Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Untangling the Wires: A Computerized "Virtual" Model for LGBT Speaker Panels

2011 Society for Community Research & Action Presentation

  • Login to see the comments

  • Be the first to like this

Untangling the Wires: A Computerized "Virtual" Model for LGBT Speaker Panels

  1. 1. Untangling the Wires: A Computerized “Virtual” Model for LGBT Speaker Panels Christopher Beasley Susan Torres-Harding Paula Pedersen 2011 SCRA Biennial
  2. 2. Acknowledgments Clara Mayo Grant Hosting the Biennial Susan Torres-Harding Affirming Environment Paula Pedersen
  3. 3. • Trend of acceptance of sexual diversity in the United States and on college campuses 1,2 • Homonegativity continues in these environments 2,3 – Derogatory remarks, verbal harassment and threats, graffiti, written comments, pressure to conceal their sexuality, denial of services, and physical assault College Campus Homonegativity Introduction
  4. 4. • Positive encounters with gay men and lesbians, as well as altered values and norms affect experiential and symbolic homonegativity 4 • Contact theory suggests that interpersonal contact with out-groups can improve inter- group attitudes 5 • LGBT speaker panels provide for such positive encounters College Campus Interventions Introduction
  5. 5. • Group of LGBT students visit a classroom – Tell coming out stories – Answer audience questions – Usually 1-3 hours long – 1st year, sexuality, diversity, and psychology • Improves intergroup learning and attitudes6,7,8,9,10 • Requires a cohesive LGBT group, administrative resources, and physical interaction LGBT Speaker Panels Introduction
  6. 6. Introduction Intervention Virtual Panel
  7. 7. Sample • 102 students at Roosevelt University and the University of Minnesota at Duluth • Equally White & Non-White – 50% White, 23% Black, 11% Latino, 11% Multiple, 3% Asian, 1% Native American, 1% Indian) • Mostly Female (70.2%) • Mostly Heterosexual (83.9%) • Average age was 25 (SD = 8.39, range = 18-60) • Most knew a gay or lesbian person (90%) • Most attended church less than 1/week (76%) Introduction Intervention Methods
  8. 8. IAH • Index of Attitudes toward Homosexuality 11 – Mostly affective reactions toward sexual diversity • “I would feel comfortable working closely with a male homosexual” – 25-item 5-point Likert-type scale – Higher scores=greater homonegativity – High internal consistency (α = .90) Introduction Intervention Methods
  9. 9. • Heterosexual Attitudes toward Homosexuality Scale 12 – Mostly cognitive beliefs about sexual diversity • “Homosexuals should be accepted completely into our society” – 20-item 5-point Likert-type scale – Higher scores=greater homonegativity – High internal consistency (α = .93) HATH Introduction Intervention Methods
  10. 10. • Homophobic Behavior of Students Scale 13 – Behavioral intentions regarding sexual diversity • “I would speak individually, in class, with a gay person or lesbian about homosexual issues” – 10-item 5-point Likert-type scale – Higher scores=less homonegativity • Reversed for interpretation – High internal consistency (α = .90) HBSS Introduction Intervention Methods
  11. 11. • Exploratory Factor Analyses • Repeated Measures Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA) – IV=Treatment – DV=Affective, cognitive, and behavioral homonegativity – Covariates=Age, ethnicity, sexuality, frequency of church attendance • Univariate follow-ups Analyses Introduction Intervention Methods
  12. 12. • Inter-item correlation matrix HBSS EFA Introduction Intervention Methods Results # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 --- 2 0.72** --- 3 0.65** 0.58** --- 4 0.67** 0.68** 0.54** --- 5 0.49** 0.40** 0.46** 0.48** --- 6 0.51** 0.43** 0.52** 0.45** 0.38** --- 7 0.31** 0.30** 0.32** 0.33** 0.14 0.23* --- 8 0.30** 0.14 0.37** 0.29** 0.10 0.18* 0.53** --- 9 0.37** 0.32** 0.48** 0.47** 0.32** 0.35** 0.42** 0.44** --- 10 0.31** 0.24** 0.40** 0.46** 0.35** 0.32** 0.43** 0.45** 0.70** --- *p < .05; **p < .01
  13. 13. HBSS EFA Introduction Intervention Methods Results -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Eigen Plot Parallel Plot Factors EigenValues .312.311
  14. 14. • Pattern Matrix HBSS EFA Factor Loadings Introduction Intervention Methods Results Item Social* Policy* 1. I would speak in a small class group with a gay person or lesbian about homosexual issues. .901 2. I would speak individually, in class, with a gay person or lesbian about homosexual issues. .885 3. I would NOT like to have a gay person or lesbian address the class about homosexual issues. R .720 4. I would take the opportunity to talk in an informal lunch-time meeting with a group of four lesbians or gay males. .650 5. I would NOT attend a lunch-time barbecue at which four gay males or lesbians were present. R .565 6. I would watch a video in class in which a lesbian or gay person is featured. .551 *All factors loadings under .25 are suppressed
  15. 15. • Pattern Matrix HBSS EFA Factor Loadings Introduction Intervention Methods Results Item Social* Policy* 7. I would sign my name to a petition asking the government to do more to stop violence against gay men and lesbians. .769 8. I would NOT sign my name to a petition asking the government to make sure gays and lesbians have equal rights with everybody else. R .718 9. I would sign my name to a petition asking the government to allow lesbian and gay couples to officially register their marriage or partnership. .684 10. I would sign my name to a petition asking the government to allow lesbian and gay couples to adopt children. .583 *All factors loadings under .25 are suppressed
