Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Jun 29:14:1211282.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1211282. eCollection 2023.

Purely positive or discriminatorily positive? The development of two-factor attitudes toward lesbians and gay men scales

Lingfeng Guo  1 , Shixin Fang  2 , Hongbo Wen  1
Affiliations

Purely positive or discriminatorily positive? The development of two-factor attitudes toward lesbians and gay men scales

Lingfeng Guo et al. Front Psychol. .

Abstract

Unidimensional bipolar scales based on prejudice against homosexuality neglect the effect of preference for heterosexuality on attitudes toward homosexuality. Additionally, the term "homosexuality" used in these scales may compromise their validity. The current study uses person-centered and variable-centered approaches to examine the structure and classes of attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. In Study 1, we developed the Two-factor Attitudes toward Lesbians and Gay Men Scales, which have acceptable reliability and validity. The results obtained through variable-centered approaches suggested that a model comprising two factors (prejudice against homosexuality and preference for heterosexuality) was ideal. In Study 2, we explored the classes of attitudes toward lesbians and gay men through latent class analysis. The results supported a model containing three classes (purely positive, discriminatorily positive, and negative). This study validates a two-factor structure of attitudes toward lesbians and gay men and distinguishes between purely positive and discriminatorily positive attitudes, providing an important reference for future research and interventions to promote public attitudes toward lesbians and gay men.

Keywords: attitudes toward lesbians/gay men; latent class analysis; reliability; scales; validity.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
CFA path diagram (TAHS-L). Factor 1 refers to prejudice against homosexuality, and Factor 2 refers to preference for heterosexuality.
Figure 2
Figure 2
CFA path diagram (TAHS-G).
Figure 3
Figure 3
(A) Conditional probability diagrams of the two-class model (TAHS-L). (B) Conditional probability diagrams of the three-class model (TAHS-L). (C) Conditional probability diagrams of the four-class model (TAHS-L).
Figure 4
Figure 4
(A) Conditional probability diagrams of the two-class model (TAHS-G). (B) Conditional probability diagrams of the three-class model (TAHS-G). (C) Conditional probability diagrams of the four-class model (TAHS-G).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Bai L., Xu Z., Tang H. (2013). Gender norm and male homosexual identity. Chin. J. Hum. Sex. 22, 78–83. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-1993.2013.03.025 - DOI
    1. Black K. N., Stevenson M. R. (1984). The relationship of self-reported sex-role characteristics and attitudes toward homosexuality. J. Homosex. 10, 83–93. doi: 10.1300/J082v10n01_06, PMID: - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bohner G., Dickel N. (2011). Attitudes and attitude change. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 62, 391–417. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ps.44.020193.001001 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cheng F. K. (2018). Dilemmas of Chinese lesbian youths in contemporary mainland China. Sex. Cul. 22, 190–208. doi: 10.1007/s12119-017-9460-8 - DOI
    1. Clausell E., Fiske S. T. (2005). When do subgroup parts add up to the stereotypic whole? Mixed stereotype content for gay male subgroups explains overall ratings. Soc. Cogn. 23, 161–181. doi: 10.1521/soco.23.2.161.65626 - DOI

LinkOut - more resources