Western Michigan University ScholarWorks at WMU
Master's Theses Graduate College
12-1999
The Biphobia Scale: Development and Validation
Patrick S. Mulick
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses
Part of the Psychology Commons
Recommended Citation Mulick, Patrick S., "The Biphobia Scale: Development and Validation" (1999). Master's Theses. 4124. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses/4124
This Masters Thesis-Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate College at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE BIPHOBIA SCALE: DEVELOPMENTAND VALIDATION
by
Patrick S. Mulick
A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of The Graduate College in partial fulfillment of the requirements forthe Degree of Master of Arts Department of Psychology
WesternMichigan University Kalamazoo, Michigan December 1999 Copyright by Patrick S. Mulick 1999..... ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to begin by thanking the Foundation forthe Scientific Study of
Sexuality, which provided the funds for this study. Their support was vital to the development and completion of this thesis.
Secondly, I would like to thank the members of my graduate committee, Dr.
Lester W. Wright, Dr. C. Richard Spates, and Dr. Mary Zwoyer Anderson. Their guidance, wisdom, and time were very much appreciated. Special thanks needs to be given to my advisor Dr. Lester Wright forhis assistance in the development, running, and final preparation of this project.
Thirdly, I want to thank my family and friends, for without them I never would have made it this far. To my family, especially my parents, thank you for the love and support that you continue to shower upon me. I know that all I will ever accomplish is a result of the amazing family I have been blessed with. To all of my friends, particularly Sean, Emily, Eric, Colleen, Matt, Jeffand Cari (and Bailey), I am so fortunateto have you in my life. I especially want to thank Laura, who is a never ending source of color and laughter in my life. Thank you foryour unwavering support and helping me to keep my priorities straight.
Finally, I need to thank God for His patience and for lighting the path that He has laid out beforeme.
Patrick S. Mulick
11.. THE BIPHOBIA SCALE: DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATI ON
Patrick S. Mulick, M.A.
WesternMichigan University, 1999
Sexual orientation is generally assessed as a dichotomous variable, rather than a continuous variable. According to this classificationthe concept of bisexuality does ' not exist and there is a dearth of research for the construct. Some theorists believe that this lack of knowledge has led to fearand discrimination of bisexual individuals
(Ochs, 1996; Rust, 1993). Biphobia, definedas negative attitudes about bisexuality and bisexual individuals, is a psychological construct that is not well understood.
There has been a recent resurgence of interest in bisexuality and biphobia but there are currently limited empirical investigations examining the constructs. And, no scale exists that measures the construct of bi phobia in a comprehensive manner.
A new 30-item instrument, the Biphobia Scale, was developed to measure negative cognitions, affect, and behaviors regarding bisexuality and bisexual individuals. The instrument has provided empirical evidence of the existence of the construct of biphobia and has demonstrated that it exists in both the heterosexual and homosexual communities. The Biphobia Scale has demonstrated strong internal consistency and test-retest reliability. The scale was demonstrated to have a strong correlation with a measure of homophobia in the heterosexual population, but a weak correlation in the homosexual population. TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... 11
LIST OF TABLES ...... V
LIST OF FIGURES ...... Vl
INTRODUCTION ...... 1
PHASE 1: INITIAL QUESTION DEVELOPMENT ...... 15
PHASE 2: INITIAL FIELD TRIAL ...... 16
Methods ...... 16
Participants ...... 16
Materials and Procedures ...... 16
Results ...... 17
PHASE 3: TEST-RETEST RELIABILITY ...... 21
Methods ...... 21
Participants ...... 21
Materials and Procedures ...... 21
Results ...... 24
Discussion ...... 29
APPENDICES
A. Initial Biphobia Scale ...... 39
B. Oral Recruitment Scripts ...... 42
111 Table of Contents-Continued
APPENDICES
C. Protocol Approval and Consent Forms ...... 45
D. Revised Biphobia Scale ...... 49
E. Measures ...... 51
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 55
IV LIST OF TABLES
1. Phase 2 Demographic Data ...... 1 7
2. Phase 3 Demographic Data ...... 22
3. Means and Standard Deviations forthe 30-Item Biphobia Scale ...... 25
4. Item-Total Summary Statistics forthe 30-Item Biphobia Scale ...... 26
5. Means and Standard Deviations forthe Biphobia Scale ...... 27
6. Factor Analysis.. and Loadings forthe Biphobia Scale ...... 30
V LIST OF FIGURES
1. Phase 2 Scree Plot ...... 18
2. Phase 3 Scree Plot ...... 29
VI INTRODUCTION
Sexual orientation has been definedas an individual's physical, emotional, and erotic attractions to others (Coleman, 1987a; Gonsiorek, Sell, & Weinrich, 1995;
Hyde & DeLamater, 1997; Shively & DeCecco, 1977). Generally, there are four broad categories contained within this construct. A person with a heterosexual orientation has been definedas being attracted to individuals of the opposite gender
(Hyde & DeLamater, 1997). A person with a homosexual orientation has been characterized as being attracted to individuals of the same gender (Hyde &
DeLamater, 1997). Many theorists also propose that there is a bisexual orientation that consists of individuals who are attracted to members of both genders (Hyde &
DeLamater, 1997; Paul, 1984). Finally, there is a small percentage of people who appear to have limited or no physical, emotional, or erotic attractions to others, who have been termed as having an asexual orientation (Berkley, Perelman-Hall, &
Kurdek, 1990).
The classification of sexual orientation has proven to be heuristic (Gonsiorek et al., 1995). For the most part, sexual orientation has been categorized as a dichotomous variable, with individuals being classified as either heterosexual or homosexual (Coleman, 1987b; Eliason, 1997; Firestein, 1996; Garber, 1995; George,
1993; Hansen & Evans, 1985; Klein, 1993; Klein, Sepekoff, & Wolf, 1990;
MacDonald, 1981; Paul, 1984; Paul, 1985; Ross & Paul, 1992). Sexual orientation 1 2 has also been conceptualized as a trichotomous variable with individuals having a heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual orientation (Coleman, 1987a). Regardless of whether sexual orientation is conceptualized as a dichotomous or trichotomous variable, individuals within these systems are grouped into a discrete category. Alfred
Kinsey, during the 1940's and 1950's, challenged the prevailing notion of categorical
classification and proposed that sexual orientation is a continuous variable with bisexuality being the mid-point on a continuum with exclusively heterosexual
behavior and exclusively homosexual behavior as anchor points (Kinsey, Pomeroy, &
Martin, 1948). However, Kinsey's proposal did not resolve the controversy of a
classificationsystem for sexual orientation (Coleman, 1987a), as even today
researchers disagree as to how to conceptualize and assess sexual orientation.
Paralleling the controversy on how to conceptualize sexual orientation, there
has been an evolution in the methods used to assess the construct. The traditional, and
most widely utilized, method for measuring sexual orientation is to rely on verbal
self-report (Gonsiorek et al., 1995). Using this method, a clinician or researcher asks
an individual how he or she classifies himself or herself. Chung and Katayama (1996)
conducted a content analysis of 144 empirical articles that assessed sexual orientation
and found that in 32.6% of the articles verbal self-identificationwas the method used.
However, there are many limitations to this method, including an individual's
internalized homophobia, denial, and intentional deceit. 3 Kinsey et al. ( 1948) advanced the assessment of sexual orientation when they developed the Kinsey Heterosexual-Homosexual Rating scale, which is a Likert-type self-report measure on which an individual rates himself or herself from0
( exclusively heterosexual) to 6 (exclusively homosexual). The rating is based on past sexual behaviors and psychic reactions (Kinsey et al., 1948). Although, this scale was an improvement over the categorical systems using verbal• I self-report, it was still subject to criticisms and limitations. Scientists claimed that the Kinsey's scale had limited validity as it only assessed forpast behaviors and did not examine the content of an individual's fantasies(Coleman, 1987a). To improve on these limitations, Bell and Weinberg (1978) added a second scale to Kinsey's measure that assesses one's erotic fantasies. While this modification enhanced assessment, researchers suggested additional dimensions be included to more accurately assess sexual orientation
(Coleman, 1987a). Therefore, Klein (1978) developed a scale called the Klein Sexual
Orientation Grid (KSOG), on which individuals rate themselves on seven different dimensions: sexual orientation, sexual behavior, sexual fantasies, emotional preference, social preference, self-identification, and hetero/gay lifestyle. Ratings are done on each dimension for the individual's past, present, and ideal experiences.
Despite advancements in the conceptualization and assessment of sexual orientation, the majority of researchers continue to ignore the area between the two anchors, which has led to a dearth of research forthe construct of bisexuality
(MacDonald, 1981; Ochs, 1996; Paul, 1984; Paul, 1985; Weinberg, Williams, & 4 Pryor, 1994; Zinik, 1985). When bisexual individuals are discussed in the empirical literature, they are usually categorized as homosexual or not differentiated(Firestein,
1996; MacDonald, 1981; Zinik, 1985). Thus, much of the research published has been confounded by grouping homosexual and bisexual individuals together, instead of examining them as distinct populations with unique situations and challenges
(MacDonald, 1981). Therapies, support groups, interventions, and safe houses have been developed forgay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals without acknowledging.~ their possible differences, or even their opinions about each other. Since bisexual and homosexual individuals have been grouped together in scientific studies, the validity of these studies is called into question.
The bisexual community is in a unique position because they have similarities with both the heterosexual and homosexual communities. However, it appears that the similarities with one community isolate them fromthe other (Klein, 1993; Ochs,
1996, Ochs & Deihl, 1992). Bisexual individuals share the heterosexual communities' attractions for the opposite gender and in certain situations, if desired, might findit relatively easy to pass as heterosexual. The bisexual community also shares the homosexual community's attraction and desire to be with the same gender. Due to this unique situation, bisexual individuals are often viewed in one of two ways: they have the best of both worlds or they have the worst of both worlds (Rust, 1995).
