societal acceptance and recognition of same-sex sexuality. The most general differentiation among these mea-
sures, reflected in our organization of measures herein, is based on the identity of the intended to sample,
designed to assess either the attitudes of heterosexuals toward sexual minorities or to assess the attitudes of LGB
individuals towards their own and other group members’ sexual orientation. Within each of these categories
existing measures vary in their specificity and dimensionality. Scales range from one-item ‘thermometers’ to
those with multiple, factorially defined dimensions.
In both these areas, existing scales reflect the varying conceptualizations of anti-LGB bias, and conceptions of
what defines or describes such negativity. Some measures focus on cognitive attitudes, for example conceptions of
legal rights or the moral status of sexual orientations. Others focus on emotional and/or behavioral reactions /C0
that is, feelings of revulsion or tendencies to avoid LGB persons. Important in this respect is that in some views,
homophobia specifically pertains to negative affective reactions and behavioral avoidance and is thus only one
aspect of the much larger phenomena of anti-LBG mindsets. Additionally, whereas some measures include factors
such as stereotypes, outness, connection with LGB others, and knowledge of LGB history and culture within the
measured construct, others view these as related, but distinct constructs that should rather be examined as corre-
lates of (internalized) homophobia.
The measures reviewed here also differ in whether they are focused on the relative endorsement of positivity,
versus endorsement of negative LGB-related beliefs and reactions. While most measures assess homo negativity ,
researchers increasingly have been interested in assessing a full range of attitudes toward LGB individuals, which
may include neutral and/or positive beliefs and stereotypes. We reviewed several such scales here, but new ones
continue to emerge (e.g., Crisp, 2006; Morrison & Bearden, 2007 ;Walls, 2008 ).
The current review is restricted to self-report measures, which are also sometimes described as explicit measures, as
they tap beliefs that the participant is both willing and able to endorse. However, individuals may not be aware of their
prejudices or may be concealing them in the interest of im pression management as has been well-documented in the
domain of interracial attitudes (e.g. Dovidio, Kawakami, & Gaertner, 2002 ;Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998 ).
Thus, implicit assessment of anti-LGB bias via projective or re action time based accessibility tools is a critical and grow-
ing area of research. Indeed, Steffens (2005) found that explicit attitudes toward lesbians and gay men (as measured by
the ATLG; Herek, 1988 ) were much more favorable than implicit attitud es (assessed via an adapted version of the IAT;
Greenwald et al., 1998 ). Others (e.g., Dasgupta & Rivera, 2006 ) have begun to identify the conditions that lead such
automatic appraisals to manifest in discriminatory behavior. Weinstein and colleagues (2012) assessed sexual orienta-
tion using both implicit and explicit measures and found that their interaction (i.e. the discrepancy between these two
assessments) predicted homophobic attit udes. Because individuals are not always prone to admit prejudicial attitudes,
the use of implicit assessments, either alone or in combinatio n with explicit measures of LGB negativity, represents a
new and growing edge of investigation.
Similarly, the nomological networks established in the construct validation of many of the measures described
above indicate that these scales predict scores on other scales assessing related emotions and attitudes. Less fre-
quent have been assessments of behavioral outcomes, which would supply the ‘gold standard’ for validation in
this area (see Morrison & Morrison, 2003 , for an exception). It is also the case that, because of the difficulties in
identifying and/or recruiting appropriate target populations, scale validation studies have tended to over-
represent heterogeneous college samples and convenience samples of LGB individuals. Although some scales
(e.g., the ATLG; Herek, 1994 ) have been validated in more diverse and representative samples, the generalizabil-
ity of others remains to be determined.
One final comment concerns the often-blurry boundary between the topics of gender identity and sexual orien-
tation. Sexuality and gender presentation may overlap to varying degrees and gender-role norms are heavily
implicated in attitudes towards LGB individuals, particularly among heterosexual men toward gay men. Yet,
gender identity and presentation are distinct from sexual orientation. Research examining the role of masculinity-
related threat in homophobia (e.g., Bosson, Weaver, Caswell, & Burnaford, 2012 ;Parrott et al., 2002 ) is a growing
area of inquiry and critical to understanding the complex relations between gender identity, sexual orientation,
and sexual prejudice.
In summary, measures assessing anti-LGB bias and pre judices have only a brief history, but nonetheless
the field has witnessed rapid developments as LGB iden tities have come to be de-pathologized and sources
of prejudice better understood. As construct definit ions and research questions have become more nuanced,
an array of measures that differentia lly tap both prejudices against LGB individuals and self-stigmatization
of one’s own same-sex attractions have been introduced . These measurement efforts are extremely important,
particularly given the strong evidence that people a re harmed by such stigma, and the behaviors that stem
from it.747 FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
VI. SOCIOCULTURAL INTERACTION AND CONFLICT