Homophobic Behavior of Students Scale

1. Abstract

The Homophobic Behavior of Students Scale (HBSS) is an established psychometric instrument formulated by Paul Van de Ven, Laurel Bornholt, and Michael Bailey (1993, 1996) at the University of Sydney. Developed explicitly to operationalize and quantify the behavioral dimension of sexual prejudice within educational settings, the scale addresses a profound historical void in psychometric literature, which had previously over-emphasized cognitive beliefs and affective evaluations while neglecting explicit behavioral intentions. The HBSS comprises 10 self-report items formatted on a 5-point Likert response scale ranging from 1 (Definitely false) to 5 (Definitely true). Psychometrically, the instrument was conceptualized across two complementary behavioral arenas: interpersonal contact/social distance within academic and peer environments (items 1–6) and civic/institutional willingness to act in support of lesbian and gay civil rights (items 7–10). Despite capturing these two contextual domains, empirical evaluation through exploratory factor analysis across high school and university student samples demonstrates an overarching, robust unidimensional construct representing homophobic behavioral intentions.

The scale possesses remarkable psychometric integrity across secondary and tertiary student cohorts. Internal consistency estimates demonstrate robust reliability, with Cronbach’s alpha reaching .81 among undergraduate students ($M = 37.65, SD = 19.94$) and .86 among adolescent secondary students ($M = 65.25, SD = 24.29$). Metric conversion yields a standard computed index spanning from 0 (indicating negligible homophobic behavioral intent) to 100 (indicating extreme homophobic behavioral intent). Construct validity is evidenced by substantial convergent correlations with established indices, including homophobic cognition ($r = .78$), homophobic anger ($r = .66$), homophobic guilt ($r = .38$), and an inverse relationship with warmth toward homosexual individuals ($r = -.56$). Crucially, criterion-related predictive validity was empirically substantiated through behavioral choice paradigms: students demonstrating lower scores on the HBSS exhibited significantly higher real-world participation rates across prospective academic and social engagement activities involving gay and lesbian peers. The HBSS represents a vital, ecologically valid, and highly practical measurement tool for educational psychologists, sociologists, and curriculum evaluators investigating prejudice reduction, diversity training interventions, and school climate reform.

2. Keywords

Homophobic Behavior of Students Scale, HBSS, sexual prejudice, behavioral intentions, homophobia measurement, school climate, social distance, attitude-behavior relation, psychometrics, educational psychology

3. Authors

The Homophobic Behavior of Students Scale was developed through the collaborative academic efforts of researchers based at the University of Sydney, Australia:

• Paul Van de Ven, Ph.D.: Primary investigator and lead author. At the time of scale development, Dr. Van de Ven was affiliated with the School of Educational Psychology, Measurement and Technology at the University of Sydney. His foundational doctoral and postdoctoral research focused extensively on adolescent socialization, sexual prejudice, sexuality education, and intervention models designed to challenge homophobia within secondary schools and juvenile justice facilities. Correspondence address during development: 11 John St, Ashfield NSW 2131, Australia.
• Laurel Bornholt, Ph.D.: Co-author and psychometric methodologist. Originally contributing from the School of Educational Psychology, Measurement and Technology, University of Sydney, Dr. Bornholt subsequently held academic and research appointments at the Australian National University and Charles Darwin University, specializing in developmental psychology, educational assessment, social cognitive frameworks, and quantitative measurement models.
• Michael Bailey, M.Ed. / Ph.D.: Co-author and educational researcher. Associated with the School of Educational Psychology, Measurement and Technology at the University of Sydney, contributing to statistical modeling, research design, and intervention assessment regarding adolescent health education and social attitudes.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Homophobic Behavior of Students Scale (HBSS) is to provide an efficient, standardized, and ecologically valid instrument designed to measure students’ behavioral intentions toward gay men and lesbians within the explicit context of educational institutions and pedagogical interventions. Historically, the empirical assessment of homophobia was overwhelmingly dominated by instruments measuring cognitive convictions (e.g., traditional moral judgments, stereotypes, and religious beliefs) or visceral affective evaluations (e.g., feelings of disgust, anxiety, anger, or moral discomfort). Although these dimensions provide valuable insight into personal worldviews, they frequently fail to predict the overt actions of individuals in real-world peer dynamics. The behavioral component of prejudice—manifested through social exclusion, ostracism, verbal harassment, passive avoidance, or conversely, egalitarian civic advocacy—remained systematically neglected because existing behavioral assessment methodologies were operationally problematic.

