Review

Cognitive Dissonance Theory: Homosexuality and Religiosity

Sarah Mercer

Youngstown State University

Cognitive Dissonance Theory: Homosexuality and Religiosity

Introduction

Often, LGBT individuals with a religious background will feel conflicted between their religious and sexual identities, and will utilize different strategies to relieve this dissonance. An LGBT individual is anyone who identifies as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender. In this study, “religious background” is defined as having been raised in a religious household and being taught traditional values regarding sex and relationships (e.g. between a man and a woman, homosexuality as a sin, etc.). Cognitive Dissonance Theory was proposed by Leon Festinger (1957) and says that when an inconsistency (dissonance) in one’s attitude or behavior exists, he/she will work to reduce that discomfort and avoid anything that would increase it. This theory is especially applicable to LGBT individuals raised in a religious environment. Because many denominations denounce homosexuality, LGBT individuals feel an inconsistency in their lives regarding their sexual orientation and their religious beliefs. Given Festinger’s theory, it can be assumed that religious LGBT individuals will do everything in their power to reduce this dissonance and regain consistency. If consistency is not achieved, the individual is likely to experience great discomfort and psychological distress.

The aim of this study is to discover the ways gay men and lesbians have reduced their dissonance. By seeking the similarities and differences among the dissonance-reducing strategies between gay men and lesbians, we will gain a better understanding of each gender’s perspective of religion and homosexuality.

When researching cognitive dissonance among LGBT individuals with a religious background, three things need to be addressed: the existing conflict between religion and homosexuality, the damaging effects of this conflict on homosexuals, and the dissonance-reducing strategies utilized by homosexuals.

Existing Conflict

The stance that many religious institutions have on homosexuality is that it is sinful and immoral. As a result, gays are rejected and condemned. Homosexuality is often viewed as the antithesis of religiosity.

Haider-Markel and Joslyn (2008) looked to identify the causes of stigma against homosexuals. They hypothesized that people who held the belief that being gay is a choice would view gays more negatively than those who thought it was not a choice. Haider-Markel and Joslyn also predicted that a more negative attitude would result in less support and policy action regarding gays and lesbians. A Pew Research Center for the People and Press survey was used to gather information from the public through an opinion poll regarding homosexuals. Conservatives and liberals, religious and nonreligious people, males and females, the educated and the uneducated, people with children and those who were never married were all asked a series of questions. One of the questions posed to the respondents dealt with the origin of homosexuality. The other questions were centered on religion and homosexuality, reparative therapy, equal rights, and the respondent’s personal opinion of gays and lesbians. In response to the question about the origin of homosexuality, 47% believed it was controllable. Forty two percent believed sexual orientation could be changed, and another 42% believed it could not be changed. Overall, the educated, women, those with no children, those who knew someone who was gay, liberals, older respondents, and Caucasians tended to believe homosexuality was biological. Conservatives, frequent church-goers, Protestants, and Born-Again Christians largely believed homosexuality was a choice. Among those who frequently attended church, 85% believed homosexuality was a sin, compared to 20% of those who never attended church. When asked if their clergy spoke of gays and the law, 52% of frequent attendees said they did. Of that, 75% of them said their clergy denounced homosexuality. From this data, the origin of homosexuality seemed to be the determining factor for the respondents. The data showed that same-sex equality is more likely if homosexuality is accepted as a genetic trait. The hypotheses were supported; attribution played a huge role in the respondents’ attitudes toward gays.

Schuck and Liddle (2001) conducted a qualitative and quantitative study to gain insight on the religious conflict felt by lesbians, gays, and bisexuals in order to educate their psychologists. Volunteers offered to pass out surveys to LGB people who were willing to participate in their neighborhoods. The surveys were mailed directly to the researchers upon completion. Sixty three percent (66 respondents) of the surveys distributed were returned. This distribution method maintained the participants’ anonymity. Besides demographic information, the surveys asked five closed-ended and four open-ended questions about faith and sexuality. The respondents were 32 gay men, 26 lesbians, 7 bisexual women, and 1 bisexual man. Caucasians comprised 85% of the sample. The median age was 35 and the median age for “coming out” (revealing their sexual orientation to others) was 21. The data was analyzed for emerging themes. When asked if the respondents experienced conflict between their religion and sexual orientation as they were coming out, 64% said they had. They said the conflict stemmed from religious teachings against homosexuality and an oppressive atmosphere toward LGB people. The respondents were asked what their religious affiliations were in grade school, a year before coming out, and currently. The data showed a gradual shift away from Protestant and Catholic beliefs and toward Atheist/Agnostic or Gay-positive beliefs. When asked if they perceived a conflict between sexuality and religion while coming out, Catholics and Protestants were more likely to say yes than any other denomination. The purpose of this study was to inform therapists of the conflict that can arise between LGB and religious identities. Schuck and Liddle wanted psychologists to familiarize themselves with the methods participants used in this study so they could suggest them to their struggling gay clients. Their sample may have been biased due to the lack of ethnic diversity.

