Abstract

Attitudes toward homosexuality have improved worldwide; however, these changes have not occurred equally across= all countries and territories. Extensive research has assessed attitudes toward LGBTQAI+ individuals among college students. Yet, the way in which gender, degree programs, intrinsic religiosity, and modern racism play a role in the attitudes toward homosexuality among college students remains unclear. This cross-sectional study examines attitudes toward homosexuality among 173 und= ergraduate students from the University of Panama, evaluating the role of sociodemogra= phic factors (gender and degree program) and structural factors (religiosity and modern racism). Undergraduate students 18 years or older who were enrolled = in a degree program in psychology, engineering, and fine arts schools were eligi= ble for this study. Participants included 79 undergraduate students from psycho= logy (46.0%), 57 from engineering (33.0%), and 37 from fine arts (21.0%). Respon= dents completed the Spanish versions of the Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men Scale, the Modern Racism Scale, and the Francis Scale of Attitude Towards Christianity. Results suggest the presence of homonegativity among Panamani= an undergraduates, with males and engineering students reporting greater negat= ive attitudes compared to all other groups. Intrinsic religiosity is positively correlated with homonegativity, while sublimated racism is not correlated w= ith homonegativity. An interesting area of study related to this research is the impact of self-reported sexual orientation or having LGBTQAI+ = acquaintances upon attitudes toward homosexuality among Panamanians.= Further research is necessary to explore long-term changes in attitudes toward sexu= al minorities in Panama and to justify interventional efforts to prevent discrimination and promote well-being among LGBTQAI+ Panamanians.

Keywords: college students= , homonegativity, LGBTQ+, religiosity, racism

Introduction

Attitudes toward homosexuality have improved worldwide, including in Latin America; however, these changes have not occurred equally across all countries and territories (Corrales, 2017). Studies suggested that stigmas, prejudices, a= nd stereotypes towards homosexuality in the region of Latin America are linked= to popular beliefs of an underlying implication of immorality rooted in Christianity (Castillo Nuñez et al., 2019; Mor= al de la Rubia & Valle de la O, 2014).

Recently, the Supreme Court of Justice of Panama ruled against legalizing same-sex marriage in Panama. This ruling set a precedent in the country, as it faile= d to align with a call for the approval of the legalization of same-sex marriage= in Panama by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) (Inter-Amer= ican Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), 2023).

Previous studies discuss that those older (Rollè et al., 2022), males (Jäckle & Wenzelburger, 2015; Kite et al., 2021; Lingiardi et al., 2005= ), with limited educational background (Dorsen, 20= 12; Lin et al., 2021), with certain religious affiliations and religious behavi= ors (Jäckle & Wenzelburge= r, 2015; Rollè et al., 2022), including Christian= ity, with certain political orientations (López-Sáez et al., 2020; Rollè et al., 2022), and with no ho= mosexual friends or family members (Bowen & Bourgeois, 2001), are more likely to report increased negative attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. Extensive research has assessed attitudes toward LGBTQAI+ individuals among college students (Anderson & Maugeri, 2024; Worthen, 2012). This study includes predictors for homonegativity among college students highlighted in previous research, including degree programs (Papadaki e= t al., 2015) and gender (Kite et al., 2021; Konstantinidis et al., 2021).

Attitudes toward LGBTQAI+ individuals derive from multiple individual, family, commun= ity, policy, and geopolitical factors. Therefore, studies have focused on the individual-level effects of homonegativity (Bhugra et al., 2021; Flood et al., 2013) and the populational effects of increased homonegativity on the LGBTQAI+ community and the general public (Gates, 201= 3; Taylor, 2020). In a general sense, these attitudes also interact with other structural and historical factors, including sexism (R= ollè et al., 2022), hetero-patriarchal social structures (Lin & Lee, 2024), acculturation (Ju, 2022), religiosity (Rollè e= t al., 2022), and multiple forms of structural racism, including modern racism (Campo-Arias et al., 2016).

Policies and legal protections can profoundly impact attitudes toward LGBTQAI+ individuals (Gates, 2013), even when its effects tend to concentrate among those who, before the policies, did not hold negative attitudes toward homosexuality (Redman, 2018). Indirectly, legislation and policies that res= trict or limit the rights and safety of LGBTQAI+ individuals can also impact non-LGBTQAI+ individuals. These effects have been exemplified by studies evaluating the populational effects of anti-gay sentiment and attitudes (Hatzenbuehler et al., 2014).

Methods

Objective

<= /o:p>

Preliminary findings underscore the importance of surveilling attitudes towards homosexuality to understand the disenfranchisement of LGBTQAI+ in the regio= n of the Americas and, in particular, Panama. Hence, studies that combine explor= ing the role of sociodemographic factors (gender and degree program) and struct= ural factors (religiosity and modern racism) as potential covariates warrant fur= ther exploration due to its potential to justify future interventional efforts to prevent discrimination and promote well-being among LGBTQAI+ Panamanians. Therefore, this study aims to examine the correlates of the attitudes toward homosexuality among undergraduate students from the largest university in Panama.

