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