These outlooks are based on the dichotomous conceptualizations of sexual orientation
(Rust, 1995). With regard to the view that bisexual individuals have the b�st of both 5 worlds, bisexuality is thought to be a combination of heterosexuality and homosexuality. The bisexual community is able to "get by" in both the heterosexual and homosexual worlds (Rust, 1995). The bisexual individual is thought to go back and forth between heterosexual and gay communities depending on which is better for them at the time. Those individuals who view bisexuality as the worst of both worlds
see bisexuality as a mixture of heterosexuality and homosexuality. Rust (1995)
compared this situation to that of a biracial individual who does not fullybelong to
either of his or her races. Because the bisexual individual has featuresof both
heterosexuality and homosexuality he or she is not apart of either community. He or
she is not accepted in the heterosexual community because of his or her homosexual
attractions, while he or she is an outcast in the homosexual community due to his or
her heterosexual attractions.
The concept of bisexuality is incompatible with a dichotomous classification
scheme of sexual orientation. This led people to speculate as to the nature of
bisexuality. MacDonald (1981) identified fourexisting beliefs about the orientation of
bisexuality. The first is that bisexuality can exist and is a valid sexual orientation.
Next, there is the belief that bisexuality is a transitory state. This means that bisexual
individuals are actually heterosexual or homosexual and just temporarily involved
with both genders. It is assumed that these individuals will eventually returnto being
exclusively heterosexual or homosexual. The third belief is that bisexuality is a
transitional state, rather than a sexual orientation, and that a bisexual individual is in 6 transition fromone sexual orientation to another, i.e., from heterosexual to homosexual. Finally, there is the belief that a bisexual individual is denying his or her true homosexual orientation. The existence of four, and the likelihood of more, beliefs about bisexuality highlights the inadequate understanding of this sexual orientation.
Only one study has attempted to empirically examine the existence of bisexuality. Tollison, Adams, and Tollison (1979) examined cognitive and physiological indices of arousal forheterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual men to heterosexual and homosexual filmsand slides. Their results demonstrated that bisexual men reported a high level of cognitive arousal to both types of stimuli. . However, the data also demonstrated that homosexual and bisexual men's mean percentage of erection to the various stimuli were almost identical. Further, the bisexual men significantly overestimated their erectile level to heterosexual stimuli and significantly underestimated their erectile level to homosexual stimuli. The authors concluded that, in terms of physiological arousal, these results call into question the existence of bisexuality. Furthermore, they stated that these results suggest that bisexual men may be denying the factthat they are actually homosexual because they findthe classification of bisexuality less threatening. This conclusion would support the fourthbelief proposed by MacDonald (1981). It is important to note that the conclusions drawn by Tollison, Adams, and Tollison (1979) seem to put extensive weight on the physiological arousal level of the subjects and minimize their cognitive level of arousal. It is possible that the cognitive arousal to both l:).eterosexual 7 and homosexual stimuli is a key component for an individual to classify him/herself as bisexual. These results seem to provide more questions than answers about bisexuality and further research has yet to be done.
Some theorists purpose that these differingbeliefs and lack of knowledge about bisexuality has led to fear and prejudice towards members of this community
(Ochs, 1996; Ochs & Deihl, 1992; Rust, 1993). "Man has a propensity to prejudice.
This propensity lies in his normal tendency to formgeneralizations, concepts, and categories, whose content represents an oversimplificationof his world experiences"
(Allport, 1954, p. 27). While we have limited empirical evidence of discrimination and victimization of bisexual individuals directly, it is possible, based on their classification as a sexual minority, to draw a connection between the challenges faced by the homosexual community and those of the bisexual community (Ochs, 1996).
The concern about the discrimination and victimization of homosexual individuals has been evident in the empirical literature since the 1970's. It is generally reported that a large number of gay and lesbian individuals have been victims of verbal abuse, threats of violence, property destruction, physical assault, sexual assault, and/or assault with deadly weapons (Berrill, 1990; Otis & Skinner, 1996;
Pilkington & D'Augelli, 1995). The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force conducted a survey of the victimization of gay and lesbian individuals and foundthat 94% of the respondents had experienced some sort of victimization (NGTF, 1984). While other authors believe this number might be elevated due to sampling bias, additional studies 8 have founddata indicating between 52% to 87% of homosexual individuals have experienced some sort of discrimination and prejudice (Berrill, 1990; Otis & Skinner,
1996; Pilkington & D 'Augelli, 1995).
As the interest in the victimization of homosexual individuals has grown, so has the debate on what to term these negative attitudes and behaviors. Weinberg
(1972) labeled these negative attitudes homophobia, which he definedas "the dread of being in close quarters with homosexuals" (p. 4). Other authors (Fyfe,1983;
Haaga, 1991; Hudson & Ricketts, 1980; Lehne, 1976; Logan, 1996; MacDonald,
1976; Rowan, 1994) have expressed concernover the use of the term homophobia.
However, the term is consistently applied throughout the empirical literature.
Coinciding with this debate on whether homophobia is the proper term to describe this construct, there has been an evolution on how the construct is measured.
O'Donohue and Caselles (1993) stated that the current measures utilized to assess homophobia are inadequate because they fail to assess the behavioral dimension of homophobia along with the attitudinal and affective dimensions. They contend that to more comprehensively assess homophobia the measures developed should include the behavioral domain, along with the affectiveand cognitive domains.
Since bisexuality has been largely ignored in the empirical literature, very little is known about the discrimination and victimization of bisexual individuals.
Bennett (1992) coined the term, Biphobia, and defined it as "prejudice against bisexuality" (p. 205) and "the denigration of bisexuality as a valid lifechojce" (p. 9 207). Ochs and Deihl ( 1992) concluded that biphobia- stems from the continued use of a dichotomous classification scheme for sexual orientation. They stated that biphobia is the fear of those individuals that fall between our two categories of sexual orientation and is a prejudice based on negative stereotypes. Since these definitions were proposed, other researchers have addressed the topic in their writings (Bennett,
1992; Eliason, 1997; Eliason & Raheim, 1996; Farajaje'-Jones, 1995; Klein, 1993;
Ochs, 1996; Ochs & Deihl, 1992; Trnka, 1995; Weinberg et al., 1994), but little empirical research has been done to validate the construct or assess its prevalence.
The construct of biphobia lacks a clear definition, as is the case with homophobia, which makes it difficult to compare across studies.
Ochs (1996) described the denigration that bisexual individuals face as
"double discrimination," which he defined as discrimination from both heterosexual and homosexual communities. The discrimination that bisexual individuals experience is often not overt prejudice, rather it is the question of whether their sexual orientation even exists (Bennett, 1992; Ochs, 1996; Ochs & Deihl, 1992). For instance, Rust (1995) questioned a sample of lesbians and concluded that nearly one out of four lesbians do not think that bisexuality exists. People who classify themselves as bisexual are often seen as fencesitting, confused, immature, mentally ill, or just looking for the best of both worlds (MacDonald, 1981; Ochs, 1996; Ochs &
Deihl, 1992; Paul, 1984; Paul 1985; Rust, 1995; Weinberg et al., 1994). It has also been proposed that the very existence of an individual who is attracted to both 10 genders creates fearin the heterosexual and homosexual communities (Ochs, 1996).
Some individuals gain comfort in the fact that they have attractions to only one gender and use this as an opportunity to define themselves (Klein, 1993; Ochs, 1996).
Bisexuality, therefore, presents a challenge by taking away this comfort.The existence of a bisexual orientation creates the possibility that an individual with heterosexual attraction is not completely straight. Klein (1993) stated that heterosexual and homosexual individuals cannot understand the bisexual individual's ability to share their own attractions but not their own aversions. This lack of understanding can cause the heterosexual and homosexual individuals to be confused and uncomfortable (Klein, 1993; Ochs, 1996).
Additional reasons for the existence ofbiphobia have also been suggested
(Hansen & Evans, 1985; McKiman et al., 1995; Mohr & Rochlen, 1999; Weinberg et al., 1994). One is that bisexuality has an association with polygamy (Hansen &
Evans, 1985; Klein, 1993; MacDonald, 1981; Ochs, 1996; Ochs & Deihl, 1992;
Weinberg et al., 1994). Monogamy is the norm forour society and any deviation from this norm leads people to feeluncomfortable, especially when the multiple relationships are with people of different genders. Another reason is that many heterosexual individuals also blame the bisexual community for the spread ofAIDS from the gay population to the straight population (McKiman et al., 1995; Ochs,
1996; Ochs & Deihl, 1992). Finally, the question ofwhether bisexuality is morally right can also contribute to biphobia. Mohr & Rochlen (1999) found that frequent 11 attendance at religious services was correlated with the endorsement of items indicating that bisexuality was immoral.
