Interfaith Experiences and Their Relationship with Heterosexual Collegians’ Attitudes Toward Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual People

ABSTRACT

For queer-spectrum students, college and university campuses are often sites of marginalization, discrimination, and/or harassment. Though such experiences are not singularly attributable to worldview, research highlights the role that religious identity plays in shaping individuals’ perspectives on lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) people. Absent from current scholarship, however, is insight into the ways in which interfaith experiences may influence those attitudes. As such, this study uses data from the Interfaith Diversity Experiences and Attitudes Longitudinal Survey (IDEALS) to explore how formal and informal campus interfaith experiences and provocative encounters with worldview diversity relate to heterosexual students’ appreciative attitudes toward LGB people. In addition to reinforcing the importance of friendships with individuals of different sexual orientations, our findings underscore the roles that campus space for support and spiritual expression, provocative encounters with worldview diversity, and interfaith behaviors play in fostering heterosexual students’ appreciative attitudes toward LGB people.

KEYWORDS:

• Bisexual
• college students
• gay
• interfaith experiences
• lesbian
• LGBQ+
• religion
• sexual orientation
• spirituality
• worldview

For members of the LGBTQ+ community, the current United States context is one marked by progress, and yet, queer-spectrum individuals¹ in the U.S. face ongoing discrimination and oppression (e.g., Ad Council & The Gill Foundation, 2019; Gallup News Service, 2019; U.S. Department of Justice—Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2018). Reflecting the wider society in which they are situated, U.S. colleges and universities are generally more inclusive of individuals with minoritized sexual identities than in years past (e.g., Rankin, Garvey, & Duran, 2019; Rankin, Weber, Blumenfeld, & Frazer, 2010). However, queer-spectrum members of the campus community experience instances of harassment and discrimination at rates higher than their heterosexual peers (Greathouse et al., 2018; Rankin et al., 2010). Additionally, these individuals are more susceptible to incidents of sexual assault and other acts of violence than other students (e.g., Edwards et al., 2015; Johnson, Matthews, & Napper, 2016; Rankin et al., 2010), and they face distinct challenges to mental health (e.g., Dunbar, Sontag-Padilla, Ramchand, Seelam, & Stein, 2017; Kulick, Wernick, Woodford, & Renn, 2017). Given these patterns and “the reality that mere visibility will not address [higher education’s] oppressive settings” (Rankin et al., 2019, p. 448), it is incumbent upon institutions to continue addressing the campus climate for queer-spectrum people.

Scholarship on the students’ attitudes toward queer-spectrum people, along with the factors that shape those perspectives, promises to yield insight for higher education practice. For decades, organizations such as Gallup and Pew Research Center have collected data on Americans’ opinions of gays and lesbians (McCarthy, 2019), homosexuality (e.g., Murphy, 2015), and same-sex marriage (e.g., Murphy, 2015; Pew Research Center, 2019). However, beyond students’ perspectives on same-sex marriage (see Eagan, 2014), no national studies of collegians’ attitudes toward the queer-spectrum community currently exist. Given this need and evidence highlighting the role religion plays in shaping such views (e.g., Holland, Matthews, & Schott, 2013; Olson, Cadge, & Harrison, 2006), we used data from the Interfaith Diversity Experiences and Attitudes Longitudinal Survey (IDEALS) to explore the ways in which campus experiences, namely those across religious and worldview difference, relate to heterosexual students’ appreciative attitudes toward sexual minorities.

Review of literature

Three broad categories of literature help contextualize this study. First, we overview what is known about the relationship between religion and attitudes toward queer-spectrum people. We then synthesize research on college experiences and students’ views of queer-spectrum individuals. Lastly, we review the conceptual framework that informed our study.

Religion and students’ attitudes toward queer-spectrum people

Given the doctrinal teachings of some faith traditions, religion is of particular interest in studies of attitudes toward LGB people. Attitudinal differences for adults typically vary according to religion, with factors like religiosity also playing a role (e.g., Murphy, 2015; Olson et al., 2006; Pew Research Center, 2019; Whitley, 2009). Across extant studies, Christians—specifically those from conservative Protestant denominations—are less accepting of queer-spectrum people, as are individuals who are more religiously active and those who embrace a fundamentalist belief system (see Whitley, 2009).

Similar trends also appear in studies of college students. Previous scholarship focused on collegians also points to Christians, namely Evangelical Protestants, as having less favorable views toward queer-spectrum people than students of other religions and those who are non-religious (e.g., Finlay & Walther, 2003; Holland et al., 2013). Additionally, literature (e.g., Engberg, Hurtado, & Smith, 2007; Finlay & Walther, 2003; Jenkins, Lambert, & Baker, 2009; Olson & DeSouza, 2017) suggests that college students who attend religious services more frequently, as well as those who consider themselves to be more religious, are less accepting of the queer-spectrum community. Currently not known, however, is how engagement across religious diversity may shape those perspectives, a clear gap given research supporting the value of interfaith experiences in fostering students’ pluralism orientation (Rockenbach, Mayhew, Morin, Crandall, & Selznick, 2015) and their appreciative attitudes toward other minoritized groups (e.g., Jews and Muslims) (Mayhew, Bowman, Rockenbach, Selznick, & Riggers-Piehl, 2018; Rockenbach, Mayhew, Bowman, Morin, & Riggers-Piehl, 2017). Informed by those studies and other literature showing how one type of diversity exposure (e.g., race) may serve as a catalyst for diversity appreciation in other regards (see Engberg et al., 2007; Mayhew, Rockenbach, Bowman, Seifert, & Wolniak, 2016), we hypothesize that exposure to and engagement with religiously diverse others will positively shape heterosexual collegians’ attitudes toward lesbian, gay, and bisexual people.

