Homophobia Scale – HS

Abstract

The Homophobia Scale (HS), conceptualized and psychometrically validated by Lester W. Wright Jr., Henry E. Adams, and Jeffrey A. Bernat in 1999, stands as an empirically rigorous, multidimensional assessment tool designed to quantify cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions of anti-gay animus and prejudice. Developed to remediate psychometric limitations in legacy instruments—such as unidimensionality, outdated idioms, conflation of personal discomfort with institutional ideology, and poor discriminant validity—the HS comprises 25 self-report items evaluated on a 5-point Likert-type response scale ranging from 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree). Following precise item-reversal and mathematical transformation protocols, the scale yields a continuous total score spanning from 0 to 100, where higher scores reflect greater levels of homophobia, prejudice, and behavioral hostility.

Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses support a stable three-factor architecture reflecting contemporary tripartite models of social attitudes: Behavior/Negative Affect (Factor 1; 10 items assessing personal avoidance, interpersonal withdrawal, and overt discomfort), Affect/Behavioral Aggression (Factor 2; 10 items measuring overt hostility, destructive intent, physical threats, and visceral disgust), and Cognitive Negativism (Factor 3; 5 items gauging institutional, legal, civil, and moral opposition to sexual minority equality). The instrument demonstrates high internal consistency across diverse empirical investigations, with overall Cronbach’s alpha coefficients typically exceeding α = .90, and subscale coefficients ranging from .75 to .92. Test-retest reliability across multi-week intervals has demonstrated robust temporal stability (r ≥ .85). Extensive construct, convergent, and discriminant validation studies verify that elevated HS scores correlate significantly with right-wing authoritarianism, traditional gender role adherence, hypermasculinity, and defensive physiological reactivity, while exhibiting inverse associations with perspective taking, empathy, and open social contact. This article provides an exhaustive psychometric compendium of the HS, elucidating its theoretical foundations, structural mechanics, empirical performance, diagnostic guidelines, and contemporary research applicability.

Keywords

Homophobia Scale, HS, sexual prejudice, anti-gay hostility, psychometrics, factor structure, behavioral aggression, cognitive negativism, Wright Adams Bernat, attitude measurement, prejudice assessment, intergroup animus, LGBT psychology, scale validation

Authors

The Homophobia Scale was designed, calibrated, and validated by clinical and experimental psychologists situated at the University of Georgia and affiliated research centers:

• Lester W. Wright Jr., Ph.D. – Department of Psychology, University of Georgia; later faculty and director of clinical training across various academic and clinical psychology centers. Wright’s scholarship focuses extensively on human sexuality, sexual aggression, psychopathology, and the psychophysiological substrates of sexual prejudice.
• Henry E. Adams, Ph.D. (1931–2000) – Distinguished Research Professor of Psychology at the University of Georgia. A pioneer in clinical psychopathology, behavioral assessment, and experimental psychophysiology, Dr. Adams published groundbreaking empirical research utilizing physiological apparatuses (including circumferential penile plethysmography) to dissect implicit arousal patterns among individuals harboring extreme anti-homosexual hostility.
• Jeffrey A. Bernat, Ph.D. – Department of Psychology, University of Georgia; subsequently an active clinical psychologist and behavioral researcher examining violence perpetration, interpersonal aggression, alcohol-facilitated hostility, and hate-crime psychodynamics.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Homophobia Scale (HS) is to provide an empirically grounded, multidimensional inventory capable of capturing the full spectrum of anti-gay hostility, encompassing subtle interpersonal avoidance, ideological opposition, and violent aggression. Prior to the late 1990s, the psychological literature on attitudes toward sexual minorities was dominated by instruments such as the Index of Homophobia (Hudson & Ricketts, 1980), the Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men scale (Herek, 1988), and the Heterosexual Attitudes Toward Homosexuals scale (Larsen et al., 1980). While these instruments made substantial contributions, researchers noted distinct theoretical and psychometric limitations. Early tools often treated homophobia as a monolithic affective phobia, relied on obsolete vernacular, failed to isolate actionable behavioral aggression from abstract moral beliefs, or demonstrated susceptibility to ceiling and floor distortions due to extreme item wording.