One might expect that sexual minorities would support each other to fight discrimination. However, authors indicate that bisexual individuals do not findsolace in the homosexual community (Firestein, 1996; MacDonald, 1981; Ochs, 1996; Ochs
& Deihl, 1992; Paul, 1984; Paul, 1985; Rust, 1993; Weinberg et al., 1994). They are seen as outsiders who damage the fightto gain equal rights (Firestein, 1996;
MacDonald, 1981; Ochs, 1996; Rust, 1993; Rust, 1995; Weinberg et al., 1994). The process of identity formationis also thought to play a role in homosexual individuals' discrimination of bisexual people (Ochs, 1996). The coming out process is oftena traumatic experience in the lifeof a gay man or lesbian, and as a result of this process gay and lesbian individuals reportedly findcomfort and security in the clear boundaries formedwithin the homosexual community. Bisexuality poses a threat to this feelingof protection, and blurs the lines drawn around the homosexual community (Ochs, 1996). Moreover, lesbians reportedly see bisexual women as wanting to be a part of the supporting environment of the lesbian community, without taking the risks and stigmas of the homosexual lifestyle (Rust, 1995). This can lead lesbians to be leery of becoming romantic with, or even befriending, bisexual women for fear that the bisexual women will abandon them for the heterosexual world (Rust,
1995). It appears that biphobia is present in the homosexual population, but due to the 12 qualitative nature of the present literature it is impossible to determine the prevalence or degree of biphobia.
There is only one empirical study that examines biphobia in a heterosexual population. However, the scientific methods utilized cause one to use caution when interpreting the results. Eliason (1997) looked at 229 (170 women and 59 men) heterosexual undergraduate students' attitudes towards bisexual and homosexual individuals. She assessed these attitudes by administering the Beliefs about Sexual
Minorities Scale (BSM), a scale that contains six statements depicting common beliefs about sexual minorities and asked the subjects to mark one statement that best represented their current beliefs. The formatof the BSM was:
1. Celebration. I believe that lesbians, gay men, bisexual women, or bisexual men (L/G/BW/BM) contribute in a positive and unique way to society.
2. Acceptance. L/G/BW /BM people deserve equal protection and the same rights as heterosexuals.
3. Tolerance. L/G/BW/BM people have a right to exist but should keep their sexuality private and hidden.
4. Disapproval. L/G/BW /BM lifestyles go against my religious or moral beliefs.
5. Disgust. L/G/BW/BM people are disgusting and should not have any rights. 13 6. Hatred. I despise L/G/BW/BM people and believe that their lifestyle should be punished. (Eliason, 1997, p. 320)
The subjects were asked to choose one statement that was most representative of his or her beliefs about the sexual minority represented on the particular version of the scale. The four versions were: Version 1 - lesbians, Version 2 - gay men, Version
3 - bisexual women, and Version 4 - bisexual men. The existence, degree, and prevalence of biphobia were then obtained by looking at the percentages of each statement chosen.
Based on the BSM, Eliason (1997) found that bisexual men were considered the least acceptable with 24% specifying very negative attitudes, followed by bisexual women (20%), lesbians (17%), and gay men (16%). The conclusion drawn by Eliason
(1997) is that heterosexual undergraduate students experience a relatively high degree of biphobia, especially of bisexual men. One major limitation with this study is
Eliason's lack of a definition for the construct of biphobia. A furtherlimitation is the use of the BSM. Eliason and Raheim (1996) state that the BSM is a usefulclinical tool, but lacks the sensitivity needed for research purposes. Despite this limitation,
Eliason (1997) based her findingsof the existence and prevalence of biphobia on this measure. Thus, it is apparent that there is a need to develop an assessment• instrument for biphobia that is reliable and valid.
Theorists and researchers working within the domain of bisexuality state that biphobia is a real problem that bisexual individuals endure. It has been proposed that 14 biphobia is present in both the heterosexual and homosexual communities; however, this has not been scientificallydocumented, nor do we have a measure that can assess the construct. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to develop a scale that can assess the possible cognitive, affective, and/or behavioral reactions individuals have towards bisexual individuals. We hypothesize that both heterosexual and homosexual individuals will self-report thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that are consistent with biphobia. We hypothesize that homosexual individuals will generally score lower on the Biphobia Scale than heterosexual individuals. We furtherh ypothesize that the majority ofthe heterosexual sample will have similar levels ofbiphobia and homophobia, with heterosexual individuals scoring high on both measures or low on both measures. Finally, it is hypothesized that the homosexual sample will not have as high a correlation as the heterosexual sample between these two measures.
' PHASE 1: INITIAL QUESTION DEVELOPMENT
The researchers generated questions forthe Biphobia Scale using information from several sources: (a) the existing research in the area of bisexuality and biphobia;
(b) existing scales which measure constructs believed to be similar to biphobia, such as homophobia and AIDS phobia; and (c) input from professionals familiar with discrimination against sexual minorities. Six items were included in the initial item pool to empirically examine the beliefs about the orientation of bisexuality. Four items (items 3, 10, 14, and 37) specifically examined the beliefs identified by
MacDonald (1981) and two (items 30 and 31) were adapted fromtheories proposed by a number of authors (Ochs, 1996; Ochs & Deihl, 1992; Paul, 1984; Paul 1985;
Rust, 1995; Weinberg et al., 1994). The initial list, which included 46 items, was reviewed for content, grammar, appropriateness, and clarity by psychologists with experience in scale development. Revisions were made in accordance with these reviews. Following these critiques, the initial list of questions was laid out in a questionnaire format.Each statement was rated on a 6-point Likert scale, with responses ranging from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree." Some items were phrased in a negative direction and required reverse scoring. A copy of the initial pool of items has been included (Appendix A).
15 PHASE 2: INITIAL FIELD TRJAL
The goals forPhase 2 were (a) to evaluate the internalpsychometric properties of the Biphobia Scale items in a sample of adults; (b) to determine the factor loading of the initial pool of questions; and (c) to reduce the number of items included on the measure.
Methods
Participants
Four hundred fifteenundergraduate students were recruited from a large Mid
Western university (99 men and 316 women) to participate in Phase 2 (Appendix B).
Demographic data for participants are presented in Table 1.
Materials and Procedures
Participants gave informed consent (Appendix C) and completed the initial version of the Biphobia Scale and a short demographic questionnaire during one of several large group testing sessions. Responses were collected anonymously. It took participants approximately 10 minutes to complete the measures.
16 17 Table 1
Phase 2 Demographic Data
n (%) n (%) Gender Race Female 315 76 Caucasian 373 90 Male 99 24 African-American 16 4 Marital Status Asian-American 10 2 Single 387 93 Hispanic 5 1 Married/Partnered 13 3 International 5 1 Divorced 4 1 American Indian 3 .7 Living with 11 3 Multiracial 2 .5 boy/ girlfriend Other 1 .2 Education Religion Freshman 147 35 Catholic 159 38 Sophomore 104 25 Methodist 38 9 Junior 102 25 Lutheran 37 9 Senior 60 15 Baptist 25 6 Some graduate school 1 .2 Christian Reformed 24 6 Community raised in Presbyterian 23 6 Rural 146 35 Non-Denom Christian 21 5 Suburban 190 46 Episcopal 8 2 Urban 75 18 Agnostic 6 1 Missing 4 1 Atheist 6 1 Age Jewish 5 1 M (years) 19.94 United Church of Christ 5 1 SD = 2.83 Other 15 4 Range = 18-47 None 33 8 Missing 10 2
Results
Descriptive statistics, item frequency, reliability, anti-image covariation, and inter-item correlations were computed on the Biphobia Scale. Means, standard deviations, and reliabilities were examined to determine the presence of poorly 18 performing items. Bartlett's Test of Sphericity (X\03 8702.248, p < 0.000) and the
Kasier-Meyer-Olkin Measure of sampling adequacy (0.95) both indicated that the correlation matrix was suitable for factor analysis. Exploratory factoranalysis was conducted using the Maximum Likelihood Solution (Harman, 1976) with Direct
Oblimin rotation. This analysis revealed six factors with eigen values greater than one, which together explained 59% of the variance; however, only one factor individually explained greater than 7% of the variance. Consequently, Cattell's (1966) scree test was used as the decision rule regarding the number of factorsto retain, rather than Nunnally's (1978) selection of factorson the basis of eigen values greater than one. Examination of the scree plot suggested the presence of one factor, accounting for 38% of the variance (Figure 1). According to Gorsuch (1983), a one factor model is typically indicated when at least 20% of the variance is accounted for by a single factor.
Scree Plot 16
14
12
10
8
Ei 6 ge nv al ue 2 0
Factor Number
Figure 1. Phase 2 Scree Plot. 19 Several criteria were used to determine whether an item would be retained, modified, or omitted fromthe scale. First, the six items that were included to assess beliefs about bisexuality as an orientation were excluded fromthe factor analysis.
Second, eight items with factorloadings of less than .50 on the factor were omitted.
Third, item 9 (Bisexual individuals are promiscuous) was left unanswered by a number of subjects; therefore, it was deemed problematic and omitted fromthe scale.
Finally, item 29 (I have damaged the property of bisexual people [such as "keying" their cars]) had significantly low variance and was omitted. Following these modifications, the scale contained 30 items (Appendix D). Items that examined an individual's cognitive (n = 13), affective(n = 8), behavioral avoidance (n = 5), or behavioral acting out (n = 4) reactions were all represented within this one-factor solution.
While the six belief items were not included in the factoranalysis of the scale, means and standard deviations were computed foreach item. The mean score for item
3 (Bisexual people are really just in transition from one sexual orientation to another, i.e., heterosexual to homosexual) was 4.43 (SD= 1.45). The mean score was 4.86 (SD
= 1.10) for item 10 (Bisexual people are just denying the fact that they are actually homosexual). The mean score for item 14 (Bisexual individuals are actually gay or straight and just experimenting with the other gender) was 4.37 (SD= 1.34). The mean score foritem 30 (Bisexual people are looking for the best of both worlds) was
3.91 (S.12= 1.48). The mean score was 4.62 (S.12= 1.21) for item 31 (Bisexual people 20 are trying to avoid the stigma of being homosexual). Finally, the mean score foritem
37 (Bisexuality is a real sexual orientation) was 3.03 (fil2 = 1.66). An analysis of variance (ANOV A) was conducted on the scores for the six belief items. A significant effect was found,E (5, 2404) = 93.0501, p < .001. Post hoc analysis (Scheffe contrasts) of the effectdemonstrated that item 37 was significantly lower than all other items. Item 30 was also significantlylower than items 3, 10, 14, and 31. Item 10 was also significantly higher than items 3 and 14. PHASE 3: TEST-RETEST RELIABILITY
The goals of Phase 3 of this study were (a) to determine the test-retest reliability; (b) to evaluate the correlation of the Biphobia Scale with a measure of homophobia; and (c) to determine the factorstructure of the revised version of the
Biphobia Scale.
