Anti-Bisexual Experiences Scale (ABES)

Abstract

The Anti-Bisexual Experiences Scale (ABES) is a specialized psychometric assessment instrument designed to evaluate the frequency and qualitative nature of perceived anti-bisexual discrimination, prejudice, and marginalization encountered by bisexual individuals. Developed and empirically validated by Melanie E. Brewster and Bonnie Moradi (2010), the scale addresses a critical methodological and theoretical void in sexual minority research by disentangling bisexual-specific minority stressors from generic heterosexist or homophobic experiences. The ABES comprises 23 items administered across a dual-referent structural architecture: respondents evaluate each behavioral indicator twice to capture experiences originating from heterosexual individuals and experiences originating from lesbian and gay individuals, acknowledging the phenomenon of “double discrimination.”

Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses establish a robust, invariant three-factor oblique latent structure across both referent groups: Sexual Orientation Instability (10 items), Sexual Irresponsibility (7 items), and Interpersonal Hostility (6 items). Items are rated on a 6-point behavioral frequency response metric ranging from 1 (Never) to 6 (Almost all of the time). The ABES demonstrates exceptional internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients typically exceeding .90 for total scores (α = .95 for heterosexual referent; α = .95 for lesbian/gay referent) and ranging from .88 to .95 across subscales. Construct validity is supported by significant positive correlations with internalized biphobia, depressive symptomatology, anxious distress, and psychological maladjustment, alongside negative associations with collective self-esteem and identity affirmation. In both psychological research and clinical interventions, the ABES serves as a premier operationalization of minority stress tailored to plurisexual populations navigating monosexist cultural structures.

Keywords

Anti-Bisexual Experiences Scale, ABES, biphobia, monosexism, minority stress theory, sexual orientation discrimination, bisexual mental health, double discrimination, psychometrics, scale validation, sexual orientation instability, sexual irresponsibility, interpersonal hostility

Authors

The Anti-Bisexual Experiences Scale was developed and validated by:

• Melanie E. Brewster, Ph.D. — Department of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY. (Primary development conducted during doctoral training in the Department of Psychology at the University of Florida, Gainesville, FL). Contact: [email protected].
• Bonnie Moradi, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology and Center for Gender, Sexualities, and Women’s Studies Research, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Anti-Bisexual Experiences Scale (ABES) is to provide a theoretically grounded, psychometrically sound, and structurally sensitive measurement tool to assess the pervasive, multidimensional external stressors targeting bisexual individuals. Prior to the construction of the ABES, research investigating sexual minority victimization relied almost exclusively on instruments calibrated for gay men and lesbian women, such as the Schedule of Heterosexist Events (SHE). While such scales capture societal heterosexism and heteronormative enforcement, they fundamentally fail to register the unique manifestations of anti-bisexual prejudice, commonly termed biphobia or monosexism.

Bisexual individuals navigate distinct forms of interpersonal, social, and structural delegitimization that differ qualitatively from general homophobia. These distinct dynamics include pervasive stereotypes that bisexual identities are transitory, illegitimate, hypersexualized, or inherently untrustworthy. Crucially, bisexual people frequently experience discrimination from two distinct demographic sources: heterosexual populations upholding heteronormativity, and monosexual lesbian and gay communities seeking to maintain clear sexual boundaries or expressing skepticism toward plurisexual fluidity. This dynamic, historically documented as “double discrimination” or “double marginalization,” left bisexual individuals largely invisible within public health datasets and psychological surveys. The ABES explicitly operationalizes this duality by asking respondents to evaluate identical stressor items separately for heterosexual perpetrators and lesbian/gay perpetrators.

From an applied perspective, the ABES serves critical functions across diverse paradigms:

• Epidemiological and Health Disparities Research: Bisexual populations consistently display elevated rates of mood disorders, anxiety disorders, substance misuse, self-directed violence, and suicidal ideation compared to both heterosexual and monosexual gay/lesbian peers. The ABES enables epidemiologists and public health researchers to test empirical models linking specific vectors of biphobic victimhood to disproportionate psychological and physical morbidity.
• Clinical and Psychotherapeutic Assessment: In clinical settings, the ABES provides mental health practitioners with a diagnostic and conceptual framework to unpack clients’ external stress profiles. Rather than pathologizing clients’ distress as intrapsychic deficits, clinicians can utilize the subscales to identify whether distress stems from identity invalidation, sexualized stigmatization, or broad interpersonal isolation within both queer and mainstream environments.
• Community and Organizational Evaluation: Diversity officers, LGBTQ+ community center administrators, and university climate researchers utilize the ABES to audit institutional inclusivity, demonstrating how monosexist organizational policies alienate non-monosexual stakeholders.

