4.2 Article

Interpersonal contact experiences with gay men: A qualitative investigation of fag hags and gay-supportive heterosexual men

期刊

JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY
卷 49, 期 1, 页码 47-76

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1300/J082v49n01_03

关键词

fag hag; gay-supportive attitudes; tolerance and gay men; attitudes toward gay men; interpersonal contact; homophobia; consensual qualitative research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this investigation was to understand how fag hags and gay-supportive heterosexual men (GSHM) describe the nature and quality of their interpersonal contact experiences with gay men. Eight archival interviews were analyzed using the methodologies outlined in Hill, Thompson, and Williams (1997); i.e., consensual qualitative research. The results yielded Suggest that the nature of contact experiences relates to direct contact with gay men in institutional or social settings or via indirect, formative experiences. The possible roles that contact plays in attitudes formation include: (1) normalizing homosexuality, (2) challenging previously held myths and stereotypes, and (3) increasing a person's likelihood of having contact experiences with gay men and developing gay-supportive attitude s. Participants described the quality of the contact as taking place in the context of a friendship that developed between them and a gay male that strengthened after the gay friend,came out. Furthermore, the impact of these contact experiences did not change fag hags' sense of morality, but improved their attitudes toward gay men. The results from this study have broader social implications in that they contribute to the much-needed discourse, from a qualitative perspective, on the ways in which people form gay-supportive transformational nature of tudes. Future research should, focus on describing the transformation nature of contact between gay men and heterosexuals in order to uncover any processes of stages that heterosexuals go through in developing gay-supportive attitudes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据