College experiences and students’ perspectives on queer-spectrum individuals

Research suggests that young adults are currently more accepting of same-sex marriage than previous generations (Parker, Graf, & Igielnik, 2019), and studies point to this group as holding generally positive attitudes toward the LGBT community (e.g., Cohen, Fowler, Medenica, & Rogowski, 2018). However, other than revealing collegians’ increasing acceptance of same-sex marriage over time (see Eagan, 2014), extant national-level reports do not provide insight into the ways that college experiences shape undergraduates’ views of queer-spectrum individuals. What national-level reports sometimes neglect, empirical efforts help explain.

In particular, previous scholarship illuminates the role academic experiences can play in students’ opinions of queer-spectrum people. In their study of students from the nine public institutions that participated in the “Preparing Students for a Diverse Democracy” project, Engberg et al. (2007) found a positive relationship between enrollment in diversity courses focused on “race/ethnicity, gender, or oppression” (p. 59) and second-year students’ year-end attitudes toward LGB people. Notably, Engberg et al. (2007) also revealed an association between collegians’ attitudes toward queer-spectrum individuals at the outset of college and their choice to enroll in diversity courses. Additionally, in their multi-year qualitative study of intergroup dialogue courses focused on sexual orientation, Dessel, Woodford, Routenberg, and Breijak (2013) noted positive attitude-related learning outcomes for undergraduate participants, including reduced bias against LGB people, adjusted views on stereotypes, and heightened empathy and understanding of queer-spectrum individuals.

As evidenced by other studies of coursework (e.g., Chonody, Rutledge, & Siebert, 2009; Kwon & Hugelshofer, 2012; Sevecke, Rhymer, Almazan, & Jacob, 2015), classroom exposure to queer-spectrum people and topics appears to have positive implications for collegians’ attitudes toward members of the queer-spectrum community. Likewise, research illustrates the value of classroom interventions aimed at minimizing homophobia (e.g., Bartos & Hegarty, 2019; Nelson & Krieger, 1997), although other studies reveal such strategies are not always effective (e.g., Bartos & Hegarty, 2019; Cotten-Huston & Waite, 2000). Further evincing the necessity of a nationally representative study, these seemingly misaligned results may be due to factors such as the campus context (e.g., region of country, institution type), selection biases, or the structure of the intervention itself (e.g., one-time, short-term).

In addition to analyses of academic spaces, scholars have also explored the role of interpersonal engagement in shaping collegians’ LGBQ+-related views. Paralleling general research underscoring interactions with queer-spectrum people as fostering their acceptance (e.g., Herek, 2007; Herek & Capitanio, 1996), findings from college-student-specific studies highlight the potential for attitude change that lies in extracurricular and classroom engagement. Across multiple studies, a similar pattern emerges—acceptance of queer-spectrum individuals is related to students’ interactions with members of that community. Notably, this association appears in studies exploring the mere existence of such contact (e.g., Cotten-Huston & Waite, 2000; Smith, Axelton, & Saucier, 2009), as well as the frequency of contact (Engberg et al., 2007; Sevecke et al., 2015), type of interaction (i.e., positive or negative) (Hinrichs & Rosenberg, 2002), and depth of relationship (e.g., Chonody, Kavanagh, & Woodford, 2016; Finlay & Walther, 2003) one has with queer-spectrum people.

Literature also points to ways in which other campus relationships and resources may influence students’ opinions on LGBQ+ issues. For example, in their nationally representative study of student-faculty interaction and its effects on college outcomes for women and men, Sax, Bryant, and Harper (2005) found that faculty support—described as “the extent to which students felt that faculty provided them with intellectual, emotional, and career encouragement” (p. 648)—was associated with higher levels of “openness toward homosexuality” (p. 648). Additionally, analyses by Worthen (2011, 2012) highlight the potential for positive attitudinal outcomes associated with LGBTQ+ ally training programs on campus. The results of those studies, though limited to a single institution, suggest that participation in ally training, as well as an awareness of the program’s existence, play a role in fostering collegians’ supportive attitudes toward LGBTQ+ people.

Guiding conceptual framework

Our study addresses the following research question: How are dimensions of the college experience—particularly those related to exposure to religious and worldview differences—associated with heterosexual students’ appreciative attitudes toward LGB people? Toward this aim, our design is guided by a conceptual framework that incorporates elements of previous interfaith-diversity-related studies (e.g., Mayhew, Bowman, & Bryant Rockenbach, 2014; Rockenbach et al., 2015), ecological models (e.g., Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Weidman, 1989), and scholarship on campus racial climate (Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pedersen, & Allen, 1998). At its foundation, The Interfaith Learning and Development Framework (Mayhew, Rockenbach, & Dahl, 2020) draws on Astin’s (1993) Inputs-Environments-Outcomes (I-E-O) college impact model, which accounts for the influence that pre-college factors (inputs) and college experiences (environments) both have on student outcomes. See Figure 1 for a graphic representation of the model.²

Figure 1. Conceptual framework.

In earlier research on students’ attitudes toward queer-spectrum people, variables such as race (e.g., Holland et al., 2013; Woodford, Silverschanz, Swank, Scherrer, & Raiz, 2012), gender (e.g., Engberg et al., 2007; Holland et al., 2013; Woodford et al., 2012), religion (e.g., Finlay & Walther, 2003; Holland et al., 2013), and political affiliation (e.g., Holland et al., 2013; Woodford et al., 2012) emerged as predictors of students’ attitudes toward the queer-spectrum community. Accordingly, we examined those input variables, along with students’ appreciative attitudes toward LGB people at the outset of college, which serves as a pretest measure. Given the body of research linking religiosity to the outcome of focus, we also included a pre-college measure of the level of importance students ascribed to religious beliefs/faith as something that shapes their worldview.

Reflecting the work of Bronfenbrenner (1979) and other ecologists, the framework positions personal development as taking place in reciprocity with the environment. In particular, the model’s arrows and concentric circles signify the ways in which students’ development is shaped by layered environmental cues (e.g., national, institutional, relational) that are, in turn, affected by how students interpret those cues. Hurtado et al.’s (1998) multi-layered conceptualization of campus racial climate as encompassing historical, behavioral, psychological, organizational, and structural elements guides the framework’s approach to the environmental cues that are associated with the campus climate for worldview diversity—including that of attitudes toward LGB people.

