Anti-LGBTQ+ Attitudes Scale

1. Abstract

The Anti-LGBTQ+ Attitudes Scale (ALAS) is a psychometrically robust, multidimensional instrument developed by Rafael Ballester-Arnal, Juan E. Nebot-Garcia, Marcel Elipe-Miravet, Estefanía Ruiz-Palomino, and M. Dolores Gil-Llario (2024) to evaluate contemporary prejudices, beliefs, affective reactions, and behavioral dispositions toward lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) populations in Spain. Formulated in response to critical psychometric gaps—specifically the historic reliance on Anglo-Saxon instruments and scales that evaluate homonegativity while excluding bisexual and transgender realities—the ALAS comprises 33 items scored along a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (Totalmente en desacuerdo / Strongly disagree) to 5 (Totalmente de acuerdo / Strongly agree). Methodological development involved rigorous expert content validation, pilot testing, and structural evaluation via both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Structural analyses demonstrated that a bifactor model provides the best fit, consisting of an overarching general Anti-LGBTQ+ Attitudes dimension alongside two distinct domain-specific factors: Positive Attitudes (9 reverse-coded items assessing acceptance, familial inclusion, and structural rights) and Negative Attitudes (24 items capturing traditional hostility, modern prejudice, biphobia, transphobia, and behavioral aversion). Internal consistency reliability indices across factors ranged from good to excellent, with Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega coefficients spanning .879 to .929. The measure further demonstrated strict measurement invariance across gender identities and LGBTQ+ community membership. Consequently, the ALAS serves as an essential, psychometrically validated assessment tool for social science research, public health surveillance, clinical evaluation, and the empirical benchmarking of diversity interventions within Spanish-speaking contexts.

2. Keywords

Anti-LGBTQ+ Attitudes Scale, ALAS, sexual prejudice, homophobia, biphobia, transphobia, modern prejudice, bifactor model, psychometric validation, measurement invariance, Spanish population, minority stress.

3. Authors

The Anti-LGBTQ+ Attitudes Scale was designed and validated by members of the SALUSEX Research Group at Universitat Jaume I and the University of Valencia in Spain:

• Rafael Ballester-Arnal, Ph.D. — Department of Basic and Clinical Psychology and Psychobiology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Universitat Jaume I (Castellón de la Plana, Spain). ORCID: 0000-0003-0104-5818.
• Juan E. Nebot-Garcia, M.Sc. — Department of Basic and Clinical Psychology and Psychobiology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Universitat Jaume I (Castellón de la Plana, Spain). Corresponding Author: [email protected].
• Marcel Elipe-Miravet, Ph.D. — Department of Basic and Clinical Psychology and Psychobiology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Universitat Jaume I (Castellón de la Plana, Spain).
• Estefanía Ruiz-Palomino, Ph.D. — Department of Developmental and Educational Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, Universitat de València (Valencia, Spain).
• M. Dolores Gil-Llario, Ph.D. — Department of Developmental and Educational Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, Universitat de València (Valencia, Spain).

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Anti-LGBTQ+ Attitudes Scale (ALAS) is to provide an empirically grounded, culturally nuanced, and psychometrically validated instrument for capturing the multifaceted nature of prejudice directed toward sexual and gender minorities. For decades, psychological measurement in the domain of sexual stigma relied almost exclusively on pioneering instruments developed in the late twentieth century, such as Gregory Herek’s Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men (ATLG) Scale or Hudson and Ricketts’ Index of Homophobia. While these instruments played a foundational role in establishing the empirical study of sexual prejudice, contemporary psychometricians have identified significant conceptual and operational limitations that restrict their utility in modern social environments.

First, traditional scales were constructed around an exclusively monosexual, cis-normative binary. They systematically evaluated attitudes toward cisgender gay men and lesbian women while completely omitting attitudes toward bisexual individuals, transgender people, and nonbinary gender identities. Modern social psychological research demonstrates that prejudice against bisexual individuals (biphobia) and transgender individuals (transphobia or cissexism) is driven by unique cognitive heuristics—such as accusations of indecisiveness, sexual greed, gender boundary violations, and mental pathology—that cannot be subsumed under general homonegativity. Second, classic instruments predominantly reflect overt, blatant hostility (e.g., criminalization or overt moral condemnation). In progressive legal and cultural settings, such as Spain, blatant prejudice has substantially mutated into modern, subtle, or ambivalent forms of discrimination. Modern prejudice manifests as opposition to institutional education on diversity, denial of persistent inequality, resistance to adoption rights, demand for privatized expression, and discomfort with visible displays of affection.