Methods
Participants
Two hundred twenty-four students (49 heterosexual men, 143 heterosexual women, 18 homosexual men, 6 homosexual women, 2 bisexual men, and 5 bisexual women) were recruited from a large Mid-Westernuniversity's undergraduate courses and the university's gay, lesbian, and bisexual organizations (Appendix B).
Demographic data are presented in Table 2.
Materials and Procedures
Participants gave informed consent (Appendix C) and completed the revised scale on two separate occasions, one week apart, to determine test-retest reliability.
The first administration consisted of the participants completing the revised version of
the Biphobia Scale, a demographic questionnaire, the Homophobia Scale (Wright,
21 22 Table 2
Phase 3 Demographic Data
n (%) n (%) Gender Race Female 155 31 Caucasian 190 85 Male 69 69 African-American 9 4 Self-reported Orientation Asian-American 5 2 Heterosexual 193 86 Hispanic 4 2 Bisexual 7 3 International 3 1 Homosexual 24 11 American Indian 3 1 Marital Status Multiracial 2 1 Single 189 84 Malaysian 2 1 Married/Partnered 16 7 Other 6 3 Divorced 1 .5 Religion Living with 18 8 Catholic 70 32 boy/girlfriend Lutheran 19 9 Education Methodist 18 8 Freshman 58 26 Baptist 13 6 Sophomore 45 20 Christian Reform 13 6 Junior 50 22 Non-Denom Christian 13 6 Senior 65 29 Presbyterian 11 5 Some graduate school 3 1 Atheist 4 2 Graduate degree 2 1 Muslim 4 2 Missing 1 .5 Agnostic 3 1 Community raised in Greek Orthodox 3 1 Rural 71 32 United Church of Christ 3 1 Suburban 36 16 None 28 13 Urban 115 51 Other 11 5 Missing 2 1 Missing 5 2 Age M (years) 21.22 SD= 4.12 Range = 18-46
Adams, & Bernat, in press), and a modified Kinsey Heterosexual-Homosexual Rating
Scale (Bell & Weinberg, 1978; Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948) in large group testing sessions. The Homophobia Scale is a 25-item measure, which contains items 23 that assesses an individual's cognitive, affective, and behavioral reactions to homosexual individuals. Exploratory factoranalysis of the Homophobia Scale revealed a three-factorsolution accounting for approximately 70% of the scale variance. The first factorcontains 10 items which primarily assess an individual's negative affect and avoidance of homosexual individuals. Factor two contains 10 items which primarily assess behavioral acting out against homosexual individuals.
Finally, factor three contains 5 items which primarily assess an individual's cognitions regarding homosexual individuals. The modified Kinsey Heterosexual
Homosexual Rating Scale consists of Kinsey, Pomeroy, and Martin's (1948) continuum assessing an individual's past sexual behaviors, Bell and Weinberg's
(1978) continuum assessing an individual's erotic fantasies, and a section forthe individual to mark whether he/she considered him/herself heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, or asexual. Copies of all measures have been included in Appendix E. It took participants approximately 15 minutes to complete these measures. Since the data from the first administration of Phase 3 needed to be matched with the data from the second administration of Phase 3, participants were instructed to use a four digit secret number that had some significance to them as their participation number. They were asked to write their participation number on the forms during both administrations. One week after the first administration two hundred participants (46 heterosexual men, 123 heterosexual women, 18 homosexual men, 6 homosexual women, 2 bisexual men, and 5 bisexual women) again completed the Biphobia Scale 24 and the demographic questionnaire in large group testing sessions. It took participants
approximately three minutes to complete these two measures.
Results
Descriptive statistics were computed on the Biphobia Scale. The means and
standard deviations for each item are provided in Table 3. Item-total summary
statistics, including reliability data, are provided in Table 4. The scale yielded an
overall alpha reliability coefficientof a = 0.94 and a I-week test-retest reliability of!
= 0.93 (computed on 89.2% of the original sample).
The mean score forthe Biphobia Scale, based on 224 subjects, was 29.79 (SD
= 23.51). The subjects' scores on the Biphobia Scale were computed by reverse
scoring the 23 items which are phrased in a negative direction, adding the scores for
all items together, and then subtracting 30 fromthat number. That range of possible
scores is Oto 150. The mean scores and standard deviations of each group are
presented in Table 5.
The data was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) Gender (2) x
Sexual Orientation (3). The interaction effect (Gender x Sexual Orientation) and the
main effect forGender were not significant at the 0.05 level. The main effect for
sexual orientation was significant, E (2, 217)= 8.786, 12 <0.001. Post hoc analysis
(Scheffe contrasts) of the Sexual Orientation main effectdemonstrated significantly
higher scores for the heterosexual sample (M = 32.28, SD= 23.96) than the
homosexual sample (M = 13.33, SD= 12.73). Due to the limited statistical power 25 Table 3
Means and Standard Deviations forthe 30-Item Biphobia Scale
Item Mean SD 1 5.23 1.14 2 4.58 1.66 3 3.07 1.48 4 2.13 1.49 5 2.40 1.54 6 5.40 1.07 7 5.35 1.21 8 5.11 1.32 9 4.96 1.27 10 5.54 1.10 11 2.69 1.77 12 5.22 1.17 13 5.17 1.18 14 4.73 1.63 15 5.01 1.45 16 3.42 1.78 17 4.79 1.40 18 5.61 0.77 19 4.33 1.72 20 1.89 1.29 21 5.09 1.14 22 5.30 1.03 23 5.52 0.92 24 5.39 1.07 25 5.45 1.13 26 5.54 0.91 27 5.05 1.23 28 5.34 1.13 29 2.41 1.69 30 5.51 0.99 26 Table 4
Item-Total Summary Statistics forthe 30-Item Biphobia Scale
Scale mean Scale Corrected Squared Alpha Item if variance if item-total multiple if item No. item deleted item deleted correlation correlation deleted 1 28.02 513.57 0.74 0.63 0.9330 2 27.37 500.50 0.67 0.67 0.9334 3 26.72 516.54 0.51 0.55 0.9354 4 27.66 511.77 0.58 0.64 0.9346 5 27.39 511.65 0.56 0.60 0.9348 6 28.18 522.32 0.60 0.51 0.9345 7 28.14 532.51 0.34 0.41 0.9370 8 27.89 521.89 0.49 0.38 0.9356 9 27.74 516.45 0.60 0.49 0.9343 10 28.32 522.57 0.59 0.50 0.9345 11 27.10 503.97 0.58 0.57 0.9349 12 28.00 522.72 0.54 0.42 0.9350 13 27.96 517.38 0.63 0.62 0.9340 14 27.52 514.35 0.48 0.38 0.9360 15 27.78 519.02 0.48 0.44 0.9358 16 26.36 505.20 0.56 0.50 0.9352 17 27.57 527.22 0.37 0.46 0.9370 18 28.38 530.88 0.58 0.49 0.9351 19 27.13 502.01 0.62 0.56 0.9341 20 27.89 519.41 0.54 0.51 0.9349 21 27.86 524.51 0.52 0.48 0.9352 22 28.09 517.44 0.74 0.69 0.9333 23 28.30 525.46 0.63 0.53 0.9345 24 28.18 524.51 0.56 0.43 0.9349 25 28.23 524.60 0.52 0.69 0.9352 26 28.33 527.84 0.58 0.66 0.9349 27 27.84 509.32 0.76 0.69 0.9326 28 28.13 517.38 0.66 0.62 0.9338 29 27.38 508.44 0.54 0.47 0.9352 30 28.29 522.30 0.65 0.57 0.9342 27 Table 5
Means and Standard Deviations for the Biphobia Scale
Sample Mean SD Range
All subjects (n = 224) 29.79 23.51 0-139 Heterosexual individuals (n = 192) 32.28 23.96 0-139 Heterosexual men (n = 49) 42.00 26.45 0-139 Heterosexual women (n = 143) 28.95 22.18 0-100 Homosexual individuals (n = 24) 13.33 12.73 0-47 Homosexual men (n = 18) 12.22 10.59 0-38 Homosexual women (n= 6) 16.67 18.63 0-47 Bisexual individuals (n = 7) 15.71 10.27 0-30 Bisexual men (n = 2) 17.50 4.95 14-21 Bisexual women (n = 5) 15.00 12.25 0 -30 associated with the unequal sample sizes, an additional analysis was conducted to further clarify the obtained data. The data was recoded to distinguish between the individual samples, i.e., heterosexual men, heterosexual women, homosexual men, etc. An ANOVA examining these groups' scores on the Biphobia Scale was significant, E (5, 217) = 6.169, Q < 0.001. Scheffepost hoc comparisons demonstrated a significant difference between the means of heterosexual men (M = 42.0, SD=
26.45) and heterosexual women (M = 28.95, SD= 22.18) (Q < 0.01). There was also a significant differencefound between heterosexual men and homosexual men (M=
12.22, SD = 10.59) (Q < 0.001). The mean difference between heterosexual women and homosexual men was also found to be significant (Q < 0.05). All results were replicated using retest data as well. 28 The overall Pearson product moment correlation between the Biphobia Scale and the Homophobia Scale, r = 0.83, 12 <0.001, demonstrated a strong positive correlation. When examining the correlation between the two measures by sexual orientation the correlation remained stable for the heterosexual sample, r = 0.84, 12 <
0.001. However, the correlation forthe homosexual sample is! = 0.13, 12 <0.56.
The revised Biphobia Scale's inter-item correlation matrix was examined to
2 determine its adequacy forfactor analysis. Bartlett's Test of Sphericity (X 435
3496.896, 12 < 0.001) and the Kasier-Meyer-Olkin Measure of sampling adequacy
(0.92) both indicate that the correlation matrix was suitable for factoranalysis.
