Psychology & Sexuality, 2014

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2013.876444

Development of the heteronormative attitudes and beliefs scale

Janice M. Habarth*

Department of Psychology, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

(Received 28 February 2013; accepted 13 December 2013)

Heteronormativity has been defined as the enforced compliance with culturally deter-
mined heterosexual roles and assumptions about heterosexuality as ‘natural’ or ‘nor-
mal’. Cross-disciplinary theoretical literature suggests that heteronormativity may be
linked to a range of attitudes, social phenomena and outcomes and that it may be a
fundamental prerequisite for institutional and interpersonal manifestations of hetero-
sexism. Yet, this construct is in need of empirical elaboration. Operationalising hetero-
normativity along two dimensions (essential, binary beliefs about sex and gender and
normative behavioural attitudes), this article describes initial development of the
Heteronormative Attitudes and Beliefs Scale. Across three studies, this newly devel-
oped measure has demonstrated an adequately supported two-factor model, expected
group differences (e.g., higher scores among men vs. women and among heterosexual
vs. sexual minority participants) and significant correlations with relevant personality
and attitudinal variables such as right-wing authoritarianism, openness to experience
(OE), attitudes towards sexual minorities and tolerance of ambiguity. In addition to
establishing further construct validity and replication of the observed factor structure
with more racially, ethnically and socioeconomically diverse samples, future research
could more closely examine the potential causes, consequences and malleability of
heteronormativity.
Keywords: heteronormativity; heterosexism; sexual orientation; attitudes; authoritar-
ianism; personality measures

Evidence of negative attitudes towards sexual minorities (those whose sexual behaviour,
psychological orientation or identity is at least somewhat same-sex oriented) is well
established in the literature (e.g., Birkett, Espelage, & Koenig, 2009; Dermer, Smith, &
Barto, 2010; Herek, 2007). In turn, behavioural manifestations of such attitudes have been
linked to harassment and threats to personal safety for sexual minorities (Herek, 2009).
Examples include bullying, hate crimes, estrangement from loved ones and job and
housing discrimination. Empirical evidence suggests that even ambient heterosexism –
not targeted directly at observers but nonetheless shaping psychosocial and institutional
environments – can cause significant stress for sexual minority individuals (Burn, Kadlec,
& Rexer, 2005; also see Meyer’s work (e.g., 2003) on a more comprehensive model of
sexual minority stress) as well as heterosexuals (Silverschanz, Cortina, Konik, & Magley,
2008).
Taken together, the persistence of discrimination and negative attitudes towards sexual
minorities suggest an unspoken social contract that obliges consideration of

*Email: jhabarth@paloaltou.edu
Present address for Janice M. Habarth: Pacific Graduate School of Psychology, Palo Alto University,
1791 Arastradero Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304, USA.

© 2014 Taylor & Francis

2 J.M. Habarth

heterosexuality as normal or natural and defines the boundaries of acceptable or normal

heterosexuality. This phenomenon, identified as heteronormativity, has been construed as
a driving force underlying social pressures to conform to socially acceptable gender roles
and sexual behaviour (e.g., Rich, 1980; Tolman, 2006; Warner, 1991). Extending this
construct to cognitive processes, we might consider heteronormative attitudes and beliefs
as a necessary (though probably not sufficient) foundation for prejudice and discrimina-
tion against sexual minorities. However, this construct has not yet been fully elaborated or
definitively measured in quantitative psychological literature.

Heteronormativity and related constructs: definitions and measurement

A close conceptual neighbour of heteronormativity is heterosexism. This term has been
used to describe both a larger cultural context that stigmatises and denies full social
membership to sexual minorities and also individual attitudes and actions that reflect
cultural heterosexism. Herek (1990) thoroughly describes these two levels of heterosex-
ism, and Peel (2001) explains how heterosexism is often understood to encompass the
cultural or institutionalised bias faced by sexual minorities. Peel’s work as well as other
recent publications (Balsam, Molinas, Beadnell, Simoni, & Walters, 2011; Sue, 2010)
offers insights regarding the everyday challenges and microaggressions faced by non-
heterosexual persons, all of which may be understood to be fuelled by cultural ideologies
that normalise heterosexuality (heteronormativity) and pathologise or stigmatise non-
heterosexuality (heterosexism).
Regarding the individual level of bias and prejudice about sexual minorities, con-
ceptualisation and terminology has varied in recent years. Some authors continue to use
the term homophobia that was initially proposed by Weinberg (1973), while others
support alternatives such as homonegativity (e.g., Morrison & Morrison, 2002) or sexual
prejudice (e.g., Massey, 2009). I agree with Herek’s (2000) position that sexual prejudice
is a preferred term for studying such attitudes because it represents bias against any non-
heterosexual person or community (not just gay men and lesbians), is inherently linked to
a rich history of a broader prejudice literature in social psychology and is more concep-
tually and scientifically grounded than other terms.
Current measures of sexual prejudice include Morrison and Morrison’s (2002) Modern
Homonegativity Scale; Raja and Stokes’s (1998) Modern Homophobia Scale; Herek’s
own (1988) well-established Attitudes Towards Lesbians and Gay Men (ATLG) Scale;
Hudson and Ricketts’s (1980) Index of Attitudes Towards Homosexuals; and Banse,
Seise, and Zerbe’s (2001) Homosexuality-Implicit Association Test.1 An example of
expanding the sexual prejudice literature base that had previously focused primarily on
gay men and lesbians is Mohr and Rochlen’s (1999) Attitudes Regarding Bisexuals Scale.
Attitudes about sexual orientation have also been studied from the internalised perspective
of sexual minorities, including Mayfield’s (2001) Internalised Homonegativity Inventory
and the Lesbian Internalised Homophobia Scale by Szymanski and Chung (2001).

Defining heteronormativity
While heterosexism (both cultural and attitudinal) involves a specific target of non-
heterosexual persons, heteronormativity defines the boundaries of socially acceptable rela-
tionships and identities. As such, it enforces compliance with culturally determined hetero-
sexual roles (Nielsen, Walden, & Kunkel, 2000) and fosters assumptions about
heterosexuality as ‘natural’ or ‘normal’ (Kitzinger, 2005; Yep, 2003). By defining what is
 Psychology & Sexuality 3

to be considered ‘normal’ or acceptable, heteronormativity may thus be thought of as a

precursor or underlying cultural ideology that allows cultural heterosexism and heterosexist
prejudice to exist.
Cutting across disciplines, heteronormativity (much like heterosexism) is characterised
as an invisible, yet pervasive force that shapes expectations about how public spaces
should be used (e.g., Bell & Binnie, 2004; Bell & Valentine, 1995; Hubbard, 2001) and
upholds preferred and privileged status for citizens whose lives are consistent with
heterosexual role expectations (Brickell, 2001). Jackson (2006, p. 114) described hetero-
normativity as being ‘mobilized and reproduced’ in ordinary, everyday social discourse
and behaviour. Rubin (1975), Rich (1980) and Jackson (1999) previously explored the
‘obligatory’, ‘compulsory’ and ‘compulsive’ pressures towards heterosexuality. Yep
(2003) built on this work to elucidate how shared definitions of normality can create
behavioural expectations for women (promoting service to men in marriage and mother-
hood), men (defining rigid expectations of hegemonic masculinity) and sexual minorities
(requiring that they be defined as ‘other’ and thus not fully human). Overall, heteronor-
mativity has been discussed as a legitimising social force that is relevant to the daily lives
and identities of heterosexuals and sexual minorities alike.2
Gender is closely related to and often intertwined with heteronormativity, for normative
heterosexuality cannot exist without fixed expectations of behaviour based on binary systems
of gender (e.g., Gilbert, 2009; Jackson, 2006). Gilbert has explored the gender-based,
philosophical roots of heteronormativity, describing bigenderism (or the expectation that
there are two distinct genders that align perfectly with two biological sexes) as a ‘corner-
stone’ of heteronormativity (p. 97). Further, authors such as Tolman (2006) and Martino
(2000) describe how heteronormativity defines and limits acceptable behaviour for females
and males. Although some might argue that gender binaries are different than the (hetero)
normative relational expectations, I propose that we cannot understand heteronormativity as
distinct from such ‘bigendered’ or essentialist, binary expectations. For this reason, the
proposed measure described in the studies below includes both binary beliefs about sex
and gender and also normative behavioural expectations for men and women in relationships.
Although attitudes towards sexual minorities and cultural heterosexism are connected
to heteronormativity, they are also arguably distinct from heteronormativity, on both
individual and cultural levels. Inter- and intra-personally, heteronormativity represents
the assumed normality and inherent valuing of male–female relationships, whereas atti-
tudes towards sexual minorities (e.g., homophobia or homonegativity) are cognitions
specifically about those who live beyond the margins of presumed ‘normal’ heterosexual
orientation and identity. For example, sexual prejudice covers attitudinal bias against non-
heterosexual persons and communities. At the cultural level, heterosexist practices and
ideologies proscribe non-heterosexual identities or behaviours, while cultural heteronor-
mativity represents the cultural norms and assumptions about heterosexuality that make
heterosexism possible. Conceptually, then, heteronormativity may be thought of as both a
larger cultural force as well as an internalised, cognitive process that is a prerequisite for
sexual prejudice and discrimination. This conceptual distinction, along with consideration
of theorised consequences of heteronormativity, provides a rationale for the measurement
development studies that are summarised in the following sections.