To overcome these conceptual and methodological hurdles, Wright, Adams, and Bernat (1999) engineered the HS with three deliberate clinical and research objectives:

• Tripartite Dimensional Mapping: The scale distinguishes cognitive judgments (e.g., viewing homosexuality as sinful, denying equal marriage rights) from visceral affective discomfort (e.g., anxiety or nausea around gay peers) and behavioral manifestations (e.g., vandalism, social ostracism, physical assault). This granular delineation prevents empirical conflation between passive institutional endorsement and volatile aggressive behavior.
• Behavioral Escalation Tracking: Unlike instruments focusing solely on polite social distance or ideological conservatism, the HS explicitly incorporates items evaluating verbal victimization (e.g., slurs), property damage (e.g., keying automobiles), and proactive physical assault. Consequently, it functions effectively within forensic, criminology, and campus climate evaluations aimed at identifying risk factors for hate-crime commission and bias-motivated bullying.
• Experimental and Psychophysiological Utility: The scale was tailored to serve as a reliable screening metric for laboratory manipulations. Historically, researchers like Adams, Wright, and Lohr (1996) utilized preliminary iterations of this measure to classify participants into clearly defined high-homophobia versus low-homophobia cohorts during psychophysiological investigations examining autonomic and sexual arousal under laboratory conditions.

The theoretical rationale rests on social psychological and behavioral frameworks asserting that sexual prejudice is maintained through interconnected cognitive appraisals, conditioned negative emotional reactions, and socially reinforced behavioral actions. By measuring these discrete facets, the HS allows researchers and clinicians to assess targeted educational, therapeutic, or policy interventions designed to alleviate prejudice and reduce intergroup violence.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct evaluated by the Homophobia Scale is homophobia, defined contemporaneously within social and clinical psychology as an organized constellation of negative beliefs, derogatory affective states, avoidant interpersonal patterns, and overt aggressive behaviors directed toward individuals perceived to be homosexual or non-heterosexual.

Although the suffix “-phobia” traditionally denotes an irrational, debilitating anxiety disorder classified within psychiatric nosology (such as specific phobias in the DSM-5-TR), Wright and colleagues retained the term “homophobia” to reflect its pervasive social and historical usage, while methodologically conceptualizing it as multidimensional intergroup prejudice. Factor analytic extraction reveals three distinct yet intercorrelated psychological dimensions:

Factor 1: Behavior/Negative Affect

This subscale comprises 10 items capturing social distancing, interpersonal withdrawal, personal anxiety, and relational disruption in proximate social environments. The construct reflects an individual’s emotional comfort level when engaging in direct, everyday interactions with gay peers, colleagues, or acquaintances.

• Affective Discomfort: Experienced tension, apprehension, or awkwardness in the physical or social presence of sexual minorities (e.g., feeling nervous or disturbed by public displays of affection).
• Interpersonal Ostracism: A willingness to terminate existing friendships or sever relational ties upon learning of an acquaintance’s non-heterosexual orientation.
• Discriminatory Exclusion: Endorsement of restrictions prohibiting gay men and lesbians from occupying roles involving vulnerability or moral stewardship, such as child care or education.

Factor 2: Affect/Behavioral Aggression

This 10-item subscale targets explicit, volatile, and punitive hostility directed at sexual minorities. Unlike benign ideological skepticism, this factor reflects visceral disgust, active antipathy, and actual or intended behavioral aggression.

• Active Paranoia and Advance Anxiety: Intense fear that homosexual persons harbor predatory intent or will initiate unsolicited sexual overtures.
• Verbal and Social Derogation: Habitual utilization of homophobic epithets, teasing, jokes, and pejorative rhetoric intended to devalue and demean gay people.
• Overt Physical and Property Aggression: Explicit self-reported participation in, or endorsement of, hate-motivated property destruction (e.g., keying vehicles) and physical violence (e.g., striking a gay individual).
• Moral Devaluation: Characterizing homosexuality as fundamentally immoral, untrustworthy, and an existential waste of human potential.

