<%BANNER%>

Perceived Anti-Bisexual Prejudice Experiences of Bisexual Individuals

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022157/00001

Material Information

Title: Perceived Anti-Bisexual Prejudice Experiences of Bisexual Individuals Scale Development and Evaluation
Physical Description: 1 online resource (82 p.)
Language: english
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: biphobia, bisexuality, concealment, discrimination, lgbt, measurment, orientation, prejudice, sexuality, stigma
Psychology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Psychology thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: This study described the development and psychometric evaluation of the Anti-Bisexual Experiences Scale (ABES), designed to assess bisexual persons? perceived experiences of anti-bisexual prejudice. Items were developed based on prior literature, revised based on expert feedback, and submitted to psychometric evaluation. Exploratory factor analysis of data from 361 bisexual participants yielded 3 factors of perceived anti-bisexual experiences that reflected (a) being treated as if their sexual orientation was unstable or illegitimate, (b) being treated as sexually irresponsible, and (c) being treated with interpersonal hostility. This structure emerged with bisexual persons' reports of anti-bisexual experiences with heterosexual and lesbian and gay persons. Confirmatory factor analysis of data from a second sample of 366 bisexual persons supported the stability of this three factor structure. ABES subscales demonstrated good internal consistency reliability and discriminate validity. Consistent with tenets of the minority stress model, the data also linked ABES scores with anti-bisexual stigma consciousness and psychological symptomatology. Implications for research, practice, and social justice and policy efforts are discussed.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Moradi, Banafsheh.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2009-05-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022157:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022157/00001

Material Information

Title: Perceived Anti-Bisexual Prejudice Experiences of Bisexual Individuals Scale Development and Evaluation
Physical Description: 1 online resource (82 p.)
Language: english
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: biphobia, bisexuality, concealment, discrimination, lgbt, measurment, orientation, prejudice, sexuality, stigma
Psychology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Psychology thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: This study described the development and psychometric evaluation of the Anti-Bisexual Experiences Scale (ABES), designed to assess bisexual persons? perceived experiences of anti-bisexual prejudice. Items were developed based on prior literature, revised based on expert feedback, and submitted to psychometric evaluation. Exploratory factor analysis of data from 361 bisexual participants yielded 3 factors of perceived anti-bisexual experiences that reflected (a) being treated as if their sexual orientation was unstable or illegitimate, (b) being treated as sexually irresponsible, and (c) being treated with interpersonal hostility. This structure emerged with bisexual persons' reports of anti-bisexual experiences with heterosexual and lesbian and gay persons. Confirmatory factor analysis of data from a second sample of 366 bisexual persons supported the stability of this three factor structure. ABES subscales demonstrated good internal consistency reliability and discriminate validity. Consistent with tenets of the minority stress model, the data also linked ABES scores with anti-bisexual stigma consciousness and psychological symptomatology. Implications for research, practice, and social justice and policy efforts are discussed.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Moradi, Banafsheh.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2009-05-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022157:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 PERCEIVED ANTI-BISEXUAL PREJUDICE EXPERIENCES OF BISEXUAL INDIVIDUALS: SCALE DEVE LOPMENT AND EVALUATION By MELANIE E. BREWSTER A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2008

PAGE 2

2 2008 Melanie E. Brewster

PAGE 3

3 What you risk reveals what you value Jeannette Winterson

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am thankful to my advisor and committee chair, Dr. Bonnie Moradi for her guidance and encouragement in the development of this scholarship. I am also grateful for the support and advice provided by my committee members, Dr. Catherine Cottrell and Dr. Mary Fukuyama. Finally, I would like to thank the nine review ers, whose invaluable feedback guided the construction of the Anti-Bise xual Experiences Scale.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........7 LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................................8 ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................................9 CHAP TER 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................10 Manifestations of Anti-Bisexual Prejudice............................................................................. 11 Perceptions of Bisexuality as an Unst able and Illegitim ate Orientation.........................12 Intolerance of and Hostility Towards Bisexuality........................................................... 13 Overview of the Present Study............................................................................................... 15 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE........................................................................................ 16 Perceptions of Bisexuality as an Unstab le and Illegitim ate Sexual Orientation.................... 16 Intolerance of and Hostility toward Bisexuality..................................................................... 19 Anti-Bisexual Attitudes am ong Heterosexual Populations ............................................. 20 Anti-Bisexual Attitudes am ong LG Populations............................................................. 25 Prejudice, Minority Stressors and Mental Health in Bisexual Populations ........................... 28 Anti-Bisexual Experiences..............................................................................................30 Expectations of Stigma....................................................................................................31 Concealment of Bisexuality............................................................................................ 31 Internalized Biphobia...................................................................................................... 34 Purpose of Study.....................................................................................................................35 3 METHOD......................................................................................................................... ......37 Participants.............................................................................................................................37 Procedures..................................................................................................................... ..........37 Instruments.................................................................................................................... .........39 4 RESULTS...............................................................................................................................44 Exploratory Factor Analysis................................................................................................... 44 Confirmatory Factor Analysis................................................................................................ 46 Evaluation of Reliability.........................................................................................................47 Convergent and Discriminant Validity................................................................................... 48 Preliminary Examination of Minority Stressors ..................................................................... 48