Miller (2007) interviewed ten black gay men living with AIDS to understand their experiences with the church. The parameters limited the population to African American gay men with AIDS who were raised in black families. They had to be between 35 and 50 years of age and had to consider themselves to be religious people. A volunteer sampling method was utilized to find the respondents through advertisements in gay clubs and AIDS organizations. A questionnaire focusing on religion in childhood, consciousness of sexual orientation, and personal struggle in the church was used to evaluate them. Three separate interviews were carried out in a location that was chosen by the respondent. The findings from the interviews were compared and given to a reading group, who reviewed the data and reported any potential bias. Some of the men expressed feeling bored, uncomfortable, or confused attending church as a child. Others had very fond childhood memories and believed the church supported and benefitted them. Those who viewed attending church as a child positively tended to be actively involved and had a long generational and familial history with their church. Several factors helped develop the men’s spiritual identity. Having personal encounters with God, practicing their religion at home, praying and reading the Bible, and the clergies’ sermons had the most impact on the development of their faith. Through this, they were led to believe that they controlled their salvation and could get to heaven only by their own efforts. As they began to discover their homosexual attraction, they made the connection that the church viewed it very negatively. The clergy called gays names at the sermons and everyone would respond with, “Amen!” They were often afraid to explore their feelings, tried to make them go away, and felt secluded in their struggle because there was no one to provide support. They received no sympathy or support in their battle with AIDS; instead, they were attacked and abandoned. It was revealed through this study that black gay men didn’t receive the love and support they needed from their church families, which resulted in their departure from the church.

By preaching an anti-gay message, religious institutions have created a rift between themselves and the LGBT community, including their gay parishioners. Because of this, society sees homosexuals and the church as opposing forces.

Damaging Effects

This rejection by their church community can leave LGBT individuals very conflicted. Depression, self-destruction, and a negative self-concept are only a few of the numerous damaging effects this conflict can have on gays with a religious background.

Shamsudin and Ghazali (2011) examined how four gay men in Malaysia formed their identities in a heterosexist theocracy. The participants were discovered using the snowball sampling method and were chosen if they met the criteria; they had to be gay and willing to participate. All participants were born and raised in Malaysia and were college students. After a background information questionnaire, the researchers interviewed the participants. They were asked open-ended questions about being gay in Malaysia, their relationships, and their hopes for the future. Overall, the participants seemed very conflicted. While they hadn’t received harsh treatment from the authorities and had only experienced slight nonverbal disapproval from their communities, they were very critical of themselves. Islamic teaching had told them that homosexuality was wrong and they still believed that. They didn’t try to justify their lifestyle. The participants knew they were gay and were happy living as gay men, but they still felt the need to conform to heterosexuality. Though many of them would have liked to have a male life partner, they didn’t think that this would ever happen because they were expected to change to heterosexuals as they got older. Pressure was placed on them to have a wife and children in order to please their parents and lead a better life with a more promising future. The participants did not believe they could do this with a male partner. Some participants expressed concern about dying because they believed that they were living sinfully and that God would judge them. While they were so determined to change, most were doubtful that they could. They said it would be very difficult but that it would have to be done. The participants wanted to be accepted by their society and not be viewed as immoral or unusual. This study found that the way the participants viewed themselves and the world around them was heavily influenced by their culture and religion.

