Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Outcomes of an antihomophobia teaching unit for 130 high school students were evaluated in a pretest-posttest follow-up design, with gender and school type as independent variables. Dependent variables were cognition (Modified Attitudes Toward Homosexuality Scale; Price, 1982); homophobic guilt, homophobic anger, and delight (Affective Reactions to Homosexuality Scale; Van de Ven, Bornholt, & Bailey, in press); behavioral intentions (Homophobic Behavior of Students Scale; Van de Ven et al., in press); and short-story responses. Multivariate analyses of variance revealed that participants' anger (p < .05) and behavioral intentions (p < .0005) were significantly less homophobic at posttest and follow-up. Analyses of the cognition variable showed that hostility toward homosexuals was significantly reduced for girls (p < .0005) and initially for boys (p < .0005); however, boys reverted to previous levels of homophobia on this variable at 3-month follow-up. Similarly, analyses of the delight variable for students in single-sex schools showed that girls became less hostile (p < .05) and maintained their reduced levels of homophobia, whereas boys became less hostile initially (p < .05) but then regressed. The intervention had no effect on students' guilt and no effect on delight for coeducational students. Analysis of all participants' short-story content using sign tests indicated that the instruction had the desired effect (p < .005). However, only the female, coeducational school cohort yielded significant results (p < .05). The findings reinforce the importance of using multiple dependent measures of homophobic response and of collecting follow-up data. They also imply that extensions of the unit are warranted, especially in the absence of longer term impact for boys.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Paul Van de Ven (1995) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: