Park’s Heterosexism Scale

Abstract

Park’s Heterosexism Scale (HS) is a widely recognized 16-item self-report psychometric instrument developed by counseling psychologist Dr. Jeeseon Park (2001) at The Pennsylvania State University. The scale is specifically engineered to assess heterosexism, operationalized not merely as individual irrational fear or affective revulsion toward sexual minorities, but as an overarching ideological system of beliefs, institutional structures, cultural norms, and interpersonal practices that systematically privilege heterosexuality and marginalize non-heterosexual identities and relationships. Methodologically constructed to transcend the limitations of unidimensional homophobia scales, the HS captures two distinct yet interrelated dimensions: (1) Superiority of Heterosexuality, which measures explicit ideological convictions regarding the moral, psychological, biological, and institutional preeminence of heterosexual individuals and relationships; and (2) Tolerance/Acceptance of Non-Heterosexuality, which evaluates the degree to which individuals support equal civil rights, social inclusion, and relational acceptance of lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) populations across domains such as public education, adoption, military service, and everyday interpersonal contact. Administered via a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree), the instrument demonstrates robust psychometric properties across diverse empirical studies, with internal consistency coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) consistently ranging between .83 and .92, and test-retest reliability estimates spanning .75 to .85. Confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses affirm the dual-factor latent architecture, while extensive construct, convergent, and criterion-related validity investigations substantiate its capacity to predict discriminatory attitudes, opposition to LGBTQ+ civil liberties, and institutional resistance to parity. This article provides a comprehensive academic overview of the scale’s historical development, theoretical foundations, psychometric evaluation, scoring protocols, and operational implementation across empirical research, clinical training, and organizational assessment.

Keywords

Heterosexism Scale, Park’s Heterosexism Scale, heterosexism, sexual prejudice, homophobia, attitudes toward lesbians and gay men, psychometrics, scale validation, factor analysis, LGBTQ+ attitudes, social dominance theory, system justification

Authors

The Heterosexism Scale was developed and validated by Dr. Jeeseon Park (also published as Jeeseon Park-Saltzman), Ph.D., in collaboration with her doctoral advisor Dr. Kathleen J. Bieschke, Ph.D., within the Department of Counselor Education, Counseling Psychology, and Rehabilitation Services at The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA.

• Jeeseon Park-Saltzman, Ph.D.: Associate Professor of Counseling Psychology, Department of Educational Psychology, College of Education and Human Development, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA. Her research focuses on counselor training and multicultural competence, LGBTQ+ identity development, vocational psychology, and social justice advocacy in counseling settings.
• Kathleen J. Bieschke, Ph.D.: Professor of Education (Counseling Psychology) and Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA. Her extensive scholarship addresses affirmative counseling practices with sexual and gender minority clients, supervision and training models, and the measurement of attitudes toward non-heterosexual populations.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Heterosexism Scale is to provide researchers, counseling psychologists, counselor educators, and sociologists with an operationally sound, multidimensional self-report instrument capable of evaluating both interpersonal attitudes and systemic, ideological beliefs regarding sexual orientation privilege. Throughout the late 20th century, psychological inquiry into anti-gay bias was predominantly guided by clinical frameworks of homophobia—a concept introduced by George Weinberg in 1972 that emphasized individual-level irrational fear, visceral disgust, and pathologized psychological aversion. While instruments developed under this paradigm, such as the Index of Homophobia (Hudson & Ricketts, 1980), effectively captured acute affective anxiety, they exhibited significant conceptual limitations in assessing modern, socially institutionalized, and covert forms of bias.

As social norms evolved, overt expressions of personal revulsion became increasingly censured in mainstream civic life, giving rise to more institutionalized, nuanced, and structurally embedded forms of discrimination. Dr. Jeeseon Park developed the Heterosexism Scale to address this psychometric gap, shifting the analytical lens from individual emotional pathology to heterosexism as an ideological framework. Heterosexism operates through cultural beliefs, legal hierarchies, religious doctrines, and socio-developmental assumptions that position heterosexuality as the natural, normative, and inherently superior mode of human existence. The HS was specifically designed to capture the duality between direct beliefs in heterosexual supremacy and resistance to granting equal societal standing and civil tolerance to non-heterosexual individuals.

