A Systematic Review of Instruments That Measure Attitudes

JOURNAL OF SEX RESEARCH, 50(34), 329352, 2013
Copyright # The Society for the Scientic Study of Sexuality

ISSN: 0022-4499 print=1559-8519 online
DOI: 10.1080/00224499.2012.746279
A Systematic Review of Instruments That Measure Attitudes

Toward Homosexual Men
Jeremy A. Grey
Division of Epidemiology and Community Health,
University of Minnesota School of Public Health
Beatrice Bean E. Robinson, Eli Coleman, and Walter O. Bockting

Program in Human Sexuality, Department of Family Medicine and Community Health,
University of Minnesota Medical School
Scientic interest in the measurement of homophobia and internalized homophobia has grown
over the past 30 years, and new instruments and terms have emerged. To help researchers with
the challenging task of identifying appropriate measures for studies in sexual-minority health,
we reviewed measures of homophobia published in the academic literature from 1970 to 2012.
Instruments that measured attitudes toward male homosexuals=homosexuality or measured
homosexuals internalized attitudes toward homosexuality were identied using measurement
manuals and a systematic review. A total of 23 instruments met criteria for inclusion, and their
features were summarized and compared. All 23 instruments met minimal criteria for adequate
scale construction, including scale development, sampling, reliability, and evidence of validity.
Validity evidence was diverse and was categorized as interaction with gay men, HIV=AIDS
variables, mental health, and conservative religious or political beliefs. Homophobia was
additionally correlated with authoritarianism and bias, gender ideology, gender differences,
and reactions to homosexual stimuli. Internalized homophobia was validated by examining
relationships with disclosing ones homosexuality and level of homosexual identity development. We hope this review will make the process of instrument selection more efcient by
allowing researchers to easily locate, evaluate, and choose the proper measure based on their
research question and population of interest.
In 1973, a seismic shift in the treatment of homosexuality

occurred when psychiatry declassied homosexuality
as a mental disorder in the American Psychiatric
This work was supported by the National Institute on Child Health
and Human Development, Gender Identity and HIV Risk II,
9R01HD057595-04A1. The contents of this report are solely the
responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the
ofcial views of the NIH. Additional administrative resources were
provided by the Department of Family Medicine and Community
Health, University of Minnesota Medical School.
The authors wish to acknowledge the following individuals without
whom this project could not have been completed: Dr. Anne Marie
Weber Main for critical reviewing and editing; Dr. Michael Miner
for his insight and critical thinking about manuscript organization
and structure; Dr. Rebecca Swinburne Romine for her methodological
assistance, particularly with dening and conceptualizing reliability
and validity; and Heidi Fall for her meticulous attention to detail in
nalizing this manuscript.
Correspondence should be addressed to Jeremy A. Grey, Division
of Epidemiology and Community Health, University of Minnesota
School of Public Health, West Bank Ofce Building, 1300 Sound
Second Street, Suite 300, Minneapolis, MN 55408. E-mail: jagrey@
umn.edu
Associations Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of

Mental Disorders (DSM). Psychiatry and psychology
moved away from trying to cure homosexuality
(Coleman, 1978) and turned their attention toward promoting the positive mental healthwhich included the
coming-out processof gay and lesbian individuals
(Cass, 1979; Coleman, 1978, 1988; Fassinger & Miller,
1997; Troiden, 1979). Attention also focused on developing gay-afrmative psychotherapies aimed at ameliorating the negative inuences of living in a society that
stigmatizes homosexuality (Coleman, 1988; Gonsiorek,
1982; Ross, 1988). In these new treatment models,
homosexuality was not seen as an illness. Instead, hostile
societal attitudes toward homosexuality were viewed
as creating distress in gay persons through negative
inuences on their mental health and well-being. The
construct of homophobia was introduced to describe this
societal stigma directed at homosexual individuals
(Weinberg, 1972). Although the term homophobia
initially referred to a heterosexuals fear of being
near homosexuals, the term soon became an umbrella
GREY, ROBINSON, COLEMAN, AND BOCKTING
construct for all negative attitudes toward homosexual

men and women (Herek, 2004).
Before long, the term homophobia was criticized as
being too narrow a description of negative attitudes
toward homosexuality. While negative beliefs and
actions could stem from irrational fears toward homosexuality, this explanation did not fully describe the
many negative reactions to same-sex behavior and to lesbian and gay individuals. Hudson and Ricketts (1980)
proposed the terms homonegativity and homonegativism
to deal with these criticisms, and Fassinger (1991) coined
the term heterosexism (Neisen, 1990). These authors
argued broader terms would better encompass the negative aspects of living in a society which assumes heterosexuality is the norm and which devalues homosexual
minority status.
More recently, these constructs were folded into a
theory of minority stress, which purports that stressors
such as antigay stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination arise out of a heterosexist general environment
(Meyer, 1995, 2003). In this theory, societal stressors
are seen as leading to proximal stressors that involve
the homosexual persons appraisal, perceived threat
and=or rejection, and stress of concealing ones sexual
orientation in an effort to cope with stigma. A similar
conceptualization has been posited by Herek (2007),
which expands on the mechanisms by which structural
heterosexism affects heterosexual individuals beliefs
and behavior toward sexual minorities.
Researchers next realized that homophobia could be
internalized by homosexual individuals and displayed as
a form of self-loathing, ultimately becoming a serious
mental health problem. Cabaj (1988) coined the term
internalized homophobia to describe this phenomenon.
The term internalized homonegativity was soon proposed
as a broader and more accurate description of the constructa term that encompassed numerous attitudinal
factors and did not just describe a neurotic psychological process (Mayeld, 2001).
Homophobia and homonegativity, whether societal or
internalized, are of great public health and mental health
signicance. There is compelling evidence that negative
attitudes about homosexuality have been internalized
by many men who have sex with men, and that this internalized homophobia may mediate increased HIV risk
behavior (e.g., Dew & Chaney, 2005; Daz, Ayala, Bein,
Henne, & Marin, 2001; Kashubeck-West & Szymanski,
2008; Stokes & Peterson, 1998). Correlations between
internalized homophobia and alcohol abuse and dependency have been found among lesbians and gay men
(Amadio, 2006). There is also evidence that internalized
homophobia negatively affects the mental health of gay
people, including their sense of well-being, self-concept,
and the quality of their intimate relationships (Allen &
Oleson, 1999; Frost & Meyer, 2009; Herek, Cogan, Gillis,
& Glunt, 1997; Meyer & Dean, 1998; Rosser, Bockting,
Ross, Miner, & Coleman, 2008; Rowen & Malcolm,
330
2002; Szymanski & Kashubeck-West, 2008). Finally,

correlations have been found between homophobic attitudes in heterosexuals and antigay violence (Kimmel &
Mahler, 2003) as well as attitudes toward civil rights
for lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) individuals
(Worthington, Dillon, & Becker-Schutte, 2005). More
recently, associations between homophobia and negative
attitudes toward same-sex marriage have also been found
(Pearl & Galupo, 2007). (More extensive summaries of
behavioral and attitudinal correlates of homophobia
among heterosexuals and internalized homophobia
among homosexuals are included in our results.) Thus,
measurement of the constructs of homophobia, homonegativity, internalized homophobia, and internalized
homonegativity are important in studying and addressing
the psychological, sociological, and public health issues
of gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals. Accordingly,
it is essential that researchers have access to reliable
measures of these constructs and that they are able to
identify the measures most appropriate for their questions.
In this article, we review 23 instruments with evidence
of sound construction that measure attitudes toward
homosexual men in both heterosexual and homosexual
individuals. We undertook this work to help researchers
and clinicians choose instruments on the basis of a systematic evaluation process, rather than simply out of
convenience. We agree with Kerr and Holden (1996)
who argued that the availability of more than one valid
measure of a particular construct is important to further
good research and practice. Our purpose in writing this
review was to help researchers and practitioners select
measure(s) that align with their research questions and
target populations.
Method
Initially, we intended to focus only on instruments
that measured the construct of homophobia, either
toward or internalized by gay men. However, the history
of debate and conict surrounding the naming of this
construct compelled us to broaden our search terms.
To ensure that the breadth of instruments assessing
attitudes toward male homosexuals was included in our
review, we employed a range of terms that have been
used in place of homophobia (Herek, 2004; Logan,
1996) (see Table 1).
Instruments have been developed to measure homosexual womens attitudes toward themselves (Szymanski
& Barry, 2001) and homosexuals and heterosexuals attitudes toward bisexuality (Mulick & Wright, 2002).
Indeed, several of the instruments have either items that
assess attitudes toward female homosexuality (Hudson
& Ricketts, 1980), subscales that measure these attitudes
(Herek, 1988; LeMar & Kite, 1998), or alternate language
to tap into this construct (Herek, 1988; Kite & Deaux,
1986; Raja & Stokes, 1998). However, the measurement
REVIEW OF HOMOPHOBIA INSTRUMENTS
Table 1. Homophobia and Measurement Terms Used in

Boolean Search
Homosexuality/
Homonegativity
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
General
Attitude
Attitud
Gay
Heterosexis
OR
OR Belief
Homonegativ
OR
OR Bias
Homophobi
OR
OR Discriminat
AND OR
Homopositiv AND OR Internal
OR Opinion
Homoprejudic

OR Prejudic
Homosexual
OR Perception
Same-sex
Measurement
Index
Instrument
Inventory
Measur
Scale
Note. Asterisks were used as wild cards during searches, which causes
the search to include all possible prexes and sufxes to a term.
of attitudes toward male homosexuality is distinct in the

literature and has been shown to be evaluated differently
than female homosexuality by men (Kite & Whitley,
1996). Consequently, comparing instruments and ndings across these constructs may not be valid. Furthermore, limiting the review to one population provides
better interpretability between heterosexuals attitudes
and those of homosexual males. For instance, if the
review included measures of transphobia, it would be
appropriate to include gay men in the outgroup review,
since gay men are not part of the same population as
trans individuals. Therefore, although measurement of
attitudes toward all sexual minorities is important, to
improve clarity and utility, they deserve separate in-depth
reviews and are not reviewed in this article.
We identied instrument titles from measurement
review manuals (Beere, 1990; Davis, Yarber, Bauserman,
Schreer, & Davis, 1998; Green & Herek, 1994) and a
systematic electronic search of literature indexed in
OVID Medline and PsycINFO from 1970 to 2012. For
the database searches, terms related to homonegativity
and homosexuality in general were combined using the
Boolean operators or and and, with terms referring to
attitudes and measurement (see Table 1). Through this
approach, all possible combinations of words from the
three categories were searched. For instance, articles
that included an instrument or measure of attitudes or
beliefs toward gay or homosexual men would have been
included in the results. Terms were truncated to search
multiple prexes and sufxes (i.e., searching on heterosexis would include results for both heterosexism and
heterosexist).
Instruments identied from our searches were retained
for analysis and review if they were written or translated
in English, were used in the United States or Canada,
contained more than one item, reported evidence of
reliability or validity, and assessed attitudes toward men
who have sex with men. The decision to expand the
results to both the United States and Canada was due
to the common predominance of English, proximity,
and previous research that measured attitudes or included
instruments from both countries (Anderson & Fetner,

