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 no differences in the latest model’s roadway will vary due so you can participants’ gender
Given the non-extreme forecast out-of peers’ similarities in their thinking on homosexuals, we experimented with removing which street but the design try not able to converge acceptably immediately after five hundred iterations. Ergo, we kept it factor in the design to make sure winning model stability. The past model showed a keen Roentgen dos away from 56% having intimate prejudice’s variance.
Analysis to own 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 find a great fit on study, i checked out if or not another model you will fit the information just as well otherwise top (MacCallum, Wegener, Uchino, & Fabrigar, 1993). Officially, it’s just while the plausible that people which have better negative perceptions on the homosexuality carry out abstain from getting together with homosexual guys and lesbians, get their interactions since bad, seeing their friends because with various other thinking into homosexual anyone, otherwise come across support about their values within religiosity. Shape 2 merchandise which inversed causation approach design below.
An alternative exploratory structural model: Let’s say sexual bias forecasts communication and you will positive knowledge with homosexuals, recognized resemblance having peers’ perceptions with the homosexuality, and you will religiosity. Every solid outlines represent statistically high pathways at .05 top. Magnitudes off association are served with the product quality errors in the parentheses; X dos (61, N = 360) = . Normed (NFI), non-normed (NNFI), and you may comparative (CFI) goodness-of-fit is .91, .91, .93, respectively; RMSEA is .09.