Within this study, we focused primarily on national, institutional, relational, disciplinary, and behavioral layers of students’ experiences. Specifically, we operationalized the national and institutional dimensions with institutional religious affiliation and geographic region, given that institutions that are religiously affiliated and those in certain geographic regions of the U.S. are more likely to have a legacy of excluding the queer-spectrum community. In addition, within the institutional dimension, we included the campus culture for LGB people measured as the institution’s average change in students’ appreciative attitudes toward LGB people from Time 1 to Time 2.

For the relational dimension, we included whether students had at least one close friend of a different sexual orientation (see Cotten-Huston & Waite, 2000; Engberg et al., 2007; Smith et al., 2009). Additionally, because extant research (Rockenbach, Lo, & Mayhew, 2016) highlights disparities between queer-spectrum students and their heterosexual peers when it comes to their perceptions of the campus religious and spiritual climate, we incorporated other key relational elements, such as the degree to which students: 1) believe their campus provides supportive spaces for worldview diversity and spiritual expression (supportive), 2) perceive insensitivity related to their worldview (discriminatory), 3) have felt coerced to change their worldview (coercive), 4) have experienced negative interworldview engagement (unproductive), and 5) have had provocative encounters with worldview diversity (provocative). Based on scholarship highlighting attitudinal differences based on academic major (Holland et al., 2013) and reflecting the disciplinary layer shown in our conceptual framework, our models include students’ planned academic major.

The behavioral dimension of our model encompassed both formal and informal academic and social interfaith engagement. Examples of formal and informal academic interfaith engagement include enrollment in courses specifically designed to discuss interfaith engagement (formal) and reflection on one’s worldview in relationship to another religious or nonreligious perspective as part of a class (informal). Formal and informal social interfaith engagement encompassed experiences such as attending services for a religious tradition other than one’s own (formal) and having conversations with people of diverse religious or nonreligious perspectives about common values (informal). See the methods section for an overview of the specific variables.

Methods

Data source and sample

The data for this study were collected using the Interfaith Diversity Experiences and Attitudes Longitudinal Survey (IDEALS), which was administered to undergraduate students attending one of 122 diverse institutions during the 2015–2016 academic year. The research team recruited institutions through a process that attempted to stratify by characteristics such as religious affiliation, geographic region, and Carnegie Classification.

As a longitudinal project, the same set of students were surveyed using IDEALS at two time points: the beginning of their first term at their institution (Time 1; Summer or Fall 2015) and near the end of their first year (Time 2; Spring or Fall 2016). Institutional partners selected one or more possible survey administration methods at Time 1: paper survey, individual online link, or generic online link. As such, the response rate for Time 1 is not available. Data collection at Time 2 consisted of individual e-mail invitations sent to the 20,436 students who had responded at Time 1. A total of 8,782 students responded, yielding a 43% response rate from Time 1 to Time 2; 7,194 students provided usable data at Time 2 (a completion rate of 82%). See Rockenbach et al. (2017) for more information on the sample demographics and characteristics.

Variables

IDEALS is a continuation of the Campus Religious and Spiritual Climate Survey (CRSCS; see Bryant, Wickliffe, Mayhew, & Behringer, 2009), an empirically validated instrument (Bryant Rockenbach & Mayhew, 2013; Mayhew & Bryant Rockenbach, 2013) that measures the structural, psychological, and behavioral dimensions of campus climate for religious, spiritual, and worldview diversity. The key dependent variable was developed and refined through pilot testing and confirmatory factor analysis at both Time 1 and Time 2 of the IDEALS administration. The resultant Time 2 scale included four items and had a high degree of internal consistency (α = 0.86). The items on the scale include the following statements regarding gay, lesbian, and bisexual people: “In general, people in this group make positive contributions to society”; “In general, individuals in this group are ethical people”; “I have things in common with people in this group”; and “In general, I have a positive attitude toward people in this group.” The response categories consisted of a 5-point scale (1 = disagree strongly; 5 = agree strongly). Subsequently, the “appreciative attitudes toward LGB people” factor was created by summing the responses across the four items.

We selected our models’ key independent variables based on the conceptual framework. At the student-level, pre-college variables consisted of gender identity (asked as male, female, or another gender identity), race/ethnicity (White or Student of Color³), and religion/worldview (atheism, Buddhism, Catholicism, evangelical Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/Mormonism, Islam, Mainline Protestantism, another majority worldview, another minority worldview, another non-religious worldview, and another worldview). We included an indicator of political leaning (1 = very conservative, 5 = very liberal), along with a variable describing the influence religious beliefs/faith had on students’ worldviews (most influence, second-most influence, and third-most influence). Finally, we included a measure of appreciative attitudes toward lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) people at Time 1 as a student input and control variable.

To account for the interfaith learning environment, we included effect-coded institutional geographic region variables (Far West, Great Lakes, Mideast, New England, Plains, Rocky Mountain, Southeast, Southwest, Outlying Areas) as part of the national context. With respect to the institutional dimension, we included a campus culture variable that was created by averaging the change in students’ appreciative attitudes toward LGB people from Time 1 to Time 2 to create an institution score. We included this campus variable to account for the important role peer socialization may play in developing appreciative attitudes toward others (see Mayhew, 2012). One campus condition variable was also part of the institutional dimension: religious affiliation/control (Catholic, evangelical Christian, Mainline Protestant, nonsectarian private, and public).

The relational context reflects students’ perceptions of space for support and spiritual expression (“supportive”), insensitivity on campus (“discriminatory”), coercion on campus (“coercive”), negative interworldview engagement (“unproductive”), and provocative experiences with worldview diversity (“provocative”). Table 1 presents the items and Cronbach’s alphas for these scales. As part of the relational dimension, we also included whether the student had at least one close friend of a different sexual orientation. Students’ anticipated disciplinary contexts were accounted for by including planned academic major in the model (arts, humanities, or religion; business administration; health professions; social sciences or education; science, engineering, or math; and undecided).