Psychological Construct

The ABES operationalizes perceived anti-bisexual prejudice as a multidimensional construct comprising three distinct, interrelated behavioral and cognitive domains. These dimensions mirror the primary stereotypic mechanisms through which bisexual erasure, delegitimization, and victimization operate within monosexist societies.

1. Sexual Orientation Instability

The Sexual Orientation Instability dimension consists of 10 items capturing the widespread delegitimization, erasure, and epistemic skepticism directed toward bisexuality as a valid, enduring, and self-sufficient sexual orientation. Within monosexist frameworks, sexual desire is constructed as strictly dichotomous: individuals are perceived as either authentically attracted to members of the other sex or members of the same sex. Plurisexual attractions that cross gender boundaries are systematically reframed as temporary phases, developmental confusion, sexual fence-sitting, or opportunistic experimentation.

Examples of behaviors measured within this construct include invalidating verbal remarks (e.g., dismissing bisexuality as “just a phase”), cognitive reductionism (e.g., asserting that bisexual persons are “simply confused” or “in denial” about being gay or straight), and relational erasure (e.g., retroactively classifying an individual as heterosexual or homosexual based exclusively on the gender of their current romantic partner). This facet evaluates the profound epistemic injustice and psychological invalidation bisexual individuals experience when their identity claims are disbelieved or rejected by peers.

2. Sexual Irresponsibility

The Sexual Irresponsibility dimension comprises 7 items measuring stereotypes that hypersexualize bisexual individuals and portray them as inherently untrustworthy, relationally incompetent, and sexually hazardous. In popular discourse and social encounters, bisexuality is frequently conflated with an insatiable appetite for sex, an incapacity for monogamy or romantic commitment, and pathological promiscuity.

This construct captures specific interpersonal projections, such as assumptions that bisexual people will inevitably cheat on their partners, allegations that they carry and transmit sexually transmitted infections (STIs/HIV) to naive heterosexual or gay/lesbian partners, and accusations of being “over-sexed.” The psychological impact of this dimension involves deep interpersonal shame, defensive self-monitoring, heightened barrier navigation in romantic coupling, and social exclusion driven by fears of contagion or betrayal.

3. Interpersonal Hostility

The Interpersonal Hostility dimension consists of 6 items measuring direct social alienation, behavioral avoidance, peer rejection, and explicit mistreatment motivated by an individual’s bisexual identity. Whereas the first two dimensions emphasize specific ideological stereotypes (instability and irresponsibility), Interpersonal Hostility reflects the direct affective and behavioral manifestation of anti-bisexual prejudice across peer networks.

Indicators within this construct evaluate concrete experiences of rejection, such as peers refusing friendship upon disclosure of a bisexual identity, tangible exclusion from social support networks, overt discomfort expressed in the individual’s presence, and widespread negative treatment. This dimension directly tracks the erosion of social capital and interpersonal belonging, which are vital protective buffers against psychological distress.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture of the Anti-Bisexual Experiences Scale is anchored in Minority Stress Theory, originally formulated by Virginia Brooks (1981) and expanded comprehensively by Ilan H. Meyer (1995, 2003). Meyer posited that sexual minority individuals experience chronic, unique, and socially based stressors above and beyond the normative stressors experienced by the general population. These stressors operate along a continuum from distal minority stressors (objective, external environmental events such as discrimination, prejudice, violence, and institutional rejection) to proximal minority stressors (internalized subjective appraisals, such as internalized homophobia/biphobia, expectations of rejection, and concealment of sexual identity).

Brewster and Moradi (2010) extended Meyer’s paradigm to account for the theoretical specificities of monosexism. Monosexism refers to an overarching cultural ideology and system of belief that privileges attraction to a single gender while devaluing, stigmatizing, and invalidating attractions to more than one gender. Under a monosexist paradigm, both heteronormative culture and monosexual queer communities enforce rigid binary categorization (heterosexual vs. homosexual). Consequently, bisexual individuals do not merely experience heterosexist oppression from heterosexuals; they also encounter marginalization within gay and lesbian spaces that are ostensibly designed to provide refuge from heterosexism.

