Lido - Perceived Experiences of Anti-Bisexual Prejudice

Journal of Counseling Psychology © 2010 American Psychological Association
2010, Vol. 57, No. 4, 451– 468 0022-0167/10/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0021116
Perceived Experiences of Anti-Bisexual Prejudice:

Instrument Development and Evaluation
Melanie E. Brewster and Bonnie Moradi

University of Florida
This research describes the development and psychometric evaluation of the Anti-Bisexual Experiences
Scale (ABES). Items were developed on the basis of prior literature, revised on the basis of expert
feedback, and submitted to psychometric evaluation. Exploratory factor analysis of data from 350
bisexual participants yielded 3 factors of reported experiences of prejudicial treatment reflecting (a)
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Sexual Orientation Instability, (b) Sexual Irresponsibility, and (c) Interpersonal Hostility. This structure
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
emerged with bisexual persons’ reported experiences of prejudice from heterosexual people as well as
from lesbian and gay people. Confirmatory factor analysis of data from a separate sample of 349 bisexual
individuals supported the stability of this 3-factor structure. The data offered evidence of acceptable
reliability (i.e., Cronbach’s alphas of .81 to .94), convergent validity (i.e., with stigma consciousness, r ⫽
.37 to .54; with awareness of public devaluation, r ⫽ .28 to .41), and discriminant validity (i.e., for
impression management, r ⫽ –.00 to .09). Relative levels of the various types of perceived experiences
of anti-bisexual prejudice and the role of such experiences within the minority stress framework were also
explored. With a separate sample of 176 bisexual individuals, data on the final 17-item version of the
ABES yielded 2-week test–retest reliability coefficients of .77 to .89 and Cronbach’s alphas of .86 to .96
across subscales.
Keywords: bisexuality, anti-bisexual prejudice and discrimination, minority stress, sexual orientation,
biphobia
Attention to minority populations’ experiences of prejudice is 1996), and sexual minority people (Heterosexist Harassment, Re-
important to counseling psychology research and practice given jection, and Discrimination Scale; Szymanski, 2006, 2009), no
that such experiences are linked with psychological distress (Pas- instrument has been designed specifically to assess bisexual peo-
coe & Richman, 2009). Indeed, the link between perceived prej- ple’s perceived experiences of anti-bisexual prejudice. Conse-
udice and psychological symptoms has been observed with racial quently, measures grounded in lesbian and gay persons’ experi-
or ethnic minority women and men (e.g., Landrine & Klonoff, ences have been applied to the few bisexual people included in
1996; Moradi & Hasan, 2004; Moradi & Risco, 2006), predomi- predominantly lesbian and gay samples. To advance research and
nantly White women (e.g., Klonoff & Landrine, 1995; Moradi & practice that attends to bisexual people’s experiences, the present
Subich, 2002, 2004), and lesbian and gay individuals (e.g., Lewis, research aimed to develop and psychometrically evaluate a mea-
Derlega, Griffin, & Krowinski, 2003; Mays & Cochran, 2001). sure of bisexual individuals’ reports of such experiences.
Perceived experiences of prejudice are posited to be linked with
bisexual persons’ psychological distress as well (e.g., Meyer, Prior Research on Bisexual Persons’ Experiences
2003), but this link has not been examined directly with bisexual
samples. Specifically, few bisexual individuals have been included The perspective of bisexual individuals has not been a major
in prior studies of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people’s experiences focus of study in delineating the nature of anti-bisexual prejudice.
of prejudice, and although measures of perceived experiences of However, research on attitudes toward bisexuality can provide a
prejudice exist for use with other groups, including women starting point for understanding bisexual persons’ experiences of
(Schedule of Sexist Events; Klonoff & Landrine, 1995), African prejudice. Scholars have argued that bisexual individuals experi-
American people (Schedule of Racist Events; Landrine & Klonoff, ence a unique form of prejudice termed biphobia (Bradford, 2004;
Ochs, 1996). Biphobia or anti-bisexual prejudice has been concep-
tualized to reflect two underlying dimensions: an instability di-
mension, or the degree to which bisexuality is perceived as an
Melanie E. Brewster and Bonnie Moradi, Department of Psychology, instable and illegitimate sexual orientation, and an intolerance
University of Florida. dimension, or the extent to which others are hostile toward bisex-
This article is based on data from Melanie E. Brewster’s master’s thesis.
uality and bisexual persons (Mohr & Rochlen, 1999). The insta-
This research was supported in part by a Bisexual Foundation Scholarship
Award from the American Psychological Association’s Society for the
bility and intolerance dimensions were supported empirically in
Psychological Study of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Issues. Mohr and Rochlen’s (1999) operationalization of lesbian, gay, and
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Bonnie heterosexual individuals’ attitudes toward bisexuality. In that
Moradi, Department of Psychology, University of Florida, P.O. Box study, the Instability factor reflected non-bisexual people’s atti-
112250, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250. E-mail: moradib@ufl.edu tudes toward bisexual individuals as confused, temporarily exper-
451
452 BREWSTER AND MORADI
imenting, or in denial about their true sexual orientation (e.g., Despite perceptions of the instability or illegitimacy of bisexu-
“Most [women/men] who claim to be bisexual are in denial about ality, empirical data suggest notable stability in bisexual identifi-
their true sexual orientation”), and the Intolerance factor reflected cation (e.g., Burleson, 2005; Diamond, 2008; Stokes, McKirnan, &
attitudes that bisexual individuals are amoral, sick, and a threat to Burzette, 1993). Nevertheless, persistent disbelief in the legitimacy
society (e.g., “The growing acceptance of [female/male] bisexual- and stability of bisexuality can contribute to bisexual individuals’
ity indicates a decline in American values”). These dimensions of feelings of invisibility within the dominant heterosexual culture
anti-bisexual prejudice may shape lesbian, gay, and heterosexual and within lesbian and gay subcultures (e.g., Bradford, 2004;
persons’ treatment of bisexual individuals, and therefore they can Weinberg et al., 1994). Thus, the view of bisexuality as instable
inform assessment of bisexual persons’ perceived experiences of and illegitimate may shape one aspect of bisexual persons’ per-
anti-bisexual prejudice. ceived experiences of anti-bisexual prejudice.
Perceptions of Bisexuality as an Instable and Intolerance and Hostility Toward Bisexuality

Illegitimate Orientation In addition to views of bisexuality as instable and illegitimate,
there is evidence of intolerance and hostility toward bisexuality