Hatzenbuehler, Pachankis, and Wolff (2012) studied the correlation between religious climate and risk behavior in LGB youths. The researchers utilized the Oregon Healthy Teens studies from 2006 to 2008. The respondents were 31,852 11th graders from 297 schools in 34 counties. The survey was anonymous and voluntary and each respondent had parental consent. On the survey, the respondents identified their sexual orientation, symptoms of alcohol abuse, how often they smoked cigarettes, number of sexual partners, depressive symptoms, and history of abuse. They were also assessed on their perceived risk of the behaviors, whether or not their friends participated in risky behaviors, and whether or not they thought those behaviors were wrong. The independent variable was the religious climate. Churches in the area were evaluated to determine how supportive they were of homosexuality. The communities were also observed for how many Democrats resided there, the number of same-sex households, and schools with organizations and policies in place to protect and provide support for gay youth. The findings revealed that LGB youth had higher rates of tobacco and alcohol abuse and had more sexual partners than their heterosexual peers. Gay teens had more friends who participated in risky behaviors and were less likely to think those behaviors were wrong. Religious climate had a strong correlation to risky behaviors among LGB youth. In unsupportive religious climates, LGB youth had significantly higher levels of alcohol abuse and more sexual partners than LGB youth living in a supportive religious climate. This study found that the religious climate surrounding LGB youth is a strong predictor of their likelihood to engage in health-risk behaviors. However, there were several limitations that could’ve affected the accuracy of the results. Data was only gathered from one state, so it has little, if any, external validity. The religious data on the communities was from 2000 and the teen surveys were from 2006-2008; there was likely some change in the communities in that amount of time.

LGBT individuals in anti-gay religious environments are more likely to experience conflict that can have adverse psychological and physical effects on their well-being. They may feel guilt and shame resulting in a negative self-image. This can lead to further physical destruction through an increase in risk behaviors.

Dissonance-reducing Strategies

There are numerous ways to relieve oneself of inconsistencies. Festinger (1957) says there are three strategies that conflicted individuals will utilize: they will change their beliefs, they will avoid environments that cause them discomfort, or they will form new beliefs.

In Pitt’s (2010) study, the participants blamed their clergy for misinterpreting God’s message. Pitt conducted semi-formal interviews with 34 respondents in their homes, places of business, through e-mail, or over the phone. The respondents were all African American men who attended black churches. They had to consider themselves to be gay and be actively involved in at least one church activity or ministry. Some respondents were recruited by the researcher, who knew them personally, and the others were recruited through the snowball sampling method. Each respondent was identified by a pseudonym to ensure confidentiality. They completed a survey with basic background questions and Likert scale-type questions about their views on sexuality, relationships, and religion. Then the researcher asked open-ended, non-biased questions and responses were grouped together based on similar themes. From the Likert scale survey, it is evident that these men had religious habits similar to their straight black Christian counterparts. However, they did not believe that the Bible should be taken literally, nor did they believe the Bible was actually the word of God. The respondents ranked their comfort level with their homosexual identity fairly high, while managing to maintain strong religious identities. They noted that they didn’t often feel dissonance between their two identities, but any discomfort came from their pastors and church leaders who passionately preached against homosexuality. The men claimed that these “messengers” were flawed in their knowledge, morality, focus, and motivation. They claimed that their pastors were ignorant toward the complex nature of human sexuality and were not familiar with the context of the Bible’s message on homosexuality. Many of the respondents expressed disapproval of their pastor’s role as being an example of sexual morality. Those who felt this way claimed their pastors were having an affair or were “closeted” homosexuals themselves. This hypocrisy made the church leaders no longer credible in the respondents’ eyes. The respondents believed that God’s messages of love and acceptance were the most important to Christianity. They thought their pastors were focusing on the wrong message by condemning homosexuality and failing to show gays love and acceptance. While they believed their pastors disagreed with homosexuality, they didn’t think they disagreed to the extent which was displayed at the pulpit. The respondents believed the motives for preaching so strongly against gays were to gain popularity, increase monetary donations, and/or to address current events that couldn’t be overlooked, such as the legalization of gay marriage. The findings showed that instead of finding fault in God, the Bible, or their church’s doctrine, the respondents blamed the “messenger” (their pastors and church leaders) for thwarting God’s message.