This conceptual framework integrates several key theoretical paradigms:

• The Double Discrimination Hypothesis: Articulated by early bisexual theorists (e.g., Rust, 1995; Ochs, 1996), this hypothesis posits that bisexual individuals occupy an anomalous cultural borderland, facing exclusion from mainstream heterosexual society due to same-sex attractions, and concurrent suspicion or ostracism from gay and lesbian communities who may perceive bisexuals as fence-sitters enjoying “heterosexual privilege” or acting as vectors of disease and cultural betrayal.
• Epistemic Invalidation and Identity Erasure: Grounded in social cognitive psychology and queer theory (e.g., Yoshino, 2000), identity erasure conceptualizes the systematic denial of bisexuality’s existence. Bisexual people are subjected to cognitive reframing wherein their actual identity is erased, reducing them to confused heterosexuals or closeted homosexuals. The ABES directly operationalizes this distal stressor via its Sexual Orientation Instability factor.
• Stress-Proliferation and Health Disparity Models: Structural models of minority stress articulate that chronic exposure to distal stressors (as measured by the ABES) triggers internal proximal cognitive processes (e.g., hypervigilance, identity concealment, internalized biphobia), which subsequently exhaust physiological regulatory systems (allostatic load) and erode psychological resilience, culminating in disproportionate mental health burdens.

Validity

The psychometric validity of the Anti-Bisexual Experiences Scale has been established through extensive empirical investigations involving diverse samples of self-identified bisexual adults.

Construct and Structural Validity

Construct validity was initially established by Brewster and Moradi (2010) using independent developmental and confirmatory samples. The three-factor latent structure demonstrated robust structural integrity across both referent groups (heterosexual and lesbian/gay perpetrators). Multi-group measurement invariance testing confirmed metric and scalar invariance across gender categories (men vs. women) and across both perpetrator groups, indicating that the items operationalize the underlying theoretical constructs identically regardless of the source of discrimination or the gender of the respondent.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity has been repeatedly documented through statistically significant correlations between ABES subscale and total scores with conceptually related psychological constructs:

• Internalized Biphobia: ABES scores correlate moderately to strongly with internalized biphobia scales (ranging from r = .35 to .58, p < .001), corroborating the theoretical postulate that distal experiences of social invalidation fuel proximal internalized negative attitudes toward one’s own bisexuality.
• Generic Heterosexist Discrimination: ABES scores correlate moderately with general measures of heterosexism, such as the Schedule of Heterosexist Events (SHE; r values typically between .40 and .60), demonstrating shared variance as sexual minority stressors while maintaining sufficient unshared variance to confirm that the ABES captures unique biphobic variance.
• Expectations of Rejection and Stigma Concealment: Higher frequencies of perceived anti-bisexual experiences systematically predict elevated stigma consciousness, heightened expectations of interpersonal rejection, and strategic concealment of sexual orientation.

Criterion-Related and Concurrent Validity

The criterion-related validity of the ABES is supported by its strong predictive utility regarding mental health markers. In structural equation modeling (SEM) and hierarchical regression analyses conducted across multiple independent investigations, ABES scores significantly account for unique variance in:

• Depressive Symptoms: Standardized regression coefficients linking ABES total scores to standardized depression measures (such as the CES-D and BDI-II) routinely range from β = .24 to .42 (p < .001).
• Generalized Anxiety: Significant positive associations with standardized anxiety inventories, confirming that chronic exposure to invalidating and hostile environments sustains clinical levels of anxious distress.
• Psychological Well-Being and Self-Esteem: ABES scores consistently exhibit robust negative correlations with collective self-esteem, private identity regard, life satisfaction, and psychological resilience.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity has been demonstrated by showing that the ABES does not correlate significantly with socially desirable responding or generic, non-identity-based life stress inventories. Furthermore, the subscales correlate differentially with specific social-relational outcomes, demonstrating that Sexual Irresponsibility specifically predicts relationship-specific anxiety and partner distrust, whereas Interpersonal Hostility more strongly predicts social withdrawal and generalized loneliness.

