See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258047593

Systematic review of instruments measuring

homophobia and related constructs
ARTICLE in JOURNAL OF APPLIED SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY JUNE 2013
Impact Factor: 0.83 DOI: 10.1111/jasp.12140

CITATIONS

READS

735

3 AUTHORS:
Angelo Brandelli Costa

Denise Ruschel Bandeira

Pontifcia Universidade Catlica do Rio G

Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul

30 PUBLICATIONS 31 CITATIONS

101 PUBLICATIONS 941 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

Henrique Caetano Nardi

Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul
84 PUBLICATIONS 108 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,

letting you access and read them immediately.

Available from: Angelo Brandelli Costa

Retrieved on: 15 March 2016

bs_bs_banner

Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2013, , pp.

Systematic review of instruments measuring homophobia

and related constructs
Angelo Brandelli Costa, Denise Ruschel Bandeira, Henrique Caetano Nardi
Institute of Psychology, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil

Correspondence concerning this article should

be addressed to Angelo Brandelli Costa,
Ramiro Barcelos, 2600, Porto
AlegreRS90035-003, Brazil.
E-mail: brandelli.costa@ufrgs.br
This work was supported by grants from
Coordenao de Aperfeioamento de Pessoal
de Nvel Superior (CAPES).
doi: 10.1111/jasp.12140

Abstract
Since its conceptualization, the construct of homophobia has been the subject of
many speculations about its specificity, reach, and possibility of empirical assessment. Several instruments have been created aiming to measure the prejudice
against homosexuals. Peer-reviewed articles of studies using measures to assess
homophobia and related constructs were systematically reviewed in 4 databases
(Medline, PsycINFO, ERIC, JSTOR). The articles were classified as they displayed
evidence of the instruments validity, reliability, or both. Finally, the instruments
were rated according to that evidence. Out of 1076 results, 115 studies between 1993
and 2010 were identified as relevant. Those studies used 47 different instruments.
This review focused in 5 instruments that concentrated the majority of the citations.
Psychometric properties were acceptable.

In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed

homosexuality from the 3rd edition of its Diagnostic Manual
of Mental Disorders. This was an important shift, for since
then, homosexuality was no longer considered a medical condition. The problematization in this field turned to those who
saw homosexuality as a disorder (Drescher, 2010; Greenberg,
1997).
In 1972, George Weinberg published Society and the
Healthy Homosexual, introducing the term homophobia.1
According to Weinberg, homophobia is the dread of being
close to homosexualsand in the case of homosexuals themselves, self-aversion (p. 8). Herek (2004) pointed out that
Weinbergs intention of bringing homophobia closer to the
field of pathology was political, rather than theoretical. The
book introduced and popularized the term and made
the prejudice against nonheterosexual sexual orientation a
problem worthy of academic analysis and intervention. The
term was widely adopted, particularly within the studies of
prejudice and discrimination, which in previous decades
were dedicated to the problems of anti-Semitism, racism, and
sexism (Young-Bruehl, 1996).
1
There are controversies about the origin of the term homophobia. Fone
(2000) suggested that it was created in the 1960s and appeared first in 1971 in
an article by K. T. Smith in 1971 entitled Homophobia: The Tentative Personality Profile. Herek (2004) credited Weinberg as the first person to use the
term in a public speech and mentions the first appearance in print of the term
in a 1969 article of Screw magazine.

2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

There is wide divergence in the theoretical definition of

homophobia. Psychological research has identified homophobia either as a personality trait (Smith, 1971); a behavior
(Gray, Russell, & Blockley, 1991); a value (ODonohue &
Caselles, 1993); an explicit or implicit attitude (Herek, 1991);
a sensation (Bell, 1989); an irrational fear (MacDonald,
Huggins, Young, & Swanson, 1972); or a cultural phenomenon (Reiter, 1991). Beyond those specific definitions, other
authors have suggested that homophobia refers to any historical, social, legal phenomenon, or institutional bias demeaning
sexual orientation (Borrillo, 2010; Junqueira, 2007; Prado &
Machado 2008). In addition, there is a debate about the very
term homophobia, its relevance, and its reach. A brief review
revealed many related terms: heterosexism; homoerotophobia;
homosexphobia; homosexism; homonegativism; homoprejudice; anti-homosexualism; antihomosexuality; homonegativity; homosexual prejudice, anti-gay bias; lesbophobia;
biphobia; transphobia; effeminophobia; heterophobia; AIDS
phobia; sexual stigma; erotic stigma; and sexual prejudice
(ODonohue & Caselles, 1993; Sears & Williams, 1997).
In an attempt to reconcile these conflicting views, Herek
(2004) proposed a typology. On the first level, homophobia
manifests itself in the shared knowledge that denigrates nonheterosexual identity, behavior, and community; negatively
evaluating its members according to their affiliation to the
nonheterosexual group, and not by their individual characteristics. On the second level, homophobia as an ideology is
Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2013, , pp.