Exploratory factoranalysis was conducted using the Maximum Likelihood Solution
(Harman, 1976) with Direct Oblimin rotation. Similar to the analysis of the original
46-item pool, this analysis revealed six factors with eigen values greater than one which together explain 61 % of the variance; however, again only one factor individually explained greater than 7% of the variance. Therefore, Cattell's (1966) scree test was used to determine the number of factorsto retain. Examination of the scree plot demonstrated the presence of one factor, accounting for38% of the variance (Figure 2). The factor loadings for each item are presented in Table 6. 29 Scree Plot 12
10
8
Eig 6 en val 4 ue
2
0 5
Factor Number
Figure 2. Phase 3 Scree Plot.
Discussion
The primary goals of this study were to (a) provide empirical support for the existence of the construct of bi phobia; (b) to empirically demonstrate that bi phobia exists in both the heterosexual and homosexual communities; (c) to develop and validate a scale that measures the cognitive, affective, and behavioral components of biphobia; and (d) to provide initial psychometric characteristics of the new instrument.
The data supports what theorists (Bennett, 1992; Eliason, 1997; Eliason &
Raheim, 1996; Farajeje'-Jones, 1995; Klein, 1993; Ochs, 1996; Ochs & Deihl, 1992;
Trnka, 1995, Weinberg et al., 1994) have hypothesized, that biphobia exists and is found in both heterosexual and homosexual individuals. The scores obtained on the
Biphobia Scale suggest that biphobia, as measured by this instrument, is present in 30 Table 6
Factor Analysis and Loadings forthe Biphobia Scale
Factor Loadin 1. I do not like bisexual individuals. 0.77 2. I think bisexuality is wrong. 0.68 3. I would like to have a bisexual as a neighbor. 0.52 4. I would be friendswith a person who is bisexual. 0.59 5. I am comfortable around bisexual individuals. 0.57 6. I discriminate against bisexual people. 0.63 7. I would hit a bisexual person for coming on to me. 0.34 8. Bisexual individuals spread AIDS to the heterosexual population. 0.50 9. Bisexual people make me nervous. 0.63 10. Bisexual individuals deserve to get discriminated against. 0.61 11. Bisexuality is acceptable to me. 0.56 12. I do not think that bisexual people should work with children. 0.56 13. I make derogatory remarks about bisexual people. 0.65 14. Bisexual people should not get married. 0.48 15. Bisexual individuals are not capable of monogamous 0.48 relationships. 16. I would be comfortable having a bisexual roommate. 0.55 17. I tease and joke about bisexual people. 0.39 18. You cannot trust a person who is bisexual. 0.62 19. I would get angry if a bisexual person made sexual advances 0.61 towards me. 20. I think I could work with a bisexual person. 0.54 21. I get anxious when I have to interact with bisexual people. 0.55 22. I avoid bisexual people. 0.78 23. When I meet a bisexual person I think, "What a waste." 0.67 24. I have rocky relationships with people I suspect are bisexual. 0.59 25. Bisexual people want to have sex with everybody. 0.58 26. Bisexual people are not capable of controlling their sexual 0.63 impulses. 27. I feel uneasy around bisexual people. 0.79 28. I would not go to a public place where I knew there would be 0.72 bisexual individuals. 29. It does not matter to me if my friendsare bisexual. 0.54 30. I would not want to talk to someone I knew was bisexual. 0.69 31 heterosexual men and women and homosexual men and women. The data also suggests the existence of internalized biphobia; however, this study contained a very small sample of bisexual men and women, which makes conclusions forthis population impossible. Although, the heterosexual sample scored significantly higher than the homosexual sample, the range of scores demonstrate that some homosexual individuals scored moderately high on the Biphobia Scale. This indicates that while the level of biphobia may not be as severe in the homosexual community it is present.
There are several possible reasons why the heterosexual sample scored higher than the homosexual sample. First, the results of this study demonstrate that heterosexual individuals view bisexual and homosexual individuals as similar.
Research has demonstrated that homophobia is related to a variety of factors.
Individuals may have rigid conservative beliefs about sexuality or there may be a personality trend towards prejudice (Ficarrotto, 1990). The question as to whether same-sex sexual behavior is morally right oftencontributes to homophobia
(O'Donohue & Caselles, 1993) and negative attitudes regarding bisexual individuals
(Mohr & Rochlen, 1999). Therefore, while a heterosexual individual's level of biphobia may be increased by viewing same-sex behavior as deviant, a homosexual individual's level of biphobia may not be influenced by these conservative beliefs.
Second, homosexual individuals may also be more sensitive to the issues involved in discrimination due to the prejudices they facein regards to their own lifestyle.
Finally, the homosexual individuals may have more interactions with bisexual individuals because many support organizations are inclusive of homosexual and 32 bisexual individuals. Limited personal contact with bisexual individuals has been demonstrated to correlate with negative attitudes regarding bisexuality (Mohr &
Rochlen, 1999). More frequent interactions may allow the homosexual individuals to see beyond the stereotypes associated with bisexuality, leading to an examination of the person, rather than the sexual orientation.
The results of this study indicate that heterosexual men are more bi phobic than heterosexual women and homosexual men. It was also foundthat heterosexual women scored higher on the Biphobia Scale than homosexual men. Heterosexual men scoring higher than heterosexual women is consistent with results from studies on areas believed to be similar, yet distinct, from biphobia. For example, heterosexual men score higher on measures of homophobia (Johnson, Brems, & Alford-Keating,
1997; Kite, 1984; Young, Gallaher, Marriott, & Kelly, 1993) and AIDS-Phobia
(Harrell & Wright, 1998). While the exact reason forthe gender differencesin level of homophobia is debatable, the difference has consistently been demonstrated. In addition, the research on violence and victimization of homosexual individuals shows that approximately 85% of the known perpetrators are male (Berrill, 1990). Further, the results of a study by Adams, Wright, and Lohr (1996) indicate that men who scored high on the Homophobia Scale and admitted negative feelings towards homosexuality demonstrated significant sexual arousal to male homosexual explicit stimuli. This finding suggests that higher levels of homophobia may be related to the man's own same-sex attractions. This factormay contribute to why heterosexual men scored higher on the Biphobia Scale since bisexual men also engage in same-sex 33 behavior. Separately, both heterosexual men and heterosexual women scored higher than homosexual men did. As stated above, conservative beliefs about sexuality on the part of heterosexual individuals, homosexual individuals' sensitivity to discrimination as a sexual minority, and more consistent interactions between homosexual and bisexual individuals may all contribute to a lower overall level of biphobia forhomosexual men. It is important to note that the results demonstrated that the mean differences between heterosexual men and homosexual women approached statistical significance (Q.= 0.09). If this trend were to continue, with a larger sample size of homosexual women, the mean differencebetween these two groups might reach significance. Similar results were found between the heterosexual men and bisexual women (Q.= 0.10). Again, significance might be reached with a larger sample of bisexual women.
The Biphobia Scale demonstrated strong internalconsistency and test-retest reliability. The overall correlation between the Biphobia Scale and the Homophobia
Scale was relatively strong suggesting that overall the sample demonstrated similar levels of bi phobia and homophobia. However, it is important to note the differencein the correlations of the two measures when the groups were separated by sexual orientation.
While the correlation for the heterosexual sample remained stable, the correlation for the homosexual sample dropped substantially. Examination of the two correlations indicated that while the heterosexual sample seemed to view homosexual and bisexual individuals as similar, the homosexual samples saw the two orientations 34 as distinctly different. This provides support for the theory purposed by Klein (1993) stating that while bisexual individuals have similar attractions as both heterosexual and homosexual individuals, it is the differencein the bisexual individual's attractions that keeps them isolated. Their attraction for the opposite sex isolates them from the homosexual community, while their same-sex attraction isolates them from the heterosexual community. Furthermore, the correlation between the two instruments forthe homosexual men alone was r = 0.15. The correlation between the Homophobia
Scale and the Biphobia Scale for the homosexual women sample alone was r = 0.76, which is moderately strong. However, this latter correlation is derived on a sample size of six, which limits it power, thus making conclusions impossible. If, with a larger sample, the correlation remained high it would suggest that homosexual women view bisexual individuals similar to how they view homosexual individuals.
Results of the Phase 3 exploratory factor analysis identifieda one-factor solution, which supports the findings from Phase 2 of this study. Items assessing cognitions, affect, and behaviors were included on the finalversion of the scale. This one factorsolution goes against what was hypothesized. Based on the development of the Homophobia Scale, it was believed that the Biphobia Scale would have a three factor solution, with items loading on a behavioral avoidance factor, a behavioral acting out factor, and a cognitive factor. A possible reason forthis one factorsolution is the bisexual individual's ability to "get by" in both the heterosexual and homosexual communities (Rust, 1995). This ability makes it difficultfor heterosexual and homosexual individuals to discern who is bisexual. This uncertainty might lead 35 heterosexual and homosexual individuals to determine that they do not like bisexual individuals, but makes it difficult for them to avoid or to act out against this community. Thus, the subjects may have based their responses to behavioral items on a hypothesis of what they would do, rather than what they have done. A second explanation forthe one factor solution is that bisexual women and men were not differentiatedon this measure. The inclusion of both genders on one measure might have led to subjects being more general with their responses to all items. If the scale was gender specific individuals might be more likely to specifytheir behavioral reactions. For instance, a heterosexual male might be more likely to act out towards a bisexual male than towards a bisexual female. This relationship has not been conclusively demonstrated concerninghomophobia and the gender of the homosexual individual (Herek, 1984). However, biphobia has been shown to be a distinct construct and the attraction of bisexual individuals to both genders may provide results in contrast to those that examine homophobia.
