Abstract
Abstract The goal of this research was to adapt and obtain validity evidence of the Modern Homonegativity Scale (MHS), which is set by two parallel forms with 12 items, one of them referring to gays (MHS-G) and the other referring to lesbians (MHS-L). In the first study 418 heterosexuals between 18 and 58 years old (M = 24,9; SD = 7,23), mostly women (66,3%) living at João Pessoa-PB (50,5%) answered. Both scales have shown as unidimensional and containing a high degree of internal consistency. The second study had the participation of 273 heterosexuals between 18 and 55 years old (M = 23,7; SD = 6,33), mostly women (69%). The confirmatory factor analysis showed satisfactory adjustment indexes for the proposed model and the Item Response Theory (IRT) demonstrated a good degree of discrimination and variation of the difficulty parameters. Therefore, we may conclude MHS is psychometrically valid, easily applicable and can be used in research contexts.
Highlights
Since the political and social movements of 1980, the focus of scientific literature has been investigating attitudes towards homosexuality through numerous theoretical models, concepts and different measuring instruments (Grey, Robinson, Coleman, & Bockting, 2013)
Exploratory Factorial Analysis First, we evaluated the modern homonegativity scale front Gay men (MHS-G)
The matrix of polychoric correlations between Modern Homonegativity Scale (MHS)-G items has been shown to be suitable for extracting factors with magnitudes above 0.33
Summary
Since the political and social movements of 1980, the focus of scientific literature has been investigating attitudes towards homosexuality through numerous theoretical models, concepts and different measuring instruments (Grey, Robinson, Coleman, & Bockting, 2013). A term that has recently gained greater visibility, Disponível em www.scielo.br given its conceptual consistency, is homonegativity, used to express, in general, a negative attitude directed towards non-heterosexual people (Haney, 2016). The term has been emphasized and gained political strength in recent years, it is an unsatisfactory denomination (Chamberland & Lebreton, 2012), to the extent that it rests on a conceptual error when you assign to the prejudice an individualizing and politically wrong feature, centred on the ideas of “phobia” or “fear” (Souza, Silva, & Santos, 2017). The term legitimises an alleged pathologisation of the individual who has a negative attitude towards homosexual people, taking away their social responsibilities upon their actions
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