expressed in the structure of society and its institutions and

relations of power; for example, restricting LGBT2 population
access to fundamental rights. Individuals internalize this ideology and through their attitudes and beliefs reinforce it in an
internalized or externalized way, constituting what Herek
called the third level. This level includes an affective dimension (e.g., negative feelings toward LGBTs), stereotypes (e.g.,
the belief that most homosexual women are masculinized),
prejudices (e.g., the belief that gay men should not be teachers), and discrimination (e.g., refusing a job interview to an
openly gay candidate).
Some consensus was reached on prejudice against sexual
orientation (Dovidio, Hewstone, Glick, & Esses, 2010; Herek,
1991, 2000, 2004; ODonohue & Caselles, 1993; Sears &
Williams, 1997):
1. Homophobia fails to fit the criteria for a phobia, as its primarily emotional and behavioral response is not a phobic
avoidance.
2. Women tend to be less biased than men.
3. Older people tend to stigmatize nonheterosexual individuals more than do middle-aged people.
4. Increased formal education is associated with a lower
degree of prejudice.
5. Homophobia is positively correlated with racism, a stereotypical view of gender roles, orthodox and conservative
religious beliefs, and political conservatism.
6. People who have had previous contact with nonheterosexual individuals tend to be less biased than those never
exposed to them.
7. Peer perception contributes to negative attitudes and
prejudice against homosexuality.
Several instruments have been developed to assess homophobia: Homophobia Scale, Attitudes Toward Homosexuality, Scale Index of Homophobia, and Homophobia Scale,
among more than 30 instruments reviewed by Schawanberg
(1993).According to Schawanberg, most of these instruments
presented problems in their development: they did not show
good evidence of validity and reliability; and they used convenience samplesusually university studentswhich is not
a good sample because, as stated previously, increased formal
education is negatively associated with prejudice. Some
instruments had problems defining the construct assessed;
and many studies used instruments that assess aspects that
are not theoretically linked to homophobia as a measure
of convergent validity (ODonohue & Caselles, 1993;
Schawanberg, 1993).
In Brazil, empirical studies have shown high levels of
violence and prejudice against homosexuals (Abramovay,
Cunha, & Calaf, 2009; Castro, Abramovay, & Silva, 2004;
FIPE/MEC/INEP, 2009; Moutinho & Sampaio, 2005). Those
studies used sociological and anthropological methodologies
2

Lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender.

2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Instruments measuring homophobia

or instruments that were not standardized. Despite their

widespread international use, in Brazil we do not have instruments to assess homophobia adapted to local reality and
with good psychometric properties. Moreover, Brazil shows
a growing investment in policies to combat prejudice
against sexual orientation. Brazil Without Homophobia
(Programa Brasil Sem Homofobia, 2004) is a wide-ranging
program that includes actions in various ministries. One
of the highlights is the training of teachers in elementary
and secondary education to introduce sexual diversity content into daily educational practice. However, analysts
have pointed out that this has not been well evaluated
(Daniliauskas, 2009; Rossi, 2010), although the very basic text
of the National Policy indicates the need to develop instruments for that purpose (Brasil, 2004).

Method
Aiming to develop or adapt an instrument, we systematically
reviewed articles of studies using tests and measures assessing
homophobia and related constructs. The articles were classified as they displayed evidence of the instruments validity,
reliability, or both. Finally, the instruments were rated
according to that evidence.

Procedure
We conducted a systematic review in Medline, PsycINFO,
ERIC, and JSTOR in May 2010, seeking peer-reviewed articles
in indexed journals from 1993 on, because of the existence of
a review that includes studies published from that date
(Schawanberg, 1993) to 2010. Since 1982, the American Psychological Association has suggested substituting the term
homophobia for attitudes toward homosexuality. However,
as several constructs referring to the same phenomenon were
found, we chose to use all of those terms. An initial search was
performed to confirm the presence or absence of articles
using each of the terms. We kept the terms that returned some
result. The string used in the final search was as follows:
(homosexual prejudice OR homosexuality prejudice
OR attitudes toward homosexual OR homophobia OR
homonegativity OR homonegativism OR antihomosexualism OR antihomosexuality OR heterosexism
OR heteronormativity OR homophobic OR homosexphobia OR attitudes toward homosexuality) AND
(measurement OR test OR scale OR inventory OR
assessment)

Search Strategies
The search returned 1076 articles. Of those articles, 234 were
removed as they were duplicates, and 229 were removed as
they were published prior to 1993. We kept articles that were
published in 1993 or later. The abstracts of the 613 studies
Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2013, , pp.

Costa et al.

published between 1993 and 2010 were analyzed using the

following criteria: (a) the instrument used was mentioned in
the abstract; and (b) the mentioned instrument measured
homophobia or a related construct. Articles were excluded if
they were written in a language other than English, Spanish,
Portuguese, or French.
Given the criteria for inclusion and exclusion, 115 studies
were identified as relevant. The majority of the studies were
concentrated around five instruments. Data from 62 articles
referring to those five instruments were extracted. We collected data from each paper into a spreadsheet, which
included a description of the instrument, sample, and evidence of validity and reliability (see Table 1). We removed 10

Table 1

Classification of Validity and Reliability Evidence

Validity/Reliability
1. Theoretical clarity

2. Content validity

3. Convergent and
discriminant validity

4. Relation to instruments
that assess the same
construct
5. Criterion validity

6. Face validity
7. Other validities

8. Factor analysis

9. Temporal stability

10. Internal consistency

2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

articles from the pool, as they did not contain evidence of

validity and reliability. We added to the pool 2 articles that
discussed the construction of two instruments. The final pool
contained 54 articles (see Figure 1).
Since the publication of the new Standards for Educational
and Psychological Testing (American Educational Research
Association [AERA], 1999) the notions of validity and reliability have changed. The new vision refers to the degree to
which evidence and theory support the interpretations of test
scores entailed by proposed uses of tests (AERA, 1999, p. 11).
In this view, the validation process is cumulative, as each bit
of evidence ensures the interpretations of the test and the
relevance of its assumptions. We grouped the sources of
evidence according to the new standards: content, validity,
internal structure, and reliability (see Table 1). Inferences
were made on the selected studies evaluating data conferring
to these criteria.

