Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Knowledge and Attitudes Scale (LGB-KAS)

1. Abstract

The Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Knowledge and Attitudes Scale (LGB-KAS; also recognized in psychometric literature as the LGB-KASH) is an extensively validated multidimensional instrument designed to assess sexual prejudice, cognitive awareness, and affirmative dispositions among heterosexual individuals toward lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) populations. Developed by Roger L. Worthington, Frank R. Dillon, and Ann M. Becker-Schutte (2005), the instrument emerged in response to shifting sociocultural dynamics surrounding sexual minorities, characterized concurrently by advancing civil rights awareness and persistent, subtle, or overt anti-LGB sentiment. Comprising 28 items evaluated along a 6-point Likert-type continuum ranging from 1 (Very Uncharacteristic of Me or My Views) to 6 (Very Characteristic of Me or My Views), the LGB-KAS captures the nuanced complexity of contemporary attitudes rather than treating sexual orientation prejudice as a unidimensional construct.

The scale encompasses five distinct, theoretically derived factors: Hate, Knowledge, Civil Rights Attitudes, Religious Conflict, and Internalized Affirmativeness. Extensive psychometric evaluations across four developmental studies established robust internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s α coefficients exceeding .70 across all subscales, typically spanning .74 to .87) and demonstrated stable 2-week test-retest reliability (.70 to .89). Structural validity was substantiated through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Convergent validity was established via meaningful correlations with established measures of attitudes toward lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals, as well as social dominance orientation and sexual identity exploration. Discriminant validity was supported through nonsignificant associations with social desirability and impression management response biases. The LGB-KAS serves as an essential measurement tool within social psychology, counseling psychology, diversity training, and health sciences research, facilitating granular evaluation of interventions and sociocultural attitudes.

2. Keywords

Lesbian Gay and Bisexual Knowledge and Attitudes Scale, LGB-KAS, sexual prejudice, homonegativity, heterosexual identity development, civil rights attitudes, internalized affirmativeness, psychometrics, scale validation, attitudes toward LGB individuals

3. Authors

The Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Knowledge and Attitudes Scale was developed by scholars in counseling psychology specializing in sexual orientation, multicultural competence, and identity development:

• Roger L. Worthington, Ph.D.: Professor of Counseling Psychology and Higher Education. Formerly at the Department of Educational, School, and Counseling Psychology, University of Missouri-Columbia (Address correspondence to: 217 Jesse Hall, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211; Email: [email protected]); currently Professor at the University of Maryland, College Park.
• Frank R. Dillon, Ph.D.: Associate Professor and investigator specializing in health disparities, multicultural counseling, and LGBTQ+ issues. Affiliated with Florida International University and Arizona State University.
• Ann M. Becker-Schutte, Ph.D.: Counseling psychologist specializing in health psychology, identity formation, and professional ethics; University of Missouri-Columbia.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the LGB-KAS is to provide a comprehensive, multidimensional assessment of attitudes, affective responses, and factual knowledge regarding sexual minorities among heterosexual individuals. Historically, psychometric instruments assessing attitudes toward gay and lesbian persons—such as the Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men Scale (ATLG; Herek, 1988)—conceptualized homophobia primarily as a unidimensional continuum spanning from absolute tolerance to overt condemnation or fear. However, significant legal, political, and cultural shifts in the late 20th and early 21st centuries revealed that contemporary attitudes toward sexual minorities are far more heterogeneous, complex, and ambivalent.

In mainstream society, explicit expressions of overt hostility have increasingly coexisted with covert, modern homonegativity, religious ambiguity, passive avoidance, and varying levels of support for civil equality. Furthermore, prior assessment tools frequently conflated general civil rights support with personal interpersonal comfort, while omitting cognitive dimensions such as accurate knowledge of LGB history, socio-political milestones, and community organizations. The LGB-KAS was developed to address these psychometric limitations by disentangling distinct attitudinal facets from factual knowledge and internalized personal comfort with same-sex sexuality.