PAGE 6

6 5 DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS.................................................................................. 56 APPENDIX A LESBIAN, GAY, AND BISEXUAL IDENTI TY SCALE (L GBIS): INTERNALIZED HOMOPHOBIA SUBSCALE................................................................................................ 60 B STIGMA CONSCIOUSNESS QUESTIONNAIRE (SCQ)................................................... 61 C COLLECTIVE SELF-ESTEEM (CSE): PUBLIC SUBSCALE............................................63 D OUTNESS INVENTORY (OI).............................................................................................. 64 E HOPKINS SYMPTOM CHECKLIST (HSCL-58)................................................................65 F BALANCED INVENTORY OF DESIRABL E RESPONDING (BIDR): IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT SUBSCALE..............................................................................................68 G THE ANTI-BISEXUAL EXPERIENCES SCALE (ABES)..................................................70 H DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE.................................................................................. 72 LIST OF REFERENCES...............................................................................................................76 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.........................................................................................................82

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 4-1 Confirm atory factor analysis of anti-bisexual experiences with lesbian/gay individuals...... 52 4-2. Confirm atory factor analysis of anti-bisexual experiences with heterosexual individuals.... 53 4-3 Summary of simultaneous regression analysis for variables predicting psychological symptomatology................................................................................................................. 55

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 4-1 Exploratory factor analysis of anti-bisexual expe riences with lesbian/gay individuals ......... 50 4-2. Exploratory factor analysis of anti-bisexual experiences with heterosexual individuals ...... 51 4-3. Correlations and summary statistics....................................................................................... 54

PAGE 9

9 Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science PERCEIVED ANTI-BISEXUAL PREJUDICE EXPERIENCES OF BISEXUAL INDIVIDUALS: SCALE DEVE LOPMENT AND EVALUATION By Melanie E. Brewster May 2008 Chair: Bonnie Moradi Major: Psychology This study described the development and psyc hometric evaluation of the Anti-Bisexual Experiences Scale (ABES), designed to assess bi sexual persons perceived experiences of antibisexual prejudice. Items were developed based on prior literature, re vised based on expert feedback, and submitted to psychometric evaluation. Exploratory factor analysis of data from 361 bisexual participants yielded 3 factors of perceived anti-bise xual experiences that reflected (a) being treated as if their se xual orientation was unstable or ill egitimate, (b) being treated as sexually irresponsible, and (c) bei ng treated with interpersonal hos tility. This structure emerged with bisexual persons' reports of anti-bisexual ex periences with heterosexual and lesbian and gay persons. Confirmatory factor an alysis of data from a second sample of 366 bisexual persons supported the stability of this three factor structure. ABES subscales demonstrated good internal consistency reliability and discriminate validity. Consistent with tenets of the minority stress model, the data also linked ABES scores with anti-bisexual s tigma consciousness and psychological symptomatology. Implic ations for research, practice, and social justice and policy efforts are discussed.

PAGE 10

10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION There have been im portant recent advancements in the integration of sexual orientationrelated research into the counseling psychology literature (Phillips, Ingram, Smith, & Mindes, 2003). Unfortunately, it is often th e case that studies on lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) issues include a very small sample of bisexual individual s and/or do not conduct separate analyses with this group. Indeed, in a recent content review, Ph illips et al. (2003) found that 79% of the sexual orientation-related articles that they examined contained superficial or no mention of bisexuality, and only 2% of the articles focused exclusively on bisexuality. Thus, while continued attention to the experiences of LG individuals remains important, further atten tion also needs to be dedicated to the unique experiences of bisexual indivi duals (Fox, 1996; Herek, 2002). As such, research that focuses on the experiences of bisexual individuals is needed (Fox, 1996) and the present study represents a step towards addressing this need by developing and va lidating a measure of bisexual persons perceived experiences of anti-bisexua l stigmatization. Developing a measure of bisexual persons perceived experiences of anti-bisexual prejudice is important because perceived experiences of prejudice and discrimination have been posited to produce a chronically stressful social environment for LGB persons, called minority stress (e.g., Lewis, Derlega, Griffin, & Krowinski, 2003; Mays & Cochran, 2001; Meyer, 2003; 1995). More specifically, the minority stress framew ork postulates that expe riences of anti-LGB prejudice and discrimination can pr omote internalization of heterosexist stigma (i.e., internalized homo/biphobia), concealment of LGB sexual orient ation, and anticipation of and vigilance about further prejudice (Meyer, 1995; 2003). As such, experiencing prejudice and stigmatization may result in feelings of isolation, alienation, and anomie all of whic h can contribute to psychological symptomatology (Meyer, 2003). Bisexual individual s who may be stigmatized and discriminated

PAGE 11

11 against by both heterosexual and LG communities (Mohr & Rochlen, 1999) could be particularly at risk for mental health corre lates of these negative experiences (Bronn, 2001). No prior study, however, has examined the posited role of anti-bisexual experience s as a minority stressor. This gap may be due, in part, to lack of a measur e that specifically asse sses bisexual persons experiences of anti-bisexual stigma. Thus, such a measure is needed to advance research related to bisexual persons expe riences of prejudice. Manifestations of Anti-Bisexual Prejudice The lim ited existing literature about bise xuality has examined a number of themes including (a) the perceived illegitimacy of bisexuality as a st able sexual orientation (e.g., Altshuler, 1984), (b) the relative invisibility of bisexual individua ls in daily life and research (e.g., Bradford, 2004; Rust, 1996), (c) the perceived association of bisexual behavior with STD and HIV transmission (e.g., Lichtenstein, 2000; Spalding & Peplau, 1997) (d) the potential relationship problems that may arise from ster eotyping bisexual person s as indecisive or confused and promiscuous or non-monogamous (e.g., Eliason, 1997), an d (e) the negative attitudes that bisexual individuals may face fr om both heterosexual and lesbian/gay communities (e.g., Herek, 2002; Mohr & Rochlen, 1999). Scholar s have argued that the overwhelmingly negative stereotypes evident in these themes reflect the fact that bisexual persons experience a unique form of stigmatization and discrimi nation termed biphobia (Bradford, 2004; Ochs, 1996). Anti-bisexual affect and biphobia in hetero sexual and LG populations is thought to have two overarching manifestations: (a) instability, which reflects the degree to which bisexuality is perceived as an unstable and ille gitimate sexual orient ation and (b) intolerance, which indicates the extent to which others deem bisexuality to be an unacceptable and immoral sexual orientation (Mohr & Rochlen, 1999).

