

Agree
Q9. HOMOSEXUALS ARE MORE LIKELY TO COMMIT
27%
66% DEVIANT SEXUAL ACTS THAN HETEROSEXUALS. in
Agree
1993 5% and

then to

Disagree
Disagree
95%
73%
around

60% in the late 1990s (American Enterprise Institute 2004).

The most recent data show that in 2002 those considering homosexuality to be ‘always wrong’

constituted just over 50% of the population, while over 30% of the population now believe

homosexuality is ‘not wrong at all’ (American Enterprise Institute 2004).

Results of this study shows that 72.81% of the respondents strongly agree to the notion that

homosexuality is not sinful, while 27.18% merely agree to it (as shown in Figure 7).

Table 3

Table 3 shows the consolidated items with STRONGLY AGREE to find the general

number of acceptability of NNHS teachers towards LGB individuals in the workplace. Based from

the items that have 5 (STRONGLY AGREE) as their responses, the average of the percentages

was obtained to identify the number of acceptability. Results show that 67.23% of the teacher-

respondents in Navotas National High School strongly accepts LGB individuals in the workplace.
 CHAPTER 4

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

In this chapter, the results of the research work are presented, the conclusions drawn,

and the recommendations made as an outgrowth of this study. The data were collected and then

processed in the response to the problems posed in Chapter 1 of this research.

Summary

This study aimed to determine the moral reasoning, particularly the level of acceptance

of Navotas National High School teachers towards LGB individuals in the workplace.

Specifically, this study sought answers to the following questions: (1) What is the profile of the

teacher-respondents as to: Age, Gender, Educational Background, and Teaching Experience?

(2) What is the level of acceptance of the respondents towards LGB individuals in the

workplace? (3) What are the moral reasons of the respondents on their level of acceptance

towards LGB individuals in the workplace?

The initial process involved in the present study included the following: First, the

researcher asked the respondents to answer the first part of the questionnaire which included

questions on the respondents’ profile such as age, gender, educational background, and teaching

experience. Afterwards, the Homosexuality Attitude Test was administered. The second set

measured their level of acceptance using the Homosexual Attitude Scale which was constructed

and validated by M.E. Kite and K. Deaux in their study in 1986.

The descriptive method of research, with the use of a Likert scale on Homosexuality

Attitude Scale, was used in conducting this study. Descriptive research is used to obtain

information concerning the status of the phenomena and to describe “what exists” with respect to

variables or conditions in a situation.

 One hundred three (103) Secondary School Teachers in Navotas National High School

were used as respondents in this study. They were chosen by random sampling method using

Slovin’s Formula identifying one hundred three (103) out of one hundred thirty-nine (139) teachers

with 5% (0.05) margin of error.

The research instrument of this study is a survey questionnaire in a form of a Likert Scale.

There were two sets of questionnaires. The first one is the Demographic Profile which includes

the Age, Gender, Educational Attainment, and Teaching Experience. The second set measured

their level of acceptance using the Homosexual Attitude Scale which was constructed and

validated by M.E. Kite and K. Deaux in their study in 1986. The researcher made a modification

on the test particularly on the number assignment of the responses. From 1 as STRONGLY

AGREE, 2 as AGREE, 3 as NEUTRAL, 4 as DISAGREE, and 5 as STRONGLY DISAGREE in

the original scale by Kite and Deaux; the researcher modified it to 5 as STRONGLY AGREE, 4

as AGREE, 3 as NEUTRAL, 2 as DISAGREE, and 1 as STRONGLY DISAGREE. However, this

is for statistical purposes only.

The Homosexuality Attitude Scale assesses stereotypes, misconceptions, and anxieties

toward homosexual people uni-dimensionally (favorable or unfavorable) using a Likert

design. Participants rate each of the twenty-one items from 5 Strongly Agree to 1 Strongly

Disagree. The author has stated that the measure is reliable concerning either homosexual males

or females.

The measure contains a unidimensional factor representing a favorable or unfavorable

evaluation of homosexuals. The scale has excellent internal consistency (alphas >.92). It has a

good test-retest reliability (r= .71).

Conclusions

Based on the findings of the study, the following conclusions were drawn:

First, female respondents are more than male respondents as the profile revealed. Most of

them belong to the group from 21-20 years old, majority of them finished Bachelor’s Degree, and

most of them have 6-10 years teaching experience.

Second, the researcher identified the weighted mean of each survey questionnaire item to

gauge the level of acceptability of the respondents towards LGB individuals in the workplace. The

consolidated items with STRONGLY AGREE determined the general number of acceptability of

NNHS teachers towards LGB individuals in the workplace. Based from the items that have 5

(STRONGLY AGREE) as their responses, the average of the percentages was obtained to identify

the number of acceptability. Results of this study shows that 72.81% of the respondents strongly

agree to the notion that homosexuality is not sinful, while 27.18% merely agree to it. Moreover,

77.66% or 78% of the total number of participants with a weighted mean of 4.78 would not mind

having a homosexual friend. This change in ideology, as discussed by Dejowski (1992) and Loftus

(2001) in their studies, can be attributed to the political activism and visibility of queer

communities so there is an increasing awareness of discrimination against disempowered groups;

particularly due to the expansion of media coverage of gay and lesbian issues (2001; see also

Dejowski 1992; Scott 1998).

In conclusion, this study indicates that 67.23% of the teacher-respondents in Navotas

National High School strongly agree or accept LGB individuals in the workplace. Workplace

acceptance is important for the LGBT. It allows them and their officemates to be more productive

at work (Rasirs, Singh and Cromwell, 2007). According to the survey conducted by the Williams
Institute, The Business Impact of LGBT-Supportive Workplace Policies, LGBT employees who

spend considerable time and effort hiding their identity in the workplace, experience higher levels

of stress and anxiety resulting in health problems and work related complaints. Therefore, LGBT

friendly workplace will lead to the improved health, increased job satisfaction, better relationships

with co-workers and supervisors, and greater work commitment among the LGBT workers

Recommendations

The following recommendations were made, especially for the teachers and

administrators particularly in dealing with LGB colleagues and subordinates respectively:

1. A work environment that can pledge its support to employees regardless of their gender or

sexuality; by creating a sense of empowerment among employees.

2. Every employee must actively participate in the Gender and Development advocacies or

programs of the government so that one must be fully aware of one’s gender preference, as

well as the ethical behaviors expected of the society.

3. Administrators must encourage every employee, regardless of gender preference, to

conduct themselves according to the Code of Ethics set for the teachers.

4. Create policies that allow LGB individuals and their colleagues to be more productive at

work. These policies will have an immediate effect on individual people, resulting in less

discrimination and increased openness about being LGBT.

References

Akker, H., Ploeg, van der, & R., Schepers, P. (2012). Dissapproval of Homosexuality:

Comparative Research on International and National Determinants of Disapproval of

Homosexuality in 20 European Countries. Journal of Public Opinion Research, advanced

access, 2012.

Alkire, S. & Foster, J. (2010). Designing the Inequality-Adjusted Human Development Index

(IHDI). United Nations Development Program: Research Paper. Date found: 20-04-2015:

http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdrp_2010_28.pdf.

Bem, S. L. (1974). The Measurement of Psychological Androgyny. Journal of Consulting and

Clinical Psychology, 42, 155-162.

Berscheid, E., Boye. D.. & Darley, J. M. (1968). Effect of forced association upon voluntary choice

to associate. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 13-19.

Bohan, J. S. (1996). Psychology and sexual orientation: Coming to terms. New York: Routledge.

Branscombe, N. R., Schmitt, M. T., & Harvey, R. D. (1999). Perceiving pervasive discrimination

among African-Americans: Implications for group identification and well-being. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 135–149. Button, S. B. (2001). Organizational

effectors to affirm sexual diversity: A cross-level examination. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 86, 17–28.

Cain, R. (1991). Stigma management and gay identity development. Social Work, 36, 67–73.
Day, N.E. & Schoenrade, P. (2000). The relationship among reported disclosure of sexual

orientation, anti-discrimination policies, top management support and work attitudes of

gay and lesbian employees. Persnonell Review, 29, 3, pp. 346 – 363.

Drydakis, N. (2008). Sexual orientation discrimination in the labour market. Labour Economics,

16, 4, pp. 364 – 372.

Drydakis, N. (2011). Women’s Sexual Orientation and Labour Market Outcomes in Greece.

Feminist Economics, 17, 1, pp. 89 – 117.

