Validity
Convergent/Concurrent
For both the MHS-L and MHS-G, Raja and Stokes (1998) found positive correlations with the Index of
Homophobia (Hudson & Ricketts, 1980 ;rs5.80, and .87, respectively) and the Attitudes toward Women Scale
(Spence & Hahn, 1997; rs50.61, and 0.48, respectively). Positive correlations emerged between the Personal
Discomfort subscales of the MHS and self-reported affective reactions (e.g., fearful, anxious) to vignette scenarios
featuring gay and lesbian targets ( Raja & Stokes, 1998 ). The correlation between reactions to lesbian targets and
Personal Discomfort with both gay men and lesbians was .33. Reactions to gay male vignette characters corre-
lated positively with Personal Discomfort with gay men ( r5.59) and lesbians ( r5.50). Higher scores on both the
MHS-L and the MHS-G were also correlated ( rs5.22, and .18, respectively) with social desirability as assessed via
theBalanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR; Paulhus & Reid, 1991 ).
Divergent/Discriminant
Negative affect toward heterosexual vignette characters was not correlated with MHS-L or MHS-G scores
(rs5.16, and .08, respectively). Target-specific attitudes (as assessed by the MHS-L and MHS-G Personal
Discomfort subscales) did not differentially predict reactions to gay and lesbian targets ( Raja & Stokes, 1998 ).
Construct/Factor Analytic
Raja and Stokes (1998) conducted separate principal factor analyses with oblimin rotation for the MHS-L and
MHS-G, yielding three factors for both the MHS-L and MHS-G (24 and 22 items, respectively), labeled: Personal
Discomfort, Institutional Homophobia, and Deviance/Changeability.
Criterion/Predictive
Scores on the Personal Discomfort with Lesbians subscale were significantly lower ( p,.001) for participants
with at least one lesbian acquaintance ( M52.17 vs. 2.82) or friend ( M51.92 vs. 2.75). This same attenuating pat-
tern occurred for MHS-G Personal Discomfort with gay acquaintances ( M52.20 vs. 3.06) and friends ( M51.83
vs. 3.02).
Location
Raja, S., & Stokes, J.P. (1998). Assessing attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: The Modern Homophobia
Scale. International Journal of Sexuality and Gender Studies ,3,1 1 3/C0134.
Results and Comments
The MHS was developed with the intention of updating the content of older scales. As such, it includes items
assessing more subtle manifestations of homophobia1at both the personal and institutional level. With three sub-
scales assessing Institutional Homophobia, Personal Discomfort, and Deviance/Changeability, the MHS is useful
for assessing institutional homophobia, its personal manifestations, and in understanding the role of societal
practices and institutions in the perpetuation of homophobia. It bears noting, however, that high correlations
with older scales ( Hudson & Ricketts, 1980 ), suggest that the MHS may not substantially differ in the construct of
homophobia being assessed.
MHS SAMPLE ITEMS
MHS-L
1.Employers should provide health care benefits to the
partners of their lesbian employees.
2.I am tired of hearing about lesbians’ problems. (R)
3.Physicians and psychologists should strive to find a
cure for female homosexuality. (R)MHS-G
4.I would remove my child from class if I found out
the teacher was gay. (R)
5.It’s all right with me if I see two men holding
hands.
6.Gay men want too many rights. (R)
1Though the authors’ goal was to expand measurement of anti-homosexual attitudes beyond the level of personal discomfort, they chose to
continue to use homophobia to refer to their construct rather than renaming it to reflect this definitional change.731 MEASURES OF ANTI-LGB BIAS
VI. SOCIOCULTURAL INTERACTION AND CONFLICT