Assessing the Effects of a Real-Life Contact Intervention on Prejudice Toward LGBT People

Abstract

Prejudice against sexual and gender minorities (e.g., LGBT people) is quite prevalent and is harmful. We examined an existing—and often-used—contact intervention in pre-existing groups in an educational setting and assessed its effectiveness in reducing different forms of LGBT negativity. We focused particularly on modern LGBT negativity: a relatively subtle form of prejudice, involving ambivalence, denial, and/or the belief that there is too much attention for LGBT prejudice. We used a mixed design in which condition (experimental vs. control group) was the between-participants factor, which was randomized at the group level, and time (pretest vs. posttest vs. follow-up) was the within-participants factor (N = 117). Interventions were video recorded and the behavior of LGBT educators and participants was coded. Participants responded positively to the intervention, especially to the LGBT educator’s “coming-out story.” Exploratory analysis of the video data indicated that the perceived effectiveness of the intervention was higher in groups where participants were more engaged, although caution is necessary in interpreting this finding. The most important measure indicated that modern LGBT negativity decreased in the intervention groups directly after the intervention, but returned to baseline levels one week later. However, in the control condition, modern LGBT negativity had increased over time. Taken together, this suggests that an actual reduction in modern LGBT negativity was short-lived (i.e., the intervention effect disappeared within 7 days).

Purely positive or discriminatorily positive? The development of two-factor attitudes toward lesbians and gay men scales

“…However, we validated the aforementioned attitude toward lesbians and gay men as an independent typology rather than a subcategory under the synthetical concept of homophobia. In practice, the three-class model of attitudes offers potential explanations for the inconsistent efficacy in existing interventions targeting negative attitudes toward lesbians and gay men ( Hodson et al, 2009 ; Rye and Meaney, 2009 ; Cramwinckel et al, 2021 ). Negative and discriminatorily positive attitudes are different and may undermine the well-being of lesbians and gay men through various mechanisms.…”

Can Induced Awe Reduce Anti-Gay Prejudice in Heterosexual Adults and Does the Need for Closure Moderate this Effect?

“…According to a meta-analytic review of interventions to reduce sexual prejudice (Bartos et al, 2014), only education and contact with gay people have shown a reasonable medium sized effect. Education is a rational confrontational intervention that can sometimes work and sometimes backfire (Cramwinckel et al, 2021) because prejudice has underlying emotions that are often resistant to rational argument (Dovidio et al, 2004) and those who identify strongly with their ingroup are likely to feel that their ingroup is being made to look guilty with the educational intervention and to respond with increased hostility towards the outgroup (Doosje et al, 1998). The general findings of intergroup contact research are more promising (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2000;2008).…”