An alternative Design: What if intimate bias predicts the analysis variables?

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 findings highly recommend zero variations in brand new model’s roadway differ owed so you’re able to participants’ sex

Given the non-extreme prediction regarding peers’ parallels within their perceptions for the homosexuals, we tried removing which road nevertheless the design was incapable of gather adequately immediately after five hundred iterations. Ergo, i leftover which cause of our model to be sure profitable design stability. The last design presented an R dos from 56% to have intimate prejudice’s difference.

Review for gender 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.).

Although our analyses see a great fit to the investigation, we looked at if or not other design you will match the knowledge exactly as really otherwise finest (MacCallum, Wegener, Uchino, & Fabrigar, 1993). Technically, it is only as plausible that folks having better negative thinking to the homosexuality manage stay away from getting together with gay boys and you will lesbians, get its relationships since bad, seeing people they know since the having additional attitudes on the gay individuals, otherwise get a hold of encouragement about their beliefs in their religiosity. Figure dos presents which inversed causation option model less than.

An alternative Brighton local hookup websites exploratory structural design: Imagine if intimate prejudice forecasts telecommunications and you will self-confident experience that have homosexuals, observed similarity which have peers’ attitudes into the homosexuality, and you may religiosity. The good contours represent mathematically significant pathways on .05 level. Magnitudes regarding connection are given the quality problems when you look at the parentheses; X 2 (61, N = 360) = . Normed (NFI), non-normed (NNFI), and you will relative (CFI) goodness-of-fit is .91, .91, .93, respectively; RMSEA try .09.