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 model’s path will vary due so you can participants’ sex
Because of the low-high forecast from peers’ parallels within thinking towards homosexuals, we tried removing that it road although design is incapable of converge properly after five hundred iterations. Therefore, we kept it cause of all of our model to make sure profitable design stability. The final design demonstrated an enthusiastic R 2 out-of 56% for sexual prejudice’s difference.
Testing 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.).
Even in the event our analyses select a good fit to your analysis, we checked if another model you may complement the details exactly as really or ideal (MacCallum, Wegener, Uchino, & Fabrigar, 1993). Officially, it is just since plausible that individuals which have better bad perceptions for the homosexuality manage stay away from reaching homosexual men and you will lesbians, rating their relations given that bad, perceiving people they know since the which have additional attitudes to the homosexual anyone, or get a hold of encouragement about their opinions within religiosity. Profile dos gift suggestions so it inversed causation solution model lower than.
A choice exploratory architectural model: Imagine if sexual prejudice forecasts communication and you may positive https://datingranking.net/single-parent-match-review/ enjoy which have homosexuals, perceived resemblance that have peers’ thinking for the homosexuality, and you can religiosity. All solid lines portray mathematically significant pathways on .05 peak. Magnitudes regarding relationship try served with the high quality problems in the parentheses; X dos (61, Letter = 360) = . Normed (NFI), non-normed (NNFI), and you will relative (CFI) goodness-of-complement are .91, .91, .93, respectively; RMSEA is .09.