Table 1. Items and measurement estimates for relational context variables.

Conceptual Model Position	Factor Variables and Items
Supportive	Space for Support and Spiritual Expression (α = 0.81)
	This campus is a safe place for me to express my worldview.
	Faculty and staff on my campus accommodate my needs with regard to celebrating religious holidays and other important religious observances.
	There is a place on this campus where I can express my personal worldview.
	My classes are safe places for me to express my worldview.
Discriminatory	Insensitivity on Campus (α = 0.85)
	On this campus, how often have you heard/read insensitive comments about your worldview from friends or peers.
	On this campus, how often have you heard/read insensitive comments about your worldview from faculty.
	On this campus, how often have you heard/read insensitive comments about your worldview from campus staff or administrators.
	While you have been enrolled at your college or university, how often have you been mistreated on campus because of your worldview.
	While you have been enrolled at your college or university, how often have you felt that people on campus used their religious worldview to justify treating you in a discriminatory manner on the basis of your gender identity.
	While you have been enrolled at your college or university, how often have you felt that people on campus used their religious worldview to justify treating you in a discriminatory manner on the basis of your sexual orientation.
	While you have been enrolled at your college or university, how often have you felt that people on campus used their religious worldview to justify treating you in a discriminatory manner on the basis of your race or ethnicity.
Coercive	Coercion on Campus (α = 0.86)
	While you have been enrolled at your college or university, how often have you felt pressured by others on campus to change your worldview.
	While you have been enrolled at your college or university, how often have you felt pressured to listen to others’ perspectives when you didn’t want to hear about them.
	While you have been enrolled at your college or university, how often have you felt pressured to keep your worldview to yourself.
	While you have been enrolled at your college or university, how often have you felt pressured to separate your academic experience from your personal worldview.
Unproductive	Negative Interworldview Engagement (α = 0.86)
	Regarding your interactions with people whose worldviews differ from yours, how often have you felt silenced from sharing your own experiences with prejudice and discrimination.
	Regarding your interactions with people whose worldviews differ from yours, how often have you had guarded, cautious interactions.
	Regarding your interactions with people whose worldviews differ from yours, how often have you had tense, somewhat hostile interactions.
	Regarding your interactions with people whose worldviews differ from yours, how often have you had hurtful, unresolved interactions.
Provocative	Provocative Experiences with Worldview Diversity (α = 0.86)
	While you have been enrolled at your college or university, how often have you had class discussions that challenged you to rethink your assumptions about another worldview.
	While you have been enrolled at your college or university, how often have you felt challenged to rethink your assumptions about another worldview after someone explained their worldview to you.
	While you have been enrolled at your college or university, how often have you had a discussion with someone of another worldview that had a positive influence on your perceptions of that worldview.
	While you have been enrolled at your college or university, how often have you heard critical comments from others about your worldview that made you question your worldview.
	While you have been enrolled at your college or university, how often have you had a discussion with someone that made you feel like you did not know enough about your own worldview.
	While you have been enrolled at your college or university, how often have you had a discussion with someone from your own worldview with whom you disagreed.

Finally, student interfaith behaviors consisted of four indices: students’ formal academic behaviors (e.g., “Enrolled in a course on campus specifically designed to discuss interfaith engagement”; 13 items), students’ informal academic behaviors (e.g., “Reflected on why interfaith cooperation is relevant to your field of study”; 5 items), students’ formal social behaviors (e.g., “Attended religious services for a religious tradition that is not your own”; 15 items), and students’ informal social behaviors (e.g. “Had conversations with people of diverse religious or nonreligious perspectives about the values you have in common”; 4 items). Students responded to these items by selecting if they had engaged in the behavior, and we created model variables to indicate if a student did not participate in any behavior, participated in at least one behavior, or participated in two or more behaviors.

Analyses

To answer our research questions, we limited the sample to only those students who selected “heterosexual” as their sexual orientation. Descriptive statistics for all variables are provided in Table 2. The multi-institutional nature of this dataset, in which students are nested within their respective institutions, necessitated using a multilevel modeling approach to examine the predictors of appreciative attitudes toward LGB people after the first year of college. Because hierarchical data violates the independence assumption of ordinary least squares regression, multilevel modeling enabled us to partition the within-institution (level 1) and between-institution (level 2) variances and estimate the standard errors appropriately (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was 0.051, which indicates that 5.1% of the variance in Time 2 appreciative attitudes toward LGB people can be attributed to institution-level differences. This value is above the conventionally used cutoff of 0.05 (see Heck & Thomas, 2009), further suggesting multilevel modeling should be used.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics (N = 5,897).