Population and Sample=

<= /o:p>

For this campus-based cross-sectional study, participant enrollment occurred at= the University of Panama’s Harmodio Arias Madrid Campus in Panama City from J= uly to October 2017. Participants were recruited from the University of Panama's psychology, engineering, and fine arts schools. By the time the study was conducted, registration records showed that there was a total of 400, 188, = and 125 undergraduate students enrolled in the schools of psychology, engineeri= ng, and fine arts, respectively, in the study source population. Figure 1 depic= ts the participant recruitment flow diagram.

SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 1. Participant recruitment flow diagram.

Undergraduate students 18 years or older who were enrolled in a degree program in psychol= ogy, engineering, and fine arts schools were eligible for this study. A convenie= nce sample of hundred seventy-three students (N=3D 173) voluntarily agreed to participate. Participants included 79 undergraduate students from psychology (46.0%), 57 from engineering (33.0%), and 37 from fine arts (21.0%). <= /o:p>

Out of the 173 participants, females comprised most participants (76.3%) with a mean age of 20.8 years (SD =3D 2.5). Thirty-one percent of the sample repor= ted a family monthly income ranging from $500 to $1,000. Most participants were multiracial (52.6%), followed by Black (24.9%). Nearly 90.2% of participants self-identified as heterosexual or straight, while 1.2% self-identified as homosexual. The majority of students reported that they were Christian (87.= 9%) (Table 1).

Table 1. Sociodemographics= of the Sample by Degree Program (N =3D 173)<= /span>

U= ndergraduate Degree Program

<= span lang=3DEN-US style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",seri= f; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB'><= o:p>

P= sychology

E= ngineering

F= ine Arts

T= otal

F=

X= ²

<= span lang=3DEN-US style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",seri= f; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB'>P= v= alue^a<= o:p>

Gender N (%)<= /p>

<= o:p>

<= o:p>

8= .95

0= .011*

= Male

13 (16.5)

22 (38.6)

8 (21.6)

43 (24.9)

<= o:p>

<= o:p>

<= o:p>

= Female

66 (83.5)

35 (61.4)

29 (78.4)

1= 30 (75.1)

<= o:p>

<= o:p>

<= o:p>

Age (years) M (SD)

2= 2.2 (±2.4)

1= 8.9 (±1.1)

2= 0.4 (±2.3)

2= 0.8 (±2.5)

4= 3.63

<= o:p>

0= .000*

Race

= Black

= Indigenous peoples

= White

= Multiracial

= Missing

<= o:p>

18 (22.8)

3 (3.8)

7 (8.9)

50 (63.3)

1 (1.3)

<= o:p>

14 (24.6)

6 (10.5)

9 (15.8)

25 (43.8)

3 (5.3)

<= o:p>

11 (29.7)

6 (16.2)

4 (10.8)

16 (43.2)

0= (0)

<= o:p>

43 (24.8)

15 (8.7)

20 (11.6)

91 (52.6)

4 (2.3)

<= o:p>

2= 0.75

0= .054

Family monthly income N (%)<= /o:p>

= <$250

= $250-500

= $500-1,000

= $1000-2000

= >$2000

= Missing

<= o:p>

<= o:p>

1 (1.3)

8 (10.1)

18 (22.8)

26 (32.9)

25 (31.6)

1 (1.3)

<= o:p>

<= o:p>

7 (12.3)

5 (8.8)

25 (43.9)

11 (19.3)

9 (15.8)

0= (0)

<= o:p>

<= o:p>

4 (10.8)

5 (13.5)

11 (29.7)

12 (32.4)

5 (13.5)

0= (0)

<= o:p>

<= o:p>

12 (6.9)

18 (10.4)

54 (31.2)

49 (28.3)

39 (22.5)

1 (0.1)

<= o:p>

1= 9.88

0= .011*

Sexual

Orientation N (%)

= Heterosexual (or

= straight)

= Homosexual

= (lesbian or gay)

= Other

= Missing

<= o:p>

<= o:p>

76 (96.2)

<= o:p>

0= (0)

<= o:p>

3 (3.8)

0= (0)

<= o:p>

<= o:p>

50 (87.7)

<= o:p>

0= (0)

<= o:p>

4 (7.0)

3 (5.3)

<= o:p>

<= o:p>

30 (81.1)

<= o:p>

2 (5.4)

<= o:p>

5 (13.5)

0= (0)

<= o:p>

<= o:p>

1= 56 (90.2)

<= o:p>

2 (1.2)

<= o:p>

12 (6.9)

3 (1.7)

<= o:p>

1= 1.21

0= .024*

Religion N (%)<= /p>
= Christian

= Protestant

= Hindus

= Buddhists

= Other religion

<= o:p>

66 (83.5)

3 (3.8)

1 (1.3)

1 (1.3)