Bisexuality scholars and activists have noted that doubt regard- and bisexual individuals in both heterosexual and lesbian and gay
ing the legitimacy of a “true” bisexual orientation is expressed communities. Indeed, anti-bisexual prejudice and violence perpe-
from many sources, including academicians and scholars, activists trated by heterosexual individuals is estimated to occur at roughly
in lesbian and gay communities, and popular press (e.g., Burleson, equal rates as discrimination against lesbian and gay persons
2005; Dodge, Reece, & Gebhard, 2008; Fox, 1996; Hutchins & (Herek, 2002). Furthermore, a large-scale telephone survey found
Ka’ahumanu, 1991; Weinberg, Williams, & Pryor, 1994). For that heterosexual women and men reported more negative affect
example, assumptions about sexual orientation are often based toward bisexual people than toward a range of other groups,
upon an individual’s partner’s gender (Bradford, 2004); same-sex including lesbian and gay persons, various religious groups, racial
couples are perceived as gay or lesbian, and different-sex couples or ethnic minority groups, prolife groups, prochoice groups, and
are perceived as heterosexual, rendering bisexuality invisible. Bi- people with AIDS (Herek, 2002).
sexual people may also be viewed as confused about their orien- Additional findings elucidate the content of this hostility. Spe-
tation or in transition to a strictly lesbian, gay, or heterosexual cifically, several studies have suggested that heterosexual men and
orientation (Burleson, 2005). Zinik (1985) described this view as women view bisexual people as less trustworthy, less psycholog-
the conflict model of bisexuality, wherein bisexual individuals are ically well adjusted, more likely to carry a sexually transmitted
considered to be ambivalent and anxious regarding their sexual disease (STD) or HIV, more likely to be nonmonogamous, and
orientation. At the root of the conflict model is the idea that generally “less acceptable” than they view lesbian and gay people
experiencing attraction to both sexes is unnatural and that it is (e.g., Eliason, 2001; Spalding & Peplau, 1997). These negative
actually a method of denying or masking strictly same-sex attrac- attitudes can impact interactions between heterosexual and bisex-
tions. ual individuals. For example, in a survey of heterosexual college
Within psychological research, the instable and illegitimate students, Eliason (2001) found that 77% of students viewed it as
view of bisexuality has been present for some time (e.g., Altshuler, unlikely that they would ever date a bisexual person to whom they
1984). As a recent example, Rieger, Chivers, and Bailey (2005) were attracted. Thus, these prior data suggest that heterosexual
conceptualized bisexual arousal as equal arousal to same-sex sex- persons’ hostility and intolerance toward bisexuality reflect inter-
ual stimuli involving two men or two women. Men who were personal mistrust and denigration of bisexual persons as well as
classified as bisexual exhibited such a pattern in their subjective perceptions that they carry STDs or HIV.
arousal but not in their genital arousal. On the basis of genital Similar themes are also evident in the literature about hostility
arousal patterns, Rieger et al. (2005) concluded that the men and intolerance toward bisexuality within lesbian and gay com-
exhibited either gay or heterosexual arousal and that “with respect munities. Specifically, Eliason (2001) posited that dichotomization
to sexual arousal and attraction, it remains to be shown that male of sexual orientation into minority and majority cultures may be
bisexuality exists” (p. 582). Such an interpretation is grounded in useful for organizing politically and socially against heterosexism.
the assumption that bisexuality reflects equal sexual desire for However, bisexual persons violate such dichotomization and so
women and men, discounts the observed pattern of subjective may face intolerance and hostility within lesbian and gay commu-
arousal, and does not account for the fact that stimuli involving a nities. Indeed, some bisexual women and men report negative
man and a woman were not used. These assumptions seem to set interactions that range from perceived exclusion from lesbian and
the stage for concluding that bisexuality is an instable and illegit- gay communities to verbal accusations that they are traitors to
imate sexual orientation. More subtly, the instability or illegiti- lesbian and gay social movements (Ault, 1996; Burleson, 2005;
macy view may be reflected when studies focus on bisexuality as Hutchins & Ka’ahumanu, 1991; Rust, 1992). Furthermore, bisex-
a transition to same-sex or other-sex orientations or test how ual women may be perceived as colluders in promoting hetero-
bisexual identity corresponds with sexual behaviors characterized sexist relationship norms (Stone, 1996) or as transmitters of STDs
as “heterosexual” versus “homosexual” (e.g., Lever, Kanouse, and HIV from their male sexual partners (Ochs, 1996). Similarly,
Rogers, Carson, & Hertz, 1992; Stokes, Damon, & McKirnan, bisexual men may be afforded lower status as “junior members in
1997). Dodge et al. (2008) noted that the message often commu- the gay male fraternity” (Burleson, 2005, p. 94) because they are
nicated in research is that bisexual people are “gay, straight, or perceived to not have yet transitioned to a strictly same-sex ori-
lying” (p. 184). entation (reflected in the saying “bi now, gay later”).
ANTI-BISEXUAL EXPERIENCES 453
Thus, intolerant and hostile attitudes toward bisexual individuals demonstrate strong to moderate relations with one another, reflect-
may be present in heterosexual as well as lesbian and gay coming that they assess distinct but related aspects of anti-bisexual
munities. Intolerance and hostility toward bisexual individuals experiences.
appear to reflect themes of interpersonal mistrust and denigration, Next, reliability and validity were examined. In terms of reli-
as well as perceptions that bisexual persons carry STDs or HIV. ability, Cronbach’s alphas of at least .70 were expected for ABES
These manifestations of intolerance and hostility can shape bisex- scale and subscale items. With regard to validity, experiences of
ual persons’ perceptions of anti-bisexual prejudice. prejudice were posited to promote awareness and expectation
of stigmatization (Allport, 1954; Pinel, 1999), and awareness of
Bisexuality and Minority Stress stigma may promote detecting and reporting prejudice. Thus, as a
test of convergent validity, ABES scores were hypothesized to
Given the potentially unique manifestations of anti-bisexual have medium to large positive correlations with awareness of
prejudice, it is important to develop tools specifically for assessing stigmatization, as such associations have been found in prior
bisexual persons’ perceived experiences of anti-bisexual prejudice, research with lesbian, gay, and bisexual samples (e.g., Lewis,
rather than assume that measures of lesbian and gay individuals’ Derlega, Clarke, & Kuang, 2006; Lewis et al., 2003; Pinel, 1999).
experiences of prejudice from heterosexual people adequately cap- Also, because ABES scores reflect perceptions of personal expe-
ture bisexual persons’ experiences. Also, on the basis of prior riences with anti-bisexual prejudice, these scores were expected to
evidence that anti-bisexual prejudice exists in heterosexual as well overlap more with scores on a measure of stigma awareness that
as in lesbian and gay communities (e.g., Bronn, 2001; Mohr & includes perceived personal salience of stigma (i.e., relevance of
Rochlen, 1999), assessing bisexual persons’ experiences requires stigma to oneself as bisexual) than with scores on a measure that
attention to anti-bisexual prejudice from both groups. Such atten- taps perceived stigma about bisexual people as a group. As a test
tion offers a more complete reflection of bisexual people’s expe- of discriminant validity, ABES scores were hypothesized to be
riences and can reveal shared and distinct correlates of experiences uncorrelated with socially desirable responding.
of anti-bisexual prejudice from heterosexual or lesbian and gay Furthermore, exploratory analyses were conducted to examine
people. whether there were differences in levels of various types of anti-
Examining bisexual persons’ perceived experiences of anti- bisexual experiences assessed by ABES subscales and whether
bisexual prejudice is important because such experiences have overall perceived prejudice was related uniquely with psycholog-
been posited to produce a chronically stressful social environment ical distress when other minority stressors (i.e., outness, internal-
for lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons, called minority stress (e.g., ized biphobia, awareness of stigmatization) were accounted for.
Lewis et al., 2003; Mays & Cochran, 2001; Meyer, 1995, 2003). Drawing from prior research on perceived prejudice and psycho-
The minority stress framework postulates that experiences of anti- logical symptomatology (e.g., Pascoe & Richman, 2009; Rosario,
lesbian, anti-gay, and anti-bisexual prejudice, along with internal- Schrimshaw, Hunter, & Gwadz, 2002; Szymanski, 2009), associ-
ization of heterosexist stigma (i.e., internalized homo- or bipho- ations between ABES total scores and psychological distress were
bia), concealment of sexual orientation, and awareness and expected to be small but positive; associations of internalized
anticipation of further stigmatization, can contribute to psycholog- homophobia and expectations of stigma with distress were ex-
ical distress (Meyer, 1995, 2003). To our knowledge no other pected be small to medium and positive (e.g., Balsam & Mohr,
study has examined the links of anti-bisexual experiences with 2007; Lewis et al., 2003; Meyer, 1995, 2003); and on the basis of
other minority stressors or with psychological distress. This gap prior mixed findings, outness was not expected to be linked with
may be due, in part, to the lack of a measure that specifically psychological distress (e.g., Ayala & Coleman, 2000; Balsam &
assesses bisexual persons’ experiences of anti-bisexual prejudice Mohr, 2007; Oetjen & Rothblum, 2000).
from heterosexual as well as lesbian and gay persons. Develop- Finally, in Study 2, with a separate sample of bisexual individ-
ment of such a measure could facilitate exploration of anti- uals, test–retest reliability and Cronbach’s alphas were examined
bisexual prejudice within the minority stress framework. with data from the final version of the ABES. Given that some
variability can be expected in contextual experiences, moderate
The Present Research stability coefficients were expected, and as in the previous sample,
Cronbach’s alphas were expected to be above .70.
To address the need for a measure of bisexual persons’ per-
ceived experiences of anti-bisexual prejudice, this research aimed Study 1: Instrument Development and Initial
to develop and psychometrically evaluate the Anti-Bisexual Ex- Psychometric Evaluation
periences Scale (ABES). In Study 1, items were developed on the
basis of prior literature and feedback from bisexuality research
Method
experts and self-identified bisexual individuals. Items were then
submitted to exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to inform item Participants. Data from 699 participants were analyzed in
retention. On the basis of prior research (Mohr & Rochlen, 1999), this study. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 70 years old (M ⫽
EFA was expected to result in at least two dimensions of prejudi- 31.95, SD ⫽ 11.44, Mdn ⫽ 29.00). Approximately 79% of the
cial treatment that reflected (a) perceived illegitimacy of a bisexual sample identified as White, 10% as Multiracial, 4% as Hispanic/
orientation and (b) hostility toward and intolerance of bisexual Latino, 4% as African American/Black, 2% as Asian American/
people. Stability of the factor structure obtained from EFA was Pacific Islander, 1% as Native American, and 2% as other races or
evaluated using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of data from a ethnicities. About 59% of the sample identified as women, 38% as
separate subsample. In the CFA, ABES factors were expected to men, and 2% as transgender. Approximately 34% of participants
had a college degree, 34% had some college education, 22% had were missing more than 20% of ABES data, the primary focus of
a professional degree, 9% had a high school diploma, 1% had this study. The proportion of these individuals who may have
some high school education, and less than 1% had no high school returned to complete the survey at a later time cannot be deter-
education. Moreover, about 53% of participants identified as mid- mined due to the anonymity of the survey. The data were screened
dle class, 23% as working class, 19% as upper middle class, 4% as to identify participants who did not meet inclusion criteria or
lower class, and 1% as upper class. Participants reported residing missed more than one validity check item. Specifically, three
in 45 of the 50 United States, with most residing in the states of respondents were removed from the database because they were
California (15%), Florida (9%), New York (9%), Massachusetts younger than 18 years old, and one individual was removed
(8%), and Washington (8%). A few participants (⬍1%) resided because he identified as exclusively gay. Nearly all participants
outside of the United States, but the correct responses of these responded correctly to all four validity check items; 14 respon-
individuals to the validity check items (described below) suggested dents missed one validity item but were retained because their
that they read and understood the survey questions. In terms of correct responses to the remaining three validity items suggested
sexual orientation, on a 1 to 5 continuum of exclusively lesbian or that the single validity miss may have been accidental. These data
gay to exclusively heterosexual, all participants selected the non- cleaning procedures resulted in 699 participants. Among these
exclusive options (2 to 4), with approximately 75% of the sample participants, those missing more than 20% of items on an instru-
identifying their sexual orientations as bisexual, 14% as mostly ment other than the ABES were removed from analyses that
heterosexual, and 11% as mostly lesbian or gay. Respondents who involved scores on that instrument; for the remaining cases, mean
described their sexual orientation as mostly lesbian or gay or scale or subscale scores were computed on the basis of nonmissing
mostly heterosexual were included because bisexuality is concep- items for each measure.
tualized as a spectrum and bisexual individuals may not experience Instruments. The following instruments were used in this
equal attraction to both genders (e.g., Rodrı́guez Rust, 2000). study.
Along with these variations in sexual orientation, all participants Development of the Anti-Bisexual Experiences Scale (ABES).
affirmed that they self-identified as bisexual (described below). A pool of items was developed to assess bisexual persons’ per-
Procedure. Participants were recruited through online elec- ceived experiences of anti-bisexual prejudice. Item development
tronic mailing lists, discussion boards, and virtual communities for was informed by prior literature on bisexual persons’ experiences,
bisexual or sexual minority individuals. The study was advertised including empirical articles describing heterosexual and lesbian or
as an examination of the life experiences of bisexual individuals. gay persons’ attitudes toward bisexual persons (Eliason, 1997;
Participants were directed to an online survey that began with an Herek, 2002; Mohr & Rochlen, 1999; Spalding & Peplau, 1997)
informed consent page that asked respondents to affirm that they and theoretical and empirical scholarship discussing bisexuality
(a) self-identified as bisexual, (b) were 18 years of age or older, and bisexual people’s experiences (e.g., Bradford, 2004; Ochs,
and (c) resided in the United States. If respondents affirmed that 1996; Rodrı́guez Rust, 2000; Rust, 1992). We developed the initial
they met these criteria and agreed to participate after reading the item pool to reflect the themes that emerged from this literature.
informed consent, they were prompted to complete the survey. This item pool was then reviewed by four bisexuality scholars
The Internet has been a useful tool for collecting data from whose programs of research addressed bisexuality issues (three
lesbian, gay, and bisexual samples (Moradi, Mohr, Worthington, & professors and an activist/scholar). These expert reviewers pro-
Fassinger, 2009). Even if such persons are not “out” broadly, they vided feedback about item clarity and content validity and made
may feel comfortable being out online because the Internet pro- suggestions for expansion and deletion of items (e.g., rephrasing
vides a shield of anonymity; thus, the Internet is a viable resource value-laden terms such as promiscuous in the item “Other people
for recruiting these underrepresented individuals (Mustanski, stereotype me as promiscuous because I am bisexual” with the
2001). Additionally, Riggle, Rostosky, and Reedy (2005) dis- more descriptive language of “Other people stereotype me as
cussed that sexual minority-specific electronic mailing lists and having many sexual partners without emotional commitment,” and
online message boards may be good recruitment venues because replacing the stem asking respondents to report how they were
lesbian, gay, and bisexual people tend to view the Internet as a safe “treated” by lesbian, gay, or heterosexual people to the stem “had
place to connect with other sexual minority individuals. Further- this experience with lesbian/gay [heterosexual] people”). Follow-
more, online surveys have been shown to yield similar responses ing revisions based on this feedback, five individuals who self-
as traditional pen and paper methods while being more cost effi- identified as bisexual reviewed the measure and provided feedback
cient (Gosling, Vazire, Srivastava, & John, 2004; Hiskey & Troop, regarding item clarity, measure length, and relevance of the items
2002). In recent years, numerous studies have utilized online to their personal experiences (e.g., they pointed out redundant and
methodology as their primary means to recruit sexual minority confusing terms and suggested an item to capture stereotypes of
participants (e.g., Carballo-Diéguez, Miner, Dolezal, Rosser, & bisexuality as sexual curiosity). On the basis of this feedback,
Jacoby, 2006; Fernández et al., 2004; Wang & Ross, 2002). further revisions were made to improve item clarity.
In the present study, to reduce the risk of non-bisexual people The final item pool consisted of 57 items. Respondents were
participating, the survey link was distributed only to groups or asked to reflect on each experience described (e.g., “People have
networks that included bisexual individuals or bisexuality issues. assumed that I will cheat in a relationship because I am bisexual”)
Additionally, four validity questions asking participants to mark a and to report how frequently they thought that experience had
particular response (e.g., “Please mark ‘strongly agree’”) were occurred for them. Frequency of experiences was measured using
included within the survey to ensure that participants were re- a 6-point continuum (1 ⫽ never to 6 ⫽ almost all of the time)
sponding attentively. A total of 1,130 individuals responded to at modeled after other measures of reported experiences of prejudice
least one survey item, but 427 entries were not usable because they (e.g., Schedule of Racist Events; Landrine & Klonoff, 1996;
Schedule of Sexist Events; Klonoff & Landrine, 1995). On the subscale than did nonstigmatized groups (Richeson & Ambady,
basis of prior literature (e.g., Mohr & Rochlen, 1999), and to 2001). Cronbach’s alpha for Public CSE items with the current
capture anti-bisexual prejudice from heterosexual as well as les- sample was .78.
bian and gay people, respondents were asked to answer each item Concealment of sexual orientation. The 10-item Outness In-
twice: once to assess their experiences of prejudice from lesbian or ventory (OI; Mohr & Fassinger, 2000) was used to assess the
gay persons (ABES–LG) and again to assess their experiences of degree to which respondents’ sexual orientation is known or talked
prejudice from heterosexual persons (ABES–H). about within different social spheres of their life. The measure asks
In addition to the ABES, participants completed the following participants to rate on a 7-point continuum (1 ⫽ person definitely
measures to evaluate the convergent and discriminant validity of does not know about your sexual orientation status to 7 ⫽ person
ABES scores and to explore the role of perceived anti-bisexual definitely knows about your sexual orientation status, and it is
prejudice within the minority stress framework. openly talked about) how open they are about their sexual orien-
Awareness of stigmatization. Awareness of stigmatization tation to members of their social network (e.g., friends, coworkers,
was assessed with two instruments: the Stigma Consciousness family). For the present study, we added the item “new lesbian/gay
Questionnaire (SCQ; Pinel, 1999) and the Public Collective Self- friends” to parallel an item examining outness with “new straight
Esteem (Public CSE) subscale of the Collective Self-Esteem Scale friends” resulting in a total of 11 OI items. Item ratings are
(CSES; Luhtanen & Crocker, 1992). The SCQ is a 10-item, Likert- averaged to yield an overall score, with higher scores indicating
type scale (1 ⫽ disagree strongly to 7 ⫽ agree strongly) that greater levels of outness. Balsam and Mohr (2007) found a Cron-
measures awareness and personal salience of social stigma against bach’s alpha of .89 for OI items with their sample of bisexual
one’s group (e.g., “Most people have a problem with viewing individuals. In terms of validity, prior studies have found that OI
bisexuals as equals” and “Stereotypes about bisexuals have not scores correlate positively with involvement in lesbian and gay
affected me personally”). The SCQ has been modified for use with communities for bisexual, lesbian, and gay individuals (Balsam &
people of diverse group memberships including racial and ethnic Szymanski, 2005; Mohr & Fassinger, 2000). Moreover, validity
minority persons, women, and lesbian and gay persons. For the evidence specific to bisexual individuals was reported by Balsam
present study, SCQ items were adapted for use with bisexual and Mohr (2007), who found that outness was correlated nega-
individuals (e.g., “Most heterosexuals have a problem with view- tively with a measure of desire to keep sexual orientation private.
ing homosexuals as equals” was modified to “Most people have a Cronbach’s alpha for OI items with the current sample was .87.
problem with viewing bisexuals as equals”). Also, one SCQ item Internalized biphobia. The five-item Internalized Homonega-
asked specifically about stigma from heterosexual people; thus, a tivity subscale of the Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Identity Scale
parallel item was added to assess stigma from lesbian and gay (LGBIS) was used to measure respondents’ negative views and
people, resulting in a total of 11 SCQ items. Appropriate items feelings about themselves as bisexual. The LGBIS is a revised
were reverse coded and item ratings were averaged, with higher version of the Lesbian and Gay Identity Scale (Mohr & Fassinger,
scores indicating greater awareness of stigmatization of bisexual- 2000) modified for use with bisexual individuals (J. Mohr & R.
ity. In prior research, SCQ items yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of .81 Sheets, personal communication, January 15, 2007; Sheets, 2004).
with lesbian and gay participants (Pinel, 1999), but these items For example, “I am glad to be a lesbian/gay person” was modified
have not been used with bisexual samples. In terms of validity, to read “I am glad to be a bisexual person.” Items are rated on a
across populations (e.g., women, sexual minorities) SCQ scores Likert-type scale (1 ⫽ disagree strongly to 7 ⫽ agree strongly).
were correlated positively with perceived experiences of discrim- Appropriate items were reverse coded and item ratings were av-
ination (Pinel, 1999). Cronbach’s alpha for SCQ items with the eraged, with higher scores indicating a greater level of internalized
current sample was .80. biphobia. Sheets and Mohr (2009) reported a Cronbach’s alpha of
The Public CSE subscale of the CSES (Luhtanen & Crocker, .77 with a sample of bisexual individuals. With regard to validity,
1992) is a four-item Likert-type measure (1 ⫽ strongly disagree to Internalized Homonegativity scores were correlated negatively
7 ⫽ strongly agree) that assesses respondents’ perceptions of how with self-esteem in a sample of lesbian and gay people (Mohr &
others value their group (in this case, bisexual people). For exam- Fassinger, 2000) and correlated negatively with life satisfaction in
ple, participants were asked to rate their level of agreement with a sample of bisexual individuals (Sheets & Mohr, 2009). Cron-
the item “In general, others think that the social groups I am a bach’s alpha for these items with the current sample was .85.
member of are unworthy” while considering the bisexual commu- Psychological distress. The Hopkins Symptom Checklist
nity to be their social group. Items reflecting positive perceptions (HSCL–58; Derogatis, Lipman, Rickels, Uhlenhuth, & Covi,
toward one’s social group were reverse scored, and all items were 1974) is a 58-item measure used to assess psychological distress.
averaged; thus, higher scores signify greater awareness of public Respondents were asked to indicate how often they experienced
devaluation. Luhtanen and Crocker (1992) reported that Cron- each symptom during the past week using a 4-point continuum
bach’s alpha for Public CSE items was .80 with a racially and (1 ⫽ not at all to 4 ⫽ extremely). Item ratings were averaged, with
ethnically diverse sample. In a sample of Latino/Latina lesbian and higher scores indicating greater psychological distress. In terms of
gay individuals, Public CSE items yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of validity, HSCL–58 scores are correlated as expected with other
.79 (Zea, Reisen, & Poppen, 1999). Structural validity of the measures of psychological distress. The HSCL–58 has been uti-
Public CSE subscale has been supported through factor analyses lized with diverse populations (e.g., Klonoff & Landrine, 1999;
indicating that Public CSE items emerged as a distinct construct Szymanski, 2006; Szymanski & Kashubeck-West, 2008). Notably,
from other aspects of collective self-esteem (Luhtanen & Crocker, in a recent study with lesbian and bisexual women, HSCL–58
1992). Also, as expected, stigmatized groups reported greater items yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of .97 (Szymanski & Kashubeck-
perceived public devaluation of their group on the Public CSE West, 2008). We are unaware of prior reliability or validity data
for the HSCL–58 that is specific to bisexual samples. Cronbach’s those with less than three items were not retained (Kaiser, 1958;
alpha for HSCL–58 items was .96 in the current sample. Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). For ABES–LG data as well as
Socially desirable responding. The 20-item Impression Man- ABES–H data, the scree plot suggested examination of four-,
agement (IM) scale of the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Re- three-, and two-factor solutions. Both oblique (i.e., promax) and
sponding (Paulhus & Reid, 1991) was used to assess socially orthogonal (i.e., varimax) rotations were examined. Findings from
desirable responding. IM items are rated on a 7-point scale (1 ⫽ the oblique rotation are reported because emergent factors were
not true to 7 ⫽ very true). Appropriate items are reverse coded and expected to be correlated and because the two rotation methods
item ratings are averaged, with higher scores indicating exagger- yielded similar solutions. Examination of the four- and two-factor
atedly desirable responding. To our knowledge, reliability and solutions in ABES–LG and ABES–H data revealed that the fourth
validity data are not available for the IM with bisexual samples; factor had a number of items with loadings less than .50 and high
however, IM items yielded Cronbach’s alphas of .75 to .86 with cross-loadings and that the two-factor solution resulted in the loss
lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals (Worthington, Dillon, & of an interpretable third factor. Thus, the three-factor solution was
Becker-Schutte, 2005). Furthermore, IM scores demonstrated con- retained for ABES–LG and ABES–H data.
vergent validity in lesbian, gay, and bisexual samples through
For ABES–LG and ABES–H data, the three-factor solution

positive correlations with other measures of social desirability

reflected Sexual Orientation Instability, Sexual Irresponsibility,
(Worthington et al., 2005). Cronbach’s alpha for IM items with the
and Interpersonal Hostility factors. For the ABES–LG item set, the
current sample was .77.
Sexual Orientation Instability factor accounted for 51.42% of
variance in the data, Sexual Irresponsibility accounted for an
Results additional 5.71%, and Interpersonal Hostility accounted for an
additional 4.23%. For the ABES–H item set, the Sexual Orienta-
Exploratory factor analysis. We conducted exploratory fac-
tor analyses using SPSS 13.0 with data from approximately half of tion Instability factor accounted for 45.15% of variance in the data,
the participants (n ⫽ 350)1 drawn randomly by the SPSS program. Sexual Irresponsibility accounted for an additional 7.00%, and
Several guidelines in the literature indicated that this sample size Interpersonal Hostility accounted for an additional 4.35%.
was appropriate for obtaining stable factor solutions (Arrindell & Next, item retention for the final ABES was determined by the
van der Ende, 1985; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Following the magnitude of factor loadings and cross-loadings. Because we did
recommendation of Worthington and Whittaker (2006), we used not want to take a purely data-driven approach to item retention
principal axis factoring. Responses to ABES–LG and ABES–H and scale length optimization, we also considered conceptual re-
items were examined separately in order to consider the possible dundancy among items. Specifically, in the EFA, items with factor
emergence of unique factor structures for experiences with lesbian loadings of less than .50 and a relative discrepancy (i.e., difference
and gay people and experiences with heterosexual people. Initial between factor loading and cross-loading) of less than .15 were
screening of the unrotated factor matrix for both ABES–LG and removed to ensure the construct specificity and stability of emer-
ABES–H data suggested that positively worded items (e.g., “Oth- gent factors (Kahn, 2006). Among the 37 items that met loading
ers have been supportive of my bisexual orientation”), which were and cross-loading criteria, 20 items that were conceptually redun-
used to reduce response acquiescence, were differentiated from the dant were removed to optimize measure length. For example, the
other items into a separate factor reflecting affirmative experi- item “People have hesitated to date me because they believe I am
ences. From a conceptual standpoint, occurrence of affirmative likely to have an STD/HIV” was removed because it was sub-
experiences is not equivalent to the absence of prejudice experi- sumed by “People have treated me as if I am likely to have an
ences; that is, a target may perceive high or low levels of both STD/HIV because I identify as bisexual”; the item “Others have
affirmative and prejudice events simultaneously. Consistent with treated me as if am really gay/lesbian and ‘in denial’” was re-
this perspective, prior measures of perceived prejudice (e.g., Het- moved because it overlapped with “People have acted as if my
erosexist Harassment, Rejection, and Discrimination Scale; Szy- sexual orientation is just a transition to a gay/lesbian orientation”;
manski, 2006; Schedule of Racist Events; Landrine & Klonoff, and the item “People have said that I am ‘over-sexed’ because of
1996; Schedule of Sexist Events; Klonoff & Landrine, 1995) do my bisexual identity” was removed because it overlapped with
not include positively worded (reverse coded) items. Therefore, we “People have treated me as if I am obsessed with sex because I am
reasoned that the positively worded items reflected a distinct bisexual.” Modification indices were consistent with these item
construct that the ABES was not designed to measure (rather than elimination decisions; that is, most of the highest modification
the absence of prejudice experiences). As such, subsequent anal- indices (computed using a CFA) involved items that were elimi-
yses were conducted with the 45 items that reflected perceived
nated on the basis of conceptual grounds or for not meeting the
experiences of prejudice.
factor loading cutoffs. As a result of this process, a final set of 17
ABES–LG and ABES–H data sets were suited for factor anal-
items was retained. Factor loadings and cross-loadings for retained
ysis and approximated multivariate normality as indicated by
items on the three emergent factors along with factor intercorre-
Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin values above .90 (ABES–LG: .97; ABES–H:
lations are reported in Tables 1 and 2.
.96; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001) and significant Bartlett’s tests of
sphericity: ABES–LG: ␹2(990, N ⫽ 349) ⫽ 13,749.49, p ⬍ .001;
ABES–H: ␹2(990, N ⫽ 349) ⫽ 11,871.69, p ⬍ .001 (George & 1
The overall sample size for the EFA was 350, but one person was
Mallery, 2009; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Factor retention was missing all ABES–LG items and another person was missing all ABES–H
decided by examining eigenvalues, scree plots, and interpretability items; therefore the sample sizes for the EFAs of ABES–LG and ABES–H
of factors. Specifically, factors with eigenvalues less than 1 and items were 349.
Table 1
Principal Axis Factor Analysis Loadings for Retained ABES–LG Items
Factor loading
Item content by factor 1 2 3
Factor 1: Sexual Orientation Instability

People have addressed my bisexuality as if it means that I am simply confused about my sexual orientation (2) .92 ⫺.10 ⫺.08
People have acted as if my sexual orientation is just a transition to a gay/lesbian orientation (18) .91 ⫺.06 ⫺.12
People have acted as if my bisexuality is only a sexual curiosity, not a stable sexual orientation (20) .84 .15 ⫺.17
Others have pressured me to fit into a binary system of sexual orientation (i.e., either gay or straight) (12) .83 ⫺.12 .12
People have not taken my sexual orientation seriously because I am bisexual (23) .80 ⫺.03 .14
When I have disclosed my sexual orientation to others, they have continued to assume that I am really heterosexual
or gay/lesbian (14) .79 ⫺.10 .04
When my relationships haven’t fit people’s opinions about whether I am really heterosexual or lesbian/gay, they
have discounted my relationships as “experimentation” (35) .77 .10 ⫺.08

People have denied that I am really bisexual when I tell them about my sexual orientation (25) .71 .10 .02
Factor 2: Sexual Irresponsibility
People have treated me as if I am likely to have an STD/HIV because I identify as bisexual (26) ⫺.20 .80 .07
People have treated me as if I am obsessed with sex because I am bisexual (57) .10 .76 ⫺.19
People have assumed that I will cheat in a relationship because I am bisexual (21) .18 .73 ⫺.09
People have stereotyped me as having many sexual partners without emotional commitments (28) .25 .70 ⫺.09
Factor 3: Interpersonal Hostility
I have been alienated because I am bisexual (40) ⫺.00 .00 .88
People have not wanted to be my friend because I identify as bisexual (17) ⫺.22 .14 .80
I have been excluded from social networks because I am bisexual (6) .08 ⫺.11 .77
Others have acted uncomfortable around me because of my bisexuality (38) ⫺.01 .21 .64
Others have treated me negatively because I am bisexual (22) .21 .12 .61
Note. The values reported in this table for the 17 retained ABES items are those obtained from the principal axis factoring of the original 45 ABES items.
Item numbers are in parentheses and reflect the order of item presentation. The highest factor loading for each item is shown in boldface. Factor
intercorrelations were as follows: Interpersonal Hostility and Sexual Irresponsibility r ⫽ .68, Sexual Irresponsibility and Sexual Orientation Instability r ⫽
.74, and Interpersonal Hostility and Sexual Orientation Instability r ⫽ .68. ABES–LG ⫽ Anti-Bisexual Experiences Scale, for experiences of prejudice from
lesbian and gay persons; STD ⫽ sexually transmitted disease.
Confirmatory factor analysis. We used AMOS 7.0 to con- factors on the basis of the EFA findings, and the three factors were
duct a CFA of the 17 retained items with data from 3492 partici- allowed to correlate. CFA of ABES–LG data suggested that this
pants who did not overlap with the EFA subsample. This sample three-factor model provided acceptable fit to the data, ␹2(116, N ⫽
size exceeded guidelines for deriving meaningful and interpretable 348) ⫽ 282.98, p ⬍ .001, CFI ⫽ .956, SRMR ⫽ .044, RMSEA ⫽
models and fit indices in CFA (Hau & Marsh, 2004; MacCallum, .064, 90% CI [.055, .074]. All items loaded significantly onto their
Browne, & Sugawara, 1996; Quintana & Maxwell, 1999). The intended factors; loadings for the Sexual Orientation Instability
data met guidelines for univariate normality as outlined by Weston factor ranged from .75 to .84, for the Sexual Irresponsibility factor
and Gore (2006). In terms of multivariate normality, we inspected ranged from .62 to .82, and for the Interpersonal Hostility factor
cases that had large Mahalanobis distances and found that removal ranged from .68 to .88. Similarly, the three-factor model provided
of the largest multivariate outlier within the ABES–LG and acceptable fit to ABES–H data, ␹2(116, N ⫽ 349) ⫽ 275.79, p ⬍
ABES–H data had minimal impact on fit index values and param- .001, CFI ⫽ .948, SRMR ⫽ .046, RMSEA ⫽ .063, 90% CI [.053,
eter estimates; thus all participants in the CFA data sets were .073]. All items loaded significantly onto their intended factors;
retained. loadings for the Sexual Orientation Instability factor ranged from
Model fit was determined through the use of absolute and .67 to .79, for the Sexual Irresponsibility factor ranged from .65 to
incremental fit indices. On the basis of cautions regarding some of .78, and for the Interpersonal Hostility factor ranged from .72 to
the more commonly used fit indices (e.g., Hu & Bentler, 1995; .83. Factor loadings and factor intercorrelations are presented in
Martens, 2005; Weston & Gore, 2006), absolute model fit was Tables 3 and 4.
assessed with the root-mean-square error of approximation Next, we conducted a CFA of a hierarchical model with the
(RMSEA) and the standardized root-mean residual (SRMR). Ad- three ABES factors loading onto a single overall Perceived Prej-
ditionally, incremental model fit was evaluated with the compar- udice factor. For ABES–LG and ABES–H data, fit index values
ative fit index (CFI). In their review of model fit guidelines,
and factor loadings in this model were identical to that of the
Weston and Gore (2006) noted that criteria for acceptable fit have
original three-factor model. Standardized regression weights from
ranged from CFI ⱖ .90 and RMSEA and SRMR ⱕ .10 (e.g., Hu
the higher order Perceived Prejudice factor to the three second-
& Bentler, 1995) to more stringent criteria of CFI close to .95,
RMSEA close to .06, and SRMR close to .08 (e.g., Hu & Bentler,
1999; Quintana & Maxwell, 1999). 2
The overall sample size for the CFA was 349, but one person was
To evaluate the three-factor structure with ABES–LG and missing all ABES–LG items; therefore the sample size for the CFA of
ABES–H data, items were estimated to load onto their intended ABES–LG items was 348.
Table 2
Principal Axis Factor Analysis Loadings for Retained ABES–H Items
Factor loading
Item content by factor 1 2 3

People have acted as if my bisexuality is only a sexual curiosity, not a stable sexual orientation (20) .90 .02 ⫺.13
or gay/lesbian (14) .81 ⫺.13 ⫺.06
have discounted my relationships as “experimentation” (35) .78 ⫺.06 .01
People have denied that I am really bisexual when I tell them about my sexual orientation (25) .78 .04 ⫺.04
People have addressed my bisexuality as if it means that I am simply confused about my sexual orientation (2) .78 .05 ⫺.09
People have not taken my sexual orientation seriously because I am bisexual (23) .76 ⫺.03 .13
Others have pressured me to fit into a binary system of sexual orientation (i.e., either gay or straight) (12) .71 .05 ⫺.03
People have acted as if my sexual orientation is just a transition to a gay/lesbian orientation (18) .61 .05 .13
People have treated me as if I am obsessed with sex because I am bisexual (57) ⫺.00 .83 ⫺.14
People have treated me as if I am likely to have an STD/HIV because I identify as bisexual (26) ⫺.27 .77 .21
People have assumed that I will cheat in a relationship because I am bisexual (21) .18 .71 ⫺.07
People have stereotyped me as having many sexual partners without emotional commitments (28) .26 .65 ⫺.13
I have been alienated because I am bisexual (40) ⫺.01 ⫺.18 .98
People have not wanted to be my friend because I identify as bisexual (17) ⫺.25 .03 .90
Others have treated me negatively because I am bisexual (22) .12 ⫺.07 .83
I have been excluded from social networks because I am bisexual (6) ⫺.15 .06 .74
Others have acted uncomfortable around me because of my bisexuality (38) .12 ⫺.01 .69
Note. The values reported in this table for the 17 retained ABES items are those obtained from the principal axis factoring of the original 45 ABES items.
Item numbers are in parentheses and reflect the order of item presentation. The highest factor loading for each item is shown in boldface. Factor
intercorrelations were as follows: Interpersonal Hostility and Sexual Irresponsibility r ⫽ .70, Sexual Irresponsibility and Sexual Orientation Instability r ⫽
.71, and Interpersonal Hostility and Sexual Orientation Instability r ⫽ .62. ABES–H ⫽ Anti-Bisexual Experiences Scale, for experiences of prejudice from
heterosexual persons; STD ⫽ sexually transmitted disease.
order factors were high for the ABES–LG (.86 to .88) and exception of a small significant positive correlation between im-
ABES–H (.77 to .87) models, suggesting that the second-order pression management and ABES–LG Interpersonal Hostility
factors loaded strongly onto the higher order factor. scores (r ⫽ .09, p ⬍ .05). Convergent validity was supported in
We also examined the fit of unidimensional models in which all that all ABES full scale and subscale scores were correlated
17 items loaded onto a single ABES–LG or ABES–H factor. The positively with both indicators of awareness of stigmatization; but,
unidimensional model yielded poor fit to ABES–LG data, ␹2(119, as expected, the overall pattern of correlations suggested larger
N ⫽ 348) ⫽ 708.03, p ⬍ .001, CFI ⫽ .844, SRMR ⫽ .075, effect sizes and more overlap between ABES scores and stigma
RMSEA ⫽ .119, 90% CI [.111, .128]; ABES–H data, ␹2(119, N ⫽ consciousness scores (r ⫽ .37 to .54, p ⬍ .001) than between
349) ⫽ 768.10, p ⬍ .001, CFI ⫽ .790, SRMR ⫽ .0842, RMSEA ⫽ ABES scores and awareness of public devaluation (r ⫽ .28 to .41,
.125, 90% CI [.117, .134]. p ⬍ .001). Thus, nonsignificant or small correlations with impres-
Reliability. We assessed internal consistency reliability for sion management and medium to large correlations with awareness
ABES–LG and ABES–H scale and subscale items by computing of stigmatization indicators supported the discriminant and con-
Cronbach’s alphas with data from the full sample. Cronbach’s vergent validity of ABES–LG and ABES–H full scale and sub-
alpha was .94 for the 17 ABES–LG items and .93 for the 17 scale scores.
ABES–H items. Cronbach’s alphas for ABES–LG subscale items Exploration of levels of anti-bisexual prejudice. To com-
ranged between .82 and .94 and for ABES–H subscale items pare levels of the perceived anti-bisexual prejudice experiences
ranged between .81 and .91 (see Table 5 for a report of all captured by the ABES, we conducted a factorial repeated-
Cronbach’s alphas). These values are in the excellent range ac- measures analysis of variance with two factors: (a) perpetrator
cording to Ponterotto and Ruckdeshel’s (2007) matrix for inter- (lesbian and gay, heterosexual) and (b) type of experience (stabil-
preting Cronbach’s alpha. ity, sexual irresponsibility, interpersonal hostility). Mauchly’s test
Discriminant and convergent validity. We computed biva- indicated that the assumption of sphericity was violated for the
riate correlations to evaluate discriminant and convergent validity interaction effect, ␹2(2) ⫽ 6.54, p ⬍ .05; thus, Greenhouse–Geisser
of ABES scores in the full sample (see Table 5; validity indicators corrected degrees of freedom were used for testing this effect. Re-
denoted by superscripts). Cohen’s (1992) guidelines were used to sultant main and interaction effects are depicted in Figure 1; corre-
interpret small (r ⫽ .10), medium (r ⫽ .30), and large (r ⫽ .50) sponding means and standard deviations are reported in Table 5.
effect sizes. Supporting the discriminant validity of ABES scores, Sink and Stroh’s (2006) guidelines were used to interpret small
impression management was generally uncorrelated with (␩2p ⫽ .01), medium (␩2p ⫽ .06), and large (␩2p ⫽ .14) effect sizes.
ABES–LG or ABES–H full scale or subscale scores, with the There was a medium significant main effect for perpetrator, F(1,
Table 3
Confirmatory Factor Analysis Loadings for ABES–LG Items
Item content by factor Factor loading Uniqueness

People have not taken my sexual orientation seriously because I am bisexual (23) .84 .29
People have denied that I am really bisexual when I tell them about my sexual orientation (25) .82 .33
People have acted as if my bisexuality is only a sexual curiosity, not a stable sexual orientation (20) .81 .34
People have acted as if my sexual orientation is just a transition to a gay/lesbian orientation (18) .80 .36
have discounted my relationships as “experimentation” (35) .80 .36
People have addressed my bisexuality as if it means that I am simply confused about my sexual orientation (2) .79 .38
Others have pressured me to fit into a binary system of sexual orientation (i.e., either gay or straight) (12) .77 .41
or gay/lesbian (14) .75 .44

People have stereotyped me as having many sexual partners without emotional commitments (28) .82 .33
People have assumed that I will cheat in a relationship because I am bisexual (21) .80 .36
People have treated me as if I am likely to have an STD/HIV because I identify as bisexual (26) .65 .58
People have treated me as if I am obsessed with sex because I am bisexual (57) .62 .62
Others have treated me negatively because I am bisexual (22) .88 .23
Others have acted uncomfortable around me because of my bisexuality (38) .76 .42
I have been excluded from social networks because I am bisexual (6) .73 .47
I have been alienated because I am bisexual (40) .73 .47
People have not wanted to be my friend because I identify as bisexual (17) .68 .54
Note. Factor intercorrelations were as follows: Interpersonal Hostility and Sexual Irresponsibility r ⫽ .76, Sexual Irresponsibility and Sexual Orientation
Instability r ⫽ .78, and Interpersonal Hostility and Sexual Orientation Instability r ⫽ .76. ABES–LG ⫽ Anti-Bisexual Experiences Scale, for experiences
of prejudice from lesbian and gay persons; STD ⫽ sexually transmitted disease.
695) ⫽ 47.68, p ⬍ .001, ␩2p ⫽ .06, indicating that reports of this relation, partial correlations are included in Table 5 to report
experiences with heterosexual people were higher than those with the links of minority stressors with psychological distress control-
lesbian and gay people. In addition, there was a large significant ling for impression management. These partial correlations indi-
main effect for type of experience, F(2, 1390) ⫽ 363.38, p ⬍ .001, cate generally small positive correlations of psychological distress
␩2p ⫽ .34. Repeated contrasts revealed that reports of sexual with ABES–LG and ABES–H full scale and subscale scores (r ⫽
orientation instability experiences were higher than those of sexual .09 to .19, p ⬍ .05 to ⬍ .01). In addition, all ABES–LG full scale
irresponsibility experiences with a large effect size, F(1, 695) ⫽ and subscale scores had between small and medium positive
493.26, p ⬍ .001, ␩2p ⫽ .42, which were higher than reports of correlations with level of outness (r ⫽ .15 to .24, p ⬍ .001),
interpersonal hostility experiences with a small effect size, F(1, whereas only ABES–H Interpersonal Hostility subscale scores had
695) ⫽ 8.61, p ⬍ .01, ␩2p ⫽ .01. Finally, there was a significant a small positive correlation with level of outness (r ⫽ .09, p ⬍
Perpetrator ⫻ Type of Experience interaction effect with a small .05). Finally, ABES–LG and ABES–H full scale and Sexual Ori-
effect size, F(1.98, 1377.09) ⫽ 10.97, p ⬍ .001, ␩2p ⫽ .02. entation Instability subscale scores had small positive correlations
Repeated contrasts for the interaction effect revealed that the with internalized biphobia (r ⫽ .09 to .13, p ⬍ .05 to ⬍ .01).
difference between reports of experiences with heterosexual peo-
Correlations among the other minority stress variables revealed
ple and experiences with lesbian and gay people on sexual orien-
that stigma consciousness had small positive correlations with
tation instability was slightly smaller than that on sexual irrespon-
internalized biphobia (r ⫽ .08, p ⬍ .05) and level of outness (r ⫽
sibility, F(1, 695) ⫽ 19.35, p ⬍ .001, ␩2p ⫽ .03, and the difference
.15, p ⬍ .001), and internalized biphobia had a medium negative
between reports of experiences with heterosexual people and ex-
correlation with level of outness (r ⫽ –.27, p ⬍ .001). Awareness
periences with lesbian and gay people on sexual irresponsibility
was similar to that on interpersonal hostility, F(1, 695) ⫽ 1.53, of public devaluation, as indicated by Public CSE scores, was not
p ⫽ .22, ␩2p ⫽ .00. Taken together, these comparisons indicate that correlated significantly with outness or internalized biphobia. Fi-
participants reported moderately more experiences of anti-bisexual nally, psychological distress had generally small positive correla-
prejudice with heterosexual people than with lesbian and gay tions with stigma consciousness (r ⫽ .16, p ⬍ .001), awareness of
people. Furthermore, the gap between experiences with heterosex- public devaluation (r ⫽ .09, p ⬍ .05), and internalized biphobia
ual people and experiences with lesbian and gay people was (r ⫽ .11, p ⬍ .01) but was not correlated significantly with level
slightly smaller in sexual orientation instability experiences than in of outness.
sexual irresponsibility experiences, and the gap in sexual irrespon- To explore the unique links of each minority stressor with
sibility experiences did not differ from the gap in interpersonal psychological distress, as posited in the minority stress framework,
hostility experiences (see Figure 1). we conducted simultaneous multiple regression analyses. Because
Exploration of links with minority stressors and psycholog- overall rather than specific manifestations of perceived prejudice
ical distress. As indicated in Table 5, psychological distress was were of interest, total ABES scale scores were used in these
correlated positively with impression management. Considering analyses; ABES–LG and ABES–H were examined separately.
Table 4
Confirmatory Factor Analysis Loadings for ABES–H Items
Item content by factor Factor loading Uniqueness

