Factor 3: LGB Civil Rights
5.Health benefits should be available equally to same-
sex partners as to any other couple.
6.It is important to teach children positive attitudes
towards LGB people.
Factor 4: Religious Conflict
7.I have difficulty reconciling my religious views with
my interest in being accepting of LGB people.
8.I conceal my positive attitudes towards LGB people
when I am around someone who is homophobic.Factor 5: Internalized Affirmativeness
9.I have had sexual fantasies about members of my
same sex.
10.I would display a symbol of gay pride (pink
triangle, rainbow, etc.) to show my support of the
LGB community.
Notes :
Items are rated on a 6-point scale ranging from:
15Very uncharacteristic of me or my views to 65Very
characteristic of me or my views .
Reproduced with permission.
Attitudes Regarding Bisexuality Scale (ARBS)
(Mohr & Rochlen, 1999 ).
Variable
This scale assesses the relative positivity of attitudes toward bisexual men and women along two dimensions:
tolerance and stability.
Description
The ARBS ( Mohr & Rochlen, 1999 ) exists in three versions: The ARBS-FM (18 items total, 10 Stability, 8
Tolerance) which contains items assessing attitudes toward both female and male bisexuals, the ARBS-F, and the
ARBS-M (12 items each, 6 Stability, 6 Tolerance) which specifically assess female and male bisexuality, respec-
tively, using parallel items for each target. All three forms are administered using a 5-point Likert-type response
scale with higher scores indicating more positive attitudes ( Mohr & Rochlen, 1999 ). Intercorrelations between the
Stability and Tolerance subscales ranged from .36 to .66 ( Mohr & Rochlen, 1999 ).
Sample
Scale creation and validation proceeded across five studies. Studies 1 and 4 both used a sample comprised of
lesbians (Study 1, 110; Study 4, 127) and gay men (Study 4, 141; Study 2, 188). Both samples were recruited from
university gay and lesbian student organizations and were over 80% Caucasian. Means for each subscale version
in these two samples ranged from 3.61 to 4.92. Studies 2, 3, and 5 all utilized heterosexual samples with 288
undergraduates (166 women, 120 men, 2 did not report) participating in Study 2, 305 (199 women, 106 men) in
Study 3, and 26 (16 women, 9 men, 1 did not report) in Study 5. Between 55% and 60% of participants were
Caucasian. Subscale means ranged from 3.12 to 3.87 ( Mohr & Rochlen, 1999 ).
Reliability
Internal Consistency
Cronbach alpha coefficients for each of the six subscales ranged from .77 to .94 ( Mohr & Rochlen, 1999 ).
Test/C0Retest
Reliability coefficients for the subscales over a 3-week interval were: Stability, .85; Stability-F, .71; Stability-M,
.86; Tolerance, .91; Tolerance-F, .92; Tolerance-M, .84 ( Mohr & Rochlen, 1999 ), and remained high (.69 to .92) after
being corrected for attenuation ( Howell, 1997 ).
Validity
Convergent/Concurrent
In Study 3, Mohr and Rochlen (1999) compared heterosexual participants’ ARBS scores with their attitudes
towards gay men and lesbians (using the short form of the ATLG; Herek, 1994 ). Correlations between the
Stability subscales and the ATLG ranged from .46 to .52 and from .85 to .87 on the Tolerance subscale.736 25. MEASURES OF ATTITUDES TOWARDS SEXUAL ORIENTATION: HETEROSEXISM, HOMOPHOBIA, AND INTERNALIZED STIGMA
VI. SOCIOCULTURAL INTERACTION AND CONFLICT