PAGE 12

12 Perceptions of Bisexuality as an Unstab le and I llegitimate Orientation. Expressions of doubt regarding the existence of a true bisexual orientation have been voiced by a range of individuals and groups, in cluding academicians and scholars as well as activists in LG communities (e.g., Altshuler 1984; Burleson, 2005; Fox, 1996; Hutchins & Kaahumanu, 1991; Weinberg, Williams, & Pryor, 1994) Numerous studies conducted in the past two decades aimed to critically examine the stability of a bisexual orientation, with the expectation that individual s engaging in bisexual behavior would gradually transition to a strictly same-sex orientation (e.g., Doll et al., 1992; Lever et al., 1992; Stokes, Damon, & McKirnan, 1997; Stokes, McKirnan, & Burzette, 1993). Hallma rk conceptual scholarship by Zinik (1985) explored two theories of bisexuality, the conflict model and the flexibility model. In the conflict model, bisexual individuals are considered to be ambivalent and anxious regarding their sexual orientation. At the root of this model is the idea that experiencing attr action to both sexes is unnatural and directly contradictory to societys binary sexual orie ntation structure. Furthermore, bisexuality is portrayed as a method of denying or masking strictly same-sex feelings. In contrast, Ziniks flexibility model posited that bisexuality is based upon interpersonal and cognitive flexibility, suggesting th at bisexual individuals have the capacity to experience a broad spectrum of heterosexual and same-sex desires. Other studies have portrayed bisexual persons as confused, indecisive, and hypersexualstereoty pes that may propagate negative opinions of those who identify as bisexua l (Bronn, 2001). Such scholarly doubt in the existence and legitimacy of bisexuality is typified by the conclusions of Altshulers (1984, p. 492) study, in which he interviewed 13 (11 men, 2 wome n) self-identified bisexual individuals: First, that bisexuality, in terms of equal pl easure, equal frequency, and equal preference, does not exist. Second, when bise xuality appears in an otherwise heterosexual person, it does so with compulsive force, however, well rationalize d, and that it gradually replaces heterosexuality.

PAGE 13

13 And third, that self-labeling, or calling oneself bisexual, is a ma tter of status, face-saving, and denial of conflict. Biphobia, when manifested through disbelief in the existence or stab ility of bisexuality, contributes to the invisibility of those who self-identify as bisexual (Bradford, 2004). Such feelings of invisibility may cont ribute to feelings of marginali zation and discrimination from the dominant heterosexual culture or the LG subculture (e.g., Bradford, 2004; Weinberg, Williams, Pryor, 1994). Feelings of invisi bility may be compounded due to the fact that assumptions regarding sexual orientation are often base d upon a partners gender (Bradford, 2004). For example, if a man is in a relationship with a nother man, they are considered gay, whereas if a man and a woman are in a relationship, they are viewed as heterosexual. Such presumptions about sexual orientation reflect a lack of acknowledgement of bisexuality that renders bisexual persons invisible. Taken togeth er, this literature s upports the existence of perceptions of bisexuality as an unstable or illegitimate sexual orientation. Therefore, these perceptions may be one aspect of bisexual persons experiences of anti-bisexual prejudice. Intolerance of and Hostility Towards Bisexuality. Disbelief in the existence of bisexuality, however, is not m erely confined to the academic arena. Eliason (2001) posited that dichotomization of sexual orie ntation may be useful for LG persons in organizing politically and socia lly against the dominant heterosexual group. Unfortunately, such an approach may also cont ribute to biphobic attitudes by isolating bisexual individuals who inherently violat e the binary majority/minority sexual orientation framework. As such, some bisexual women and men report expe riencing negative intera ctions with some members of the LG community rang ing from feelings of exclusi on to verbal accusations that they are traitors for interac ting with heterosexuals (Ault, 1996; Burleson, 2005; Hutchins & Kaahumanu, 1991; Rust, 1992).

