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 recommend zero variations in the newest model’s highway are very different owed so you can participants’ sex
Because of the low-significant prediction of peers’ similarities within thinking on homosexuals, i attempted removing this street but the model is not able to converge properly once 500 iterations. Hence, we leftover this cause of the model to make certain effective design balance. The past design demonstrated a keen R 2 out of 56% to have sexual prejudice’s variance.
Testing having intercourse effects
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.).
Even if our very own analyses get a hold of a great fit for the research, we looked at whether or not various other design you’ll fit the data just as really or most useful (MacCallum, Wegener, Uchino, & Fabrigar, 1993). Technically, it is only since mobifriends promo code the possible that individuals which have better bad attitudes to your homosexuality create avoid reaching homosexual guys and you can lesbians, score their relations while the negative, perceiving people they know as with more perceptions for the gay some one, otherwise discover encouragement regarding their philosophy inside their religiosity. Profile dos presents it inversed causation approach design lower than.
A choice exploratory structural design: What if intimate bias predicts communication and you can positive skills that have homosexuals, understood similarity with peers’ attitudes into homosexuality, and religiosity. All solid outlines show statistically extreme routes from the .05 level. Magnitudes out-of relationship is actually served with the standard problems inside the parentheses; X dos (61, N = 360) = . Normed (NFI), non-normed (NNFI), and relative (CFI) goodness-of-complement try .91, .91, .93, respectively; RMSEA was .09.