People have acted as if my bisexuality is only a sexual curiosity, not a stable sexual orientation (20) .79 .38
have discounted my relationships as “experimentation” (35) .77 .41
People have not taken my sexual orientation seriously because I am bisexual (23) .76 .42
Others have pressured me to fit into a binary system of sexual orientation (i.e., either gay or straight) (12) .74 .45
People have acted as if my sexual orientation is just a transition to a gay/lesbian orientation (18) .74 .45
People have denied that I am really bisexual when I tell them about my sexual orientation (25) .74 .45
or gay/lesbian (14) .69 .52
People have addressed my bisexuality as if it means that I am simply confused about my sexual orientation (2) .67 .55

People have stereotyped me as having many sexual partners without emotional commitments (28) .78 .39
People have assumed that I will cheat in a relationship because I am bisexual (21) .75 .44
People have treated me as if I am likely to have an STD/HIV because I identify as bisexual (26) .69 .52
People have treated me as if I am obsessed with sex because I am bisexual (57) .65 .58
Others have treated me negatively because I am bisexual (22) .83 .31
Others have acted uncomfortable around me because of my bisexuality (38) .77 .41
I have been excluded from social networks because I am bisexual (6) .74 .45
I have been alienated because I am bisexual (40) .74 .45
People have not wanted to be my friend because I identify as bisexual (17) .72 .48
Note. Factor intercorrelations were as follows: Interpersonal Hostility and Sexual Irresponsibility r ⫽ .64, Sexual Irresponsibility and Sexual Orientation
Instability r ⫽ .73, and Interpersonal Hostility and Sexual Orientation Instability r ⫽ .67. ABES–H ⫽ Anti-Bisexual Experiences Scale, for experiences
of prejudice from heterosexual persons; STD ⫽ sexually transmitted disease.
First, impression management (covariate), ABES–LG, outness, Latino, 5% as Multiracial, 2% as African American/Black, 2%
stigma consciousness, and internalized biphobia (predictor vari- as Native American, 1% as Asian American/Pacific Islander,
ables) were regressed on psychological distress (criterion vari- and 3% as other races or ethnicities. About 60% of the sample
able). Results of the regression equation indicated that impres- identified as women, 29% as men, 2% as transwomen, ⬍1% as
sion management, stigma consciousness, and internalized transmen, and 9% as other genders (e.g., androgynous, gender-
biphobia each accounted for unique positive variance in psy- queer). Approximately 36% of participants had some college
chological distress but that outness and ABES–LG did not (see education, 33% had a college degree, 26% had a professional
Table 6). Next, impression management, ABES–H, outness, degree, and 6% had a high school diploma. Moreover, about
stigma consciousness, and internalized biphobia were regressed 55% of participants identified as middle class, 22% as working
on psychological distress. Results of this regression equation class, 16% as upper middle class, 6% as lower class, and 1% as
indicated that impression management, ABES–H, stigma con- upper class. In terms of geographic location, most participants
sciousness, and internalized biphobia each accounted for unique reported residing in the states of Florida (21%), California
positive variance in psychological distress but that outness did (14%), and New York (8%). Sexual orientation was measured
not. In a second set of parallel regression equations that in- on a 1 to 5 continuum of exclusively lesbian or gay to exclu-
cluded Public CSE instead of SCQ as the indicator of stigma sively heterosexual, with an option for “other” participant-
awareness in the regression equations, impression management, defined sexual orientations. Most participants selected the non-
ABES–LG, ABES–H, and internalized biphobia emerged as exclusive options (2 to 4), with approximately 75% of the
unique correlates of psychological distress, and Public CSE and sample identifying their sexual orientations as bisexual, 11% as
outness did not (see Table 6). mostly lesbian or gay, 6% as mostly heterosexual, and 8% as
other sexual orientations (e.g., pansexual, nonmonosexual).
Study 2: Test–Retest and Internal Consistency Procedure. Recruitment procedures paralleled those de-
Reliability of the 17-Item ABES scribed in Study 1. As part of an ongoing larger project,
participants completed an online survey about the life experi-
ences of bisexual people in North America that included the
Method 17-item ABES. At the end of the survey, participants could
Participants. Test–retest and internal consistency reliabil- voluntarily agree to complete a brief 2-week follow-up ques-
ity of the 17-item ABES were evaluated with a new sample of tionnaire composed of the 17-item ABES and two demographic
176 bisexual people. These participants ranged in age from 18 questions regarding age and gender; participants provided a
to 78 years (M ⫽ 34.13, SD ⫽ 13.73, Mdn ⫽ 32.00). Approx- confidential code so that their responses across the two surveys
imately 80% of the sample identified as White, 7% as Hispanic/ could be matched. These volunteers were contacted 2 weeks
Table 5
Correlations, Partial Correlations, and Summary Statistics
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 M SD ␣
ⴱⴱⴱ ⴱⴱⴱ ⴱⴱⴱ ⴱⴱⴱ ⴱⴱⴱ ⴱⴱⴱ ⴱⴱⴱ ⴱⴱⴱ ⴱⴱⴱ ⴱⴱⴱ ⴱ ⴱⴱ
1. ABES–LG (full scale) — .95 .83 .83 .67 .61 .61 .49 .53 .40 .22 .09 .11 2.27 0.98 .94
2. Sexual Orientation Instability .95ⴱⴱⴱ — .69ⴱⴱⴱ .65ⴱⴱⴱ .62ⴱⴱⴱ .64ⴱⴱⴱ .49ⴱⴱⴱ .37ⴱⴱⴱ .47ⴱⴱⴱ .38ⴱⴱⴱ .19ⴱⴱⴱ .13ⴱⴱ .09ⴱ 2.70 1.23 .94
3. Sexual Irresponsibility .83ⴱⴱⴱ .69ⴱⴱⴱ — .63ⴱⴱⴱ .63ⴱⴱⴱ .49ⴱⴱⴱ .78ⴱⴱⴱ .43ⴱⴱⴱ .41ⴱⴱⴱ .30ⴱⴱⴱ .15ⴱⴱⴱ .02 .12ⴱⴱ 1.93 1.01 .82
4. Interpersonal Hostility .82ⴱⴱⴱ .65ⴱⴱⴱ .63ⴱⴱⴱ — .52ⴱⴱⴱ .37ⴱⴱⴱ .43ⴱⴱⴱ .61ⴱⴱⴱ .54ⴱⴱⴱ .36ⴱⴱⴱ .24ⴱⴱⴱ .04 .11ⴱⴱ 1.86 0.95 .88
5. ABES–H (full scale) .67ⴱⴱⴱ .62ⴱⴱⴱ .63ⴱⴱⴱ .52ⴱⴱⴱ — .92ⴱⴱⴱ .82ⴱⴱⴱ .78ⴱⴱⴱ .51ⴱⴱⴱ .38ⴱⴱⴱ .05 .09ⴱ .18ⴱⴱⴱ 2.45 0.92 .93
6. Sexual Orientation Instability .61ⴱⴱⴱ .64ⴱⴱⴱ .49ⴱⴱⴱ .37ⴱⴱⴱ .92ⴱⴱⴱ — .64ⴱⴱⴱ .56ⴱⴱⴱ .43ⴱⴱⴱ .36ⴱⴱⴱ .03 .11ⴱⴱ .19ⴱⴱⴱ 2.82 1.12 .91
7. Sexual Irresponsibility .60ⴱⴱⴱ .49ⴱⴱⴱ .78ⴱⴱⴱ .43ⴱⴱⴱ .82ⴱⴱⴱ .64ⴱⴱⴱ — .56ⴱⴱⴱ .37ⴱⴱⴱ .28ⴱⴱⴱ .03 .02 .10ⴱ 2.18 1.10 .81
8. Interpersonal Hostility .49ⴱⴱⴱ .37ⴱⴱⴱ .43ⴱⴱⴱ .61ⴱⴱⴱ .78ⴱⴱⴱ .56ⴱⴱⴱ .55ⴱⴱⴱ — .50ⴱⴱⴱ .31ⴱⴱⴱ .09ⴱ .06 .16ⴱⴱⴱ 2.07 0.97 .88
9. Stigma consciousnessa .53ⴱⴱⴱ .47ⴱⴱⴱ .41ⴱⴱⴱ .54ⴱⴱⴱ .51ⴱⴱⴱ .43ⴱⴱⴱ .37ⴱⴱⴱ .50ⴱⴱⴱ — .52ⴱⴱⴱ .15ⴱⴱⴱ .08ⴱ .16ⴱⴱⴱ 4.16 0.97 .80
10. Awareness of public devaluationa .41ⴱⴱⴱ .38ⴱⴱⴱ .30ⴱⴱⴱ .36ⴱⴱⴱ .38ⴱⴱⴱ .36ⴱⴱⴱ .28ⴱⴱⴱ .31ⴱⴱⴱ .52ⴱⴱⴱ — ⫺.02 .08 .09ⴱ 4.51 1.21 .78
11. Outness .22ⴱⴱⴱ .19ⴱⴱⴱ .15ⴱⴱⴱ .24ⴱⴱⴱ .05 .03 .02 .09ⴱ .15ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.01 — ⫺.27ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.03 3.18 1.39 .87
12. Internalized biphobia .09ⴱ .13ⴱⴱ .02 .03 .09ⴱ .11ⴱⴱ .02 .06 .08ⴱ .07 ⫺.28ⴱⴱⴱ — .11ⴱⴱ 2.19 1.26 .85
13. Psychological distress .10ⴱ .08ⴱ .11ⴱⴱ .09ⴱ .18ⴱⴱⴱ .19ⴱⴱⴱ .10ⴱ .14ⴱⴱⴱ .16ⴱⴱⴱ .07 ⫺.05 .13ⴱⴱ — 1.59 0.44 .96
14. Impression managementb .04 .02 .02 .09ⴱ ⫺.00 ⫺.02 ⫺.01 .03 ⫺.01 .07 .10ⴱ ⫺.09ⴱ ⫺.24ⴱⴱⴱ 3.78 0.82 .77
Note. Sample size ranged from 643 to 698 due to missing data on some variables. Values above the diagonal are partial correlations controlling for impression management, and values below the
diagonal are Pearson correlations without controlling for impression management. The constructs of interest were assessed as follows: Stigma consciousness ⫽ Stigma Consciousness Questionnaire;
Awareness of public devaluation ⫽ Public subscale of the Collective Self-Esteem Scale; Outness ⫽ Outness Inventory; Internalized biphobia ⫽ Internalized Biphobia subscale of the Lesbian, Gay,
and Bisexual Identity Scale; Psychological distress ⫽ Hopkins Symptom Checklist; Impression management ⫽ Impression Management subscale of the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding.
ABES ⫽ Anti-Bisexual Experiences Scale, for experiences of prejudice from lesbian and gay (LG) persons or heterosexual (H) persons.
a
Convergent validity indicator. b Discriminant validity indicator.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.
Estimated Marginal Means

2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
1.8
Results
ANTI-BISEXUAL EXPERIENCES
176 usable cases.

Instability
Sexual Orientation
ABES Subscales
Experiences with
Experiences with
Sexual Irresponsibility Interpersonal Hostility

heterosexual people
anti-bisexual experiences. ABES ⫽ Anti-Bisexual Experiences Scale.

lesbian and gay people
administration, Cronbach’s alphas for the 17 ABES–LG and

461
Figure 1. Perpetrator ⫻ Type of Experience interaction in levels of
and ABES–H scores were r ⫽ .89 and r ⫽ .78, respectively. The
Instability items, .86 for Sexual Irresponsibility items, and .90 for
items were both .95. For the ABES–LG subscales, Cronbach’s
tration, Cronbach’s alphas for the 17 ABES–LG and ABES–H
range according to Ponterotto and Ruckdeshel’s (2007) matrix for
tation Instability, r ⫽ .78 for Sexual Irresponsibility, and r ⫽ .76
values for the ABES–H subscales were r ⫽ .76 for Sexual Orien-
were r ⫽ .88 for Sexual Orientation Instability, r ⫽ .79 for Sexual
With the additional sample of 176 bisexual participants, 2- to
189 respondents who completed the follow-up ABES items, 13
second administration of the ABES within 2 to 3 weeks. Of the
Interpersonal Hostility items; for the ABES–H subscales, Cron-

subscales, Cronbach’s alphas were .96 for Sexual Orientation
ABES–H items were .96 and .95, respectively. For the ABES–LG
items, and .92 for Interpersonal Hostility items. At the follow-up
Sexual Orientation Instability items, .86 for Sexual Irresponsibility
items; for the ABES–H subscales, Cronbach’s alphas were .93 for
Sexual Irresponsibility items, and .88 for Interpersonal Hostility
alphas were .94 for Sexual Orientation Instability items, .80 for
Irresponsibility, and r ⫽ .89 for Interpersonal Hostility; these
2- to 3-week test–retest reliabilities for the ABES–LG subscales
could not be matched with their confidential code, resulting in
survey for retaking the ABES. These participants completed the
interpreting Cronbach’s alpha. Specifically, at the initial adminis-

abilities calculated with data from this sample were in the excellent
for Interpersonal Hostility. Moreover, internal consistency reli-
3-week test–retest reliabilities for the 17-item full-scale ABES–LG
after their initial participation and were provided a link to a
Table 6
Unique Relations of Minority Stressors With Psychological Distress
Predictor variable B ␤ T Total R Total R2 Adjusted R2 F df
Regression equations with ABES–LG