8 (10.1)

<= o:p>

50 (87.7)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

7= (12.3)

<= o:p>

34 (91.9)

1 (2.7)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

2 (5.4)

<= o:p>

1= 50 (86.7)

4 (2.3)

1 (0.6)

1 (0.6)

17 (9.8)

<= o:p>

5= .78

0= .672

ATLG M (SD)

        Full Scale

        ATG

        ATL

<= o:p>

7= 3.9 (±28.7)

3= 7.6 (±15.7)

3= 6.2 (±14.3)

<= o:p>

9= 3.2 (±23.2)^b

4= 8.8 (±13.5)^b

4= 4.7 (±11.8)^b

<= o:p>

7= 8.8 (±30.1)

3= 8.3 (±15.7)

4= 0.5 (±16.3)

<= o:p>

8= 1.3 (±28.5)

4= 1.5 (±15.8)

3= 9.9 (±14.4)

<= o:p>

8= .32

1= 0.23

6= .07

<= o:p>

<= o:p>

0= .000*

0= .000*

0= .003*

Francis Scale of     Attitude Towards Christianity = M (SD)

1= 6.9 (±5.4)

1= 7.7 (±4.5)

1= 8.5 (±2.8)

1= 7.5 (±4.7)

1= .51

<= o:p>

0.224

Modern Racism <= /p>
Scale M (SD)

6= .2 (±3.9)^b

1= 1.2 (±3.5)

1= 0.7 (±4.3)

8= .8 (±4.6)

3= 1.29

<= o:p>

0= .000*

Total N (%)

79 (45.7)

57 (32.9)

37 (21.4)

1= 73 (100)

<= o:p>

<= o:p>

<= o:p>

Instruments

<= /o:p>

Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men (ATLG)

Participants completed the adapted Spanish version of the Attitudes Toward Lesbians and = Gay Men (ATLG) Scale (Moreno et al., 2015). The scale consists of a 20-item Likert-type self-report questionnaire that measures attitudes toward lesbia= ns and gay men, including subscales measuring Attitudes Toward Lesbians (ATL) = and Attitudes Toward Gay Men (ATG) (Moreno et al., 2015). Responses range from = 1 to 9, with total scores ranging from 20 to 180, with values higher than 60 indicating the presence of negative attitudes (Moreno et al., 2015). The Spanish version has shown good reliability for the ATLG full scale (α =3D = 0.87) and its subscales of ATL (α =3D 0.74) and ATG (α =3D 0.85) (Moreno et al.= , 2015). Cronbach’s alpha calculated for this study for the ATLG scale was 0.90, w= hile for the subscales Attitude Toward Lesbians (ATL) and Attitude Toward Gay Men (ATG), we found 0.78 and 0.86, respectively.

Francis Scale of Attitude Towards Christianity

The five-item Spanish version of the Francis Scale of Attitude Towards Christia= nity (Francis-5), adapted by Campo-Arias et al. (2017) in Spanish, was utilized.= The Francis-5 is a self-administered scale that assesses intrinsic or internally motivated religiosity based on personal religious practice. Responses range from 0 to 4, with possible summed scores from 0 to 20. Higher scores indicate greater intrinsic religiosity (Campo-Arias et al., 2017 & Campo-Arias & Ceballos-Ospino, 2020). Campo-Arias et al. (2017) reported a high-reliability coefficient for the Spanish version of the Francis-5 scale (α =3D 0.97). The Francis Scale of Attitudes Toward Christianity Scale obtained a Cronbach’s alpha score of = 0.97 in our study.

Modern Racism Scale

Participants responded to the Spanish version of the Modern Racism Scale adapted by Campo-Arias et al. (2016). The responses range from 0 to 4. Final scores ra= nge from 0 to 20, with higher scores corresponding to greater sublimated or non-conventional racism, described as modern racism (Campo-Arias & Ceballos-Ospino, 2020). Campo-Arias et al. (201= 6) reported an acceptable reliability score for the Spanish version of the Mod= ern Racism Scale (α =3D 0.67). For the Modern Racism Scale, a 0.76 Cronbach's = alpha score was found.

Data Collection Procedures and Data Analysis

<= /o:p>

The study met all ethical standards and obtained exemption status by an internal IRB at the College of Psychology, University of Panama. Each participating program at the University of Panama approved the research protocol before participants were enrolled. All participants voluntarily agreed to particip= ate after an in-person and classroom-based discussion of the informed consent protocol. Participants received no incentives for participation, but in coordination with the University of Panama’s health clinic, students were provided with a resource guide detailing available on-campus resources. The application process took about 15-20 minutes.

Results

Findings suggest a high level of homonegativity among Panamanian undergraduate stude= nts (M =3D 81.3, SD =3D 28.5). Overall, participants reported a high intrinsic religiosity (M =3D 17.5, SD =3D 4.7) and low sublimated racism (M =3D 8.8, = SD =3D 4.6). Across groups, compared to psychology and fine arts, engineering students reported the highest levels of negative attitudes toward homosexuality (M = =3D 93.2, SD =3D 23.2). Engineering students also reported greater intrinsic religiosity (M =3D 18.5, SD =3D 2.8), while fine arts students reported hig= her sublimated racism (M =3D 11.2, SD =3D 3.5) compared to all other degree pro= grams.

An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare groups (Table 1). When evaluating the Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men Scale (ALTG), ANOVA re= vealed significant group differences, F(2,169) =3D 8.32; p < .01, with psycholo= gy (M =3D 73.9, SD =3D 28.7) and fine arts students (M =3D 78.81, SD =3D 30.1) re= porting lower mean scores compared to engineering students (M =3D 93.2, SD =3D 23.2= ). Similarly, group differences were significant for the Modern Racism Scale F(2,166) =3D 31.29; p < .01, with psychology students (M =3D 6.24, SD = =3D 3.9) reporting less modern racism compared to fine arts (M =3D 10.7, SD =3D 4.3)= and engineering students (M =3D 11.2, SD =3D 3.5). There were no significant differences for the Francis Scale of Attitude Towards Christianity F(2,170) =3D 1.51; p =3D 0.22.

A series of one-way analyses of covariance (ANCOVA), controlling for age and = sex, revealed statistically significant differences between groups F (2,161) =3D= 4.40, p =3D .014, which remained constant when assessing results for the ATLG sub= scales of Attitudes Towards Gay Men (ATG) F (2,161) =3D 5.51, p =3D .005 and Attit= udes Towards Lesbians (ATL) F (2,161) =3D 3.20, p =3D .043. Results for the Mode= rn Racism Scale suggest that the groups compared differ significantly F (2,161= ) =3D 21.20, p =3D <.001. However, results suggest no significant differences between groups for intrinsic religiosity as measured by the Francis Scale of Attitude Towards Christianity F (2,161) =3D 1.06, p =3D .348. Most particip= ants in the sample were female (75%). Gender also differed significantly by degree program Χ2 =3D 8.95; p =3D 0.011. Gender was only significant for the ATG = subscale F (1,161) =3D 4.209, p =3D .042, while for all other scales and subscales, = it was not a significant covariate.

Finally, a Pearson chi-square test revealed that positive intrinsic religiosity (Francis-5) was correlated positively with negative attitudes toward lesbia= ns and gay men (ATLG) (r(170) =3D 0.339, p < .01). In contrast, no signific= ant correlation was found for the Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men (ATLG) scale and the Modern Racism Scale (MRS) (r(166) =3D 0.134, p =3D 0.084).

Discussion and Conclusions<= /b>

<= /o:p>

Our findings confirm the presence of negative attitudes toward homosexuality ac= ross all studied groups (students in engineering, fine arts, and psychology), as= has been reported in similar studies conducted in Mexico and Chile (Barrientos & Cárdenas, 2012; Moral de la Rubia & Valle, 2011). In contrast, European samples report more positive attitudes (Papad= aki et al., 2015). Findings indicate high homonegativity among Panamanian undergraduate students and confirm the role of gender, degree program, and religiosity as correlates for those attitudes. Our study failed to confirm = that modern racism is a correlate for homonegativity; however, this finding coul= d be due to the lower self-reported modern racism in our sample compared to other regional studies (Campo-Arias et al., 2016).

Significant differences across undergraduate degree programs were found in the attitudes toward lesbians and gay males and non-conventional or sublimated racism. Conversely, no significant differences were found across groups regarding t= heir intrinsic religiosity. Findings regarding religiosity could be linked to the high levels of Christianity in Panama (Pew Research Center, 2014).

In terms of the different study programs, engineering students reported higher negative attitudes toward homosexuality than those in psychology and fine a= rts. Engineering students also reported greater intrinsic religiosity than psychology or fine arts students, which may explain their negative attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. Additionally, several studies suggest that the curriculum and prevalence of men in specific science majors, including engineering, could impact the presence of students’ negative attitudes (Hutchings, 2018; Jäckle & Wenzelburger, 2015; Moral de la Rubia & De la O, 2014). In agreement with previous re= search, undergraduate psychology students reported the lowest levels of negative attitudes toward lesbians and gay men (Papadaki= et al., 2015). Yet, in case negative attitudes towards homosexuality persist a= mong psychology major students, it can adversely impact the mental health servic= es provision and quality (American Psychological Association, 2009), raising concerns about upholding professional values of harm reduction and patient autonomy as professionals in the field (Rees et al., 2021).

Interestingly, gender was only a significant covariate for the attitudes toward gay men, w= hile it was not significant for the ATLG scale, including the ATL subscale, fail= ing to confirm findings from previous studies (Kite et al., 2021; Konstantinidi= s et al., 2021). This finding could be because most participants in the study we= re female. However, it could also underscore the importance of future research= to explore the role of gender identity and gender expression for the impact of gender on the attitudes toward LGBTIQ+ individuals.