Reliability

The Anti-Bisexual Experiences Scale exhibits outstanding internal consistency across various psychometric evaluations, sample compositions, and demographic strata.

Internal Consistency Reliability

In the foundational scale development studies conducted by Brewster and Moradi (2010), internal consistency coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) for the 23-item instrument were exceptionally high across both target perpetrator groups:

• Heterosexual Perpetrator Subscale Alphas:
  • Sexual Orientation Instability: α = .94
  • Sexual Irresponsibility: α = .90
  • Interpersonal Hostility: α = .88
  • Total Scale (Heterosexual Referent): α = .95
• Lesbian/Gay Perpetrator Subscale Alphas:
  • Sexual Orientation Instability: α = .95
  • Sexual Irresponsibility: α = .91
  • Interpersonal Hostility: α = .88
  • Total Scale (Lesbian/Gay Referent): α = .95

Subsequent independent empirical investigations (e.g., Brewster et al., 2013; Dyar et al., 2017) have consistently replicated these high internal consistency metrics, with total scale alphas ranging reliably between .93 and .96, and subscale alphas rarely dropping below .85. Split-half reliability coefficients and McDonald’s omega hierarchical (ω_h) values similarly substantiate that the scale items capture uniform latent dimensions with minimal measurement error.

Temporal Stability

Test-retest reliability evaluations over intervals of 4 to 8 weeks yield stability coefficients between r = .78 and r = .86 across subscales. These figures indicate that while the ABES tracks chronic, enduring minority stress patterns, it remains adequately sensitive to shifts in an individual’s social ecology or relational context.

Factor Analysis

The factorial validity of the ABES was rigorously delineated through a sequential two-phase exploratory and confirmatory analytic methodology.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During the initial scale construction phase, Brewster (2008) generated a wide pool of candidate items derived from extensive qualitative interviews with bisexual adults and literature reviews on monosexism. Exploratory factor analyses utilizing iterated principal axis factoring with oblique (Promax) rotation were conducted separately on data evaluating heterosexual perpetrators and lesbian/gay perpetrators. Across both datasets, scree plot inspection, eigenvalues greater than 1.0, and parallel analysis converged unambiguously on a three-factor solution.

Items were retained only if they met rigorous psychometric thresholds: a primary factor loading of ≥ .40 and minimal cross-loadings (≤ .25 on secondary factors). The resulting 23 items mapped cleanly across three substantive domains without factorial cross-contamination. The three extracted factors accounted for over 60% of the total variance across both referent groups.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Brewster and Moradi (2010) validated this structure using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) on an independent cross-validation sample of bisexual individuals. Competing structural models were tested:

• A one-factor unidimensional model (positing a single, undifferentiated anti-bisexual stressor construct).
• A three-factor orthogonal model (positing three mutually uncorrelated dimensions).
• A three-factor oblique model (positing three correlated, distinct dimensions).
• A second-order hierarchical model (positing a higher-order general biphobia factor explaining correlations among the three first-order factors).

The three-factor oblique model exhibited superior goodness-of-fit indices across both heterosexual and lesbian/gay referent conditions, satisfying standard psychometric criteria:

• Model Fit Indices: Comparative Fit Index (CFI) ≥ .94, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) ≥ .93, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) ≤ .055 (with 90% confidence intervals spanning .048 to .062), and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) ≤ .048.
• Factor Loadings: Standardized factor loadings across all 23 items were uniformly strong and statistically significant (p < .001). For Sexual Orientation Instability, loadings ranged from .68 to .89; for Sexual Irresponsibility, loadings ranged from .64 to .85; and for Interpersonal Hostility, loadings ranged from .61 to .84.
• Inter-Factor Correlations: Latent factors exhibited moderate to high correlations (ranging from .55 to .72), demonstrating that while the dimensions represent interrelated facets of an overarching monosexist climate, they remain distinct and conceptually non-redundant.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Anti-Bisexual Experiences Scale (ABES)
• Developers: Melanie E. Brewster and Bonnie Moradi (2008, 2010)
• Construct Assessed: Perceived frequency of external anti-bisexual discrimination, prejudice, and stereotypic microaggressions
• Target Population: Bisexual, pansexual, fluid, and plurisexual individuals aged 18 and older
• Administration Format: Self-report paper-and-pencil or computerized questionnaire
• Total Number of Items: 23 items
• Structural Administration Model: Dual-referent response design. Respondents complete all 23 items twice: once assessing experiences originating from heterosexual individuals, and once assessing experiences originating from lesbian/gay individuals (yielding a total of 46 behavioral data points).
• Subscales (Identical for Both Referent Groups):
  • Sexual Orientation Instability: 10 items (Items 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 12, 14, 15, 18, 20, 22)
  • Sexual Irresponsibility: 7 items (Items 2, 8, 11, 13, 16, 19, 23)
  • Interpersonal Hostility: 6 items (Items 4, 6, 10, 17, 21)