Theorised consequences of heteronormativity

Heteronormativity has been implicated in gender, queer and liberationist theories as a key
contributor to negative attitudes about people embodying sexual minority and transgender
4 J.M. Habarth

identities (Kitzinger, 2005; Massey, 2009; also see Tee & Hegarty, 2006). For example,
Lind (2004) pointed out that social services otherwise available to heterosexually-headed
households may be denied to sexual minorities due to definitions of marriage and family
in welfare law. Further, discrimination and associated negative outcomes can be intensi-
fied to multiply marginalised individuals, such as sexual minority people of colour (e.g.,
Balsam et al., 2011; Grollman, 2012).
The effects of heteronormativity are theorised to exist on several levels: institutional,
interpersonal and even intrapsychic (e.g., internalised homophobia). For example, Nielsen
et al. (2000) observed that male postsecondary (college) students who violated traditional
gender norms encountered homophobic jokes, while female students received unsolicited
advice about adhering to femininity if they hoped to attract a mate. Other recent research
articulates how sexual minorities must repeatedly confront assumptions about heterosexu-
ality, which results in having to make daily decisions about coming out or passing, both of
which involve particular stressors (Land & Kitzinger, 2005). Similarly, at social functions
such as weddings, where the social capital of heterosexuality is celebrated and revered,
sexual minorities are often invisible or ‘othered’ (Oswald, 2000). Overall, recent research
supports a theory of a sometimes invisible, sometimes imperceptible heteronormative
social order that results in negative social consequences for anyone who violates its
expectations, regardless of sexual minority status.

Measuring heteronormativity
Despite heteronormativity’s potentially important contribution to individual lives and
social institutions, there are limited tools available for the quantitative measurement of
heteronormative attitudes and beliefs. Even so, recent work has laid a foundation for
empirical development. For example, negative attitudes towards sexual minorities have
been observed to correlate with inflexible beliefs about fundamental, categorical differ-
ences between people based on sexual identity or orientation (Hegarty & Pratto, 2001).
Such psychological investigations on categorising are consistent with theoretical work that
explains how heteronormativity sets up expectations for normal vs. ‘other’ categories of
people based on sexual orientation. Combining this work with Gilbert’s (2009) work on
bigenderism, it follows that a measure of heteronormativity should assess categorical
beliefs about sex and gender in order to better understand the context in which ‘othering’
related to sexual orientation occurs.
Additional relevant contributions to the study of heteronormativity are two recent
efforts to quantify this construct. First, Tolley and Ranzjin (2006) developed a scale to
examine professionals’ heteronormative attitudes in aged care facilities, with items spe-
cific to that particular population and context. They found significant relationships
between the variables of knowledge about sexual minorities, heterosexist prejudice and
heteronormativity. Their work supports a theoretical approach to separately assess hetero-
normativity and heterosexism and to develop a measure of heteronormativity that could be
used in other social contexts.
In addition, Massey’s (2009) updated, multidimensional measure of sexual prejudice
includes a heteronormative resistance factor. This subscale represents rejection of hetero-
normative assumptions and personal discomfort with gendered expectations. However,
discomfort with the consequences of gendered and sexual norms (i.e., ‘I feel restricted by
the gender label that people attach to me’ (Massey, 2009, p. 155)) is arguably different
than the degree to which one’s own attitudes are consistent with such norms.
Hypothetically, two people could experience varying degrees of inner conflict vs.
 Psychology & Sexuality 5

tolerance for heteronormativity, yet hold similarly heteronormative attitudes. This con-
ceptual distinction suggests that the field could benefit from a new measure that focuses
explicitly on heteronormative attitudes and beliefs.
The research presented below builds on the theoretical and empirical contributions of
previous authors. In particular, I agree with Massey’s (2009) point that attitudes about
sexual orientation are complex and multidimensional, and that we are in need of addi-
tional measures to examine the subtle and potentially antecedent constructs related to
heterosexist prejudice and behaviour. As such, the work described below focuses on the
development of a general measure of heteronormative attitudes and beliefs, that is, the
extent to which individuals have internalised socially prescribed (heterosexual) relational
norms.

Hypothesising associated personality constructs and group differences

The findings summarised below include exploration of several attitudinal and personality
constructs predicted to be relevant to heteronormativity. For example, right-wing author-
itarianism (RWA), defined by Altemeyer (1996) as a tendency towards adherence to
authority, conformity and aggression towards non-conformists correlates consistently
with negative ATLG (e.g., Goodman & Moradi, 2008), anti-environmentalism (e.g.,
Peterson, Doty, & Winter, 1993; Schultz & Stone, 1994) and anti-feminist tendencies
(e.g., Duncan, Peterson, & Winter, 1997). RWA has further demonstrated consistent
correlations with the Big Five personality dimensions of openness to experience (OE)
and conscientiousness (Sibley & Duckitt, 2008) as well as a negative association with
tolerance of ambiguity (Budner, 1962). Because heteronormativity as defined above
requires beliefs and attitudes consistent with traditional gender role conformity, thus
relying on an external source of authority and morality, I hypothesised that a measure
of heteronormativity would correlate significantly with RWA. I further anticipated similar
patterns of correlation between heteronormativity and personality constructs of OE and
tolerance of ambiguity as had been previously observed between these constructs
and RWA.
Considering group differences, women have been observed to be less authoritarian
(Gormley & Lopez, 2010; Kemmelmeier, 2010) and more positive in their attitudes
towards sexual minorities than men (Cullen, Wright, & Alessandri, 2002; Kite &
Whitley, 1996). Building on this research, I anticipated that women would demonstrate
less heteronormative attitudes than men. Further, given the literature on internalised
heterosexism (IH) among sexual minorities (e.g., Szymanski, Kashubeck-West, &
Meyer, 2008), I expected that heteronormativity would vary among sexual minorities as
well as heterosexuals. However, I also anticipated the potential for the experience of
same-sex attractions or relationships to undermine assumptions of heterosexuality as
normative. Therefore, I predicted that sexual minorities as a group would demonstrate
less heteronormative attitudes and beliefs than heterosexual people.
Finally, I wished to distinguish between heteronormativity and other constructs related
to social conservatism and RWA. Specifically, attitudes about environmental sustainability
have been observed to correlate with political attitudes and party affiliation (Konisky,
Milyo, & Richardson, 2008; Olofsson & Öhman, 2006), with RWA (as cited above) and
with personality characteristics such as agreeableness and OE (Markowitz, Goldberg,
Ashton, & Lee, 2012; Milfont & Sibley, 2012). Thus, I expected that heteronormativity
would also correlate with environmental attitudes. However, I anticipated that heteronor-
mativity would demonstrate lower correlations with environmental attitudes than with
6 J.M. Habarth

measures of authoritarianism or attitudes towards sexual minorities. I reasoned that these

latter constructs’ fundamental connections to behavioural and social identity norms would
produce greater conceptual overlap with heteronormativity, thus providing evidence that
heteronormativity is a distinct aspect of a larger, overarching complex of social and
political attitudes and beliefs.

Summary and aims

Heteronormative attitudes and beliefs are theorised to define the boundaries of normative
sexual behaviour (e.g., people should partner with others of a presumed opposite sex) and
relate to proscriptions against behaviours and feelings that violate these norms. In addi-
tion, heteronormativity is believed to rely on underlying binary, essentialist beliefs about
sex and gender. Overall, this construct is hypothesised to relate to a larger cluster of
politically conservative and authoritarian attitudes. And at least two scholars have made
recent efforts to measure specific aspects or functions of this construct. However, current
literature includes neither a general, definitive measure of individual heteronormative
cognitions, nor a quantitative investigation of the relationships among heteronormative
attitudes and beliefs, attitudes towards sexual minorities and other relevant personality
constructs. The aim of the item-development procedures and three subsequent studies was
to develop and pilot-test a measure of individual heteronormative attitudes and beliefs that
could complement the existing literature.

Study 1: initial psychometric evaluation

The first study involved initial investigations of the factor structure and reliability of the
Heteronormative Attitudes and Beliefs Scale (HABS). I hypothesised that the HABS
would be comprised of two factors, which would map onto the two components of the
heteronormativity construct described above. I further expected that scores on this new
measure would correlate with authoritarianism and prejudicial attitudes towards sexual
minorities.