Definition
Stated clearly the underlying theory
guiding the construction of the
instrument
Described the procedures to select
relevant items, specifying details
and reasons for the classifications
in areas, domains, and subscales
These measures of validity are based
on the principle that theoretically
related constructs should present a
high correlation (convergent) and
unrelated constructs should not
(discriminant),
The degree of relationship between
instruments that assess the same
construct
The degree to which the test predicts
the performance of a group of
subjects in relation to an external
evaluation, their future behavior, or
a contrasting group
A measure of how the test appears to
measure the evaluated construct.
This category grouped other
validation techniques as
experimental interventions and
structural equations modeling.
Involves statistical analysis to identify
the factor structures of the test.
Generally involves items of a
subscale that correlate strongly
with each other and weakly with
other items of the test.
The tendency of the test to produce
the same result in the same
individuals in different occasions
A measure that tells how different
parts of a test, when related,
produce consistent results

Results
We identified 47 different instruments, 30 of which were cited
by only one article. The majority of the instruments were
published in recent years and originated in the United States.
Most of the instruments were self-report questionnaires,
except for one that was a computer-assisted categorization
task. The instruments evaluate a broad spectrum of the construct of homophobia, including modern homophobia;
implicit and explicit homophobia; internalized and externalized homophobia; homopositivity; homonegativity; causes
of homosexuality; and attitudes toward lesbians and bisexuals. They also evaluate different psychological aspects of the
construct, such as emotions; explicit and implicit attitudes;
behaviors; and beliefs. Besides the fact that most of the studies
were carried out in the educational environment, the context
of evaluation also varies from health to religious and military
institutions. As we were looking for evidence that supports
the good quality of the instruments, we chose those that
included the largest number of studies. We started reviewing
five instruments; however, one of them (i.e., Index of Attitudes Toward Homosexuals [IAH]) turned out to be the
renaming of another instrument that was also being reviewed
(i.e., Index of Homophobia [IHP]). Consequently, the final
review contained four instruments.
First, we present a summary describing the instruments
that contain the largest number of studies (see Table 2).
Second, we present a table that summarizes those studies, the
sample that was used, and an inference about the evidence of
validity and reliability that it represents (see Table 3). For
the scale evaluation process, we chose to rate the quality
of evidence related to the AERA/APA/NCME domains
(content/validity/reliability/internal structure) in Likerttype scale. The instruments were rated on a 10 point-scale,
punctuatingregardless of the number of studiesif they
Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2013, , pp.

Instruments measuring homophobia

Potentially relevant references

identified on search
N = 1076
Removed
Doubles: N = 234
Published before 1993: N = 229
Search in the abstracts
N = 613
Removed
Did not meet the inclusion criteria:
N = 498
Potentially relevant references
N = 115
Removed
Instruments with less than 5
studies: N = 53
Data extraction
N = 62
Removed
Did not contain evidence of
validity and reliability: N = 10
Included
Articles of the construction of
the scales: N = 2

Final pool
N = 54

Figure 1

Table 2

Search strategies.

Summary of Characteristics of Reviewed Instruments

Instrument
Index of Attitudes toward
Homosexuals
(IAH) / Index of
Homophobia (IHP)
Attitudes Toward Lesbians
and Gays Scale (ATLG)
Homophobia Scale

Implicit Association
Test (IAT)

2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Year of
publication

Country of
origin

Method of
data collection

Number of
scale items

Construct

Sample items

1980

USA

Self-report
questionnaire

25

Homonegativity

1988

USA

20

Negative attitudes

1999

USA

Self-report
questionnaire
Self-report
questionnaire

25

Homophobia

2001

Germany

Implicit attitudes

I would feel comfortable working

closely with a male homosexual.
I would feel nervous being in a group
of homosexuals.
Lesbians do not fit into our society.
Male homosexuality is a perversion.
Homosexuality is acceptable to me.
Gay people make me nervous.
I would hit a homosexual for coming
on to me.
Participants are timed as they
associate symbols representing a
group (e.g., heterosexual or
homosexual couples) with positive
or negative words (e.g.,
homosexual + good, heterosexual
+ bad).

Computer-assisted
categorization
task

Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2013, , pp.

Costa et al.

