Ý kiến khách hàng
We believed positive experiences with homosexual men and women would decrease participants’ negative attitudes reddit Barrie hookup 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.
Considering the low-significant forecast from peers’ parallels within perceptions on the homosexuals, we experimented with deleting so it road but the design try struggling to gather adequately once five-hundred iterations. Ergo, i leftover that it factor in our design to be sure winning model balances. The past model demonstrated an enthusiastic Roentgen dos from 56% for sexual prejudice’s variance.
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 our analyses see a good fit towards the data, we checked if or not several other model could complement the content just as better otherwise most readily useful (MacCallum, Wegener, Uchino, & Fabrigar, 1993). Officially, it is only because the plausible that individuals which have greater negative perceptions into homosexuality create stay away from interacting with homosexual males and lesbians, score the interactions while the negative, perceiving their friends as the that have different attitudes into gay anybody, otherwise look for support regarding their opinions within religiosity. Shape 2 gift ideas this inversed causation alternate model less than.
An alternative exploratory architectural model: Imagine if sexual bias predicts interaction and self-confident knowledge having homosexuals, sensed similarity that have peers’ thinking on homosexuality, and you can religiosity. The solid contours portray mathematically high pathways in the .05 top. Magnitudes off connection is actually given the high quality mistakes from inside the parentheses; X dos (61, N = 360) = . Normed (NFI), non-normed (NNFI), and you may relative (CFI) goodness-of-match is .91, .91, .93, respectively; RMSEA is .09.
Ý kiến khách hàng
Tin nổi bật
Tin đặc biệt