Reliability
Internal Consistency
Cronbach alpha coefficients for the subscales ranged from .75 to .96, with the lowest item homogeneity occur-
ring on the gay and lesbian stereotypes and neutral contact subscales. Alpha coefficients for all other subscales
were over .80 ( Lamar & Kite, 1998 ).
Test/C0Retest
No evidence for test /C0retest reliability has been established to-date.
Validity
Convergent/Concurrent
Using a shortened version of the CATH, Wilkinson (2004) found that all components correlated positively
with measures of Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA; Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 1992 ) and Christian Orthodoxy
(COS; Hunsberger, 1989 ), (mean rs5.57 and .26, respectively). In two samples, Whitley (1999) found scores on the
Stereotypes subscale of the CATH ( LaMar & Kite, 1998 ) to be correlated with both RWA (RWA; Altemeyer, 1988 ;
rs5.44 and .46) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO; Pratto et al., 1994; rs5.37).
Divergent/Discriminant
Again, using shortened version, Wilkinson (2004) found all subscales to be negatively correlated with imma-
nence orientation (mean r5/C0.30; Burris & Tarpley, 1998 ) and the Quest Scale (mean r5/C0.29; Batson &
Schoenrade, 1991 ), which assess religious tolerance and one’s willingness to change one’s religious beliefs on the
basis of new information or experiences, respectively. In two samples, the Stereotype subscale was found to cor-
relate negatively with attitudes toward equality enhancement ( rs5/C0.64,/C0.57;Whitley, 1999 ) and affect toward
gay men and lesbians ( rs5/C0.62,/C0.65;Crites, Fabrigar, & Petty, 1994 ).
Construct/Factor Analytic
The responses of 265 undergraduate students (130 female) to this 91-item scale were subjected to an explor-
atory factor analysis with varimax rotation ( LaMar & Kite, 1998 ). Results indicated a 5-factor solution accounting
for 56.8% of the variance and reproduced the hypothesized conceptual components with the exception of Civil
Rights ( LaMar & Kite, 1998 ). These items loaded on the Condemnation/Tolerance factor, (22 items) which maps
closely onto the ALTG ( Herek, 1988 ). The remaining four factors were labeled as follows: Morality (23 items),
Gay Male Contact (14 items), Lesbian Contact (14 items), and Stereotypes (14 items). The four neutral contact
items were loaded by both the lesbian and gay male contact factors. Intercorrelations between subscales varied
from .42 to .91 with the highest correlations emerging between subscales assessing the same factor (e.g., Gay
Morality and Lesbian Morality, r5.91).
Criterion/Predictive
The criterion/predictive validity of this scale remains to be assessed.
Location
LaMar, L., & Kite, M. (1998). Sex differences in attitudes toward gay men and lesbians: A multidimensional
perspective. Journal of Sex Research ,35189/C0196.
Results and Comments
This scale was developed with the specific goal of examining how sex of both evaluator and target relate to
anti-gay attitudes. As such, it contains items that relate specifically to gay men and lesbians as well as items that
address homosexuality more generally. The four identified dimensions of anti-gay attitudes are included as sepa-
rate subscales for each target. The unfortunate downside of comprehensiveness is length. With 91 items, this scale
may be cumbersome when gender differences in attitudes toward gay men and lesbians are not the focus.
Applications of this measure, therefore, often employ only a subset of components (e.g. Whitley, 1999 ;Wilkinson,
2006).729 MEASURES OF ANTI-LGB BIAS
VI. SOCIOCULTURAL INTERACTION AND CONFLICT