Table 3

Classification of Samples and Evidence of Validity and Reliability by Instruments and Studies

Instrument

Study

Sample

Validity/Reliability

Index of Attitudes Toward

Homosexuals/
Index of Homophobia

Plumm, Terrance, Henderson, & Ellingson (2010)

Siebert, Chonody, Rutledge, & Killian (2009)
Dinkel, Patzel, McGuire, Rolfs, & Pucell (2007)
Cole, Reece, & Lindeman (2005)
Span & Vidal (2003)
Burt & DeMello (2002)
Sakalli (2002)
Sakalli & Ugurlu (2002)
Guth, Hewitt-Gervais, Smith, & Fisher (2000)
Lippincott, Wlazelek, & Schumacher (2000)
Sakalli & Ugurlu (2001)
Schlub & Martsolf (1999)
Jome & Tokar (1998)
Roderick, McCammon, Long, & Allred (1998)
Berkman & Zinberg (1997)
Monroe, Baker, & Rollb (1997)
Adams, Wright, & Lohr (1996)
Dunkle & Francis (1996)
Hogan & Rentz (1996)
Matchinsky & Iverson (1996)
Riggle, Ellis, & Crawford (1996)
Pain & Disney (1995)
Patel, Long, McCammon, & Wuensch (1995)
Smith (1993)
Hudson & Ricketts (1980)
Hussey & Bisconti (2010)
Blackwell & Khiel (2008)
Cardenas & Barrientos (2008)
Fisher & Banik (2007)
Raiz & Saltzburg (2007)
Stoever & Morera (2007)
Morrison, Kenny, & Harrington (2005)
Vicario, Liddle, & Luzzo (2005)
Eliason & Hughes (2004)
van de Meerendonk, Eisinga, & Felling (2003)
Cullen, Wright, & Alessandri (2002)
Estrada (2002)
Simoni & Walters (2001)

Undergraduate students
Undergraduate and graduate students
Nursing students and faculty teachers
Health students
Undergraduate students
Undergraduate students
Turkish undergraduate students
Turkish undergraduate students
Undergraduate and graduate students
Asian and American undergraduate students
Turkish undergraduate students
Nurse students
Male undergraduate and graduate students
Undergraduate students
Social workers
Men (unspecified)
Heterosexual men
Undergraduate students
Undergraduate students and staff
Undergraduate students
College students
Australian undergraduate students
College students
Psychiatric nurses
Undergraduate students
Undergraduate students
Nurses
Chilean undergraduate students
Undergraduate students
Undergraduate students
Undergraduate students
Irish undergraduate students
Undergraduate students
Counselors
Sample of the Dutch population
Undergraduate students
Military men
Postsecondary, undergraduate,
and graduate students
College students
Undergraduate students
Social workers
Undergraduate students
Psychiatric nurses
Undergraduate students
College students
Undergraduate students
Heterosexual men
Undergraduate students
Undergraduate students
Undergraduate students
High school students
Undergraduate students
University students
Undergraduate students
Undergraduate students
University students

7
3; 4; 8; 10
4
5; 10
3; 4
5; 7
2; 3; 6; 10
2; 3; 7; 8
9
5
2; 3; 8
3
3; 5
3; 4
3; 4
5; 7
7
3
3
3
7
4; 6; 8; 10
3
5
1; 2; 3; 5; 6; 8; 10
7
5; 7; 8
2; 3; 4; 5; 8; 10
3
3
5; 8
4
3
5
2; 5; 8; 10
3
4
3; 5; 7

Attitudes Toward
Lesbians and
Gays Scale

Homophobia Scale

Implicit Association
Test

Franklin (2000)
Smith & Gordon (1998)
Berkman & Zinberg (1997)
Waldo & Kemp (1997)
Smith (1993)
Herek (1988)
Lewis & White (2009)
Rogers, McRee, & Arntz (2009)
Bernat, Calhoun, Adams, & Zeichner (2001)
Wright, Adams, & Bernat (1999)
Tsang & Rowatt (2007)
Boysen, Vogel, & Madon (2006)
Rohner & Bjrklund (2006)
Rowatt et al. (2006)
Steffens (2005)
Jellison, McConnell, & Gabriel (2004)
Steffens & Buchner (2003)
Banse, Seise, & Zerbes (2001)

4; 5; 10
3; 10
3; 4
7
5
1; 2; 3; 5; 10
3
3; 7
7
1; 2; 4; 5; 8; 9; 10
3; 4
7
5; 7
4; 3
3; 4; 10
3; 4; 5
4; 7; 10
1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 7; 10

Note. For Sample, if the nationality of the sample is not mentioned, the assessed population is North American.

2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2013, , pp.

Table 4

Instruments measuring homophobia

Evaluation of the Reviewed Instruments

Instrument

Quality

Pros

Cons

Index of Attitudes Toward Homosexuals/Index

of Homophobia
Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gays Scale

10

Several evidences

Only assess the affective domain

Gay and Lesbian Subscale

and Short Version
Three-domain model
Alternative to self-report

Homophobia Scale
Implicit Association Test

9
9
9

presented evidence in each of the domains described in

Table 1, with a reservation that in the last two items (i.e., temporal stability and internal consistency) the scales punctuated
if they presented studies that showed good evidence (>.70).
We also present the pros and cons of each instrument, summarizing the discussion presented here (see Table 4).