PAGE 14

14 Anti-bisexual attitudes have b een posited to be salient in the lesbian community where bisexual women may be associated with the spr ead of STDs and HIV from their male sexual partners (Ochs, 1996). Furthermore, the view by some members of the lesbian community that sexual relationships with men c ontribute to heterosexist rela tionship norms may segregate bisexual women from a potenti al support network (Stone, 1 996). The relationship between bisexual men and the gay community is also co mplex. Burleson (2005) ar gued that bisexual men may be patronized by gay men who believe that bisexuality is only a transitional state to a strictly same-sex orientation. In this sense, bisexual men take on the role of junior members in the gay male fraternity (Burleson, 2005, p. 94). Anti-bisexual attitudes are also present in the heterosexual commun ity. At its extreme, biphobia can fuel anti-bisexual prejudice and viol ence, which is estimated to occur at roughly equal rates as discrimination against LG persons (Herek, 2002). In fact, a recent large-scale telephone survey found that hete rosexual women and men felt mo re negative affect towards bisexual individuals than toward a wide range of other groups includ ing LG persons, various religious sects, racial/ethnic minority groups, pro-life groups, pro-choice groups, and people with AIDS (Herek, 2002). Such results illustrate that heterosexual individu als may view bisexual persons in a more negative light than they do LG persons. Indeed, several studies have found that compared to LG persons, bisexual persons are seen as less trustworthy, less psychologically well-adjusted, more likely to carry an STD or HIV, more likely to be non-monogamous, and generally less acceptable by heterosexual women and men (e.g., Eliason, 2001; Spalding & Peplau, 1997). These negative at titudes can impact interacti ons between heterosexual and bisexual individuals. For example, in a survey of heterosexual college students, Eliason (2001)

PAGE 15

15 found that 77% of students found it unlikely that they would ev er date a bisexual person to whom they were attracted. Thus, this literature illustrates that hostil e and intolerant attitudes towards bisexual individuals are present in both heterosexual and LG communities and can contribute to bisexual persons sense of isolation and l ack of social support. Therefor e, anti-bisexual hostility and intolerance may represent anothe r dimension of prejud ice that bisexual persons may experience. Overview of the Present Study Based upon the literature introdu ced in this chapter, bisexua l individuals m ay perceive anti-bisexual experiences that reflect (a) bisexuality as an unstable and illegitimate sexual orientation and (b) intolerance, which indicates the extent to which others deem bisexuality to be an unacceptable and immoral sexual orientation. Understanding and assessing such experiences is important because the minority stress framewor k suggests that such experiences may be an important source of stress and symptomatology for bisexual persons. To adva nce research in this important area, the proposed study will develop a nd psychometrically evaluate the Anti-Bisexual Experiences Scale (ABES), a new measure of bi sexual persons perceptions of anti-bisexual stigmatization experiences. Furthermore, findings from this study will be used to provide a preliminary examination of the minority stress framework with bisexual persons.

PAGE 16

16 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Num erous scholars have suggest ed that bisexual individuals experience unique forms of prejudice, termed biphobia, due to their sexual or ientation (e.g., Ault, 1996; Bradford, 2004; Burleson, 2005; Fox, 1996; Eliason, 1997; 2001; Evans, 2003). Literatu re has posited that antibisexual prejudice is manifested in two primary manners (a) instabil ity, which reflects the degree to which bisexuality is perceived as an unsta ble and illegitimate sexu al orientation and (b) intolerance, which indicates the extent to whic h others deem bisexuality to be an unacceptable and immoral sexual orientation (Mohr & Rochle n, 1999). Chapter Two offers an integrative summary of literature on bisexual individuals experiences with stigmatization to provide the groundwork for the present studys aim to develop and evaluate a measure of such experiences. To this end, this chapter is divided into four parts. First a review of litera ture that conceptualizes bisexuality as an unstable and/or illegitimat e sexual orientation will be provided. Second, intolerance of bisexuality within heterosexual and LG populations as reflected in anti-bisexual attitudes, stereotypes, and stig matizations will be discussed. Third, conceptual and empirical literature pointing to prejudice as a correlate of mental health will be presented using the minority stress model as a guiding framework. Finall y, the aims and hypotheses of this study will be outlined. Perceptions of Bisexuality as an Unstable and I llegitimate Sexual Orientation Conceptualizations of bisexuality reflect two opposing perspectives. One perspective is that bisexuality is a transitory state in the development of an LG orientation (Altshuler, 1984; Cass, 1979; Stokes, Damon, & McKirnan, 1997). Th is view suggests that bisexuality is an illegitimate and unstable orientation, reinforces the dichotomization of sexuality into two mutually exclusive categorie s of heterosexual and homose xual (Fox, 1996), and may have

PAGE 17

17 negative consequences, such s feelings of confusion, frustration, invalidation, and a lack of social support, for individuals who e xperience bisexual attractions (e.g., Ault, 1996; Brown, 2002; Evans, 2003; Rust, 1992). A number of studies that focus on bisexual men reflect this conceptualization of bisexuality as unstable and illeg itimate (e.g., Altshuler, 1984; Doll et al., 1992; Stokes, Damon, & McKirnan, 1997; Stokes, McKirnan, & Burze tte, 1993). For example, Stokes, Damon, and McKirnan (1997) suggested that because gay me n are highly stigmatized in society, men who engage in same-sex behavior may feel more comf ortable adopting a bisexual identity than a gay identity, because adopting a bisexua l identity would allow them to remain partially connected to the heterosexual community. Other studies have defined bisexuality as occasional same-sex behavior, linked to situational factors such as in carceration, hustling, or enlistment in the military (Lichtenstein, 2000). Such conceptualizations promote the notion th at bisexuality is a transitory state that inevitably leads to adopting an LG identity, or returning to heterosexuality once situational factors have passed. Even sexual orientation mino rity women and men who identify as LG may regard bisexuality with skepticism, further discre diting its existence as a legitimate orientation (e.g., Burleson, 2005; Rust, 1992). As such, some bisexual women and men report experiencing negative interactions with me mbers of the LG community due to their endorsement of stereotypes that bisexual persons are indecisive, fence-sitters, or emotionally immature (Ault, 1996; Burleson, 2005; Hutchins & Kaahumanu, 1991; Rust, 1992). Despite these perceptions, howev er, empirical data suggest no table stability in bisexual persons sexual orientation identification. For ex ample, in their longitudinal study of bisexuality in men, Stokes, McKirnan and Burzette (1993) fo und that more than half of their sample was