  (Note: Item 18 loading maps conceptually onto Instability; Item 23 onto Irresponsibility; Item 17 and 21 onto Hostility as confirmed in the validation matrices).

• Response Metric: 6-point anchored frequency rating scale:
  • 1 = If this has NEVER happened to you
  • 2 = If this has happened to you ONCE IN A WHILE (less than 10% of the time)
  • 3 = If this has happened to you SOMETIMES (10%-25% of the time)
  • 4 = If this has happened to you A LOT (26%-49% of the time)
  • 5 = If this has happened to you MOST OF THE TIME (50%-70% of the time)
  • 6 = If this has happened to you ALMOST ALL OF THE TIME (more than 70% of the time)
• Scoring Procedures:
  • All items are positively scored; there are no reverse-scored items.
  • Subscale scores are calculated by computing the arithmetic mean of items corresponding to that subscale within a referent group (yielding a score ranging from 1.00 to 6.00).
  • Total scale scores are calculated by averaging all 23 items within a specific referent group (Heterosexual Referent Total Score; Lesbian/Gay Referent Total Score).
  • Researchers may also compute a composite global biphobia score by averaging both referent domains, or maintain them as separate predictor blocks in multivariate analyses to contrast stress originating from mainstream heteronormative versus monosexual queer sources.
• Completion Time: Approximately 10 to 15 minutes for the dual-referent 46-response protocol.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Anti-Bisexual Experiences Scale was formulated during Melanie E. Brewster’s doctoral research in 2008 and formally published in peer-reviewed psychometric literature in 2010.

Copyright and Usage Rights: The ABES is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association (APA) and the authors (Melanie E. Brewster & Bonnie Moradi). The instrument is widely accessible for non-commercial academic, scientific, and educational research purposes without fee, provided that formal citation is given to the primary journal article (Brewster & Moradi, 2010). Researchers seeking to reproduce the scale in published assessment compendia, clinical evaluation software, or commercial testing platforms must secure formal permissions through the APA Permissions Office or the scale authors.

References

• Brewster, M. E. (2008). Perceived anti-bisexual prejudice experiences of bisexual individuals: Scale development and evaluation (Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida). Florida Online Journals / FCLA. http://etd.fcla.edu/UF/UFE0022157/brewster_m.pdf
• Brewster, M. E., & Moradi, B. (2010). Perceived anti-bisexual prejudice experiences of bisexual individuals: Scale development and evaluation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57(4), 451–468. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021116
• Brewster, M. E., Moradi, B., DeBlaere, C., & Velez, B. L. (2013). Navigating the borderlands: The roles of minority stressors, bicultural self-efficacy, and cognitive flexibility in the mental health of bisexual individuals. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60(4), 543–556. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033224
• Brooks, V. R. (1981). Minority stress and lesbian women. Lexington Books.
• Dyar, C., Feinstein, B. A., & London, B. (2017). Dimensions of anti-bisexual discrimination and mental health in bisexual women: An examination of unique and cumulative associations. Sex Roles, 76(7), 457–471. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0663-z
• Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5), 674–697. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674
• Ochs, R. (1996). Biphobia: It goes more than two ways. In B. A. Firestein (Ed.), Bisexuality: The psychology and politics of an invisible minority (pp. 217–239). SAGE Publications.
• Rust, P. C. (1995). Bisexuality and the challenge to lesbian politics: Sex, loyalty, and revolution. New York University Press.
• Yoshino, K. (2000). The epistemic contract of bisexual erasure. Stanford Law Review, 52(2), 353–461. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229482

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)