Construct/Factor Analytic
An initial pool of 50 items was reduced by eliminating all items that did not show adequate variation in
responses ( Benson & Vincent, 1980 ). The intercorrelations of the remaining 25 items were subjected to a principal
components analysis (PCA) with oblique rotation to further reduce scale length. Items loading at .30 or higher
were retained yielding two unidimensional 12-item, parallel scales ( Morrison & Morrison, 2003 ). Confirmatory
factor analyses suggested that a one-factor model fit the data for both the MHS-G and MHS-L (CFIs were .95 and
.98; Morrison, Morrison & Franklin, 2009).
Criterion/Predictive
Predictive validity was assessed using an attributional ambiguity paradigm (e.g. Batson, Flink, Schoenrade,
Fultz, & Pych, 1986 ). Participants with high scores on the MHS were less likely than low scoring participants to
sit next to a confederate wearing a T-shirt that suggested he or she was gay or lesbian (11% vs. 56%) when pro-
vided with alternative justification for their choice of seat. These percentages did not significantly differ (56% vs.
78%) when no alternative justification for such behavior was available ( Morrison & Morrison, 2003 ). More
recently, Morrison and Morrison (2011) found that MHS scores predicted discriminatory behavioral intentions
toward a gay (but not heterosexual) political candidate.
Location
Morrison, M.A., & Morrison, T.G. (2003). Development and validation of a scale measuring modern prejudice
toward gay men and lesbian women. Journal of Homosexuality ,43,1 5/C037.
Results and Comments
Like the Raja and Stokes’ (1998) scale, the MHS assesses modern attitudes towards gay men and lesbians
separately, but differs in its emphasis on perceptions o f demands for equal rights, visibility, and recognition.
Items tap the beliefs that gay men and lesbians are maki ng too many demands for changes in the societal status
quo, over emphasize their sexual orientation, and that d iscrimination is no longer an issue. Since its original
validation, the factor structure of the MHS (both forms ) was confirmed in a sample of heterosexual university
students in Ireland ( M o r r i s o n ,K e n n y ,&H a r r i n g t o n ,2 0 0 5 ). In another study, Morrison, Morrison, and Franklin
(2009) found modern homonegativity to be distinct from old -fashioned homonegativity in both American and
Canadian university students. More recently, Morrison and Morrison (2011) found that MHS scores predicted
discriminatory behavioral intentions toward a g ay (but not heterosexual) political candidate. Lottes and
Grollman (2010) , however, failed to distinguish between mode rn and old-fashioned homonegativity among
university students.
MHS SAMPLE ITEMS
1.Gay men (lesbians) seem to focus on the ways in
which they differ from heterosexuals, and ignore the
ways in which they are the same.
2.Celebrations such as ‘Gay Pride Day’ are ridiculous
because they assume that an individual’s sexual
orientation should constitute a source of pride.
3.Gay men (lesbians) should stop shoving their lifestyle
down other people’s throats.
4.Gay men (lesbians) who are ‘out of the closet’ should
be admired for their courage. (R)5.Gay men (lesbians) should stop complaining about
the way they are treated in society, and simply get on
with their lives.
Notes :
Items are rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging
from: 1 5Strongly disagree to 55Strongly agree .
(R) Reverse scored item.
MHS-G items are displayed with the necessary
adjustments for reference to lesbians in parentheses.
Reproduced with permission.
Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Knowledge and Attitudes Scale for Heterosexuals (LGB-KASH)
(Worthington et al., 2005 ).733 MEASURES OF ANTI-LGB BIAS
VI. SOCIOCULTURAL INTERACTION AND CONFLICT