2011 Society for Community Research & Action Presentation

1. Untangling the Wires:
A Computerized “Virtual” Model for
LGBT Speaker Panels
Christopher Beasley
Susan Torres-Harding
Paula Pedersen
2011 SCRA Biennial

2. Acknowledgments
Clara Mayo Grant
Hosting the Biennial
Susan Torres-Harding
Affirming Environment
Paula Pedersen

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. • 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. • 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. Introduction Intervention
Virtual Panel

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. 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. • 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. • 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. • 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. • 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. 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. • 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. • 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. 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. • 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. • 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. • 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. • 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. • 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. • 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. • Limited Exposure
• Almost everyone (90%) knew a gay man or
lesbian
• DV Restricted Range
Limitations
Introduction Intervention Methods Results Discussion

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. • 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. 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