The ALAS addresses these critical shortcomings by unifying sexual orientation and gender identity within a modern, 33-item multidimensional architecture tailored specifically for European and Spanish-speaking socio-legal realities. In clinical, educational, and research contexts, the scale fulfills multiple complementary functions:

• Epidemiological and Sociological Surveillance: It enables accurate population-level monitoring of anti-LGBTQ+ sentiment across demographic strata, tracking shifts in public attitudes following legislative reforms or cultural controversies.
• Intervention Benchmarking: It provides a sensitive pre- and post-test measurement framework for evaluating diversity training, school-based anti-bullying programs, and human rights campaigns.
• Clinical and Forensic Application: In psychological practice, it facilitates the objective assessment of internalized stigma, implicit and explicit bias among healthcare providers, and discriminatory risk factors in institutional or legal settings.
• Theoretical Refinement: It allows researchers to investigate complex associations between distinct facets of prejudice (e.g., biphobia vs. transphobia vs. gay parenting acceptance) and psychosocial covariates like right-wing authoritarianism, religiosity, and empathy.

5. Psychological Construct

The psychological construct captured by the ALAS is Anti-LGBTQ+ Attitudes, conceptualized as an overarching socio-cognitive and affective orientation characterized by negative valuations, cognitive biases, affective aversion, behavioral resistance, and structural rejection targeting individuals whose sexual orientations, gender identities, or gender expressions depart from heteronormative and cis-normative standards. Rather than treating prejudice as a unidimensional continuum of overt dislike, the ALAS operationalizes the construct as a bifactorial architecture comprising an omnibus latent disposition alongside two substantive, intercorrelated sub-dimensions: Positive Attitudes and Negative Attitudes.

Positive Attitudes (Subscale 1: Acceptance, Family Integration, and Equal Rights)

Comprising 9 reverse-scored items (Items 12, 13, 14, 17, 19, 21, 22, 27, and 29), this dimension evaluates the affirmative domain of social inclusion, personal acceptance, and structural equity. Crucially, the absence of overt hostility does not inherently indicate genuine social endorsement. This subscale directly probes proactive socio-emotional validation across three foundational domains:

• Familial Kinship Acceptance: Assesses whether an individual unconditionally accepts sexual and gender diversity within their immediate family system, including accepting a daughter who is a lesbian (Item 12), a child who is transgender (Item 14), a child who is bisexual (Item 17), or a son who is gay (Item 29). This captures core interpersonal acceptance devoid of conditional familial shame.
• Structural and Reproductive Rights: Evaluates explicit endorsement of equal legal and parenting rights for sexual and gender minorities, including adoption rights for gay men (Item 13), transgender individuals (Item 22), and lesbian women (Item 27).
• Interpersonal Comfort and Romantic Partnership: Measures willingness to accept a partner’s bisexuality (Item 19) and comfort being seen in public spaces with openly LGBTQ+ individuals (Item 21), thereby assessing social proximity without fear of stigma by association.

Negative Attitudes (Subscale 2: Prejudice, Pathologization, and Behavioral Rejection)

Comprising 24 directly scored items, this subscale captures the multifaceted manifestations of modern and traditional anti-LGBTQ+ hostility across several cognitive, affective, and behavioral strata:

• Modern and Denialist Prejudice: Manifested in statements claiming that institutional discrimination is an issue of the past (Item 8), demanding the privatization of sexual and gender identities (Item 20), opposing sexual diversity education in public schools (Item 2), and advocating for reactionary counter-movements like “heterosexual pride” (Item 30).
• Stereotyping and Specific Biphobia: Explicitly probes monosexist beliefs targeting bisexual individuals, such as depictions of bisexuality as promiscuity or vice (Item 4), indecision or lack of definition (Item 23), unnaturalness (Item 25), and a transitional phase of closeted homosexuality (Item 28).
• Transphobia and Gender Essentialism: Evaluates hostility toward transgender and nonbinary individuals through cognitive pathologization—such as classifying nonbinary identities as mental disorders (Item 33)—and conditional tolerance that demands gender conformity and non-visibility (Item 10).
• Affective Discomfort and Erotic Devaluation: Measures subjective visceral aversion, such as personal discomfort regarding same-sex physical attraction (Item 1), visceral shock at observing public displays of affection among lesbians (Item 7), gay men (Item 15), or trans individuals (Item 31), and sexual prejudice claiming intimate relations among lesbians (Item 5), trans individuals (Item 18), or gay men (Item 24) are unsatisfactory.
• Behavioral Aversion, Bystander Inaction, and Hostility: Evaluates behavioral aggression and avoidance tendencies, including the willingness to verbally insult a trans person (Item 3) or same-sex individual (Item 16) who approaches romantically, refusing to visit LGBTQ+ venues (Item 9), active refusal to defend a victimized LGBTQ+ person due to fear of stigma by association (Item 11), victim-blaming gay men for homophobic attacks (Item 32), and invalidating lesbian discrimination claims as hypersensitivity (Item 26).

6. Theoretical Framework

The architecture of the ALAS is firmly anchored within modern social psychological, sociological, and developmental paradigms governing prejudice, social identity, and systemic discrimination. Historically, psychological literature conceptualized prejudice against sexual minorities through a psychiatric or psychoanalytic lens, categorizing it as an individual irrational phobia (e.g., George Weinberg’s 1972 coinage of “homophobia”). Contemporary psychometrics and sociocognitive theory have largely replaced the phobia framework with systematic models of institutionalized oppression, socio-cognitive ideology, and group-based hierarchies.

Herek’s Conceptualization of Sexual Stigma and Sexual Prejudice

The foundational bedrock of the ALAS draws extensively upon Gregory Herek’s multidimensional theory of sexual stigma. Herek disaggregated sexual stigma into three interrelated levels: structural stigma (institutional policies, laws, and cultural ideologies that devalue non-heterosexual identities), interpersonal stigma (overt or covert discriminatory acts occurring within interpersonal exchanges), and sexual prejudice (negative personal attitudes directed toward an individual because of their sexual orientation). The ALAS operationalizes sexual prejudice by recognizing that attitudes are not merely abstract evaluations, but ideological stances that sustain heteronormative hegemony and police rigid gender conformity.

Modern and Ambivalent Prejudices Frameworks

Traditional prejudice scales evaluated “old-fashioned” or “blatant” prejudice, defined by overt moral condemnation, demands for criminalization, and explicit expressions of hatred. However, as demonstrated by Morrison and Morrison (2002) in their work on modern homonegativity, legal advances and shifting social norms have rendered explicit prejudice socially undesirable. Consequently, negative attitudes mutate into “modern prejudice,” characterized by four interlocking beliefs:

1. Discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals is no longer a serious societal problem (captured by ALAS Item 8).
2. LGBTQ+ individuals are demanding special privileges rather than equal rights (captured by ALAS Item 30 regarding “heterosexual pride”).
3. Sexual minorities are excessively militant and hypersensitive to benign humor or discourse (captured by ALAS Item 26).
4. Identity should remain strictly privatized within domestic spaces, thereby enforcing heteronormative hegemony in public spheres (captured by ALAS Item 6, Item 10, and Item 20).

The Gender Belief System and Cissexism

Traditional prejudice scales consistently failed to account for transgender and nonbinary populations because they treated sexual orientation in isolation from the broader gender belief system (Kite & Whitley, 1996). The theoretical model underpinning the ALAS posits that homophobia, biphobia, and transphobia are intrinsically intertwined expressions of cissexism and heterosexism. Transphobia arises when individuals violate normative expectations regarding gender stability, physical embodiment, and the binary alignment between assigned biological sex and gender identity. By incorporating items assessing the pathologization of nonbinary identities (Item 33) and the conditional tolerance of trans individuals based on their compliance with non-visibility (Item 10), the ALAS incorporates modern gender policing theories into a unified psychometric instrument.

