relationship quality, and community connectedness, which are considered to be distinct stressors, outcomes, and
coping mechanisms, respectively ( Frost & Meyer, 2009; Meyer, 2003 ).Herek et al. (2009) revised this scale creat-
ing a 5-item version that can be used to assess internalized bias among gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals.
Mayfield’s (2001) Internalized Homonegativity Inventory (IHNI) similarly separates internalized attitudes from out-
ness and identification with gay culture and community, assessing gay men’s negative attitudes toward homo-
sexuality in general and within the self. The Short Internalized Homonegativity Scale (SIHS; Currie et al., 2004 )
assesses more contemporary and subtle manifestations of internalized homophobia in gay men. This scale is com-
prised of three factors reflecting public identification with gay community, personal comfort, and sexual comfort,
the latter of which had not been previously explicitly assessed. Arguing that existing measures fail to adequately
reflect the systematic, pervasive, institutional nature of negative attitudes, Szymanski and Chung (2003) devel-
oped the Lesbian Internalized Homophobia Scale (LIHS; Szymanski & Chung, 2001 ) to broadly assess internalized
negativity among lesbians. This is the first measure designed to specifically address IH in lesbians, rather than
simply adapting items used to assess the internalized attitudes of gay men.
As with externally directed anti-LGB bias, internalized bias has been variously defined and assessed for multi-
ple identity categories. Thus, it is again important when selecting a measure to attend to these issues such that
the operationalized construct matches the theoretical construct of interest as closely as possible.
MEASURES OF ANTI-LGB BIAS
Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men (ATLG)
(Herek, 1988 ).
Variable
The ATLG scale was designed to assess heterosexual’s attitudes toward gay men and lesbians using two sepa-
rate subscales reflecting attitudes towards lesbians (ATL) and gay men (ATG), respectively.
Description
The ATLG assesses attitudes toward gay men and lesbians along one dimension, Condemnation /C0Tolerance.
The original ATLG ( Herek, 1988 ) contains 20 items with subscales (10 items each) assessing attitudes towards
gay men (ATG) and lesbians (ATL). Shorter versions of the ATLG have since been developed, with 3 /C05 items
per subscale. These abbreviated versions are now recommended as they correlate highly ( rs..95) with their lon-
ger forms ( Herek & McLemore, 2011 ). Responses are made using a Likert-type scale with 5, 7, or 9 points. The
range of possible scores varies with the particular response scale used. The 20 items with the largest item-to-total
correlations comprise the original ATLG scale. The ATLG, in its various forms, has been administered in multiple
countries including England ( Hegarty, 2002 ), Canada ( Mohipp & Morry, 2004 ), the Netherlands ( van de
Meerendonk, Eisinga, & Felling, 2003 ), Singapore ( Detenber et al., 2007 ), Brazil ( DeSouza, Solberg, & Elder, 2007 ),
Chile ( Ca´rdenas & Barrientos, 2008; Nierman, Thompson, Bryan, & Mahaffey, 2007 ), Turkey ( Gelbal & Duyan,
2006), and China (Yu et al., 2011). A Spanish-language version has also been validated for use with Mexican-
American samples ( Herek & Gonzalez-Rivera, 2006 ). The ATLG has also been employed to assess attitudes
among diverse groups including Blacks ( Herek & Capitanio, 1995 ) and religious conservatives ( Herek &
Capitanio, 1996 ).
Sample
The original ATLG ( Herek, 1988 ) was validated across multiple samples of undergraduate students (mean
N5238) including a multi-campus study of six different American universities. Reported means indicate that the
greatest negativity was expressed by men toward gay men. mean ATG scores ranged from 56.27 to 61.15 across
studies. Women also were less favorable toward gay men (means ranged from 49.36 to 51.54). Attitudes toward
lesbians were somewhat more favorable with men’s scores averaging between 40.83 and 47.38 and women’s
ranging from 33.97 to 41.87 ( Herek, 1988 ).723 MEASURES OF ANTI-LGB BIAS
VI. SOCIOCULTURAL INTERACTION AND CONFLICT