Discussion
The fact that the development of homophobia scales has been
concentrated in the United States is significant. This finding
probably reflects the fact that the notion of homophobia and
the contemporary political movement around it came from
the U.S. However, we were able to identify some studies conducted in other locations, as well as cross-cultural studies
conducted in the U.S. It is also interesting to note that all of
the reviewed scales were further scrutinized by reviewers
other than those who created the scales. This is an important
process that shows additional data, criticism, and the acceptance of the scales.
The Implicit Association Test (IAT) is a good scale to
measure attitudes, as it can detect homophobia in circumstances in which explicit attitudes tests would not detect it.
The IAT was developed by Banse, Seise, and Zerbes (2001),
and it assesses implicit attitudes in conformity with priming
procedures that measure the influence of automatic attitudes
in thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. The test assesses the
strength of automatic associations between concepts using a
computer-assisted categorization task. Participants are timed
as they associate symbols representing a group (e.g., pictures
of heterosexual or homosexual couples) with positive and
negative words (e.g., homosexual + good, heterosexual +
bad). It is assumed that homophobic persons associate more
quickly images that represent gay people with unpleasant
words (homosexual + bad) and images representing heterosexuals with pleasant words (heterosexual + good) and vice
versa. We found that this instrument has good validity and
content properties; however, the studies by Banse, Seise, and
Zerbes (2001) and Steffens and Buchner (2003) showed that
it has no temporal stability, which may call into question the
construct that the instrument is supposedly evaluating.
Dealing with explicit attitudes, the Homophobia Scale
(Wright, Adams, & Bernat, 1999) is newer and more complex
2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Few evidences
Lack of temporal stability

than the other scales. This instrument was created following a

criticism by ODonohue and Caselles (1993), who reported
that scales in use did not assess the full range of the homophobia construct. The Homophobia Scale is a self-report questionnaire designed to measure specifically the cognitive,
affective, and behavioral aspects of the construct. The scale
contains 25 items that are scored on a 5-point scale. The test
also includes items that assess social desirability. Even though
few studies have used it, the scale has acceptable psychometric
properties.
The Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men scale (ATLG;
Herek, 1988) is a brief measure of explicit attitudes toward
gays and lesbians. The full version consists of 20 affirmatives,
10 about gay men (ATG subscale) and 10 about lesbians (ATL
subscale). There is also a short 10-item version related to both
gays and lesbians (ATLG-S). The possibility of using diverse
subscales differentiating lesbian and gays, and the short scale
can be valuable in specific situations. The ALTG scale has
good evidence of content validity and reliability. We also
found studies adapting or using the scale with success in different cultures, including Ireland, Chile, and The Netherlands. The study samples ranged from health professionals to
educational contexts in varying degrees, as well as military
institutions.
The Index of Homophobia (IHP), also called the Index of
Attitudes Toward Homosexuals (IAH), was designed by
Hudson and Ricketts (1980). It contains 25 Likert-type items,
some of which were created to offset potential response bias.
The authors suggested a new term, homonegativity, which
describes the complete set of emotional reactions when
thinking about or interacting with homosexuals. Using Weinbergs idea (that homophobia is the dread of being close to
homosexuals), this instrument assesses affect. We found
many studies attesting the good psychometric proprieties in
diverse populations, contexts, and cultures (Turkey, Australia). However, the scale has the limitation of evaluating
only the affective facet of the construct homophobia and
appeals to Weinbergs ideas, which have already been widely
criticized.
Among the instruments evaluated, we find a clear advance
in their psychometric qualities in relation to the 1993 revision. However, the majority of the samples are still composed
of students, when it is known that this is a large bias in the
Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2013, , pp.

Costa et al.

study of prejudice (Dovidio et al., 2010). Moreover, since

1993, many of the instruments were no longer used, and
many others have been developed. This shows a great production in the evaluation of homophobia but, at the same
time, obsolescence of previous tools can point to the lack
of in-depth studies, good conceptualization, and technical
aspects of those instruments.
What is homophobia? The lack of clarity of the concept as
studied by psychology has not been resolved. Because of this
fact, some instruments may not have covered the construct
adequately. Each instrument gives emphasis to one aspect of
the construct of homophobia, differentiating the nature of
the attitudes and their behavioral, affective, and cognitive
domains. The evaluation of different aspects of the construct
makes the comparison of studies very difficult. More clarity is
still needed in the study of these attitudes and what they represent in relation to individual experience.
The objective of the present study was to contribute to a
psychometrically informed choice as to which scale users
might need. As a result of significant differences in the instruments, the process of decision making must be guided by the
sample and the context under study. Some of the reviewed

References
Abramovay, M., Cunha, A. L., & Calaf, P. P.
(2009). Revelando tramas, descobrindo
segredos: Violncia e convivncia nas
escolas [Revealing plots, discovering
secrets: Violence and conviviality in
schools]. Braslia, Brazil: Rede de Informao Tecnolgica Latino Americana,
Secretaria de Estado de Educao do
Distrito Federal.
Adams, H. E., Wright, L. W., & Lohr, B. A.
(1996). Is homophobia associated with
homosexual arousal? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 105, 440445.
American Educational Research Association (AERA)/American Psychological
Association/National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards
for educational and psychological testing.
Washington, DC: AERA.
Banse, R., Seise, J., & Zerbes, N. (2001).
Implicit attitudes towards homosexuality: Reliability, validity, and controllability of the IAT. Zeitschrift fur
Experimentelle Psychologie, 48, 145160.
Bell, N. (1989). AIDS and women: Remaining ethical issues. AIDS Education and
Prevention, 1, 2230.
2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

scales can be useful for a specific situation, but not others.