Method
Participants
Eighty-four undergraduate students participated in this study, including 49 students from
a 200-level abnormal psychology course and 35 from an upper-level psychology course
on gender and sexual identity (Mage = 20, range = 18–22 years).3 Participants were
recruited during class sessions to respond to a brief study of ‘people’s beliefs and
opinions about social and political issues.’ Approximately three-fourth of the partici-
pants (76%) were women, none identified as transgender, 11% (n = 10) identified as
sexual minorities and 21% (n = 18) identified as racial or ethnic minorities. Racial and
ethnic minority representation included Asian, Indian, Middle Eastern or Chinese
(n = 9); Latino/a, Hispanic or Puerto Rican (n = 5); African American or Black
(n = 3); and Native American (n = 1) students. Sexual minority self-descriptions
included ‘mostly straight’ (n = 2); questioning, open, undefined or bisexual (n = 6);
and gay (n = 2). Group differences included a significantly larger percentage of racial
and ethnic minority students in the 200-level course as compared to the upper-level
course (χ2(1, n = 83) = 5.61, p < 0.05).
 Psychology & Sexuality 7

Instruments
Drawing from the theoretical literature summarised above, heteronormativity was defined
as (i) beliefs about binary categories of gender and sex that are biologically determined
and indistinguishable from one another (i.e., sex = gender) and (ii) normative behavioural
expectations for women and men in romantic or sexual relationships. An initial pool of 38
items was developed to reflect these two theoretically relevant factors. In order to avoid an
acquiescence bias, approximately half of the items were negatively worded (i.e., higher
levels of agreement = lower levels of heteronormativity) and the remaining items were
positively worded. As indicated in Table 1, which summarises the two-factor solution
described in the results section below, several items pertaining to binary and essential
beliefs about gender and sex were adapted from Tee and Hegarty (2006). All other items
were constructed by the author, in consultation with senior scholars of gender, sexuality
and personality, with an intention to be consistent with existing theoretical literature on
heteronormativity. All items included a seven-point response scale ranging from strongly
disagree to strongly agree, and mean scores were calculated in order to facilitate compar-
ison with other measures.
Two additional measures facilitated initial evaluation of the new measure’s validity.
First, RWA was assessed using a 20-item version of Altemeyer’s (1998) questionnaire.
Different versions of this measure have demonstrated excellent reliability and validity (see
Altemeyer, 1988 and 1996; Christopher & Mull, 2006). Following Duncan et al. (1997),
participants rated items on a seven-point scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree.
Two items referring to sexual orientation were not included in RWA scores for these
analyses. Second, a 10-item version of Herek’s (1994) ATLG scale was used to measure
sexual prejudice. The ATLG scale does not measure heteronormativity as defined above
and focuses explicitly on lesbians and gay men. Although it does not expressly measure
attitudes about all sexual minorities (e.g., no questions about people identifying as
bisexual or queer), this measure is established as an accurate predictor of general hetero-
sexist attitudes and behaviours (Stoever & Morera, 2007). In addition to calculating a
global mean ATLG score, I also calculated composite scores for attitudes towards lesbians
(ATL) and attitudes towards gay men (ATG).

Results
Reliability and validity of the HABS
A Direct Oblimin-rotated factor analysis of the 38 initial items revealed two factors with
eigenvalues of 10.3 and 6.6 (the scree plot suggested a two-factor solution). Items with
absolute value factor loadings of at least 0.5 on one factor and below 0.3 on the second
factor were retained in the analyses that follow. This resulted in a 16-item measure of
heteronormativity (see Table 1), comprised of two eight-item scales (r = 0.42, p < 0.01)
with balanced negative/positive wording. The scales, labelled Essential Sex and Gender
(α = 0.92) and Normative Behaviour (α = 0.78), reflect the two theorised components of
heteronormativity.

Group comparisons
t-Tests revealed significant differences by course enrolment. Students from the upper-
level (gender and sexual identities-focused) course indicated significantly more posi-
tive views about gay men (t(82) = 2.20, p < 0.05; d = 0.49), and they scored lower
8 J.M. Habarth

Table 1. Study 1: factor loadings on the HABS.

Component

Item 1 2

Essential Sex and Gender Subscale

1. Masculinity and femininity are determined by biological factors, such as 0.660 −0.023
genes and hormones, before birth.a
2. There are only two sexes: male and female.b 0.792 −0.038
3. All people are either male or female. b 0.797 0.012
4. Gender is the same thing as sex. 0.836 −0.034
5. Sex is complex; in fact, there might even be more than two sexes. −0.761 −0.020
6. Gender is a complicated issue, and it does not always match up with −0.813 0.027
biological sex.
7. People who say that there are only two legitimate genders are mistaken. −0.816 0.061
8. Gender is something we learn from society. −0.713 0.009
Normative Behaviour Subscale
9. In intimate relationships, women and men take on roles according to 0.172 0.683
gender for a reason; it is really the best way to have a successful
relationship.
10. In intimate relationships, people should act only according to what is −0.039 0.585
traditionally expected of their gender.
11. It is perfectly okay for people to have intimate relationships with people of −0.236 −0.646
the same sex.
12. The best way to raise a child is to have a mother and a father raise the 0.102 0.605
child together.
13. In healthy intimate relationships, women may sometimes take on 0.109 −0.611
stereotypical ‘male’ roles, and men may sometimes take on stereotypical
‘female’ roles.
14. Women and men need not fall into stereotypical gender roles when in an 0.064 −0.554
intimate relationship.
15. People should partner with whomever they choose, regardless of sex or −0.164 −0.540
gender.
16. There are particular ways that men should act and particular ways that −0.003 0.738
women should act in relationships.
Notes: aThis item was adapted from Tee and Hegarty’s (2006) Trans Persons Beliefs Scale. Copyright 2006 by
John Wiley & Sons.
b
These items were adapted from Tee and Hegarty’s (2006) Beliefs about Gender Scale. Copyright 2006 by John
Wiley & Sons.

(i.e., less heteronormative) on the essential sex and gender subscale (t(82) = –2.34,
p < 0.05; d = 0.52) than did students from the abnormal psychology course. However,
there were no significant differences on the normative behaviour subscale by course
enrolment.

Relationships among study variables

Intercorrelations among study variables are presented in Table 2. As predicted, there were
strong and significant correlations among all attitudinal variables in this study, in the
expected directions. Both subscales of the HABS correlated positively with RWA and
negatively with ATL and ATG. Regression analyses revealed that even when controlling
for course enrolment, RWA significantly predicted scores on the Essential Sex and Gender
(β = 0.50, t(81) = 5.39, p < 0.001) and Normative Behaviour subscales (β = 0.64,
t(81) = 9.52, p < 0.001). RWA also explained a significant proportion of variance in
 Psychology & Sexuality 9

Table 2. Study 1: descriptive statistics and intercorrelations among variables (n = 84).

M SD 1 2 3 4 5

1. Essential Sex and Gender Subscale 3.08 1.26 –

2. Normative Behaviour Subscale 2.41 0.91 0.42** –
3. RWA 2.02 0.84 0.52** 0.64** –
4. ATL 6.30 0.78 −0.52** −0.53** −0.72** –
5. ATG 6.30 0.77 −0.51** −0.56** −0.72** 0.97** –
Note: **p < 0.01.

Essential Sex and Gender (adjusted R2 = 0.29, F(2, 81) = 18.29, p < 0.001) and Normative
Behaviour scores (adjusted R2 = 0.39, F(2, 81) = 27.74, p < 0.001).
I also conducted regressions to examine relationships between heteronormativity and
ATLG. The full measure (combining Essential Sex and Gender and Normative Behaviour
subscales in one model) accounted for a significant amount of variance in ATL (adjusted
R2 = 0.40, F(2, 81) = 28.51, p < 0.001) and gay men (adjusted R2 = 0.42, F(2,
81) = 31.38, p < 0.001), after controlling for course enrolment. Similarly, the two
subscales also independently predicted significant variation in ATL (Essential Sex and
Gender: adjusted R2 = 0.27, F(2, 81) = 16.01, p < 0.001; Normative Behaviour: adjusted
R2 = 0.32, F(2, 81) = 20.49, p < 0.001) and gay men (Essential Sex and Gender: adjusted
R2 = 0.27, F(2, 81) = 16.28, p < 0.001; Normative Behaviour: adjusted R2 = 0.36, F(2,
81) = 24.69, p < 0.001). Residuals were normally distributed for all of the above
regression analyses.

Discussion
These findings reveal preliminary support for the validity and reliability of the 16-item
HABS. A clear two-factor solution with adequate overall internal consistency suggests
that the Normative Behaviour and Essential Sex and Gender subscales are distinguishable
from one another, yet still significantly related. Because heteronormativity (HABS) is
theorised as contributing directly to prejudicial ATLG, it was hypothesised that these two
measures would correlate significantly. And because RWA and ATLG have been highly
correlated in previous studies, it was hypothesised that RWA and heteronormativity would
also be highly correlated. Results supporting these hypotheses suggest that the 16-item
HABS measure and its two subscales have adequate concurrent validity with these closely
related constructs.
Although the results clearly support the hypotheses, Study 1 was limited by its small
sample size (a particular concern for the results of exploratory factor analyses reported
above), its potential for generalisability (the sample consisted solely of postsecondary/
college students), and the limited number of constructs explored. Thus, these initial
results, particularly regarding the scale’s factor structure, were considered to be prelimin-
ary, and additional studies were conducted to further examine evidence of a two-factor
structure and overall construct validity.

