Homophobia Scale – HS

1. Abstract

The Homophobia Scale (HS), developed by Lester W. Wright Jr., Henry E. Adams, and Jeffrey A. Bernat in 1999, is a multidimensional self-report assessment instrument designed to measure negative cognitive, affective, and behavioral manifestations of homophobia toward gay men and lesbian individuals. Grounded in a classical tripartite model of attitudes, the scale captures not only abstract ideological condemnation or theoretical moral rejection, but also overt behavioral aggression, avoidance tendencies, and visceral personal anxiety. The inventory comprises 25 items evaluated on a 5-point Likert-type response format ranging from 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree).

Extensive exploratory and confirmatory psychometric evaluations delineate a three-factor latent structure: Factor 1 captures Behavior/Negative Affect (10 items), reflecting personal discomfort, social distance, and avoidance reactions; Factor 2 captures Affect/Behavioral Aggression (10 items), measuring overt hostility, verbal disparagement, physical aggression, and distrust; and Factor 3 captures Cognitive Negativism (5 items), gauging institutional, moral, and civil-rights endorsement versus opposition. Following the prescribed reverse scoring of 16 heterosexist items and affine baseline subtraction, total scores range continuously from 0 to 100, where higher scores signify elevated levels of homophobic prejudice, antipathy, and behavioral antagonism.

The Homophobia Scale exhibits robust psychometric properties across clinical, non-clinical, and university samples. Internal consistency estimates are high, with total-scale Cronbach’s alpha typically exceeding α = .93 to .95, and subscale coefficients ranging between .85 and .93. Test-retest reliability across multi-week intervals confirms strong temporal stability (r ≥ .85 to .96). Construct and convergent validity are evidenced by substantial correlations with established measures of sexual prejudice, such as the Index of Homophobia (IHP) and the Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men Scale (ATLG), as well as physiological, laboratory-based aggression paradigms. This comprehensive review examines the theoretical, structural, and empirical architecture of the HS, detailing its development, factorial stability, diagnostic scoring guidelines, and research applications.

2. Keywords

Homophobia Scale, sexual prejudice, heterosexism, anti-gay aggression, Wright Adams Bernat, psychometrics, attitude measurement, behavioral hostility, cognitive negativism, negative affect, social psychology, LGBTQ+ studies

3. Authors

The Homophobia Scale was designed and validated by an influential research group based in the Department of Psychology at the University of Georgia:

• Lester W. Wright Jr., Ph.D. — Clinical and research psychologist with primary expertise in clinical assessment, behavioral medicine, health psychology, human sexuality, and intergroup hostility. Formerly associated with the University of Georgia and Western Michigan University.
• Henry E. Adams, Ph.D. (1931–2000) — Eminent Professor of Clinical Psychology at the University of Georgia, widely known for his groundbreaking psychophysiological investigations into sexual orientation, sexual arousal, anxiety disorders, and the controversial physiological correlates of anti-gay hostility (notably the 1996 Adams, Wright, & Lohr study).
• Jeffrey A. Bernat, Ph.D. — Clinical psychologist whose empirical work has investigated laboratory aggression, sexual aggression, interpersonal conflict, and the experimental elicitation of hostile behavior toward minority populations.

Corresponding Historical Affiliation: Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602-3013, USA.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Homophobia Scale (HS) is to assess quantitatively individual differences in negative attitudes, affective reactions, and hostile behavioral predispositions toward homosexual individuals. Prior to the construction of the HS in the late 1990s, existing psychometric instruments measuring anti-gay sentiment—such as Kenneth L. Smith’s (1971) Homosexuality Attitude Scale, Walter W. Hudson and Wendell A. Ricketts’ (1980) Index of Homophobia (IHP), and Gregory M. Herek’s (1984, 1988) widely used Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men (ATLG) Scale—concentrated predominantly on broad belief systems, abstract moral values, political ideologies, and general tolerance.

While invaluable for capturing socio-political attitudes, these older inventories often underrepresented direct behavioral indicators (such as property destruction, physical intimidation, personal verbal slurs, and social exclusion) as well as visceral, self-referential emotional reactions (such as acute personal anxiety during close interpersonal contact or intense paranoia regarding sexual advances). Wright, Adams, and Bernat sought to eliminate this empirical gap by creating an assessment tool firmly grounded in a comprehensive tripartite behavioral paradigm. The scale directly queries actionable aggression, specific interpersonal avoidance, and personalized anxiety alongside moral and legal stances.

In applied research, the HS serves multiple vital functions:

• Laboratory and Experimental Psychopathology: The HS enables researchers to screen and categorize participants into high-homophobic and low-homophobic cohorts to evaluate physiological reactivity (e.g., plethysmography, heart rate, skin conductance) and laboratory-provoked physical or verbal aggression paradigms (such as competitive reaction-time shock administration tasks).
• Social and Personality Psychology: It allows researchers to investigate how anti-gay bias correlates with wider ideological constructs, including Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA), Social Dominance Orientation (SDO), traditional gender-role rigidity, hypermasculinity, religious fundamentalism, and defensive psychological mechanisms.
• Diversity, Equity, and Organizational Interventions: The tool provides a sensitive metric for measuring baseline sexual prejudice and tracking pre-to-post change in educational interventions, bias-reduction training programs, university campus diversity initiatives, and healthcare provider sensitivity workshops.
• Clinical and Forensic Assessment Contexts: Although primarily a research inventory, the HS offers valuable conceptual utility in identifying individuals whose acute interpersonal anxiety, intense hostility, or behavioral impulsivity toward sexual minorities may precipitate workplace harassment, interpersonal conflict, or violent hate-crime offenses.

5. Psychological Construct

The Homophobia Scale measures homophobia, a construct historically coined by clinical psychologist George Weinberg in his seminal 1972 book Society and the Healthy Homosexual. Weinberg initially conceptualized homophobia as an irrational fear, hatred, and revulsion experienced by heterosexual individuals when in close proximity to gay individuals, as well as internalized self-hatred experienced by homosexual persons. In subsequent decades, psychometricians and social scientists broadened this definition to incorporate cognitive prejudices, structural heterosexism, and explicit behavioral violence.

Wright, Adams, and Bernat (1999) operationalized homophobia as an integrated, multi-faceted construct consisting of three distinct yet correlated empirical dimensions:

Factor 1: Behavior/Negative Affect (Discomfort and Social Distance)

This dimension comprises 10 items assessing personal uneasiness, generalized nervousness, relational discomfort, and social avoidance in interpersonal environments. Rather than capturing extreme violent aggression, it identifies the daily behavioral and emotional friction experienced by prejudiced heterosexual individuals during mundane social interactions with sexual minorities. High scorers experience nervous tension when interacting with gay persons (Item 1: “Gay people make me nervous”), actively avoid friendship formation or discontinue existing friendships upon disclosure of sexual orientation (Item 4: “If I discovered a friend was gay I would end the friendship”), and object to seeing same-sex public displays of affection (Item 22: “It does not bother me to see two homosexual people together in public” [reverse-scored]). This factor encapsulates subtle, avoidant, and exclusionary behaviors that maintain interpersonal segregation.

Factor 2: Affect/Behavioral Aggression (Hostility and Overt Violence)

Consisting of 10 items, this dimension reflects direct hostility, aggressive behavioral tendencies, explicit verbal abuse, physical threat, and intense interpersonal paranoia. This subscale distinguishes the HS from purely cognitive attitude inventories by assessing extreme, real-world acts of victimization and physical retaliation. Items evaluate active verbal denigration (Item 6: “I make derogatory remarks about gay people”; Item 9: “I make derogatory remarks like ‘faggot’ or ‘queer’ to people I suspect are gay”), overt physical intimidation or assault (Item 19: “I would hit a homosexual for coming on to me”), criminal property damage (Item 17: “I have damaged property of gay persons, such as ‘keying’ their cars”), and profound, persecutory interpersonal mistrust (Item 14: “I feel that you cannot trust a person who is homosexual”; Item 15: “I fear homosexual persons will make sexual advances towards me”).

