Ageism and Looksism Among Gay Men
ProQuest, 2006 - 140 pages
Results showed that while a majority of the sample perceived the gay community as ageist and looksist, there was tremendous within-group variability in ageist and looksist attitudes. Ageist and looksist attitudes varied by participation in specific gay community contexts such that participation in bar/nightclub contexts was associated with higher ageist and looksist attitudes and participation in community service/volunteer contexts was associated with lower ageist and looksist attitudes. Significant relationships with ageist and looksist attitude variables manifested differently by age group with older men showing more implicit attitude relationships and younger men showing both explicit and implicit attitude relationships. While mediation was not fully supported, an important overall finding was the significant relationship between ageist and looksist attitudes among the total sample of gay men.
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
01 level 2-tailed 05 level 1.0 V2 Education 1.0 V5 ImplicitAgeism A-BES&IBI age groups ageist and looksist ageist attitudes attitudes among gay bar/nightclub context Bisexual body image body-image-focused contexts coefficient cohorts community service/volunteer context constructs Correlation is significant correlational analyses differences by age explicit ageism explicit attitudes explicit gay ageism findings future research gay community contexts Gay Contextual Variable gay male community Greenwald gym/health club context heterosexual Hierarchical Regressions hypothesis ideal body implicit ageism implicit and explicit Implicit Association Test implicit looksism implicit measurement involvement in gay Jelenec latency level of involvement Likert scale looksism and ageism Looksism IAT mediate the relationship middle-aged group muscular older adult gay older gay older group one’s Participants were asked Post-hoc Correlation Matrix prior research Regressions of Explicit relationship status response scoring algorithm sexual identity significantly predict social desirability standardized coefficient stereotypes Table V1 Age V3 Income Variable V1 V2 younger group