This study not only examined biphobia, but also began preliminary empirical examination of beliefs that exist about the orientation of bisexuality. The quantitative results of the belief items suggest that subjects were more likely to endorse that bisexuality is a real sexual orientation than any of the other beliefs about the orientation. The mean score for item 37 (Bisexuality is a real sexual orientation) was statistically the lowest of the six belief items indicating that this belief was most strongly positively endorsed. A visual examination of responses revealed that participants most frequentlyendorsed a response of a 1 or 2, on a 6-point scale, to 36 item 37, further indicating that a high number of individuals in this sample agreed that bisexuality is a real sexual orientation. There was a variety of response patternsto these six items. Some individuals marked all the items similarly, which might indicate their confusion about bisexuality. Some individuals rated item 37 low and the other five items at the higher end of the 6-point Likert scale. This suggests they believed that bisexuality is a real sexual orientation. Other individuals rated item 37 at the higher end and had low ratings forthe other fiveitems. This patternof responses might indicate that while they do not believe that bisexuality really exists as an orientation they are not sure what motivates a bisexual individual to pursue this lifestyle.
Potential limitations of this study must be noted. First, the sample utilized for the study was rather homogeneous in nature. It was largely Caucasian individuals in their early twenties. It is unclear how this limited diversity may effectthe generalization of these results to differing populations. A sample from a different region of the country or an urban or rural community might provide different results.
Second, as stated before, the size of the heterosexual sample and homosexual sample were quite different, with the number of homosexual women being quite low. It is uncertain how the psychometrics of the scale may be modified if a larger homosexual sample was used. Finally, while a bisexual sample was not explicitly recruited, the natural make up of university classes and organizations revealed a number of subjects with this orientation. However, the sample size was too small to make statistical compansons. 37 With empirical evidence now available that supports the existence of biphobia, future research should be conducted to expand our knowledge in the followingareas: First, the difference in the correlations between the Biphobia Scale and the Homophobia Scale forthe homosexual men and women samples needs to be explored further. The differences found in this study leads to numerous questions, but the analysis needs to be conducted with more adequate sample sizes to determine if these differencesremain constant. Second, an adequate bisexual.• sample size should be sought. This would allow exploration of the correlation of biphobia and homophobia in the bisexual community. It would also be interesting to examine the existence of internalized biphobia. Third, it would be important to examine how the discrimination and prejudice of bisexual men differs from the discrimination and prejudice of bisexual women. It is possible that the level of bi phobia might be associated with the gender of the bisexual individual in combination with the gender and sexual orientation of the individual completing the measure. Bi phobia measures that are gender specific in their focus could be developed to allow these comparisons to be made. Fourth, the initial analysis of the belief items indicates that there is a variety of differingbeliefs about bisexuality. This study was unable to examine how or if these differences vary based on sexual orientation. Future research should be done to further clarify these differences. Finally, it is important for future research to replicate this study with a variety of samples to determine if these findings generalize to more diverse populations, such as individuals who live in larger cities and different regions of the country. 38 In summary, a new 30-item instrument was developed to measure negative cognitions, affect, and behaviors regarding bisexuality and bisexual individuals. The instrument has provided empirical evidence of the existence of the construct of biphobia and has demonstrated that it exists in both the heterosexual and homosexual communities. The Biphobia Scale has demonstrated strong internalconsistency and test-retest reliability. The scale was demonstrated to have a strong correlation with a measure of homophobia in the heterosexual population, but a weak correlation in the homosexual population. While further research is needed to replicate the psychometric properties of the Biphobia Scale, the scale shows promise foruse as a research and clinical tool. .
Appendix A
Initial Biphobia Scale
39 40
This questionnaire is designed to measure your thoughts, feelings, and behaviors with regards to bisexual individuals. It is not a test, so there arc no right or wrong answers. Answer each item by circling the number after each question as follows:
t/..) ,'I.J t/..) ,'I.J ·"'� � -0 -0 � � I: I: & &
I. I do not like bisexual individuals. 2 3 4 s 6 2. I think bisexuality is wrong. 2 3 4 s 6 3. Oiscxual people arc really just in transition from one sexual orientation to another, i.e., heterosexual to homosexual. 2 3 4 5 6 4. Oiscxual people deserve the same rights as all people. 2 3 4 s 6 5. I would like to have a bisexual person as a neighbor. 2 3 4 5 6 6. I would be friends with a person who is bisexual. 2 3 4 - S 6 7. I would date a person who is bisexual. 2 3 4 5 6 8. I am comfortable around bisexual individuals. 2 3 4 s 6 9. Oisexual individuals are promiscuous. 2 3 4 s 6 10. Oisexual people arc just denying the fact that they are actually homosexual. 2 3 4 5 6 I I. I discriminate against bisexual people. 2 3 4 5 6 12. I would hit a bisexual person for coming on to me. 2 3 4 5 6
13. Bisexual individuals spread AIDS to the heterosexual population. 2 3 4 5 6
14. Bisexual individuals arc actually gay or straight and just experimenting with the other gender. 2 3 4 s 6 15. l3isexual people make me nervous. 2 3 4 s 6 I (1 Bisexual individuals deserve. lo get discriminated against. 2 3 4 5 6
I 7. llisexuality is acccplablt: lu me. 2 1 4 ) (, IS I do nol think bisexual pc,1plc s!H11dd work with children. 2 1 -1 5 6
I'! I 111akc dcrog,tlory n.:marks ahnul bisexual people. 2 1 4 5 6
20. lliscxual pc0plc should mil gel married. 2 1 4 5 6 5 6 21 Bisexual individuals are not capable of monogamous relationships. 2 1 ,1 (1 2::! lliscxual people .tr<' co11!"11,cd ahoul their true sexual orientation 2 1 '1 s �'... , I \\·nuld he <"<11111',,rtahk l1;1\•i111: a hi,cxual roommate. 1 ' 1 � (, 41
'-' ·"'� <1l'$;
f2 f2 0 0 24. I tease and joke about bisexual people. 2 3 4 5 6
25. You cannot trust a person who is bisexual. 2 3 4 5 6 26. I would engage in sexual behavior with a bisexual person. 2 3 4 5 6
27. I would get angryif a bisexual person made sexual advances towards me. 2 3 4 5 6 28. Organizations that promote bisexual rights are necessary. 2 3 4 5 6 29. I have damaged the property of bisexual people (such as "keying" their cars). 2 3 4 5 6 30. Bisexual people are looking for the best of both worlds. 2 3 4 5 6
3 I. Bisexual people are trying to avoid the stigma of being homosexual. 2 3 4 5 6
32. I think I could work with a bisexual person. 2 3 4 5 6
33. Bisexual behavior should not be against the law. 2 3 4 5 6
34. I get anxious when I have to interact with bisexual people. 2 3 4 5 6
35. I avoid bisexual people. 2 3 4 5 6
36 When I meet a bisexual person I think, "Whal a waste." 2 3 4 5 6
3 7. Bisexuality is a real sexual orientation. 2 3 4 5 6
38. I have rocky relationships with people I suspect arc bisexual. 2 3 4 5 6
39. I think that bisexual people want to have sex with everybody. 2 3 4 5 6
40. I do not think that bisexual people are capable of controlling their sexual impulses. 2 3 4 s 6 4 I. I would beat up a person I knew was bisexual. 2 3 4 5 6 42. I have verbally harassed a bisexual person. 2 3 4 s 6 4.l. I feel uneasy around bisexual people. 2 3 4 5 6
.-1,1 I would 1101 go 10 a public place where I knew there would be
uisexual individuals 2 3 4 5 6
-1:', It docs 1101 111allcr to 111e i( 111y rricnds arc bisexual 2 3 4 s (, ,H,. I would 1101 want 10 tall; tn srn11co11c I knew was uiscxual. 2 3 '1 5 <, Appendix B
Oral Recruitment Scripts
42 43 Oral Recruitment Script (Phase 1)
Hello, my name is ______, and I am here to ask for your help in completing a study entitled "Attitudes Towards Bisexuality." This study is looking at the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that individuals have regarding bisexuality and bisexual individuals. If you decide to participate, you will be asked to complete one questionnaire that assess various types of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors individuals have in response to bisexuality and bisexual individuals. The questionnaires are completed anonymously, which means that your name cannot be tied to the information you provide. It should take approximately 5 minutes to complete. We also want to remind you that you can withdraw from the study with absolutely no penalty. If you are interested in participating, please remain seated so you can be given the questionnaires.
Thank you foryour time. 44 Oral Recruitment Script (Phase 2)
Hello, my name is ______, and I am here to ask for your help in completing a study entitled "Attitudes Towards Bisexuality." This study is looking at the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that individuals have regarding bisexuality and bisexual individuals. This study consists of two parts. If you decide to participate you will be asked to complete two sets of questionnaires, one week apart. The first session will consist of seven short questionnaires that assess various thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. The second session will take place one week later, will consist of one questionnaire, which was included in part one of the study. The questionnaires are completed anonymously, which means that your name cannot be tied to the informationyou provide. The firstsession should take approximately 20 minutes to complete. The second part should take about 5 minutes to complete. We also want to remind you that you can withdraw fromthe study with absolutely no penalty. If you are interested in participating, please remain seated so you can be given a packet of questionnaires.
