Thesis (M.A.)--Marshall University, 2003. / Title from document title page. Document formatted into pages; contains vi, 55 p. Includes bibliographical references (p. 32-41).

No description available.

In this thesis, I explore lesbian and gay awareness training from a critical perspective. Lesbian and gay awareness training represents one of the few contemporary interventions attempting to effect positive social change on behalf of lesbians and gay men, and my researcha ssessesw hether and how this social phenomenonw orks. My researchb rings together a diverse range of ideas from critical psychology, lesbian and gay psychology and feminist psychology, using a (predominantly qualitative) multi-method approach with an emphasis on the process of training in action. I draw on a range of data source S, namely: tape-recordings of 'live' training sessions; interviews with trainers and trainees; field notes; pre-and post- training homophobia scales; and post-training evaluation forms. These data are analysed using descriptive statistics (Chapter 3), thematic analysis (Chapters 3,4,5,8), (thematic) discourse analysis (Chapters 6 and 7), and conversation analysis (Chapter 9). In seven empirical chapters I analyse various aspects of training. In Chapter 3,1 demonstrate that training 'works' when evaluated using outcome measures, and I critique the liberal ideology embodied in homophobia scales. I focus on training exercises, in Chapter 4, and I show how training is couched within a broad liberal framework. I examine pitfalls in training and how to overcome them from the trainers' perspective, in Chapter 5. Chapter 6, presents a discursive analysis of how trainees talk about their behaviour and attitude 'change' following training, and Chapter 7 analyses ways that mundane heterosexism is manifest in training. Chapters 8 and 9 analyse questions from the floor and highlight how the 'real' event differs from training manual advice. In the final chapter, I discuss the contributions and implications of my research for social change and indicate some future developments for research on lesbian and gay awarenesstr aining, and for lesbian and gay psychology.

Relational/Cultural theory (aka Stone Center Theory; Jordan, Kaplan, Miller, Stiver, & Surrey, 1991) has suggested that mutuality is a bidirectional interpersonal process in which both parties hold empathic consideration for the other, value and encourage the differentness of the other, and have the ability and willingness to impact and be impacted by the other. Separately, attitudes of sexism, racism, and heterosexism have been defined as involving interpersonal attitudes and interaction that are distinctly defined by a lack of empathic consideration, the devaluing of difference and an unwillingness to be impacted. This seemingly inverse relationship leads to speculation about how the absence of mutuality may be an underlying requirement to the maintenance of sexism, racism, and heterosexism.Canonical correlation was used to identify the simple and compound relationships between two predictor variables (mutuality) and six criterion variables (social attitudes). The mutuality variables were assessed using the Mutual Psychological Development Questionnaire (Genero, Miller, & Surrey, 1992), and the attitude variables were assessed using the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (Glick & Fiske, 1996), the Pro-Black/Anti-Black scale (Katz & Hass, 1988), and the Attitudes Towards Lesbians and Gay Men scale (Herek, 1988). Participants were 310 White, heterosexual, women and men undergraduate students at a large midwestern university.A pattern of perceived mutuality in relationships was identified and was found to be related to a mixed pattern of prejudicial attitudes. The expression of perceived mutuality in two types of relationships formed a unipolar pattern. A bipolar pattern of attitudes was characterized by (a) less prejudice towards Blacks, (b) less sympathy towards the condition of Blacks, (c) less prejudice towards gay men, (d) greater sexism towards women, and (e) greater prejudice towards lesbians.Gender roles and values-based Ambivalent Racism Theory (Katz & Hass, 1988) were used to explain the results. The study upheld previous research findings that women express less prejudicial attitudes than do men, and that those who express negative attitudes toward one out-group tend to express negative attitudes towards multiple targets.The results indicate that there is sufficient evidence to retain the concept of a mutual relational orientation as a necessary but insufficient underlying dynamic across multiple forms of oppression.College of Architecture / Department of Counseling Psychology and Guidance Services

No description available.

The behavior and subsequent affect of people low in prejudice were examined in four experiments. In Study 1, 52 people evaluated two targets differing primarily in sexual orientation and then completed mood and prejudice measures. Although people high in prejudice discriminated against a homosexual target, people low and moderate in prejudice favored this target. In Study 2, 57 people were given target intellectual ability information designed to either challenge or not challenge any propensity towards the outgroup favoritism observed in Study 1. Specifically, study participants evaluated either a more qualified homosexual and a less qualified heterosexual (not challenging outgroup favoritism) or a less qualified homosexual and a more qualified heterosexual (challenging outgroup favoritism). Although low prejudiced people favored the homosexual target when he was better qualified, they were unwilling to make this same distinction when the heterosexual target was more qualified. Study 3 was designed to understand if such overcompensation results from a need to restore social justice. Study participants (n = 77) were made to believe their peers were either discriminatory, overcompensatory, or neutral towards a minority member. As expected for low prejudiced people, only by making them believe their peers overcompensate a minority group member, thereby eliminating any extant need to restore social justice, was outgroup favoritism eliminated. Finally, Study 4 assessed the extent to which the low prejudiced person's tendency to overcompensate a minority member rests on a well-internalized system of beliefs. Following a (mortality salience) manipulation designed either to engage or not engage the internalized belief system, 35 low prejudiced people completed the same procedure employed in Study 1. Results revealed increased overcompensation of a homosexual for participants whose internalized beliefs were engaged. Further, in all four studies, participants failed to man

No description available.

The minority stress theory suggests LGBs experience greater stress levels due to their sexual minority identities; thus, they are more prone to psychological distress. Poor mental health is linked to internalized homophobia and heterosexism. However, affirmative social support may mitigate the stress response via the buffering hypothesis. My model posits that LGBs are more likely to report perceived stress; however, affirmative social support can mitigate stress. I investigated the relationship between perceived stress and sexual minority identity. I explored the relationship between heterosexism, emotional support and perceived stress and the moderating role of social support in my LGB sample. I conducted a hierarchical linear regression to test my model, which accounted for 29% of the variance in perceived stress. Heterosexism and emotional support were significantly associated with perceived stress. I failed to find a moderating role of emotional support. Limitations, strengths, future research and implications are discussed.

Thesis(M.S.)--Auburn University, 2008. / Abstract. Includes bibliographic references (p.43-46).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--West Virginia University, 2006. / Title from document title page. Document formatted into pages; contains vii, 110 p. : ill. Includes abstract. Includes bibliographical references (p. 61-73).