PAGE 18

18 stable in their self-identificat ion after a year, suggesting that bisexually is indeed a genuine, stable orientation for many individuals. Sim ilarly, a survey of 270 bisexual women and men, Burleson (2005) found that participants had identifi ed as bisexual for an average of 10.3 years. Thus, available data challenge percep tions of bisexuality as unstable. In contrast to researchers who view bisexuality as a transitory state, some scholars have argued that bisexuality can be a legitimate and stable sexual orientation (Bradford, 2004; Brown, 2002; Burleson, 2005; Evans, 2003; Kinsey, Pome roy, & Martin, 1948; Tr oiden, 1988; Stein, 1997; Weinberg, Williams, & Pryor, 1994; Zini k, 1985). In this viewpoint, sexuality is conceptualized as fluid and dyna mic with considerable variati ons across individuals. In other words, people may experience a wide array of se xual orientations, which ar e inclusive of, but not limited to strictly other-sex or same-sex attr action. The aforementioned scholars argue that bisexuality has essentially been expunged from academic literature because of its destabilizing effect on societys dichotomous sexual orientatio n structure. Indeed, bi sexual individuals are frequently cited as belonging to an invisible minority group due to the paucity of research on bisexuality and bisexual persons la ck of visibility in everyday life (Ault, 1996; Bradford, 2004; Burleson, 2005). More specifically, because a person s sexual orientation is often inferred from the gender of their romantic partner, bisexual individuals may frequently encounter the assumption that they are heterosexual or LG depending on their relationship status. Such experiences of invisibility and misperception can invalidate a pers ons sexual identi ty and result in distress (Bradford, 2004). The invisibility of bisexual individuals also presents a challenge to the development of a unified bisexual community (Bradford, 2004; Br own, 2002; Burleson, 2005; Evans, 2003). As a result, bisexual persons may expe rience pressure to assimilate into the dominant heterosexual

PAGE 19

19 culture or the LG community, either of which could result in denial or nondisclosure of their true sexual orientation (Bradford, 2004; Evans, 2003). Indeed, in a qualitati ve study of 25 selfidentified bisexual individuals, Bradford ( 2004) found that many participants experienced feelings of isolation, rej ection, and discomfort due to their bise xuality. As a result of invisibility, participants noted difficulties in locating othe r bisexual persons and forming bisexual affirming communities. Finally, the binary heterosexual-homosexual structure of society led many participants to believe that th ey were outsiders in both the heterosexual culture and the LG community. This was described by one research participant as feelings of being a second class citizen (Bradford, 2004, p. 16). Thus, the invisibility of bisexua l individuals in research has resulted in a lack of basic knowledge regarding their life experiences (Fox, 1996). Studies that portray bisexual individuals as transitioning to a same-sex orientation have likely added to societal disbelief and doubt in the existence of bisexual persons, resulting in in validation and stress for those who identify as such. Furthermore, not attending to bisexual pers ons experiences has contributed to the spread of speculative stigmatizations and stereotypes regarding this population, marginalizing them from both the heterosexual and LG commun ities (Bronn, 2001). Taken together, experiences associated with invisibility and perceived ille gitimacy may be an important aspect of antibisexual experiences to assess. Intolerance of and Hostility toward Bisexuality Few quantitative studies have investigated the existence of anti-bisexual attitudes and biphobia within heterosexual and LG communities. Nevertheless, the existence of biphobia has been asserted repeatedly through anecdotal data and qualitative reports from bisexual individuals who have experienced it firsthand (e.g., Bu rlestein, 2005; Pajor, 2005; Stone, 1996). Biphobia may be expressed through overt discriminati on and prejudice and th rough less obvious means,

PAGE 20

20 such as overhearing a joke about bisexuality (Mulick & Wright, 2002). Accompanying these negative actions towards bisexua l individuals are underlying stig matizations and stereotypes regarding bisexuality, such as a ssociating it with promiscuity, am bivalence, mental illness, and immaturity (Eliason, 1997; Ochs, 1996; Rust, 1995). In fact, Ochs (1996) ar gued that, as a result of negative attitudes from heterosexual a nd LG persons, bisexual individuals face double discrimination. To elucidate these anti-bisexual experiences, literature regarding the existence of biphobia in heterosexual and LG communitie s will be reviewed in the following section. Anti-Bisexual Attitudes among Heterosexual P opulations In order to assess levels of fear and disc rimination towards bisexua l individuals, Mulick and Wright (2002) constructed th e Biphobia Scale. The scale, wh ich examined negative affect, cognitions, and behavior regardi ng bisexuality and bisexual indivi duals, was administered to 224 undergraduate students of mixe d sexual orientation. The range of possible biphobia scores was divided into three categories, with 0-30 reflecting mild bi phobia, 31-75 reflecting moderate biphobia, and 76-150 reflecting severe biphobi a. The groups biphobia mean score was 29.79 (SD = 23.51), which falls in the descriptive range of mild biphobia. Furthermore, scores on the Biphobia Scale were highly correlated (r = .83, p < .001) with scores on the Homophobia Scale (Wright, Adams, & Bernat, 1999), suggesting substantial overlap between biphobia and homophobia constructs and attitudes. Additional post hoc analyses revealed that heterosexual members of the sample had significantly high er biphobia scores (M = 32.28) than did LG participants (M = 13.33). Although a majority of the participants scored in the mildly biphobic range, almost half (42%) fell in the moderate a nd severe ranges. Heterosexual men reported the highest levels of biphobia, with 57% falling in the moderate range and 11% in the severe range, a trend that has been noted in previous studies as well (Her ek, 2002; Mohr & Rochlen, 1999). These results support the existence of biphobia and suggest that it s levels may vary across gender