In applied research, the HS serves as an essential tool across several critical domains:

• Counseling Psychology and Professional Training: The scale is widely utilized to assess multicultural counseling competence, baseline bias, and educational growth among graduate students in counseling, clinical psychology, and social work, ensuring that clinicians identify covert heterosexist assumptions that could compromise therapeutic alliance and treatment outcomes with sexual minority clients.
• Organizational and Workplace Climate Research: Human resource professionals and industrial-organizational psychologists deploy the HS to evaluate organizational climate, implicit cultural barriers, and employee attitudes regarding equal opportunity employment, workplace nondiscrimination policies, and family benefits for same-sex partners.
• Sociopolitical and Public Policy Inquiries: The HS is utilized to investigate public opinion regarding legislative initiatives, including marriage equality, non-heterosexual adoption rights, military inclusion policies (such as the historical repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”), and the implementation of inclusive sexual orientation curricula in public educational institutions.
• Intervention and Longitudinal Tracking: Because of its sensitivity to structural and cognitive dimensions of prejudice, the scale serves as an effective pre-test and post-test measurement tool for tracking the longitudinal efficacy of diversity workshops, multicultural education modules, and intergroup contact interventions.

Psychological Construct

The construct measured by Park’s Heterosexism Scale is heterosexism, conceptualized in accordance with social psychological and counseling literature as a pervasive, culturally entrenched ideological system that denies, denigrates, and stigmatizes any non-heterosexual form of behavior, relationship, or community, while simultaneously naturalizing and privileging heterosexuality (Herek, 1990, 2004; Park, 2001). Unlike individual-level prejudice that manifests solely through personal antipathy, heterosexism operates across institutional, cultural, and interpersonal strata. Park’s operationalization posits that heterosexism is bifactorial, composed of two continuous, empirically verified dimensions:

1. Superiority of Heterosexuality

This subscale assesses the cognitive endorsement of ideological beliefs that position heterosexuality as biologically, developmentally, psychologically, and morally superior to non-heterosexual orientations. Individuals scoring high on this dimension express views that heterosexual individuals are naturally more psychologically adjusted, morally sound, and socially capable than their lesbian, gay, or bisexual peers. Key operational facets within this dimension include:

• Parental and Developmental Fitness: Beliefs that heterosexual couples are inherently superior candidates for adoption and parenting, premised on the heteronormative assumption that healthy child development necessitates dual-gender heterosexual parenting models (e.g., Item 6: “Heterosexual couples make better candidates for parents than do same-sex couples for adoption.”).
• Psychological Adjustment and Well-being: Pathologizing assumptions asserting that non-heterosexual lives are inherently deficit-laden, psychologically impaired, or incapable of achieving fulfillment comparable to heterosexual lives (e.g., Item 3: “I believe that the lives of lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals could not be as fulfilling as those of heterosexual individuals,” and Item 15: “In general, heterosexual people are more psychologically adjusted than lesbian, gay, and bisexual people.”).
• Institutional and Moral Preeminence: Convictions that societal preservation and spiritual leadership must remain exclusively heterosexual to maintain cultural integrity (e.g., Item 4: “Only heterosexual individuals are appropriate religious leaders,” and Item 16: “Legalization of same-sex marriage will dismantle the fundamental foundations for society.”).

2. Tolerance/Acceptance of Non-Heterosexuality

This subscale evaluates personal openness toward, and societal support for, the full integration, legal protection, and civil parity of non-heterosexual individuals. While the Superiority subscale reflects explicit hierarchy endorsement, the Tolerance/Acceptance subscale measures endorsement of egalitarian norms across interpersonal, occupational, and civic spheres. Because items in this subscale are framed from an egalitarian standpoint, they are reverse-scored during data aggregation so that higher scores consistently reflect greater heterosexist sentiment. Key operational facets include:

• Institutional and Civil Inclusion: Advocacy for structural parity, including employment protections, inclusive military service, comprehensive public school curricula, and civil rights legislation (e.g., Item 2: “Positive aspects of various sexual orientations should be included in public education,” Item 9: “An anti-discrimination law is incomplete without the inclusion of sexual orientation,” and Item 10: “There is no reason to restrict lesbian, gay, or bisexual individuals from working in the military.”).
• Essentialist Legitimacy: Recognition that sexual diversity represents a legitimate, natural manifestation of the human condition rather than a moral failing or pathological deviation (e.g., Item 1: “All sexual orientations are natural expressions of human sexuality,” and Item 8: “No one sexual orientation is better than any other sexual orientation.”).
• Interpersonal Openness and Affiliation: Willingness to maintain personal, familial, and professional relationships with non-heterosexual individuals without conditional social distancing (e.g., Item 7: “I would accept my sibling’s partner regardless of his or her sex,” Item 12: “I would not think less of my co-worker if I found out that he or she was a lesbian, gay, or bisexual individual,” and Item 14: “I make sure to invite the partner of my lesbian or gay friend to social functions.”).

Theoretical Framework

The conceptual architecture of Park’s Heterosexism Scale is grounded in modern social psychological theories of prejudice, intergroup relations, and ideological justification. The instrument synthesizes several foundational models to explain how systemic inequality is maintained through personal cognitive assent:

Herek’s Theory of Sexual Stigma and Heterosexism

Gregory M. Herek’s landmark structural conceptualization of sexual stigma provides the primary theoretical scaffolding for the HS. Herek (1990, 2004) distinguished between three interrelated constructs: structural stigma (heterosexism embedded within legal, political, and cultural institutions), interpersonal stigma (enacted sexual prejudice), and internalized stigma (the psychological introjection of anti-gay bias by sexual minorities themselves). Herek argued that traditional homophobia research focused disproportionately on intrapsychic anxieties while obscuring the macro-level ideology that normalizes heterosexual privilege. Park incorporated this insight, structuring the HS to assess respondents’ alignment with institutionalized sexual stigma, specifically interrogating attitudes toward civic rights, legal statutes, and public educational systems.

Social Dominance Theory (SDT)

Developed by Jim Sidanius and Felicia Pratto (1999), Social Dominance Theory posits that human societies tend to organize as group-based hierarchies, sustained through “legitimizing myths”—socially shared values, attitudes, and ideologies that justify intergroup inequality. In Park’s framework, heterosexism serves as a hierarchy-enhancing legitimizing myth. The Superiority of Heterosexuality subscale directly captures the belief that heterosexuals represent a naturally dominant social stratum whose hegemony preserves social order, while the rejection of Tolerance/Acceptance represents an effort to prevent subordinate sexual minority groups from accessing institutional power, family status, and occupational security.

System Justification Theory (SJT)

According to John Jost and Mahzarin Banaji’s (1994) System Justification Theory, individuals are psychologically motivated to defend, bolster, and justify prevailing social, economic, and political arrangements, even when those arrangements perpetuate demonstrable inequality. In the context of the HS, items assessing marriage equality, military inclusion, and religious leadership measure system-justifying rationales. Items such as Item 16 (“Legalization of same-sex marriage will dismantle the fundamental foundations for society”) illustrate how respondents conceptualize non-heterosexual civil parity not merely as an alternative lifestyle, but as an existential threat to institutional stability.

Modern and Symbolic Prejudice Frameworks

The HS also draws upon modern prejudice theories, originally developed to explain contemporary racial attitudes (McConahay, 1986; Sears, 1988) and later adapted to sexual orientation by Morrison and Morrison (2002) as modern homonegativity. Modern prejudice posits that contemporary bias rarely manifests as blatant, hostile aggression; rather, it is expressed through cognitive beliefs that sexual minorities are demanding special privileges, that discrimination is no longer a significant problem, or that traditional cultural institutions are being unfairly undermined. The HS captures both classic heterosexist supremacy and modern, policy-based opposition to institutional accommodation.

Validity

The Heterosexism Scale has been subjected to extensive empirical psychometric evaluations that demonstrate robust construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity across undergraduate, community, and specialized counseling samples.

