Journal of Applied Social Psychology Joursi ot Aeped Sc clog 2013, 6b Systematic review of instruments measuring homophobia and related constructs Angelo Brandelli Costa, Denise Ruschel Bandeira, Henrique Caetano Nardi Institute of Psychology Universidade Federal Rio Grande do Su, Porte Ake, RS, Baa Correspondence concerning be addressed to Angelo Brandl Cost Ratio Beek, 2600, Porto ‘Aleg(e-R5-80095-003, Bra mall randel.costagutrgs.or atic should Abstract Since its conceptualization, the construct of homophobia has been the subject of many speculations about its specificity, reach, and possibility of empirical assess- iment, 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, ISTOR). The articles were classified as they displayed ‘evidence of the instrument's 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 ofthe citations. Psychometric properties were acceptable This work was supported by grants from CCoorcenagio de Aperfeigoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES), dos 10.119 Vaso.12040 In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed ‘homosexuality from the 3" edition ofits Diagnostic Manual of Mental Disorders, This was an important shift, for since then, homosexuality was no longer considered a medical con- dition. The problematization in ths field turned to those who saw homosexuality asa disorder (Drescher, 2010; Greenberg, 1997) In 1972, George Weinberg published Society and the Healthy Homosexual, introducing the term homophobia ‘According to Weinberg, homophobia is “the dread of being ‘lose to homosexuals—and in the cate of homosexuals them- selves, self-aversion” (p. 8). Herek (2004) pointed out that ‘Weinberg’s 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 orient problem worthy of academic analysis and intervention. The term was widely adopted, particulatly within the studies of prejudice and discrimination, which in previous decades, ‘were dedicated tothe problems of anti-Semitism, racism, and sexism (Young-Bruchl, 1996). "There ae contovesies about the origin of the tem homophobia, Fone (2000) suggested that it ws ceatedin the 1960 and sppested ist in 1971 in anartce by. TSmithin 1971 ented" Homophoba: The lity Profle" Here (2004) ered Weinberg he fret person to wee the Paton termi apuble perch and mentions theft appearance in print ofthe term na 1969 ali of Screw magazine. ey Poveda There is wide divergence in the theoretical definition of homophobia. Psychological research has identified homo- phobia either as a personality trait (Smith, 1971); behavior (Gray, Russell, & Blockley, 1991); a value (O'Donobue & Caseles, 1993); an explicit or implicit attitude (Herek, 1991); a sensation (Bell, 1989); an irrational fear (MacDonald, Higgins, Young, & Swanson, 1972); or a cultural phenom- enon (Reiter, 191). Beyond those specific definitions, other authors have suggested that homophobia refers to any «al, social, legal phenomenon, or institutional bias demeaning sexual orientation (Borrillo, 2010; Junqueirs, 2007; Prado & Machado 2008). tn addition, there isa debate about the very term homophobia its relevance, and its reach, A brief review revealed many related terms: heterosexsm;homeoerotophobias hhomosexphobis; homosexism; homonegativiss; hornoprejue dice; anti-homosexualisns untihomosexuality, homonega- tivity, homosexual prejudice, anti-gay bias; lsbophobia; biphobia; teansphobia; efeminophobia; Neterophobia; AIDS phobia; sexual stigma: erotic stigmas and sexual prejudice (O’Donohue & Casells, 1993; Sears & Williams, 1997). In an attempt to reconcile these conflicting views, Herek (2004) proposed a typology. On the fist level, homophobia manifests itself in the shared knowledge that denigrates non- heterosexual identity, behavior, and community; negatively evaluating its members according to their affiliation to the nonheterosexual group, and not by thei individual charac- teristics, On the second level, homophobia as an ideology is histori- Jouralof Apple Seca Pycalog/ 2013,» ppceeeeexpressed in the structure of society and it institutions and, sclations of power; for example restricting LGBT" population, access to fundamental rights. Individuals internalize this ide- ology and through their attitudes and beliefs reinforce it in an, internalized or externalized way, constituting what Here called the third level. This level includes an affective dimen- sion (e.g., negative feelings toward LGBIs), stereotypes (eg, the belief that most homosexual women are masculinized), prejudices (eg, the belief that gay men should not be teach- crs}, 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; O'Donohue & Caselles, 1993; Sears & Williams, 1997): 1, Homophobia fails to ft the criteria for a