MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6986915682

Relationship between religious background, intergroup contact and acceptance of LGBT in Malaysia

2022· article· en· W6986915682 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUnimas Institutional Repository (Universiti Malaysia Sarawak) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHomosexualityContact theoryCeremonyHeterosexualityContact hypothesisLesbianHuman sexualityHeterosexismComing outSexual contact
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Attitudes towards homosexuality have been found to vary with religious background and contact with LGBT individuals. Intergroup contact may result in more favourable attitudes towards homosexuality and research has suggested that the people who are more open to gender non-conformity may be young, female and non-religiously affiliated. However, in the Malaysian context, the degree of acceptance towards 
\nLGBT in relation to religious background and intergroup contact is not well understood. The study examined the relationship between religious background, intergroup contact and acceptance of LGBT in Malaysia. The specific objectives of the study are to determine: (1) the level of intergroup contact with LGBT individuals for respondents from different religious backgrounds; (2) the degree of acceptance towards LGBT individuals for respondents from 
\ndifferent religious backgrounds; and (3) relationship 
\nbetween intergroup contact and acceptance towards LGBT individuals. The questionnaire data were from 364 heterosexual Malaysian respondents from various age, ethnic, and religious backgrounds. The results showed that about half of respondents have direct contact with LGBT individuals as in having close friends who are LGBT or knowing a LGBT couple but very few have attended a marriage ceremony for LGBT couples, are in a romantic relationship with LGBT individuals or are LGBT themselves. A majority of the respondents know the challenges of LGBT individuals through reading about them but few have taken active steps to express public support for LGBT. The respondents can 
\naccept it if they found out their friends, neighbours, 
\ncolleagues, educators and close relatives are LGBT but 
\nare not as tolerant if their child or religious leader is 
\nInternational Journal of Social Science Research
\neISSN: 2710-6276 | Vol. 4, No. 1, 339-354, 2022
\nhttp://myjms.mohe.gov.my/index.php/ijssr340
\nCopyright © 2022 ACADEMIA INDUSTRY NETWORKS. All rights reserved.
\n1. Introduction
\nLesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) individuals often hide their sexual orientation 
\nbecause of the prevalence of heteronormative behaviour in the society (Mkhize et al., 2020). 
\nOn social media, for example, there are hate speech and violent comments which cause anxiety, 
\ndepression and stress to LGBT individuals (Hubbard, 2020). Over the years, acceptance 
\ntowards LGBT individuals has increased in many developed countries (Ayoub & Garretson, 
\n2017) including Australia and Canada. In most Western societies, people are more supportive 
\ntowards LGBT rights (Van Lisdonk, 2018). In Asia, Taiwan is the first country to legalise
\nsame-sex marriage on 24 May 2019.
\nHowever, sexual orientation prejudice still exists where people hold the beliefs that 
\n“homosexuality is wrong” (Morrison & Morrison, 2003). For instance, some people feel 
\ndisgusted to see same-sex couples acting intimately in public (Kiebel et al., 2016). In countries 
\nwhere Islam is the main religion, like Malaysia, the LGBT lifestyle is frowned upon. LGBT 
\npractice is against Islamic principles and teachings (Muhammed & Amuda, 2018). In Malaysia, 
\nthe state-level Sharia (Islamic) laws prohibit cross-dressing, and transgender people “face 
\narbitrary arrest, physical and sexual assault, imprisonment, discriminatory denial of health care 
\nand employment, and other abuses” (Human Rights Watch, 2015). According to Lee (2012), 
\nthe basic human rights of LGBT individuals in Malaysia have been frequently violated. He 
\ncited the Amnesty International (2007) report that shows that LGBT individuals have been 
\nassaulted by vigilantes and those in official positions such as the police. Jerome (2013) found 
\nthat queer Malay Muslims themselves often have the conflict between their religious beliefs 
\nand sexualities due to the heteronormative Malay Muslim community. Not surprisingly, LGBT 
\nindividuals in Malaysia choose to hide their LGBT identities to avoid discrimination and 
\nprejudice. Religious belief is one of the main factors that causes negative attitudes towards 
\nLGBT. 
\nUp to 2018, the Malaysian Islamic Development Department (JAKIM) has reported that the 
\nnumber of gay men has increased from 173,000 to 310,000 in five years. The increase of LGBT 
\nindividuals would lead to greater contact of heterosexuals with LGBT individuals in daily life. 
\nIntergroup contact can act as a mechanism to promote the acceptance towards LGBT and 
\nreduce negative stigma towards them (Hoffarth & Hodson, 2020). 
\nResearchers have found that intergroup contact influences acceptance towards LGBT 
\nindividuals. In Western settings, intergroup contact can reduce discrimination and prejudice 
\ntowards LGBT (Collier et al., 2013; Fingerhut, 2011; Hoffarth & Hodson, 2018). However, 
\nlittle is known about intergroup contact with LGBT individuals in Malaysia. Earnshaw et al. 
\n(2016) reported that medical and dental students who had interpersonal contact with men who 
\nhave sex with men (MSM) are more likely to be less prejudiced and less discriminating towards 
\nMSM. In addition, Ahmad et al.’s (2021) findings based on interviews with 12 participants 
\nLGBT. The acceptance of LGBT individuals is 
\nsignificantly correlated with religious background and 
\nextent of intergroup contact with LGBT individuals.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.215
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUnimas Institutional Repository (Universiti Malaysia Sarawak)Same topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207