First regression equation
Impression management ⫺.12 ⫺.23 ⫺6.15ⴱⴱⴱ .31 .09 .09 13.22ⴱⴱⴱ 5, 645
ABES–LG .02 .04 0.82
Stigma consciousness .06 .13 2.94ⴱⴱ
Outness ⫺.01 ⫺.03 ⫺0.72
Internalized biphobia .03 .09 2.20ⴱ
Second regression equation
ABES–LG .04 .09 2.01ⴱ
Awareness of public devaluation .02 .04 1.03
Outness ⫺.01 ⫺.02 ⫺0.43

Regression equations with ABES–H

First regression equation
ABES–H .06 .13 2.88ⴱⴱ
Stigma consciousness .04 .09 1.97ⴱ
Outness ⫺.01 ⫺.02 ⫺0.54
Second regression equation
Impression management ⫺.12 ⫺.24 ⫺6.18ⴱⴱⴱ .32 .10 .09 14.02 5, 642
ABES–H .08 .16 3.95ⴱⴱⴱ
Awareness of public devaluation .01 .02 0.41
Outness ⫺.00 ⫺.01 ⫺0.21
Note. ABES ⫽ Anti-Bisexual Experiences Scale, for experiences of prejudice from lesbian and gay (LG) persons or heterosexual (H) persons.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.
bach’s alphas were .93 for Sexual Orientation Instability items, .90 confirmatory factor analyses of data from a second subsample
for Sexual Irresponsibility items, and .90 for Interpersonal Hostil- as well.
ity items. The present reliability and validity evidence also support the
utility of the ABES. Cronbach’s alphas for the ABES–LG and
General Discussion ABES–H full scale and subscale items fell in the excellent range
according to Ponterotto and Ruckdeshel’s (2007) matrix for inter-
This research contributes to the growing literature about bisex-
preting Cronbach’s alpha, and 2- to 3-week test–retest coefficients
ual individuals by developing and psychometrically evaluating the
were all above .70. Validity evidence was garnered by the fact that
Anti-Bisexual Experiences Scale (ABES). The ABES assesses
ABES–LG and ABES–H full scale and subscale scores were
bisexual persons’ perceptions of anti-bisexual prejudice experi-
generally independent of impression management but correlated
enced with heterosexual people as well as with lesbian and gay
positively with both indicators of awareness of anti-bisexual
people. The present findings support the structural stability, inter-
stigma. The positive correlations between ABES scores and aware-
nal consistency and test–retest reliability, and discriminant and
convergent validity of data produced by the ABES. As such, this ness of stigma are consistent with prior conceptual and empirical
research offers the ABES as a tool for advancing research and literature linking reported experiences of prejudice with stigma
informing practice with bisexual populations. consciousness (Allport, 1954; Lewis et al., 2003, 2006; Pinel,
The present findings suggest that the psychometric properties of 1999). Although causal interpretation of this link is premature,
the ABES are promising. Exploratory factor analyses suggested accumulating support for this association suggests at least a recur-
that bisexual persons’ perceived experiences of anti-bisexual prej- sive link, such that awareness of stigma may promote identifying
udice from lesbian and gay as well as heterosexual individuals and reporting experiences of prejudice and experiences of preju-
reflect three dimensions of prejudicial treatment: (a) sexual orien- dice may promote further awareness of and vigilance about stigma.
tation instability, (b) sexual irresponsibility, and (c) interpersonal The fact that ABES scores yielded a pattern of stronger correla-
hostility. Sexual orientation instability experiences reflect being tions with stigma consciousness (generally large effects) than with
treated as if bisexuality is a curiosity and not a legitimate sexual awareness of public devaluation (generally medium effects) is
orientation; sexual irresponsibility experiences include being consistent with the expectation that personal experience with prej-
treated as sexually obsessed, disloyal, and an STD vector; and udice would overlap more with an indicator of stigma awareness
interpersonal hostility experiences reflect being socially dis- that taps personal salience of stigma (i.e., SCQ) than with an
liked and alienated. This three-factor structure was supported in indicator that does not (i.e., Public CSE). Taken together, these
validity and reliability data offer preliminary support for future use from heterosexual people (as found in the present and prior re-
of the ABES to assess bisexual persons’ perceived experiences of search with lesbian, gay, and bisexual samples; e.g., Lewis et al.,
anti-bisexual prejudice. 2003). The present findings suggest, however, that bisexual peo-
Comparisons of levels of ABES subscale scores yielded inter- ple’s level of outness is related to greater perceived anti-bisexual
esting patterns of findings, suggesting that bisexual people may prejudice from lesbian and gay people; the replicability of this
perceive sexual orientation instability experiences most frequently, relation across samples warrants further examination.
followed by sexual irresponsibility experiences, and then by inter- It is important that the magnitude of partial correlations (con-
personal hostility experiences. The difference between instability trolling for impression management) between ABES scores and
and sexual irresponsibility experiences was large, whereas the psychological distress fell between small and medium (ABES–LG,
difference between sexual irresponsibility and interpersonal hos- .08 to .12; ABES–H, .10 to .19). These effect sizes are comparable
tility experiences was small. Results also suggested that bisexual to those in prior studies (not controlling for impression manage-
people may perceive more anti-bisexual prejudice with heterosex- ment) with lesbian and gay people (typically in the .10s and low
ual people than with lesbian and gay people. But, we caution .20s; e.g., Rosario et al., 2002; Szymanski, 2005, 2009), although
against overemphasizing this difference because the effect size for some studies focusing on women yielded medium effect sizes (.35
the gap between perceived anti-bisexual prejudice from heterosex- in Szymanski, 2006; .31 in Szymanski & Meyer, 2008). A recent
ual people and from lesbian and gay people was small and least meta-analysis of research across populations suggested an average
pronounced for the most frequently reported type of anti-bisexual effect size of r ⫽ –.16 for the link between perceived experiences
prejudice experiences (i.e., sexual orientation instability). Thus, it of prejudice and mental health indicators (Pascoe & Richman,
is important to attend to bisexual individuals’ perceived experi- 2009).
ences of prejudice from heterosexual as well as lesbian and gay Such effect sizes for the link between perceived prejudice and
people. psychological distress must be interpreted in light of a number of
The minority stress framework does not specify hypotheses considerations. First, perceived experiences of prejudice can vary
about the relations of perceived prejudice with internalized preju- across time and context and may be less stable than are psycho-
dice or outness, and the present exploratory analyses yielded logical symptoms; such differential stability in the predictor and
mixed findings regarding these links. Perceived anti-bisexual prej- criterion variable may attenuate observed correlations between
udice (from lesbian and gay people as well as from heterosexual them. Second, within the literature on perceived experiences of
people) generally had nonsignificant or small positive correlations prejudice (as in the present research), interpersonal experiences are
with internalized biphobia, a pattern that adds to prior mixed the typical level of analysis, but institutional prejudice, such as
results regarding the relation between perceived prejudice and statewide anti-lesbian/gay/bisexual marriage amendments, are also
internalized homophobia (e.g., Lewis et al., 2003, 2006; Rowen & associated with psychological distress in these populations (Ros-
Malcolm, 2003). This pattern of findings points to the need to tosky, Riggle, Horne, & Miller, 2009); interpersonal and institu-
explore intervening variables in the link between perceived expe- tional levels of prejudice together may account for greater variance
riences of prejudice and internalization of such prejudice. Al- in psychological distress than either would alone. Finally, the
though there is a growing body of research on moderators and strength of association between perceived prejudice and psycho-
mediators of the links of perceived prejudice or internalized prej- logical distress may vary depending on moderator variables (e.g.,
udice with the mental health and well-being of lesbian, gay, and Moradi & DeBlaere, 2010; Szymanski, 2009). The small but
bisexual people (e.g., Frost & Meyer, 2009; Herek, Gillis, & consistent associations between perceived prejudice and psycho-
Cogan, 2009; Szymanski, 2009; Szymanski & Gupta, 2009; Szy- logical distress must be interpreted with these considerations in
manski & Kashubeck-West, 2008), there has been limited attention mind.
to moderators or mediators of the association between perceived In the present analyses, when the set of minority stressors were
prejudice and internalized prejudice. Identifying variables that considered together and regressed on psychological distress, re-
promote or buffer this link could point to fruitful targets for sults indicated that perceived anti-bisexual prejudice from hetero-
preventing or reducing the internalization of perceived prejudice. sexual people, stigma consciousness, and internalized biphobia
The present results also indicated that perceived anti-bisexual were related uniquely to distress beyond the role of impression
prejudice from lesbian and gay people was related consistently and management. This pattern is consistent with prior research with
positively with level of outness (between small and medium effect lesbian, gay, and bisexual samples that links experiences of prej-
sizes), whereas perceived anti-bisexual prejudice from heterosex- udice from heterosexual people, internalized homophobia, or
ual people was generally unrelated to level of outness. These stigma consciousness with psychological distress (e.g., Balsam &
results echo the complexity of the relation between outness and Mohr, 2007; Lewis et al., 2003; Meyer, 1995, 2003). The finding
experiences of prejudice that has been observed in prior studies. that outness was not related uniquely to distress adds to prior
For example, there is evidence that the association between out- mixed findings regarding this relation in lesbian, gay, and bisexual
ness and perceived experiences of prejudice may vary depending samples (e.g., Ayala & Coleman, 2000; Balsam & Mohr, 2007;
on the type and offensiveness of prejudice (e.g., Burn, Kadlec, & Oetjen & Rothblum, 2000), underscoring the fact that outness is
Rexer, 2005; Conley, Calhoun, Evett, & Levine, 2002). The pos- not synonymous with psychological well-being or distress and can
sibility that outness may be related differently to different types of be shaped by both interpersonal and contextual factors (e.g.,
prejudice along with potential countervailing processes—that out- Chrobot-Mason, Button, & DiClementi, 2001; Herek & Garnets,
ness could expose targets to more prejudice and that exposure to 2007; McCarn & Fassinger, 1996).
prejudice could depress outness—may result in null observed The regression results also suggest that stigma consciousness
relations between outness and reported experiences of prejudice subsumes the association of perceived prejudice from lesbian and
gay people with psychological distress, whereas stigma conscious- bisexual people, as well as gay, lesbian, and heterosexual people,
ness and perceived prejudice from heterosexual people have may pursue polyamorous relationships but that polyamory is not
unique links with psychological distress. By contrast, awareness of synonymous with bisexuality. Similarly, it is important to distin-
public devaluation did not subsume the links of perceived preju- guish the personally felt benefits and costs of polyamory for the
dice from lesbian and gay people or from heterosexual people with client from negative stereotypes about polyamory. Again, it seems
psychological distress. Thus, the personal salience of perceived important to separate clients’ views and desires regarding their
stigma (reflected in stigma consciousness but not in awareness of sexual orientations and behaviors from stereotypes about bisexu-
public devaluation) overlaps with the perceived prejudice– distress ality that may be reinforced through experiences of sexual irre-
link more so when that link involves prejudice from lesbian and sponsibility prejudice.
gay people than from heterosexual people, leaving unique variance Perceived experiences of interpersonal hostility are also impor-
in distress to be accounted for only by prejudice from heterosexual tant to explore with bisexual clients. Specifically, bisexual people
people. These interpretations are made with caution given the may have encounters with lesbian and gay individuals as well as
limited available data about the minority stress framework with with heterosexual individuals that make them feel alienated or
bisexual individuals. This caution is particularly important because excluded because of their sexual orientation. Such experiences
perceptions of anti-bisexual prejudice experienced with lesbian may make bisexual people feel that they have nowhere to turn for
and gay people have not been examined within the minority stress social support and affirmation. Thus, it may be useful to help
framework in prior research. Clearly the replicability of the present bisexual clients connect with bisexuality-affirming sources of sup-
results warrants further investigation, and the ABES can facilitate port. Online sources might be helpful as an adjunct to community
such research. support networks or if community networks are not available. If
community sources of support are not available, it seems important
for counselors to explore ways that they can create such support
Implications for Practice networks and make existing groups more affirming for bisexual
individuals.
The present findings can inform practice in a number of ways.
The generally small but consistent links of perceived experi-
First, our findings suggest that the multiple dimensions and mul-
ences of anti-bisexual prejudice (particularly from heterosexual
tiple sources of anti-bisexual prejudice be considered in prevention
people), stigma consciousness, and internalized biphobia with psy-
and therapy efforts. For example, when exploring experiences of
chological distress suggest the need to explore clients’ perceptions
anti-bisexual prejudice with clients, it is important to consider such
of anti-bisexual prejudice and to challenge and prevent the inter-
prejudice in heterosexual as well as lesbian and gay communities.
nalization of such prejudice. In such efforts, clinicians should be
It is also important to acknowledge that some bisexual clients
aware of their own misconceptions about bisexuality. Indeed,
might view discussing anti-bisexual prejudice within lesbian and
stereotypes about bisexuality shape therapists’ judgments about
gay communities as a betrayal of their loyalties to these commu-
issues of salience in therapy (Mohr, Israel, & Sedlacek, 2001;
nities. As such, recognizing the strengths and values of lesbian and
Mohr, Weiner, Chopp, & Wong, 2009). Bisexual individuals chal-
gay communities as well as the potential challenges for bisexual
lenge many societal assumptions about sexuality; they may chal-
persons in such communities is important. This balanced approach
lenge definitions of sexual orientation as essential or stable aspects
is also clearly applicable to exploring anti-bisexual prejudice
of identity, defy the grounding of sexual orientation in gender
within heterosexual communities.
dichotomies, and even bring into question the importance of gen-
The factors that emerged in the present data offer some specific
der (of the self or partner) to sexual attraction, behavior, and
directions for exploring bisexual clients’ perceptions of anti-
identity. Views of gender as essential and central to identity and
bisexual prejudice. The Sexual Orientation Instability factor sug-
sexual attraction may be unquestioned assumptions that many
gests that bisexual individuals may experience mistrust and skep-
people, including therapists, hold deeply. It seems important for
ticism (from heterosexual as well as lesbian and gay people) about
practitioners and researchers to acknowledge and critically exam-
the legitimacy of their orientation. The fact that experiences of
ine such assumptions and consider more flexible conceptualiza-
sexual orientation instability prejudice were the most frequently
tions of sexual orientation and its relation to gender.
reported type of anti-bisexual prejudice suggests the potential
salience of such experiences for bisexual clients. It may be par-
ticularly important to help bisexual clients tease apart their own Limitations and Future Directions
experience of sexual orientation flexibility from stereotypes that
are reinforced by experiences of sexual orientation instability The present findings must be interpreted in light of a number of
prejudice. limitations and directions for future research. First, despite the
The Sexual Irresponsibility dimension of anti-bisexual prejudice strengths of Internet recruitment (e.g., access to large numbers of
included being treated as disloyal, hypersexual, and an STD vec- potential participants, reducing oversaturation of local venues,
tor. Combating stereotypes of bisexual individuals as sexually facilitating participation of individuals who are not comfortable
irresponsible and exploring the personally felt (rather than socially “coming out” to researchers in person), Internet samples limit
prescribed) costs and benefits of various sexual behaviors seems participation to individuals who have computer and Internet ac-