2008; Kite & Whitley, 1996). Although instruments
have been developed in other countries, including other
Anglophone countries such as Australia (Van de Ven,
Bornholt, & Bailey, 1996), our decision to limit the
geographic region of study was due to several limiting factors. First, scales cannot be translated and assumed
to have the same psychometric properties (Guillemin,
Bombardier, & Beaton, 1993). Second, the issues and
attitudes in many non-English-speaking countries cannot
be assumed to parallel those in North America, although
even the United States and Canada have grown increasingly different in their views (Anderson & Fetner, 2008).
Similarly, it can be argued that scales validated on United
States and Canadian samples cannot be implemented in
other English-speaking countries without new studies to
establish the measurement properties in those cultural
contexts (Guillemin et al., 1993).
Instruments that assessed related but distinct constructs were excluded. A prime example is attitudes
toward gay marriage, for which several scales have been
created (Pearl & Galupo, 2007; Lannutti & Lachlan,
2008). Although one might expect that attitudes toward
homosexual men and women affect attitudes toward
policy changes allowing two men or two women to
marry, there are other motivations. For instance, delity
to a political partys priorities, rather than negative
attitudes toward lesbian and gay individuals, might also
have an effect (Wood & Bartkowski, 2004). Thus, it is
important to examine the associations between homophobia and these related constructs, but measures of
attitudes regarding same-sex marriage are not the
same as attitudes regarding homosexual individuals
themselves.
Whenever possible, original research articles describing
instrument development and validation were obtained.
Scales were reviewed by using the criteria for scale selection and evaluation recommended by Robinson, Shaver,
and Wrightsman (1991) and by extracting other descriptive information from the articles. The following features
were recorded for each instrument: publication year;
funding source for development; sampling methods and
sample characteristics; number of items, item development, scales and subscales, response anchors, and score
ranges; reported norms; reliability (test-retest, internal
consistency, and split-half); and validity (knowngroups validity, or expected differences between types of
people; convergent validity, or correlations with scales
according to theory). Instruments that measured homophobia versus internalized homophobia were summarized
separately. To gather further evidence of the validity of
these instruments, we used the Find Citing Articles
function in OVID Medline and the Cited by link in
Google Scholar to identify studies from both biomedical
and social science journals that cited articles from the
initial search. Articles were retained for review if they provided evidence of validity for assessing attitudes toward
331
homosexuals. For simplicity, when reporting our methods

and results we use the terms homophobia and internalized
homophobia, although we acknowledge that other terms
such as homonegativity are also appropriate, useful, and
valid.
Results
Our search methods yielded 4,515 article abstracts,
and 23 instruments met our inclusion criteria for
detailed analysis and review. Almost three times as
many homophobia (n 17) as internalized homophobia
(n 6) measures were identied.
Background and Development
Background and development information about
each instrument is presented in Table 2. Funding sources
were reported for 8 (35%) of the 23 instruments, with a
higher percentage of grant funding backing the internalized homophobia instruments. There was considerable
variability in how instruments were developed. Items
were generated from a variety of sources, including
other instruments, the literature, students, experts, and
DSM criteria. Factor analyses and item-total correlations were the most common statistical methods used
for item selection. Convenience samples were used in
the development of all 23 instruments. College or high
school students were used in the development of the
homophobia instruments; 59% were developed by using
students in college-level introductory psychology
classes. For the most part, out gay male samples were
used in the development of internalized homophobia
measures. Most samples were recruited from social
and religious groups, bookstores and bars, street fairs
like Gay Pride, and gay mens health seminars. A large
Internet sample was used in one study (Currie, Cunningham, & Findlay, 2004); this yielded a sample nearly
twice as large as any of the in-person convenience samples (n 677).
Items, Subscales, Scaling, and Scoring
Table 3 displays information on the instruments
items, subscales, scaling, and scoring. The mean number
of items was 21.6 (range 6 to 61) for homophobia measures and 20.7 (range 9 to 34) for internalized homophobia measures. The latter were more likely than the
homophobia measures to have subscales and more than
one factor. All but one measure used 5, 7, or 9-point
scales to measure level of agreement or disagreement
with items; the other measure used a 6-point scale. Scores
were determined by using sums or averages of these
scales. On most instruments (16 of 23), higher scores
indicated greater homophobia. For some instruments
(5 of 23), directionality differed by subscale, with some
332
scores indicating negative beliefs or attitudes and others

indicating positive beliefs or attitudes.
Reliability
Table 3 displays evidence of instrument reliability.
Internal consistency reliability (coefcient a) was available for all 23 scales and subscales. Test-retest reliability
was available for only four homophobia instruments;
two that reported correlations for the full scale (Kite &
Deaux, 1986, r .71; Wright, Adams, & Bernat, 1999,
r .96) and two that reported correlations for subscales
only (Worthington et al., 2005, r .76 to .90); Massey,
2009, r .67 to .93). Test-retest reliability was not available for any internalized homophobia instruments. Splithalf reliability was available for only one homophobia
instrument, the Heterosexual Attitudes Toward Homosexuals scale (Larsen, Reed, & Hoffman, 1980, r .92).
Validity
Our search for additional literature with evidence of
instrument validity yielded 44 articles. Most assessed
differences between selected groups on homophobia or
internalized homophobia, or demonstrated hypothesized associations=lack of association between an individuals homophobia scores and other relevant constructs.
Studies that showed evidence of instrument validity for
attitude assessment in prior studies via signicant t-tests,
F-tests, and correlations greater than or equal to .3
(Cohen, 1992) are summarized in Table 4 and Table 5.
Although researchers discussed many types of
validity for their instruments, most provided evidence
of construct validity, generally concurrent and=or convergent. Following Cronbach and Meehl (1955), we
dened concurrent validity as tests of the relationship
between homophobia scores and scores on measures
with a theorized relationship to the construct. Scores
on the homophobia and internalized homophobia measures were examined across known groups, in other
words, groups with different levels of interaction with
gay men, HIV=AIDS-related variables, mental health
practice and relevant mental health symptoms (e.g.,
fearfulness), and conservative religious or political
beliefs. Concurrent validity was also demonstrated by
examining correlations with several common variables
hypothesized to be related to homophobia (e.g., gender
differences, authoritarianism, gender ideology, reactions
to homosexual stimuli) and=or internalized homophobia
(e.g., outness and level of homosexual identity
development). Again, using Cronbach and Meehls
(1955) clarication, we considered convergent validity
to be correlations with other measures of homophobia
or homonegativity. All measures of homophobia and
internalized homophobia consistently and without
exception demonstrated the hypothesized relationships
with the variables examined.
333
Background and Development
Doctoral fellowship; Social

Sciences and Humanities
Research Council of Canada
Undergraduate fellowship from
Ball State University
8. Homophobia Scale (Roese, Olson,

Borenstein, Martin, & Shores, 1992)
Not reported
Social Sciences and Humanities

Research Council of Canada
Not reported
10. Modern Homophobia Scale (MHS) (Raja &

Stokes, 1998)
11. Homonegativity Scale (HS) (Morrison,

Parriag, & Morrison, 1999)
12. Homophobia Scale (Wright, Adams, &
Bernat, 1999)
9. Multidimensional Attitudes Toward

Homosexuality Scale (LeMar & Kite, 1998)
Not reported
University of California, Davisd
6. Attitudes Toward Lesbian and Gay Men

Revised (ATLG-R)c (Herek, 1988)
7. Attitudes Toward Homosexuals (Altemeyer

& Hunsberger, 1992)
Not reported
National Science Foundation
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Grant Funded
5. Homophobia Scale (Bouton et al., 1987)
2. Heterosexual Attitudes Toward Homosexuals

(HATH) (Larsen, Reed, & Hoffman, 1980)
3. Short-Form Homosexism Scale (Hansen,
1982)
4. Kite Homosexuality Attitude Scale (Kite &
Deaux, 1986)
Homophobia
1. Index of Homophobia (IHP) (Hudson &
Ricketts, 1980)
Instrument
Table 2.
35 items assessing 3 domains created by 2

psychologists and 4 graduate students; 5
factors from factor analysis; items dropped if
loaded <.30 (n 1) on multiple factors (n 7);
nal had 3 factors
92 nonoverlapping items chosen from pool of 174

compiled from previous measures of attitudes
toward homosexuality and new items; 42 items
chosen each for gay men and lesbians with 7
items unspecied
Items generated from literature review and
critique by research group and focus groups
(3); items with skewed distributions (n 19)
and items with low item-total correlations
dropped
Not reported
20 of 70 statements about homosexuals with

highest item-total correlations
15 items from long scale (53 items) with high
item-total correlations
40 items from students and textbooks, 15 items
dropped from pilot test with 40 volunteers
based on low item-total correlations, unclear
wording, and other problems
30 items created by authors; authors reduced to
18; items rated as positive=negative on 11-point
scale by students; items removed if median out
of midrange, variability low, and disrupted
balance (n 11)
37 statements from homosexuality attitudes
studies with high factor loadings around a
single factor; 20 items with highest item-total
correlation used as instrument
12 balanced statements assessing condemning,
vindictive, and punitive attitudes toward gay
men and women (unspecied)
Items adapted from 3 other questionnaires
Not reported
Development
(Continued )
1,045 (531 male, 514 female) high school

students (Canada)
321 (119 male, 202 female) college students
(Kalamazoo, MI)
322 heterosexual introductory psychology

college students (Chicago, IL)
491 (244 male, 247 female) parents of

introductory psychology college students
(Winnipeg, MB, Canada)
34 (18 male, 16 female) introductory
psychology college students (London, ON,
Canada)
psychology college students (Muncie, IN)

psychology college students (Davis, CA)
528 introductory psychology college students

(Austin, TX)
300 social science college students, faculty,

and nonuniversity community; most Asian
(Manoa, HI)
psychology college students (Corvallis, OR)
(Baton Rouge, LA)
(West Lafayette, IN; Austin, TX)
Samplea,b
334
Not reported
14. Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Knowledge and

Attitudes Scale for Heterosexuals
(LGB-KASH) (Worthington, Dillon, &
Becker-Schutte, 2005)
15. Homonegativity ScaleShort Form (Wrench,
2005)
Not reported
Items based on DSM diagnostic criteria for

ego-dystonic homosexuality
42 items based on 2 denitions of internalized
homophobia reviewed and revised by gay and
nongay psychology PhD students and faculty
20 items from Ross & Rossers RHS and 10 new
items to assess sexual comfort; 3 factors from
conrmatory factor analysis
Not reported
9 items from NHAI, 11 new items
National Institute of Mental

Health and National Institute on
Drug Abuse (HIV Center for
Clinical and Behavioral Studies)
AIDS=STDs Program of
Minnesota Dept. of Health (Man
to Man Seminars)
National Institute of Mental
Health
Not reported
Most of the scales are appropriate for adults over the age of 18; only two were validated on high school students.
Unless clearly specied as heterosexual or homosexual, studies did not report their method of selecting the sample.
c
This scale also included subscales that measured attitudes toward homosexual women, which are not reviewed in this article.
d
The grant funded factor analytic studies which led to the initial item pool (Herek, 1984).
6. Short Internalized Homonegativity Scale

(SIHS) (Currie, Cunningham, & Findlay,
2004)
4. Internalized Homophobia (IHP) Scale

(Herek, Cogan, Gillis, & Glunt, 1997)
5. Internalized Homonegativity Inventory
(IHNI) (Mayeld, 2001)
3. Reactions to Homosexuality Scale (RHS)

(Ross & Rosser, 1996)
Not reported
25 of 50 items dropped if one response category

>50%, >2 of 5 response categories had
response rate <10%; and middle response
category >30%
211 items generated from lit review and theory;
32 items retained from pilot study; 28 new
items added to balance constructs; 28 items
retained after factor analysis
10 items from 16-item earlier scale (Wrench,
2001) based on Morrison and Morrison (2002);
items chosen for being attitudinal, not
behavioral
44 items developed from previous version, which
was based on consultations with experts in
discriminatory attitudes research to measure
positive stereotypic, paternalistic, and apathetic
forms of heterosexism; 23 items retained after
factor analysis (4 factors)
79 items from Herek (1984) and Kite and Deaux
(1986); 3 factors discovered; 41 items retained if
item-total correlation .3 or greater; 70 items
retained after factor analysis with other scale
(61 items not specically about lesbians)
Development
Not reported
Not reported
17. Multidimensional Measure of Sexual

Prejudice (Massey, 2009)
Internalized Homophobia
1. Nungesser Homosexual Attitudes Inventory
(NHAI) (Nungesser, 1983)
2. Internalized Homophobia Scale (IHP)
(Wagner, Serani, Rabkin, Remien, &
Williams, 1994)
Not reported
16. Multidimensional Heterosexism Inventory