Variable	Min.	Max.	M	SD
Gender
Female	0.00	1.00	0.695	0.461
Male	0.00	1.00	0.304	0.460
Another gender identity	0.00	1.00	0.001	0.034
Race/Ethnicity
White	0.00	1.00	0.627	0.483
Student of color	0.00	1.00	0.373	0.483
Worldview
Atheism	0.00	1.00	0.072	0.259
Buddhism	0.00	1.00	0.015	0.122
Catholicism	0.00	1.00	0.224	0.417
Evangelical Christianity	0.00	1.00	0.181	0.385
Hinduism	0.00	1.00	0.013	0.114
Judaism	0.00	1.00	0.023	0.150
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/Mormonism	0.00	1.00	0.043	0.204
Islam	0.00	1.00	0.023	0.151
Mainline Protestantism	0.00	1.00	0.116	0.320
Another majority worldview	0.00	1.00	0.035	0.184
Another minority worldview	0.00	1.00	0.029	0.169
Another non-religious worldview	0.00	1.00	0.183	0.387
Another worldview	0.00	1.00	0.041	0.198
Political leaning	1.00	5.00	3.23	0.962
Influence of Religious Beliefs/Faiths on Worldview
No influence on worldview	0.00	1.00	0.483	0.500
Third-most influence on worldview	0.00	1.00	0.119	0.323
Second-most influence on worldview	0.00	1.00	0.153	0.360
Most influence on worldview	0.00	1.00	0.246	0.430
Entering appreciative attitudes toward LGB people	4.00	20.00	15.364	3.589
Disciplinary Context—Planned Academic Major
Arts and humanities	0.00	1.00	0.100	0.299
Business administration	0.00	1.00	0.075	0.264
Health professions	0.00	1.00	0.116	0.320
Science, engineering, or math	0.00	1.00	0.322	0.467
Social science or education	0.00	1.00	0.163	0.369
Undecided	0.00	1.00	0.224	0.417
Institutional Context—Campus Culture
Appreciative attitudes toward LGB people campus culture	−2.24	5.52	0.00	1.00
Institutional Context—Institution Religious Affiliation
Catholic	0.00	1.00	0.116	0.321
Evangelical Christian	0.00	1.00	0.116	0.321
Mainline Protestant	0.00	1.00	0.248	0.434
Private nonsectarian	0.00	1.00	0.256	0.438
Public	0.00	1.00	0.264	0.443
Institutional Context—Geographic Region
Far West	0.00	1.00	0.074	0.263
Great Lakes	0.00	1.00	0.207	0.407
Mideast	0.00	1.00	0.207	0.407
New England	0.00	1.00	0.050	0.218
Plains	0.00	1.00	0.116	0.321
Rocky Mountain	0.00	1.00	0.041	0.200
Southeast	0.00	1.00	0.248	0.434
Southwest	0.00	1.00	0.050	0.218
Outlying areas	0.00	1.00	0.008	0.091
Relational Context
At least one close friend who is of a different sexual orientation	0.00	1.00	0.649	0.477
Space for Support and Spiritual Expression (Supportive)	4.00	20.00	16.553	2.931
Insensitivity on Campus (Discriminatory)	7.00	35.00	10.874	4.126
Coercion on Campus (Coercive)	4.00	20.00	8.323	3.931
Negative Interworldview Engagement (Unproductive)	4.00	20.00	7.199	3.254
Provocative Encounters with Worldview Diversity (Provocative)	6.00	50.00	16.431	5.116
Formal Academic Behaviors
No activities	0.00	1.00	0.210	0.407
At least one activity	0.00	1.00	0.134	0.341
Two or more activities	0.00	1.00	0.656	0.475
Informal Academic Behaviors
No activities	0.00	1.00	0.478	0.500
At least one activity	0.00	1.00	0.264	0.441
Two or more activities	0.00	1.00	0.258	0.438
Formal Social Behaviors
No activities	0.00	1.00	0.178	0.382
At least one activity	0.00	1.00	0.201	0.401
Two or more activities	0.00	1.00	0.621	0.485
Informal Social Behaviors
No activities	0.00	1.00	0.057	0.231
At least one activity	0.00	1.00	0.053	0.223
Two or more activities	0.00	1.00	0.891	0.312
Appreciative attitudes toward LGB people at end of first year	4.00	20.00	16.397	3.323

Throughout the analysis, we entered most student-level variables (i.e., gender, religious/worldview identification, and academic major) and the national/institutional variables (i.e., region and religious affiliation/control) as effect codes instead of indicator variables. Effect codes compare a value for one group (e.g., students who identify as non-religious) to the unweighted mean of the group means of all students and tests whether each group differs significantly from the overall sample mean (see Mayhew & Simonoff, 2015). This type of comparison removes the need for an arbitrary reference group because comparisons are made to the whole. The approach also enables researchers to retain more information in their analytic models given that parameter estimates for every categorical covariate can be included in the analytic models. We used indicator variables for race/ethnicity (with white students as the reference group), the “influences on worldview” variable (with “no influence” as the reference category), and the student interfaith behavior variables (with “no activities” as the reference category).

We standardized the continuous student-level independent variables (i.e., political leaning, Time 1 appreciative attitudes toward LGB people score, and the relational context variables) and the dependent variable at the student level with a mean of zero and a standard deviation of one. We also standardized the continuous institution-level variable (i.e., appreciative attitudes toward LGB people campus culture) but across the 122 institutions, which yielded a mean of zero and a standard deviation of one at the institution level. As a result, unstandardized regression coefficients for these predictors are analogous to standardized coefficients, and coefficients for any categorical (effect-coded) variables can be interpreted as adjusted Cohen’s ds (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). Converting the continuous variables to z-scores (i.e., standardizing) in this way is equivalent to grand-mean centering, a standard practice in multilevel modeling (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002).

We constructed four different multilevel models. Model 1 examined the student-level demographic and pre-college input variables (i.e., gender identity, race/ethnicity, worldview identity, and political leaning) as well as the influence of religious beliefs/faith on worldview and Time 1 appreciative attitudes toward LGB people. We also included planned academic major (i.e., disciplinary context) in this model since it acts as an input variable based on when we gathered the data. Model 2 consisted of the same student characteristics from Model 1 as well as all national- and institution-level variables (i.e., geographic region, campus culture for LGB appreciation, and institutional religious affiliation). Model 3 included all Model 2 variables, plus the variables of the relational context (i.e., having at least one friend of a different sexual orientation, space for support and spiritual expression, insensitivity on campus, coercion on campus, unproductive interworldview engagement, and provocative experiences with worldview diversity). The final model, Model 4, added students’ interfaith behaviors (i.e., formal and informal academic and social behaviors) to the variables of Model 3.

Limitations

Several study limitations should be considered when reviewing the results. First, it is possible that those students who responded and completed surveys at both time points have more in common with each other than the general population of first-term college and university students. For instance, these respondents may be more predisposed to taking surveys, more attracted by the incentives, more interested in the topic at hand, or some combination thereof, suggesting that attrition between Time 1 and Time 2 is not completely at random. We also acknowledge that our sample of undergraduate students consists mostly of individuals aged 20 and under and recognize the increasing age diversity of undergraduates in higher education. The results of this study should be considered with these limitations in mind addressed whenever possible in conjunction with future studies of this phenomenon. Lastly, we name the problematic ways in which this study’s aggregation of sexual identities, religious groups, and racial/ethnic identities masks the unique experiences of distinct groups.