phobia, as its pri- ‘marily 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 indi- viduals 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 stere- ‘typical view of gender roles, orthodox and conservative religious beliefs, and political conservatism, 6. People who have had previous contact with nonhetero- sexual individuals tend to be less biased than those never exposed to them, Peer perception contributes to negative attitudes and prejudice against homosexuality. Several instruments have been developed to assess homo- phobia: Homophobia Scale, Atitudes Toward Homosexual- ity, Scale Index of Homophobia, and Homophobia Scale, among more than 30 instruments reviewed by Schawanberg (1993). According to Schawanberg, most ofthese instruments presented problems in their development: they did not show good evidence of validity and reliability; and they used con- ‘venience samples—usually university students —which is not 1 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 inked to homophobia as a measure ‘of convergent validity (O'Donohue & Caseles, 1993; Schawanberg, 1993). In Brazil, empirical studies have shown high levels of violence and prejudice against homosexuals (Abramovay, Cunha, & Calaf, 2009; Castzo, Abramovay, & Silva, 20045, FIPE/MEC/INEP, 2009; Moutinho & Sampaio, 2005). Those studies used sociological and anthropological methodologies, “Lesban/gy/iveualcanigender 162013 wy erate, Instuments measuring homophobia or instruments thal were nol standardized. Despite their widespread international us, in Brasil we do nothave instru. ments to assess homophobia adapted to local reality and ‘with good psychometric properties. Moreover, Brazil shows growing investment in policies to combat prejudice inst sexual orientation. “Brazil Without Homophobia” rograma Brasil Sem Homofobia, 2004) isa wide-ranging program that includes actions in various ministries. One of the highlights is the taining of teachers in elementary and secondary education to introduce sexual diversity con- tent into daily educational practice, However, analysts have pointed out that this has not been well evalusted (Daniliauskas, 2009; Rossi, 2010), although the very basic text of the National Policy indicates the need to develop instru- ments for that purpose (Brasil, 2004). Method ‘Aiming to develop of adapt an instrument, we systematically reviewed articles of studies using tests and measures assessing homophobia and related constructs. The articles were classi- fied as they displayed evidence of the instrument's 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 Psy~ chological 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 antihomo- sexualism OR antihomosexuality OR heterosexism OR heteronormativity OR homophobic OR homo- sexphobia 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 dxenl of Bop Sct Prchegy 2012, 9p n>Costa etal 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 ora related construct. Articles were excluded if, they were written in a language other than English, Spanish, Portuguese, or French, Given the eriteria for inclusion and exclusion, 115 studies dentified as relevant. The majority of the studies were concentrated around five instruments, Data from 62 articles, referring to those five instruments were extracted. We col- lected data from each paper into a spreadsheet, which included a description of the instrument, sample, and evi- dence of validity and reliability (see Table 1), We removed 10 Table 1 Clasifcation of Vality and Relay Evidence ‘Valaiymelabity Definition Theoretical arty guicing the construction ef the 2. Content validty Desctbed the procedures to select relevant items, speciying details and reasons forthe chsifiations In areas, domains, and subscales “hase messurs of valli ae ned fonthe prince that theoretically related constructs shoul present 3 high correlation (convergent) and 3. Convergent and dbecrminantvakoty lnelated constructs should not {dscrimnant 4. Relation woinsiruments The degre o lationship between ‘that assess the same instruments that asses the same construct construct 5. Criterion va city “he degree to which the est predicts the performance! a group of sujet in elation to an external evaluation, thei future behav, or contrasting group ‘Armeasure of how the ist appears measure the evaluated construct, hs category grouped other validation techniques 96 exoerimentalinterventions nd structural equations modeling, Invobes statistical analysis to identity the factor structures ofthe te, Generally ivobesitems of a subscale that correlate strongly with ech other and weakly with ther items of the ts, “The tendency ofthe es to produce the same result inthe same 6. Face validity 1, Other vais 