We believed positive experiences with homosexual men and women would decrease participants’ negative attitudes toward gay men and lesbians. We found a moderately strong negative association (?=-.45, se = .07, p < .05) between quality of participants' interactions with gay and lesbian individuals and negative attitudes toward homosexual; thus, confirming our third hypothesis. A one unit increase in participants perceived positive experiences during their interactions with homosexual men and women decreased their sexual prejudice score by half a point. Moreover, we found significant correlations between positive experiences with gay men and lesbians and previous interactions with homosexual men and women (r = .26, se = .05, p < .05), as well as with participants' perceived similarities in their friends' attitudes toward gay men and lesbians (r = .24, se = .07, p < .05). While moderately low, the association between these three latent factors point to the multifaceted nature of participants' attitudes toward gay and lesbian people.
Our fourth hypothesis stated participants with stronger religious convictions would hold stronger negative attitudes toward gay men and lesbians. We found religiosity to be the strongest predictor of participants’ negative attitudes toward gay men and lesbians (?=.50, se = .11, p < .05). For every unit increase in participants' assessment of the importance of their religious beliefs in their lives, their sexual prejudice score increased by half a scale point.
The results highly recommend zero differences in the latest model’s roadway differ owed so you can participants’ intercourse
Because of www.datingranking.net/local-hookup/cambridge/ the non-high forecast of peers’ parallels within their perceptions for the homosexuals, i experimented with deleting it path but the model are struggling to gather adequately immediately following 500 iterations. Therefore, we remaining which cause of our model to be certain successful model balance. The past model demonstrated an enthusiastic R 2 out of 56% getting intimate prejudice’s difference.
Investigations to own intercourse outcomes
In order to test whether the exploratory structural model provided an equally good fit for males and females, we re-ran the structural model estimation procedures running each group’s covariance matrix simultaneously. All factor loadings, paths, and variances were constrained to be equal in the initial model. The sex differences model indicated a relatively acceptable fit for both sexes, [? 2 (141, N-males = 153, N-females = 207) = ; NFI = .88, NNFI = .93, CFI = .94, RMSEA = .055]. We then freed each path consecutively to test whether sex differences existed between the significant latent-factors and sexual prejudice. After freeing the path for participants’ interaction with homosexuals and sexual prejudice, we found no difference across male and female participants (? ? 2 (1) = 1.27, n.s.). Subsequently, we freed the path between positive experiences with homosexuals and sexual prejudice but we found no difference by participants’ sex (? ? 2 (1) = .05, n.s.). Finally, we tested whether sex differences existed between religiosity and sexual prejudice but no difference was found (? ? 2 (1)= 0.27, n.s.).
Regardless if our analyses pick a good fit to your analysis, i checked-out whether or not several other model you are going to complement the content just as well or greatest (MacCallum, Wegener, Uchino, & Fabrigar, 1993). Theoretically, it is just just like the possible that individuals with better negative perceptions on the homosexuality would stay away from getting gay people and lesbians, rating its connections as negative, seeing their friends due to the fact that have different attitudes with the homosexual anyone, or pick support about their beliefs within their religiosity. Shape 2 merchandise this inversed causation choice model lower than.
An alternative exploratory architectural design: Let’s say sexual bias forecasts communication and you may positive enjoy with homosexuals, thought similarity which have peers’ perceptions with the homosexuality, and you may religiosity. Every solid lines show statistically high paths in the .05 height. Magnitudes regarding relationship try served with the quality mistakes during the parentheses; X dos (61, Letter = 360) = . Normed (NFI), non-normed (NNFI), and you may comparative (CFI) goodness-of-complement was .91, .91, .93, respectively; RMSEA was .09.
댓글을 남겨주세요