Halkitis et al. (2009) sought to determine the importance of religion in LGBT people’s lives and the differences they saw between religiosity and spirituality. The study took place at a Northeastern Pride festival. The respondents were selected on a volunteer basis and were given a movie theater voucher for participating. Anyone who wanted to participate could, regardless of sexual orientation. Respondents completed a survey with both closed- and open-ended questions. Surveys were administered in two hour block periods throughout one day. The final sample was 498 participants; those who identified as “straight” or “questioning” were omitted from the study. The survey was designed to measure both quantity and quality. The respondents were asked closed-ended questions in the form of multiple choice and Likert scale responses. These questions focused on socioeconomic background, their religious affiliation (current and what they were raised in), how religious/spiritual they were, how important religion/spirituality was to them, and how often they participated in religious activities. In addition, they were asked to respond to two open-ended, qualitative questions: “What does ‘spirituality’ mean to you?” and “What does ‘religiosity’ mean to you?” Trained coders analyzed the responses for apparent themes. Of the 498 participants, 80.3% identified as gay or lesbian and 19.7% identified as bisexual. Only 2% of the respondents identified as transgender. The age of the participants ranged from 18 to 73. More than three-fourths were raised in a religious household. The majority were raised Catholic, and most identified their current religion as Catholic as well. A large number of participants changed the religious affiliation in which they were raised, with Jewish and Atheist/Agnostic participants least likely to change. Just 24.5% of the respondents were current members of a religious institution. Overall, respondents considered themselves much more spiritual than religious, placing more importance on spirituality. The participants gave many definitions for religiosity and spirituality. The most common definitions of religiosity were: organized practice and group worship, belief in, knowledge of, or relationship with a higher power, and a political, social, or economic institution/force. The most common definitions of spirituality were: belief in, knowledge of, or relationship with a higher power, being in touch with, understanding, and accepting self, and a prosocial orientation with positive emotions and attitudes. This study found that many LGBT individuals remained religious or spiritual. It showed how being rejected by formal religion requires one to think creatively in order to maintain a spiritual identity.

Oullette and Rodriguez (2000) wanted to know how active membership in a gay-affirming church correlated with gay members’ integration of two seemingly conflicting identities. Participants were selected after an announcement during one of the Metropolitan Community Church of New York’s (MCC/NY) services. The 40 participants (22 males, 18 females) were informed of the procedure and gave their consent. The gender and race percentages of volunteers corresponded with the gender and race percentages of the actual church population. Factors such as the amount of involvement and years attended were also accurately reflected in the sample. The participants were asked to complete a survey that covered their general background information. A 22-question conversational interview followed, inquiring about their personal experiences at MCC/NY, religious past, and how their homosexual identity related to their Christian identity. Their involvement in church activities and services, as well as membership, were evaluated, along with their level of openness regarding their orientation. Of the participants surveyed, 72.5% said they were fully integrated. Members of MCC/NY were more likely than nonmembers to report this. Once they were fully integrated, the participants tended to be more involved in the church. Those who were fully integrated were also more open about their sexual identity. There seemed to be no correlation between past conflict and current level of integration. Eighty three percent of the respondents said that MCC/NY was the main cause of their integration of homosexuality and Christianity. The study found that involvement in a church that supported their lifestyles was positively related to gay Christians’ levels of integration.

Schuck and Liddle (2001) received responses similar to the previous two studies mentioned. Some of their participants discontinued their church attendance but maintained a spiritual identity, and still others were able to integrate their two identities. The researchers found that friends were the best resource to the respondents in helping them come out. Many also read books that helped them sort their thoughts and feelings. Organizations designed to help gay people in the process of integrating religion with homosexuality were helpful as well. Positive experiences from religion seemed to come after the respondents had come out because they found belonging, became more involved in educating the church community, and felt a deeper spirituality and connection with God.

These studies show that religious homosexuals do not have to feel conflicted forever; there are numerous ways to deal with the dissonance that comes with their two identities. When dissonance is reduced, they feel better about themselves and lead healthier, happier lives.

Taking the results from all of the literature into consideration, several conclusions can be drawn: 1) Religion is often associated with anti-gay sentiment, 2) Most LGBT individuals with a religious background feel some level of dissonance between their sexual and religious identities, 3) If this dissonance isn’t resolved, it can be very damaging to the individual, and 4) Dissonance can be reduced in several different ways.

Most of the research involved some form of qualitative analysis, such as interviews and open-ended surveys. This method is very effective when analyzing people’s feelings and experiences because it leads to better understanding of their perspectives. For this issue, quantitative analysis alone would not be enough. However, qualitative research offers practically no control to the researcher. The studies that were more closed-ended and less personal offered more control and tended to have a more representative sample, which provided for more external validity. However, vital information such as personal insight could’ve easily been overlooked. Many of these researchers utilized nonprobability sampling to recruit respondents. When these methods, especially volunteer sampling, are used, there is likely to be some bias. In this case, the participants who volunteered to take part in the studies may have been more open and comfortable with their sexual orientation. The data doesn’t reflect the standpoint of those who are questioning their sexuality or are less comfortable with it.