important to helping bisexual clients develop an authentic sense of cess. Thus, findings of Internet samples may not be generalizable
their sexual desires. One example of an intervention to address beyond middle to upper class populations. Indeed, most of the
erroneous perceptions of bisexuality is to disentangle it from participants in the current research were college educated and
polyamory. To this end, it is useful to acknowledge that some identified as middle class and White. As such, the present findings
must be interpreted with caution when considering their applica- Development of the ABES represents one more step toward
bility to bisexual people who are not White and are at the lower or attending more substantively to the experiences of bisexual indi-
upper end of the socioeconomic spectrum. Research is needed to viduals in the psychological literature. We hope that use of the
evaluate the replicability of the present findings with racially, ABES can facilitate future advancements in understanding bisex-
ethnically, and socioeconomically diverse populations. Such ef- ual persons’ experiences, mental health, and well-being. We also
forts can inform future research and theory about bisexuality and hope that the preliminary findings from the present research will
its intersections with other sociodemographic identities. serve as groundwork for future research that can inform the de-
Furthermore, taken together, the CFA results support the use of velopment of policy, prevention, and intervention strategies aimed
ABES–LG and ABES–H full scale and subscale scores. Use of to better serve bisexual persons.
overall ABES–LG and ABES–H scores may be useful when
overall exposure to prejudice is of interest (e.g., in the minority References
stress framework). On the other hand, use of the ABES subscales
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-
can facilitate research on the links between specific manifestations Wesley.
of anti-bisexual prejudice and specific criterion variables, for ex- Altshuler, K. Z. (1984). On the question of bisexuality. American Journal
ample, the link of (a) sexual orientation instability subscale scores of Psychotherapy, 4, 484 – 493.
with sexual orientation identity processes, (b) sexual irresponsibil- Arrindell, W. A., & van der Ende, J. (1985). An empirical test of the utility
ity subscale scores with sexual relationships and behaviors, and (c) of the observations-to-variables ratio in factor and components analysis.
interpersonal hostility subscale scores with social relationships and Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 165–178. doi:10.1177/
networks. 014662168500900205
Ault, A. (1996). Ambiguous identity in an unambiguous sex/gender struc-
Another limitation is that many of the instruments used in the
ture: The case of bisexual women. The Sociological Quarterly, 37,
present research, and in psychological research in general, have 449 – 463. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.1996.tb00748.x
not been used with bisexual samples. In our instrument selection, Ayala, J., & Coleman, H. (2000). Factors of depression among lesbian
we worked to identify previously accumulated psychometric data women. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 4, 71– 86. doi:10.1300/
with bisexual samples. But as is evident in our description of J155v04n03_04
instruments, such data are limited. Even for measures that were Balsam, K. F., & Mohr, J. J. (2007). Adaptation to sexual orientation
used in prior research with bisexual samples, there is room for stigma: A comparison of bisexual and lesbian/gay adults. Journal of
further refinement. An example is the Outness Inventory, which Counseling Psychology, 54, 306 –319. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.54.3.306
Balsam, K., & Szymanski, D. (2005). Relationship quality and domestic
has been used in prior research with bisexual samples and contains
violence in women’s same-sex relationships: The role of minority stress.
items that ask about the respondent’s “sexual orientation status.”
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 258 –269. doi:10.1111/j.1471-
This terminology is intended to be inclusive of bisexual individ- 6402.2005.00220.x
uals, but it may unintentionally collapse outness as sexual minority Barret, L. F., & Swim, J. K. (1998). Appraisals of prejudice and discrim-
in general (i.e., not heterosexual) with outness as bisexual in ination. In J. K. Swim & C. Stangor (Eds.), Prejudice: The target’s
particular (Balsam & Mohr, 2007). Thus, exploration of patterns of perspective (pp. 11–35). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
relations involving outness about one’s sexual minority status in Bradford, M. (2004). The bisexual experience: Living in a dichotomous
general versus outness as bisexual in particular seems important. culture. In R. C. Fox (Ed.), Current research on bisexuality (pp. 7–23).
We hope that the psychometric data offered in the present analyses New York, NY: Haworth.
Bronn, C. (2001). Attitudes and self-images of male and female bisexuals.
can inform future use of the instruments employed. We also
Journal of Bisexuality, 1, 5–29. doi:10.1300/J159v01n04_02
underscore the need for further conceptual and empirical advance- Burleson, W. E. (2005). Bi America: Myths, truths, and struggles of an
ments in the measurement of key constructs with bisexual popu- invisible community. New York, NY: Harrington Park Press.
lations. Burn, S. M., Kadlec, K., & Rexer, R. (2005). Effects of subtle heterosexism
A final consideration about the current research, and about on gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. Journal of Homosexuality, 49, 23–38.
larger bodies of literature on reported experiences of prejudice doi:10.1300/J082v49n02_02
(e.g., racist events, heterosexist events), is that individuals’ per- Carballo-Diéguez, A., Miner, M., Dolezal, C., Rosser, S., & Jacoby, S.
ceptions and reporting of prejudice could be affected by many (2006). Sexual negotiation, HIV-status disclosure, and sexual risk be-
havior among Latino men who use the Internet to seek sex with other
personal and contextual factors (e.g., affect, knowledge about
men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35, 473– 481. doi:10.1007/s10508-
prejudice, characteristics of the perpetrator; Barret & Swim, 1998; 006-9078-7
Sechrist, Swim, & Mark, 2003). The ABES assesses bisexual Chrobot-Mason, D., Button, S. B., & DiClementi, J. D. (2001). Sexual
people’s perceived experiences of anti-bisexual prejudice, that is, identity management strategies: An exploration of antecedents and con-
experiences that individuals attribute to anti-bisexual prejudice. sequences. Sex Roles, 45, 321–336. doi:10.1023/A:1014357514405
We believe that assessing such perceptions is important to under- Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.
standing bisexual individuals’ subjective reality in research and doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
practice. Furthermore, in considering the costs and benefits of Conley, T. D., Calhoun, C., Evett, S. R., & Levine, P. G. (2002). Mistakes
that heterosexual people make when trying to appear non-prejudiced:
assessing perceived versus actual experiences of prejudice, it is
The view from LGB people. Journal of Homosexuality, 42, 21– 43.
important to acknowledge the complexity of distinguishing per-
doi:10.1300/J082v42n02_02
ceived from actual prejudice events given the subjectivity of such Derogatis, L. R., Lipman, R. S., Rickels, K., Uhlenhuth, E. H., & Covi, L.
attributions. Nevertheless, exploring the interpersonal and mental (1974). The Hopkins Symptoms Checklist (HSCL): A self-report symp-
health consequences of different attributions and perceptions of tom inventory. Behavioral Science, 19, 1–15. doi:10.1002/
events also seems important. bs.3830190102
Diamond, L. M. (2008). Female bisexuality from adolescence to adult- mental health consequences. Journal of Black Psychology, 22, 144 –168.
hood: Results from a 10-year longitudinal study. Developmental Psy- doi:10.1177/00957984960222002
chology, 44, 5–14. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.44.1.5 Lever, J., Kanouse, D. E., Rogers, W. H., Carson, S., & Hertz, R. (1992).
Dodge, B., Reece, M., & Gebhard, P. H. (2008). Kinsey and beyond: Past, Behavior patterns and sexual identity of bisexual males. The Journal of
present, and future considerations for research on male bisexuality. Sex Research, 29, 141–167. doi:10.1080/00224499209551640
Journal of Bisexuality, 8, 175–189. doi:10.1080/15299710802501462 Lewis, R. J., Derlega, V. J., Clarke, E. G., & Kuang, J. (2006). Stigma
Eliason, M. J. (1997). The prevalence and nature of biphobia in hetero- consciousness, social constraints, and lesbian well-being. Journal of
sexual undergraduate students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 26, 317– Counseling Psychology, 53, 48 –56. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.53.1.48
326. doi:10.1023/A:1024527032040 Lewis, R. J., Derlega, V. J., Griffin, J. L., & Krowinski, A. C. (2003).
Eliason, M. (2001). Bi-negativity: The stigma facing bisexual men. Journal Stressors for gay men and lesbians: Life stress, gay-related stress, stigma
of Bisexuality, 1, 137–154. doi:10.1300/J159v01n02_05 consciousness, and depressive symptoms. Journal of Social and Clinical
Fernández, M. I., Varga, L. M., Perrino, T., Collazo, J. B., Subiaul, F., Psychology, 22, 716 –729. doi:10.1521/jscp.22.6.716.22932
Rehbein, A., . . . Bowen, G. S. (2004). The Internet as a recruitment tool Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale: Self-
for HIV studies: Viable strategy for reaching at-risk Hispanic MSM in evaluation of one’s social identity. Personality and Social Psychology
Miami? AIDS Care, 16, 953–963. doi:10.1080/09540120412331292480 Bulletin, 18, 302–318. doi:10.1177/0146167292183006
Fox, R. C. (1996). Bisexuality in perspective: A review of theory and MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power
research. In B. A. Firestein (Ed.), Bisexuality: The psychology and analysis and the determination of sample size for covariance structure
politics of an invisible minority (pp. 3–50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130 –149. doi:10.1037/1082-
Frost, D. M., & Meyer, I. H. (2009). Internalized homophobia and rela- 989X.1.2.130
tionship quality among lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. Journal of Martens, M. P. (2005). The use of structural equation modeling in coun-
Counseling Psychology, 56, 97–109. doi:10.1037/a0012844 seling psychology research. The Counseling Psychologist, 33, 269 –298.
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2009). SPSS for Windows: Step by step (9th doi:10.1177/0011000004272260
ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Mays, V. M., & Cochran, S. D. (2001). Mental health correlates of
Gosling, S. D., Vazire, S., Srivastava, S., & John, O. P. (2004). Should we perceived discrimination among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults in the
trust web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions United States. American Journal of Public Health, 91, 1869 –1876.
about Internet questionnaires. American Psychologist, 59, 93–104. doi: doi:10.2105/AJPH.91.11.1869
10.1037/0003-066X.59.2.93 McCarn, S. R., & Fassinger, R. E. (1996). Revisioning sexual minority
Hau, K. T., & Marsh, H. W. (2004). The use of item parcels in structural identity formation: A new model of lesbian identity and its implications
equation modelling: Non-normal data and small sample sizes. British for counseling and research. The Counseling Psychologist, 24, 508 –534.
Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 57, 327–351. doi:10.1177/0011000096243011
Herek, G. M. (2002). Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward bisexual men and Meyer, I. H. (1995). Minority stress and mental health in gay men. Journal
women in the United States. The Journal of Sex Research, 39, 264 –274. of Health and Social Behavior, 36, 38 –56. doi:10.2307/2137286
doi:10.1080/00224490209552150 Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian,
Herek, G. M., & Garnets, L. D. (2007). Sexual orientation and mental gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence.
health. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 3, 353–375. doi:10.1146/ Psychological Bulletin, 129, 674 – 697. doi:10.1037/0033-
annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091510 2909.129.5.674
Herek, G. M., Gillis, J. R., & Cogan, J. C. (2009). Internalized stigma Mohr, J. J., & Fassinger, R. (2000). Measuring dimensions of lesbian and
among sexual minority adults: Insights from a social psychological gay male experience. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and
perspective. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56, 32– 43. doi:10.1037/ Development, 33, 66 –90.
a0014672 Mohr, J. J., Israel, T., & Sedlacek, W. E. (2001). Counselors’ attitudes
Hiskey, S., & Troop, N. A. (2002). Online longitudinal survey research: regarding bisexuality as predictors of counselors’ clinical responses: An
Viability and participation. Social Science Computer Review, 20, 250 – analogue study of a female bisexual client. Journal of Counseling
259. Psychology, 48, 212–222. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.48.2.212
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Structural equation modeling: Concepts, Mohr, J. J., & Rochlen, A. B. (1999). Measuring attitudes regarding
issues, and applications In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Evaluating model fit (pp. bisexuality in lesbian, gay male, and heterosexual populations. Journal
76 –99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. of Counseling Psychology, 46, 353–369. doi:10.1037/0022-
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance 0167.46.3.353
structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struc- Mohr, J. J., Weiner, J. L., Chopp, R. M., & Wong, S. J. (2009). Effects of
tural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118 client bisexuality on clinical judgment: When is bias most likely to
Hutchins, L., & Ka’ahumanu, L. (Eds.). (1991). Bi any other name: occur? Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56, 164 –175. doi:10.1037/
Bisexual people speak out. Boston, MA: Alyson. a0012816
Kahn, J. H. (2006). Factor analysis in counseling psychology research, Moradi, B., & DeBlaere, C. (2010). Women’s experiences of sexist dis-
training, and practice: Principles, advances, and applications. The Coun- crimination: Review of research and directions for centralizing race,
seling Psychologist, 34, 684 –718. doi:10.1177/0011000006286347 ethnicity, and culture. In H. Landrine & N. F. Russo (Eds.), Handbook
Kaiser, H. F. (1958). The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor of diversity in feminist psychology (pp. 173–210). New York, NY:
analysis. Psychometrika, 23, 187–200. doi:10.1007/BF02289233 Springer.
Klonoff, E. A., & Landrine, H. (1995). A measure of lifetime and recent Moradi, B., & Hasan, N. T. (2004). Arab American persons’ reported
sexist discrimination in women’s lives. Psychology of Women Quarterly, experiences of discrimination and mental health: The mediating role of
19, 439 – 470. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1995.tb00086.x personal control. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 418 – 428. doi:
Klonoff, E. A., & Landrine, H. (1999). Cross-validation of the Schedule of 10.1037/0022-0167.51.4.418
Racist Events. Journal of Black Psychology, 25, 231–254. doi:10.1177/ Moradi, B., Mohr, J. J., Worthington, R. L., & Fassinger, R. E. (2009).
0095798499025002006 Counseling psychology research on sexual (orientation) minority issues:
Landrine, H., & Klonoff, E. A. (1996). The schedule of racist events: A Conceptual and methodological challenges and opportunities. Journal of
measure of racial discrimination and a study of its negative physical and Counseling Psychology, 56, 5–22. doi:10.1037/a0014572
Moradi, B., & Risco, C. (2006). Perceived discrimination experiences and in making attributions to discrimination. Personality and Social Psy-
mental health of Latina/o American persons. Journal of Counseling chology Bulletin, 29, 524 –531. doi:10.1177/0146167202250922
Psychology, 53, 411– 421. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.53.4.411 Sheets, R. L. (2004). Perceived social support of friends and family and its
Moradi, B., & Subich, L. M. (2002). Perceived sexist events and relation to the psychosocial functioning of bisexual individuals (Unpub-
feminist identity development attitudes: Links to women’s psycho- lished master’s thesis). Loyola College, Baltimore, MD.
logical distress. The Counseling Psychologist, 30, 44 – 65. doi: Sheets, R. L., & Mohr, J. J. (2009). Perceived social support from friends
10.1177/0011000002301003 and family and psychosocial functioning in bisexual young adult college
Moradi, B., & Subich, L. M. (2004). Examining the moderating role of students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56, 152–163. doi:10.1037/
self-esteem in the link between experiences of perceived sexist events 0022-0167.56.1.152
and psychological distress. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 50 – Sink, C. A., & Stroh, H. R. (2006). Practical significance: Use of effect
56. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.51.1.50 sizes in school counseling research. Professional School Counseling, 9,
Mustanski, B. S. (2001). Getting wired: Exploiting the Internet for the 401– 411.
collection of valid sexuality data. The Journal of Sex Research, 38, Spalding, L. R., & Peplau, L. A. (1997). The unfaithful lover: Heterosex-
292–301. doi:10.1080/00224490109552100 uals’ perceptions of bisexuals and their relationships. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 21, 611– 624. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997
Ochs, R. (1996). Biphobia: It goes more than two ways. In B. A. Firestein