8. Factor analysis 8, Temporal staiity indivisuatn ferent occasions measure tna tells how iferent parsof atest, when related, rasuce consistent results 10, internal consistency ley Foodies he 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 Bducational and Psychological Testing (American Educational Research Association [AERA], 1999) the notions of validity and reli- ability 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, Results Weidentified 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 con- struct of homophobia, including modern homophobia; implicit and explicit homophobia; internalized and external- ized homophobia; homopositivity; homonegativity; causes, of homosexuality; and attitudes toward lesbians and bisexs- als. 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 (ie., Index of Atti- tudes Toward Homosexuals {IAH]) turned out to be the renaming of another instrument that was also being reviewed, (Ge, Index of Homophobia {IIP]). 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 presenta 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 fof evidence related to the AERA/APAINCME domains (contentivalidityreliability/internal structure) in. Likert- type scale, The instruments were rated on 2 10 point-scale, punctuating—regardless of the number of studies—if they Jouralof Apple Seca Pycalog/ 2013,» ppoteeeotc elovant references ‘ideatified on eearch N= 1076 Seacch inthe abetracte N=o13 Instuments measuring homophobia Removed Doubles: N= 234 ublised before 1993: N= 228 Removed id not meet the inclusion eter N49 ‘Potentially relevant references N=us Data extraction Noo Final poo! Nest Figure 1 Search strategies Table 2 Summary of Characteristics of Reviewed Instruments Removed Tastrument with es than studies! N=53, Removed Did not contain evidence of validity and rlisblty: N= 10 Incinded the sales: N= 2 ‘Articles ofthe constriction of Yeorot__Countiyat Method of Number of Instrument publication origin datacollecion _scaleitems Construct Sampleitems IndexofAtitudes toward 1980 USA ——_—Seltzeport 2 jomonegatviy I would fel comforable working Homosexual ‘uestonnare ‘closely with a male homosexual (aH) oes ot Ihwouldfeetrewous being in a group Homophobia HP) of homosexual Atudes Toward Lesbians 1988 USA——_—Sereport 20 Negative attudes Lesbians do no ft into our society. and Gays Scale(ATLG) ‘questionnaire Male homosexuality is a perversion jomophobia Scale 1999 USA Selfeport, 2 ‘omaprodia Homosexuals acceptable to me. questionnaire {Gay people make me news, would its homosexual for coming Inalct Assocition 2001 Germany Computerassited — Impletatitudes Partcinans are tied as they Testa) categorization associate symbols representing & task s70u0 (e9, heterosexual or homosexual couples) with postive ornegative words. homosenual+ good, heterosexual bad. sent of Bop Sct Prchlegy 201, 9p n>Costa etal 5 Table 3 Classtication of Samples and Evidence of Valdty and Relibilty by Instuments ane Studies inswoment sty Sample ValayRelaoiiy Indexof attudes Toward Planm, Trance Henderson & Ellngson 2010} Underaraduate students 7 Homosexual Seber, chorea, Rutledge, & Kiln (2009) Undergraduate ane orate sudents 348 10 Indexotomachabia Dinka Patzel McGuire, al, & Fuca 2007) Nursing stucents inc acy teaches 4 Cale, Reece, & Linder (2005) Heath ude: 5:10 Span &Vs12003) Underradunte stusents 34 Bure & Deel (2002) Undergraduate students 57 Skt (2002) Turkish undergrad students 2:3:6:10 Sokal & Uaurls(2002) Tursh undergraduate students zane Guth, HewtsGeras, Sth, & Fisher (2000) Underradunte an gruteadents ° Lippincott, Whzele,& Schuracner{2000) {Asian and American undergraduate students 5 Sakall & Ugur (2001) Turkish undergraduate students 238 Sub & Manso 1999) Nurse stucers a Joe Tokar (1888) Male undergraduate and graduate students 3:5 Rodetie, McCammon, Long, & Alles (1998) Undergraduate stunts aa Berman &Zinbera (1987) Sociabworkes 34 Monroe, Baker, Rell (1997) Men unizectied) 57 ‘Adar, Weght, Loh (1986 Hetercsenual men 7 Durie & Francis (1996) Undergraduate students 2 Hogan & Aert2(1996) Undergraduate stuens and stat 2 Matchinshy& Weron (1996 Undergraduate students a Figal El, & rawfora (1996) Calege students 7 Pain & Disney (1995) Astralan undergraduate students 46.810 Patel, ong, McCammon, &Wuersch (1895) Calege students 2 Hudson & Rikers (1880 Undergraduate stusens 1:2:3:5/6 810 Altudes Toward Hussey & con 2010) Underraduat students 7 Lesbiansand ackwel & Kel (2008) Nurses S78 GaysScale Corder as & Barents (2008) Cleon underraduate stucens 2:3,8;5,8,10 Fisher & Bank 2007) Undergraduate students 3 Fr & Salzburg 2007) Underraduate students 3 Stoever & Morera (2007) Underraduat students 8 Morrson, Kenny. &Harinaton (2005) Ish undergraduate