(Walls, 2008)
Not reported
Not reported
Grant Funded
13. Modern Homonegativity Scale (MHS)

(Morrison & Morrison, 2002)
Instrument
Table 2. Continued
53 gay men from religious group (New York,

NY)
241 gay men from adult bookstores, Internet,
bars, churches, festivals, campus
organizations, and choirs (United States)
677 gay men from Internet (United States)
184 gay men from sexual health seminar

(Minneapolis, MN)
50 gay men from activist meeting & faculty=

student party (Palo Alto, CA)
150 gay and lesbian individuals (75 male, 75
female) from LGB street fair (Sacramento,
CA)
269 (145 male, 124 female) students in college

psychology (Central TX)
651 (195 male, 474 female) introductory social

science college students (6 universities,
unspecied)
422 (211 male, 211 female) heterosexual

individuals from university email listservs
and the Internet (Columbia, MO; Canada;
and 8 other countries)
275 (165 male, 108 female, 2 nonresponse)
college students in communication courses
(St. Clairsville, OH)
353 (149 male, 204 female) heterosexual high

school students (British Columbia, Canada)
Samplea,b
335
1 factor, 42.4% r2
1 factor, 60.6% r2
Attitudes Toward Gay Men (10)
15
22
11
20
12
7
1 factor, 53% (men)55% (women)

of variance
1. Behavior=Negative Affect (10) 40.88%
r2
2. Affect=Behavioral Aggression
(10) 23.05% r2
3. Cognitive Negativism (5) 4.77% r2
22
25
10. Modern Homophobia Scale

(MHS) (Raja & Stokes, 1998)
11. Homonegativity Scale (HS)

(Morrison, Parriag, & Morrison,
1999)
12. Homophobia Scale (Wright,
Adams, & Bernat, 1999)
1. Gay Male Condemnation=Tolerance

(11)
2. Gay Male Morality (10)
3. Neutral Morality (3)
4. Gay Male Contact (14)
5. Neutral Contact (4)
6. Gay Male Stereotypes (7)
1. Personal Discomfort (9)
2. Deviance of Homosexuality (4)
3. Institutional Homophobia (9)
3 factors, 47.3% of variance (total)
20
49
1 factor, 60% r2
Subscale (No. of Items)

No. of Factors, % r2
25
No. of
Items
Instrument Characteristics and Reliability Evidence
Homophobia
1. Index of Homophobia (IHP)
(Hudson & Ricketts, 1980)
2. Heterosexual Attitudes Toward
Homosexuals (HATH) (Larsen,
Reed, & Hoffman, 1980)
3. Short-Form Homosexism Scale
(Hansen, 1982)
4. Kite Homosexuality Attitude Scale
(Kite & Deaux, 1986)
5. Homophobia Scale (Bouton et al.,
1987)
6. Attitudes Toward Lesbians and
Gay MenRevised (ATLG-R)
(Herek, 1988)
7. Attitudes Toward Homosexuals
(Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 1992)
8. Homophobia Scale (Roese, Olson,
Borenstein, Martin, & Shores,
1992)
9. Multidimensional Attitudes
Toward Homosexuality Scale
(LeMar & Kite, 1998)
Instrument
Table 3.
15, Strongly agreestrongly

disagree
15, Strongly disagreestrongly

agree
15, Do not agreestrongly agree
Total: 25125, Less homophobicmore

homophobic
1. Behavior =Negative Affect: 1050,
Less negative affectmore negative
affect
Total 15, Lesser degree of

homophobiagreater degree of
homophobia
1. Personal Discomfort: 15, Less
discomfortmore discomfort
2. Deviance of Homosexuality: 15,
View as less deviantview as more
deviant
3. Institutional Homophobia: 15, Less
belief in institutionalmore belief in
institutional
630, Lower level of homophobia
higher level of homophobia
49245, Less homonegativitygreater

homonegativity; subscales can be
summed individually
12108, Positive attitudesnegative

attitudes
735, Less homophobicmore
homophobic
44 (recoded to 19), Very

untruevery true
agree
disagree
1575, Less homosexistmore

homosexist
22110, Negative attitudespositive
attitudes
028, Extremely positive=unfearful
extremely negative=homophobic
20180, Extremely positive attitudes
extremely negative attitudes

attitudes
attitudes
Score Range

disagree
15, Strong agreementstrong
disagreement
disagree
disagree

disagree
disagree
Response Scale
.92
.92
.80
.96
.75
.78
(Continued )
Total .94 (Subscale

coefcients not
reported)
Total .84.88
Total .95
1. .91
2. .85
3. .90
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Total .94
Total .89
Total .89.90
Total .90
Total .93
Total .96
Total .95
Total .90
Coeff. a
336
Internalized Homophobia
1. Nungesser Homosexual Attitudes
Inventory (NHAI) (Nungesser,
1983)
17. Multidimensional Measure of

Sexual Prejudice (Massey, 2009)
15. Homonegativity ScaleShort Form

(Wrench, 2005)
16. Multidimensional Heterosexism
Inventory (Walls, 2008)
13. Modern Homonegativity Scale

(MHS) (Morrison & Morrison,
2002)
14. Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual
Knowledge and Attitudes Scale for
Heterosexuals (LGB-KASH)
(Worthington, Dillon, &
Becker-Schutte, 2005)
Instrument
Table 3. Continued
34
61
1. Self (10 items)

2. Disclosure (14 items)
3. Other (10 items)
3 factors, 58.9% r2 (total)
1. Traditional Heterosexism (19)

2. Denial of Continued Discrimination
(9)
3. Aversion to Gay Men (8)
4. Value Gay Progress (8)
5. Resist Heteronormativity (8)
6. Positive Beliefs (10)

agree
1. Self: 1050, Negative attitudes

positive attitudes
2. Disclosure: 1470, Negative attitudes
positive attitudes
3. Other: 1050, Negative attitudes
positive attitudes
15 (each subscale), directionality differs

by subscale
15, Totally disagreetotally agree
Paternalistic (7) 48.7% r2

Positive Stereotypic (6) 30.2% r2
Aversive (6) 15.1% r2
Amnestic (4) 8.8% r2
1.
2.
3.
4.
23
1050, Less homonegativitygreater

homonegativity
17 (each subscale), Less heterosexism
greater heterosexism
28196, directionality differs by subscale
2. Affect=Behavioral Aggression: 1050,

Less behavioral aggressionmore
behavioral aggression
3. Cognitive Negativism: 525, Less
negativismmore negativism
1260, Less modern homonegativity
greater modern homonegativity
Score Range
15, Strong disagreestrongly

agree
agree
17, Very uncharacteristic of me or

my viewsvery characteristic of
me or my views
1. Hate (6) 29.76% r2

2. Knowledge of LGB History (5) 7.44%
r2
3. LGB Civil Rights (5)
3. 72% r2
4. Religious Conict (7)
5. 73% r2
5. Internalized Afrmativeness (5)
2. 13% r2
1 factor, 53.5% r2
28
10

agree
Response Scale
1 factor, 45% r2 (gay version)
3 factors, 68.7% r2 (total)
Subscale (No. of Items)

No. of Factors, % r2
12
No. of
Items
.81
.81
.87
.76
.83
Total .95
1. .88
2. .67
3. .93
Total .80
1. .94
2. .87
3. .91
4. .79
1. .95
2. .83
3. .90
4. .94
5. .90
6. .86
Total .90
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Total .91
Coeff. a
337
6. Short Internalized Homonegativity

Scale (SIHS) (Currie,
Cunningham, & Findlay, 2004)
4. Internalized Homophobia (IHP)

Scale (Herek, Cogan, Gillis, &
Glunt, 1997)
5. Internalized Homonegativity
Inventory (IHNI) (Mayeld, 2001)
2. Internalized Homophobia Scale

(IHP) (Wagner, Serani, Rabkin,
Remien, & Williams, 1994)
3. Reactions to Homosexuality Scale
(RHS) (Ross & Rosser, 1996)
1. Public Identication as Gay (4)

2. Sexual Comfort with Gay Men (4)
3. Social Comfort with Gay Men (4)
3 factors, 40% r2 (total)
1. Personal Homonegativity (11)

2. Gay Afrmation (7)
3. Morality of Homosexuality (5)
23
12
1. Public Identication (10 items) 23.8%

r2
2. Perceived Stigma (6 items) 9.1% r2
3. Social Comfort with Gay Men (6
items) 6.4% r2
4. Moral=Religious Acceptability (4
items) 5.8% r2
4 factors, 45.1% r2(total)
26
20

agree

agree
Total: 23138, Less internalized

homophobiamore internalized
homophobia
1. Personal Homonegativity: 1166, Less
personal homonegativitymore
personal homonegativity
2. Gay Afrmation: 742, Less gay
afrmationmore gay afrmation
3. Morality of Homosexuality: 530
Homosexuality less moral
homosexuality more moral
1. Public Identication as Gay: 440,
Less public identicationmore public
identication
2. Sexual Comfort with Gay Men: 440,
Less sexual comfortmore sexual
comfort
3. Social Comfort with Gay Men: 440,
Less social comfortmore social
comfort
1. Public Identication: 770, Less

public identicationmore public
identication
2. Perceived Stigma: 660, Less
perceived stigmamore perceived
stigma
3. Social Comfort with Gay Men: 660,
Less social comfortmore social
comfort
4. Moral=Religious Acceptability: 440,
Less acceptablemore acceptable
945, Less internalized homophobia
greater internalized homophobia

agree

agree
20100, Less internalized homophobia

greater internalized homophobia

agree
.85
.69
.64
.62
Total .78
1. .73
2. .71
3. .68
Total .91
1. .89
2. .82
3. .70
Total .83
1.
2.
3.
4.
Total .92
338
Evidence of Validity for Homophobia Instruments
14. Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Knowledge and Attitudes Scale for
Hate
LGB Civil Rights
Internalized Afrmativeness

12. Homophobia Scale

6. Attitudes Toward Lesbian & Gay MenRevised (ATLG-R)

Paternalistic
Authoritarianism, Bias, and Prejudice
LGB Civil Rightsa

Internalized Afrmativenessa
15. Homonegativity Scale Short Form

Knowledge of LGB Historya
2. Heterosexual Attitudes Toward Homosexuals (HATH)
Conservative Beliefs (Religious and Political)

Scale
Table 4.
Protestant Christian>Atheist=Agnostic: t(108) 2.46

Protestant Christian>Roman Catholic: t(62) 2.48
More religiosity: r .50
Church often>rarely=never: t(54) 3.59
More conservative religious ideology: r .30
More frequent religious attendance: r .34
More religious conict with LGB individuals: r .50
Less belief in LGB civil rights: r .82, .89
More negative attitudes toward gay marriage: r .86, .89
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
3.
4.
More social dominance: r .30

Less social dominance: r .41a
Less social dominance: r .32a
More ethnocentrism: r .56
1.
1.
1.
1.
From original article

Wrench, Corrigan, McCroskey,
& Punyanunt-Carter (2006)
1. Tokar & Jome (1998); Walker,

Tokar, & Fischer (2000)
2. Tokar & Jome (1998)
1. Miville et al. (1999)
1. From original article
2. Goodman & Moradi (2008);
Keil & Schellenberg (1998)
3. Keil & Schellenberg (1998)
4. Mohipp & Morry (2004)
1. Latner, OBrien, Durso,
Brinkman, & MacDonald (2008)
2. Latner et al. (2008)
1. Need to gain status and respect: r .51

2. Emphasis on personal achievement or authority over others: r .35
Less positive recognition or acceptance of diversity in others: r .33
More dogmatism: r .30
More right-wing authoritarianism: r .73, .65
More likely to be male, person of color, & authoritarian: F(9, 172) 19.38
More perceived threat of homosexuality to traditions, customs, or values: F(1,
52) 4.67
1. More right wing authoritarianism: r .64
1. More bias against overweight people: r .46, .41, .33
2. More bias against Muslim individuals: r .54, .56,
3. More prejudice against Arabic people: r .59