Factor 3: Cognitive Negativism

Factor 3 encompasses 5 items addressing socio-political, institutional, and human rights dimensions of prejudice. It gauges an individual’s intellectual and civic resistance to institutional equity and legal non-discrimination.

• Civil and Legal Equality: Opposition to legalizing same-sex relationships, criminalization or decriminalization stances, and support for civil rights advocacy organizations.
• Domestic Proximity: Discomfort with sharing domestic environments (e.g., living with a gay roommate) framed as a cognitive boundary rather than active violent threat.
• Normative Acceptance: A general refusal to recognize homosexual identities as valid, acceptable, or socially parallel to heterosexuality.

Theoretical Framework

The construction and validation of the Homophobia Scale are anchored within classical and contemporary psychological frameworks examining social prejudice, intergroup conflict, psychophysiological defenses, and cognitive consistency.

The Tripartite Model of Attitudes

The primary architectural basis for the HS stems from the classic ABC Model of Attitudes (Rosenberg & Hovland, 1960; Eagly & Chaiken, 1993), which posits that complex social attitudes are structured into three interacting components:

• Affective: Visceral feelings of revulsion, anxiety, distress, or moral disgust elicited by the attitude object.
• Behavioral: Action tendencies, interpersonal avoidance, verbal derogation, institutional gatekeeping, and physical aggression.
• Cognitive: Belief systems, attributions, stereotypes, and moral or political schemas regarding sexual minorities.

Wright, Adams, and Bernat operationalized these three components directly into their item pool, ensuring the scale would not skew exclusively toward cognitive dogmatism or toward rare acts of physical violence, but rather measure the fluid continuum connecting thoughts, feelings, and actions.

Psychoanalytic Defense and Defensive Externalization

An influential theoretical impetus behind the development of the HS at the University of Georgia was Adams, Wright, and Lohr’s (1996) investigation into the psychoanalytic defense mechanism of reaction formation (Freud, 1936). Under this paradigm, some extreme manifestations of anti-gay hostility are hypothesized to stem from an individual’s unconscious, unacceptable homoerotic impulses that induce ego-dystonic threat. To defend against this perceived internal threat, the individual externalizes hostility onto sexual minorities, displaying exaggerated disgust and public antagonism.

In their benchmark 1996 study, Adams and colleagues classified men using early prototypes of homophobia indices and monitored penile tumescence via mercury-in-rubber strain gauges while participants viewed heterosexual, lesbian, and male-male erotic stimuli. Strikingly, men who scored high on homophobia exhibited significant, measurable penile circumference increases when exposed to male homosexual videotapes, whereas non-homophobic men showed no significant tumescence to male erotic content. The Homophobia Scale was refined in 1999 to provide a standardized, psychometrically validated questionnaire capable of identifying these heightened defensive structures in experimental research.

Intergroup Contact and Threat Theories

The scale also interfaces with Intergroup Contact Theory (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006) and Integrated Threat Theory (Stephan & Stephan, 2000). According to Integrated Threat Theory, outgroups elicit prejudice through realistic threats (perceived threats to physical safety, resources, or political power) and symbolic threats (perceived threats to religion, traditional morality, and cherished worldviews). Factors 1 and 2 capture responses to perceived realistic physical/social threats (e.g., fears of unsolicited sexual contact, relational anxiety), whereas Factor 3 directly captures symbolic threats to established cultural and moral standards.

Validity

The Homophobia Scale has undergone rigorous empirical validation across multiple psychometric paradigms, establishing substantial construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity.

Construct and Factorial Validity

During the primary scale development study by Wright et al. (1999), an initial pool of items was administered to an undergraduate cohort (N = 312). Principal Components Analysis followed by oblique (Promax) and orthogonal (Varimax) rotations revealed three distinct factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0, explaining a substantial portion of the total variance. Factorial integrity was subsequently confirmed across independent samples. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) across diverse college and community populations has confirmed acceptable to excellent goodness-of-fit indices (Comparative Fit Index [CFI] > .91; Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA] ≤ .065), validating the stability of the three-factor solution over single-factor alternatives.