staents 4 Vicari, Lele, & 2202005) Undergraduate students 3 Eason & Hughes 2004) Courses 5 van de Meerendon,Esinga,& Felling (2003) Sample of the Dutch poputon 25.810 Cul, Wight, &Alessarc(2002) Underaraduate students 3 Fra (2002) Mary me 4 Simoni & Waters (2001) Possecondany, undergraduate, 35:7 and graduate students Frankln (2000) College stents 45:10 Sita & Gordon (1998) Undergraduate students 3:10 Beeman &2inberg (1997), Soca workers 34 ‘Waldo & Kero (1997) Undergraduate students 7 Sith (1993) Pyrat ures 5 Here 988), Undergraduate students 1:2;3:5;10 omophobiaScle Les &wnte 2009), College stents 3 Rogers, Mckee, & Aros 2008), Undergraduate students 37 Bernat, Cahoun, Alans, & Zeichner (2001) Heterosexual men 7 Wroh,s, Bernat (999), Undergraduate students 1:2:4:5,8,9;10 Ipkct Assocation ‘Bang & Rowatt (2007) Undergraduate students 3a Test Boyse, Vogel & Mason (2006) Undergraduate students 7 Rohner & kn 2008) High school students 57 owartet (2006) Undergraduate tases 43 Steers 2005) Universty students 34:10 Jelson, Meonnell, & abrel(2004) Undergraduate tases 345 Steers & Buchner 2003) Undergraduate students 47,10 Bans, Se, &Zerbes (2001) Universty students 1:2;35 45,7510 Note, For “Sample” the nationality of hese ot mentones the assessed peplon i Nath America. (©2013 Wiley Perineal, ne Journal of Apps Seal Paycalog/ 2013,» ppceeInstuments measuring homophobia Table 4 Evalvation ofthe Reviewed Instruments insrament oly Pros cons Index of Atvtudes Toward Homovenualndex 10 Severalevdences Only assess the affective domain of Homophobia ‘Auludes Toward Lesbians and Gays Sale 2 Gay and Lesbian Subscale = and Short Version ‘omophoia Scale ° hyge-domain mosel Few evidences Implicit Association Test 2 erative to set-eport Lack of temporal stabity presented evidence in each of the domains described in ‘Table 1, with areservation that in the as wo items (ie. tem poral stability and internal consistency) the scales punctuated if they presented studies that showed good evidence (>.70) ‘We also present the pros and cons ofeach instrument, sum- rmarizing the discussion presented here (sce Table 4), Discussion The fat thatthe development of homophobia scales has been concentrated in the United States is significant. This finding probably reflects the fact thatthe notion of homophobia and the contemporary politcal movement around it came from the US. However, we were able to identify some studies con- ducted in other locations, as well as cross-cultural studies conducted in the US. Iti 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 accept- ance of the seals The Implicit Association Test (IAT) is a good scale to measure avtitudes, a it can detect homophobia in circum- stances in which explicit attitudes tests would not detect it ‘The IAT was developed by Banse, Sese, and Zerbes (2001), and it assesses implicit attitudes in conformity with priming procedures hat measure the influence of automatic attitudes in thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. The test assesses the strength of automatic associations between concepts using a computer-asisted categorization task, Paticipantsare timed as they associate symbols representing a group (eg. pictures of heterosexual or homosexual couples) with postive and negative words (eg., homosexual + good, heterosexual + bad). Ii assumed that homophobic persons associate more quickly images that represent gay people with unpleasant ‘words (homosexual + bad) and images representing hetero- sexuals with pleasant words (heterosexual + good) and vice versa, We found that this instrument has good validity and content propertics; however, the studies by Banse, Seis, and “Zezbes (2001) and Steffens and Buchner (2003) showed that ithas no temporal stability which may call into question the construct thatthe instrament is supposedly evaluating, Dealing with explicit attitudes, the Homophobia Scale (Wright, Adams, & Bernat, 1999) is newer and more complex than the other scales, This instrament was created following exitcism by O'Donohue and Caselles (1993), who reported that salesin use did not assess the fll range ofthe homopho- bia construct. The Homophobia Scale is a self-report ques- tionnaire 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. Te test also inchudes 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 (ATL¢ Herck, 1988) isa brief measure of explicit attitudes toward gaysand lesbians. The fl version consists of 20 affrmatives, about gay men (ATG subscale) and 10 about lesbians (ATT. subscale) There is also short 10-item version related o both gays and lesbians (AILG-S). The possibilty 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 dif- ferent cultures, including Ireland, Chile, and The Nether- lands. 