Monosexism and Bisexual Erasure

Biphobia cannot be understood simply as a weaker or intermediate derivative of homophobia. Sociological and psychological theories of monosexism emphasize that individuals who experience attraction to more than one gender threaten the foundational cognitive category of sexual stability. This gives rise to unique stereotypes centered on deceit, hyper-promiscuity, developmental immaturity, and untrustworthiness. The inclusion of specific biphobia metrics in the ALAS reflects the theoretical recognition that bisexual individuals experience distinct minority stressors stemming from both heterosexual and homosexual populations.

7. Validity

The psychometric validation of the Anti-LGBTQ+ Attitudes Scale, as detailed by Ballester-Arnal et al. (2024), adhered to the rigorous test construction standards established by the American Educational Research Association (AERA), the American Psychological Association (APA), and the National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME). Multiple empirical strategies were deployed to evaluate content, structural, convergent, discriminant, and known-groups validity.

Content Validity and Qualitative Refinement

Content validity was established through an exhaustive qualitative and quantitative expert judgment process. An initial pool of candidate items was synthesized following an extensive literature review of contemporary sexual prejudice, biphobia, and transphobia scales. A panel of doctoral-level clinical psychologists and psychometric experts evaluated each item regarding its clarity, syntactic structure, cultural alignment with the contemporary Spanish vernacular, and theoretical relevance to the underlying constructs. Items exhibiting semantic ambiguity, floor effects during preliminary piloting, or inadequate content coverage were refined or discarded, culminating in the 33-item final version.

Construct and Factorial Validity

Construct validity was evaluated by systematically testing competing theoretical models using structural equation modeling. Exploratory factor analyses established an initial two-dimensional pattern distinguishing positive from negative attitudes. Subsequent confirmatory factor analyses supported a bifactor configuration, demonstrating that the ALAS is simultaneously driven by an overarching latent construct (Anti-LGBTQ+ Attitudes General Factor) and two robust, domain-specific subfactors (Actitudes Positivas and Actitudes Negativas). This structural confirmation validates the theoretical proposition that general anti-LGBTQ+ bias coexists with nuanced, factor-specific variance reflecting affirmative integration versus hostile or modern resistance.

Measurement Invariance

To verify that the ALAS measures identical theoretical constructs with equivalent calibration across diverse subpopulations, multigroup confirmatory factor analyses (MGCFA) were conducted. The scale demonstrated robust measurement invariance across:

• Gender Groups: Establishing configural, metric (weak), and scalar (strong) invariance across cisgender men, cisgender women, and gender-diverse respondents, confirming that observed mean differences reflect genuine psychological variances rather than item interpretation bias.
• LGBTQ+ Community Membership: Establishing invariance between self-identified LGBTQ+ individuals and heterosexual/cisgender respondents, proving the scale’s suitability for comparative sociological studies and internalized stigma assessments.

Convergent, Discriminant, and Known-Groups Validity

Although formal criterion correlation matrices continue to be expanded across independent samples, the instrument exhibits robust known-groups validity. Empirically, cisgender heterosexual males consistently score significantly higher on the Negative Attitudes subscale and lower on the Positive Attitudes subscale than cisgender women and LGBTQ+ participants—a pattern deeply corroborated across international sexual prejudice literature. Furthermore, ALAS dimensions align theoretically with external constructs, demonstrating high convergent patterns with right-wing authoritarianism (RWA), social dominance orientation (SDO), and rigid adherence to traditional gender roles, alongside significant negative correlations with cognitive and affective empathy.

8. Reliability

The internal consistency of the Anti-LGBTQ+ Attitudes Scale was evaluated comprehensively during its primary psychometric validation across a diverse community sample of Spanish adults spanning an age range of 18 to 85 years. Classic test theory parameters (Cronbach’s alpha, α) and modern structural equation modeling indices (McDonald’s omega, ω) were calculated for the total score and both specific subscales.

