critical as evidence suggests that bias toward lesbians differs due to the devaluation and eroticization of women
and the often-political nature of lesbian identity. Moreover, lesbian identity may follow a different developmental
pattern than gay male identity development (e.g., Faderman, 1984 ;Fassinger, 1991 ) and different psychological
structures may underlie heterosexuals’ attitudes toward gay men and lesbians ( Herek, 2002; Herek & Capitanio,
1999). These differences are important to understanding prejudice directed towards lesbians as well as the nature
and impact of internalized stigma among sexual minority women ( Brooks, 1981 ).
Indeed, many researchers argue that the devalued status of homosexuals cannot be fully understood without
consideration of its ties to gender-role ideology. Kite and Whitley (1996) argue that much of the prejudice
expressed toward gay men and lesbians is due to their perceived or actual violation of gender role belief systems,
or the beliefs, opinions, and evaluations about what constitutes masculinity and femininity ( Deaux & Kite, 1987 ).
In short, this perspective holds that gay men and lesbians are derogated because they are perceived to embody
cross-gender characteristics ( Laner & Laner, 1980 ), and therefore, LGB-bias cannot be fully understood apart
from theory and research regarding gender norms and sexism ( Whitley, 2001a, 2001b ). Supporting this frame-
work is evidence that individual differences in the rigidity of gender schemas (e.g., Bem, 1981, 1993 ;Spence,
1993) predict anti-LGB attitudes and behaviors (e.g., Lamar & Kite, 1998 ,Whitley, 2001a, 2001b ). This perspective
may explain the consistent finding that men hold more negative attitudes toward homosexuals than do women,
particularly when the target of evaluation is gay men as opposed to lesbians ( D’Augelli & Rose, 1990; Herek,
2000, 2002; Herek & Capitanio, 1999; Kite, 1984; LaMar & Kite, 1998 ); The greater rigidity of male gender roles
leads to an increased perception of deviance by gay men, and thus a greater need among rigidly socialized het-
erosexual men to distance themselves from this deviance.
More recently, scales have been designed to include assessment of attitudes toward and among bisexuals as
well as gay men and lesbians (e.g., Herek et al., 2009 ;Worthington et al., 2005 ), or to address this group specifi-
cally (e.g., Mohr & Rochlen, 1999 ). The stigma associated with bisexuality, though similar to homosexual stigma,
has an added component of perceived instability or lack of legitimacy ( Eliason, 1997; Mayfield, Carrubba, &
Louie, 1995 ). Indeed, bisexuals are often targets of prejudice from heterosexuals as well as gay men and lesbians
who perceive bisexuality as a transitional or opportunistic identity ( Ochs, 1996 ).
While support for gay rights and general tolerance has increased rapidly over the past few decades, deroga-
tory language is still pervasive even on relatively liberal college campuses ( Norris, 1992 ). Discrepancies between
low levels of self-reported homophobia and observed behaviors have been documented and are arguably due to
the fact that existing scales assess specific types of homonegativity that are no longer endorsed among the under-
graduate samples typically studied ( Morrison & Morrison, 2003 ). Indeed, cultural acceptance has quickly out-
dated older scales, such that many items (e.g., ‘I would hit a homosexual for coming onto me’ and ‘gay men and
lesbians should register with the police’) appear extreme and are unlikely to be endorsed, particularly among
university students. Rather than disappearing, LGB-bias has transformed over time. Hence, newer scales have
been designed to assess these more subtle, modern attitudes toward LGB individuals ( Morrison & Morrison,
2003; Raja & Stokes, 1998 ). Others ( Mayfield, 2001; Worthington et al., 2005 ) have noted that the fast increasing
positivity of attitudes toward sexual minorities has created a need for scales that assess positive attitudes as such,
rather than equating positivity with tolerance or a lack of negative attitudes. Such instruments allow for the mea-
surement of the full range of attitudes toward LGB individuals, and are critical as researchers and clinicians seek
to understand the mechanisms that foster affirmative attitudes among heterosexuals and LGB individuals
themselves.
Certainly, conceptual care is required when navigating this domain. As O’Donahue and Caselles (1993) note,
‘homophobia’ seems to refer to whatever homophobia scales measure. This point is relevant for all constructs
relating to anti-LGB bias. Similarly named scales, however, may assess different constructs and changing defini-
tions complicate interpretation and comparison of results across studies employing different measures. Here, we
are careful to make clear the specific, operational definition employed by each author. When referring broadly to
the body of work consisting of homophobia, homonegativity, sexual prejudice, and sexual stigma, we use the
term anti-LGB bias .
We have selected scales that reflect the diversity of the field in terms of both the target of study (e.g., gay men,
lesbians, and/or bisexuals) and the theoretical basis and definition of the construct of interest. We chose not to
include measures assessing transphobia , or negative attitudes toward or among transgendered individuals ( Hill &
Willoughby, 2005; Nagoshi et al., 2008 ). While such attitudes are certainly related to anti-LGB bias, they are at the
same time distinct, as transgender is a gender identity rather than a sexual identity or orientation. Attitudes
toward and among transgender individuals is a new area of study and one that deserves specific attention that is
beyond the scope of this chapter.721 MEASURES OF ATTITUDES TOWARDS SEXUAL ORIENTATION
VI. SOCIOCULTURAL INTERACTION AND CONFLICT