1 / 1

Subjects used

marva
Download Presentation

Subjects used

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. In the presentstudyweexaminewhetherattitudestoward gay people consistoftwoforms, a classical and a modern, where the classicalisovertand blatant and the modern is more subtle and covert.Basedonone-way ANOVA, the resultssupportedourhypothesis and revealedthatthe direct and extendedcontact are correlatedbutdistinguishable.Analysisprovidedsupportforthe distinctionbetweenmodern and classicalformsofprejudice. The theoretical and practicalimportanceof the resultsisdiscussed in relation topreviousresearchon attitudestowardhomosexualmen and other social outgroups. Following Allport’s studies, contact with members of an out-group, under optimal conditions, can lead to more positive attitudes toward that group. In this context cross-group friendship seems to be the best form of contact to improve attitudes toward other groups (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006) however it can only be used when group members have the opportunity to make contact in the same place. According to the contemporary research in Social Psychology, extended contact, the knowledge that in-group members have friends in the out-group, might also been used for vicarious experiences of friendship to reduce prejudice (Wright, Aron, Mc-Laughlin-Volpe & Ropp, 1997). Although most of intergroup contact’s literature has been focused on groups whose stigma is clearly visible (Paolini, Hewstone, Cairns & Voci, 2004; Turner, Hewstone & Voci, 2007), we explored negative attitude held toward an individual because of his sexual orientation (Herek, 2000) that remains prevalent in Italian culture (Lingiardi & Capozzi, 2004; Linguardi, Falagna & D’Augelli, 2005). Previous researches found that heterosexuals reporting interpersonal friendship with gay men showed more positive attitudes toward gay than those without contact (Herek & Capitano, 1996). Thus, prejudice against gay men is considered a prominent problem in contemporary society (Herek, 2002; Morrison, Kenny & Harrington, 2006). At the same time, the manifestation of prejudice has changed (Tougas, Brown, Beaton & Joly, 1995). Classical and modern prejudice, where the classical is overt and blatant and the modern is more subtle and covert (Touglas et al., 2004), were investigated. Our aim in the current research was to test the effects of direct and extended contact to reduce classical and modern prejudice against homosexual men in an Italian context. Subjects used Four hundred and twenty-three voluntary Italian undergraduate students were recruited at different Faculty of Florence’s University. Ten participants were excluded because they identified themselves as homosexual or bisexual. The final sample consisted of four hundred and thirteen students, comprising 40.4% men and 59.6% women. They had a mean age of 24.17 (SD=4.22) years. Procedure Participants completed the study in lecture hall and were informed by a researcher that the questionnaire, with items requiring a response on a five-choice, would be asking them about their social attitudes. To test sexual orientation, participants were asked to indicate their choice on a scale from exclusively homosexual to exclusively heterosexual. Direct and extended contact (Paolini et al., 2004) was measured using respectively four (α=.86) and three items (α=.82). Attitudes toward the out-group were measured using the preliminary Italian version of the classical attitudes toward gay men (α=.82) based on the short five items form of Herek’s ATG (1988) and the preliminary Italian version of the ten items modern homonegativity scale (α=.85) based on MHA-G (Morrison, Kenny & Harrington, 2005). Using the 17th version of SPSS program for data analysis, different one-way between groups analysis of variance with post-hoc test were conducted to explore the impact of direct and extended contact on levels of classical and modern prejudice. Subjects were divided into three groups according to their experiences of direct and extended contact. All the statistically significant differences were considered at the p<.001 level. I ntr o duct i o n M e th o d “MY FRIEND IS GAY”: INTERGROUP CONTACT EFFECTS ON HOMONEGATIVE ATTITUDESJacopoGrisolaghi & Cristina StefanileDepartment of Psychology, University of Florence, Italy • A one-way ANOVA with direct contact as independent variable and classical prejudice as dependent yielded a reliable effect, F(2,337)=12.2. The effect size, calculated using eta square, was .09. Post-hoc comparisons using the Turkey HSD test indicated that the mean score for high-contact group (M=1.5; SD=.56) was significantly different from both no-contact group, who reported the highest score (M=2.15; SD=1.07), and low-contact group (M=2.05; SD=.89). Low-contact group did not differ significantly from no-contact group. Considering modern prejudice as dependent variable we obtained: F(2;337)=13.2 and the effect size was .10. Post-hoc comparisons also indicated that the mean score for high-contact group (M=2; SD=.72) was significantly different from both no-contact group who reported the highest score (M=2.60; SD=.92) and low-contact group (M=2.61; SD=.76). Also in this case low-contact group did not differ significantly from no-contact group. The same analysis was conduced for extended contact as independent variable. There was a statistically significant difference in classical prejudice scores for the three extended contact groups: F(2;330)=8.4, η2=.07. The Turkey HSD test indicated that the mean score for high-contact group (M=1.56; SD=.59) was significantly different from both no-contact group who reported the highest score (M=2.14; SD=.98) and low-contact group (M=1.92; SD=.80). Low-contact group did not differ significantly from no-contact group. Considering modern prejudice as dependent variable and extended contact as independent variable a reliable effect was observed, F(2;330)=8.3, η2=.07. Post-hoc comparisons also indicated that the mean score for high-contact group (M=2.07; SD=.72) was significantly different from both no-contact group who reported the highest score (M=2.60; SD=.88) and low-contact group (M=2.51; SD=.76). Low-contact group did not differ significantly from no-contact group. C o nclus i o ns From the initial Allport’s formulation of the contact hypothesis and over the Wright’s extended contact theory, researches in Social Psychology have found support to the knowledge that cross-group friendship and extended contact were both associated with more positive out-group attitude. However little researches have focused on direct and extended contact effects on modern and classical prejudice against gay (Vonofakou, Voci & Hewstone, 2007), especially in the Italian context. In this study both direct cross-group friendship and extended contact were associated with more positive attitudes toward the out-group. Estimating the differences between no, low and high contact either in the direct or extended condition we observe that the predicted reduction of prejudice occur when the contact is high. Participant’s level of modern male homonegativity was higher than their level of old-fashioned prejudice. The findings integrate the research on attitudes toward male homosexual people with the main body of classical and modern expression of prejudicial beliefs. In addition, more elaborate models are needed to integrate and account for these varied intergroup contact effects. R e sults Contactdetail: jacopo.grisolaghi@unifi.it

More Related