Our analyses also show pros and cons for scale developers
to create new instruments, rather than adapt pre-existing
ones. Creating a new instrument is a good option to include
new questions that do not appear in existing scales, but there
is a risk of the scale not being used, as was the case for the
majority of the scales we reviewed. On the other hand, adapting a current scaleincluding or not including contextrelated domainscan be an acceptable option, as it allows the
review of accumulated data regarding the scale and facilitates
situational and cross-cultural analysis. The con, in this case, is
that simple adaptation, even with back-translation, can cause
the instrument to differ completely from the original, as
homophobia has culture- and linguistic-specific components. Again, there is no ideal scenario.
Finally, in the field of psychology, it is difficult to conduct a
systematic review of instruments. The lack of uniformity in
abstracts that barely mention the complete methodology
(e.g., instruments, samples) excluded many studies that could
have been included in the present study. Advanced dataextraction methodology can be used in further studies to
make such a review more comprehensive.

Berkman, C. S., & Zinberg, G. (1997).

Homophobia and heterosexism in social
workers. Social Work, 42, 319332.
Bernat, J. A., Calhoun, K. S., Adams, H. E., &
Zeichner, A. (2001). Homophobia and
physical aggression toward homosexual
and heterosexual individuals. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 110, 179187.
Blackwell, C. W., & Kiehl, E. M. (2008).
Homophobia in registered nurses:
Impact on LGB youth. Journal of LGBT
Youth, 5(4), 2848.
Borrillo, D. (2010). Homofobia. Barcelona,
Spain: Bellaterra.
Boysen, G. A., Vogel, D. L., & Madon, S.
(2006). A public versus private administration of the Implicit Association Test.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 36,
845856.
Burt, D. L., & DeMello, L. R. (2002). Attribution of rape blame as a function of
victim gender and sexuality, and perceived similarity to the victim. Journal of
Homosexuality, 43(2), 3957.
Cardenas, M., & Barrientos, J. E. (2008). The
Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men
scale (ATLG): Adaptation and testing the
reliability and validity in Chile. Journal of
Sex Research, 45, 140149.

Castro M. G., Abramovay, M., & Silva, L.B

(2004). Juventudes e sexualidade. Braslia,
Brazil: UNESCO.
Cole, S. L., Reece, M., & Lindeman, A. K.
(2005). Health education and health
promotion students attitudes toward
homosexuals. Health Educator, 37(2),
310.
Cullen, J. M., Wright, W., Jr., & Alessandri,
M. (2002). The personality variable
openness to experience as it relates to
homophobia. Journal of Homosexuality,
42, 119134.
Daniliauskas, M. (2009). Consideraes preliminares sobre as concepes e conceitos
norteadores das polticas pblicas de educao para a igualdade de gnero e diversidade sexual [Preliminary considerations
on the conceptions and guiding concepts
of public education policies for gender
equality and sexual diversity]. In Anais
do IV Seminrio Corpo Gnero e Sexualidade. Rio Grande, RS: FURG.
Dinkel, S., Patzel, B., McGuire, M., Rolfs, E.,
& Pucell, K. (2007). Measures of homophobia among nursing students and
faculty: A Midwestern perspective. International Journal of Nursing Education
Scholarship, 4, Article 24.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2013, , pp.

Dovidio, J., Hewstone, M., Glick, P., & Esses,

V. (2010). The Sage handbook of prejudice,
stereotyping, and discrimination. London:
Sage.
Drescher, J. (2010). Queer diagnoses:
Parallels and contrasts in the history of
homosexuality, gender variance, and
the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 427460.
Dunkle, J. H., & Francis, P. L. (1996). Physical attractiveness stereotype and the
attribution of homosexuality revisited.
Journal of Homosexuality, 30(3), 1329.
Eliason, M. J., & Hughes, T. (2004). Treatment counselors attitudes about lesbian,
gay, bisexual, and transgendered clients:
Urban vs. rural settings. Substance Use
and Misuse, 39, 625644.
Estrada, A. X. (2002). A preliminary scale
for assessing attitudes toward homosexuals in the military. Psychological Reports,
90, 583592.
FIPE; MEC; INPE. (2009). Pesquisa sobre
preconceito e discriminao no ambiente
escolar. Braslia, Brazil: MEC.
Fisher, L. E., & Banik, S. (2007). College
major, gender, and heterosexism reconsidered under more controlled conditions. Journal of LGBT Health Research, 3,
4953.
Fone, B. (2000). Homophobia: A history.
New York: Picador.
Franklin, K. (2000). Antigay behaviors
among young adults: Prevalence, patterns, and motivators in a noncriminal
population. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15, 339362.
Gray, C., Russell, P., & Blockley, S. (1991).
The effects upon helping behaviour of
wearing pro-gay identification. British
Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 171178.
Greenberg, G. (1997). Right answers, wrong
reasons: Revisiting the deletion of homosexuality from the DSM. Review of
General Psychology, 1, 256270.
Guth, L. J., Hewitt-Gervais, C., Smith, S., &
Fisher, M. S. (2000). Student attitudes
toward AIDS and homosexuality: The
effects of a speaker with HIV. Journal of
College Student Development, 41, 503
512.
Herek, G. M. (1988). Heterosexuals attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: Correlates and gender differences. Journal of
Sex Research, 25, 451477.
2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Instruments measuring homophobia