Factor 3: Cognitive Negativism (Moral, Legal, and Socio-Political Rejection)

This 5-item dimension gauges the ideological, cognitive, and institutional components of sexual prejudice. It targets generalized normative beliefs concerning the moral acceptability, legal status, and socio-political rights of gay men and lesbians. Individuals scoring high on Cognitive Negativism reject the legitimacy of same-sex partnerships (Item 8: “Marriage between homosexual individuals is acceptable” [reverse-scored]), contest the necessity of institutional protections and civil rights organizations (Item 16: “Organizations which promote gay rights are necessary” [reverse-scored]), support criminalization of same-sex behavior (Item 20: “Homosexual behavior should not be against the law” [reverse-scored]), and express generalized moral disapproval of non-heterosexual identities (Item 3: “Homosexuality is acceptable to me” [reverse-scored]).

6. Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture of the Homophobia Scale is anchored in the classic tripartite (ABC) model of attitudes originating from social psychology (Allport, 1954; Rosenberg & Hovland, 1960; Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). Under this structural paradigm, an attitude toward a social group is not a monolithic affective reaction, but a complex composite comprising:

1. Affective Components: Visceral feelings of anxiety, fear, revulsion, anger, or disgust elicited by members of the outgroup.
2. Behavioral Components: Overt actions, verbal proclamations, physical aggression, avoidance, and discriminatory tendencies directed toward outgroup members.
3. Cognitive Components: Beliefs, moral assessments, stereotypes, and socio-political judgments held regarding the social outgroup.

Wright, Adams, and Bernat posited that previous instruments overemphasized the cognitive dimension at the expense of affective-behavioral integration. They argued that an individual might express cognitive tolerance on abstract political questionnaires to conform to perceived social desirability norms, yet experience visceral autonomic arousal, personal anxiety, or hostile behavioral impulses when placed in immediate, face-to-face contact with a gay individual.

Furthermore, the theoretical framework incorporates psychoanalytic and defensive theories of prejudice. Henry Adams and colleagues conducted groundbreaking research investigating the psychophysiological mechanisms of homophobia (e.g., Adams, Wright, & Lohr, 1996). Drawing upon psychoanalytic hypotheses originally articulated by Sigmund Freud and later expanded by Donald L. Mosher, Adams et al. postulated that in some heterosexual men, homophobic hostility, aggressive posturing, and hypermasculine defensive reactions may operate as ego-defensive mechanisms against unacknowledged homosexual arousal or perceived threats to their own masculine identity.

Complementary contemporary perspectives, such as Gregory Herek’s conceptualization of sexual prejudice, differentiate between culturally shared institutional beliefs (heterosexism) and individual-level psychological antipathy. The HS operationalizes this theoretical distinction by separating ideological beliefs about legal parity and marriage from intimate, personal anxieties regarding roommates, physical touch, and interpersonal proximity.

7. Validity

Extensive empirical investigations have established the construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity of the Homophobia Scale across various clinical, community, and collegiate cohorts.

Construct and Factorial Validity

The initial validation study by Wright, Adams, and Bernat (1999) involved administering the preliminary item pool to a diverse sample of undergraduate students and community adults. Principal Axis Factoring demonstrated that the 25 retained items loaded cleanly onto three primary factors accounting for substantial cumulative variance. The structural stability of this three-dimensional model has been replicated in subsequent independent psychometric evaluations across varied demographics.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity was demonstrated through substantial, statistically significant correlations with pre-existing, established measures of anti-gay attitudes and general prejudice:

• Index of Homophobia (IHP; Hudson & Ricketts, 1980): Total HS scores correlated strongly with the IHP (r values typically ranging from .75 to .84, p < .001), indicating robust construct congruence in capturing general sexual prejudice.
• Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men Scale (ATLG; Herek, 1988): HS total scores demonstrated high correlations with both the ATG (Attitudes Toward Gay Men) subscale (r ≥ .79 to .85) and the ATL (Attitudes Toward Lesbians) subscale (r ≥ .71 to .78).
• Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and Traditional Sex Roles: HS scores correlated positively with measures of authoritarianism (r = .52 to .61) and endorsement of hyper-traditional, rigid sex-role expectations (r = .45 to .58), aligning with theoretical predictions that sexual prejudice is anchored in broader authoritarian and rigid gender architectures.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity was established by comparing HS scores with measures of general trait anxiety (such as the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory), depression (Beck Depression Inventory), and general social phobia. When controlling for general psychological distress, correlations between the HS and general trait neuroticism were modest to non-significant (r < .15), proving that the HS assesses specific prejudice toward sexual minorities rather than general emotional dysregulation or generalized social distress.