Overcoming Methodological Limitations in Behavioral Research

Prior to the formulation of the HBSS, researchers attempting to evaluate homophobic actions typically relied upon elaborate, contrived laboratory experiments or deception-based behavioral paradigms (such as staged peer interactions, lost-letter techniques, or covert confederate observations). While these designs possess utility for laboratory-based social psychology, they introduce acute methodological and ethical complications:

• Impracticality in Educational Settings: Staged experimental deception cannot be routinely, safely, or ethically executed within secondary school classrooms or university lecture halls without disrupting curricula and violating institutional review board mandates.
• Incompatibility with Longitudinal Evaluation: Deception experiments rely upon naive participants. Once a student is debriefed regarding an experimental deception, they cannot be repeatedly tested. Consequently, standard pretest-posttest intervention designs aimed at measuring pedagogical efficacy or long-term prejudice reduction are rendered impossible.
• Ecological Disconnect: Laboratory tasks often present abstract or artificial behavioral demands that fail to mirror the plausible, day-to-day decisions students actually navigate within secondary and postsecondary academic ecosystems.

The HBSS resolved these long-standing dilemmas by operationalizing behavior through the psychometric paradigm of behavioral intentions—a construct validated by the Theory of Planned Behavior as the most direct cognitive antecedent of deliberate action. By presenting plausible, concrete activities framed naturally within school curriculum delivery (e.g., listening to guest speakers, engaging in small-group classroom discussions, attending peer social events, and signing public petitions), the scale taps genuine personal commitment to action.

Research and Applied Educational Utility

The HBSS is formulated to serve dual functions across applied educational psychology and academic research:

• Individual-Differences Diagnostic Instrument: It operates as a stable individual-differences metric allowing researchers to assess variations in peer tolerance, social climate, and structural marginalization across demographic cohorts, educational tracks, and institutional cultures.
• Curricular Evaluation Dependent Variable: The instrument was specifically engineered with interchangeable pretest and posttest introductory framing, making it ideal as a primary dependent outcome variable in quasi-experimental and randomized controlled trials evaluating anti-bias curricula, diversity workshops, and human rights modules in secondary and tertiary education.

5. Psychological Construct

The Homophobic Behavior of Students Scale measures homophobic behavioral intentions within educational ecosystems. Grounded in the triadic model of attitudes—which conceptualizes attitudes as integrated constellations of cognitive beliefs, affective feelings, and conative/behavioral tendencies—the HBSS measures the behavioral trajectory of prejudice toward non-heterosexual populations. Rather than inquiring about abstract theoretical approval or private emotional reactions, the items interrogate an individual’s self-reported probability of engaging in specific, observable actions when confronted with gay and lesbian individuals or LGBTQ+-related social policy initiatives.

Sub-Facets of the Construct

Although factor-analytic validation supports an integrated unidimensional structural score, the HBSS deliberately incorporates items reflecting two conceptually distinct yet highly coordinated behavioral facets:

1. Interpersonal Proximity and Social Distance (Items 1 through 6)

This dimension draws directly upon the social psychological traditions of the Bogardus Social Distance Scale, translating physical and psychological boundary-maintenance into standard school scenarios. The items assess whether a student is willing to share close physical and communicative space with openly gay and lesbian peers across differing degrees of intimacy, formality, and peer scrutiny:

• Classroom-Formal Interactive Contact: Items evaluate willingness to engage in small-group class academic work (Item 1), participate in one-on-one direct instructional dialogues (Item 2), or receive knowledge from an openly homosexual guest speaker addressing the collective class (Item 3). These scenarios measure academic avoidance versus communicative engagement where institutional authority is visibly present.
• Informal Peer-Social Contact: Items assess willingness to interact in casual, unscripted peer settings, such as sitting down for an informal lunch-time meeting with a group of four gay or lesbian individuals (Item 4) or attending an informal extracurricular social gathering, such as a lunch-time barbecue (Item 5). These scenarios capture voluntary social mingling where peer evaluation, peer surveillance, and informal social identity dynamics are intensified.
• Passive Vicarious Exposure: Item 6 measures an individual’s willingness to engage in non-interactive, classroom-mediated observational contact, specifically watching an educational video featuring gay or lesbian individuals.