2. Horne, Rostosky, Riggle, &
Martens (2010)
1. Wrench, Corrigan, McCroskey,
Malley & Tasker (2004)

Malley & Tasker (2004)
Worthington, Dillon, &
Becker-Schutte (2005)
4. Worthington et al. (2005)
5. Pearl & Galupo (2007)
1.
2.
1.
2.
1.
2.
3.
Source
1. More conservative political ideology: R2 .03
1. Less religiosity: r .49

1. More religious fundamentalism: r .40

2. More negative affect related to anti-LGB marriage amendments: r .37
1. More religious fundamentalism: r .41

1. More political conservativism: r .46, r .54
1.
2.
1.
2.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Measure
339
Interaction with Gay Men

8. Homophobia Scale
9. Multidimensional Attitudes Toward Homosexuality Scale
Neutral Morality
Neutral Contact
10. Modern Homophobia Scale (MHS)
Personal Discomfort
Deviance of Homosexuality
Institutional Homophobia
13. Modern Homonegativity Scale
Hate
LGB Civil Rightsa
Positive Stereotypicb
17. Multidimensional Measure of Sexual Prejudice
Traditional Heterosexism
Denial of Continued Discrimination
Aversion Toward Gay Men
Value Gay Progressa
Positive Beliefsa
Gender Differences
5. Homophobia Scale
Males>females: r .30
Males>females: r .61
Males <females: r .35
Males <females: r .36, .40
1.
1.
1.
1.
Males>females: t(590) 2.61

Males <females: t(590) 2.05
1. Less social contact with lesbians and gay men: r .54

2. Less professional contact with lesbians and gay men: r .44
3. Heterosexuals>lesbians and gay men: t(177) 5.82
4. Had not worked with lesbian couples>had worked with lesbian couples: t(178) 2.92
5. Had not worked with gay couples>had worked with gay couples: t(178) 3.24
6. Had not worked with lesbian family of choice>Had worked with lesbian family of
choice: t(178) 2.76
7. Had not worked with gay male family of choice>Had worked with gay male family of
choice: t(178) 2.91
1. More bothered and uneasy around LGB individuals: F(1, 106) 111.80
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
1. Males>females: R2 .03
Males>females:
Males>females:
Males>females:
Males>females:
Males>females:
Males>females:
Males>females:
Males>females:
Males>females:
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
F(1, 260) 4.96

F(1, 260) 6.10
t(141) 5.12
t(141) 6.01
t(141) 3.72
t(141) 3.95
t(1038) 11.57
t(143) 4.16
t(113) 2.25

Males>females: F(1, 525) 19.12
Males>females: F(1, 366) 7.61
Males toward gay men>males toward lesbians, women toward gay men, and women
toward lesbians: F(1, 108) 3.95
3. Males toward gay men>males toward lesbians: t(65) 7.66
4. Females toward gay men>females toward lesbians: t(87) 2.24
5. Boys>girls: F(1, 204) 23.37
1. Males>females: t(522) 3.30
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
From
From
From
From
From
From
From
From
From
From
From
From
From
original
original
original
original
original
original
original
original
original
original
original
original
original
article
article
article
article
article
article
article
article
article
article
article
article
article
Malley
Malley
Malley
Malley
Malley
Malley
Malley
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
Tasker
Tasker
Tasker
Tasker
Tasker
Tasker
Tasker
(2004)
(2004)
(2004)
(2004)
(2004)
(2004)
(2004)

Massey (2010)
(Continued )
1. Devine, Monteith, Zuwerink, &

Elliot (1991)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.

Mohipp & Morry (2004)
Mohipp & Morry (2004)
Poteat, Espelage, & Green
(2007)
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
340
Gender Identity and Ideology

Positive Beliefsa

Value Gay Progressa


Paternalistic

Personal Discomfort

Scale
Table 4. Continued
Know homosexuals <do not know homosexuals: t(105) 5.44

Less positive contact w=gay men: r .44
More negative contact w=gay men: r .40
Less positive contact w=lesbians: r .34
More negative contact w=lesbians: r .27
Less willing to engage in social activism: r .41
No prior contact with gay men>prior contact with gay men: F(2, 149) 5.48
Less knowledge of GLBTI issues: r .54
Less exposure to GLBTI people: r .42
More
More
More
More
More
More
More
More
More
family and close friends who are gay: r .56, .40

acquaintances who are gay: r .47, .35
out at work about having gay family: r .34
days involved in LGB activism: r .32
family and close friends who are gay: r .49, .40

acquaintances who are gay: r .44, .40
out in community about having gay family: r .42
out at work about having gay family: r .41
days involved in LGB activism: r .51
No contact>some contact: t(590) 7.27

Greater intergroup communication apprehension: r .40
No contact <some contact: t(590) 6.80
Less intergroup communication apprehension: r .40
No contact <some contact: t(590) 2.48
Less contact <more contact: t(589) 2.59
1. Expectation that men avoid behaviors that are stereotypically feminine: r .69
1.
1.
2.
1.
1.
2.
1.
2.
1. Lower percentage of friends who are lesbian or gay: R2 .03

2. Not having lesbian or gay male friends: R2 .05
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1. At least one gay acquaintance <none: t(281) 7.86

2. At least one gay friend <none: t(198) 12.05
1.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Measure

1. From original article 2.
Goldstein & Davis (2010)
1. From original article 2.
Goldstein & Davis (2010)
2. Massey (2010)


Martens (2010); Reeves, Horne,
Rostosky, Riggle, Baggett, &
Aycock (2010)
2. Horne et al. (2010); Reeves et al.
(2010)
3. Horne et al. (2010)
Martens (2010); Reeves, Horne,
Rostosky, Riggle, Baggett, &
Aycock (2010)
2. Horne et al. (2010); Reeves et al.
(2010)


Worthington, Dillon, &
6. Mohipp, & Morry (2004)
7. Tolley & Ranzijn (2006)
1.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Source
341

Positive Stereotypica
Religious Conict
LGB Civil Rightsa
Hate

1. More self-reported feminine interests (in men): R2 .05
1. Women who have questioned their sexual orientation <women who have not:
t(226) 3.21
1. Women who have questioned their sexual orientation>women who have not:
t(226) 4.24
2. Weaker heterosexual identity: r .66
3. Stronger LGB identity: r .66
t(226) 2.63
1. Stronger heterosexual identity: r .34
2. Weaker LGB identity: r .34
t(226) 6.24
4. Men who have questioned their sexual orientation>men who have not: t(145) 3.53
1. More conservative views toward women: r .61

1. More sexism: r .41
2. More modern sexism: r .59
2. Expectation that men need to be tough mentally, emotionally, and physically: r .48
3. Subordination to women (men): .30
4. More sexist beliefs: r .53
5. Less support of feminist ideology: r .58
6. More traditional attitudes toward the male gender role: r .46
7. Avoidance of being feminine (men): r .55
8. Perceived importance of gaining status and respect (men): r .42
9. Importance of appearing invulnerable (men): r .34
1. More traditional gender role attitudes: r .50
2. More traditional view of women: r .52
1. Less profeminist=egalitarian attitudes: r .58, r .43
2. More adherence to traditional family ideology: r .48, r .56
3. More antimasculinity: r .43
4. More antifemininity: r .55, .59
5. More heteronormativity: r .30
6. More masculine gender role stress: r .32
7. More toughness (men): r .43
8. More self-reliance (men): r .50
9. More hostile sexism: r .32
10. More negative attitudes toward women: r .53
11. More endorsement of traditional male roles: r .57
12. Greater belief in the fundamental difference of people based on sexual orientation:
r .33
Worthington & Reynolds (2009)

Morgan & Thompson (2011)
Morgan, Steiner, & Thompson
(2010)
(Continued )
1.
2.
1.
2.
3.
4.
1. Morgan & Thompson (2011)

2. Worthington & Reynolds (2009)


3. Walker, Tokar, & Fischer (2000)
4. Walker et al. (2000)
2. Wise & Bowman (1997)
3. Goodman & Moradi (2008)
4. Goodman & Moradi (2008);
Parrott, Peterson, Vincent, &
Bakeman (2008)
6. Parrott et al. (2008)
9. Kilianski (2003)
10. Kilianski (2003)
11. Kilianski (2003)
12. Hegarty & Pratto (2001)
342


Miscellaneous
HIV=AIDS Related
5. Homophobia Scale
Responses to Homosexual Stimuli

Mental Health (Conditions and Practice)

Scale
Table 4. Continued
Discomfort with affection between men: r .56

More sexual arousal to homosexual stimuli: F(1, 60) 8.10
Increased negative affect after watching homosexual erotic video: t(25) 4.87
Increased anger=hostility after watching homosexual erotic video: t(25) 9.81
Decreased positive affect after watching homosexual erotic video: t(25) 6.42
Increased anxiety after watching homosexual erotic video: t(25) 2.28
Faster reaction times to anger words after viewing homosexual erotica: r .36
Faster reaction times to fear-anxiety words after viewing homosexual erotica: r .36
Slower reaction times to happiness words after viewing homosexual erotica: r .34
Slower reaction times to disgust words after viewing homosexual erotica: r .43
1. Lower level of education: r 30

2. Preference for nonpersonal, machinery-based tasks over interpersonal: r .33
3. Minimum security prison inmates>Maximum security prison inmates: F(5,
179) 2.56
1. Business>Liberal Arts: t(62) 2.30
1. Purdue>Texas: F(1, 525) 4.74
1. More perceived agreement with friends on views on homosexuality: r .51, r .38
2. Lesser tendency to be analytical & think about complex issues: r .41
1. More blame for persons with AIDS: r .45
1. AIDS stigma: P .54

1. Greater fear of AIDS: r .45.55
1.
2.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
1. More fearfulness: r .53

2. Previous job in psychiatry>previous job in social work, probation, or teaching:
t(112) 3.60
3. Post-training job in psychiatry>posttraining job in social work, probation, or
teaching: t(56) 3.28
4. Discomfort with emotional self-disclosure: .38
5. Physical inadequacy (men): r .40
6. Students>psychologists: F(1, 1216) 1210.24
1. Less able to identify appropriate tasks to use with LGB clients in counseling: r .41
2. Less able to set appropriate goals with LGB clients in counseling: r .55
3. Less self-efcacy in counseling LGB clients: r .49
4. Less able to emotionally bond with LGB-identied clients in counseling: r .39
5. Less condence in counseling that requires knowledge of LGB issues: r .34
6. Less condence in being aware of sexual identity development during counseling:
r .36
7. Less condence in counseling that required assessing relevant issues for LGB clients:
r .56
8. More likely to breach condentiality in AIDS-related psychotherapy context: F(1,
558) .91
9. More negatively affected by notions of being lesbian or gay: r .56
Measure
1.
1.
1.
2.