There are far more studies on gay men then there are on lesbians. When lesbians are studied, they are clumped together with everyone who identifies as LGBT. There are few, if any, studies that separate lesbians and analyze their experiences alone or compare their experiences to those of gay men. Because of this, the perspective lesbians have on religion and homosexuality is often silenced and comparisons between genders cannot be made. This raises the questions: 1) How do lesbians’ experiences with religion differ from those of gay men’s, and 2) Do lesbians seek to reduce their dissonance in different ways than gay men?

Proposed Methodologies

1) Quantitative Experiment

Members of YSUnity and/or the Youngstown PFLAG who identify as lesbian or gay and have a religious background will be asked to participate. We will meet in a neutral conference room on campus. Each participant will be presented with several different items, one at a time: a picture of an anti-gay protest, a picture of a gay-affirming church group/congregation, a video of a minister preaching against homosexuality, and a video of a minister preaching a gay-positive message. After each item is presented, the participants’ emotions will be recorded using a multiple choice questionnaire. They will be asked how that item makes them feel about themselves (guilty, ashamed, depressed, proud, encouraged, happy, or other) and can check all emotions that apply, elaborating if they select “other.” Responses from men and women will be analyzed and compared.

2) Qualitative Questionnaire

Members of YSUnity and/or the Youngstown PFLAG who identify as lesbian or gay and have a religious background will be asked to participate. We will meet in a neutral conference room on campus. I will first distribute a background information survey that will include the religion in which they were raised and their current religious affiliation. Then I will administer a questionnaire consisting of several open-ended questions regarding their experiences as a child in a religious environment, the discomfort (if any) they felt regarding their religion and their sexual orientation, and what they did (if anything) to remove this discomfort. Responses from men and women will be analyzed for emerging themes and compared.

There is not much research on lesbians’ experiences with and view of religion. Also, the dissonance-reducing strategies of gay men and women are not often compared to identify similarities, differences, or patterns that might exist. This research will analyze and compare gay men and lesbians’ emotions when presented with items reflecting anti-gay and gay-positive religious attitudes. It will also analyze and compare the personal experiences, sentiments, and beliefs of gay men and lesbians.

In addition to this, bisexual and transgendered individuals with a religious background are not researched as groups separate from the clumped LGBT identity. The unique struggles faced by these two groups are worthy of study and analysis. Longitudinal studies of LGBT individuals with a religious background would be invaluable when studying the psychology behind the cognitive dissonance theory among religious homosexuals. This type of study would reveal the different emotions, challenges, and beliefs through the coming out process to reaching the point of consistency in one’s life.

References

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson & Company.

Haider-Markel, D. P., & Joslyn, M. R. (2008). Beliefs about the origins of homosexuality and support for gay rights: An empirical test of attribution theory. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72, pp. 291-310.

Halkitis, P. N., Mattis, J. S., Sahadath, J.K., Massie, D., Ladyzhenskaya, L., Pitrelli, K., …Cowie, S.E. (2009). The meanings and manifestations of religion and spirituality among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender adults. Journal of Adult Development, 16, pp. 250-262.

Hatzenbuehler, M. L., Pachankis, J. E., & Wolff, J. (2012). Religious climate and health risk behaviors in sexual minority youths: A population-based study. American Journal of Public Health, 102, 657-663.

Miller, Jr., R. L. (2007). Legacy denied: African American gay men, AIDS, and the black church. Social Work, 52, pp. 51-61.

Ouellette, S.C., & Rodriguez, E.M. (2000). Gay and lesbian Christians: Homosexual and religious identity integration in the members and participants of a gay-positive church. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 39, 333-347.

Pitt, R. N. (2010). “Killing the messenger”: Religious black gay men’s neutralization of anti-gay religious messages. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 49 (1), pp. 56-72.

Schuck, K.D., & Liddle, B.J. (2001). Religious conflicts experienced by lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Psychotherapy, 5 (2), pp. 63-82.

Shamsudin, Z., & Ghazali, K. (2011). A discursive construction of homosexual males in a Muslim-dominant community. Multilingua, 30, pp. 279-304.