Study 2: exploring discriminant validity

The second study aimed to discriminate heteronormative attitudes and beliefs from
another variable related to RWA and political orientation: attitudes about the environment.
10 J.M. Habarth

Due to less specific conceptual overlap, I hypothesised that the HABS would correlate
less with attitudes about environmental issues as compared to RWA and ATLG.

Method
Participants
Students in nine discussion sections of an undergraduate abnormal psychology course
(different from the course sampled in Study 1) were invited to complete a voluntary paper-
and-pencil survey on attitudes about political and social issues. Ultimately, 171 students
(Mage = 20.1, range = 18–24 years4) completed these in-class surveys, and 166 responded
to enough items to be included in most analyses. The sample consisted of 70% women, no
transgender-identified students, and about 5% (n = 8) sexual minority students. Over one-
third (37%) identified as racial or ethnic minorities, including Asian, Indian or Middle
Eastern (n = 37); Latino/a or Hispanic (n = 12); and African American or Black
participants (n = 11). Sexual minority open-ended responses included ‘mostly heterosex-
ual’ (n = 1), ‘unlabelled’ or ‘unsure’ (n = 2) and ‘bi-curious’ or ‘bisexual’ (n = 5).

Instruments
In addition to using Altemeyer’s 20-item RWA measure, Herek’s ATLG measure, and the
newly developed, 16-item HABS (all described in Study 1 above), this study also
employed a measure of environmental attitudes based on earlier work by Peterson et al.
(1993). D. G. Winter (personal communication, January 8, 2008) observed two factors in
unpublished research using this measure: extrinsic anti-environmentalism (e.g., ‘If it
succeeds, the environmental movement will reduce this country to a second-rate nation,’)
and intrinsically motivated environmentalism (e.g., ‘We have a duty to preserve the
environment for future generations’). As with other items on this survey, participants
chose from seven response options ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree.

Results
Consistent with results from Study 1, composite HABS scores demonstrated strong,
significant relationships with both RWA (r = 0.64(167), p < 0.001) and also a composite
measure of ATLG (r = −0.68(165), p < 0.001). In comparison, Fisher’s r to z transforma-
tions revealed that the correlation between the HABS and environmental attitudes
(r = −0.31(167), p < 0.001) was significantly lower than correlations of the HABS with
RWA and ATLG. Table 3 reports correlations among subscales, which followed similar
patterns as the composite scales reported in the text above.

Discussion
This study provided preliminary evidence for discriminant validity of the HABS. The
overall correlational patterns suggest that the HABS (and the construct it represents,
heteronormativity) is more closely related to authoritarianism and ATLG than it is to
attitudes about the environment, which suggests that it is a politically-linked construct
that is nevertheless distinguishable from other facets of global political conservatism.
Study 2, like Study 1, was limited in generalisability due to its sample of postsecondary/
 Psychology & Sexuality 11

Table 3. Study 2: descriptive statistics and intercorrelations among scales (n = 162–169).

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Essential Sex and 3.18 1.16 –

Gender Subscale
2. Normative Behaviour 2.96 1.14 0.52** –
Subscale
3. Right-Wing 2.46 0.96 0.44** 0.68** –
Authoritarianism
4. ATL 5.97 1.08 –0.48** –0.64** –0.76** –
5. ATG 5.88 1.17 –0.46** –0.71** –0.69** 0.85** –
6. Intrinsic 5.19 1.07 –0.25** –0.30** –0.29** 0.27** 0.28** –
environmentalism
7. Extrinsic anti- 3.19 1.00 0.18* 0.25* 0.38** –0.26** –0.20** –0.60** –
environmentalism
Note: **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05.

college students, representing a restricted age range and likely also a restricted socio-
economic status (SES) range.

Study 3: factor structure, personality correlates and group differences

Having established an internally consistent 16-item measure of heteronormativity with
initial evidence of construct validity, the third study involved confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA) and further exploration of validity among a larger community sample of heterosexual
and sexual minority adults. Beyond the first priority of testing the hypothesised factor
model, Study 3 also explored relationships among heteronormativity and more general
personality constructs such as RWA, tolerance of ambiguity and OE. Hypotheses involved
replication of data from Studies 1 and 2 (i.e., the HABS would correlate significantly with
RWA) as well as new hypotheses predicting significant correlations with social conserva-
tism, (in)tolerance of ambiguity and (low) OE. An additional research question focused on
demographic differences in heteronormativity and its correlates, with predictions of lower
heteronormativity among women (vs. men) and sexual minorities (vs. heterosexuals). This
study used an Internet-based survey to investigate relationships among heteronormativity,
relevant personality characteristics and a more thorough selection of demographic variables
as compared to Studies 1 and 2.

Method
Participants and recruitment
Participants were recruited with an intention to balance political and sexual orientation in the
sample. Emails to organisations and flyers distributed at election polls and large-scale
sporting events invited participants to respond to an anonymous online survey on ‘social
and political opinions, beliefs and experiences’. Referring community organisations and
participant-designated charitable organisations received a $5.00 donation for each completed
survey. Seven hundred and seventeen people accessed the survey website (managed by
PsycData), and 484 responded to enough HABS items to be included in the final sample.5
The sample, reporting residential zip codes in or near several Midwestern US cities,
included approximately 38% sexual minorities, 55% women, 44% men and 4 transgender
12 J.M. Habarth

participants. Participants were largely European American or White (92%), well-educated

(70% had a postsecondary degree; 16% were part- or full-time postsecondary students)
and economically stable (12% indicated financial difficulties; 71% were employed full-
time). Approximately one-fifth (18%) identified as socially conservative and just over
one-third (34%) indicated economically conservative attitudes. Additional demographic
data are included in Table 4.
Several differences in demographic characteristics were observed between sexual mino-
rities and heterosexuals. For instance, more heterosexuals (76%) were married or in a
committed relationship as compared to sexual minorities (58%) (χ2 (1, n = 477) = 16.39,
p < 0.001; d = 0.38). There were no significant differences by sexual orientation with
respect to age, racial or ethnic minority status, or type of community. However, hetero-
sexuals reporting slightly higher average levels of education (t(476) = 3.34, p < 0.01;
d = 0.31) and better current financial situations than sexual minorities (t(476) = 3.11,
p < 0.01; d = 0.29), even though there was no significant difference in childhood financial
situations. Heterosexual participants were also more socially conservative (t(491) = 6.86,
p < 0.001; d = 0.64) and economically conservative (t(490) = 3.12, p < 0.01; d = 0.29), on
average, than sexual minorities.

Instruments
The 16-item HABS (overall scale α = 0.90; Essential Sex and Gender α = 0.85; Normative
Behaviour α = 0.86) developed in Study 1 and Altemeyer’s (1998) 20-item RWA measure
were included in this study. I also measured social desirability using the well-established
13-item Marlowe-Crowne short form (Reynolds, 1982), and I used a seven-point

Table 4. Study 3: sample demographic characteristics.

Variable n % Range M SD

Age 484 – 22–82 44.7 12.80

Current sexual orientationa (n = 493)
Exclusively lesbian or gay 124 25.1
Bisexual or between LG/het 63 12.8
Exclusively heterosexual 192 62.0
Race and ethnicity (n = 480)
European American/White (non-Hispanic) 444 92.5
African American/Black (non-Hispanic) 13 2.7
Latino/a/Hispanic 8 1.7
Asian/Asian American/Indian 11 2.3
Other (unspecified or Native American) 4 .8
Current religion (n = 469)
Catholic 56 11.9
Protestant, denomination specified 90 19.2
Christian, unspecified 64 13.6
Jewish 15 3.2
Other religionb 65 13.0
Religious or spiritual, unspecified 55 11.7
Atheist/agnostic/not religious 125 26.7
Notes: aFollowing Kinsey, Pomeroy, and Martin (1948) and Klein, Sepekoff, and Wolf (1985), sexual orientation
was measured on a seven-point scale from completely heterosexual to completely gay or lesbian.
b
This category included Unitarian Universalist, Buddhist, Hindu, Native American, Baha’I, Pagan/Wiccan and
New Age participants, as well as those who reported observing multiple religions.
 Psychology & Sexuality 13

agree-disagree scale to assess scores on Budner’s (1962) 16-item Scale of Tolerance-

Intolerance of Ambiguity6 (ToA; observed α = 0.60). This measure includes such items as:
‘People who insist upon a yes or no answer just don’t know how complicated things really
are’, and ‘What we are used to is always preferable to what is unfamiliar’ (reverse-
scored). Another personality construct, OE, was measured using eight items from
Saucier’s (2002) Mini-Modular Markers (OE; observed α = 0.68). For these items,
respondents chose from seven points between bipolar extremes (e.g., from very conven-
tional to very unconventional, or very complex to not at all complex). Similarly, partici-
pants rated themselves on seven-point scales ranging from extremely liberal to extremely
conservative regarding social attitudes (e.g., affirmative action, school prayer, abortion)
and economic views (e.g., taxes, governmental regulation of businesses), including a no
opinion option as recommended by Knight (1999).
Demographic information was collected using a series of open-ended, multiple choice
and Likert-type scale items. Current financial situation and level of education, for
example, were measured by ordinal scale items. Relationship status, student status and
employment status were assessed using multiple choice items. A composite SES reflected
different components of social class by taking the mean of standardised scores for level of
education and current financial situation rating.7 I also recoded open-ended responses
about race/ethnicity, gender and religion to create categories suitable for statistical
analysis.

Results
Confirmatory factor analyses
Structural equation model analyses using maximum likelihood estimation were conducted
using EQS, Version 6.2. The initial CFA failed to support the hypothesised two-factor
model (CFI = 0.86; RMSEA = 0.11; χ2(103) = 681.82, p < 0.001). However, the highest
modification index statistics for adding parameters (Lagrange Multiplier) suggested two
instances of local dependence among error terms. The first instance involve two items
from the Essential Sex and Gender subscale (‘Gender is the same thing as sex’ and
‘Gender is a complicated issue, and it doesn’t always match up with biological sex’
(reverse-scored)). The second instance involved two items from the Normative Behaviour
subscale: ‘People should partner with whomever they choose, regardless of sex or gender’
and It is perfectly okay for people to have intimate relationships with people of the same
sex (reverse-scored). Given the conceptual and semantic similarities between the items
within each pair, a second model was tested in which the correlations between the error
terms for these two pairs of items were added as additional parameters. This modification
resulted in statistics suggesting an adequate fit (χ2(101) = 417.95, p < 0.001; CFI = 0.92;
RMSEA = 0.08), with full model statistics reported in Table 5. Further, a chi-square
difference test revealed that the estimation of these residual covariances significantly
improved the fit of the hypothesised model, χ2(2) = 263.87, p < 0.001.
Next, a retrospective CFA was conducted on Study 2 data in order to cross-validate the
support for a two-factor model with local dependence of error terms specified in Study 3.
These analyses, despite a smaller sample size (n = 170) yielded comparable support for
the model (χ2(101) = 192.27, p < 0.001; CFI = 0.92; RMSEA = 0.07). As expected, a chi-
square difference test revealed that the estimation of these residual covariances in Study 2
significantly improved the fit of the hypothesised model (χ2(2) = 186.86, p < 0.001).
Finally, a chi-square difference test was examined for identical models based on the data
14 J.M. Habarth

Table 5. Study 3: HABS confirmatory factor model (standard errors in parentheses; n = 484).

Parameter estimate Unstandardised Standardised

Essential Sex and Gender Beliefs (ESGB) → X3 1.00 0.87

ESGB → X5 0.55 (0.04) 0.56
ESGB → X6 0.24 (0.05) 0.25
ESGB → X7 0.90 (0.04) 0.83
ESGB → X9 0.56 (0.03) 0.68
ESGB → X11 0.79 (0.04) 0.77
ESGB → X12 0.33 (0.04) 0.35
ESGB → X15 0.92 (0.04) 0.87
Normative Behaviour Attitudes (NBA) → X1 1.00 0.35
NBA → X2 2.50 (0.34) 0.67
NBA → X4 2.54 (0.34) 0.71
NBA → X8 2.65 (0.35) 0.78
NBA → X10 2.89 (0.39) 0.75
NBA → X13 2.65 (0.35) 0.78
NBA → X14 3.46 (0.48) 0.68
NBA → X16 1.97 (0.27) 0.61
Error in X1 1.16 (0.08) 0.94
Error in X2 1.25 (0.09) 0.74
Error in X3 1.03 (0.09) 0.50
Error in X4 1.03 (0.08) 0.70
Error in X5 2.07 (0.14) 0.83
Error in X6 2.90 (0.19) 0.97
Error in X7 1.18 (0.10) 0.56
Error in X8 0.73 (0.06) 0.62
Error in X9 1.14 (0.08) 0.73
Error in X10 1.07 (0.09) 0.66
Error in X11 1.31 (0.10) 0.63
Error in X12 2.42 (0.16) 0.94
Error in X13 0.75 (0.06) 0.63
Error in X14 2.33 (0.17) 0.74
Error in X15 0.82 (0.07) 0.49
Error in X16 1.11 (0.08) 0.80
Covariance ESGB and NBA 0.48 (0.07) 0.67
Covariance EX4 and EX10 0.63 (0.07) 0.60
Covariance EX5 and EX9 0.73 (0.08) 0.47
Notes: χ2(101) = 417.95, p < 0.001; CFI = 0.92; RMSEA = 0.08 (CI = 0.07, 0.09). Indicator subscripts
correspond to scale item numbers in Appendix (available online as Supplemental Material). Items were
reverse-scored as specified in the Appendix. All parameter estimates were significant at p < 0.05.

from Study 1 and yielded similar evidence for improved fit based on estimation of the two
residual covariances (χ2(2) = 48.17, p < 0.001).8

Correlates of heteronormativity
I had predicted that heteronormative attitudes and beliefs would relate to aspects of
personality such as low ToA, low OE and high RWA. After controlling for social
desirability, SES and age through partial correlations, I observed that each of the predic-
tions was supported by the data across the full sample (both for the overall HABS and its
two subscales). The correlations were similar within sexual orientation and gender sub-
groups (see Table 6 for full sample and sexual orientation sub-group correlations).
 Psychology & Sexuality 15

Table 6. Study 3: correlates of the HABS by sexual orientation.

Full Essential Sex and Gender Subscale Normative Behaviour Subscale

HABS
Full Exclusively Bisexual/ Exclusively Exclusively Bisexual/ Exclusively
sample lesbian/gay between heterosexual lesbian/gay between heterosexual
Variable (df = 461) (df = 111) (df = 56) (df = 279) (df = 111) (df = 56) (df = 279)

RWA (no LGBT 0.76*** 0.28a** 0.47*** 0.62a*** 0.66c*** 0.75*** 0.79c***
items)
Tolerance of −0.46*** −0.33** −0.13b −0.44b*** −0.36*** −0.21d −0.48d***
ambiguity
Openness to −0.33*** −0.19* −0.11 −0.33*** −0.23* −0.06 −0.28***
experience

Notes: All correlations were adjusted for the effects of age, SES and social desirability. Coefficients with
common subscripts are significantly different from each other at p < 0.05.
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

Because ToA correlated positively with both age (r = 0.10(481), p < 0.05) and SES
(r = 0.15(484), p < 0.01) and the HABS correlated positively with social desirability
(r = 0.12(480), p < 0.01), I decided to use age, SES and social desirability as controls in
subsequent analyses involving core variables. At the subscale level, social desirability
correlated positively with Normative Behaviour (r = 0.14(480), p < 0.01) but demon-
strated only a trend towards significance in its correlation with Essential Sex and Gender
Beliefs (ESGB) (r = 0.08(479), p = 0.07).
Social conservatism was also observed to correlate positively with both subscales of
heteronormativity: Essential Sex and Gender (r = 0.55(481), p < 0.001) and Normative
Behaviour (r = 0.68(482), p < 0.001). In addition, social conservatism correlated nega-
tively with ToA (r = − 0.39(500), p < 0.001) and OE (r = −0.36(503), p < 0.001). Further,
these relationships were significant when examined among women, men, lesbians/gay
men and heterosexuals. Comparisons based on Fisher’s r to z transformations revealed
significant differences between many of the comparisons by sexual orientation groups. In
particular, relationships between social conservatism and all variables except OE were
generally stronger for heterosexuals as compared to at least one of the sexual minority
subgroups.

Demographic variance in heteronormativity and other personality characteristics

One-way ANCOVAs indicate that after controlling for social political orientation and
SES, sexual minorities were significantly lower than heterosexuals in both heteronor-
mativity (F(1,469) = 25.55, p < 0.001; η2p = 0.09) and RWA (F(1,475 = 8.34, p < 0.01;
η2p = 0.02). In addition, when controlling for SES, sexual minorities demonstrated
greater tolerance of ambiguity (F(1,474) = 7.42, p < 0.01;η2p = 0.02) and OE
(F(1,476) = 14.06, p < 0.001; η2p = 0.03) than heterosexuals, but these differences
became nonsignificant when controlling for social political orientation. Further analyses
confirmed that these sexual orientation differences in heteronormativity and associated
personality characteristics generally held among women and men, although sexual
minority men were no more tolerant of ambiguity or open to experience than hetero-
sexual men.
16 J.M. Habarth

Discussion
Overall, the two-factor structure from previous studies found adequate support through CFA
in Study 3. This is consistent with theoretical literature connecting heteronormativity to
essential and binary beliefs about sex and gender, and normative behavioural expectations
for these presumably natural categories of women and men. In addition, Study 3 yielded
replication of high internal consistency of the two subscales and the overall measure. Taken
together, these data suggest that the measure has adequate basic psychometric properties.

Correlates and predictors of heteronormativity

Correlational findings for the HABS (negative relationships with tolerance of ambiguity and
OE, and positive relationships with RWA and social conservatism) are consistent with
literature on relationships among political orientation, personality variables and attitudes
towards sexual minorities (e.g., Whitley & Ægisdóttir, 2000). Although heteronormativity is
highly correlated with RWA, the HABS items focus specifically on beliefs and attitudes
about the nature of gender and normative sexual behaviour, not on expectations of author-
itative regulation of gender roles and sexual behaviour. This distinction allows for the
examination of underlying beliefs that may be somewhat independent of overt actions or
even political orientation. For example, whereas social conservatives were more likely to
hold heteronormative beliefs, there was nonetheless enough variation in heteronormativity
among social liberals to suggest more subtle gradations in attitudes about gender and
sexuality (e.g., see Wright’s (2000) discussion of a continuum of attitudes including homo-
phobia, tolerance, acceptance and support).
We might predict, then, that heteronormativity would be a necessary prerequisite for
explicit bias against sexual minorities, but that not all people holding heteronormative
attitudes would express or experience negative attitudes towards sexual minorities.
Understanding more about how heteronormativity functions as distinct from explicit
bias against sexual minorities might become important when exploring the differences
that scholars such as Wright have articulated among cognitive patterns of tolerance,
acceptance or support. Potential areas for application include assessing normative assump-
tions as a part of family therapy with sexual minority clients, or as part of institutional
efforts to assess or improve climates for sexual minority community members.
Finally, as expected, heterosexuals were higher in heteronormativity and RWA than
sexual minorities, whereas sexual minorities were higher in tolerance of ambiguity and
OE. There were only two exceptions when examining differences separately among men
and women: sexual minority men were no more tolerant of ambiguity or open to
experience than heterosexual men. These exceptions indicate a possible interaction
between gender and sexual orientation for at least some of the personality and attitudinal
variables measured in the present study. Future research might examine interactions
between gender and sexual orientation in the context of a model of social power, for it
may be that those holding multiple identities with greater social power (European/White
Americans, men, heterosexuals) would be less likely to tolerate ambiguity or transgression
of norms in themselves and others.

Summary and concluding discussion

Heteronormativity has been discussed theoretically in feminist and queer literature as a
prerequisite for certain types of bias and discrimination, and work has commenced to
 Psychology & Sexuality 17

measure individual heteronormative tendencies. The current research builds on previous

literature to introduce a scale that measures two different components of heteronormativ-
ity: essential, binary beliefs about gender and normative attitudes about relational beha-
viour. The first subscale, Essential Sex and Gender, is linked to heteronormativity through
previous philosophical work on bigenderism (e.g., Gilbert, 2009), and the second sub-
scale, Normative Behaviour, explores attitudes about expected heterosexual relational
behaviours for individuals presumed to inhabit these binary and essential gender roles.
A community-based Internet study of adults allowed for replication and confirmation of
results observed with postsecondary students, including emergence of two clear factors as
well as evidence of high internal consistency and convergent validity. Across the different
studies, the HABS demonstrated consistent group differences by sexual minority status
and gender, suggesting that social identities may be connected to variance in internalised
heteronormative concepts of gender and sexuality.
Regarding personality and politically oriented correlates, the overall measure and its
two sub-scales, Essential Sex and Gender and Normative Behaviour, are positively
associated with RWA and negatively correlated with tolerance of ambiguity and OE.
Although high correlations suggest substantial conceptual overlap between RWA and
heteronormativity, there is also promising evidence for fine distinctions to be made
between these constructs. For example, as indicated in Table 6, RWA and heteronorma-
tivity were more highly correlated among heterosexuals than sexual minorities, suggesting
that unique facets of RWA and heteronormativity may be experienced and expressed by
sexual minorities. Further research involving comparisons among sexual orientation
groups is thus warranted.

Sexual orientation, gender and personality

The results of these studies, particularly those of Study 3, suggest that attitudes and beliefs
about heterosexuality as a normal and default way of being are strongly related to a
combination of personality, identity and social context variables. For example, people
who are generally more socially conservative and authoritarian, less tolerant of ambiguity
and less open to new life experiences also appear to have more rigid heterosexual
expectations and beliefs about gender and sexuality; however, these personality character-
istics are most strongly related to heteronormative attitudes for heterosexuals. On the
surface, we might hypothesise such group differences as being caused by some essential
or inherent quality of individuals belonging to these groups. But it may be more interest-
ing and useful to ask why and how such discrepancies have come to exist. One possibility
for empirical investigation is to explore whether the motivation to maintain existing power
and privilege mediates connections between hegemonic group membership and hetero-
normative attitudes.
Although beyond the scope of these studies or the HABS, we should also consider
how, as Kitzinger (2005) explained, heteronormativity is socially produced and perpetu-
ated. A particular kind of heterosexuality is unwittingly reproduced and reinforced by
forms that require an announcement of relationship status (married, separated, divorced,
etc.), by organisations that grant health care to employees’ spouses but not domestic
partners, by school forms that request information about mothers and fathers and even by
casual conversations that involve information or questions about significant others and
families. Consideration of this context could broaden and enrich future work on hetero-
normative attitudes and beliefs.
18 J.M. Habarth

Future research and limitations

The HABS recommended for use in future research is included in the Appendix
(available online as Supplemental Material). Overall, the results from the investigations
described above suggest that heteronormative attitudes and beliefs are relevant to
certain aspects of personality. Building on the generalisability limitations of these
studies, future investigations based on different demographic parameters (e.g., focused
sampling across geographical regions and among racial and ethnic minority populations
as well as lower SES groups) may lead to more elaborated conceptual models of
heteronormativity and its correlates. For example, what purposes might heteronorma-
tivity serve among groups with different configurations of social privilege? A combina-
tion of longitudinal and qualitative research could facilitate the investigation of such
process-oriented questions.
One important focus of future studies would be to pursue a better understanding of
heteronormativity and the statistical properties of the HABS. For example, assessing
test-retest reliability would help to determine the stability of individuals’ heteronorma-
tive attitudes and beliefs as well as the effects of potential interventions aimed at
reducing heteronormative assumptions. In addition, future research could use this
measure to examine potential causes and consequences of heteronormative attitudes
and beliefs. For example, understanding how heteronormativity and sexual minority
experiences relate to one another may help us to make sense of mental health outcomes
for lesbians, gay men, bisexual and transgender women and men and even heterosex-
uals who subtly or blatantly transgress the rigid expectations that characterise a hetero-
normative social order.
Another key focus of future research will be further construct validation, including
distinctions between heteronormativity and sexual prejudice. For example, a long-
itudinal US sample could allow for links to be made between heteronormativity over
time and greater prejudice against sexual minorities, with social desirability correlating
more highly with sexual prejudice (e.g., explicit attitudes against sexual minorities)
than with heteronormativity. The rationale in this case would be that among those who
endorse cultural norms about heterosexuality, at least a subset would be concerned
about not appearing (or being) biased against sexual minorities. In addition to explor-
ing discriminant validity, the measure would also benefit from evidence of incremental
validity – that is, does this measure offer predictive value above and beyond current,
well-established scales of sexual prejudice and gender role attitudes? This
would support arguments to incorporate heteronormativity as a construct in future
research.
Also consistent with the theme of construct validation, one reviewer pointed out
potential face validity problems with items asking participants to distinguish between
‘sex’ and ‘gender’ (see Table 1, items 1, 4, 6 and 8). Specifically, the reviewer was
concerned that participants less fluent in feminist or queer discourses might be able to
conceptually distinguish between social gender roles and biological sex, yet lack famil-
iarity with using the words ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ to make such a distinction. If this were the
case, the Essential Sex and Gender subscale might measure linguistic knowledge as
opposed to (or in addition to) conceptual distinctions. Although exploratory and CFA
results suggest that conflating ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ linguistically is consistent with beliefs
reflecting binary and essentialist positions on gender and sex, I offer the following
recommendations to researchers concerned about such distinctions and intend to explore
the following approaches in my own work:
 Psychology & Sexuality 19

Table 7. Future research: suggested additional items to measure ESGB.

Original item Suggested parallel item

Masculinity and femininity are determined by
biological factors, such as genes and
hormones, before birth.a
Gender is the same thing as sex.
Gender is a complicated issue, and it does not
always match up with biological sex.
Gender is something we learn from society.
Note: aThis item was adpated from Tee and Hegarty’s (2006) Trans Persons Beliefs Scale. Copyright 2006 by
John Wiley & Sons.
How we identify ourselves and act socially in
terms of masculinity and femininity is
determined by biological factors, such as genes
and hormones, before birth.
The social roles and identities people take on as
men and women are the same thing as
biological sex.
The social roles people take on as women and
men are complicated, and they do not always
match up with biological sex.
Social roles and identities based on who people
are as men and women are learned from society.

(1) Ask all participants to define ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ after completing the HABS. Use
this information to guide interpretation of results from the Essential Sex and
Gender subscale.
(2) Include additional items at the end of the HABS that incorporate more accessible
language (repeating content from items 1, 4, 6 and 8 but not assuming knowledge
of the linguistic distinctions between ‘gender’ and ‘sex’) and compare responses
to these new, parallel items and the original HABS items. Suggested parallel items
are included in Table 7.
(3) Compare correlations between original and parallel items across different educa-
tional levels of participants.

In conclusion, the social consequences of heteronormative attitudes are likely widespread.

Expectations of gender and sexual orientation are theorised to affect all those who
transgress such norms, and arguably few, if any, individuals consistently satisfy all social
expectations of gender and sexuality. The HABS represents a preliminary step towards
better quantifying this phenomenon, and further research on this measure has the potential
to establish a more empirically grounded understanding of the significance of heteronor-
mativity. We may yet, as Yep (2003) proposes, be able to uncover how gender and other
social hierarchies create, maintain and enforce heterosexuality – and ultimately better
grasp how the diversity of sexual and relational experiences contribute to complex and
intersecting human identities.

Acknowledgements
I thank David Winter for invaluable contributions and comments on earlier versions of this paper. I
also thank Karin Martin, Abigail Stewart, Christopher Peterson and Peter Goldblum for constructive
feedback; Robert Wickham for statistical consultation; and Nicola Curtin, Sara Konrath, Chelsea
Goforth, Wendy D’Andrea-Mirkin, James Hansell, Wendy Flanigan and Nikhil Majumdar for
instrumental contributions to these studies.

Funding
This research was supported in part by grants from the Institute for Research on Women and Gender
and the Department of Psychology at The University of Michigan. All studies represented in this
20 J.M. Habarth

article were approved by the University of Michigan’s Institutional Review Board. Segments of an
earlier version of this paper were presented at the Society for the Psychological Study of Social
Issues.

Notes
1. See Costa, Bandeira, and Nardi (2013) for a systematic review of relevant measures.
2. See Schlichter (2007) and Seidman (2009) for relevant feminist, queer and lesbian theoretical
discourse.
3. All students in Studies 1 and 2 were working towards a bachelor’s degree. In the United States,
this involves roughly 4 years of full-time postsecondary education, with course numbers from
100 to 400 indicating level of difficulty.
4. One participant reporting an age of 33 was not included in data analyses.
5. Of 489 people who answered at least one HABS item, five were removed from the final
analyses because they responded to three or fewer items. The remaining 484 participants had
responded to at least 13 out of 16 HABS items.
6. Despite its publication date, this measure remains the most widely used and well-established
measure of ambiguity tolerance (see Buhr & Dugas, 2006; Furnham, 1994; Grenier, Barrette, &
Ladouceur, 2005).
7. Because current financial situation might be a misleading indicator of SES for graduate and
professional students, I analysed all data both with and without students and observed no
significant differences in the results.
8. Study 1, unlike Studies 2 and 3, did not yield support for the model’s goodness of fit
(χ2(101) = 216.63, p < 0.001; CFI = 0.85; RMSEA = 0.12). However, the sample likely had
low power to detect goodness of fit via CFA.

Notes on contributor
Janice Habarth is Assistant Professor of Psychology at Palo Alto University, Palo Alto, CA, USA.

References
Altemeyer, B. (1988). Enemies of freedom: Understanding right-wing authoritarianism. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Altemeyer, B. (1998). A 20-item version of the RWA scale (Unpublished manuscript). University of
Manitoba, Winnipeg.
Balsam, K., Molinas, Y., Beadnell, B., Simoni, J., & Walters, K. (2011). Measuring multiple
minority stress: The LGBT people of color microaggressions scale. Cultural Diversity and
Ethnic Minority Psychology, 17(2), 163–174.
Banse, R., Seise, J., & Zerbes, N. (2001). Implicit attitudes towards homosexuality: Reliability,
validity, and controllability of the IAT. Zeitschrift für experimentelle Psychologie: Organ der
Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie, 48(2), 145–160.
Bell, D., & Binnie, J. (2004). Authenticating queer space: Citizenship, urbanism and governance.
Urban Studies, 41(9), 1807–1820. doi:10.1080/0042098042000243165
Bell, D., & Valentine, G. (Eds.) (1995). Mapping desire: Geographies of sexualities. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Birkett, M., Espelage, D. L., & Koenig, B. (2009). LGB and questioning students in schools: The
moderating effects of homophobic bullying and school climate on negative outcomes. Journal
of Youth and Adolescence, 38(7), 989–1000. doi:10.1007/s10964-008-9389-1
Brickell, C. (2001). Whose ‘special treatment’? Heterosexism and the problems with liberalism.
Sexualities, 4(2), 211–235. doi:10.1177/136346001004002006
Budner, S. (1962). Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable. Journal of Personality, 30,
29–50. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1962.tb02303.x
 Psychology & Sexuality 21

Buhr, K., & Dugas, M. J. (2006). Investigating the construct validity of intolerance of uncertainty
and its unique relationship with worry. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 20, 222–236. doi:10.1016/
j.janxdis.2004.12.004
Burn, S. M., Kadlec, K., & Rexer, R. (2005). Effects of subtle heterosexism on gays, lesbians, and
bisexuals. Journal of Homosexuality, 49, 23–38. doi:10.1300/J082v49n02_02
Christopher, A. N., & Mull, M. S. (2006). Conservative ideology and ambivalent sexism.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 223–230. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00284.x
Costa, A. B., Bandeira, D. R., & Nardi, H. C. (2013). Systematic review of instruments measuring
homophobia and related constructs. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(6), 1324–1332.
Cullen, J. M., Wright, L. W. J., & Alessandri, M. (2002). The personality variable openness to
experience as it relates to homophobia. Journal of Homosexuality, 42(4), 119–134. doi:10.1300/
J082v42n04_08
Dermer, S. B., Smith, S. D., & Barto, K. K. (2010). Identifying and correctly labeling sexual prejudice,
discrimination, and oppression. Journal of Counseling & Development, 88(3), 325–331.
doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2010.tb00029.x
Duncan, L. E., Peterson, B. E., & Winter, D. G. (1997). Authoritarianism and gender roles: Toward
a psychological analysis of hegemonic relationships. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 23, 41–49. doi:10.1177/0146167297231005
Furnham, A. (1994). A content, correlational and factor analytic study of four tolerance of ambiguity
questionnaires. Personality & Individual Differences, 16, 403–410. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(94)
90066-3
Gilbert, M. A. (2009). Defeating bigenderism: Changing gender assumptions in the twenty-first
century. Hypatia, 24(3), 93–112.
Goodman, M. B., & Moradi, B. (2008). Attitudes and behaviors toward lesbian and gay persons:
Critical correlates and mediated relations. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55(3), 371–384.
doi:10.1037/0022-0167.55.3.371
Gormley, B., & Lopez, F. G. (2010). Authoritarian and homophobic attitudes: Gender and adult
attachment style differences. Journal of Homosexuality, 57(4), 525–538. doi:10.1080/
00918361003608715
Grenier, S., Barrette, A.-M., & Ladouceur, R. (2005). Intolerance of uncertainty and intolerance of
ambiguity: Similarities and differences. Personality & Individual Differences, 39, 593–600.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.02.014
Grollman, E. A. (2012). Multiple forms of perceived discrimination and health among adolescents
and young adults. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. doi:10.1177/0022146512444289
Hegarty, P., & Pratto, F. (2001). Sexual orientation beliefs: Their relationship to anti-gay attitudes
and biological determinist arguments. Journal of Homosexuality, 41, 121–135. doi:10.1300/
J082v41n01_04
Herek, G. M. (1988). Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: Correlates and gender
differences. The Journal of Sex Research, 25(4), 451–477. doi:10.2307/3812894
Herek, G. M. (1990). The context of anti-gay violence: Notes on cultural and psychological heterosexism.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5(3), 316–333. doi:10.1177/088626090005003006
Herek, G. M. (1994). Assessing heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: A review of
empirical research with the ATLG scale. In B. Greene & G. M. Herek (Eds.), Lesbian and gay
psychology: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 206–228). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Herek, G. M. (2000). The psychology of sexual prejudice. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 9(1), 19–22. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00051
Herek, G. M. (2007). Confronting sexual stigma and prejudice: Theory and practice. Journal of
Social Issues, 63(4), 905–925. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2007.00544.x
Herek, G. M. (2009). Hate crimes and stigma-related experiences among sexual minority adults in
the United States: Prevalence estimates from a national probability sample. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 24(1), 54–74.
Hubbard, P. (2001). Sex zones: Intimacy, citizenship and public space. Sexualities, 4(1), 51–71.
doi:10.1177/136346001004001003
Hudson, W. W., & Ricketts, W. A. (1980). A strategy for the measurement of homophobia. Journal
of Homosexuality, 5(4), 357–372. doi:10.1300/J082v05n04_02
Jackson, S. (1999). Heterosexuality in question. London: Sage.
22 J.M. Habarth