3. Garland, Morgan, & Beer (2005)
1. Trezza (1994)
1. From original article; Erlen,
Riley, & Sereika (1999)
1. Keil & Schellenberg (1998)

2. Adams, Wright, & Lohr (1996)
1. Bernat, Calhoun, Adams, &
Zeichner (2001)
2. Bernat et al. (2001)
3. Bernat et al. (2001)
4. Mireshghi & Matsumoto (2008)
5. Zeichner & Reidy (2009)
1. Burkard, Pruitt, Medler, &

Stark-Booth (2009)
2. Burkard et al. (2009)
5. Dillon & Worthington (2003)
8. McGuire, Nieri, Abbott,
Sheridan, & Fisher (1995)
9. Moradi, van den Berg, & Epting
(2006)

2. Malley & Tasker (2004)
3. Malley & Tasker (2004)
5. Walker, Tokar, & Fischer (2000)
6. Tokar & Jome (1998); Trezza
(1994)
Source
343
Higher level of homophobia on the Homophobia Scale: r .87

More avoidance, violence, or hatred of LGB persons: r .57
Less knowledge of LBG history: r .38
Less internalized afrmativeness: r .41, .46
More gay- and lesbian-rejecting behaviors: r .49
Less gay- and lesbian-afrming behaviors: r .33
More antigay anger: r .67
Less belief that male and female bisexuals have stable identities and relationships:
r .52
Less belief that female bisexuals have stable identities and relationships: r .46
Less belief that male bisexuals have stable identities and relationships: r .49
Less tolerance of male and female bisexuality: r .86
Less tolerance of female bisexuality: r .85
Less tolerance of male bisexuality: r .87
Higher level of traditional heterosexism: r .99
Higher level of denial of discrimination of lesbians and gay men: r .46
Higher level of aversion toward gay men: r .73
Less value of gay progress: r .86
Less resistance to heteronormativity: r .39
Fewer positive beliefs toward lesbians and gay men: r .36

LGB Civil Rightsa
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
1.
2.
3.
Higher level of homophobia on ATG: r .57

Higher level of homophobia on ATL: r .48
Less belief in the stability of female bisexuality: r .45
Lower level of homophobia on ATL: r .38
Lower level of homophobia on ATG: r .89
Greater tolerance of male bisexuality: r .70
1. More old-fashioned homonegativity on HS: r .57

1. Higher level of homophobia on Homophobia Scale: r .82
2. Higher level of bias against gay individuals on UMB-GAY: r .68

Hate
1.
1.
1.
2.
3.
Higher level of homophobia on IHP: r .87

More modern homonegativity on MHS: r .57
Higher level of homophobia on IHP: r .87
Higher level of homophobia on LGB-KASH: r .82
Higher level of bias against gay individuals on UMB-GAY: r .81
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
1.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
More likely to be male, person of color, and authoritarian: F(9, 172) 19.38
Iranians>Americans: F(1, 95) 18.04
Less comfortable with same-sex touching: r .70
Less comfortable with either sex touching: r .41
Younger>older: F(1, 50) 6.73
More intercultural communication apprehension: r .31
10. Modern Homophobia Scale (MHS)

Other Related Instruments (Convergent Validity)

6. Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay MenRevised (ATLG-R)

8. Homophobia Scale
3.
4.
1.
2.
1.
1.

Mireshghi & Matsumoto (2008)
Bernat et al. (2001)
Wrench, Corrigan, McCroskey,
(Continued )
1. Wright, Adams, & Bernat (1999)

1. Worthington, Dillon, &
6. Parrott, Peterson, Vincent, &
Bakeman (2008)
7. Mohr & Rochlen (1999)
13. Massey (2009)
14. Massey (2009)
15. Massey (2009)
16. Massey (2009)
17. Massey (2009)
18. Massey (2009)
1. Morrison & Morrison (2002)
3.
4.
1.
2.
1.
1.
344
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
4.
5.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
1.
2.
3.
Higher level of homophobia on ATLG: r .99
Lower level of homophobia on ATLG: r .86
Greater tolerance of male bisexuality: r .74

Greater belief in the stability of female bisexuality: r .52
Higher level of homophobia on ATG: r .50
Less belief in the stability of male bisexuality: r .39
Less belief in the stability of female bisexuality: r .38
Lower level of homophobia on ATG: r .41
Less belief in the stability of male bisexuality: r .41
Measure
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
4.
5.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
1.
2.
3.
From
From
From
From
From
From
From
From
From
From
From
From
From
From
From
From
From
From
original
original
original
original
original
original
original
original
original
original
original
original
original
original
original
original
original
original
article
article
article
article
article
article
article
article
article
article
article
article
article
article
article
article
article
article
Source
Note. All correlations are signicant at p < .05. Except as indicated by superscript b, all scores have been reported such that higher scores indicate a greater degree of homophobia or heterosexism.
GLBTI gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and intersexed.
a
High scores indicate more positive attitudes.
b
Although the title of the scale includes positive, higher scores on this item indicate a greater degree of stereotypic beliefs and, thus, more homophobia or heterosexism (e.g., benevolent heterosexism).

Value Gay Progressa
Resist Heteronormativitya
Positive Beliefsa
Religious Conict
Scale
Table 4. Continued
345
5. Internalized Homonegativity Inventory (IHNI)

Personal Homonegativity
Gay Afrmation
Mental Health
Less Moral or Religious Acceptability of Being Gay

Gay Afrmation
Conservative Beliefs (Religious=Political)
3. Internalized Homophobia Scale (IHS)
Less Social Comfort with Gay Men

Concern over Public Identication as Gay
Interaction with Gay Men

1. Nungesser Homosexual Attitudes Inventory (NHAI)
3. Internalized Homophobia Scale (IHS)

Concern Over Public Identication as Gay
article
article
article
article
article
article
1.
2.
1.
1.
1.
Less liberal political views: r .35

Less liberal religious outlook: r .51
More negative attitude toward morality of homosexuality: r .66
1.
2.
1.
1.
1.
From
From
From
From
From
From
From
From
From
From
From
From
From
original
original
original
original
original
original
original
original
original
original
original
original
original
article
article
article
article
article
article
article
article
article
article
article
article
article
(Continued )
1. From original article; Szymanski

& Carr (2008); Szymanski &
Gupta (2009)
3. Szymanski & Gupta (2009)
4. Szymanski & Carr (2008)
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
1.
1.
1.
Lesser proportion of social time with gays: r .39

Do not belong to a gay=bi group>belong to a gay=bi group: t-test (unreported)
Lesser extent of attraction to women: r .35
Lesser proportion of social time with gays: r .53
Lower percentage of friends who are LGB: r .31
Lower percentage of friends who are LGB: r .33
Lower self-esteem: r .45, .40, .37

More demoralization: r .40
More psychological distress: r .44
More feelings of inadequacy: r .36
More restrictive emotions due to perceived masculinity: r .47
More restrictive affectionate behavior with men due to perceived masculinity (men):
r .51
7. More internalized racism: r .32
original
original
original
original
original
original

2. Frost & Meyer (2009)
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
From
From
From
From
From
From

Frost & Meyer (2009)
Source

1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
Less openly gay in personal life: r .57

Less openly gay=bi at work: r .64
HIV seronegative>HIV seropositive: t-test (unreported)
Lesser extent of attraction to men: r .32
Less openly gay in personal life: r .36
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
1. Less socializing with gay males: r .50
2. Fewer positive gay experiences: r 65
3. Less positive feelings about exaggerated effeminate mannerisms (camping it up):
r .31
1. Lower sense of importance of membership in the gay community: r .38
2. Less connectedness to LGB community: r .30
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
1.
Less disclosure of homosexuality: r .61

Higher frequency of passing as straight: r .66
Lesser degree out of the closet: r .69
Less out to friends: r .34
Less outness: r .43
Less integrated into the gay community: r .54
Measure
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
1.
Evidence of Validity for Internalized Homophobia Measures
Outness
Scale
Table 5.
346
More internalized homonegativity on the IHNI: r .85

More personal homonegativity on the IHNI: r .82
Less gay afrmation on the IHNI: r .66
More negative views regarding the morality of homosexuality on the IHNI: r .53
More internalized homonegativity on IHNI: r .86
More internalized homonegativity on NHAI: r .85
More internalized homophobia on IHP: r .86

Lesser number known with HIV=AIDS: r .35
Lesser number known with HIV=AIDS: r .30
1. More internalized homonegativity on NHAI: r .82

1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
1.
2.
1.
2.
1.
2.
1. Less gay afrmation, or viewing homosexuality as important and positive part of self:
r .80
2. Less advanced stage of homosexual identity formation: r .68
r .51
r .41
2. Lesser advanced stage of homosexual identity formation: r .39
1. More psychological distress: r .30, .31

2. Lower self-esteem: r .44
3. More depression: r .32
4. More anxiety: r .30
5. More feelings of inadequacy: r .40
6. More restrictive emotions due to perceived masculinity: r .50
7. More restrictive affectionate behavior with men due to perceived masculinity (men):
r .61
8. Lesser number of social supports: r .30
9. Less satisfaction with social supports: r .31
10. More behavioral disengagement for avoidant coping: r .31
Measure
Note. All correlations are signicant at p < .05. All scores have been reported such that higher scores indicate a greater degree of homophobia or heterosexism.
Gay Afrmation
Morality of Homosexuality

Other Related Measures (Convergent Validity)

HIV=AIDS Related
Concern over Public Identication as Gay
Gay Afrmation
Morality of Homosexuality
Homosexual Identity Development

Scale
Table 5. Continued
From
From
From
From
original
original
original
original
article
article
article
article
Mayeld (2001)
Mayeld (2001)
Mayeld (2001)
Mayeld (2001)
Szymanski & Carr (2008)
Rostosky, Riggle, Horne, &
Miller (2009)
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
1.
2.
1.
2.
1.
2.



7. Szymanski & Gupta (2009)

1. Szymanski & Carr (2008);
Rostosky, Riggle, Horne, &
Miller (2009)
Source
Concurrent validity: Variables hypothesized to be

related to both homophobia and internalized homophobia.
Interaction with gay men. Heterosexuals who had
less social or professional contact with gay men scored
higher on the homophobia instruments (i.e., reported
more homophobia). For heterosexual individuals who
did have contact with gay people, those who experienced
positive contact scored lower, while those who had negative contact scored higher. Contact with gay men was
also related to internalized homophobia in homosexual
men. Gay men who scored higher on internalized homophobia instruments (i.e., reported more internalized
homophobia) had less contact with other gay men, had
fewer gay friends, and were less likely to join groups that
target gay men. Similarly, those who reported feeling less
connected to the gay community and who did not think
that membership in the gay community was important
were more likely to score higher on measures of internalized homophobia.
HIV=AIDS related. Attitudes toward AIDS and
exposure to persons with HIV or AIDS were related to
homophobia in both heterosexual and homosexual
people. Heterosexual individuals who had more negative
attitudes about AIDS were more likely to have a high
score on homophobia instruments. Among gay men,
those who knew fewer people with HIV=AIDS and
who were seronegative were also more likely to have a
high score on the measures of internalized homophobia.
Mental health. Heterosexual individuals who had
more negative mental health symptoms were more likely
to have a high score on homophobia instruments.
Gay men who scored higher on instruments measuring
internalized homophobia reported higher levels of
numerous psychological symptoms (e.g., lower selfesteem, more psychological distress, more depression
and anxiety). In addition, mental health practitioners
who were not comfortable working with lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) clients were more
likely to have high scores on homophobia instruments.
Conservative religious or political beliefs. Increased
religiosity, dened as more frequent attendance at
religious services and more traditional or dogmatic
religious views, was associated with higher scores on
homophobia instruments in heterosexual individuals,
particularly among those who belonged to more conservative religions (as opposed to those who belonged to
socially liberal denominations or who were atheist or
agnostic). Conservative beliefs, including the perception
of homosexuality as immoral, were related to higher scores
on internalized homophobia instruments in gay men.
related to homophobia. Heterosexuals who held authoritarian views or biases against other minority groups
(e.g., Muslims, Arabs, overweight people) were more