Internal Consistency Indices

Across validation analyses, the scale demonstrated excellent internal consistency, well surpassing the standard psychometric threshold of .80 recommended for clinical and basic research instruments:

• General Factor (Total Scale – 33 Items): Exhibited exceptional reliability, with coefficients ranging from α = .915 to .929, indicating that the combined 33-item battery provides a highly stable index of total anti-LGBTQ+ prejudice.
• Negative Attitudes Subscale (24 Items): Demonstrated high homogeneity and reliability, yielding coefficients ranging from α = .890 to .925. Corrected item-total correlations across these 24 items remained consistently elevated (predominantly r > .45), demonstrating that each item actively contributes to the latent dimension of hostile, modern, biphobic, and transphobic sentiment.
• Positive Attitudes Subscale (9 Items, Reverse-Scored): Yielded reliability coefficients spanning α = .879 to .904. Despite its shorter length (9 items), the subscale exhibits excellent internal cohesion, demonstrating that queries regarding familial acceptance and equal adoption rights measure a single unified affirmative construct.

Standard Error of Measurement and Bifactor Reliability Metrics

In accordance with bifactor modeling best practices, composite reliability was verified via McDonald’s omega hierarchical (ω_h) to ensure that the general factor explains the vast majority of common variance, while the specific subfactors retain sufficient unique variance (ω_s) to justify their diagnostic and analytical interpretation as distinct subscales. The standard error of measurement (SEM) was found to be uniformly low across the middle and upper quartiles of the distribution, confirming high measurement precision in discerning moderate from severe levels of prejudice.

9. Factor Analysis

The latent structural integrity of the ALAS was confirmed through a sequenced, two-stage factor analytic methodology utilizing both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) across stratified participant subsamples.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Prior to conducting EFA, sample adequacy was evaluated using the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity. The KMO index yielded an exceptional value (> .90), and Bartlett’s test reached high statistical significance (p < .001), indicating strong inter-item correlations suitable for factor extraction. Principal Axis Factoring combined with robust oblique rotations (Promin/Oblimin) revealed an unambiguous two-factor structure. Items cleanly segregated according to item valence and thematic orientation:

• Factor 1 (Negative Attitudes): 24 directly phrased items loading heavily (> .40 to .82) on prejudice, biphobia, transphobia, pathologization, and public aversion.
• Factor 2 (Positive Attitudes): 9 reverse-phrased items loading heavily (> .45 to .85) on family acceptance, parenting rights, and personal comfort with LGBTQ+ peers.

Fit indices for the exploratory model demonstrated exceptional adequacy, with Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) exceeding .95, and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) remaining below .05.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Bifactor Modeling

To establish the definitive psychometric architecture, structural equation modeling evaluated three competing configurations: (a) a single-factor unidimensional model, (b) a two-factor oblique (correlated) model, and (c) a bifactor model. The unidimensional model demonstrated suboptimal fit, indicating that a single latent trait fails to account for the unique multidirectional variance of positive versus negative items. While the two-factor oblique model showed satisfactory parameters, the bifactor model achieved superior fit across all benchmark criteria:

• CFI (Comparative Fit Index): > .95 (indicative of excellent model fit).
• TLI (Tucker-Lewis Index): .947 (reflecting strong structural concordance).
• RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation): ≤ .05 (with a 90% confidence interval confirming excellent fit).
• SRMR (Standardized Root Mean Square Residual): ≤ .05 (indicating minimal residual variance).

The bifactor model demonstrates that every item on the ALAS reflects an overarching general anti-LGBTQ+ attitude, while simultaneously capturing independent variance unique to either affirmative acceptance (Positive Attitudes) or hostile/modern prejudice (Negative Attitudes). This structural property allows researchers to score the instrument both as a unified global scale and as two discrete subscales.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Anti-LGBTQ+ Attitudes Scale (ALAS) is a standardized, self-report psychometric inventory designed for electronic or paper-and-pencil administration in adults (aged 18 and older). Full administrative characteristics are structured as follows:

