PubMed · 5908844
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
J B Cooper. 1966. Two scales for parent evaluation.. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.1966.9914428
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Two anonymous questionnaires assessing attitudes toward gay issues were administered to adults living in the Shreveport/Bossier City, Louisiana area. In both, demographic data were obtained regarding gender, education, religion, age and marital status. In the second questionnaire, family groups were given the questionnaire. In the first survey, the results generally supported previous findings that religiosity, gender, and education at or below the high school level appeared to be associated with negative attitudes toward gay and lesbian issues. The variable most frequently associated with positive attitudes toward gay and lesbian issues was whether or not the individual had at least one gay friend, relative, or acquaintance. In the second study, the questionnaire was analyzed in terms of the entire group of subjects, family groups, and family positions. This second questionnaire indicated that similarities are most likely to exist among mothers and daughters, and same sex siblings. In regard to family members, wives/mothers and daughters had more positive attitudes toward homosexuality than sons, fathers, grandparents, other relatives, and in-laws.
Undergraduate college students (N = 173) enrolled in business or psychology classes were studied to investigate (1) predictors of anti-gay and lesbian attitudes and (2) two educational approaches for counteracting negative attitudes toward homosexuality. Students' gender and other demographic characteristics, gender role orientation, gender role attitudes, and personal history variables were employed as independent variables in a multiple regression analysis to predict anti-homosexual attitudes. Results indicated that attitudes were significantly predicted by gender role attitudes, personal acquaintance with a gay man, lesbian, or bisexual person, and religious conviction. Gender, gender role orientation, age, prior participation in a workshop on homosexuality, sexual experience, and class type (psychology or business) were not significant predictors. One-way independent groups analysis of variance indicated no significant differences in level of anti-homosexual attitudes between heterosexual students who had interacted with gay and lesbian students in a one hour classroom panel discussion, viewed a video presentation on homosexuality, or had no classroom intervention.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate associations between gay men's optimism and sexual behaviour in the context of new HIV treatments. METHODS: Cross-sectional surveys (using anonymous, self-completed questionnaires) were conducted in Sydney during February 1998 (n = 2200) and in Melbourne during January 1998 (n = 1891). Gay men were recruited at social and sex-on-premises venues, clinics and fair days/carnivals. RESULTS: In a multivariate analysis, unprotected anal intercourse with casual partners (UAIC) was associated with being recruited at a sex-on-premises venue (rather than a clinic or fair day/carnival), HIV positivity, having been tested for HIV less than 6 months ago (rather than over 2 years ago or never having been tested), and not having a regular partner. Over and above these factors, UAIC was associated with agreement with the statements 'An HIV-positive person who is on combination therapy is unlikely to transmit HIV' and 'I'm less worried about HIV infection than I used to be'. CONCLUSIONS: The data reveal a significant relationship between UAIC and certain aspects of optimism in the context of new HIV treatments. Whereas the direction of causality cannot be specified, there is a clear need for HIV and sexual health education programmes to clarify issues of viral load, new and drug resistant strains of HIV, and other infectious agents.