In applied and empirical contexts, the LGB-KAS fulfills multiple critical functions:

• Empirical Research: It enables social, counseling, and developmental psychologists to investigate how heterosexual identity development intersects with sociopolitical ideology, religious fundamentalism, empathy, and intergroup contact.
• Educational and Training Interventions: It serves as a pre- and post-test assessment in diversity education, medical training, counseling psychology programs, and social justice workshops to measure changes in specific subdomains (e.g., gains in factual knowledge vs. reductions in religious conflict).
• Workplace and Institutional Climate Assessment: It assists organizations, academic institutions, and healthcare systems in assessing underlying campus or institutional climate, identifying subtle barriers to equity, and customizing inclusion initiatives.
• Assessment of Internalized Homonegativity: Although originally developed for heterosexual populations, empirical adaptations (e.g., Worthington & Reynolds, 2009) have utilized subscales of the instrument to assess internalized heterosexism and identity conflict among sexual minority individuals.

5. Psychological Construct

The psychological construct operationalized by the LGB-KAS is multidimensional sexual orientation prejudice and competence. Rather than positioning an individual on a single continuum of "homophobic versus non-homophobic," the instrument conceptualizes sexual attitudes as an interconnected constellation of affective, cognitive, ideological, and behavioral propensities. The five core dimensions are described below:

1. Hate

The Hate factor assesses extreme, overt hostility, violent impulses, visceral aversion, and behavioral avoidance toward LGB individuals. Items capture deliberate social avoidance (e.g., item 4: "It is important to me to avoid LGB individuals"), callousness regarding hate crimes (e.g., item 9: "Hearing about a hate crime against an LGB person would not bother me"), ideation of physical violence (e.g., item 14: "I sometimes think about being violent toward LGB people"), and the explicit moral justification of persecution (e.g., item 24: "LGB people deserve the hatred they receive"). High scores indicate overt, unmediated sexual prejudice, whereas low scores denote an absence of hostility and violent animus.

2. Knowledge

The Knowledge factor evaluates an individual’s objective, factual familiarity with LGB history, socio-political movements, community symbols, and advocacy organizations. Items assess awareness of the historical symbolism of the pink triangle (item 5), the pivotal impact of the 1969 Stonewall Riots on the Gay Liberation Movement (item 10), and familiarity with prominent advocacy groups such as the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (item 16) and PFLAG (item 20), alongside self-efficacy in educating others about affirmative principles (item 1). This dimension is grounded in the premise that cognitive awareness is independent of affective sentiment; an individual may hold low hostility yet exhibit minimal literacy regarding LGB history.

3. Civil Rights Attitudes

The Civil Rights Attitudes subscale measures political, legal, and institutional endorsements of structural equality for LGB individuals. It examines whether an individual supports marriage equality (item 11: "I think marriage should be legal for same-sex couples"), equal healthcare visitation rights (item 23: "Hospitals should acknowledge same-sex partners equally to any other next of kin"), educational initiatives promoting tolerance (item 25), equal employment health benefits (item 27), and unbiased judicial child custody adjudications (item 28). Higher scores indicate robust advocacy for institutional non-discrimination and legislative parity.

4. Religious Conflict

The Religious Conflict subscale assesses cognitive dissonance, theological ambivalence, and ideological tension experienced by heterosexual individuals striving to reconcile traditional religious dogmas with interpersonal tolerance. Items capture compartmentalization and conflicting beliefs (e.g., item 3: "I can accept LGB people even though I condemn their behavior"; item 7: "I have difficulty reconciling my religious views with my interest in being accepting of LGB people"; and item 12: "I keep my religious views to myself in order to accept LGB people"). This construct reflects the "modern" or ambivalent prejudice characteristic of individuals whose religious frameworks condemn non-heterosexual behavior despite personal desires to avoid direct malice.

5. Internalized Affirmativeness

The Internalized Affirmativeness factor measures interpersonal comfort, allyship behaviors, and absence of defensive anxiety regarding same-sex sexuality within oneself and one’s social sphere. It includes comfort with having close LGB friends (item 6), equanimity regarding the hypothetical experience of same-sex attraction (item 15: "Feeling attracted to another person of the same sex would not make me uncomfortable"), willingness to publicly display gay pride symbols (item 17), personal acknowledgement of same-sex sexual fantasies (item 19), and willingness to participate in civil rights demonstrations (item 21). High scores indicate deeply integrated, non-defensive heterosexual identity and active allyship.