Similar to other international and regional studies (Jäckle & Wenzelburger, 2015; Moreno et al., 2015),= this study reports that intrinsic religiosity is correlated significantly with attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. This relationship was also confirmed= in similar studies using the Francis-5 scale with a sample of Peruvian medical students (Nieto-Gutierrez et al., 2019). This is the first study that has utilized the Brief Modern Racism Scale (MRS) to examine the correlation bet= ween homonegativity and modern racism. Nevertheless, previous studies conducted = in the region using the full-scale version of MRS have shown that individuals = with higher negative attitudes toward homosexuality frequently hold negative attitudes toward diverse ethnic and racial populations (Campo-Arias et al., 2014). In contrast, we found no significant correlation between modern raci= sm and attitudes toward homosexuality.

This study has several limitations. First, we included a convenience sample of undergraduate students; therefore, the findings are not generalizable to the broader population of undergraduate students at the University of Panama. H= owever, the University of Panama is the country's oldest and largest higher educati= on institution (HEI), with over 73,000 students enrolled, and offers the most diversity regarding study areas (Svenson & De Gracia, 2020). Secondly, = most participants enrolled in our study were women (76%); however, this is comparable to the percentage of women undergraduate enrollees (60%) at the University of Panama during the last decade (Rodriguez Blanco et al., 2020). Thirdly, this was a cross-sectional study and did not include changes in attitudes over time, limiting the external validity of the findings. Fourth, the study did not incorporate cultural predictors for homonegativity, such = as traditional gender roles -commonly discussed in Latin America as machismo a= nd marianismo- (Hirai et al., 2018; Nierman et al., 2007), cultural background (Berg et al., 2017), public discourse on sexual minorities and their rights (Gyasi-Gyamerah et = al., 2019), and sexual knowledge (Hong et al., 2022). Strengths of this study include a high response rate to the measures and the surveys, being the fir= st study to record negative attitudes toward lesbians and gay men in a Panaman= ian sample, and the first study of its kind in Central America, which may motiv= ate future research in this area.

Moreover, understanding the magnitude of negative attitudes toward homosexuality and = how they change over time is fundamental to the non-binary perspective of human sexuality. Historically, in sexual orientation research, there has been a b= ias at mainly including white, adult, middle-class men as representative of the LGBTQI+ community as a whole, underrepresenting other populations (Hartwell= et al., 2017).

An interesting area of study related to this research is the impact of self-reported sexual orientation or having gay and lesbian acquaintances up= on attitudes toward homosexuality. Previous research suggests that those who self-identify or have contact with sexually diverse individuals report more tolerant attitudes (Dellaposta, 2018; Gulevich et al., 2021). Future research should confir= m this finding in Panama.

Conducting studies that can help identify attitudes toward homosexuality in an evidence-based and culturally competent way is a current imperative for Lat= in America, especially now that several countries are debating the legalizatio= n of same-sex marriage (González, 2020). In addition to the inclusion of other variables, future research should focus on verifying the reliability of each scale in different contexts, including non-academic contexts, and adding a = life course perspective to understand how attitudes toward homosexuality change = over time.

Acknowledgments

We thank Professor Marita Mojica and Professor Gerardo Valderrama from the University of Panama for supporting this project's planning and implementat= ion stages.

Conflict of Interest Disclosure

The authors report th= at there are no conflicts of interest.

Funding

This work was supported by the Institute for Scientific Research and Technology Services (INDICASAT AIP) and the Deveaux Foundation through the Bachelor Th= esis Award. RFT is supported by a doctoral scholarship (IFARHU-SENACYT program).= GBB is supported by Sistema Nacional de Investigación of SENACYT in Panama.

References

<= /o:p>

American Psychological Association. (2009). Report of the American Psychological Association Task Force on appropriate therapeutic responses to sexual orientation. Washington, DC. https://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf <= /span>

Anderson, J., & Maugeri, J. (2024). Correlates of attitudes toward bisexuality: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Jou= rnal of Homosexuality, 71(1), 259-292. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2022.2112524

Barrientos, J. E., & Cárdenas, M. (2012). Análisis factorial confirmatorio= de la versión en español del cuestionario de actitudes hacia lesbianas y hom= bres gais (ATLG). Universitas Psychologica, 11, 579-586. https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.upsy11-2.cf= as

Berg, R. C., Lemke, R., & Ross, M. W. (2017). Sociopolitical and cultural correlates of internalized homonegativity in gay and bisexual men: Findings from a global study. International Journal of Sexual Health, 29(1), 97-111. https://doi.org/10.1080/19317611.2016.124= 7125

Bhugra, D., Castaldelli-Maia, J. M., De Berardis, D., Torales, J., & Ventriglio, A. (2021). Homophobia and mental health: A scourge of modern era. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences, 30. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2045796021000391