Thank you foryour time. Appendix C
Protocol Approval and Consent Forms
45 \ ' I /. • \ \ Human Sub,ts lnstrutonal Revw Board _i __ ) J' Kalamazo. Michigan 49-39 ' / ' / 46 ------•------WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSIT
Date: 4 June 1998 To: Lester Wright, Principal Investigator Patrick Mulick, Student Investigator From: Richard Wright, Chair � Q '71M&- Re: HSIRB Project Number 98-05-03
This letter will serve as confirmation that your research project entitled "Attitudes Toward Bisexuality" has been approved under the expedited category of review by the Human Subjects Institutional Review Board. The conditions and duration of this approval are _specified in the Policies of Western Michigan University. You may now begin to implement the research as described in the application.
Please note that you may only conduct this research exactly in the form it was approved. You must seek specific board approval for any changes in this project. You must also seek reapproval if the project extends beyond the termination date noted below. In addition if there are any unanticipated adverse reactions or unanticipated events associated with the conduct of this research, you should immediately suspend the project and contact the Chair of the HSIRB for consultation.
The Board wishes you success in the pursuit of your research goals.
Approval Terrrjnation: 4 June 1999 47
WesternMichigan University Department of Psychology
Principal Investigator: Lester W. Wright, Jr., Ph.D. Student Researcher: Patrick Mulick, M.A.
You are invited to participate in a research project entitled "Attitudes Towards Bisexuality" designed to study the variety of reactions that individuals have regarding bisexuality and bisexual individuals being conducted by Dr. Lester Wright and Patrick Mulick from Western Michigan University, Department of Psychology. This research is part of the thesis requirements for Patrick Mulick. This survey is comprised of 46 questions and will take approximately 5 minutes to complete. Your replies will be completely anonymous, so do not put your name anywhere on the form. You may choose not to answer any question and simply leave it blank. If you choose to not participate in this survey, you may either return the blank survey or may discard it in the box provided. Participation or not will have no effect on your WMU class grades. Returning the survey indicates your consent. for the use of the answers you supply. If you have any questions, you may contact either Dr. Lester Wright at 616-387-4472 or Patrick Mulick at 616-387-4459. You may also contact the Chair of Human Subjects Institutional Review Board at 616-387- 8293 or the Vice President for Research at 616-387-8298 with any concerns you may have. This consent document has been approved foruse for one year by the Human Subjects Institutional Review Board as indicated by the stamped date and signature of the board chair in the upper right comer. You should not participate in this project if the comer does not have a stamped date and signature. 48 Western Michigan University Department of Psychology
Principal Investigator: Lester W. Wright, Jr., Ph.D. Student Researcher: Patrick Mulick, M.A.
You are invited to participate in a research project entitled "Attitudes Towards Bisexuality" designed to study the variety of reactions that individuals have regarding bisexuality and bisexual individuals being conducted by Dr. Lester Wright and Patrick Mulick from WesternMichigan University, Department of Psychology. This research is part of the thesis requirements for Patrick Mulick. This survey is being conducted in two sessions. In the firstsession you be asked to complete seven questionnaires that will take you approximately 20 minutes to complete. The second session you will be asked to complete one questionnaire that will take approximately 5 minutes. Your replies will be completely anonymous, so do not put your name anywhere on the form. However, since the data from the first administration will need to be matched with data from the second administration you will be asked to use a 4-digit secret code that has some meaning to you for your participation number. You will be asked to write your participation number on all the forms. The use of the 4-digit secret code is fororganizational purposes and will not allow us to identify you in any way. You may choose not to answer any question and simply leave it blank. If you choose to not participate in this survey, you may either return the blank survey or may discard it in the box provided. Participation or not will have no effect on your WMU class grades. Returningthe survey indicates your consent for the use of the answers you supply. If you have any questions, you may contact either Dr. Lester Wright at 616-387-4472 or Patrick Mulick at 616-387-4459. You may also contact the Chair of Human Subjects Institutional Review Board at 616-387-8293 or the Vice President forResearch at 616-387-8298 with any concerns you may have. This consent document has been approved for use forone year by the Human Subjects Institutional Review Board as indicated by the stamped date and signature of the board chair in the upper right corner. You should not participate in this project if the corner does not have a stamped date and signature. Appendix D
Revised Biphobia Scale•
49 This questionnaireis designed to measureyour thoughts, feelings, and behaviors with regards to bisexual 50 individuals. It is not a test, so there are no right or wrong answers. Answereach item by circling the number after each question as follows:
. 4"& '11� -s- -0 � � � [; f? &) &) I. I do not like bisexual individuals. 2 3 4 5 6 2. I think bisexuality is wrong. 2 3 4 5 6 3. I would like to have a bisexual person as aneighbor. 2 3 4 5 6 4. I would befriends with a personwho is bisexual. 2 3 4 5 6 5. I am comfortable around bisexual individuals. 2 3 4 5 6 6. I discriminate against bisexual people. 2 3 4 5 6 7. I would hit a bisexualperson for coming on to me. 2 3 4 5 6 Bisexualindividuals spreadAIDS to the heterosexual population. 2 3 8. 4 5 6 9. Bisexual peoplemake menervous. 2 3 4 5 6 10. Bisexual individuals deserveto getdiscriminated against. 2 3 4 5 6 11. Bisexualityis acceptableto me. 2 3 4 5 6 12. I do not thinkbisexual people should work with children. 2 3 4 5 6 13. I make derogatory remarks about bisexual people. 2 3 4 5 6 14. Bisexual people should not get married. 2 3 4 5 6 15. Bisexual individuals are not capableof monogamous relationships. 2 3 4 5 6 16. I would becomfortable having a bisexual roommate. 2 3 4 5 6 17. I tease and joke about bisexual people. 2 3 4 5 6 18. You cannot trust a personwho is bisexual. 2 3 4 5 6 19. I wouldget angry if a bisexualperson made sexual advances towards me. 2 3 4 5 6 20. I think I could work with a bisexual person. 2 3 4 5 6 21. I getanxious when I have to interact with bisexual people. 2 3 4 5 6 21. I avoid bisexual people. 2 3 4 5 6 23. When I meet a bisexual person I think, "What a waste." 2 3 4 5 6 24. I have rocky relationshipswith people I suspect are bisexual. 2 3 4 5 6 25. Bisexual people want to havesex with everybody. 2 3 4 5 6 26. Bisexual people are not capableof controlling their sexual impulses. 2 3 4 5 6 27. I feel uneasyaround bisexual people. 2 3 4 5 6 28. I would not go to a public place where I knew there would be bisexual individuals. 2 3 4 5 6 29. [t does not matter to me if my friends are bisexual. 2 3 4 5 6 30. I would not want to talk to someone I knew was bisexual. 2 3 4 5 6 Appendix E
Measures
51 52
Modified Kinsey Scale
Which of the following best describes your sexual behavior? Please rate the extent to which you have engaged in opposite-sex or same-sex behaviors using the scale below. Rate only your behaviors not your sexual thoughts or fantasies. Read all responses before indicating your answer. Circle only one response.
X No sexual experiences have occurred
0 Only opposite-sex contacts have occurred l Mostly opposite-sex, but a few same-sex contacts have occurred 2 More opposite-sex, but some same-sex contacts have occurred 3 Equal opposite-sex and same-sex contacts have occurred 4 More same-sex, but some opposite-sex contacts have occurred 5 Mostly same-sex, but a fewopposite-sex contacts have occurred 6 Only same-sex contacts have occurred
Which of the following statements best describes your sexual fantasies or thoughts? Please rate the extent to which you engage in opposite-sex or same-sex sexual fantasies or thoughts. Rate only your sexual fantasies or thoughts not your behaviors. Read all responses before indicating your answer. Circle only one response. Note: a person's sexual fantasiesor thoughts may differ from their behavior.
0 Only opposite-sex fantasies or thoughts have occurred I Mostly opposite-sex, but a few same-sex fantasies or thoughts have occurred 2 More opposite-sex, but some same-sex fantasies or thoughts have occurred 3 Equal opposite-sex and same-sex fantasies or thoughts have occurred 4 More same-sex, but some opposite-sex fantasies or thoughts have occurred 5 Mostly same-sex, but a fewopposite-sex fantasies or thoughts have occurred 6 Only same-sex fantasies or thoughts have occurred
I consider my sexual orientation to be: Heterosexual Bixl Homosexual Axl 53
Subject ID ___
Demographic Data
Gender: ___ Male ___ Female
Age: ___ (in years)
Marital Status: ___ Single ___ Divorced ___ Married/Partnered ___ Living with boyfriend/girlfriend ___ Separated
Race: ___ Caucasian ___ African-American ___ Asian-American ___ Hispanic ___ American Indian ___ AlaskanNative ___ Pacific Islander ___ International/Non-US Resident ___ Multiracial (please specify) ______Other (please specify) ______
Education: ___ Freshman ___ Senior ___ Sophomore ___ Some graduate school ___ Junior ___ Graduate degree
Religion: ___ Catholic ___ Episcopal ___ Lutheran ___ Methodist ___ Presbyterian ___ Baptist ___ Jewish ___ ChristianReformed ___ Other (please specify) ______
Were you raised in a rural or urban area? Rural Urban Suburban 54
l ll1s {JIJL ·.110 11nJ11 1:;
Strongly •'\Jrc1; ., f,\J re" ,,, I\Jcitl1er agree nor d,sagrc,: <1 Disagree ·"' 5 Strongly disagree '- �� C) 0 1. Gay people make me nervous. 1 2 3 4 5 2. Gay people deserve what they get. 2 3 4 5 3. Homosexuality is_ acceptable to me. 2 3 4 5 4. If I discovered a friend was gay I would end the friendship. 2 3 4 5 5. I think homosexual people should not work with children. 2 3 4 5 6. make derogatory remarks about gay people. 2 3 4 5 7. I enjoy the company of gay people. 2 3 4 5 8. Marriage between homosexual individuals is accep:2i>le. 2 3 4 5 . 9. make derogatory remarks like "faggot" or "queer . ,o people suspect are gay. 2 3 4 5 10. It does not matter to me whether my friends are gav or straight. 2 3 4 5 11. It would not upset me if I learned that
Adams, H. E., Wright, L. W., & Lohr, B. A. (1996). Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal? Journalof Abnormal Psychology, 105, 440-445.