  16. 16. Scale Correlations Introduction Intervention Methods Results Scale IAH HATH HBSS Social HBSS Policy IAH --- HATH 0.78** --- HBSS Social 0.58** 0.66** --- HBSS Policy 0.74** 0.58** 0.51** ---
  17. 17. • Wilk’s Λ = .89, F(4, 91) = 2.86, p = .03, ηp 2 = 0.11 MANCOVA Introduction Intervention Methods Results IAH HATH HBSS Social HBSS Policy Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Pretest Treatment 50.71 15.75 30.94 10.26 8.92 3.74 5.90 3.11 Control 51.08 17.06 30.94 9.40 9.90 4.50 5.44 2.73 Total 50.90 16.34 30.94 9.79 9.41 4.14 5.67 2.92 Posttest Treatment 47.35 16.00 30.18 10.49 8.78 3.74 5.66 3.22 Control 50.34 17.50 31.46 10.56 10.23 4.77 6.28 3.64 Total 48.84 16.75 30.82 10.49 9.51 4.34 5.97 3.43
  18. 18. • F(1, 94) = 2.86, p = .03, ηp 2 = 0.05 Affective Homonegativity Introduction Intervention Methods Results 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 Pretest Posttest Treatment Control 52.03 51.30 49.77 46.38
  19. 19. • F(1, 94) = 2.71, p = .10, ηp 2 = 0.03 Cognitive Homonegativity Introduction Intervention Methods Results 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Pretest Posttest Treatment Control 31.65 32.21 30.23 29.43
  20. 20. • F(1, 94) = 5.43, p = .07, ηp 2 = 0.03 Social Homonegative Behavior Introduction Intervention Methods Results 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5 12 Pretest Posttest Treatment Control 9.97 10.40 8.85 8.61
  21. 21. • F(1, 94) = 15.16, p = .007, ηp 2 = 0.07 Policy Homonegative Behavior Introduction Intervention Methods Results 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 Pretest Posttest Treatment Control 5.61 6.47 5.73 5.47
  22. 22. • Multivariate effect mostly driven by affective homonegativity and protective effect • Virtual panels may not alter cognitions in the near term • Significant but small effect sizes • May need longer panels and/or different interview questions Interpretation Introduction Intervention Methods Results Discussion
  23. 23. • Limited Exposure • Almost everyone (90%) knew a gay man or lesbian • DV Restricted Range Limitations Introduction Intervention Methods Results Discussion
  24. 24. • Actual Behaviors • Identity • Internalized Homonegativity • Support for Policy • Comparison to Traditional Panels • Influence of Individual Questions • Social Network Changes Other Research Questions Introduction Virtual Panel Methods Results Discussion Future Directions
  25. 25. • Online Community • Transgender Panels • Muslim LGBT Panels • Ethnic Minority Panels • Chronic Illness Panels • Life Change Panels • Psychology Panels Other Implementations Introduction Virtual Panel Methods Results Discussion Future Directions
  26. 26. 1. Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. 2. Avery A., Chase J., Johansson L., Litvak S., Montero D., & Wydra M. (2007). America's changing attitudes toward homosexuality, civil unions, and same-gender marriage: 1977-2004. Social Work. 52(1), 71-79. 3. Newman, B. S. (2007). College students' attitudes about lesbians: What difference does 16 years make? Journal of Homosexuality, 52 (3/4), 249-265. 4. Rankin, S. (2003). Campus Climate for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender People : A National Perspective. New York : National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute. 5. Herek, G. M. (1986). The social psychology of homophobia: Toward a practical theory. Review of Law & Social Change, 14, 923-934. 6. Geasler, M. J., Croteau, J. M., Heineman, & Edlund, C. J. (1995). A qualitative study of students’ expression of change after attending panel presentations by lesbian, gay, and bisexual speakers. Journal of College Student Development, 36, 483-492. 7. Lance, L. M. (1987). The effects of interaction with gay persons on attitudes toward homosexuality. Human Relations, 40, 329-336. 8. Lance, L. (1994). Do reductions in homophobia from heterosexual interactions with gay persons continue? A study of social contact theory of intergroup tensions. International Journal of Group Tensions, 24 (4), 423-434. 9. Nelson, E. S., & Krieger, S. L. (1997). Changes in attitudes toward homosexuality in college students: Implementation of a gay men and lesbian peer panel. Journal of Homosexuality, 33 (2), 63-81. 10. Reinhardt, B. (1994). Reducing homophobia through gay and lesbian speaker panels. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Texas Psychological Association, Houston, TX. 11. Hudson, W. W., & Ricketts, W. A. (1980). A strategy for the measurement of homophobia. Journal of Homosexuality, 5, 357-372. 12. Larsen, R. S., Reed, M., & Hoffman, S. (1980). Attitudes of heterosexuals toward homosexuality: A Likert-type scale and construct validity, Journal of Sex Research, 16, pp. 245-257. 13. Van de Ven, P., Bornholt, L., & Bailey, M. (1993). Homophobic attitudes and behaviors: Telling which teaching strategies make a difference. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education, Fremantle, Western Australia. References

×