Results

Table 3 provides the results from the multilevel modeling analyses used to predict heterosexual students’ appreciative attitudes toward lesbian, gay, and bisexual people after one year of college exposure. As previously noted, we entered most of the categorical variables into the models as effect codes; therefore, the coefficients and significance tests for these variables indicate the difference between a particular group and the unweighted average value for that construct. Additionally, the dependent variable and the continuous independent variables were standardized prior to the analysis, so the coefficients in Table 3 are analogous to standardized regression coefficients and can be interpreted as effect sizes.

Table 3. Results for hierarchical linear models for attitudes toward LGB people.

	Block 1			Block 2			Block 3			Block 4
	B	SE	Sig.	B	SE	Sig.	B	SE	Sig.	B	SE	Sig.
Gender
Female	0.162	0.099		0.167	0.098		0.166	0.094		0.163	0.094
Male	0.027	0.099		0.033	0.098		0.033	0.095		0.037	0.094
Another gender identity	−0.189	0.196		−0.200	0.195		−0.199	0.187		−0.200	0.187
Students of Color	−0.078	0.023	**	−0.060	0.023	*	−0.025	0.023		−0.026	0.023
Worldview
Atheism	−0.017	0.040		−0.013	0.040		0.007	0.039		0.008	0.039
Buddhism	−0.226	0.078	**	−0.212	0.077	**	−0.174	0.075	*	−0.168	0.074	*
Catholicism	0.066	0.026	*	0.051	0.026		0.023	0.025		0.026	0.025
Evangelical Christianity	−0.064	0.030	*	−0.053	0.030		−0.053	0.029		−0.053	0.029
Hinduism	0.220	0.084	**	0.190	0.083	*	0.182	0.080	*	0.171	0.080	*
Judaism	0.064	0.064		0.073	0.064		0.091	0.062		0.090	0.062
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/Mormonism	0.071	0.053		0.060	0.053		0.018	0.051		0.011	0.051
Islam	−0.015	0.064		−0.014	0.064		−0.032	0.061		−0.039	0.061
Mainline Protestantism	−0.010	0.032		−0.006	0.032		−0.016	0.031		−0.017	0.031
Another majority worldview	−0.003	0.052		0.012	0.052		−0.006	0.050		−0.007	0.050
Another minority worldview	0.070	0.057		0.059	0.056		0.077	0.054		0.082	0.054
Another non-religious worldview	−0.032	0.029		−0.032	0.028		−0.041	0.027		−0.037	0.027
Another worldview	−0.124	0.049	*	−0.115	0.049	*	−0.076	0.047		−0.068	0.047
Political leaning	0.051	0.013	***	0.055	0.013	***	0.030	0.012	*	0.029	0.012	*
Influence of Religious Beliefs/Faiths on Worldview
Third-most influence on worldview	0.049	0.035		0.042	0.035		0.022	0.034		0.017	0.034
Second-most influence on worldview	0.000	0.034		−0.002	0.034		−0.027	0.033		−0.033	0.032
Most influence on worldview	0.003	0.033		−0.005	0.033		−0.031	0.032		−0.041	0.032
Entering appreciative attitudes toward LGB people	0.620	0.012	***	0.625	0.012	***	0.573	0.012	***	0.571	0.012	***
Disciplinary Context—Planned Academic Major
Arts and humanities	−0.029	0.029		−0.032	0.029		−0.044	0.028		−0.043	0.028
Business administration	−0.093	0.033	**	−0.098	0.032	**	−0.086	0.031	**	−0.083	0.031	**
Health professions	0.024	0.027		0.011	0.027		0.018	0.026		0.018	0.026
Science, engineering, or math	0.038	0.020		0.050	0.019	**	0.049	0.019	**	0.046	0.019	*
Social science or education	0.042	0.024		0.049	0.024	*	0.047	0.023	*	0.050	0.023	*
Undecided	0.017	0.021		0.019	0.021		0.016	0.020		0.013	0.020
Institutional Context—Campus Culture
Appreciative attitudes toward LGB people campus culture				0.182	0.021	***	0.167	0.021	***	0.169	0.021	***
Institutional Context—Institution Religious Affiliation
Catholic				0.031	0.031		−0.001	0.030		−0.009	0.030
Evangelical Christian				−0.120	0.037	**	−0.134	0.036	***	−0.130	0.036	***
Mainline Protestant				0.045	0.024		0.039	0.023		0.038	0.023
Private nonsectarian				0.049	0.024	*	0.065	0.023	**	0.063	0.023	**
Public				−0.005	0.020		0.031	0.020		0.038	0.020
Institutional Context—Geographic Region
Far West				0.028	0.051		0.036	0.049		0.033	0.049
Great Lakes				0.051	0.050		0.077	0.048		0.076	0.048
Mideast				0.050	0.049		0.061	0.047		0.060	0.047
New England				0.046	0.070		0.017	0.067		0.017	0.067
Plains				−0.001	0.058		0.004	0.056		0.003	0.056
Rocky Mountain				0.029	0.059		0.089	0.057		0.093	0.057
Southeast				−0.012	0.049		−0.003	0.047		−0.003	0.047
Southwest				0.035	0.057		0.005	0.055		−0.001	0.054
Outlying areas				−0.226	0.345		−0.288	0.332		−0.278	0.332
Relational Context
At least one close friend who is of a different sexual orientation							0.149	0.021	***	0.131	0.022	***
Space for Support and Spiritual Expression (Supportive)							0.154	0.011	***	0.147	0.012	***
Insensitivity on Campus (Discriminatory)							−0.039	0.013	**	−0.032	0.013	*
Coercion on Campus (Coercive)							−0.028	0.014	*	−0.036	0.014	**
Negative Interworldview Engagement (Unproductive)							−0.016	0.015		−0.018	0.015
Provocative Encounters with Worldview Diversity (Provocative)							0.077	0.011	***	0.070	0.012	***
Formal Academic Behaviors
At least one activity										0.019	0.035
Two or more activities										−0.020	0.029
Informal Academic Behaviors
At least one activity										−0.013	0.025
Two or more activities										0.025	0.028
Formal Social Behaviors
At least one activity										0.058	0.033
Two or more activities										0.087	0.030	**
Informal Social Behaviors
At least one activity										0.075	0.059
Two or more activities										0.139	0.045	**
Variance Explained		0.415			0.427			0.469			0.472