likely to have a high score on the homophobia instruments. Similarly, those who had more traditional concepts of gender roles and who held more sexist beliefs
were more likely to have a high score on the instruments
measuring homophobia. Authors of 14 of the 17 homophobia instruments assessed gender differences and
found that men scored higher on homophobia instruments than women did, although only one set of authors
explicitly claimed that this was evidence of validity.
Finally, individuals who scored higher on homophobia
instruments had more negative reactions to homosexual
stimuli, such as erotica or affection between men.
related to internalized homophobia. For the internalized homophobia instruments, additional evidence of
construct validity was demonstrated by examining relationships of homophobia and internalized homophobia
scores to outness and level of homosexual identity
development. Gay men who scored higher on the internalized homophobia instruments were less likely to be out
in all measured spheres (e.g., friends, family, and work).
They were also less likely to demonstrate advanced
identity development.
Evidence of convergent validity. A total of 8 of the 17
homophobia instruments (refer to Table 4) and two of
the six internalized homophobia instruments (refer to
Table 5) were used in studies that demonstrated convergent validity. All correlations consistently demonstrated
signicant positive correlations between the various
instruments measuring homophobia and internalized
homophobia. The reported correlations for the homophobia instruments ranged from .33 to .99, with half of
the correlations below .50 and half above. The reported
correlations for the internalized homophobia instruments ranged from .53 to .86, with all but two correlations above .66 and most in the middle to low .80 s.
Discussion
Accurate measurement of attitudes toward homosexual men is important for researchers who wish to study
the health of sexual minorities. Recent meta-analyses
have cast doubt on the connection between internalized
homophobia and risky sexual behavior in men who have
sex with men (MSM; Newcomb & Mustanski, 2011).
However, other researchers have questioned the methodology on which these ndings were based (Ross, Rosser,
& Smolenski, 2010). Regardless, valid measurement is
essential for the continual assessment of this relationship. However, identifying an appropriate measure for
such purposes can be challenging. Over the past 30 years,
scientic interest in the measurement of homophobia
347
and internalized homophobia has grown, and many new

instruments and terms have emerged. While it is encouraging that the construct has received so much attention,
nding and selecting from the available options requires
time and careful consideration.
To help researchers with this task, we reviewed
measures of homophobia published in the academic
literature from 1970 to 2012. Three major observations
emerged from our review. First, although there has been
considerable debate over the distinct nature of, and
appropriate terms for, the homophobia construct, there
is remarkable consistency both in the criteria used as evidence of validity across different measures as well as the
validity ndings themselves. For example, higher levels
of interaction or positive interaction with homosexual
individuals were consistently positively related to lower
homophobia or internalized homophobia in all nine studies that assessed these variables. Individuals with rigid
gender ideology, including sexist beliefs and negative
attitudes toward femininity, had consistently higher
levels of homophobia in the ve studies that examined
these variables. Gay men who were less likely to disclose
their homosexuality had consistently higher levels of
internalized homophobia in the four studies that assessed
these variables. Evidence of convergent validity was
strong as well; all correlations consistently demonstrated
signicant and meaningful positive correlations between
the various instruments measuring homophobia and
internalized homophobia, especially for the latter instruments, where most correlations were above .60.
The impressive consistency of these ndings is helpful
for researchers attempting to choose between instruments
that use different terms for homophobia or internalized
homophobia (i.e., homonegativity, modern homonegativity, heterosexism, homosexism, homosexual attitudes,
internalized homonegativity). Although consensus has
been building for the more specic use of homonegativity,
popular usage of homophobia persists (Dermer, Smith, &
Barto, 2010). Our LexisNexis search (1980 to 2012) of
homophobia yielded 995 results outside of academic
journals, whereas a search for homonegativity produced
only 5 results. We found a similar ratio in the academic
literature. Searches in PsycINFO yielded 2,182 results
for homophobia and 162 results for homonegativity.
Between 2007 and 2012, the proportion of homonegativity
articles has increased slightly, with 725 homophobia
articles to 110 mentioning homonegativity. Despite the
fact that several of the new instruments use new terminology, convention might perpetuate use of the older term.
Our second observation relates to temporality. The
academic literature on the measurement of homophobia
dates to the early 1980s. Since that time, public attitudes
toward homosexuality and the civil rights of gays and
lesbians in North America have undergone a dramatic
transformation (Anderson & Fetner, 2008). Accordingly,
many items and instruments may not be as appropriate
today as they were when they were rst developed. Some
348
items that were once considered valid measures of homophobia now seem naive, simplistic, or simply incorrect.
For instance, in the posthighly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) era, correlations between views about
HIV=AIDS and homophobia might not be as strong as
they were when AIDS was rst coming on the scene
and perceived as a greater threat. Similarly, items assessing attitudes toward gay marriage, which would have
been unthinkable to ask 20 years ago, may be more relevant to the assessment of homophobia today. We recommend that measures of homophobia and internalized
homophobia, particularly those developed earlier, be
updated to reect these societal changes. Regardless of
the outdated nature of some items, standard instruments
are needed to document changing levels of homophobia
over time, and we recommend that researchers use both
original and newer versions of instruments to do so.
Most important, our review suggests there is no single
best measure of homophobia on the basis of psychometric properties and construct validity alone. All 23
instruments reviewed met minimal criteria for adequate
scale construction, including scale development, sampling, reliability, and some evidence of validation. In
addition, all scales shared some general methodological
weaknesses, including a lack of normative data, with
no information for researchers or clinicians on what normative high or low scores look like for any population.
In addition, all instruments were developed using
convenience sampleslikely a consequence of the paucity of grant funding available to develop these scales.
Notably, all homophobia scales were developed using
student samples, and the internalized homophobia scales
were developed using convenience samples of out gay
men. While evidence of internal consistency reliability
was exceptionally strong for virtually all instruments,
test-retest or split-half reliability was available for only
ve homophobia instruments and for none of the internalized homophobia instruments. Researchers who are
particularly interested in stable instruments, including
those interested in demonstrating change over time,
should consider the Homophobia Scale (Wright et al.,
1999) for which subjects scores were highly correlated
between time points (r .96).
Evidence of internal consistency was strong for
virtually all instruments; all 23 instruments displayed
evidence of total (n 19) and=or subscale (n 9) internal
consistency reliability. Total reliability was good to
excellent (above the middle .80 s and .90 s) for all but
one of the 17 homophobia instruments (Walls, 2008)
and one of the six internalized homophobia instruments
(Currie et al., 2004) displaying total internal consistency
reliability scores. A t-test comparing total reliability for
the two types of homophobia instruments indicated that
reliabilities for the homophobia and internalized homophobia instruments were equally strong (t(17) .92,
p .40). However, reliability may be less important in
clinical or other situations where the quality and depth
of the information may be more important than

reliability.
All but one, the Short Internalized Homonegativity
Scale (SIHS; Currie et al., 2004), of the 23 instruments
had evidence of concurrent and=or convergent validity;
there was stronger evidence for the validity of homophobia, as opposed to the internalized homophobia, instruments. Some instruments had stronger evidence of
validity, such as multiple studies and iterative revisions,
ranging from two to 66 ndings. Of the 17 instruments
measuring homophobia, the Attitudes Toward Lesbians
and Gay Men, Gay Men Subscale (ATLG-R; Herek,
1988) had been used the most widely and, consequently,
had the strongest evidence of validation (66 ndings),
including evidence on its short form. The short form is
useful for its brevity, as this reduces participant burden.
Thus, for those researchers who are interested in studying homophobia amongst heterosexual individuals, the
ATLG-R has the largest and most varied body of literature to support its use. Other measures of homophobia
with strong evidence of validity included the Lesbian,
Gay, and Bisexual Knowledge and Attitudes Scale for
Heterosexuals (LBG-KASH; Worthington et al., 2005),
with 56 ndings, and the Index of Homophobia (IHP;
Hudson & Ricketts, 1980), with 33 ndings.
Using Tables 3 and 4 as a guide, researchers with specic hypotheses and populations should select measures
that t their needs and have been used in specic studies
of interest. For instance, those who are interested in comparing the levels of homophobia among specic religious
groups may be interested in the IHP (Hudson & Ricketts,
1980) because of its use with Protestant Christians,
Roman Catholics, and those with no religious afliation
or theology. Similarly, those who wish to tap into both
positive and negative aspects of homophobia may be interested in the subscales of multidimensional measures such
as the LGB-KASH (Worthington et al., 2005) and the
Multidimensional Measure of Sexual Prejudice (Massey,
2009), which include subscales that measure both positive
and negative attitudes toward LGB individuals.
Measures of internalized homophobia with more
extensive validation included the Internalized Homonegativity Inventory (IHNI; Mayeld, 2001), with 27 ndings,
and the Internalized Homophobia (IHP) scale (Herek
et al., 1997), with 16 ndings. In addition to having the
most individual ndings, the IHNI (Mayeld, 2001) has
been used more widely across the general themes we
identied in our review. Researchers might therefore consider these two instruments rstbut should not neglect
other factors, such as which elements of internalized
homophobia are of most interest in their particular study,
which measures have subscales of interest, or which
instruments are of an appropriate length. For instance,
the Reactions to Homosexuality Scale (RHS; Ross &
Rosser, 1996) has specic subscales regarding social
aspects of internalized homophobia (public identication
and socialization with gay men) and also has been used in
studies that measured outness. Therefore, for the specic

purpose of measuring comfort with other gay men or for
studies that examine outness and internalized homophobia, the RHS may be the appropriate choice.
Limitations
This review had several limitations due to decisions
made regarding which instruments would be included
in the review. First, the databases used for the search
were limited to publications in peer-reviewed journals
that were indexed by either of two databases. Although
Medline and PsycINFO index 4,162 and 2,509 journals,
respectively, it is possible that some measures were not
included because they were published in journals that
were not indexed in these databases or did not include
terms used for the search. In addition, the review
excluded ndings that were presented as part of conferences or in other work such as dissertations. It may be
that there are other measures with desirable psychometric
properties not in the published literature.
Findings were limited to English-speaking, North
American samples; we did not review instruments
developed outside of North America. One instrument
developed outside of North America, the Homophobic
Behavior of Students Scale (HBSS; Van de Ven et al.,
1996), was developed in Australia and focused on measuring homophobic behaviors rather than attitudes.
Researchers interested in behavioral measures of homophobia should review this instrument. We recommend
that researchers search out and review instruments
developed outside of North America and include, as part
of their study, details of the instruments reliability and
validity in the new context.
Last, the review was limited by its inclusion of instruments that measured only attitudes toward gay men.
Instruments that measured related constructs, such as
attitudes toward gay marriage (Pearl & Galupo, 2007;
Lannutti & Lachlan, 2008) or behaviors toward LGB
individuals (Van de Ven et al., 1996), were not included
as primary instruments in this review, although Pearl
and Galupo (2007) was included as evidence of construct
validity for the ATLG-R. Similarly, measures of attitudes
toward lesbians or bisexual individuals, specically, were
not reviewed as primary instruments. We believe these
additional sexual-minority populations deserve in-depth
reviews highlighting their unique bodies of literature
and measurement options.
Conclusions
All instruments reviewed demonstrated that they are
viable measures for research. When choosing a measure,
investigators must consider issues of study purpose,
research question, population and sample, length, reading level, content, and norms, as well as evidence of
reliability and validity. We believe summary Tables 2
through 5 will be useful for researchers who are weighing
349
measures that have been used widely in the eld versus