Construct and Convergent Validity

In her initial instrument validation study, Park (2001) established strong convergent validity by examining correlations between the HS and established measures of sexual prejudice. The HS exhibited significant, robust positive correlations with Herek’s (1988) Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men Scale (ATLG), with correlation coefficients typically exceeding $r = .70$ ($p < .001$), demonstrating that the scale accurately captures the underlying domain of anti-LGB sentiment. Furthermore, the HS correlated strongly ($r = .65$ to $.78$) with the Homophobia Scale developed by Hudson and Ricketts (1980), confirming that individuals reporting high levels of heterosexist ideology also report elevated levels of affective discomfort toward non-heterosexual individuals.

Subsequent psychometric examinations have reinforced these convergent patterns. Gallor (2006) investigated the relationship between heterosexist beliefs, traditional gender role adherence, and religious orientation among heterosexual parents of lesbian and gay children. Her findings demonstrated that high HS scores correlated significantly with rigid gender role ideology, high Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA), and extrinsic religious orientations, confirming theoretical predictions that heterosexism co-occurs within broader constellations of conservative and hierarchy-preserving cognitive frameworks. Similarly, Goodrich, Selig, and Crofts (2014) substantiated convergent associations between the HS and modern homonegativity measures, showing that the HS successfully taps into contemporary structural attitudes beyond overt interpersonal hostility.

Discriminant Validity

To establish that the HS does not merely reflect generalized social desirability or non-specific negative affectivity, Park (2001) administered the scale alongside the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (MCSDS). The resulting correlations were non-significant to negligible (ranging from $r = -.08$ to $r = -.14$), confirming that self-reported heterosexism on the HS is largely free from contamination by social approval-seeking tendencies. Additionally, discriminant validity was demonstrated through moderate correlations with generalized political conservatism ($r pprox .40$), establishing that while heterosexism is related to conservative ideological beliefs, it remains a distinct, domain-specific psychological construct.

Criterion-Related and Predictive Validity

The HS demonstrates exceptional criterion-related and predictive validity across diverse behavioral and attitudinal outcomes. High scores on the HS significantly predict opposition to socio-legal initiatives, including opposition to marriage equality, bans on same-sex couple adoption, and resistance to anti-discrimination workplace policies (Park, 2001; Gallor, 2006). In counseling and supervisory contexts, Park and Bieschke (2002) found that counseling psychology trainees with higher HS scores exhibited lower clinical self-efficacy when working with LGB clients, demonstrated lower levels of affirmative therapeutic interventions, and were more likely to endorse pathologizing diagnostic interpretations when presented with sexual minority client vignettes.

Reliability

The Heterosexism Scale demonstrates high internal consistency reliability and temporal stability across a diverse range of empirical investigations and demographic populations.

Internal Consistency Reliability

In the original scale development and validation research conducted by Park (2001), the 16-item composite scale exhibited exceptional internal consistency, yielding Cronbach’s alpha ($lpha$) coefficients ranging from .83 to .92 across undergraduate student samples and adult community cohorts. Analysis of the individual subscales revealed equally strong internal consistency metrics:

• Superiority of Heterosexuality Subscale: Cronbach’s alpha values typically range between .86 and .90, reflecting robust item homogeneity and strong shared variance among items measuring ideological hierarchy and heterosexual preeminence.
• Tolerance/Acceptance of Non-Heterosexuality Subscale: Cronbach’s alpha values consistently range from .80 to .87, demonstrating substantial reliability across items evaluating institutional inclusion, educational parity, and interpersonal acceptance.

Subsequent psychometric examinations have consistently replicated these high internal consistency metrics. Gallor (2006) reported an overall composite alpha of .89 in a specialized sample of heterosexual parents, with subscale alphas of .87 for Superiority and .83 for Tolerance/Acceptance. In an extensive psychometric re-evaluation, Goodrich, Selig, and Crofts (2014) observed composite internal consistency reliability coefficients of .91, with mean inter-item correlations remaining within the optimal range of .35 to .55, indicating that the scale items avoid excessive conceptual redundancy while maintaining strong construct cohesion.