Bowen, A. M., & Bourgeois, M. J. (2001). Attitudes to= ward lesbian, gay, and bisexual college students: The contribution of pluralistic ignorance, dynamic social impact, and contact theories. Journal of Ameri= can College Health, 50(2), 91-96. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448480109596012=

Campo-Arias, A., & Ceballos-Ospino, G. A. (2020). Confirmatory factor analysis of the five-item version of the Francis scale = of attitude towards Christianity in adolescent students. Journal of Beliefs & Values, 41, 51-57. https://doi.org/10.1080/13617672.2019.1638877 =

Campo-Arias, A., Herazo, E., & Oviedo, H. C. (2016). = Valoración psicométrica de la e= scala breve para racismo moderno. Revista de Salud Pública, 18, 437-446. https://doi.org/10.15446/rsap.v18n3.41291

Campo-Arias, A., Herazo, E., & Oviedo, H. C. (2017). Estructura interna y confiabilidad de la escala breve= de Francis en estudiantes de medicina. Pensamiento Psicológico, 15(2), 7-14. ISSN: 2665-3281

Campo-Arias, A., Oviedo, H. C., &= amp; Herazo, E. (2014). Correlación entre homofobia y racismo en estudiantes de= medicina. Psicología desde el Caribe, 31, 25-37. ISSN: 2011-7485

Castillo Nuñez, J., Derluyn, I., & Valcke, M. (2019). Student teachers' cognitions to integrate comprehensive sexuality education into their future teaching practices in Ecuador. Teaching and Teacher Education, 79, 38-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.12.007

Corrales, J. (2017). Understanding the uneven spread of L= GBT rights in Latin America and the Caribbean, 1999-2013. Journal of Researc= h in Gender Studies, 7, 52–82. ISSN: 2164-0262

Dellaposta, D. (2018). Gay acquaintanceship and attitudes toward homosexuality: A conservative test. Socius: Sociological Research= for a Dynamic World, 4, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023118798959

Dorsen, C. (2012). An integrative review of nurse attitud= es towards lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender patients. Canadian Journ= al of Nursing Research (CJNR), 44(3), 18–43. ISSN: 0844-5621<= /span>

Flood, J., McLaughlin, C., & Prentice, G. (2013). Minority stress, homonegativity, alcohol use and mental health among college gay males. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health, 17(4), 367–= 386. https://doi.org/10.1080/19359705.2013.800006

Gates, G. J. (2013). Demographics and LGBT health. Jou= rnal of Health and Social Behavior, 54(1), 72–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022146512474429

González, C. (2020, October 2). Panama should uphold = the rights of same-sex couples. Human Rights Watch. http://www.hrw.org/news/2020/10/02/panama-should-uphold-rights-same-sex-cou= ples?search=3Dsame+sex+marriage+Panama#

Gulevich, O., Krivoshchekov, V., & Sorokina, A. (2021= ). Gender identification and attitudes toward gay people: Gender and sexuality differences and similarities. Current Psychology, 42, 7197–7210= . https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-02050-6

Gyasi-Gyamerah, A. A., Amissah, C. M., & Danquah, S. = A. (2019). Changing attitudes toward homosexuality in Ghana: The power of attributional discourse. Sage Open, 9(2), 2158244019856712. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019856712

Hartwell, E. E., Serovich, J. M., Reed, S. J., Boisvert, = D., & Falbo, T. (2017). A systematic review of gay, lesbian, and bisexual research samples in couple and family therapy journals. Journal of Marit= al and Family Therapy, 43, 482–501. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12220 <= o:p>

Hatzenbuehler, M. L., Bellatorre, A., & Muennig, P. (2014). Anti-gay prejudice and all-cause mortality among heterosexuals in t= he United States. American Journal of Public Health, 104(2), 332-337. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2013.301678

Hirai, M., Dolma, S., Popan, J. R., & Winkel, M. H. (2018). Machismo predicts prejudice toward lesbian and gay individuals: Tes= ting a mediating role of contact. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 15(4), 497-503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-017-0308-7

Hong, L., He, X., Xue, L., Guo, L., & Liu, W. (2022). Comprehensive sexuality education improves primary students’ explicit and implicit attitudes toward homosexuality. International Journal of Sexual Health, 34(3), 503-520. https://doi.org/10.1080/19317611.2022.2067282

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR). (2023)= . IACHR calls on Panama to guarantee marriage equality and the right to equality and non-discrimination. https://www.oas.org/en/IACHR/jsForm/?File=3D/en/iachr/media_center/PRelease= s/2023/047.asp

Ju, D. H. (2022). Factors shaping Asian Americans’ atti= tudes toward homosexuality. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 45(5), 851–874. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2021.1884732

Jäckle, S., & Wenzelburger, G. (2015). Religion, religiosity, and the attitudes toward homosexuality—A multilevel analysis= of 79 countries. Journal of Homosexuality, 62, 207-241. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2014.969071