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 Auivudes Toward Homosexuals (IAIN), was designed by Hudson and Rickets (1980) It contains 25 Likert-type tems, some of which were created to offset potential response bias The authors suggested a new term, homonegativity, which describes the complete sct of emotional reactions when thinking about or interacting with homosexuals Using Wein- bergs idea (that homophobia isthe dread of being lose to homosexuals), this instrument assesses affect. We found many studies attesting the good psychometsic proprieties in diverse populations, contexts, and cultures (Turkey, Aus- tralia), However the seale has the limitation of evaluating only the affective facet of the construct homophobia and appeals to Weinberg’ 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 revi- sion. However, the majority of the samples ae still composed of students, when i is known that this is large bias inthe sent of Bop Sct Prchlegy 201, 9p n>Costa etal study of prejudice (Dovidio et al, 2010). Moreover, since 1993, many of the instruments were no longer used, and, many othershave been developed. This shows a great produc tion 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 ofthe concept as studied by psychology has not been resolved. Because ofthis, 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, aflective, and cognitive domains. The evaluation of different aspects ofthe construct makes the comparison of studies very difficult. More clarity is still ncoded in the study ofthese attitudes and what they rep- resent 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 result of significant differences in the instru _ments, the process of decision making must be guided by the sample and the context under study. Some of the reviewed scales can be useful for a specific situation, but not others. ‘Our analyses also show pros and cons for scale develope: to create new instruments, rather than adapt pre-existing ‘ones. Creating a new instrument is & 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 ofthe scales we reviewed. On the other hand, adapt- ing a current scale—including or not including context- related domains—can be an acceptable option, asitallows the review of accumulated data regarding the scale and facilitates situational and cross-cultural analysis. The con, in this cas, 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 compo- nents, Again, there is no ideal scenario, Finally, in the field of psychology, itis difficult to conduct a systematic review of instruments, The lack of uniformity in abstracts that barely mention the complete methodology (eg. instruments, samples) excluded many studies that could have been included in the present study. Advanced data- extraction methodology can be used in further studies to make such a review more comprehensive, References Abramovay, M, Cunha, AL, 8 Cala PP (2008). Revelando tramas, descobrinds segredos: Violen escolar [Revealing plots, discovering seceets: Violence and convivility in schools). Braslia, Brazil: Rede de Infor- magio Teenologica Latino Americana, Secretaria de Estado de Educasio do Distrito Federal ‘Adams, H-E,, Wright, LW, & Lob, B.A. (1996). 1s homophobia associated with homosexual arousal? Journal of Abnor ‘mal Prychology, 105, 440-445, ‘American Educational Research Associa: (AERA/American Psychological ‘Association/National Council on Meas- ‘urement in Education. (1999), Standards for educational and psychological testing. ‘Washington, DC: AERA, Banse, R, Seise, J, & Zerbes, N. (2001). Implicit sexuality: Reliability, validity, and con- twollabilty of the TAT. Zeitschrift fur Experimentell Pochologie, 48, 45-160. Bell, N. (1989). AIDS and women: Remain- ing ethical iesues. AIDS Education and Prevention, 1,22-30, attitudes towards homo- ey Prods Berkman, ©. 8, & Zinberg, G. (1997), Homophobia and heterosexism in social workers, Social Work, 42, 319-382 Bernat,J.A., Calhoun, KS, Adams ILE, & Zeichner, A. (2001). Homophobia and physical aggression toward homosexual and heterosexual individuals, Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110, 179-187. Blackwell, C. W., & Kiehl, EM. (2008). Homophobia in registered Impact on LGB youth. Journal of Youth, 5(4), 28-48, Borrllo, D. (2010), Homofobia, Barcelona, Spain: Bellaterra Boysen, G. A, Vogel, D. La, & Madon, 8, (2006). A public versus private adminis- tration of the Implicit Assocation Test, European Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 815-858, Burt, D.L., & DeMello, LR. (2002). Atti- bution of rape blame as a function of victim gender and sexuality, and per- ceived similarity to the victim. Journal of Homosexuality, 432), 39-57,