6. Theoretical Framework

The development of the LGB-KAS is explicitly rooted in Worthington, Savoy, Dillon, and Vernaglia’s (2002) Multidimensional Model of Heterosexual Identity Development. This developmental framework posits that heterosexual identity is not merely an unexamined default status, but an evolving psychological construct comprising both individual identity trajectories and social identity processes.

The Multidimensional Model of Heterosexual Identity Development

Worthington et al. (2002) theorized that heterosexual individuals progress through varying developmental statuses and processes, including:

• Unexplored Commitment: Uncritical acceptance of traditional heteronormative societal expectations without deliberate personal exploration.
• Active Exploration: Deliberate cognitive, emotional, and social questioning of dominant sexual standards, privilege, and personal feelings toward sexual minorities.
• Diffusion: A lack of commitment paired with an absence of systematic exploration, often yielding confusion or indifference.
• Deepening and Commitment: Conscious consolidation of personal sexuality alongside an affirmative, non-defensive integration of one’s heterosexual identity relative to diverse sexualities.
• Synthesis: Cohesive alignment of personal values, political perspectives, moral integrity, and social activism.

Within this framework, attitudes toward sexual minorities are direct expressions of an individual's developmental resolution of their own heterosexual identity. Individuals operating from an unexamined, highly defensive framework are significantly more prone to experience high levels of Hate or Religious Conflict. Conversely, individuals who have undergone Active Exploration and achieved Deepening and Commitment exhibit elevated Internalized Affirmativeness and strong support for Civil Rights.

Integration with Social Dominance Theory and Modern Prejudice

The LGB-KAS also draws heavily upon Social Dominance Theory (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) and the literature on modern/aversive prejudice (Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986; Morrison & Morrison, 2002). Social Dominance Theory suggests that individuals high in social dominance orientation (SDO) maintain and endorse hierarchy-enhancing legitimizing myths to preserve the supremacy of dominant groups (in this case, heterosexuals over sexual minorities). The Hate and Civil Rights subscales directly tap into these structural hierarchy-enhancing versus hierarchy-attenuating beliefs.

Simultaneously, aversive racism and modern prejudice theories explain why traditional measures of homophobia frequently suffer from floor effects: contemporary social norms make overt declarations of hatred socially undesirable. Modern prejudice manifests through symbolic opposition, claims of excessive demands for "special rights," and compartmentalized religious rationalizations. By separating Religious Conflict, Civil Rights, and Knowledge from overt Hate, the LGB-KAS accounts for complex individuals who oppose violence yet simultaneously withhold support for civil marriage or struggle with internalized theological dissonance.

7. Validity

The validity of the LGB-KAS was rigorously evaluated across four consecutive empirical studies conducted by Worthington, Dillon, and Becker-Schutte (2005), establishing extensive construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity.

Construct and Factorial Validity

Construct validity was established through sequential exploratory factor analysis (EFA; Study 1) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA; Study 2). In Study 1, an initial pool of 211 items was derived from existing measures of homophobia, racism, sexism, and literature on heterosexual identity. Following iterative pilot studies that reduced the pool to 60 items, a principal axis factoring (PAF) extraction with oblique rotation was conducted on a sample of heterosexual undergraduate students (N = 277). This analysis yielded a clean, interpretable five-factor structure comprising 28 items, accounting for significant variance across items. In Study 2, CFA on an independent sample (N = 301) cross-validated the five-factor model, demonstrating superior goodness-of-fit compared to alternative unidimensional and hierarchical models.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity was examined in Study 3 (N = 165) by comparing LGB-KAS subscales with established measures of sexual prejudice, such as Herek’s (1988) Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men Scale (ATLG) and the Attitudes Toward Bisexuals Scale (ATB). As hypothesized:

• The Hate subscale correlated strongly and positively with the ATLG (r > .60) and negatively with general affirmative attitudes.
• Civil Rights Attitudes exhibited strong negative correlations with homonegativity scales (r = -.55 to -.70) and positive correlations with political progressivism.
• Religious Conflict correlated moderately to strongly with measures of religious fundamentalism and extrinsic religiosity, validating its sensitivity to theological dissonance.
• Internalized Affirmativeness correlated positively with openness to experience, lower sexual defensiveness, and higher self-reported contact with LGB individuals.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity was established by evaluating the relationship between LGB-KAS scores and social desirability bias using the Paulhus Deception Scales (BIDR) and the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Correlations between the LGB-KAS total/subscale scores and impression management indices were statistically nonsignificant (all rs < .15), demonstrating that the instrument is relatively immune to self-deceptive enhancement and social desirability distortions in standard testing environments.

Known-Groups and Criterion Validity

In Study 4, criterion-related validity was established through known-groups comparisons between self-identified heterosexual participants (n = 405) and self-identified LGB participants (n = 84). Statistically significant multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) differences emerged across all five subscales (p < .001). LGB respondents demonstrated substantially higher scores on Knowledge, Civil Rights Attitudes, and Internalized Affirmativeness, and significantly lower scores on Hate and Religious Conflict. Further validation by Worthington and Reynolds (2009) confirmed the scale’s sensitivity to within-group variations across diverse sexual orientation identities.

8. Reliability

The LGB-KAS exhibits robust internal consistency and temporal stability across diverse adult and college-aged populations.

Internal Consistency

Across the four validation studies reported by Worthington et al. (2005), internal consistency coefficients (Cronbach’s α) consistently exceeded the accepted psychometric standard of .70 for all five subscales:

• Hate: α = .84 to .87 (6 items; reflecting high item homogeneity in assessing overt animus and avoidance).
• Knowledge: α = .74 to .79 (5 items; reflecting coherent factual and socio-historical literacy).
• Civil Rights Attitudes: α = .81 to .85 (5 items; capturing consistent endorsement of legal parity and institutional equality).
• Religious Conflict: α = .75 to .80 (7 items; measuring coherent ideological and moral dissonance).
• Internalized Affirmativeness: α = .74 to .78 (5 items; reflecting uniform absence of personal heterosexist defensiveness).

Test-Retest Reliability

In Study 3 (Worthington et al., 2005), temporal stability was evaluated using a two-week test-retest design among a non-clinical sample of heterosexual university students (n = 64). Intraclass correlation coefficients and Pearson product-moment correlations demonstrated high stability over the two-week interval:

• Hate: r = .86 (p < .001)
• Knowledge: r = .79 (p < .001)
• Civil Rights Attitudes: r = .89 (p < .001)
• Religious Conflict: r = .76 (p < .001)
• Internalized Affirmativeness: r = .70 (p < .001)

These coefficients indicate that the measured constructs represent stable cognitive schemas and attitudinal stances rather than fluctuating, transient mood states.

9. Factor Analysis

The factorial integrity of the LGB-KAS was derived through rigorous exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and subsequent confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) across independent samples.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (Study 1)

The developmental 60-item version of the scale was administered to 277 self-identified heterosexual participants. Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) was conducted due to its appropriateness for revealing latent dimensions without assuming absence of measurement error. Given the theoretical interrelationships among attitude dimensions, an oblique (promax) rotation was employed. Inspection of the scree plot and eigenvalues greater than 1.0 supported a clean five-factor solution. Items were retained based on strict psychometric criteria: (a) primary factor loading ≥ .40, (b) cross-loadings < .30 on all non-target factors, and (c) conceptual coherence with the target construct. This procedure eliminated 32 non-conforming items, resulting in the final 28-item instrument.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (Study 2)

To confirm the structural stability of the five-factor model, CFA was conducted on an independent validation sample of 301 heterosexual respondents using maximum likelihood estimation. The hypothesized five-factor model was contrasted with competitive alternative structural models, including a unidimensional model (all items loading onto a single general homonegativity factor) and a three-factor model combining Hate and Civil Rights. The five-factor oblique model exhibited superior fit to the data:

• Goodness of Fit: χ²(340) = 582.41, p < .001
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .94
• Incremental Fit Index (IFI): .94
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .049 (90% CI [.042, .055]), satisfying the strict < .05 benchmark for close fit.
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .054

Standardized factor loadings across all 28 items were statistically significant (p < .001), ranging from .48 to .89. Inter-factor correlations were consistent with theoretical expectations: Hate correlated negatively with Civil Rights (r = -.52) and Internalized Affirmativeness (r = -.44), while Religious Conflict displayed moderate positive correlations with Hate (r = .41) and modest negative correlations with Civil Rights (r = -.31).