Kite, M. E., Whitley, J. B. E., Buxton, K., & Ballas,= H. (2021). Gender differences in anti-gay prejudice: Evidence for stability and change. Sex Roles, 85(11), 721–750. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-021-01227-4

Konstantinidis, C., Bebetsos, E., Filippou, F., & Zet= ou, E. (2021). Gender-related attitudes toward homosexuality in Greece. Chan= ging Societies & Personalities, 5(4), 669-685. https://doi.org/10.15826/csp.2021.5.4.156

Lin, H. C., Lin, Y. C., Chang, Y. P., Lu, W. H., & Ye= n, C. F. (2021). Attitudes toward homosexuality among nurses in Taiwan: Effect= s of survey year and sociodemographic characteristics. International Journal = of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(7), 3465. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18073465

Lin, Z., & Lee, J. (2024). Changing attitudes toward homosexuality in South Korea, 1996–2018. Social Science Research, 118<= /i>, 102972. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2023.102972<= /p>
Lingiardi, V., Falanga, S., & D’Augelli, A. R. (200= 5). The evaluation of homophobia in an Italian sample. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34(1), 81-93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-005-1002-z =

López-Sáez, M. Á., García-Dauder, D., & Montero, = I. (2020). Correlate attitudes toward LGBT and sexism in Spanish psychology students. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02063

Moral de la Rubia, J., & Vall= e, A. (2011). Escala de actitudes hacia lesbianas y hombres homosexuales en M�= �xico (ATLG) 2. Distribución y evidencias de validez. Nova scientia, 4, 153-171. https://doi.org/10.21640/ns.v4i7.180

Moral de la Rubia, J., & Vall= e De la O, A. (2014). Measurement of attitudes toward lesbians and gay men in students of health sciences from northeast Mexico. = Journal of Behavior, Health & Social Issues, 6(1), 51-65. ISSN: 2007-0780

Moreno, A., Herazo, E., Oviedo, H., & Campo-Arias, A. (2015). Measuring homonegativity: Psychometric analysis of Herek’s Attitu= des toward lesbians and gay men scale (ATLG) in Colombia, South America. Journal of Homosexuality, 62(7), 924-935. https://doi.org/10.= 1080/00918369.2014.1003014

Nieto-Gutierrez, W., Komori-Pario= na, J. K., Sánchez, A. G., Centeno-Leguía, D., Arestegui-Sánchez, L., Kather= ine, M. D. L. T.-R., Niño-Garcia, R., Mendoza-Aucaruri, L., Mejia, C. R., & Quiñones-Laveriano, D. M. (2019). Factores asociados a la homofobia en estudiantes de Medicina de once universidades peruanas. Revista Colombia= na de Psiquiatría, 48(4), 208-214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcp.2018.01.= 003

Nierman, A. J., Thompson, S. C., Bryan, A., & Mahaffey, A. L. (2007). Gender role beliefs and attitudes toward lesbians and gay men in Chile and the U.S= . Sex Roles, 57(1), 61-67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9197-1

Papadaki, V., Plotnikof, K., Gioumidou, M., Zisimou, V., & Papadaki, E. (2015). A comparison of attitudes toward lesbians and gay men among students of helping professions in Crete, Greece: The cases of so= cial work, psychology, medicine, and nursing. Journal of Homosexuality, 62, 735-762. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2014.998956

Pew Research Center. (2014). Religion in Latin America: Widespread change in a historically Catholic region. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2014/11/13/religion-in-latin-america/ =

Redman, S. M. (2018). Effects of same-sex legislation on attitudes toward homosexuality. Political Research Quarterly, 71(3), 628–641. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912917753077

Rees, S. N., Crowe, M., & Harris, S. (2021). The lesb= ian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities' mental health care needs and experiences of mental health services: An integrative review of qualitative studies. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 28(4), 578-589. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/jpm.12720

Rodriguez Blanco, E., De León, N= ., Marco, Y., & Camara Cañizares, S. (2020). Diagnóstico de género sobr= e la educación de las mujeres en Panamá. Acción y Reflexión Educativa, 45= , 102–131. https://doi.org/10.48204/j.are.n45a5

Rollè, L., Sechi, C., Santonicco= lo, F., Trombetta, T., & Brustia, P. (2022). The relationship between sexism, affective states, and attitudes toward homosexuality in a sample of heterosexual Italian people. Sexuality Rese= arch and Social Policy, 19(1), 194-206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-021-00534-5

Svenson, N., & De Gracia, G. (2020). Educación superior y COVID-19 en= la República de Panamá. Revista de Educación Superior en América Latina= , 8, 15-19. ISSN: 2539-2522

Taylor, C. J. (2020). Health consequences of laws and public policies that targ= et, or protect, marginalized populations. Sociology Compass, 14(2), e127= 53. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12753

Worthen, M. G. F. (2012). Understanding college student attitudes toward LGBT individuals. Sociological Focus, 45(4), 285–= 305. https://doi.org/10.1080/00380237.2012.712857

