Experiential versus Rational Training: A Comparison of Student Attitudes Toward Homosexuality

Publication Year
2004

Type

Journal Article
Abstract

Based on Epstein's (1994a) cognitive-experiential self-theory, two new training interventions were designed to teach students about gay, lesbian and bisexual issues. The efficacy of these theoretically based interventions was assessed in a short-term (7-week, three occasion) longitudinal study. Fifty undergraduate psychology students were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups: Rational Training, Experiential Training, or Control Group. A residualized change score procedure was used to analyze change in levels of sexual prejudice and affect across the three types of measurement (pre-test, post-test, and follow-up). A 3 (Rational Training, Experiential Training, Control Group) x 2 (Low Sexual Prejudice, High Sexual Prejudice) MANOVA revealed that after the training, participants in the Experiential Group (affective training) had more accepting attitudes toward homosexuality compared to the Control Group. In addition, participants in the Experiential Group experienced more positive affect compared to the Rational and Control Groups and experienced more negative affect compared to the Rational Group. Findings are discussed and suggestions for future research are provided.

Journal
Journal of Homosexuality
Volume
48
Pages
83-102
Type of Article
Journal Article
Full text

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

Participants 

Fifty undergraduate psychology students from a southeastern university [...] participated [...]. [...] The median age of the sample was 29.5 [...]. Regarding sexual orientation, 92% indicated that they were heterosexual, 2% indicated that they were either lesbian or gay, and 4% indicated that they were bisexual (2% did not answer the item). Ninety-four percent of the sample reported having personal contact with individuals who are lesbian, gay or bisexual. Finally, 84% indicated that they had no formal training [...] in lesbian, gay, and bisexual issues.

General Procedure 

Three testing sessions were conducted: pre-test, post-test, and follow-up. In the pre-test session, participants completed a questionnaire assessing their general beliefs, feelings, and thoughts about homosexuality. The questionnaire included the Index of Attitudes Toward Homosexuality [...] the Homosexuality Attitude Scale [...] and the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule [...]. The training session was conducted one month later. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three training sessions: Experiential, Rational, or Control. Each training session lasted for 2 hours. After completing the session, participants then completed a post-test questionnaire. A follow-up questionnaire was administered three weeks after the post-test session. The post-test and follow-up questionnaires included the same instruments as the pre-test questionnaire.

Instruments

Index of Attitudes Toward Homosexuality. The IAH is a 25-item self-report instrument that assesses affective components of attitudes toward working and associating with people who are homosexual [...]. [...] Participants indicated on a 5-point Likert-type scale the extent to which they agreed with each item [...]. An overall index for the IAH was created by summing participants’ responses. [...] Higher scores reflect higher levels of sexual prejudice.

Homosexuality Attitude Scale. The HAS is a 19-item self-report instrument that assesses cognitive attitudes related to the legality, morality, and social desirability of homosexuality [...]. [...] Participants indicated on a 5-point Likert-type scale the extent to which they agreed with each item [...]. An overall index for the HAS was created by summing participants’ responses. [...] Higher scores reflect higher levels of sexual prejudice.

Positive and Negative Affect Schedule. Participants’ affective reactions were assessed with the PANAS [...]. This measure was used to assess general positive and negative affect, as opposed to specifically measuring affect towards individuals who are lesbian, gay, and/or bisexual. [...] The PANAS consists of a series of 20 mood-related adjectives [...] describing one’s current emotional state. Participants indicated on a 5-point Likert-type scale the extent to which they presently felt a particular emotion [...]. The negative affect score was the sum of the responses for the 10 negative affect adjectives, while the positive affect score was the sum of the responses for the 10 positive affect adjectives. [...] Higher scores reflect more positive and negative affect.

Creation of Experimental Groups 

Workshop Training Groups. Drawing upon Epstein’s [...] cognitive-experiential self-theory, two workshop training groups dealing specifically with lesbian, gay, and bisexual issues were created. Blumenfeld [...] outlined key components that need to be included in training workshops related to homosexuality. Based on these recommendations, both training approaches were developed with the same content. This included guidelines for the experience, themes of the workshop, definitions of key terms used, myths/facts about homosexuality, and everyday issues [...] faced by individuals who are lesbian, gay, and bisexual. [...]

The process and mode of delivery of each workshop differed. The first workshop was designed to tap the rational domain that Epstein [...] described and was presented in a logical and structured format. The second workshop was designed to tap the experiential domain and was action-oriented and affectively based. The third workshop was a general control condition in which respondents received no information regarding homosexuality. [...]

Manipulation Check. A one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) on Type of Workshop [...] revealed no significant differences in respondents’ pretest scores on the IAH, HAS, Positive Affect, or Negative Affect.

Creation of High and Low Sexual Prejudice Groups. [...] An independent variable reflecting high and low sexual prejudice groups was created. Participants’ pre-test IAH and HAS scores were significantly correlated[...]; thus, a composite sexual prejudice index was created by averaging the z-scores for the pre-test IAH and HAS. A median split was performed on the composite index creating the high and low sexual prejudice groups. We had no a priori hypotheses regarding the possible interaction between sexual prejudice groups and type of workshop.

Creation of the Dependent Variables

[...] A residualized change score procedure was used to analyze change from pre-test to post-test and from post-test to follow-up for each of the four dependent measures of interest [...]. [...] For each of the dependent variables, participants’ pre-test scores were regressed on their post-test scores. The resulting standardized residual [...] measured the amount of change participants experienced after the training session. Second, post-test scores were then regressed on the follow-up scores. The resulting standardized residual [...] measured whether the changes experienced after the training were maintained over time. [...]

Type of Prejudice/Bias
Country
Method