ATLS is actually a 20-items scale including several balances, perceptions towards the lesbians (ATL) and homosexual males (ATG)
This research is part of a wide piece of research on class interactions and you can associated attitudes towards other societal teams. All of the players was basically looked at just after providing its consent written down. Respondents were assured anonymity to accomplish a couple of paper-and-pen forms with the ATLG strategies actually. Volunteers obtained extra credit items because of their way grade. The moral requirements of your Chilean Lookup Fee (CONICYT) had been adopted.
As well, political mind-categorization (inquiring on governmental tastes coded for the around three categories: left, heart and you may right) and you can intimate direction was in fact included
Players responded demographic issues to check ATLG legitimacy: intercourse, ages, socioeconomic reputation (large, middle and you will low levels were used), and you can faith character through care about-revealing on way to practical question “Do you think your self a religious person?” Additionally, an effective cuatro-goods size size to your a beneficial six-section Likert size concerning your importance users give to the religious info within each and every day lifestyle was utilized.
It was developed in Northern America. ATLG is measured on a 6-point Likert scale. The instrument was translated and adapted (Cardenas Barrientos, 2008) (see the Appendix). The ATLG Spanish language version in this study had not been used with Chilean populations before. The Cronbach’s alpha was 0.94 for ATLG; 0.88 for ATL; and 0.91 for ATG (The ATLG and the two subscales demonstrated good internal consistence for this sample. The correlation for the two subscales is high (r (503) = 0.84; p < 0.001). ATLG overall mean was 3.52 (SD = 0.75).
High (next to six) results showed greater prejudice, and you can low score reported favorable thinking on homosexuals
The main mission were to influence the root ATLG foundation framework. Thus, around three grounds activities had been estimated: a-one-factor design (ATLG includes a single homophobia reason for which all issues saturate); a-two-factor synchronised model (a few proportions made up by the ATL and ATG subscales whoever activities is to saturate on related grounds was suggested) and a second purchase model with two correlated circumstances (where ATG subscale affairs do saturate in two size – homosexual Philosophy and you may Nature – and those of one’s ATL size perform saturate regarding almost every other three – lesbian Traditional Values, and Social Sanction and you may Social Legal rights). Such five size had been taken from analyses done in prior knowledge (Cardenas Barrientos, 2008).
In general, new complement is ideal whenever design circumstances is actually improved. Therefore, the 2-foundation second-order design is considered the most parsimonious for everybody indexes gotten. CFI (Relative Develop List) and you may NFI (Typical Fit List) indexes tell you viewpoints more 0.nine, them considered to be decent https://www.datingranking.net/es/citas-vietnamita/ (Bentler Dudgeon, 1996). RFI (Relative Fix List) well worth methods 0.9, particularly in the five-grounds model. Likewise, RMSEA (Means Mean-square Mistake out of Approximation) list is actually extreme having philosophy lower than 0.08 (Browne Kudeck, 1993), hence guaranteeing an informed match of your five-grounds design.
Table 3 also shows the factor saturations for each of the five sub-scales model items. All standardized saturations were significant (p < 0.001). All of the 20 items of the standardized solution loaded on the general grouping factor in the expected direction. The relation between the five latent factors is as follows (covariance): the dimension Social Rights has a high positive correlation with the factor Nature (r = 0.6); moderate positive with both Social Rights (r = 0.43) and Social Sanction (r = 0.038); and high positive with Traditional Values (r = 0.74). The dimension Nature is moderately and positively correlated with Social Rights (r = 0.32) and Social Sanction (r = 0.35), but highly and positively correlated with Traditional Values (r = 0.61). The relation of the dimension Social Rights with Social Sanction (r = 0.31) and Traditional Values (r = 0.37) is moderate high. Finally, the relation between Traditional Values and Social Sanction is moderate positive (r = 0.43).