2. Sociopolitical and Civic Human Rights Support (Items 7 through 10)

The remaining items shift the behavioral focus from proximal interpersonal contact to civic, institutional, and human rights advocacy. Within democratic and educational institutions, behavioral prejudice frequently manifests not merely as interpersonal snubbing, but as active resistance or refusal to support civil parity, legislative protection, and structural equity for marginalized groups. The HBSS operationalizes this civic dimension via students’ willingness to lend their public identity—specifically by signing formal petitions—to LGBTQ+ rights causes:

• Protective Legal Rights: Item 7 assesses willingness to sign a petition demanding governmental action to eradicate hate-motivated violence directed at gay men and lesbians.
• General Equal Rights: Item 8 assesses willingness to publicly endorse standard constitutional and civil parity for homosexual citizens.
• Institutional Partnership Rights: Item 9 gauges behavioral support for the legal registration and recognition of same-sex partnerships or civil marriages.
• Family and Parental Rights: Item 10 evaluates support for structural legal reforms granting gay and lesbian couples equal eligibility to adopt children.

Together, these facets bridge the gap between interpersonal avoidance behaviors and systemic sociopolitical gatekeeping, capturing the full spectrum of behavioral homophobia manifested by students within contemporary educational environments.

6. Theoretical Framework

The development and interpretation of the HBSS are anchored in three prominent, foundational psychological and sociological frameworks: the Theory of Planned Behavior, the Tripartite Model of Attitudes, and Intergroup Contact Theory.

1. The Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein)

The core theoretical architecture of the HBSS is derived from Icek Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) and the antecedent Theory of Reasoned Action formulated alongside Martin Fishbein. A long-standing paradox in social psychology—often designated the “attitude-behavior consistency problem”—reveals that generalized affective and cognitive attitudes frequently correlate weakly with specific real-world behaviors. Ajzen established that the most proximal, accurate predictor of an individual’s volitional performance of a specific behavior is their behavioral intention.

Behavioral intention represents a person’s subjective probability judgment and motivational commitment that they will exert effort to execute a specified action. Under the TPB model, intentions are determined by three components: personal attitudes toward the behavior, subjective norms (perceived social pressure from peers and educators), and perceived behavioral control. By framing the HBSS items around concrete, contextually immediate behavioral intentions (e.g., “I would speak in a small class group…”, “I would sign my name to a petition…”) rather than global emotional sentiments (e.g., “I feel uncomfortable around gay people”), the scale directly captures the immediate psychological precursor to deliberate interpersonal action within school settings.

2. The Tripartite Model of Attitudes (ABC Model)

The HBSS was engineered within the classic Tripartite Model of Attitudes (often termed the Affect-Behavior-Cognition or ABC framework of social prejudice). Historically, Gordon Allport (1954) established that prejudice is a multidimensional construct. Van de Ven and colleagues noted that contemporary sexuality research had effectively isolated:

• Cognitive Homophobia: Measured through stereotypical judgments, religious doctrines, and perceived deviance (e.g., Price’s Attitudes Toward Homosexuality Scale).
• Affective Homophobia: Measured through visceral emotional reactions such as guilt, anxiety, moral disgust, or empathetic warmth (e.g., Ernulf & Innala’s Affective Reactions to Homosexuality Scale).
• Conative/Behavioral Homophobia: The actionable component involving discriminatory exclusion, verbal slurs, interpersonal avoidance, and institutional opposition.

Van de Ven, Bornholt, and Bailey argued that cognitive and affective elements interact complexly: an individual might harbor internal discomfort (affective homophobia) yet behave supportively due to strong prosocial civic values, or converse in a polite manner while actively voting against the civil rights of sexual minorities. The HBSS was deliberately crafted to isolate and evaluate this behavioral dimension, allowing empirical mapping of the interplay between internal affective states, cognitive schemas, and overt behavioral decisions.

3. Allport’s Intergroup Contact Hypothesis

The selection of specific interpersonal contact items across the HBSS is directly informed by Gordon Allport’s (1954) Intergroup Contact Hypothesis. Allport posited that direct contact between members of an ingroup and an outgroup effectively diminishes intergroup prejudice under four essential conditions: equal status between groups, common goals, intergroup cooperation, and the explicit sanction of institutional authorities (such as educators, school administrators, or legal statutes). The HBSS simulates these parameters: items 1, 2, and 6 reflect institutionally sanctioned, cooperative classroom contact, whereas items 4 and 5 represent voluntary, informal peer-to-peer contact lacking overt institutional scaffolding. By tracking a student’s willingness to cross these social boundaries, the scale quantifies the psychological barriers to intergroup contact within an academic community.

7. Validity

The psychometric validity of the Homophobic Behavior of Students Scale has been demonstrated through rigorous empirical examinations evaluating construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related predictive validity across both secondary school and university cohorts.

Convergent and Construct Validity

To establish convergent validity, Van de Ven, Bornholt, and Bailey (1993, 1996) examined the statistical associations between computed HBSS scores and established psychometric measures of cognitive and affective homophobia:

• Homophobic Cognition: The HBSS showed a strong, statistically significant positive correlation with cognitive prejudice as measured by the Modified Attitudes Toward Homosexuality Scale (Price, 1982), with $r = .78$ ($p < .001$). This substantial coefficient indicates that individuals who endorse derogatory or stereotyped cognitive beliefs about homosexuality also systematically express elevated intentions to avoid social contact and oppose civil rights initiatives.
• Homophobic Affect (Anger and Guilt): Correlational analyses utilizing the Affective Reactions to Homosexuality Scale (Van de Ven, 1994a; adapted from Ernulf & Innala, 1987) demonstrated significant positive relationships with Homophobic Anger ($r = .66, p < .001$) and Homophobic Guilt ($r = .38, p < .01$). Students experiencing emotional hostility or moral guilt in response to homosexuality exhibited markedly higher behavioral avoidance and civic opposition.
• Empathetic Warmth: Convergent discriminant validity was reinforced by a significant negative correlation between the HBSS and the Warmth Toward Homosexuals subscale ($r = -.56, p < .001$), demonstrating that positive emotional affection is fundamentally incompatible with homophobic behavioral intentions.

Predictive and Criterion-Related Validity

A primary criticism of behavioral intention self-reports is the potential divergence between stated intent and actual behavioral choice. To address this question directly, Van de Ven et al. (1993, 1996) executed an empirical behavioral criterion validation study involving a cohort of 40 high school students. Following the administration of the HBSS, students were presented with genuine, tangible opportunities to participate in each of the 10 real-world activities operationalized in the scale (e.g., attending actual classroom discussions with gay and lesbian guest speakers, joining real informal lunch-time gatherings, and physically signing actual civic petitions).

The behavioral results confirmed strong predictive validity:

• Across all 10 activities, students who voluntarily chose to participate in the activity consistently exhibited statistically significantly lower pre-existing HBSS scores than peers who abstained or refused to participate.
• Using a conservative family-wise Bonferroni-adjusted alpha level of $.005$ (maintaining an overall experiment-wise error rate of $\alpha = .05$), group mean differences between participants and abstainers were statistically significant for 6 out of the 10 individual activities.
• The largest behavioral differentiations were observed in high-visibility interpersonal activities (e.g., speaking individually with a gay or lesbian guest in class, attending the lunch-time discussion) and civil advocacy (signing petitions for adoption and legal marriage rights).

These findings verify that the HBSS is not merely an index of abstract social desirability, but a valid, robust predictor of observable adolescent behavioral decisions.

8. Reliability

The internal consistency and measurement precision of the Homophobic Behavior of Students Scale have been substantiated across multiple adolescent and adult cohorts in Australia and international educational settings.

Internal Consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha)

In the foundational psychometric validation studies reported by Van de Ven, Bornholt, and Bailey (1993, 1996), internal consistency reliability was computed separately across two distinct educational populations:

• Undergraduate University Sample: Among a cohort of 97 tertiary students (26 males, 71 females), the scale exhibited a high internal consistency reliability coefficient, with a Cronbach’s alpha of $\alpha = .81$. In this sample, the mean raw computed score was $M = 37.65$ with a standard deviation of $SD = 19.94$.
• Adolescent High School Sample: Among a cohort of 40 secondary school students (24 males, 16 females), the scale demonstrated exceptional internal consistency, yielding a Cronbach’s alpha of $\alpha = .86$. The descriptive profile revealed a substantially higher baseline level of homophobic behavioral intent, with a mean score of $M = 65.25$ and a standard deviation of $SD = 24.29$.

These reliability metrics comfortably exceed the classical psychometric benchmark of $.70$ for general research tools and approach or exceed the $.80$ to $.85$ threshold recommended for group-level intervention evaluation and experimental research designs.

Measurement Stability and Sensitivity to Change

Subsequent intervention studies conducted by Van de Ven (1994b, 1995a, 1995b) evaluated the HBSS across experimental prejudice-reduction modules involving secondary students, young offenders, and undergraduate cohorts. The instrument demonstrated robust stability across non-intervention control conditions over multi-week test-retest intervals, while showing sensitive and statistically significant score reductions within experimental groups subjected to targeted anti-homophobia pedagogical modules. The absence of ceiling and floor effects across general student samples ensures that the scale retains sufficient variance to detect both subtle individual shifts and large-scale educational intervention impacts.

9. Factor Analysis

To determine the latent structural organization of the Homophobic Behavior of Students Scale, exploratory factor analytic (EFA) procedures were conducted on the response data during initial instrument development.

Empirical Evidence of Unidimensionality

Although the items of the HBSS were deliberately written to sample two distinct behavioral contexts—namely, interpersonal social contact within school peer dynamics (items 1–6) and political advocacy regarding human rights legislation (items 7–10)—empirical factor analyses revealed that these two sub-domains collapse onto a single, dominant latent dimension:

• Principal components analysis (PCA) and principal axis factoring conducted separately on the undergraduate cohort ($N = 97$) and the secondary school cohort ($N = 40$) generated an initial scree plot displaying a pronounced eigenvalue drop after the first extracted factor.
• The first unrotated latent factor accounted for the vast preponderance of shared common variance across both samples, satisfying conventional psychometric criteria for unidimensionality (e.g., ratio of the first-to-second eigenvalue substantially exceeding 3:1).
• All 10 individual items exhibited substantial, positive factor loadings onto this primary factor, ranging from moderate loadings on vicarious media engagement (Item 6) to extremely high loadings on direct personal communication (Items 1 and 2) and civic human rights endorsement (Items 8, 9, and 10).