Allport, G. (1954). The nature ofprejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Bell, A. P. & Weinberg, M. S. (1978). Homosexuality: A study ofdiversity among men and women. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Bennett, K. (1992). Feminist bisexuality: A both/and option for an either/or world. In E. R. Weise (Ed.), Close to home: Bisexuality and feminism(pp. 205-231). Seattle, WA: The Seal Press.
Berkley, B. R., Perelman-Hall, T., & Kurdek, L. A. (1990). The multidimensional scale ofsexuality. Journalof Homosexuality, 19, 67-87.
Berrill, K. T. (1990). Anti-gay violence and victimization in the United States. Journal oflnter:personalViolence, 5, 274-294.
Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree plot fornumber offactors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245-276.
Chung, Y. B. & Katayama, M. ( 1996). Assessment ofsexual orientation in lesbian/gay/bisexual studies. Journalof Homosexuality. 30, 49-62.
Coleman, E. (1987a). Assessment of sexual orientation. Journalof Homosexuality. � 9-24.
Coleman, E. (1987b). Bisexuality: Challenging our understanding ofhuman sexuality and sexual orientation. In E.E. Shelp (Ed.), Sexuality and medicine. Volume I (pp. 225-242). Boston, MA: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
Eliason, M. J. (1997). The prevalence and nature ofbiphobia in heterosexual undergraduate students. Archives ofSexual Behavior,26, 317-326.
Eliason, M. J. & Raheim, S. (1996). Categorical measurement of attitudes about lesbian, gay, and bisexual people. Journal ofGay and Lesbian Social Services, �51-65.
55 56 Farajaje'-Jones, E. (1995). Fluid desire: Race, HIV/AIDS, and bisexual politics. In N. Tucker, L. Highleyman, & R. Kaplan (Eds.), Bisexual politics: Theories, queries, and visions (pp. 119-130). New York, NY: HarringtonPark Press.
Ficarrotto, T. J. (1990). Racism, sexism, and erotophobia: Attitudes of heterosexuals towards homosexuals. Journal of homosexuality, 19, 111-116.
Firestein, B. A. (1996). Bisexuality as paradigm shift: Transforming our discipline. In B. A. Firestein (Ed.), Bisexuality: The psychology and politics of an invisible minority (pp. 263-291). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGEPublications.
Fyfe, B. (1983). "Homophobia" or homosexual bias reconsidered. Archives ofSexual Behavior, 12, 549-554.
Garber, M. (1995). Vise versa: Bisexuality and the eroticism ofeveryday life. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
George, S. (1993). Women and bisexuality. London: ScarletPress.
Gonsiorek, J.C., Sell, R. L., & Weinrich, J. D. (1995). Definition and measurement of sexual orientation. Suicide and Life-ThreateningBehavior, 25, 40-51.
Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Haaga, D. (1991). "Homophobia?" Journalof Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 171-174.
Hansen, C. E., & Evans, A. (1985). Bisexuality reconsidered: An idea in pursuit of a definition. Journal ofHomosexuality, 11, 1-6.
Harman, B. H. (1976). Modem factor analysis (3rd. ed., revised).Chicago, IL: University ofChicago Press.
Harrell, J.P. & Wright, L.W. (1998). The development and validation of the Multicomponent AIDSPhobia Scale. Journal ofPsychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 20, 201-216.
Herek, G. M. (1984). Attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: A factor analytic study. Journal of Homosexuality, 10, 39-51.
Hudson, W. W., & Ricketts, W. A. (1980). A strategy for the measurement of homophobia. Journalof Homosexuality, 5, 357-371. 57 Hyde, J. S. & DeLamater, J. (1997). Understanding Human Sexuality (6th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Johnson, M. E., Brems, C., & Alford-Keating, P. (1997).Personality correlates of homophobia. Journalof Homosexuality, 34, 57-69.
Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual behavior of the human male.Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders.
Kite, M. E. (1984). Sex differencesin attitudes towards homosexuals: A meta- analytic review. Journal of Homosexuality. 10, 69-80.
Klein, F. (1978). The bisexual option. New York, NY: Arbor House.
Klein, F. (1993). The bisexual option 2nd (ed.). New York, NY: The HaworthPress.
Klein, F., Sepekoff,B., & Wolf, T. J. (1990). Sexual orientation: A multi-variable dynamic process. In T. Geller (Ed.), Bisexuality: A reader and a sourcebook (pp. 64-81). Ojai, CA: Time ChangePress.
Lehne, G. F. (1976). Homophobia among men. In D. David and R. Brannon (Eds.), The forty-ninepercent majority: The male sex role. New York, NY: Addison Wesley.
Logan, C.R. (1996). Homophobia? No, homoprejudice. Journalof Homosexuality, .11..31-53.
MacDonald, A.P. (1976). Homophobia: Its roots and meanings. Homosexual Counseling Journal,3, 23-33.
MacDonald, A. P. (1981). Bisexuality: Some comments on research and theory. Journal of Homosexuality, 6, 21-35.
McKirnan, D. J., Stokes, J.P., Doll, L., & Burzette, R. G. (1995). Bisexually active men: Social characteristics and sexual behavior. The Journal of Sex Research• .32.., 65-76.
Mohr, J. J. & Rochlen, A. B. (1999). Measuring attitudes regarding bisexuality in lesbian, gay male, and heterosexual populations. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46, 353-369.
National Gay Task Force (1984). Anti-gay/lesbian: A study by the National Gay Task Force in cooperation with lesbian organizations in eight U.S.cities. Washington, D.C.: National Gay Task Force. 58 Nunnally, J. C. (1978).Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Mcgraw-Hill.
Ochs, R. (1996). Biphobia: It goes more than two ways. In B. A. Firestein (Ed.), Bisexuality: The psychology and politics of an invisible minority (pp. 217-239). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGEPublications.
Ochs, R. & Deihl, M. (1992). Moving beyond binary thinking. In W. J. Blumenfeld (Ed.), Homophobia: How we all pay the price (pp. 67-75).
O'Donohue, W. & Caselles, C. E. (1993). Homophobia: Conceptual, definitional, and value issues. Journalof Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment,15, 177- 195.
Otis, M. D. & Skinner, W. F. (1996). The prevalence of victimization and its effects on mental well-being among lesbian and gay people. Journal of Homosexuality, .3.Q, 93-121.
Paul, J.P. (1984). The bisexual identity: An idea without social recognition. Journal of Homosexuality, 9, 45-63.
Paul, J.P. (1985). Bisexuality: Reassessing our paradigms of sexuality. Journalof Homosexuality. 11, 21-34.
Pilkington, N. W. & D' Augelli, A. R. (1995). Victimization of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth in community settings. Journalof CommunityPsychology, 23, 34-56.
Ross, M. W., & Paul, J.P. (1992). Beyond gender: The basis of sexual attraction in bisexual men and women.Psychological Reports, 71. 1283-1290.
Rowan. A. (1994). Homophobia: A new diagnosis for DSM V? the Behavior Therapist.17, 183-184.
Rust, P. C. (1993). Neutralizing the political threat of the marginal woman: Lesbians' beliefs about bisexual women. Journalof Sex Research, 30, 214-228.
Rust, P. C. (1995). Bisexuality and the challenge to lesbian politics: Sex. loyalty. and the revolution. New York, NY: New York UniversityPress.
Shively, M. G. & DeCecco, J.P. (1977). Components of sexual identity. Journal of Homosexuality, 3. 41-48. 59 Tollison, C. D., Adams, H. E., & Tollison, J. W. (1979). Cognitive and physiological indices of sexual arousal in homosexual, bisexual, and heterosexual males. Journalof Behavioral Assessment,1, 305-314.
Trnka, S. (1995). Me, myself, and you: Identity politics in action. In N. Tucker, L. Highleyman, & R. Kaplan (Eds.), Bisexual politics: Theories, queries, and visions (pp.289-292). New York, NY: Harrington Park Press.
Weinberg, G. (1972). Society and the healthy homosexual. New York, NY: St. Martin's.
Weinberg, M. S., Williams, C. J., & Pryor, D. W. (1994). Dual attraction: Understanding bisexuality. New York, NY: OxfordUniversity Press.
Wright, L. W., Adams, H. E., & Bernat, J. (in press). Development and validation of the Homophobia Scale. Journalof Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment.
Young, R. K., Gallaher, P. E., Marriott, S., & Kelly, J. (1993). Reading about AIDS and cognitive coping style: Their effectson fear of AIDS and homophobia. Journalof Applied Social Psychology, 23, 911-924.
Zinik, G. (1985). Identity conflictor adaptive flexibility? Bisexuality reconsidered. Journal of Homosexuality, 11, 7-19