PAGE 21

21 and sexual orientation groups. Generalizing the results of Mulic k and Wrights (2002) study may be problematic, however, because of their homogenous sample characteristics (i.e., Caucasian college students in their early 20s ), which may have contributed to relatively low biphobia scores in their sample. Eliason (1997; 2001) also examined the attit udes of heterosexual college students towards bisexual women and men. A questionnaire was admi nistered to 229 self-identified heterosexual undergraduate students; 170 women and 59 men with a mean age of 20.6. The survey contained a demographics questionnaire, the Beliefs a bout Sexual Minorities Scale (BSM; Eliason & Raheim, 1996), and additional statements rega rding common bisexual st ereotypes that the participants could either agr ee or disagree with. Themes in these measures included hatred, disgust, moral disapproval, tolerance, and accep tance of sexual minority groups. Participants were asked to report how acceptable they felt bisexual men, bisexual women, lesbian women, and gay men were with four options: very acceptable, somewhat acceptable, somewhat unacceptable, and very unacceptable. Bisexual women and men were seen as somewhat unacceptable or very unacceptable by 50% and 61% of the sample, respectively. In contrast, lesbian women and gay men were considered to be somewhat unacceptable or very unacceptable by 38% and 43% of the respondents, respectively. These responses suggest that heterosexual undergraduate students may perceive bisexuals individuals as less acceptable than they do LG individuals. Moreover, when asked how likely it was that th e respondent would have a sexual relationship with an attr active bisexual person, approximately half (52%) of the students rated this possibility as very unlikely with an additional quarter (25%) of the sample claiming that it was somewhat unlikely.

PAGE 22

22 Of even greater significance, respondents reported disapproval, on the basis of religious or moral grounds, at higher rates against bisexual women (18%) and men (21%) than they did against lesbian women (14%) and gay men (15 %) (Eliason, 2001). These findings varied with participants gender; specificall y, compared to women in the samp le, men were less tolerant of bisexual men (with more negativity towards this group than towards LG persons). On the other hand, mens regard for bisexual women was genera lly positive and men were significantly more likely (p<.001) than women to report that they would have a sexual rela tionship with a bisexual person of the other-sex. Eliason (1997) attributed heterose xual mens higher tolerance of bisexual women to pornography and the media, which often portray bisexual women as erotic objects, thus contributing to stereotype s that bisexual women are hypersexual. In a separate examination of the previous studys data, Eliaso n (2001) evaluated the percentage of respondents who agre ed, disagreed, or did not know about stereotypical statements regarding bisexual women and men. Strong endorsem ent of stereotypical views was especially prevalent regarding bisexual individuals sexual proclivities and mental health. For example, 76% of the sample agreed with the statement Bis exuals have more flexib le attitudes about sex than heterosexuals while only 7% disagreed and 17% didnt know. Bi sexual women and men were also viewed as less psychologically well-a djusted than both LG persons and heterosexuals. Specifically, 63% of the sample disagreed with the statement Bisexuals are more psychologically well-adjusted than heterosexuals 43% of the respondents said they didnt know, and only 3% agreed with this statement. Wh en the same question was asked in relation to bisexual persons being more well-adjusted than LG individuals, si milar patterns arose, with 52% disagreeing with this statement, 44% not know ing, and only 4% agreeing. In addition, compared to women, men were more likely to endorse other stereotypes of bisexuality as related to non-

PAGE 23

23 monogamy, instability of sexual or ientation, and the spread of AIDS to lesbian/heterosexual persons. Eliason (2001) suggested that heterosexual persons negative views towards bisexual individuals may stem from a wide variety of factors including a general lack of knowledge regarding sexual identiti es, an uneducated fear of AIDS, and deeply engrained sexual taboos. In a similar investigation of heterosexuals perceptions of bisexual individuals, Spalding and Peplau (1997) recruited 353 undergraduate college students; approxi mately 64% women and 37% men who were diverse in se lf-reported ethnicities. Particip ants were asked to read a description of bisexual, LG, or heterosexual adults in the cont ext of a dating relationship and then rate the couple, target person, and the targets partner on various relationship-related characteristics. All of the coupl es in the vignettes were portrayed as dating for 6 months and feeling that their relationship was going very we ll. Participants rated each partner and their relationship on dimensions of monogamy, trust, se xual riskiness, sexual talent, and relationship quality using a 9-point Likert-t ype scale. As the researchers predicted, there was a significant main effect of sexual orientation on ratings of monogamy. Specifically bi sexual individuals were seen as more likely to concurrently date multiple partners [F(1,174) = 19.54, p < .001] and to cheat on [F(1,176) = 10.29, p < .01] their partner than were heterosexual persons. Furthermore, an ANOVA revealed that bisexual persons were seen as more likely to give an STD to their partner than were he terosexual persons. To investigate whether perceptions of bi sexual persons varied based upon their samegender or other-gender relations hip status, a series of 2x2 MANOVAs was conducted. Bisexual individuals were perceived as si gnificantly more likely to cheat on a heterosexual partner than an LG partner [F(1,161) = 11.30, p < .001], perhaps reflecting an underlying belief that bisexual persons would be happier with a same-sex partner because they are in denial of their true LG

PAGE 24

24 orientation. Thus, results of this study support the ex istence of biphobic stereotypes regarding bisexual individuals and th eir relationships; particularly th at bisexuals individuals are more likely to be non-monogamous, cheat, and transmit an STD to their partner. Herek (2002) argued that in order to truly understand bisexual persons unique experiences with prejudice and discrimination, researchers must examine how anti-LG hostility and antibisexual attitudes are dissimilar and/or overlap. To investigate these matters, data from a 1999 national random digit dialing su rvey (N= 1,335) were analyzed (H erek, 2002). Attitudes towards bisexual women and men were assessed through 101point feeling thermometers to which higher ratings (maximum score = 100) indicated warmer feelings towards the ta rget and lower ratings (minimum = 0) represented negative feelings. In addition to ranking bi sexual individuals, respondents were also asked to give thermometer scores for other groups including religious sects, LG persons, people who inject illegal drug s, people with AIDS, racial/ethnic groups, and groups who are pro-choice or pro-life regard ing abortion. Thermometer ratings for bisexual women and men were lower than ratings of all other groups except injecting drug users. This finding suggests that heterosexual persons may have more negative affect against bisexual persons than they do against LG persons and a number of other stigmatized groups. Moreover, negative attitudes were positively associated with several demographic characteristics such as higher age, lower socioeconomic status, residence in rural areas or the South, higher levels of religiosity, authoritarianism, and political conservatism, and adherence to traditional values concerning gender/sexuality. And, as might be e xpected, biphobia was correlated positively with a lack of contact with LG persons. Unfortunate ly, respondents level of contact with bisexual persons was not assessed. Comparable findings re garding demographic corr elates were noted in Mohr and Rochlens (1999) examination of anti -bisexual attitudes in heterosexual populations.

PAGE 25

25 In this study, attitudes toward bisexual people were related signi ficantly to group differences in political ideology, religiosity, race, and contact with LGB individuals. Specifically, perceptions of bisexuality as a stable sexual orientati on and tolerance toward bisexuality each were negatively associated with high religious attendance and conservati ve political identification, low levels of contact with LGB peopl e, and identification as Black. Anti-Bisexual Attitudes among LG Populations As the previous studies reviewed have illust rated, heterosexual sam ples reports reveal anti-bisexual sentiments and st ereotypes in heterose xual populations. Similar biphobic attitudes, however, have been observed among LG samples. Ru st (1992) argued that the rise of the LG movement encouraged individuals in this group to translate their experiences and worldviews into heterosexual/homosexual identities, from which sociopolitical communities could be built. Bisexuals persons, who represent a hybrid of heterosexual/homosexual id entities were denied access to these emerging sexual minority suppo rt groups and viewed as heterosexual infiltrators or fallen LG pers ons (Ault, 1996, p. 461; Rust, 19 92). Thus, animosity from LG persons may stem from the perception that bisexual individuals are able to reap the benefits of heterosexuality without committing to the struggl e against heterosexism (Ault, 1996; Burleson, 2005; Rust, 1992; Stone, 1996). Although there is limited empirical data abou t LG persons attitude s toward bisexual individuals, a few key studies have pioneered exploration of this topic (e.g., Bradford, 2004; Burleson, 2005; Mohr & Rochlen, 1999; Wei nberg, Williams, & Pryor, 1994). Mohr and Rochlen (1999) evaluated anti-b isexual attitudes of LG persons through a new measure called the Attitudes Regarding Bisexua lity Scale (ARBS) and found that within their sample, most lesbian women and gay men regarded bisexuality as a tolerable sexual orientation, but some expressed very negative views toward this group (a s demonstrated by attitudinal scores as low as

PAGE 26

26 1.5 on a scale ranging from 1 to 5). An interest ing finding regarding gender differences among LG participants was that lesbian women tended to view male bisexuality as more stable than female bisexuality, and gay men viewed female bise xuality as more stable than male bisexuality. LG persons perceptions that same gender persons bisexuality is le ss stable than that of other gender persons may point to LG persons concerns about the legitimacy of bisexuality and the trustworthiness of bisexual persons romantic commitments (Mohr & Rochlen, 1999). Consistent with Ochs (1996) observations, le sbian participants in Mohr and Rochlens (1999) study with high levels of anti-bisexual affect also ha d low levels of contact with heterosexuals and an unwillingness to be best friends with a bisexual person. Thus, lesbian womens disapproval of bisexual individuals may be linked to their lack of contact with heterosexual persons (Ochs, 1996). Further, M ohr and Rochlen (1999) suggested that LG persons negative attitudes about the trustworth iness of bisexual persons may be linked to struggles with in-group (heterosexual) and out-group (LG) power dynamics; with bisexual persons representing an uncomfort able blurring of boundaries. While both bisexual women and men may experience negativity from the LG community, there is some evidence to suggest that there are gender differences in th e level and intensity of these attitudes (Burleson, 2005). From an intern et survey of 270 bisexual individuals, Burleson (2005) found that only 25% of bisexual women f ound the lesbian community to be welcoming or accepting whereas 60% of the bisexual men believed that the gay community was welcoming or accepting. Bisexual men may experience more support from the gay community because both groups are negatively stigmatized (e.g., as pedophiles, sex addict s, mentally ill) (Burleson, 2005). Additionally, strains between the lesbian community and bisexual women can be fueled by feminist politics, which may not be a salien t component of mens se xual identity formation