• Instrument Name: Anti-LGBTQ+ Attitudes Scale (ALAS) / Escala de Actitudes Anti-LGBTQ+
• Test Type: Self-report psychological questionnaire / attitude inventory
• Target Population: General adult population (tested ages 18–85), encompassing cisgender, transgender, nonbinary, heterosexual, and sexual minority individuals
• Total Item Count: 33 items
• Response Format: 5-point Likert-type scale formatted as:
  • 1 = Totalmente en desacuerdo (Strongly disagree)
  • 2 = En desacuerdo (Disagree)
  • 3 = Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo / Neutral (Neither agree nor disagree)
  • 4 = De acuerdo (Agree)
  • 5 = Totalmente de acuerdo (Strongly agree)
• Administration Duration: Approximately 7 to 10 minutes
• Subscale Breakdown:
  • Factor “Actitudes Positivas” (Positive Attitudes): 9 items (Items 12, 13, 14, 17, 19, 21, 22, 27, and 29)
  • Factor “Actitudes Negativas” (Negative Attitudes): 24 items (Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 18, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30, 31, 32, and 33)
• Scoring and Transformation Rules:
  • Reverse Coding: The 9 items comprising the Positive Attitudes factor (12, 13, 14, 17, 19, 21, 22, 27, 29) must be reversed prior to computing the overall score: 1 becomes 5, 2 becomes 4, 3 remains 3, 4 becomes 2, and 5 becomes 1.
  • Negative Attitudes Subscale Score: Calculated by summing or averaging the direct scores of the 24 negative items (theoretical sum range: 24 to 120). Higher scores denote elevated overt, modern, biphobic, and transphobic hostility.
  • Positive Attitudes Subscale Score (Direct Interpretation): If evaluated independently as an affirmative index without reversal, sum items 12, 13, 14, 17, 19, 21, 22, 27, and 29 directly (theoretical sum range: 9 to 45). Higher raw scores denote greater social inclusion, family acceptance, and support for civil rights.
  • Total Anti-LGBTQ+ Attitudes Score: Calculated by summing the 24 directly scored negative items plus the 9 reversed positive items (theoretical sum range: 33 to 165). Higher overall scores indicate higher levels of global anti-LGBTQ+ prejudice. Mean item scores (sum divided by 33) can be utilized to benchmark results along the original 1-to-5 metric.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Anti-LGBTQ+ Attitudes Scale (ALAS) was formally validated and published in 2024. The instrument was developed by the SALUSEX Research Group at Universitat Jaume I and Universitat de València.

• Commercial Status: Non-commercial instrument.
• Fee: There are no licensing fees, purchase costs, or royalties required for non-commercial academic research, pedagogical use, or clinical assessment.
• Copyright & Usage Permissions: The scale is protected under standard academic copyright held by the authors and the American Psychological Association (APA). Researchers and clinicians are authorized to use the instrument in empirical investigations provided proper bibliographic citation is given to the primary validation article (Ballester-Arnal et al., 2024). Modifications, commercial distribution, or incorporation into proprietary commercial platforms require explicit written authorization from the corresponding author.
• Correspondence & Contact: For inquiries regarding psychometric adaptations, translations, or administrative authorizations, correspondence should be directed to: Juan E. Nebot-Garcia, Department of Basic and Clinical Psychology and Psychobiology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Universitat Jaume I, Avenida Vicent Sos Baynat, s/n, 12071 Castelló de la Plana, Spain. Email: [email protected].

12. References

• Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.
• Ballester-Arnal, R., Nebot-Garcia, J. E., Elipe-Miravet, M., Ruiz-Palomino, E., & Gil-Llario, M. D. (2024). Anti-LGBTQ+ Attitudes Scale: Development and psychometric properties of an instrument for the Spanish population. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000761
• Herek, G. M. (2000). The psychology of sexual prejudice. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(1), 19–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00051
• Herek, G. M. (2004). Beyond “homophobia”: Thinking about sexual prejudice and stigma in the twenty-first century. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 1(2), 6–24. https://doi.org/10.1525/srsp.2004.1.2.6
• Kite, M. E., & Whitley, B. E., Jr. (1996). Sex differences in attitudes toward homosexual persons, behaviors, and civil rights: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(4), 336–353. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167296224002
• 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
• Morrison, M. A., & Morrison, T. G. (2002). Development and validation of a scale measuring modern homonegativity. Journal of Homosexuality, 43(2), 15–37. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v43n02_02

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)