morals), fear and avoidance may be considered appropriate reactions. Religious or political beliefs may also serve
as the basis of anti-LGB bias ( Herek, 2004 ). Indeed, consistent with intergroup emotions theory, there is increas-
ing evidence that anger and disgust, rather than fear, may be the emotional bases for, or concomitants of, anti-
LGB bias (e.g., Bernat, Calhoun, Adams, & Zeichner, 2001 ;Ernulf & Innala, 1987 ;Haddock, Zanna, & Esses, 1993 ;
Herek, 1994 ,Van de Ven, Bornholt, & Bailey, 1996 ).
In an effort to get away from this limited, fear-based connotation of homophobia several researchers have
argued that homonegativity offers a more accurate terminology ( Herek, 1994; Morrison & Morrison, 2003; Shidlo,
1994). Based on Hudson and Ricketts’ (1980) term, homonegativism, the term homonegativity has been used to
refer to any negative affect or attitude toward homosexuality (whether manifest in the self or others), including
cultural attitudes that may support individual-level biases ( Mayfield, 2001 ). Indeed, Herek (2004) argued that
homophobia’s focus on individual pathology fails to take into account the multiple levels at which sexual stigma /C0
or the shared cultural knowledge of the devalued status of homosexuals /C0operates. Such stigma is manifested at
both the institutional and personal level as heterosexism and sexual prejudice , respectively. Whereas early measures
conceived of homophobia as a personality trait (e.g., Hudson & Ricketts, 1980 ), anti-LGB bias is now understood
to be influenced by structural and cultural factors that extend beyond the individual (e.g., Herek, 2004 ;Meyer,
2003;Worthington, Dillon, & Becker-Schutte, 2005 ). Examining how societal-level stigma is internalized and
expressed at the individual level is key to gaining a full understanding of this complex phenomenon and devel-
oping appropriately targeted interventions.
Regardless of the specific terminology and definition used, most recent research on anti-LGB bias has recog-
nized the multifaceted nature of this construct, though there is divergence in the specific components that have
been identified and the factor structures tested. Multiple researchers have, for example, attempted to carve anti-
LGB bias into cognitive, affective, and behavioral components ( O’Donahue & Caselles, 1993; Van de Ven et al.,
1996; Wright, Adams, & Bernat, 1999 ). Although this approach has been popular and these components are
potentially analytically distinct, the dimensions have been difficult to separate empirically, as items assessing
these components load onto the same factors ( Wright et al., 1999 ). This is not particularly surprising given that
both the cognitions and affect associated with anti-LGB bias are often coterminous.
Others have attempted to differentiate aspects of anti-LGB bias based on one or more dimensions, including
morality, fear of contact, civil rights, institutional homophobia, and tolerance (e.g., Lamar & Kite, 1998; Raja & Stokes,
1998). Such attempts have yielded varying factor structures depending on the authors’ definition of the construct and
the items included for its assessment. These dimensional approaches have allowed for more differentiated research
into the forms and sources of anti-LGB bias, though the identified factors are generally highly correlated.
Research attempting to delineate components of internalized homophobia , the negative reaction to same-sex
attractions or identities within the self, has been similarly diverse. Several scales operationalize and assess inter-
nalized anti-LGB biases as a homogenous construct ( Herek, Gillis, & Cogan, 2009; Meyer & Dean, 1998; Wagner,
Serafini, Rabkin, Remien, & Williams, 1994 ). Others distinguish between negativity directed at manifestations of
homosexuality within the self, versus negativity directed toward others ( Nungesser, 1983; Shidlo, 1994 ). While
many scales attempt to assess internalized homophobia as distinct from ‘outness,’ connection with LGB commu-
nity, and indices of psychological well-being (e.g., Mayfield, 2001 ;Meyer & Dean, 1998 ), others have included
these as components of internalized homophobia (e.g., Nungesser, 1983 ; Ross & Rosser, 1996; Szymanski &
Chung, 2001 ). These confounding approaches have made it difficult to distinguish the construct itself from its
antecedents, outcomes, and mechanisms.
The increasing acceptance and availability of a broader array of sexual identities over the past 40 years have
further complicated this area of study. While most early scales assessed attitudes towards ‘homosexuals’ in gen-
eral ( Aguero, Bloch, & Byrne, 1984; Hansen, 1982; Hudson & Ricketts, 1980; Larsen, Reed, & Hoffman, 1980; see
Millham, San Miguel, & Kellogg, 1976 , for exceptions), more recent research has turned attention towards distin-
guishing between attitudes toward gay men and lesbians (e.g., Davies, 2004; Herek, 1988, 1994 ;Kite & Whitley,
1996;Lamar & Kite, 1998 ). This is important as the term homosexual , though technically referring to both men and
women attracted to same-sex others, appears to be most often construed by participants as associated primarily
with gay men ( Black & Stevenson, 1984; Esses, Haddock, & Zanna, 1993 ). This same trend is apparent in mea-
sures of internalized bias with the majority of existing assessments designed for use with gay men ( Currie,
Cunningham, & Findlay, 2004; Nungesser, 1983 ; Ross & Rosser, 1996; Shidlo, 1994 ;Wagner et al., 1994 ).
To address this shortcoming, several more recent scales have been developed to assess attitudes toward and
among lesbians. Some instruments include separate subscales for gay men and lesbians ( Herek et al., 2009;
Lamar & Kite, 1998; Morrison & Morrison, 2003; Raja & Stokes, 1998 ), while others are designed only for use
with lesbians ( Szymanski & Chung, 2001 ). Distinguishing between attitudes toward gay men and lesbians is720 25. MEASURES OF ATTITUDES TOWARDS SEXUAL ORIENTATION: HETEROSEXISM, HOMOPHOBIA, AND INTERNALIZED STIGMA
VI. SOCIOCULTURAL INTERACTION AND CONFLICT