The first model, which examined student demographic and pre-college characteristics, explained 41.5% of the variance in appreciative attitudes toward LGB people after one year of college-going. Even after controlling for appreciative attitudes at Time 1, certain demographics were related to this outcome, including race/ethnicity, worldview, political leaning, and planned academic major (disciplinary context). Students of Color reported lower appreciative attitudes toward LGB people than white students (B = −0.078, p < .01). Buddhists (B = −0.226, p < .01), evangelical Christians (B = −0.064, p < .05), and students with another worldview (B = −0.124, p < .05) also indicated lower appreciative attitudes than the average, while Catholics (B = 0.066, p < .05) and Hindus (B = 0.220, p < .01) reported higher appreciative attitudes than the average. Planned academic major was also related to Time 2 appreciative attitudes toward LGB people, with students intending to major in business administration reporting lower appreciation than the average (B = −0.093, p < .01). Finally, political leaning was also related to appreciative attitudes toward LGB people, with more liberal students indicating more appreciative attitudes (B = 0.051, p < .001).

The second model added national and institutional characteristics to the student inputs considered in Model 1. These institutional variables explained an additional 1.2% of the variance in the outcome. In this model, campus cultures in which students on the whole exhibited more favorable attitudes toward LGB people appeared to positively shape the appreciative attitudes of individual students after the first year of college (B = 0.182, p < .001). Additionally, institutional religious control/affiliation was related to appreciative attitudes, with students at evangelical Christian institutions (B = −0.120, p < .01) reporting lower appreciation and private nonsectarian institutions (B = 0.0496, p < .05) reporting higher appreciation scores than the average.

The relational context, which was added in Model 3, explains an additional 4.2% of the variance in the outcome. Having at least one friend of a different sexual orientation was positively related to appreciative attitudes toward LGB people (B = 0.149, p < .001), as was space for support and spiritual expression (B = 0.154, p < .001), and provocative encounters with worldview diversity (B = 0.077, p < .001). On the other hand, coercion on campus (B = −0.028, p < .05) and insensitivity on campus (B = −0.039, p < .01) were negatively related to the appreciation outcome.

Finally, the inclusion of students’ formal and informal academic and social interfaith behaviors explained an additional 0.03% of the variance in the outcome. Of these behaviors, students who participated in two or more formal (B = 0.087, p < .01) and informal (B = 0.139, p < .01) social activities had significantly higher appreciative attitudes toward LGB people than students who did not participate in these activities at all.

Discussion

How do national, institutional, relational, disciplinary, and behavioral dimensions of the college experience relate to heterosexual students’ appreciative attitudes toward LGB people? Overall, our findings highlight the importance of relationships when it comes to fostering heterosexual students’ appreciation of queer-spectrum people after one year in college. Further, the study provides new insights into the role that campus interfaith supports play in shaping heterosexual students’ attitudes toward LGB people.

In multiple studies (e.g., Cotten-Huston & Waite, 2000; Finlay & Walther, 2003; Sevecke et al., 2015; Smith et al., 2009), interactions with queer-spectrum people emerged as a predictor of collegians’ acceptance of those individuals. The results of our study also affirm the importance of having at least one friend who is of a different sexual orientation. At the same time, our findings, based on a multi-institutional sample in which we control for pre-college attitudes toward LGB people, extend extant cross-sectional research by underscoring the value of this type of interpersonal engagement for heterosexual students regardless of personal characteristics, campus location, and institutional affiliation.

Beyond the value of friendship for shaping heterosexual collegians’ attitudes toward members of the queer-spectrum community, our findings add texture to previous studies by revealing the positive implications of campus interfaith efforts for students’ attitudes toward sexual minorities. Numerous studies have shown the role that religious beliefs play in such attitudes (e.g., Finlay & Walther, 2003; Holland et al., 2013), and research supports interfaith experiences as a means of fostering students’ pluralism orientation and their perspectives toward religious minorities (Mayhew et al., 2018; Rockenbach et al., 2016, 2015); yet, scholarship prior to this study had not explored the ways in which interactions across religious difference may influence heterosexual students’ perspectives on LGB people. In particular, participation in two or more formal social interfaith activities (e.g., participating in an interfaith dialogue on campus, working together with students of other religious or nonreligious perspectives on a service project), two or more informal social interfaith activities (e.g., dining with someone of a different religious or nonreligious perspective, studying with someone of a different religious or nonreligious perspective), and provocative encounters (e.g., had class discussions that challenged the student to rethink their assumptions about another worldview) with people of diverse worldviews are each associated with higher levels of LGB appreciation for heterosexual students after one year of college. One plausible explanation is that students are exposed to different perspectives on sexuality through repeated social engagement across religious difference. Similarly, as first-year students have challenging, yet thoughtful exchanges across religious and worldview difference, they are likely prompted to rethink their beliefs about sexual orientation as well as their assumptions about queer-spectrum individuals.

Campus spaces for support and spiritual expression also matter, as first-year heterosexual students who perceive higher levels of support in this regard have more positive attitudes toward LGB people. Conversely, we identified a negative relationship between appreciation of LGB people and students’ experiences of worldview-based coercion and discrimination on campus. It may be that first-year heterosexual students who feel supported in their worldview on campus are more open to considering new perspectives and engaging with diverse peers, whereas those who do not feel supported in this regard remain more closely—and rigidly—connected to pre-college networks and attitudes.