<= /o:p>

	U= ndergraduate Degree Program		*<= span lang=3DEN-US style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",seri= f; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB'><= o:p>*
	P= sychology	E= ngineering	F= ine Arts	T= otal	F=	X= ²	*<= span lang=3DEN-US style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",seri= f; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB'>P=* *v= alue^a<= o:p>***
Gender N (%)<= /p>				<= o:p>	<= o:p>	8= .95	0= .011*
= Male	13 (16.5)	22 (38.6)	8 (21.6)	43 (24.9)	<= o:p>	<= o:p>	<= o:p>
= Female	66 (83.5)	35 (61.4)	29 (78.4)	1= 30 (75.1)	<= o:p>	<= o:p>	<= o:p>
Age (years) M (SD)	2= 2.2 (±2.4)	1= 8.9 (±1.1)	2= 0.4 (±2.3)	2= 0.8 (±2.5)	4= 3.63	<= o:p>	0= .000*
Race = Black = Indigenous peoples = White = Multiracial = Missing	<= o:p> 18 (22.8) 3 (3.8) 7 (8.9) 50 (63.3) 1 (1.3)	<= o:p> 14 (24.6) 6 (10.5) 9 (15.8) 25 (43.8) 3 (5.3)	<= o:p> 11 (29.7) 6 (16.2) 4 (10.8) 16 (43.2) 0= (0)	<= o:p> 43 (24.8) 15 (8.7) 20 (11.6) 91 (52.6) 4 (2.3)	<= o:p>	2= 0.75	0= .054
Family monthly income N (%)<= /o:p> = <$250 = $250-500 = $500-1,000 = $1000-2000 = >$2000 = Missing	<= o:p> <= o:p> 1 (1.3) 8 (10.1) 18 (22.8) 26 (32.9) 25 (31.6) 1 (1.3)	<= o:p> <= o:p> 7 (12.3) 5 (8.8) 25 (43.9) 11 (19.3) 9 (15.8) 0= (0)	<= o:p> <= o:p> 4 (10.8) 5 (13.5) 11 (29.7) 12 (32.4) 5 (13.5) 0= (0)	<= o:p> <= o:p> 12 (6.9) 18 (10.4) 54 (31.2) 49 (28.3) 39 (22.5) 1 (0.1)	<= o:p>	1= 9.88	0= .011*
Sexual Orientation N (%) = Heterosexual (or = straight) = Homosexual = (lesbian or gay) = Other = Missing	<= o:p> <= o:p> 76 (96.2) <= o:p> 0= (0) <= o:p> 3 (3.8) 0= (0)	<= o:p> <= o:p> 50 (87.7) <= o:p> 0= (0) <= o:p> 4 (7.0) 3 (5.3)	<= o:p> <= o:p> 30 (81.1) <= o:p> 2 (5.4) <= o:p> 5 (13.5) 0= (0)	<= o:p> <= o:p> 1= 56 (90.2) <= o:p> 2 (1.2) <= o:p> 12 (6.9) 3 (1.7)	<= o:p>	1= 1.21	0= .024*
Religion N (%)<= /p> = Christian = Protestant = Hindus = Buddhists = Other religion	<= o:p> 66 (83.5) 3 (3.8) 1 (1.3) 1 (1.3) 8 (10.1)	<= o:p> 50 (87.7) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 7= (12.3)	<= o:p> 34 (91.9) 1 (2.7) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 2 (5.4)	<= o:p> 1= 50 (86.7) 4 (2.3) 1 (0.6) 1 (0.6) 17 (9.8)	<= o:p>	5= .78	0= .672
ATLG M (SD) Full Scale ATG ATL	<= o:p> 7= 3.9 (±28.7) 3= 7.6 (±15.7) 3= 6.2 (±14.3)	<= o:p> 9= 3.2 (±23.2)^b 4= 8.8 (±13.5)^b 4= 4.7 (±11.8)^b	<= o:p> 7= 8.8 (±30.1) 3= 8.3 (±15.7) 4= 0.5 (±16.3)	<= o:p> 8= 1.3 (±28.5) 4= 1.5 (±15.8) 3= 9.9 (±14.4)	<= o:p> 8= .32 1= 0.23 6= .07	<= o:p>	<= o:p> 0= .000* 0= .000* 0= .003*
Francis Scale of Attitude Towards Christianity = M (SD)	1= 6.9 (±5.4)	1= 7.7 (±4.5)	1= 8.5 (±2.8)	1= 7.5 (±4.7)	1= .51	<= o:p>	0.224
Modern Racism <= /p> Scale M (SD)	6= .2 (±3.9)^b	1= 1.2 (±3.5)	1= 0.7 (±4.3)	8= .8 (±4.6)	3= 1.29	<= o:p>	0= .000*
Total N (%)	79 (45.7)	57 (32.9)	37 (21.4)	1= 73 (100)	<= o:p>	<= o:p>	<= o:p>