Herek, G. M. (1991). Stigma, prejudice, and

violence against lesbians and gay men. In
J. C. Gonsiorek & J. D. Weinrich (Eds.),
Homosexuality: Research implications for
public policy (pp. 6080). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Herek, G. M. (2000). The psychology of
sexual prejudice. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9, 1922.
Herek, G. M. (2004). Beyond homophobia: Thinking about sexual stigma and
prejudice in the twenty-first century.
Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 1(2),
624.
Hogan, T. L., & Rentz, A. L. (1996). Homophobia in the academy. Journal of College
Student Development, 37, 309314.
Hudson, W. W., & Ricketts, W. A. (1980). A
strategy for the measurement of homophobia. Journal of Homosexuality, 5, 357
372.
Hussey, H. D., & Bisconti, T. L. (2010).
Interventions to reduce sexual minority
stigma in sororities. Journal of Homosexuality, 57, 566587.
Jellison, W. A., McConnell, A. R., & Gabriel,
S. (2004). Implicit and explicit measures
of sexual orientation attitudes: In-group
preferences and related behaviors and
beliefs among gay and straight men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
30, 629642.
Jome, L. M., & Tokar, D. M. (1998). Dimensions of masculinity and major choice
traditionality. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 52, 120134.
Junqueira, R. D. (2007). Homofobia:
Limites e possibilidades de um conceito
em meio a disputas. Revista Bagoas, 1,
122.
Lewis, A. J., & White, J. (2009). Brief report:
The defense mechanisms of homophobic
adolescent males. A descriptive discriminant analysis. Journal of Adolescence, 32,
435441.
Lippincott, J. A., Wlazelek, B., &
Schumacher, L. (2000). Comparison:
Attitudes toward homosexuality of
international and American college
students. Psychological Reports, 87,
10531056.
MacDonald, A., Huggins, J., Young, S., &
Swanson, R. (1972). Attitudes toward
homosexuality: Preservation of sex
morality or the double standard? Journal

of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 40,

161.
Matchinsky, D. J., & Iverson, T. G. (1996).
Homophobia in heterosexual female
undergraduates. Journal of Homosexuality, 31(4), 123128.
Monroe, M., Baker, R. C., & Rollb, S. (1997).
The relationship of homophobia to intimacy in heterosexual men. Journal of
Homosexuality, 33(2), 2337.
Morrison, T. G., Kenny, P., & Harrington, A.
(2005). Modern prejudice toward gay
men and lesbian women: Assessing the
viability of a measure of modern homonegative attitudes within an Irish context.
Genetic, Social, and General Psychology
Monographs, 131, 219250.
Moutinho, L., & Sampaio, C. (2005). Sexualidade, violncia e justia: Mapeamento,
localizao e diagnstico das pesquisas
sobre violncia sexual e de gnero no
Brasil [Sexuality, violence, and justice:
Mapping, localization, and diagnosis of
research on gender and sexual violence
in Brazil]. In L. Moutinho & S. Carrara
(Eds.), Sexualidade e comportamento
sexual no Brasil: Dados e pesquisas
(pp. 1137). Rio de Janeiro, Brazil:
CEPESC.
ODonohue, W., & Caselles, C. E. (1993).
Homophobia: Conceptual, definitional,
and value issues. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 15, 177
195.
Pain, M. D., & Disney, M. E. (1995). Testing
the reliability and validity of the Index of
Attitudes Toward Homosexuals (IAH)
in Australia. Journal of Homosexuality,
30(2), 99110.
Patel, S., Long, T. E., McCammon, S. L., &
Wuensch, K. L. (1995). Personality and
emotional correlates of self-reported
antigay behaviors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 10, 354366.
Plumm, K. M., Terrance, C. A., Henderson,
V., & Ellingson, H. (2010). Victim blame
in a hate crime motivated by sexual
orientation. Journal of Homosexuality,
57(2), 267286.
Prado, M. M., & Machado, V. F. (2008).
Preconceito Contra homossexualidades:
A hierarquia da invisibilidade [Prejudice
against homosexualities: The hierarchy
of invisibility]. So Paulo, Brazil: Cortez
Editora.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2013, , pp.

Costa et al.