Drydakis, N. (2014). Sexual orientation discrimination in the Cypriot labour market. Distastes or

uncertainty? International Journal of Manpower, 35, 5, pp. 720-744.

Drydakis, N. (2015). Sexual Orientation Discrimination in the United Kingdom's Labour Market:

A Field Experiment. IZA Discussion Paper No. 8741. Date found 03-04-2015:

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2544805.

D’Augelli, A. R., & Grossman, A. H. (2001). Disclosure of sexual orientation, victimization, and

mental health among lesbian, gay, and bisexual older adults. Journal of Interpersonal

Violence, 16, 1008–1027.

Davidson, M., & Friedman, R. A. (1998). When excuses don’t work: The persistent injustice effect

among Black managers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 154–183.

Day, N. E., & Schoenrade, P. (1997). Staying in the closet versus coming out: Relationships

between communication about sexual orientation and work attitudes. Personnel

Psychology, 50, 147–163.

Deaux, K., & Ethier, K. A. (1998). Negotiating social identity. In J. K. Swim & C. Stangor (Eds.),

Prejudice: The target’s perspective (pp. 302–323). San Diego: Academic Press.

Dipboye, R., Elsbach, K., & Paetzold, R. L. (Eds.). (in press). Stigma and stigmatization [Special

issue]. Academy of Management Review.

Dipboye, R. L., & Colella, A. (2005). The dilemmas of workplace discrimination. In B. Dipboye

& A. Colella (Eds.), Discrimination at work: The psychological and organizational bases

(pp. 425–462). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Glenn, N. D., & Weaver, C. N. (1979). Attitudes toward premarital, extramarital and homosexual

relations in the U.S. in the 1970s. The Journal of Sex Research, 15, 108-118.

Gordon. C. (1968). Self-conceptions: Configurations of content. In C. Gordon & K. J. Gergen

(Eds.). The self in social interaction (pp. 115-136). New York: Wiley.

Gross, A. E., Green, S. K., Storck, J. T., & Vanyur, J. M. (1980). Disclosure of sexual orientation

and impressions of male and female homosexuals. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 6, 307-314.

Herek. G. M. (1984). Attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: A factor-analytic study. Journal of

Homosexuality, 10, 39-51.

Hudson, W. W., & Ricketts, W. A. (1980). A strategy for the measurement of homophobia. Journal

of Homosexuality, 5, 357-371.

Karr, R. (1978). Homosexual labeling and the male role. Journal of Social Issues, 34, 73-83.

Kite, M. (1984). Sex differences in attitudes toward homosexuality: A meta-analytic review.

Journal of Homosexuality, 10, 69-81.

Kite, M. E.. & Deaux, K. (in press). Gender belief systems: Homosexuality and the implicit

inversion theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly.

Neely Martinez, M. (1993). Recognizing sexual orientation is fair and not costly. HR Magazine,

38, 66–72.

Perkins, L. A., Thomas, K. M., & Taylor, G. A. (2000). Advertising and recruitment: Marketing

to minorities. Psychology & Marketing, 17, 235–255.

Phinney, J. S. (1990). Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: Review of research. Psychological

Bulletin, 10, 499–514.

Rogers, A., & Hebl, M. R. (2001, June). To disclose or not to disclose: A micronarrative account.

Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Society,

Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Rothblum, E. (1995). “I only read about myself on bathroom walls”: The need for research on the

mental health of lesbians and gay men. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62,

213–220.

Smith, N.G., & Ingram, K.M. (2004). Workplace heterosexism and adjustment among lesbian,

gay, and bisexual individuals: The role of unsupportive social interactions. Journal of

Counseling Psychology, 51, 57-67.

Tejeda, M.J. (2006). Nondiscrimination policies and sexual identity disclosure: Do they make a

difference in employee outcomes? Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 18, 4559.

Tilscik, A. (2011). Pride and prejudice: Employment discrimination against openly gay men in

the United States. Journal of Sociology, 117, 586-626.

Trau, R.N.C., & Härtel, C.E.J. (2007). Contextual factors affecting quality of work life and career

attitudes of gay men. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 19, 207-219.
Tuten, T.L. (2005). The effect of gay-friendly and non-gay-friendly cues on brand attitudes: A

comparison of heterosexual and gay/lesbian reactions. Journal of Marketing Management,

21, 441-461.

