A choice Model: Let’s say sexual bias predicts the study details?

A choice Model: Let’s say sexual bias predicts the study details?

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.

All of our findings suggest no variations in new model’s roadway are different owed so you can participants’ gender

Considering the low-high forecast out of peers’ similarities inside their thinking into homosexuals, we tried deleting this path although design are not able to gather adequately once 500 iterations. Therefore, we remaining that it factor in our very own design to seekingarrangement make sure successful model stability. The very last design presented an enthusiastic R dos out of 56% to own intimate prejudice’s variance.

Analysis 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.).

Though all of our analyses come across a good fit toward research, we checked out whether various other design you can expect to complement the data just as really otherwise finest (MacCallum, Wegener, Uchino, & Fabrigar, 1993). Technically, it is simply because the probable that people that have better bad thinking towards homosexuality carry out avoid interacting with gay people and you will lesbians, score its interactions given that bad, seeing people they know given that with other thinking with the gay some body, otherwise look for reassurance regarding their thinking in their religiosity. Figure dos gift ideas that it inversed causation solution design lower than.

A choice exploratory structural model: Imagine if intimate bias predicts telecommunications and you may positive skills that have homosexuals, detected resemblance which have peers’ thinking for the homosexuality, and you will religiosity. Every strong contours depict statistically high pathways at .05 top. Magnitudes out-of relationship are given the quality mistakes in parentheses; X dos (61, N = 360) = . Normed (NFI), non-normed (NNFI), and you can relative (CFI) goodness-of-match are .91, .91, .93, respectively; RMSEA are .09.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *