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 differences in the latest model’s street are different owed so you can participants’ intercourse
Given the non-extreme anticipate off peers’ similarities within their perceptions towards the homosexuals, we experimented with removing that it street however the design try unable to gather effectively once five hundred iterations. Ergo, i left which factor in the design to make sure successful design balance. The final design presented an Roentgen 2 off 56% to have intimate prejudice’s variance.
Assessment to have gender effects
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.).
No matter if our analyses get a hold of a great fit towards the analysis, i checked if or not another design you will definitely match the details exactly as better otherwise finest (MacCallum, Wegener https://www.datingranking.net/loveroulette-review, Uchino, & Fabrigar, 1993). Commercially, it is simply because possible that individuals having deeper negative thinking into homosexuality do avoid reaching gay guys and you can lesbians, get its relations as the bad, perceiving people they know due to the fact having some other attitudes on homosexual some body, otherwise select encouragement about their values within religiosity. Shape dos merchandise which inversed causation alternate model less than.
An alternative exploratory structural design: Can you imagine sexual prejudice forecasts correspondence and confident skills that have homosexuals, recognized resemblance having peers’ thinking on the homosexuality, and you may religiosity. Every solid lines show statistically extreme pathways at the .05 top. Magnitudes from connection are offered the high quality problems in parentheses; X 2 (61, Letter = 360) = . Normed (NFI), non-normed (NNFI), and you can comparative (CFI) goodness-of-complement try .91, .91, .93, respectively; RMSEA are .09.