those that have proved useful for specic topics and with
certain populations. We hope this review will make the
process of instrument selection more efcient by allowing
researchers to easily locate, evaluate, and choose the most
appropriate measures for their studies.
References
Adams, H. E., Wright, L. W., & Lohr, B. A. (1996). Is homophobia
associated with homosexual arousal? Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 105, 440445. doi:10.1037=0021-843X.105.3.440
Allen, D. J., & Oleson, T. (1999). Shame and internalized homophobia
in gay men. Journal of Homosexuality, 37, 3343. doi:10.1300=
J082v37n03_03
Altemeyer, B., & Hunsberger, B. (1992). Authoritarianism, religious
fundamentalism, quest, and prejudice. International Journal for
the Psychology of Religion, 2, 113133.
Amadio, D. M. (2006). Internalized heterosexism, alcohol use, and
alcohol-related problems among lesbians and gay men. Addictive
Behaviors, 31, 11531162. doi:10.1016=j.addbeh.2005.08.013
Anderson, R., & Fetner, T. (2008). Cohort differences in tolerance of
homosexuality: Attitudinal change in Canada and the United
States, 19812000. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72, 311330.
doi:10.1093=poq=nfn017
Beere, C. A. (1990). Sex and gender issues: A handbook of tests and
measures. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Bernat, J. A., Calhoun, K. S., Adams, H. E., & Zeichner, A. (2001).
Homophobia and physical aggression toward homosexual and
heterosexual individuals. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110,
179187. doi:10.1037=0021-843X.110.1.179
Bouton, R. A., Gallaher, P. E., Garlinghouse, P. A., Leal, T.,
Rosenstein, L. D., & Young, R. K. (1987). Scales for measuring
fear of AIDS and homophobia. Journal of Personality Assessment,
51, 606614.
Burkard, A. W., Pruitt, N. T., Medler, B. R., & Stark-Booth, A. M.
(2009). Validity and reliability of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual
Working Alliance Self-Efcacy Scales. Training and Education in
Professional Psychology, 3, 3746. doi:10.1037=1931-3918.3.1.37
Cabaj, R. P. (1988). Homosexuality and neurosis: Considerations
for psychotherapy. In M. W. Ross (Ed.), Psychopathology and
psychotherapy in homosexuality (pp. 1324). Binghamton, NY:
Haworth Press.
Cass, V. C. (1979). Homosexual identity formation: A theoretical
model. Journal of Homosexuality, 4, 219235.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155159.
doi:10.1037=0033-2909.112.1.155
Coleman, E. (1978). Toward a new model of treatment of homosexuality: A review. Journal of Homosexuality, 3, 345359.
Coleman, E. (1988). Psychotherapy with homosexual men and women:
Integrated identity approaches for clinical practice. Binghamton,
NY: Haworth Press.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281301.
Currie, M. R., Cunningham, E. G., & Findlay, B. M. (2004). The Short
Internalized Homonegativity Scale: An examination of the factorial
structure of a new measure of internalized homophobia.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64, 10531067.
doi:10.1177=0013164404264845
Davis, C. M., Yarber, W. L., Bauserman, R., Schreer, G. E., & Davis,
S. L. (Eds.). (1998). Handbook of sexuality-related measures.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dermer, S. B., Smith, S. D., & Barto, K. K. (2010). Identifying
and correctly labeling sexual prejudice, discrimination, and
oppression. Journal of Counseling and Development, 88, 325331.
350
Devine, P. G., Monteith, M. J., Zuwerink, J. R., & Elliot, A. J. (1991).

Prejudice with and without compunction. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 60, 817830. doi:10.1037=0022-3514.
60.6.817
Dew, B. J., & Chaney, M. P. (2005). The relationship among sexual
compulsivity, internalized homophobia, and HIV at-risk sexual
behavior in gay and bisexual male users of Internet chat rooms.
Sexual Addiction and Compulsivity, 12, 259273. doi:10.1080=
10720160500362306
Daz, R. M., Ayala, G., Bein, E., Henne, J., & Marin, B. V. (2001). The
impact of homophobia, poverty, and racism on the mental
health of gay and bisexual Latino men: Findings from 3 US cities.
American Journal of Public Health, 91, 927932.
Dillon, F. R., & Worthington, R. L. (2003). The Lesbian, Gay, and
Bisexual Afrmative Counseling Self-Efcacy Inventory (LGBCSI): Development, validation, and training implications. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 50, 235251. doi:10.1037=0022-0167.
50.2.235
Erlen, J. A., Riley, T. A., & Sereika, S. M. (1999). Psychometric
properties of the Index of Homophobia Scale in registered nurses.
Journal of Nursing Management, 7, 117133.
Fassinger, R. E. (1991). The hidden minority: Issues and challenges
in working with lesbian women and gay men. Counseling Psychologist, 19, 157176. doi:10.1177=0011000091192003
Fassinger, R. E., & Miller, B. A. (1997). Validation of an inclusive model
of sexual minority identity formation on a sample of gay men.
Journal of Homosexuality, 32, 5378. doi:10.1300=J082v32n02_04
Frost, D. M., & Meyer, I. H. (2009). Internalized homophobia and
relationship quality among lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56, 97109. doi:10.1037=
a0012844
Garland, J. T., Morgan, R. D., & Beer, A. M. (2005). Impact of time in
prison and security level on inmates sexual attitude, behavior,
and identity. Psychological Services, 2, 151162. doi:10.1037=
1541-1559.2.2.151
Goldstein, S. B., & Davis, D. S. (2010). Heterosexual allies: A descriptive prole. Equity and Excellence in Education, 43, 478494.
doi:10.1080=10665684.2010.505464
Gonsiorek, J. C. (1982). Homosexuality and psychotherapy: A practitioners handbook of afrmative models. Binghamton, NY: Haworth
Press.
Goodman, M. B., & Moradi, B. (2008). Attitudes and behaviors
toward lesbian and gay persons: Critical correlates and mediated
relations. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55, 371384.
doi:10.1037=0022-0167.55.3.371
Green, B., & Herek, G. M. (Eds.). (1994). Lesbian and gay psychology:
Theory, research, and clinical applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Guillemin, F., Bombardier, C., & Beaton, D. (1993). Cross-cultural
adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: Literature
review and proposed guidelines. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,
46, 14171432. doi:10.1016=0895-4356(93)90142-N
Hansen, G. L. (1982). Measuring prejudice against homosexuality
(homosexism) among college students: A new scale. Journal of
Social Psychology, 117, 233236.
Hegarty, R., & Pratto, F. (2001). Sexual orientation beliefs. Journal of
Homosexuality, 41, 121135. doi:10.1300=J082v41n01_04
Herek, G. M. (1984). Attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: A factor
analytic study. Journal of Homosexuality, 10, 2951. doi:10.1300=
J082v10n01_03
Herek, G. M. (1988). Heterosexuals attitudes toward lesbian and gay
men: Correlates and gender differences. Journal of Sex Research,
25, 451477. doi:10.1080=00224498809551476
Herek, G. M. (2004). Beyond homophobia: Thinking about sexual
prejudice and stigma in the twenty-rst century. Sexuality Research
and Social Policy, 1, 624.
Herek, G. M. (2007). Confronting sexual stigma and prejudice. Theory
and practice: Journal of Social Issues, 63, 905925. doi:10.1111=
j.1540-4560.2007.00544.x

Herek, G. M., Cogan, J. C., Gillis, J. R., & Glunt, E. K. (1997).
Correlates of internalized homophobia in a community sample
of lesbians and gay men. Journal of the Gay and Lesbian Medical
Association, 2, 1725.
Horne, S. G., Rostosky, S. S., Riggle, E. D. B., & Martens, M. P.
(2010). What was Stonewall? The role of GLB knowledge in
marriage amendment-related affect and activism among family
members of GLB individuals. Journal of GLBT Family Studies,
6, 349364. doi:10.1080=1550428X.2010.511066
Hudson, W., & Ricketts, W. A. (1980). A strategy for the measurement
of homophobia. Journal of Homosexuality, 5, 357371.
doi:10.1300=J082v05n04_02
Kashubeck-West, S., & Szymanski, D. M. (2008). Risky sexual behavior in gay and bisexual men: Internalized heterosexism, sensation
seeking, and substance use. Counseling Psychologist, 36, 595614.
doi:10.1177=0011000007309633
Keil, J. M., & Schellenberg, E. G. (1998). Compensating people with
AIDS: A different perspective. Canadian Journal of Behavioural
Science, 30, 8290. doi:10.1037=h0085808
Kerr, P. S., & Holden, P. R. (1996). Development of the Gender Role
Beliefs Scale (GRBS). Journal of Social Behavior and Personality,
11, 316.
Kilianski, S. E. (2003). Explaining heterosexual mens attitudes toward
women and gay men: The theory of exclusively masculine identity.
Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 4, 3756. doi:10.1037=15249220.4.1.37
Kimmel, M. S., & Mahler, M. (2003). Adolescent masculinity, homophobia, and violence: Random school shootings, 19822001.
American Behavioral Scientist, 46, 14391458. doi:10.1177=
0002764203046010010
Kite, M. E., & Deaux, K. (1986). Attitudes toward homosexuality:
Assessment and behavioral consequences. Basic and Applied Social
Psychology, 7, 137162. doi:10.1207=s15324834basp0702_4
Kite, M. E., & Whitley, B. E., Jr. (1996). Sex differences in attitudes
toward homosexual persons, behaviors, and civil rights: A metaanalysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 336353.
doi:10.1177=0146167296224002
Lannutti, P. J., & Lachlan, K. A. (2008). Assessing attitude toward
same-sex marriage: Scale development and validation. Journal of
Homosexuality, 53, 113133. doi:10.1080=00918360802103373
Larsen, K. S., Reed, M., & Hoffman, S. (1980). Attitudes of heterosexuals toward homosexuality: A Likert-type scale and construct
validity. Journal of Sex Research, 16, 245257.
Latner, J. D., OBrien, K. S., Durso, L. E., Brinkman, L. A., &
MacDonald, T. (2008). Weighing obesity stigma: The relative
strength of different forms of bias. International Journal of Obesity,
32, 11451152. doi:10.1038=ijo.2008.53
LeMar, L., & Kite, M. (1998). Sex differences in attitudes toward gay
men and lesbians: A multidimensional perspective. Journal of Sex
Research, 35, 189196. doi:10.1080=00224499809551932
Logan, C. R. (1996). Homophobia? No, homoprejudice. Journal of
Malley, M., & Tasker, F. (2004). Signicant and other: Systemic family
therapists on lesbians and gay men. Journal of Family Therapy, 26,
193212. doi:10.1111=j.1467-6427.2004.00278.x
Massey, S. G. (2009). Polymorphous prejudice: Liberating the measurement of heterosexuals attitudes toward lesbians and gay
men. Journal of Homosexuality, 56, 147172. doi:10.1080=
00918360802623131
Massey, S. G. (2010). Valued differences or benevolent stereotypes?
Exploring the inuence of positive beliefs on anti-gay and antilesbian attitudes. Psychology and Sexuality, 1, 115130.
doi:10.1080=19419899.2010.484593
Mayeld, W. (2001). The development of an Internalized Homonegativity Inventory for gay men. Journal of Homosexuality, 41, 5376.
doi:10.1300=J082v41n02_04
McGuire, J., Nieri, D., Abbott, D., Sheridan, K., & Fisher, R. (1995).
Do Tarasoff principles apply in AIDS-related psychotherapy?
Ethical decision making and the role of therapist homophobia