Test-Retest Reliability and Temporal Stability

Temporal stability of the HS was evaluated by Park (2001) across a two-week to four-week test-retest interval among a sub-sample of university participants who received no specific educational intervention. The test-retest reliability coefficient for the overall scale was $r = .85$ ($p < .001$), while individual subscale stability coefficients ranged from $r = .75$ to $.82$. These findings demonstrate that Park’s Heterosexism Scale captures stable, trait-like ideological attitudes rather than transient, state-dependent moods or context-dependent response sets, making it a reliable instrument for longitudinal tracking and intervention assessment.

Factor Analysis

The latent dimensionality of Park’s Heterosexism Scale was initially established through Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and subsequently corroborated using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) across independent validation samples.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During scale development, Park (2001) administered an initial pool of over 40 candidate items to an exploratory sample of undergraduate students. The data were subjected to Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) accompanied by an oblique rotation (Promax), selected because the underlying dimensions of heterosexism were theoretically expected to correlate. The scree test, alongside Kaiser’s eigenvalue-greater-than-one criterion, clearly supported a robust two-factor latent structure. Items demonstrating factor loadings below .40 or displaying substantial cross-loadings (loadings $ge .30$ on both factors) were systematically eliminated, yielding the final, psychometrically refined 16-item scale.

The two extracted factors accounted for more than 52% of the total scale variance:

• Factor 1: Superiority of Heterosexuality: Comprising items assessing the belief that heterosexuality is morally, developmentally, and socially superior (e.g., Items 3, 4, 6, 11, 13, 15, and 16). Factor loadings on this primary dimension ranged from .52 to .81.
• Factor 2: Tolerance/Acceptance of Non-Heterosexuality: Comprising items capturing support for civil parity, educational inclusion, employment rights, and interpersonal comfort (e.g., Items 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 14). Factor loadings on this secondary dimension ranged from .48 to .78.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

To confirm the structural integrity of the dual-factor model, Park (2001) conducted a Confirmatory Factor Analysis on an independent validation cohort. The two-factor model demonstrated an acceptable fit to the data, outperforming alternative single-factor unidimensional models. Standard structural equation modeling goodness-of-fit indices demonstrated adequate parameters: the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) was .92, the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) was .90, and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) was .068 (90% CI [.055, .081]), reflecting a sound structural representation of the construct.