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Test Type: Multi-dimensional self-report survey assessment.
• Target Population: Specifically constructed and validated for self-identified heterosexual individuals; adapted in specific research settings for sexual minority populations to assess internalized heterosexism.
• Number of Items: 28 items.
• Administration Time: Approximately 10 minutes.
• Response Scale: 6-point Likert-type rating format:
• 1 = Very Uncharacteristic of Me or My Views
• 2 = Uncharacteristic of Me or My Views
• 3 = Somewhat Uncharacteristic of Me or My Views
• 4 = Somewhat Characteristic of Me or My Views
• 5 = Characteristic of Me or My Views
• 6 = Very Characteristic of Me or My Views
• Subscale Item Composition:
• Hate (6 items): Items 4, 8, 9, 14, 18, 24
• Knowledge (5 items): Items 1, 5, 10, 16, 20
• Civil Rights Attitudes (5 items): Items 11, 23, 25, 27, 28
• Religious Conflict (7 items): Items 2, 3, 7, 12, 13, 22, 26
• Internalized Affirmativeness (5 items): Items 6, 15, 17, 19, 21
• Scoring and Computational Rules:
• There are no reverse-scored items in the instrument.
• Subscale scores are calculated as the mean average of completed items within that subscale (sum of valid item scores divided by the number of completed items in that subscale).
• This item-averaging protocol accommodates missing data by deriving the mean exclusively from responded items, preserving scale comparability (scores range from 1.00 to 6.00 per factor).
• A global composite score is generally discouraged by the authors because the factors represent divergent theoretical domains (e.g., combining Knowledge with Hate obscures specific deficits or strengths).

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The LGB-KAS was developed and published in 2005 by Roger L. Worthington, Frank R. Dillon, and Ann M. Becker-Schutte in the Journal of Counseling Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association (APA). The scale was placed in the public domain for non-commercial educational and academic research purposes by its authors. Researchers, instructors, and clinical evaluators may administer the LGB-KAS without royalty fees, provided proper bibliographic attribution is given to the original developmental study (Worthington et al., 2005). Commercial adaptations, electronic distribution within proprietary software, or for-profit consulting implementations require explicit permission from the copyright holder (the American Psychological Association) or corresponding author Dr. Roger L. Worthington (Email: [email protected]).

12. References

Below are primary academic references documenting the theoretical model, empirical validation, and psychometric operationalization of the scale:

• Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (1986). The aversive form of racism. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 61–89). Academic Press.
• Herek, G. M. (1988). Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: Correlates and gender differences. The Journal of Sex Research, 25(4), 451–477. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224498809551476
• Morrison, M. A., & Morrison, T. G. (2002). Development and validation of a scale measuring modern homonegativity. Journal of Homosexuality, 43(2), 15–37. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v43n02_02
• Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139175043
• Worthington, R. L., Dillon, F. R., & Becker-Schutte, A. M. (2005). Development, reliability, and validity of the LGB Knowledge and Attitudes Scale for Heterosexuals (LGB-KASH). Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(1), 104–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.52.1.104
• Worthington, R. L., & Reynolds, A. L. (2009). Within-group differences in sexual orientation and identity. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56(1), 44–55. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013753
• Worthington, R. L., Savoy, H. B., Dillon, F. R., & Vernaglia, E. R. (2002). Heterosexual identity development: A multidimensional model of individual and social identity. The Counseling Psychologist, 30(4), 496–531. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000002304002
• Yang, A. (2000). From wrong to rights: Public opinions on gay and lesbian Americans’ move toward equality. National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute.

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)