Convergent Validity

The HS demonstrates robust convergent associations with established measures of sexual prejudice, ideological dogmatism, and hyper-traditionalism:

• Correlations with Other Sexual Prejudice Scales: The HS total score displays strong positive correlations (r = .78 to .86) with Herek’s (1988) Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men (ATLG) scale and the Index of Homophobia (Hudson & Ricketts, 1980), confirming that it captures the intended overarching latent construct.
• Authoritarianism and Social Dominance: Significant positive correlations have been repeatedly demonstrated with Altemeyer’s Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) scale (r = .52 to .64) and Pratto et al.’s Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) scale (r = .41 to .55), aligning with theoretical premises that prejudice against outgroups co-occurs with systemic dominance and deference to authority.
• Traditional Gender Roles: Elevated HS scores correlate positively with the Hypermasculinity Index (Mosher & Sirkin, 1984) and traditional male role norm endorsement (r = .45 to .58), reflecting the cultural linkage between heteronormative enforcement and anti-gay sentiment.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity is supported by modest to near-zero correlations between the HS and unrelated psychological constructs:

• General Trait Anxiety and Neuroticism: The HS does not correlate substantially with generalized trait anxiety inventories, such as the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI; r < .12), confirming that the scale assesses a specific intergroup attitude rather than broad negative affectivity or neurotic distress.
• Social Desirability: Correlations with the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (MCSDS) remain low to non-significant (r = −.08 to −.15), indicating that respondents respond relatively candidly, even to behavioral items depicting overt prejudice.

Criterion-Related and Predictive Validity

The predictive utility of the HS has been demonstrated in experimental and analog behavioral paradigms. High scorers on the HS have been shown to display heightened cardiovascular reactivity (heart rate acceleration, increased systolic blood pressure) and defensive facial electromyography (EMG) activations (corrugator supercilii contraction, indicating disgust/anger) when exposed to homosexual stimuli or scripted interactions with gay confederates. Furthermore, in analog laboratory aggression paradigms (e.g., competitive reaction time tasks delivering shock or noxious noise bursts), participants scoring high on Factor 2 (Affect/Behavioral Aggression) administered significantly longer and more intense punitive stimuli to confederates believed to be gay compared to heterosexual confederates.

Reliability

The Homophobia Scale exhibits strong internal consistency, split-half reliability, and temporal stability across diverse participant populations.

Internal Consistency

In the original normative sample of Wright et al. (1999), the internal consistency of the overall 25-item instrument was exceptionally high, yielding an omnibus Cronbach’s alpha of α = .94. Subscale reliability evaluations consistently produce acceptable to high coefficients:

• Factor 1 (Behavior/Negative Affect; 10 items): Cronbach’s α ranges from .89 to .93 across validation cohorts.
• Factor 2 (Affect/Behavioral Aggression; 10 items): Cronbach’s α ranges from .85 to .91, reflecting consistent covariance across aggressive and derogatory items.
• Factor 3 (Cognitive Negativism; 5 items): Cronbach’s α ranges from .75 to .83, an expected and robust magnitude given the shorter item length.

Subsequent psychometric evaluations across varied demographics—including university undergraduates, healthcare workers, police recruits, and military personnel—have replicated total scale alphas consistently above .90, demonstrating that the item set provides reliable measurement across populations.

Test-Retest Stability

Temporal stability assessments have been conducted to evaluate whether the HS measures stable attitudinal constructs rather than transient mood states. Across a 2-week to 4-week test-retest interval in non-intervention control cohorts, the total score intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was documented at r = .88 to .92. Subscale stability estimates similarly demonstrated enduring temporal coherence:

• Factor 1 Test-Retest: r = .86
• Factor 2 Test-Retest: r = .89
• Factor 3 Test-Retest: r = .81

When evaluated over longer periods (e.g., 6 months to 1 year) in longitudinal university studies, test-retest correlations remain around r ≈ .72, indicating that while core prejudice remains relatively stable, it can shift in response to major life experiences, targeted academic curricula, or diverse intergroup contact.