Predictive and Behavioral Validity

The most compelling psychometric asset of the HS is its predictive behavioral validity. In experimental laboratory paradigms conducted by Bernat, Calhoun, Adams, and Zeichner (e.g., 2001), male participants classified as high in homophobia via the HS demonstrated significantly higher levels of laboratory aggression (operationalized as the intensity and duration of electric shocks delivered to an ostensible gay opponent in a competitive reaction-time task) compared to men scoring low on the HS. Furthermore, physiological studies showed that high-homophobic men exhibited distinct cardiovascular, electrodermal, and penile plethysmographic patterns when exposed to sexually explicit homoerotic stimuli, confirming that the scale differentiates distinct behavioral and physiological profiles.

8. Reliability

The Homophobia Scale exhibits outstanding reliability across diverse sampling frameworks, demonstrating both strong internal consistency and high temporal stability.

Internal Consistency

In the foundational psychometric study by Wright, Adams, and Bernat (1999), internal consistency evaluations yielded excellent reliability coefficients:

• Total Scale (25 items): Cronbach’s alpha of α = .94 (with subsequent studies reporting values between α = .92 and .96).
• Factor 1 (Behavior/Negative Affect; 10 items): Cronbach’s alpha of α = .89 (reported range in literature: .87–.92).
• Factor 2 (Affect/Behavioral Aggression; 10 items): Cronbach’s alpha of α = .87 (reported range in literature: .84–.90).
• Factor 3 (Cognitive Negativism; 5 items): Cronbach’s alpha of α = .85 (reported range in literature: .81–.88).

Corrected item-total correlations across the inventory range from .45 to .78, confirming that every item contributes meaningfully to the measured construct without introducing excessive redundancy.

Temporal Stability (Test-Retest Reliability)

To determine the stability of the HS over time, Wright et al. (1999) administered the instrument twice across a 2-week to 4-week test-retest window to a non-intervened cohort. The resulting test-retest reliability coefficient for the total score was r = .96 (p < .001). Subscale test-retest coefficients similarly demonstrated high longitudinal stability: Factor 1 (r = .92), Factor 2 (r = .89), and Factor 3 (r = .93), demonstrating that the instrument reliably measures stable dispositional attitudes and behavioral tendencies over time.

9. Factor Analysis

The structural composition of the Homophobia Scale was established through rigorous exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic procedures.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

In the scale development phase, an initial pool of candidate items generated from existing literature, clinical interviews, and behavioral observations was administered to a normative sample. Initial scree plot analysis and Kaiser-Guttman retention criteria (eigenvalues > 1.0) supported a clear three-factor solution. The authors conducted Principal Axis Factoring followed by an oblique (Promax) rotation, reflecting the theoretical expectation that subdimensions of prejudice share common variance.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Subsequent confirmatory structural equation modeling has tested the fit of this three-factor correlated model against competing unidimensional and orthogonal structures. Standard goodness-of-fit indices consistently support the three-factor oblique configuration:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .92 to .95
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): .91 to .94
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .048 to .062 (with 90% confidence intervals below .070)
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .043 to .055

Inter-factor correlations in CFA models typically reveal strong positive associations between Factor 1 and Factor 2 (r ∼ .65 to .74), Factor 1 and Factor 3 (r ∼ .60 to .70), and Factor 2 and Factor 3 (r ∼ .52 to .63). These substantial correlations support both the reporting of discrete subscale profiles and the aggregation of all items into an omnibus total homophobia score.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Homophobia Scale (HS)
• Authors: Lester W. Wright Jr., Henry E. Adams, and Jeffrey A. Bernat (1999)
• Measurement Paradigm: Multi-component self-report rating scale
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil questionnaire, computerized survey, or secure online assessment portal
• Target Population: Adolescents and adults (typically aged 18 and older)
• Completion Time: Approximately 5 to 10 minutes
• Number of Items: 25 items
• Response Format: 5-point Likert-type scale:
  • 1 = Strongly agree
  • 2 = Agree
  • 3 = Neither agree nor disagree
  • 4 = Disagree
  • 5 = Strongly disagree
• Reverse-Scoring Requirement:

  Because the response scale is anchored with 1 = Strongly agree and 5 = Strongly disagree, homophobic-worded items must be reversed so that higher transformed values indicate greater homophobia. Reverse score the following 16 items (transformation formula: Item_reversed = 6 - Item_original):

  Items to reverse score: 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 24, and 25

  The remaining 9 items (3, 7, 8, 10, 11, 16, 18, 20, 22) are positively worded (supportive or neutral toward homosexuality) and are retained in their original raw score format (where 1 = Strongly agree [low homophobia] and 5 = Strongly disagree [high homophobia]).

• Total Score Calculation:

  After reverse scoring the designated 16 items, sum the scores of all 25 items (yielding a temporary sum between 25 and 125). Next, subtract 25 from this grand sum:

  Total Scale Score = (∑ Items 1 to 25 [after reverse scoring]) – 25

  This linear shift calibrates the Total Scale Score range from 0 to 100, where 0 indicates the complete absence of homophobia and 100 represents maximal homophobia, hostility, and antipathy.

• Subscale Calculation Guidelines:
  • Factor 1: Behavior/Negative Affect (Range: 0 to 40)
    Formula: (Item 1 + Item 2 + Item 4 + Item 5 + Item 6 + Item 7 + Item 9 + Item 10 + Item 11 + Item 22) - 10
    (Note: Ensure Items 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 9 are reverse scored prior to summation).
  • Factor 2: Affect/Behavioral Aggression (Range: 0 to 40)
    Formula: (Item 12 + Item 13 + Item 14 + Item 15 + Item 17 + Item 19 + Item 21 + Item 23 + Item 24 + Item 25) - 10
    (Note: All 10 items in this factor [12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 24, 25] are reverse scored).
  • Factor 3: Cognitive Negativism (Range: 0 to 20)
    Formula: (Item 3 + Item 8 + Item 16 + Item 18 + Item 20) - 5
    (Note: None of the items on Factor 3 are reverse scored; their raw values already reflect higher homophobia when disagreeing with pro-equality statements).

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Homophobia Scale was officially published in 1999 in the Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment (Volume 21, Issue 4, pp. 337–347) by Plenum Publishing Corporation (now Springer Science+Business Media). It was later republished in major academic compendia, including the Handbook of Sexuality-Related Measures (Fisher et al., 2010).

Licensing and Academic Use: The scale items and scoring algorithms were released into the public scholarly domain for non-commercial scientific, clinical, and educational research purposes. Investigators and educators wishing to utilize the instrument in empirical studies, master’s theses, or doctoral dissertations may do so without paying licensing royalties, provided that full academic attribution and bibliographic citation are given to Wright, Adams, and Bernat (1999). Commercial utilization, incorporation into commercial digital testing platforms, or proprietary publishing ventures require formal copyright clearance from Springer Nature.

12. 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. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
• Bernat, J. A., Calhoun, K. S., Adams, H. E., & Zeichner, A. (2001). Homophobia and anger in the prediction of physical aggression towards gay men. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 23(3), 181–187. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011326207185
• Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The Psychology of Attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
• Fisher, T. D., Davis, C. M., Yarber, W. L., & Davis, S. L. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of Sexuality-Related Measures (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203863305
• Herek, G. M. (1984). Beyond “homophobia”: A social psychological perspective on attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. Journal of Homosexuality, 10(1-2), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v10n01_01
• 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
• Weinberg, G. (1972). Society and the Healthy Homosexual. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
• 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:1022174316027

13. Items of the Scale