Goodrich, Selig, and Crofts (2014) further re-examined the factor structure of the HS using advanced CFA techniques with maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors. Their structural analyses corroborated that while a single general factor accounts for substantial common variance—supporting the aggregation of a composite total score—the correlated two-factor model provided superior empirical fit ($\chi^2/df < 2.5$, $ ext{CFI} = .94$,$ ext{RMSEA} = .058$). The inter-factor correlation between Superiority of Heterosexuality and Tolerance/Acceptance of Non-Heterosexuality was approximately $r = -.62$, demonstrating that while the two dimensions share significant ideological variance, each retains unique conceptual and psychometric properties that warrant separate diagnostic interpretation.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Name of the Measure: Park’s Heterosexism Scale (often abbreviated as HS).
• Author: Dr. Jeeseon Park (Park-Saltzman), Ph.D., with Kathleen J. Bieschke, Ph.D.
• Year of Development: 2001 (Doctoral Dissertation); presented at APA in 2002; published manuscripts 2004.
• Instrument Type: Multidimensional self-report psychological rating scale.
• Target Population: Adults and adolescents aged 18 and older, including university undergraduates, counseling trainees, mental health professionals, and general community populations.
• Administration Format: Individual or group administration via paper-and-pencil or secure computer-based survey platforms (e.g., Qualtrics, REDCap).
• Administration Time: Approximately 5 to 10 minutes to complete all 16 items.
• Number of Items: 16 items.
• Latent Subscales:
  • Superiority of Heterosexuality: 7 items (Items 3, 4, 6, 11, 13, 15, and 16).
  • Tolerance/Acceptance of Non-Heterosexuality: 9 items (Items 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 14).
• Response Format: 5-point Likert scale:
  • 1 = Strongly Disagree
  • 2 = Disagree
  • 3 = Neither Disagree or Agree
  • 4 = Agree
  • 5 = Strongly Agree
• Scoring Protocol and Directionality:
  • The scale is structured so that higher total scores reflect higher levels of heterosexism (i.e., stronger heterosexist ideology and lower tolerance).
  • Direct Scoring: The 7 items comprising the Superiority of Heterosexuality subscale (Items 3, 4, 6, 11, 13, 15, 16) are directly scored according to their Likert value (Strongly Disagree = 1, Strongly Agree = 5).
  • Reverse Scoring: The 9 items comprising the Tolerance/Acceptance of Non-Heterosexuality subscale (Items 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14) are positively worded (egalitarian) statements and must be reverse-scored prior to aggregation: $1
    ightarrow 5$, $2
    ightarrow 4$, $3
    ightarrow 3$, $4
    ightarrow 2$, $5
    ightarrow 1$.
  • Score Aggregation:
    • Total Composite Score: Summed across all 16 items (after reverse-scoring), producing a continuous raw score ranging from 16 to 80 (or a mean composite score ranging from 1.00 to 5.00).
    • Subscale Scores: Mean or sum scores can be derived independently for the Superiority subscale (raw range: 7–35; mean range: 1.00–5.00) and the Tolerance/Acceptance subscale (raw range: 9–45; mean range: 1.00–5.00).
• Interpretation Guidelines: Lower mean scores (e.g., 1.00 to 2.00) indicate low heterosexism, high affirmation of sexual diversity, and endorsement of structural equality. Moderate mean scores (e.g., 2.01 to 3.49) indicate ambivalent or covert heterosexist attitudes, often characterized by tolerance of LGB individuals in private spheres alongside resistance to systemic institutional changes (e.g., marriage or adoption parity). Higher mean scores (e.g., 3.50 to 5.00) reflect elevated heterosexist ideology, active endorsement of heterosexual superiority, and overt resistance to sexual minority civil rights.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Park’s Heterosexism Scale was originally developed and psychometrically validated in 2001 as part of Dr. Jeeseon Park’s doctoral dissertation at The Pennsylvania State University. Findings were subsequently disseminated at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association in Chicago, Illinois (Park & Bieschke, 2002) and prepared in manuscript form (Park, 2004).

Licensing and Fee Structure: Park’s Heterosexism Scale is available in the public academic domain for non-commercial educational, clinical training, and empirical scientific research purposes without licensing fees. Researchers and educators wishing to utilize, reproduce, or adapt the scale are expected to extend formal academic attribution by citing Dr. Jeeseon Park’s original doctoral dissertation (Park, 2001) and associated publications. The complete dissertation and instrument can be accessed through institutional repositories (including the University of Maryland Digital Repository at DRUM and Penn State University Libraries) and via ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global (UMI Publication No. AAT 3036093). For commercial deployment, organizational consultation, or widespread distribution within proprietary software applications, researchers should seek permission from the primary author, Dr. Jeeseon Park-Saltzman, through Texas A&M University.

References

• Gallor, S. M. (2006). Heterosexual parents’ gender role attitudes, religious orientation, heterosexist beliefs, support group experiences, and relationship functioning with their lesbian or gay children (Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park). Digital Repository at the University of Maryland (DRUM). http://hdl.handle.net/1903/3683
• Goodrich, K. M., Selig, J. P., & Crofts, G. (2014). An examination of the Heterosexism Scale. Journal of Homosexuality, 61(10), 1378–1392. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2014.926771
• 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
• Herek, G. M. (1990). The context of anti-gay violence: Notes on cultural and psychological heterosexism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5(3), 316–333. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626090005003006
• 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
• 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
• Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01008.x
• Morrison, M. A., & Morrison, T. G. (2002). Development and validation of a scale measuring modern prejudice toward gay men and lesbian women. Journal of Homosexuality, 43(2), 15–37. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v43n02_02
• Park, J. (2001). Development of the Heterosexism Scale (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.
• Park, J. (2004). Development of the Heterosexism Scale. Manuscript submitted for publication.
• Park, J., & Bieschke, K. J. (2002, August). Development of the Heterosexism Scale. Poster presented at the 110th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Chicago, IL.
• Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139175043

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)