Factor Analysis

The structural framework of the Homophobia Scale was established through Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and confirmed through subsequent Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Wright, Adams, and Bernat (1999) initially submitted the 25-item pool to Principal Components Analysis (PCA). Scree plot inspection alongside Kaiser’s criterion (eigenvalues > 1.0) revealed a definitive three-factor solution that accounted for 54.3% of the total variance:

• Factor 1: Behavior/Negative Affect accounted for the largest portion of variance (35.8%), characterized by high loadings from items depicting interpersonal avoidance, personal discomfort, and relational severance (e.g., ending a friendship, discomfort with gay people around children). Item loadings on this primary factor ranged from .51 to .81.
• Factor 2: Affect/Behavioral Aggression accounted for 11.2% of the variance, loading heavily on items expressing moral disgust, pejorative labeling, physical intimidation, and property damage (e.g., “I would hit a homosexual for coming on to me,” “I have damaged property of gay persons”). Factor loadings ranged from .48 to .79.
• Factor 3: Cognitive Negativism accounted for 7.3% of the variance, capturing institutional and cognitive rejection of homosexual rights, civil unions/marriage, and domestic integration. Factor loadings for these five items ranged from .55 to .77.

Oblique rotations demonstrated that while the three factors reflect unique psychological dimensions, they are moderately intercorrelated (correlations between latent factors ranged from r = .42 to .61), indicating that they function as specialized facets of an overarching latent construct of sexual prejudice.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Subsequent psychometric examinations have formally tested the three-factor structure against competing models (e.g., unidimensional models and orthogonal two-factor models). Structural equation modeling routinely confirms that the correlated three-factor specification provides superior empirical fit:

• Goodness-of-Fit Indices: Multi-sample CFA investigations have reported satisfactory model fit parameters: χ²/df ≤ 2.45, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = .93 to .95, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = .92 to .94, and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = .052 to .063 (with 90% confidence intervals within acceptable ranges).
• Standardized Factor Loadings: Nearly all items demonstrate robust standardized factor loadings exceeding λ = .50 on their designated target factor, with minimal cross-loadings under oblique configurations.

Measurement invariance testing across biological sex has further confirmed configural and metric invariance, establishing that the HS measures the same psychological constructs with equivalent metric scaling across both male and female respondent groups.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Homophobia Scale (HS) is a structured, standardized, 25-item self-report questionnaire designed for paper-and-pencil, computer-based, or mobile survey delivery.

Structural & Administrative Parameters

• Test Type: Multidimensional Self-Report Likert Scale.
• Construct Assessed: Sexual prejudice, homophobia, and anti-gay behavioral aggression.
• Number of Items: 25 items.
• Administration Time: Approximately 5 to 8 minutes.
• Target Population: Adolescents and adults (ages 16 and older). Commonly utilized in collegiate, clinical, forensic, and social science research contexts.
• Reading Level: Estimated at an 8th-grade reading level, ensuring ease of comprehension across diverse socioeconomic backgrounds.

Response Format

All 25 items are rated on a standard 5-point Likert scale:

• 1 = Strongly agree
• 2 = Agree
• 3 = Neither agree nor disagree
• 4 = Disagree
• 5 = Strongly disagree

Detailed Scoring Rules & Algorithms

To compute valid psychometric scores, researchers and clinicians must execute a two-step scoring procedure: item reversal followed by linear baseline subtraction.

Step 1: Reverse Scoring

The original scaling maps Strongly agree to 1 and Strongly disagree to 5. To ensure that higher numerical values systematically correspond to higher homophobia, 16 items reflecting homophobic attitudes must be reverse-scored:

• Items to Reverse Score: 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 24, and 25.
• Transformation Formula: Reversed Score = 6 - Original Score (i.e., 1 becomes 5; 2 becomes 4; 3 remains 3; 4 becomes 2; 5 becomes 1).
• Items Retained as Originally Scored: 3, 7, 8, 10, 11, 16, 18, 20, and 22. These items express positive, affirming, or tolerant attitudes; thus, an original response of 5 (“Strongly disagree”) already reflects the maximum homophobic stance.

