The following is an excerpt of the intervention methodology. For more information, please see the full text of the article on the publisher's website or through your institution's library.

Method

Experimental Stimulus
Queer as Folk (Folk) was a popular television series  [...] that followed the lives of Michael and his closest friends, a group of gay young adults attempting to find themselves and their purpose. The only reoccurring heterosexual character was Michael’s mother Debbie, a sharp-tongued woman with a colorful personality who was unapologetically supportive of the gay community. The series became well-known for its brazen, unvarnished depiction of gay culture in America, as well as vivid depictions of same-sex sexual behavior   [...]. Folk was selected as the experimental stimulus for several reasons. First, the series was popular with heterosexual viewers when it originally aired, suggesting that the development of PSRs with characters was plausible   [...]. Second, although the protagonists on the series were all White, they were diverse in many other respects, including their personalities, communication styles, physical appearance, and sexual aptitude. For example, Emmett was a stereotypically flamboyant gay man who was often campy and witty, bringing comic relief to the series. Ted, on the other hand, was a conservative gay man who worked as an accountant and often felt ostracized from the gay community because of his rather common physical appearance. The varied representation of gay characters increased the likelihood that heterosexual viewers would deem at least one gay character typical of the outgroup, thereby increasing the likelihood that intergroup contact would be effective   [...] Third, Folk producers were able to balance sophisticated character development and complex storylines with sexually explicit content. Each episode could be edited to remove visually explicit sexual content while retaining character development and storyline progression. Final cuts of the edited, sanitized episodes were between 5 and 14 minutes shorter than the unedited, accentuated versions.  [...]

Procedure
Exposure to the experimental stimulus began two weeks after the pretest. Participants in the two experimental conditions were emailed two links every Monday for 10 weeks. The first link provided participants with one episode of Folk. Allowing participants to view the episodes on their own time and on their preferred devices increased the ecological validity of the study. Those in the accentuated condition viewed the episodes unedited as they originally aired on television; those in the sanitized condition viewed the edited versions. The second link sent participants to an online questionnaire to complete after viewing the episode. The weekly questionnaire was utilized as a manipulation and attention check. The questionnaire also included a measure of PSR for each of the eight primary characters after the first (T1), fourth (T2), seventh (T3), and tenth (T4) episodes.
Two weeks following the 10-week exposure period, all participants completed the posttest measuring sexual prejudice and responses to a jury simulation task. Participants in the experimental conditions also reported their favorite and least favorite characters from Folk.  [...]

Manipulation check

After viewing each episode, participants used sliding scales to rate the episode on storyline fluidity (1 = choppy/incoherent, 20 = clear/coherent) and sexual explicitness (1 = not at all sexual, 20 = very sexual).  [...]

Attention check

An attention check was conducted after each episode by asking participants to respond to five factual recall questions.  [...]

PSRs
The 10-item parasocial scale  [...] was used to measure PSRs. Evidence suggests that the scale is a valid measure of long-term socioemotional connectedness to mediated personalities  [...] Sample items include “Brian makes me feel comfortable, as if I’m with a friend” and “Debbie is the kind of person I would like to hang out with.”  [...]

Prejudice
Sexual prejudice was operationalized using the modern homonegativity scale  [...]. The scale improves on previous measures of sexual prejudice by incorporating social, political, and economic aspects of sexuality  [...]. The scale consists of two 12-item subscales that measure negative attitudes toward gay men and lesbians separately. Three items on the two scales are identical so participants were only asked to respond to those items once. Example items include “Gay men should stop complaining about the way they are treated in society and simply get on with their lives” and “Lesbians have become far too confrontational in their demands for equal rights.”  [...]

Jury simulation task
Participants were presented with three written narratives of fictional court cases. Two cases were distraction items, but the third case described a landlord who had been found guilty of anti-gay discrimination. Participants were asked to determine the most appropriate punishment to accompany the guilty verdict. Participants were presented with five sentencing options that ranged in severity from 1 (a warning) to 5 (a significant fine accompanied by probation).  [...]