.tb00134.x
(Ed.), Bisexuality: The psychology and politics of an invisible minority

(pp. 217–239). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Stokes, J. P., Damon, W., & McKirnan, D. J. (1997). Predictors of
Oetjen, H., & Rothblum, E. D. (2000). When lesbians aren’t gay: Factors movement toward homosexuality: A longitudinal study of bisexual men.
affecting depression among lesbians. Journal of Homosexuality, 39, The Journal of Sex Research, 34, 304 –312. doi:10.1080/
49 –73. doi:10.1300/J082v39n01_04 00224499709551896
Pascoe, E. A., & Richman, L. S. (2009). Perceived discrimination and Stokes, J. P., McKirnan, D. J., & Burzette, R. G. (1993). Sexual behavior,
mental health: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 135, condom use, disclosure of sexuality, and stability of sexual orientation in
531–554. doi:10.1037/a0016059 bisexual men. The Journal of Sex Research, 30, 203–213. doi:10.1080/
Paulhus, D. L., & Reid, D. B. (1991). Enhancement and denial in socially 00224499309551704
Stone, S. D. (1996). Bisexual women and the “threat” to lesbian space: Or
desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60,
what if all the lesbians leave? Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies,
307–317. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.60.2.307
16, 101–116.
Pinel, E. C. (1999). Stigma consciousness: The psychological legacy of
Szymanski, D. M. (2005). Heterosexism and sexism as correlates of
social stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76,
psychological distress in lesbians. Journal of Counseling & Develop-
114 –128. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.1.114
ment, 83, 355–360.
Ponterotto, J. G., & Ruckdeshel, D. E. (2007). An overview of the coef-
Szymanski, D. M. (2006). Does internalized heterosexism moderate the
ficient alpha and a reliability matrix for estimating adequacy of internal
link between heterosexism events and lesbians’ psychological distress?
consistency coefficients with psychological research measures. Percep-
Sex Roles, 54, 227–234. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9340-4
tual Motor Skills, 105, 997–1014. doi:10.2466/PMS.105.7.997-1014
Szymanski, D. M. (2009). Examining potential moderators of the link
Quintana, S. M., & Maxwell, S. E. (1999). Implications of recent devel-
between heterosexist events and gay and bisexual men’s psychological
opments in structural equation modeling for counseling psychology. The
distress. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56, 142–151. doi:10.1037/
Counseling Psychologist, 27, 485–527. doi:10.1177/0011000099274002
0022-0167.56.1.142
Richeson, A., & Ambady, N. (2001). When roles reverse: Stigma, status,
Szymanski, D. M., & Gupta, A. (2009). Examining the relationship be-
and self-evaluation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 1350 –
tween multiple internalized oppressions and African American lesbian,
1378. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb02677.x gay, bisexual, and questioning persons’ self-esteem and psychological
Rieger, G., Chivers, M. L., & Bailey, J. M. (2005). Sexual arousal patterns distress. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56, 110 –118. doi:10.1037/
of bisexual men. Psychological Science, 16, 579 –584. doi:10.1111/ a0013317
j.1467-9280.2005.01578.x Szymanski, D. M., & Kashubeck-West, S. (2008). Mediators of the rela-
Riggle, E. D. B., Rostosky, S. S., & Reedy, C. S. (2005). Online surveys tionship between internalized oppressions and lesbian and bisexual
for BGLT research issues and techniques. Journal of Homosexuality, 49, women’s psychological distress. The Counseling Psychologist, 36, 575–
1–21. doi:10.1300/J082v49n02_01 594. doi:10.1177/0011000007309490
Rodrı́guez Rust, P. C. (2000). Bisexuality: A contemporary paradox for Szymanski, D. M., & Meyer, D. (2008). Racism and heterosexism as
women. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 205–221. doi:10.1111/0022- correlates of psychological distress in African American sexual minority
4537.00161 women. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 2, 94 –108.
Rosario, M., Schrimshaw, E. W., Hunter, J., & Gwadz, M. (2002). Gay- Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th
related stress and emotional distress among gay, lesbian, and bisexual ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
youths: A longitudinal examination. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Wang, Q., & Ross, M. W. (2002). Differences between chat room and
Psychology, 70, 967–975. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.70.4.967 e-mail sampling approaches in Chinese men who have sex with men.
Rostosky, S. S., Riggle, E. D. B., Horne, S. G., & Miller, A. D. (2009). AIDS Education and Prevention, 14, 361–366. doi:10.1521/
Marriage amendments and psychological distress in lesbian, gay and aeap.14.6.361.24081
bisexual (LGB) adults. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56, 56 – 66. Weinberg, M. S., Williams, C. J., & Pryor, D. W. (1994). Dual attraction:
doi:10.1037/a0013609 Understanding bisexuality. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Rowen, C. J., & Malcolm, J. P. (2003). Correlates of internalized homo- Weston, R., & Gore, P. A. (2006). A brief guide to structural equation
phobia and homosexual identity formation in a sample of gay men. modeling. The Counseling Psychologist, 34, 719 –751. doi:10.1177/
Journal of Homosexuality, 43, 77–92. doi:10.1300/J082v43n02_05 0011000006286345
Rust, P. C. (1992). The politics of sexual identity: Sexual attraction and Worthington, R. L., Dillon, F. R., & Becker-Schutte, A. M. (2005).
behavior among lesbian and bisexual women. Social Problems, 39, Development, reliability, and validity of the Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual
366 –386. doi:10.1525/sp.1992.39.4.03x0044r Knowledge and Attitudes Scale for heterosexuals. Journal of Counseling
Sechrist, G. B., Swim, J. K., & Mark, M. M. (2003). Mood as information Psychology, 52, 104 –118. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.1.104
Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development re- reconsidered. Journal of Homosexuality, 11, 7–20. doi:10.1300/
search: A content analysis and best practices. The Counseling Psychol- J082v11n01_02
ogist, 34, 806 – 838. doi:10.1177/0011000006288127
Zea, M. C., Reisen, C. A., & Poppen, P. J. (1999). Psychological well-
being among Latino lesbians and gay men. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Received April 27, 2009
Minority Psychology, 5, 371–379. doi:10.1037/1099-9809.5.4.371 Revision received July 20, 2010
Zinik, G. (1985). Identify conflict or adaptive flexibility? Bisexuality Accepted August 4, 2010 䡲
E-Mail Notification of Your Latest Issue Online!

Would you like to know when the next issue of your favorite APA journal will be available
online? This service is now available to you. Sign up at http://notify.apa.org/ and you will be
notified by e-mail when issues of interest to you become available!

Lido - Perceived Experiences of Anti-Bisexual Prejudice

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lido - Perceived Experiences of Anti-Bisexual Prejudice

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Counseling Psychology © 2010 American Psychological Association

2010, Vol. 57, No. 4, 451– 468 0022-0167/10/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0021116

Perceived Experiences of Anti-Bisexual Prejudice:

Melanie E. Brewster and Bonnie Moradi

Perceptions of Bisexuality as an Instable and Intolerance and Hostility Toward Bisexuality

there is evidence of intolerance and hostility toward bisexuality

For ABES–LG and ABES–H data, the three-factor solution

positive correlations with other measures of social desirability

Item content by factor 1 2 3

Factor 1: Sexual Orientation Instability

have discounted my relationships as “experimentation” (35) .77 .10 ⫺.08

Item content by factor 1 2 3

Factor 1: Sexual Orientation Instability

Item content by factor Factor loading Uniqueness

Factor 1: Sexual Orientation Instability

Factor 2: Sexual Irresponsibility

Item content by factor Factor loading Uniqueness

Factor 1: Sexual Orientation Instability

Factor 2: Sexual Irresponsibility

Estimated Marginal Means

176 usable cases.

Sexual Irresponsibility Interpersonal Hostility

anti-bisexual experiences. ABES ⫽ Anti-Bisexual Experiences Scale.

administration, Cronbach’s alphas for the 17 ABES–LG and

Figure 1. Perpetrator ⫻ Type of Experience interaction in levels of

and ABES–H scores were r ⫽ .89 and r ⫽ .78, respectively. The

Interpersonal Hostility items; for the ABES–H subscales, Cron-

interpreting Cronbach’s alpha. Specifically, at the initial adminis-

Predictor variable B ␤ T Total R Total R2 Adjusted R2 F df

Regression equations with ABES–LG

Outness ⫺.01 ⫺.02 ⫺0.43

Internalized biphobia .03 .09 2.34ⴱ

Regression equations with ABES–H

Ochs, R. (1996). Biphobia: It goes more than two ways. In B. A. Firestein

(Ed.), Bisexuality: The psychology and politics of an invisible minority

E-Mail Notification of Your Latest Issue Online!

You might also like