and perceived client dangerousness. Professional Psychology:
Research and Practice, 26, 608611. doi:10.1037=0735-7028.
26.6.608
Meyer, I. H. (1995). Minority stress and mental health in gay men.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 36, 3856.
Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in
lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and
research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 674697.
doi:10.1037=0033-2909.129.5.674
Meyer, I. H., & Dean, L. (1998). Internalized homophobia, intimacy,
and sexual behavior among gay and bisexual men. In G. M. Herek
(Ed.), Stigma and sexual orientation: Understanding prejudice
against lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals (pp. 160186). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mireshghi, S. I., & Matsumoto, D. (2008). Perceived cultural attitudes
toward homosexuality and their effects on Iranian and American
sexual minorities. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority
Psychology, 14, 372376. doi:10.1037=a0012920
Miville, M. L., Gelso, C. J., Pannu, R., Liu, W., Touradji, P., Holloway,
P., & Fuertes, J. (1999). Appreciating similarities and valuing differences: The Miville-Guzman Universality-Duality Scale. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 46, 291307. doi:10.1037=00220167.46.3.291
Mohipp, C., & Morry, M. M. (2004). The relationship of symbolic
beliefs and prior contact to heterosexuals attitudes toward gay
men and lesbian women. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science,
36, 3644. doi:10.1037=h0087214
Mohr, J. J., & Rochlen, A. B. (1999). Measuring attitudes regarding
bisexuality in lesbian, gay male, and heterosexual populations.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46, 353369. doi:10.1037==
0022-0167.46.3.353
Moradi, B., van den Berg, J. J., & Epting, F. R. (2006). Intrapersonal
and interpersonal manifestations of antilesbian and gay prejudice:
An application of personal construct theory. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 53, 5766. doi:10.1037=0022-0167.53.1.57
Morgan, E. M., Steiner, M. G., & Thompson, E. M. (2010). Processes
of sexual orientation questioning among heterosexual men. Men
and Masculinities, 12, 425443. doi:10.1177=1097184X08322630
Morgan, E. M., & Thompson, E. M. (2011). Processes of sexual
orientation questioning among heterosexual women. Journal of
Sex Research, 48, 1628. doi:10.1080=00224490903370594
Morrison, M. A., & Morrison, T. G. (2002). Development and
validation of a scale measuring modern prejudice toward gay
men and lesbian women. Journal of Homosexuality, 43, 1537.
doi:10.1300=J082v43n02_02
Morrison, T., Parriag, A. V., & Morrison, M. A. (1999). The psychometric properties of the Homonegativity Scale. Journal of
Mulick, P. S., & Wright, L. W. (2002). Examining the existence
of biphobia in the heterosexual and homosexual populations.
Journal of Bisexuality, 2, 4565. doi:10.1300=J159v02n04_03
Neisen, J. H. (1990). Heterosexism: Redening homophobia for the
1990s. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy, 1, 2135.
Newcomb, M. E., & Mustanski, B. (2011). Moderators of the relationship between internalized homophobia and risky sexual behavior
in men who have sex with men: A meta-analysis. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 40, 189199. doi:10.1007=s10508-009-9573-8
Nungesser, L. G. (1983). Homosexual acts, actors, and identities. New
York, NY: Praeger.
Parrott, D. J., Peterson, J. L., Vincent, W., & Bakeman, R. (2008).
Correlates of anger in response to gay men: Effects of male gender
role beliefs, sexual prejudice, and masculine gender role stress.
Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 9, 167178. doi:10.1037=
1524-9220.9.3.167
Pearl, M. L., & Galupo, M. P. (2007). Development and validation
of the Attitudes Toward Same-Sex Marriage Scale. Journal of
351

Poteat, V. P., Espelage, D. L., & Green, H. D. (2007). The socialization of dominance: Peer group contextual effects on homophobic and dominance attitudes. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 92, 10401050. doi:10.1037=0022-3514.92.
6.1040
Raja, S., & Stokes, J. P. (1998). Assessing attitudes toward lesbians
and gay men: The Modern Homophobia Scale. International Journal of Sexuality and Gender Studies, 3, 113134. doi:10.1023=
A:1023244427281
Reeves, T., Horne, S. G., Rostosky, S. S., Riggle, E. D. B., Baggett, L.
R., & Aycock, R. A. (2010). Family members support for GLBT
issues: The role of family adaptability and cohesion. Journal of
GLBT Family Studies, 6, 8097. doi:10.1080=15504280903472857
Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1991). Criteria for
scale selection and evaluation. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, &
L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (Vol. 1., pp. 116). San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
Roese, N. J., Olson, J. M., Borenstein, M. N., Martin, A., & Shores, A. L.
(1992). Same-sex touching behavior: The moderating role of homophobic attitudes. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 16, 249259.
doi:10.1007=BF01462005
Ross, M. W. (1988). Psychopathology and psychotherapy in homosexuality. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press.
Ross, M. W., & Rosser, B. R. S. (1996). Measurement and correlates
of internalized homophobia: A factor analytic study. Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 52, 1521. doi:10.1002=(SICI)1097-467
(199601)52:1 < 15::AID-JCLP2 > 3.0.CO;2-V
Ross, M. W., Rosser, B. R. S., & Smolenski, D. J. (2010). The importance of measuring internalized homophobia=homonegativity.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 12071208. doi:10.1080=
00918360802103373
Rosser, B. R. S., Bockting, W. O., Ross, M. W., Miner, M. H., &
Coleman, E. (2008). The relationship between homosexuality, internalized homonegativity, and mental health in men who have sex
with men. Journal of Homosexuality, 55, 185203. doi:10.1080=
00918360802129394
Rostosky, S. S., Riggle, E. D. B., Horne, S. G., & Miller, A. D. (2009).
Marriage amendments and psychological distress in lesbian, gay,
and bisexual (LGB) adults. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
56, 5666. doi:10.1037=a0013609
Rowen, C. J., & Malcolm, J. P. (2002). Correlates of internalized
homophobia and homosexual identity formation in a sample of
gay men. Journal of Homosexuality, 43, 7792. doi:10.1300=
J082v43n02_05
Stokes, J. P., & Peterson, J. L. (1998). Homophobia, self-esteem, and
risk for HIV among African American men who have sex with
men. AIDS Education and Prevention, 10, 278292.
Szymanski, D. M., & Barry, C. Y. (2001). The Lesbian Internalized
Homophobia Scale: A rational=theoretical approach. Journal of
Szymanski, D. M., & Carr, E. R. (2008). The roles of gender role
conict and internalized heterosexism in gay and bisexual
mens psychological distress: Testing two mediation models. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 9, 4054. doi:10.1037=15249220.9.1.40
Szymanski, D. M., & Gupta, A. (2009). Examining the relationship
between multiple internalized oppressions and African American
lesbian, gay, bisexual, and questioning persons self-esteem and
psychological distress. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56,
110118. doi:10.1037=a0013317
Szymanski, D. M., & Kashubeck-West, S. (2008). Mediators of the
relationship between internalized oppressions and lesbian and
352
bisexual womens psychological distress. Counseling Psychologist,

36, 575594. doi:10.1177=0011000007309490
Tokar, D. M., & Jome, L. M. (1998). Masculinity, vocational interests,
and career choice traditionality: Evidence for a fully mediated
model. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45, 424435.
doi:10.1037=0022-0167.45.4.424
Tolley, C., & Ranzijn, R. (2006). Predictors of heteronormativity in
residential aged care facilities. Australasian Journal on Ageing,
25, 209214. doi:10.1111=j.1741-6612.2006.00186.x
Trezza, G. R. (1994). HIV knowledge and stigmatization of persons
with AIDS: Implications for the development of HIV education
for young adults. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice,
25, 141148. doi:10.1037=0735-7028.25.2.141
Troiden, R. R. (1979). Becoming homosexual: A model of gay identity
acquisition. Psychiatry, 42, 362373.
Van de Ven, P., Bornholt, L., & Bailey, M. (1996). Measuring
cognitive, affective, and behavioral components of homophobic
reaction. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 25, 155179. doi:10.1007=
bf02437934
Wagner, G. W., Serani, J., Rabkin, J., Remien, R., & Williams, J.
(1994). Integration of ones religion and homosexuality: A
weapon against internalized homophobia? Journal of Homosexuality, 26, 91110. doi:10.1300=J082v26n04_06
Walker, D. F., Tokar, D. M., & Fischer, A. R. (2000). What are eight
popular masculinity-related instruments measuring? Underlying
dimensions and their relations to sociosexuality. Psychology of
Men and Masculinity, 1, 98108. doi:10.1037=1524-9220.1.2.98
Walls, N. E. (2008). Toward a multidimensional understanding of
heterosexism: The changing nature of prejudice. Journal of
Homosexuality, 55, 2070. doi:10.1080=00918360802129287
Weinberg, G. (1972). Society and the healthy homosexual. New York,
NY: St. Martins.
Wise, A. J., & Bowman, S. L. (1997). Comparison of beginning
counselors responses to lesbian vs. heterosexual partner abuse.
Violence and Victims, 12, 127135.
Wood, P. B., & Bartkowski, J. P. (2004). Attribution style and public
policy attitudes toward gay rights. Social Science Quarterly, 85,
5874. doi:10.1111=j.0038-4941.2004.08501005.x
Worthington, R. L., Dillon, F. R., & Becker-Schutte, A. M. (2005).
Development, reliability, and validity of the Lesbian, Gay, and
Bisexual Knowledge and Attitudes Scale for Heterosexuals
(LGB-KASH). Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 104118.
doi:10.1037=0022-0167.52.1.104
Worthington, R. L., & Reynolds, A. L. (2009). Within-group differences in sexual orientation and identity. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 56, 4445. doi:10.1037=a0013498
Wrench, J. S. (2005). Development and validity testing of the Homonegativity Short Form. Journal of Intercultural Communication
Research, 34, 152165.
Wrench, J. S., Corrigan, M. W., McCroskey, J. C., & PunyanuntCarter, N. M. (2006). Religious fundamentalism and intercultural
communication: The relationships among ethnocentrism, intercultural communication apprehension, religious fundamentalism,
homonegativity, and tolerance for religious disagreements.
Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 35, 2344.
doi:10.1080=17475740600739198
Wright, L. W., Adams, H. E., & Bernat, J. (1999). Development and
validation of the Homophobia Scale. Journal of Psychopathology
and Behavioral Assessment, 21, 337347.
Zeichner, A., & Reidy, D. E. (2009). Are homophobic men attracted
to or repulsed by homosexual men? Effects of gay male erotica
on anger, fear, happiness, and disgust. Psychology of Men and
Masculinity, 10, 231236. doi:10.1037=a0014955
Copyright of Journal of Sex Research is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed
to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However,
users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

A Systematic Review of Instruments That Measure Attitudes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Systematic Review of Instruments That Measure Attitudes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JOURNAL OF SEX RESEARCH, 50(34), 329352, 2013

Copyright # The Society for the Scientic Study of Sexuality

A Systematic Review of Instruments That Measure Attitudes

Beatrice Bean E. Robinson, Eli Coleman, and Walter O. Bockting

In 1973, a seismic shift in the treatment of homosexuality

Associations Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of

GREY, ROBINSON, COLEMAN, AND BOCKTING

construct for all negative attitudes toward homosexual

2002; Szymanski & Kashubeck-West, 2008). Finally,

REVIEW OF HOMOPHOBIA INSTRUMENTS

Table 1. Homophobia and Measurement Terms Used in

of attitudes toward male homosexuality is distinct in the

instruments from both countries (Anderson & Fetner,

GREY, ROBINSON, COLEMAN, AND BOCKTING

homosexuals. For simplicity, when reporting our methods

scores indicating negative beliefs or attitudes and others

Background and Development

Doctoral fellowship; Social

8. Homophobia Scale (Roese, Olson,

Social Sciences and Humanities

10. Modern Homophobia Scale (MHS) (Raja &

11. Homonegativity Scale (HS) (Morrison,

9. Multidimensional Attitudes Toward

University of California, Davisd

6. Attitudes Toward Lesbian and Gay Men

7. Attitudes Toward Homosexuals (Altemeyer

National Science Foundation

5. Homophobia Scale (Bouton et al., 1987)

2. Heterosexual Attitudes Toward Homosexuals

35 items assessing 3 domains created by 2

92 nonoverlapping items chosen from pool of 174

20 of 70 statements about homosexuals with

1,045 (531 male, 514 female) high school

322 heterosexual introductory psychology

491 (244 male, 247 female) parents of

368 (119 male, 249 female) introductory

528 introductory psychology college students

300 social science college students, faculty,

14. Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Knowledge and

Items based on DSM diagnostic criteria for

9 items from NHAI, 11 new items

National Institute of Mental

6. Short Internalized Homonegativity Scale

4. Internalized Homophobia (IHP) Scale

3. Reactions to Homosexuality Scale (RHS)

25 of 50 items dropped if one response category

17. Multidimensional Measure of Sexual

16. Multidimensional Heterosexism Inventory

13. Modern Homonegativity Scale (MHS)

53 gay men from religious group (New York,

184 gay men from sexual health seminar

50 gay men from activist meeting & faculty=

269 (145 male, 124 female) students in college

651 (195 male, 474 female) introductory social

422 (211 male, 211 female) heterosexual

353 (149 male, 204 female) heterosexual high

1 factor, 53% (men)55% (women)

10. Modern Homophobia Scale

11. Homonegativity Scale (HS)

1. Gay Male Condemnation=Tolerance

Subscale (No. of Items)

Instrument Characteristics and Reliability Evidence

15, Strongly agreestrongly

15, Strongly disagreestrongly