Item Functioning and Structural Homogeneity

The statistical emergence of a single general factor indicates that, within the psychological worldview of high school and university students, willingness to engage in interpersonal contact with gay and lesbian peers is structurally homologous to willingness to endorse legal equality and civil protections. Consequently, an individual’s score across the 10 items can be legitimately summed and computed as a single composite index of homophobic behavioral intention, without the necessity of calculating separate subscale scores for interpersonal versus civic behaviors.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Homophobic Behavior of Students Scale (HBSS)
• Alternative Title: Scale of Homophobic Behavioral Intentions
• Authors: Paul Van de Ven, Laurel Bornholt, and Michael Bailey (University of Sydney)
• Year of Formal Publication: 1993 (Initial conference validation); 1996 (Peer-reviewed archival publication)
• Construct Measured: Behavioral intentions toward gay males and lesbians in educational, interpersonal, and civic contexts
• Target Population: Secondary school students (adolescents) and postsecondary/tertiary undergraduate university students
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil questionnaire or computerized self-report survey; individual or group classroom administration
• Completion Time: Approximately 3 minutes
• Number of Items: 10 items
• Response Format: 5-point Likert-type scale anchored as follows:
  • 1 = Definitely false
  • 2 = Mostly false / False
  • 3 = Uncertain / Neither true nor false
  • 4 = Mostly true / True
  • 5 = Definitely true
• Item Polarity and Directionality:
  • Positively Phrased Items (Egalitarian/Pro-Gay Intentions): Items 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, and 10. These items describe willingness to interact with gay/lesbian individuals or support their rights.
  • Negatively Phrased Items (Avoidant/Homophobic Intentions): Items 3, 5, and 8. These items contain explicit negations (e.g., “I would NOT like…”, “I would NOT attend…”, “I would NOT sign…”) reflecting homophobic avoidance or opposition.
• Scoring and Transformation Algorithm:
  1. Reverse Scoring: In accordance with standard psychometric conventions in sexual prejudice research, higher total scores are defined to indicate higher levels of homophobic behavioral intentions. Therefore, all 7 positively phrased items (Items 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, and 10) must be reverse-coded prior to summing:
     $$\text{Reversed Score} = 6 – \text{Raw Response}$$
     (e.g., a raw response of 5 becomes 1; 4 becomes 2; 3 remains 3; 2 becomes 4; 1 becomes 5). The 3 negatively phrased items (Items 3, 5, and 8) are scored directly as marked (1 = 1, 5 = 5).
  2. Raw Sum Calculation: Sum the scores across all 10 items (using reversed scores for items 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 and original scores for items 3, 5, 8). The resulting Raw Sum spans from a minimum of 10 to a maximum of 50.
  3. Metric Scale Conversion (0–100 Scale): Compute the standardized HBSS index using the established linear transformation formula:
     $$\text{HBSS Computed Score} = (\text{HBSS Summed Raw Score} – 10) \times 2.5$$
     This standardizes the final score onto a 0 to 100 continuum, where:
     • 0: Absolute minimum homophobic behavioral intention (completely supportive, egalitarian, and participatory).
     • 100: Absolute maximum homophobic behavioral intention (complete social avoidance, ostracism, and rejection of civic rights).
• Pretest vs. Posttest Instructions:
  • Pretest Instructional Stem: “As part of the unit of work on lesbian and gay issues, it may be possible to organize some additional activities and guest speakers…”
  • Posttest Instructional Stem: “As part of the follow-up to the unit of work on lesbian and gay issues, it may be possible to organize some additional activities and guest speakers…”

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Homophobic Behavior of Students Scale was formally developed in 1993 and published in archival literature in 1996 in the Archives of Sexual Behavior. The scale was established as an open academic assessment instrument designed specifically to foster empirical research, educational evaluation, and prejudice reduction in schools and universities.

Licensing and Usage Permissions

• Cost and Royalties: The HBSS is in the public domain for academic, non-commercial, and clinical-educational research purposes. No licensing fees or royalty payments are required to administer the instrument.
• Author Notification Request: The original authors requested that researchers utilizing the HBSS inform the primary author of its implementation and communicate research findings. Historical correspondence was directed to Dr. Paul Van de Ven, School of Educational Psychology, Measurement and Technology, University of Sydney (Correspondence: 11 John St, Ashfield NSW 2131, Australia; e-mail: [email protected]). Current academic researchers should cite the foundational 1996 publication in all resulting monographs, theses, and journal articles.

12. References

• Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.
  https://archive.org/details/natureofprejudic00allp
• Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
  https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
• Ernulf, K. E., & Innala, S. M. (1987). The relationship between affective and cognitive components of homophobic reaction. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 16(6), 501–509.
  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01541720
• Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley.
• Price, J. H. (1982). High school students’ attitudes toward homosexuality. Journal of School Health, 52(8), 469–474.
  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.1982.tb03998.x
• Van de Ven, P. (1994a). Challenging homophobia in schools [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Sydney.
• Van de Ven, P. (1994b). Comparisons among homophobic reactions of undergraduates, high school students, and young offenders. The Journal of Sex Research, 31(2), 117–124.
  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499409551737
• Van de Ven, P. (1995a). Effects on high school students of a teaching module for reducing homophobia. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17(1–2), 153–172.
  https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.1995.9646137
• Van de Ven, P. (1995b). Effects on young offenders of two teaching modules for reducing homophobia. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25(7), 632–649.
  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1995.tb01766.x
• Van de Ven, P., Bornholt, L., & Bailey, M. (1993, November). Homophobic attitudes and behaviours: Telling which teaching strategies make a difference. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE), Fremantle, Western Australia.
• Van de Ven, P., Bornholt, L., & Bailey, M. (1996). Measuring cognitive, affective, and behavioral components of homophobic reaction. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 25(2), 155–179.
  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02437934

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)