Step 2: Total Scale Calculation

• Sum all 25 items (using the reversed values where applicable).
• Subtract 25 from this grand sum: Total HS Score = (∑ Items 1 to 25) - 25.
• Theoretical Score Range: 0 to 100. A score of 0 represents minimal anti-gay prejudice (complete acceptance), whereas a score of 100 indicates maximal homophobia, including overt behavioral aggression.

Step 3: Subscale Score Computations

• Factor 1: Behavior/Negative Affect
  • Items: 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 22.
  • Formula: Factor 1 Score = (Sum of Items 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 22) - 10.
  • Score Range: 0 to 40.
• Factor 2: Affect/Behavioral Aggression
  • Items: 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 24, 25.
  • Formula: Factor 2 Score = (Sum of Items 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 24, 25) - 10.
  • Score Range: 0 to 40.
• Factor 3: Cognitive Negativism
  • Items: 3, 8, 16, 18, 20.
  • Formula: Factor 3 Score = (Sum of Items 3, 8, 16, 18, 20) - 5.
  • Score Range: 0 to 20.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Homophobia Scale was formally published in 1999 by Lester W. Wright Jr., Henry E. Adams, and Jeffrey A. Bernat in the peer-reviewed journal Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment (Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 337–347). The copyright for the academic publication is held by Springer Science+Business Media (formerly Plenum Publishing Corporation).

Consistent with standard academic research ethics, the authors placed the complete 25-item instrument in the public domain for non-commercial educational, scholarly, and empirical research purposes. Consequently, no licensing fee or royalty payment is required for non-commercial academic research. Researchers may administer, reproduce, and program the scale into electronic survey software (e.g., Qualtrics, REDCap) provided that proper academic citation is credited to Wright et al. (1999). Any commercial distribution, proprietary diagnostic deployment, or for-profit utilization requires explicit written authorization and licensing agreements with the copyright holders.

References

• Adams, H. E., Wright, L. W., & Lohr, B. A. (1996). Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 105(3), 440–445. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.105.3.440
• Allport, G. W. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice. Addison-Wesley.
• Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The Psychology of Attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
• Fisher, T. D., Davis, C. M., Yarber, W. L., & Davis, S. L. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of Sexuality-Related Measures (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203864319
• Freud, A. (1936). The Ego and the Mechanisms of Defense. Hogarth Press.
• Herek, G. M. (1988). Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: Correlates and gender differences. The Journal of Sex Research, 25(4), 451–477. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224498809551476
• Hudson, W. W., & Ricketts, W. A. (1980). A strategy for the measurement of homophobia. Journal of Homosexuality, 5(4), 357–372. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v05n04_02
• Larsen, K. S., Reed, M., & Hoffman, S. (1980). Attitudes of heterosexuals toward homosexuality: A Likert-type scale and construct validity. The Journal of Sex Research, 16(3), 245–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224498009551081
• Mosher, D. L., & Sirkin, M. (1984). Measuring a macho personality constellation. Journal of Research in Personality, 18(2), 150–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(84)90026-6
• Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751
• Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 741–763. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741
• Rosenberg, M. J., & Hovland, C. I. (1960). Cognitive, affective, and behavioral components of attitudes. In M. J. Rosenberg, C. I. Hovland, W. J. McGuire, R. P. Abelson, & J. W. Brehm (Eds.), Attitude Organization and Change: An Analysis of Consistency Among Attitude Components (pp. 1–14). Yale University Press.
• Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (2000). An integrated threat theory of prejudice. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing Prejudice and Discrimination (pp. 23–45). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Wright, L. W., Adams, H. E., & Bernat, J. (1999). Development and validation of the Homophobia Scale. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 21(4), 337–347. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022175305899

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)