Jackson, S. (2006). Interchanges: Gender, sexuality and heterosexuality: The complexity (and limits)
of heteronormativity. Feminist Theory, 7, 105–121. doi:10.1177/1464700106061462
Kemmelmeier, M. (2010). Gender moderates the impact of need for structure on social beliefs:
Implications for ethnocentrism and authoritarianism. International Journal of Psychology,
45(3), 202–211. doi:10.1080/00207591003587705
Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male. Oxford:
Saunders.
Kite, M. E., & Whitley, B. E. J. (1996). Sex differences in attitudes toward homosexual persons,
behaviors, and civil rights: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(4),
336–353. doi:10.1177/0146167296224002
Kitzinger, C. (2005). Heteronormativity in action: Reproducing the heterosexual nuclear family in after-
hours medical calls. Social problems, 52, 477–498. doi:10.1525/sp.2005.52.4.477
Klein, F., Sepekoff, B., & Wolf, T. J. (1985). Sexual orientation: A multi-variable dynamic process.
Journal of Homosexuality, 11, 35–49. doi:10.1300/J082v11n01_04
Knight, K. (1999). Liberalism and conservatism. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman
(Eds.), Measures of political attitudes (pp. 59–158). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Konisky, D. M., Milyo, J., & Richardson, L. E. J. (2008). Environmental policy attitudes: Issues,
geographical scale, and political trust. Social Science Quarterly, 89(5), 1066–1085. doi:10.1111/
j.1540-6237.2008.00574.x
Land, V., & Kitzinger, C. (2005). Speaking as a lesbian: Correcting the heterosexist presumption.
Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38, 371–416. doi:10.1207/s15327973rlsi3804_1
Lind, A. (2004). Legislating the family: Heterosexist bias in social welfare policy frameworks.
Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 31, 21–35.
Markowitz, E. M., Goldberg, L. R., Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2012). Profiling the “pro-
environmental individual”: A personality perspective. Journal of Personality, 80(1),
81–111. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00721.x
Martino, W. (2000). Policing masculinities: Investigating the role of homophobia and heteronorma-
tivity in the lives of adolescent school boys. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 8, 213–236.
doi:10.3149/jms.0802.213
Massey, S. G. (2009). Polymorphous prejudice: Liberating the measurement of heterosexuals’
attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. Journal of Homosexuality, 56(2), 147–172.
doi:10.1080/00918360802623131
Mayfield, W. (2001). The development of an internalized homonegativity inventory for gay men.
Journal of Homosexuality, 41(2), 53–76. doi:10.1300/J082v41n02_04
Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual
populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 674–697,
Research Support, U.S. Gov’t, P.H.S. Review.
Milfont, T. L., & Sibley, C. G. (2012). The big five personality traits and environmental engage-
ment: Associations at the individual and societal level. Journal of Environmental Psychology,
32(2), 187–195. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2011.12.006
Mohr, J. J., & Rochlen, A. B. (1999). Measuring attitudes regarding bisexuality in lesbian, gay male,
and heterosexual populations. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46(3), 353–369. doi:10.1037/
0022-0167.46.3.353
Morrison, M. A., & Morrison, T. G. (2002). Development and validation of a scale measuring
modern prejudice toward gay men and lesbian women. Journal of Homosexuality, 43, 15–37.
doi:10.1300/J082v43n02_02
Nielsen, J. M., Walden, G., & Kunkel, C. A. (2000). Gendered heteronormativity: Empirical
illustrations in everyday life. Sociological Quarterly, 41, 283–296. doi:10.1111/j.1533-
8525.2000.tb00096.x
Olofsson, A., & Öhman, S. (2006). General beliefs and environmental concern: Transatlantic
comparisons. Environment and Behavior, 38(6), 768–790. doi:10.1177/0013916506287388
Oswald, R. F. (2000). A member of the wedding? Heterosexism and family ritual. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 17, 349–368. doi:10.1300/J155v07n02_08
Peel, E. (2001). Mundane heterosexism: Understanding incidents of the everyday. Women’s Studies
International Forum, 24, 541–554.
Peterson, B. E., Doty, R. M., & Winter, D. G. (1993). Authoritarianism and attitudes toward
contemporary social issues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 174–184.
doi:10.1177/0146167293192006
 Psychology & Sexuality 23

Raja, S., & Stokes, J. P. (1998). Assessing attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: The Modern
Homophobia Scale. Journal of Gay, Lesbian, & Bisexual Identity, 3(2), 113–134. doi:10.1023/
A:1023244427281
Reynolds, W. M. (1982). Development of reliable and valid short forms of the Marlowe-Crowne
Social Desirability Scale. Journal of clinical psychology, 38, 119–125.
Rich, A. (1980). Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence. Signs: Journal of Women in
Culture and Society, 5(4), 631–660. doi:10.1086/493756
Rubin, G. (1975). The traffic in women: Notes on the “political economy” of sex. In R. R. Reiter
(Ed.), Toward an anthropology of women (pp. 157–210). New York, NY: Monthly Review Press.
Saucier, G. (2002). Orthogonal markers for orthogonal factors: The case of the Big Five. Journal of
Research in Personality, 36, 1–31. doi:10.1006/jrpe.2001.2335
Schlichter, A. (2007). Contesting “straights”: “Lesbians”,’queer heterosexuals’ and the critique of
heteronormativity. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 11(3–4), 189–201.
Schultz, P. W., & Stone, W. F. (1994). Authoritarianism and attitudes toward the environment.
Environment and Behavior, 26(1), 25–37. doi:10.1177/0013916594261002
Seidman, S. (2009). Critique of compulsory heterosexuality. Sexuality Research & Social Policy,
6(1), 18–28. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.umich.edu/10.1525/srsp.2009.6.1.18
Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (2008). Personality and prejudice: A meta-analysis and theoretical review.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12(3), 248–279. doi:10.1177/1088868308319226
Silverschanz, P., Cortina, L. M., Konik, J., & Magley, V. J. (2008). Slurs, snubs, and queer jokes:
Incidence and impact of heterosexist harassment in academia. Sex Roles, 58(3–4), 179–191.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9329-7
Stoever, C. J., & Morera, O. F. (2007). A confirmatory factor analysis of the Attitudes Toward
Lesbians and Gay Men (ATLG) measure. Journal of Homosexuality, 52(3–4), 189–209.
doi:10.1300/J082v52n03_09
Sue, D. W. (2010). Microaggressions in everyday life: Race, gender, and sexual orientation. Hoboken,
NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.paloaltou.edu/login?url=http://search.ebs
cohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2010-03509-000&site=ehost-live
Szymanski, D. M., & Chung, Y. B. (2001). The lesbian internalized homophobia scale: A rational/
theoretical approach. Journal of Homosexuality, 41(2), 37–52. doi:10.1300/J082v41n02_03
Szymanski, D. M., Kashubeck-West, S., & Meyer, J. (2008). Internalized heterosexism: A historical and
theoretical overview. The Counseling Psychologist, 36(4), 510–524. doi:10.1177/0011000007309488
Tee, N., & Hegarty, P. (2006). Predicting opposition to the civil rights of trans persons in the United
Kingdom. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 16, 70–80. doi:10.1002/casp.851
Tolley, C., & Ranzijn, R. (2006). Predictors of heteronormativity in residential aged care facilities.
Australasian Journal on Ageing, 25(4), 209–214. doi:10.1111/j.1741-6612.2006.00186.x
Tolman, D. L. (2006). In a different position: Conceptualizing female adolescent sexuality devel-
opment within compulsory heterosexuality. New Directions for Child and Adolescent
Development, 112, 71–89. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cd.163
Warner, M. (1991). Introduction: Fear of a queer planet. Social Text, (29), 3–17. doi:10.2307/466295
Weinberg, G. H. (1973). Society and the healthy homosexual. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/
Doubleday.
Whitley, B. E., & Ægisdóttir, S. (2000). The gender belief system, authoritarianism, social dominance
orientation, and heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. Sex Roles, 42, 947–967.
doi:10.1023/A:1007026016001
Wright, R. (2000). Redefining homophobia: One point along a continuum of attitudes toward
lesbians and gay men. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and
Engineering, 61(5-B), 2788.
Yep, G. A. (2003). The violence of heteronormativity in communication studies: Notes on injury,
healing, and queer world-making. Journal of Homosexuality, 45, 11–59. doi:10.1300/
J082v45n02_02