In addition to illuminating personal relationships and campus interfaith experiences as contributors to heterosexual students’ appreciative attitudes toward LGB people, the results of this study extend, and in noteworthy ways, counter earlier scholarship. For example, we found that the LGB appreciative attitudes of heterosexual men were not significantly different than average, a result that differs from other studies (see Copp & Koehler, 2017). Our findings also stand in contrast to research in which members of specific religious groups viewed queer-spectrum people more negatively (e.g., Finlay & Walther, 2003; Holland et al., 2013). Of all the disaggregated religious/non-religious worldview identities included in this study, we found statistically significant differences only for Buddhist and Hindu students. Whereas Buddhist students had lower-than-average attitudes toward LGB people, Hindu students had higher-than-average appreciative attitudes, perhaps due to the ways in which those individuals’ status as a minority group may inform their attitudes toward other minoritized populations. Of note, our findings are based on a small number of Buddhist and Hindu students and may not be generalizable. Further, regional nuances may also account for these results (e.g., a sizable portion of the Hindu participants were from the West Coast).

Most striking is the lack of statistical significance for Christian-identified students, including both Mainline and Evangelical Protestants. Likewise, we did not find a significant relationship between LGB appreciation and the level of importance students ascribed to religious beliefs/faith as something that shapes their worldview. Plausibly, this result reflects generational shifts captured in national studies (see Parker et al., 2019), reports in which young adults emerged as having generally positive opinions of the LGBT community (see Cohen et al., 2018), and general scholarship on Christians’ increasing acceptance of same-sex relationships (Murphy, 2015).

Lastly, this study underscores the importance of campus culture for LGB appreciative attitudes, as well as the influence pre-college perspectives have on heterosexual students’ views toward LGB individuals at the end of their first year of college. Akin to Mayhew’s (2012) work, our results suggest that peer socialization has a part in shaping collegians’ appreciation of LGB people. In addition, the sizable effect of students’ entering attitudes reflects earlier scholarship (e.g., Engberg et al., 2007) and speaks to the need to engage in efforts to promote appreciation of queer-spectrum individuals prior to the undergraduate years. Although this particular finding is not surprising given the short period of time between survey administrations (one academic year), it is worth noting.

Implications for practice and research

The purpose of this study was to explore the ways in which campus experiences, particularly those related to exposure to religious and worldview differences, influence heterosexual students’ appreciative attitudes toward LGB people. With spaces for support and spiritual expression, formal and informal social interfaith opportunities, and provocative encounters with worldview diversity emerging as strategies for positively shaping heterosexual students’ appreciation of the queer-spectrum community, this study has implications for higher education practice. In particular, higher education practitioners are encouraged to strategically design occasions for students to formally engage with religiously diverse peers in social settings. Examples include service projects, interfaith dialogue, and interfaith living-learning communities. In these contexts, it is worthwhile for those leading these efforts to infuse conversations with reflections on the different ways in which religious traditions engage (for better or worse) the queer-spectrum community. For example, leaders might pose questions about the doctrinal diversity evident across faith traditions, contemporary shifts in inclusion and welcome for queer-spectrum people within different religious communities (and the reasons behind such shifts), and the critical implications for psychological, spiritual, and physical well-being among queer spectrum individuals as a result of welcome within or exclusion from religious communities. Further, both faculty and student affairs professionals should thoughtfully design opportunities in which students are prompted to consider their own views on and experiences with sexual identity and those of others—and they should assess the degree to which students have access to supportive spaces in which they can express their perspectives on the intersections between their personal worldview and attitudes toward sexual minorities. Ultimately, this research, coupled with studies showing the relationship between interfaith engagement and students’ views of religious minority groups (e.g., Mayhew et al., 2018; Rockenbach et al., 2016), reinforces the necessity of including interfaith education and programming within the scope of campus diversity initiatives.

As higher education continues to struggle when it comes to the campus climate for queer-spectrum people (Rankin et al., 2019), our findings can also inform the work of campus religious/spiritual life as well as LGBTQIA+ centers. Namely, this study speaks to the value of collaborations between these two departments given that collegians’ appreciative attitudes toward LGB people are likely to have positive implications for campus climate. Rather than relegating interfaith efforts solely to practitioners in religious life, we encourage LGBTQIA+ leadership to be involved. Doing so may help bridge divides across students of diverse sexual identities, an important outcome in light of research—including ours—that underscores the role friendships play in fostering heterosexual students’ appreciation of queer-spectrum people.

While advancing scholarship on students’ attitudes toward the queer-spectrum community and yielding insight for practice, this study also points to areas in need of additional research. Because this study only focuses on the first year of college, future work should explore the long-term effects of interfaith programming and supports on students’ LGB appreciation. Further research is also needed to determine whether this study’s findings related to religious identity are unique to this cohort of students. In other words, do future classes of Christian students exhibit the same level of appreciation for queer-spectrum people as their non-Christian peers? Moving forward, scholars could use qualitative research to illuminate those patterns. Even more, qualitative research concentrated on how and why specific interfaith engagement opportunities shape collegians’ attitudes toward LGB people would enhance existing quantitative scholarship and generate more nuanced information essential for effective practice.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. We use the term “queer-spectrum” to honor the varied ways in which individuals choose to identify while also accounting for evolving language around sexual identity. When summarizing extant research, we use the terminology that the authors used in their own studies (e.g., LGBT, LGBQ), while any synthesis and discussion will adopt the queer-spectrum language. When referring to identity groups as selected on a survey, we use the specific identity (e.g., lesbian).

2. We have adapted the model to our particular research questions, and thus not all elements shown in the figure are applicable, specifically: students’ precollege interfaith engagements; various institutional climate indicators; and measures related to self-authored worldview commitment, pluralism orientation, and appreciative knowledge, which are the focus of other studies (e.g., Mayhew et al., 2020). We also added a friendship indicator to the relational dimension depicted in the framework.

3. Due to the limited sample, we dichotomized race/ethnicity by grouping all Students of Color into one category for comparison against white students. We recognize the limitations of this approach (see Allen, Lachance, Rios-Ellis, & Kaphingst, 2011; Museus & Kiang, 2009).