Programa Brasil sem Homofobia: Combate a

violncia e a discriminao contra GLTB
e promoo da cidadania homossexual.
(2004). Braslia, Brazil: Ministrio da
Sade, Conselho Nacional de Combate
discriminao.
Raiz, L., & Saltzburg, S. (2007). Developing
awareness of the subtleties of heterosexism and homophobia among undergraduate, heterosexual social work
majors. Journal of Baccalaureate Social
Work, 12(2), 5369.
Reiter, L. (1991). Developmental origins of
anti-homosexual prejudice in heterosexual men and women. Clinical Social
Work Journal, 19, 163175.
Riggle, E. D., Ellis, A. L., & Crawford, A. M.
(1996). The impact of media contacton
attitudes toward gay men. Journal of
Homosexuality, 31(3), 5569.
Roderick, T., McCammon, S. L., Long, T. E.,
& Allred, L. J. (1998). Behavioral aspects
of homonegativity. Journal of Homosexuality, 36(1), 7988.
Rogers, A., McRee, N., & Arntz, D. (2009).
Using a college human sexuality course
to combat homophobia. Sex Education:
Sexuality, Society, and Learning, 9, 211
225.
Rohner, J. C., & Bjrklund, F. (2006). Do
self-presentation concerns moderate
the relationship between implicit and
explicit homonegativity measures? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 47, 379
385.
Rossi, A. (2010). Avanos e limites da poltica
de combate homofobia: uma anlise do
processo de implementao das aes para
a educao do Programa Brasil sem homofobia [Progress and limitations of the
policy to combat homophobia: An analysis of the process of implementation of
the educational actions of the Brazil
Without Homophobia program]. Masters dissertation, Universidade Federal
do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre,
Brazil. Retrieved May 5, 2010, from
http://www.lume.ufrgs.br/handle/
10183/24151
Rowatt, W. C., Tsang, J.-A., Kelly, J., Lamartina, B., McCullers, M., & McKinley, A.

2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

(2006). Associations between religious

personality dimensions and implicit
homosexual prejudice. Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion, 45, 397
406.
Sakalli, N. (2002). The relationship between
sexism and attitudes toward homosexuality in a sample of Turkish college students. Journal of Homosexuality, 42(3),
5364.
Sakalli, N., & Ugurlu, O. (2001). Effects of
social contact with homosexuals on
heterosexual Turkish university students
attitudes towards homosexuality. Journal
of Homosexuality, 42(1), 5362.
Sakalli, N., & Ugurlu, O. (2002). The effects
of social contact with a lesbian person on
the attitude change toward homosexuality in Turkey. Journal of Homosexuality,
44(1), 111119.
Schawanberg, S. L. (1993). Attitudes
towards gay man and lesbian woman:
Instrumentation issues. Journal of Homosexuality, 1(26), 99136.
Schlub, S. M., & Martsolf, D. S. (1999).
Orthodox Christian beliefs and homophobia in baccalaureate nursing students. Nursing Forum, 34(2), 1522.
Sears, J., & Williams, W. (1997). Overcoming
heterosexism and homophobia: Strategies
that work. New York: Columbia University Press.
Siebert, D. C., Chonody, J., Rutledge, S. E., &
Killian, M. (2009). The Index of Attitudes
Toward Homosexuals 30 years later: A
psychometric study. Research on Social
Work Practice, 19, 214220.
Simoni, J. M., & Walters, K. L. (2001). Heterosexual identity and heterosexism:
Recognizing privilege to reduce prejudice. Journal of Homosexuality, 41(1),
157172.
Smith, G. B. (1993). Homophobia and attitudes toward gay men and lesbians by
psychiatric nurses. Archives of Psychiatric
Nursing, 7(6), 377384.
Smith, K. T. (1971). Homophobia: A tentative personality profile. Psychological
Reports, 29, 10911094.
Smith, M. R., & Gordon, R. A. (1998). Personal need for structure and attitudes

toward homosexuality. Journal of Social

Psychology, 138, 8387.
Span, S. A., & Vidal L. A. (2003). Crosscultural differences in female university
students attitudes toward homosexuals: A preliminary study. Psychological
Reports, 92, 565572.
Steffens, M. C. (2005). Implicit and explicit
attitudes towards lesbians and gay men.
Journal of Homosexuality, 49(2), 39
66.
Steffens, M. C., & Buchner, A. (2003).
Implicit Association Test: Separating
transsituationally stable and variable
components of attitudes toward gay
men. Experimental Psychology, 50, 3348.
Stoever, C. J., & Morera O. F. (2007). A confirmatory factor analysis of the Attitudes
Toward Lesbians and Gay Men (ATLG)
measure. Journal of Homosexuality, 52(3
4), 189209.
Tsang, J.-A., & Rowatt, W. C. (2007). The
relationship between religious orientation, right-wing authoritarianism, and
implicit sexual prejudice. International
Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 17,
99120.
van de Meerendonk, B., Eisinga, R., &
Felling, A. (2003). Application of Hereks
Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men
Scale in The Netherlands. Psychological
Reports, 93, 265275.
Vicario, B. A., Liddle, B. J., & Luzzo, D. A.
(2005). The role of values in understanding attitudes toward lesbians and gay
men. Journal of Homosexuality, 49(1),
145159.
Waldo, C. R., & Kemp, J. L. (1997). Should I
come out to my students? An empirical
investigation. Journal of Homosexuality,
34(2), 7994.
Weinberg, G. (1972). Society and the healthy
homosexual. New York: St. Martins Press.
Wright, L. W., Adams, H. E., & Bernat, J.
(1999). Development and validation of
the Homophobia Scale. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment,
21, 337347.
Young-Bruehl, E. (1996). The anatomy of
prejudices. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.

Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2013, , pp.