Walz, S.M., & Niehoff, B.P. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: Their relationship to

organizational effectiveness. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 24, 301-319.

Waldo, C.R. (1999). Working in a majority context: A structural model of heterosexism as minority

stress in the workplace. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46, 218-232.

Wang, P., & Schwarz, J.L. (2010). Stock price reactions to GLBT nondiscrimination policies.

Human Resource Management, 49, 195– 216.

Williams, D.R., Neighbors, H.W., & Jackson, J.S. (2003). Racial/ethnic discrimination and

health: Findings from community studies. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 2002008.
 APPENDIX A
Homosexuality Attitude Scale

Name (optional): ______________________________________

PART I. Profile of the Respondent

Instructions: Kindly check the appropriate box of your response.

1.1.AGE
Below 21 years 21-30 years 31-40 years 41-50 years Above 50 years
1.2. GENDER
Male Female
1.3.EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
Bachelor MA MS MaEd PhD EdD
1.4.TEACHING EXPERIENCE
Below 5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years Above 21 years

PART II. Homosexuality Attitude Scale

Instructions: Kindly encircle the number in the box of your response.

1 5
1. I would not mind having a 2 3 4
Strongly Strongly
homosexual friend. Agree Neutral Disagree
Agree Disagree
2. Finding out that an artist was gay 1 5
2 3 4
would have no effect on my Strongly Strongly
Agree Neutral Disagree
appreciation of his/her work. Agree Disagree
1 3 5
3. I won't associate with known 2 4
Strongly Neutral Strongly
homosexuals if I can help it. Agree Disagree
Agree Disagree
4. I would look for a new place to 1 5
2 3 4
live if I found out my roommate was Strongly Strongly
Agree Neutral Disagree
gay. Agree Disagree
1 3 5
2 4
5. Homosexuality is a mental illness. Strongly Neutral Strongly
Agree Disagree
Agree Disagree
1 5
6. I would not be afraid for my child 2 3 4
Strongly Strongly
to have a homosexual teacher. Agree Neutral Disagree
Agree Disagree
1 3 5
7. Gays dislike members of the 2 4
Strongly Neutral Strongly
opposite sex. Agree Disagree
Agree Disagree
1 5
8. I do not really find the thought of 2 3 4
Strongly Strongly
homosexual acts disgusting Agree Neutral Disagree
Agree Disagree
9. Homosexuals are more likely to 1 2 4 5
commit deviant sexual acts, such as Strongly Agree 3 Disagree Strongly
child molestation, rape, and Agree Neutral Disagree
voyeurism (Peeping Toms), than are
heterosexuals.
10. Homosexuals should be kept 1 2 4 5
separate from the rest of society (i.e., Strongly Agree 3 Disagree Strongly
separate housing, restricted Agree Neutral Disagree
employment).
11. Two individual of the same sex 1 2 3 4 5
holding hands or displaying affection Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
in public is revolting. Agree Disagree

12. The love between two males or 1 2 3 4 5

two females is quite different from Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
the love between two persons of the Agree Disagree
opposite sex.

13. I see the gay movement as a 1 2 3 4 5

positive thing. Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree
14. Homosexuality, as far as I'm 1 2 3 4 5
concerned, is not sinful. Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree
15. I would not mind being employed 1 2 3 4 5
by a homosexual. Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree
16. Homosexuals should be forced to 1 2 3 4 5
have psychological treatment. Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree
17. The increasing acceptance of 1 2 3 4 5
homosexuality in our society is aiding Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
in the deterioration of morals. Agree Disagree
18. I would not decline membership 1 2 3 4 5
in an organization just because it had Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
homosexual members. Agree Disagree

19. I would vote for a homosexual in 1 2 3 4 5

an election for public office. Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree
20. If I knew someone were gay, I 1 2 3 4 5
would still go ahead and form a Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
friendship with that individual. Agree Disagree

21. If I were a parent, I could accept 1 2 3 4 5

my son or daughter being gay. Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree
Source: Kite, M.E., & Deaux, K. (1986). Attitudes toward homosexuality: Assessment and behavioral
consequences. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 7, 137-162.

Thank you so much for answering this survey!

 APPENDIX B

Raw Data of Homosexuality Attitude Scale