También podría gustarte

• Que Es La Intervencion Psicosocial

  

  Documento20 páginas

  Que Es La Intervencion Psicosocial

  Jose Carlos Leon Jariego

  100% (1)
• Lectura Sociologica Del Lazo Social en P

  

  Documento116 páginas

  Lectura Sociologica Del Lazo Social en P

  Jose Carlos Leon Jariego

  Aún no hay calificaciones
• Lo Curable y Lo Incurable en El Análisis

  

  Documento22 páginas

  Lo Curable y Lo Incurable en El Análisis

  Jose Carlos Leon Jariego

  Aún no hay calificaciones
• • Revistas
  • Podcasts
  • Partituras
• Aproximacion A La Problematica de La Infancia Maltratada Docutrabajo

  

  Documento22 páginas

  Aproximacion A La Problematica de La Infancia Maltratada Docutrabajo

  Jose Carlos Leon Jariego

  Aún no hay calificaciones
• Analisis Critico Intervencion Psicosocial en Violencia de Genero

  

  Documento17 páginas

  Analisis Critico Intervencion Psicosocial en Violencia de Genero

  Jose Carlos Leon Jariego

  Aún no hay calificaciones
• Comunidad Poder Colectivo

  

  Documento3 páginas

  Comunidad Poder Colectivo

  Jose Carlos Leon Jariego

  Aún no hay calificaciones
• Articulo Rueda Intervencioin Organizaciones Analisis Institucional

  

  Documento11 páginas

  Articulo Rueda Intervencioin Organizaciones Analisis Institucional

  Jose Carlos Leon Jariego

  Aún no hay calificaciones
• Riesgo Psicosocial Definicion Psicosocial

  

  Documento108 páginas

  Riesgo Psicosocial Definicion Psicosocial

  Jose Carlos Leon Jariego

  Aún no hay calificaciones