A choice Model: What if intimate prejudice predicts the research details?

A choice Model: What if intimate prejudice predicts the research details?

We believed positive experiences with homosexual men and women would decrease participants’ negative attitudes toward gay men and lesbians. We soulsingles 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.

Our very own conclusions suggest no differences in brand new model’s street vary due so you’re able to participants’ sex

Considering the low-high forecast away from peers’ similarities in their thinking for the homosexuals, we experimented with deleting so it street but the model are incapable of gather properly once five hundred iterations. For this reason, i kept so it cause for the design to make sure successful model balance. The past design exhibited an enthusiastic R 2 away from 56% for sexual prejudice’s variance.

Evaluation to have intercourse consequences

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 of if our analyses select a great fit toward research, we tested if or not several other design you are going to complement the details just as really or finest (MacCallum, Wegener, Uchino, & Fabrigar, 1993). Officially, it is merely as the possible that folks with better bad attitudes to the homosexuality create eliminate getting gay boys and you can lesbians, get its relationships because the bad, perceiving their friends given that having various other thinking into homosexual anybody, or discover encouragement regarding their opinions within religiosity. Shape dos gift ideas that it inversed causation option design below.

A choice exploratory structural model: Imagine if sexual prejudice forecasts telecommunications and you may self-confident event having homosexuals, perceived similarity which have peers’ thinking for the homosexuality, and religiosity. Every solid traces depict statistically tall pathways during the .05 height. Magnitudes out-of connection was served with the product quality problems during the parentheses; X 2 (61, Letter = 360) = . Normed (NFI), non-normed (NNFI), and you may comparative (CFI) goodness-of-fit is .91, .91, .93, respectively; RMSEA is .09.