Notes :
Items are rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging
from: 1 5Do not agree to 55Strongly agree .(R) Reverse scored item.
Reproduced with permission.
Modern Homonegativity Scale (MHS)
(Morrison & Morrison, 2003 ).
Variable
The MHS was designed to assess contemporary attitudes towards gay men and lesbians using two separate,
but parallel scales, the MHS-G and MHS-L.
Description
The MHS exists in two versions, the MHS-G and MHS-L, which separately assess attitudes toward gay men
and lesbians, respectively. Using the modern racism (e.g., McConahay, 1986 ) and modern sexism (e.g., Swim
et al., 1995 ;Tougas et al., 1995 ) scales as a framework, the authors, in conjunction with gay and lesbian graduate
students, generated potential items. Based on variation in responses and factor analysis, this initial pool of items
was reduced to 12 parallel items for each scale version, rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale. Scores on both the
MHS-G and MHS-L range from 12 to 60 with higher scores indicating greater homonegativity ( Morrison &
Morrison, 2003 ).
Sample
Morrison and Morrison (2003) conducted several studies in developing and validating the MHS-G and
MHS-L. The first two included 353 (149 male, 204 female) and 308 (148 male, 160 female) Canadian university
students. Participant race/ethnicity was not reported. Mean MHS scores were reported only for the participants
in Study 3, which included 233 students (64 males, 169 females). Males scored significantly higher on both the
MHS-G ( M541.9, SD59.1) and the MHS-L ( M542.8, SD59.7) than did females ( M537.3, SD510.1 and
M538.8, SD58.5). Some 58% of males and 34% of females scored above the midpoint on the MHS-G. On the
MHS-L 68% of males and 42% of females scored above the midpoint. Study 4 analyses (see predictive validity
section below) included 36 participants sampled from Study 2 who scored in the top and bottom quartiles on the
MHS scale.
Reliability
Internal Consistency
Cronbach alpha coefficients were found to range from .85 to .91 ( Morrison & Morrison, 2003 ).
Validity
Convergent/Concurrent
Men’s scores on the MHS-G were correlated with political conservatism ( r5.46), church attendance ( r5.23),
and religious self-schema ( r5.28). A similar pattern of correlations emerged between women’s scores on the
MHS-L and these variables ( rs5.53, .20, .28, respectively; Morrison & Morrison, 2003 ). Modern sexism ( Neosexism
Scale (NS); Tougas et al., 1995 ) correlated positively with both the MHS-G ( r5.59) and MHS-L ( r5.57). Scores on
theAttitudes toward Women Scale (ATWS; Spence & Hahn, 1997) correlated moderately with both the MHS-G
(r5.41) and MHS-L ( r5.32) ( Morrison & Morrison, 2003 ).
Divergent/Discriminant
The MHS is distinct from old-fashioned homonegativity (assessed via the Gay and Lesbian versions of the
Homonegativity Scale ;Morrison, Parriag, & Morrison, 1989 ) and from Herek’s (1988) ATLG, with scores on the
MHS-G and MHS-L significantly higher ( ps,.001), suggesting that these scales tap distinct constructs. Social
desirability, assessed via the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (MC-SDS Form C; Reynolds, 1982 ), was
not related to MHS-G ( r5/C0.03) or MHS-L ( r5.03) scores ( Morrison & Morrison, 2003 ).732 25. MEASURES OF ATTITUDES TOWARDS SEXUAL ORIENTATION: HETEROSEXISM, HOMOPHOBIA, AND INTERNALIZED STIGMA
VI. SOCIOCULTURAL INTERACTION AND CONFLICT