PAGE 27

27 process (Burleson, 2005). Bisexual and gay men al so share the common depiction of being a sexually high risk group whereas lesbian wo men are often viewed as safe from HIV and STDs because they do not have sexual contact with men. Due to the a ssumption that bisexual women have sexual relationships with men, lesbian women may often associate female bisexuality with the spread of these diseases (Burleson, 2005; Israel & Mohr, 2004; Ochs, 1996). Struggles between bisexual individuals and the LG community have been documented by a number of activist scholars (e.g., Ault, 1996; Burleson, 2005; Ochs, 1996; Rust, 1992; Stone, 1996). For example, there is a longstanding history of lesbian antagonism towards bisexual women rooted in radical and lesbian feminist movements (Ault, 1996; Rust, 1992). Lesbian women have been purported to have a wide ra nge of negative beliefs regarding bisexuality, ranging from it does not exist at the most ex treme, to allegations that bisexual women are promiscuous and disloyal to feminist causes (Ault, 1996). Such stereotypes are parallel to many of those held by the heterosexual community a nd further stigmatize bisexual individuals as deviant, sexually risky, and untrustworthy. Despite limited empirical schol arship about LG persons attitudes towards bisexual persons, alternative resources exist that document the prevalen ce of anti-bisexual sentiments in the LG community. In a powerful personal essay, Pajor (2005, p. 574) describes her experiences as a bisexual woman: And this is what you must know about th e gay community: transgendered people are second class citizens, and bisexuals are below ev en them. We are the wh ite trash of the gay world, a group whom it is socially acceptable not to accept. Feeling awkward amongst straights is what it feels like to be bi. Being dist rusted amongst gays is what it feels like too.

PAGE 28

28 Consistent with Pajors (2005) sentiments, Ault (1996) illustra tes that individuals who are not exclusively heterosexual are automatically vi ewed as LG by the heterosexual community, yet persons who are not exclusively LG are believed to have a sexual orientation that is less legitimate than a strictly same-s ex orientation. Thus, bisexual i ndividuals may be marginalized by both heterosexual and LG communities. Taken t ogether, this literature provides evidence of extant hostility and intolerance towards bisexual individuals. Bisexual persons experiences of perceived ill egitimacy and instability of bisexuality as well as hostility and intolerance toward bisexual ity may have negative implications of bisexual persons health and well-being. Su ch potential negative implicatio ns of anti-bisexual prejudice and stigma (i.e., concealment of sexual identity, internalized homophobia, depression, anxiety) will be detailed in the following section. Prejudice, Minority Stressors, and Menta l Health in Bisexual Populations After the declass ification of homosexuality as a mental di sorder in the DSM, scholars became hesitant to investigate links betw een same-sex attractions and psychological symptomatology, in fear that re search conducted on the mental health of LGB persons would further stigmatize this group (DSM; American Ps ychiatric Association, 1973; Fox, 1996; Meyer, 2003). In more recent years, howev er, researchers have begun to reexamine the relation between LGB orientation and mental health, and found evidence to suggest that sexual minority populations experience elevated levels of some indicators of psychological distress (e.g., Fox, 1996; Mays & Cochran, 2001; Meyer, 1995). One propos ed explanation for this finding is that LGB persons experience high levels of stigma, pr ejudice, and discrimination due to their sexual orientation and that this stigma, in turn, produces a chronically st ressful social environment that can promote psychological symptomatology (e.g., Le wis, Derlega, Griffin, & Krowinski, 2003; Mays & Cochran, 2001; Meyer, 1995; 2003).

PAGE 29

29 Specifically, belonging to a stigmatized social group may result in fee lings of isolation, alienation, and anomie all of which can contribute to depression and ev en suicidal ideation (Meyer, 2003). Within LGB populations specifically, despondent feelings may arise from the dominant culture failing to validate LGB persons social needs (e.g., the militarys dont ask dont tell policy sexual orientati on policy, the failure of the government to sanction same-sex marriages). More generally, iden tifying with a population that is not accepted by the majority group can lead to feelings of di sharmony, rejection, and f ear, all contributing to significant levels of stress (Meyer, 1995). Indeed, social support and connectedness have been shown to be associated with lower stress levels, better immu nosurveillance (i.e., a mo nitoring process of the immune system that detect s cancerous cells), a nd better cognitive functioning (Uchino, Cacioppo, & Kiecolt-Glazer, 1996). T hus, people who have been ostracized from a majority group may experience both mental and physical health risks (Uch ino, Cacioppo, & KiecoltGlazer, 1996; Williams, 2001). Bronn (2001) argues that because bisexual individuals may be stigmatized by both heterosexual and LG groups, they may experience mental health consequences such as negative self-affect, anxiety, depression, marital discord, sexual dysfunction, and social isolation. These negative outcomes result from a lack of social validation and detrimental societal views of bisexual individuals as morally, psychologically, and emotionally unstable. Compared to lesbian women and gay men, there has been some sugges tion that bisexual individuals have less life satisfaction and experience less fulfillment from disclosing their sexual orientations (Anderson & Randlet, 1994), which may be a product of lim ited access to support from heterosexual or LG communities. A recent community-based mental hea lth survey by Jorm et al. (2002) noted that respondents who identified as bisexual were hi gher than heterosexual or LG respondents on

PAGE 30

30 measures of anxiety, negative affect, and depres sion. Furthermore, bisexu al individuals in the sample reported more adverse life events including less positive familial support, and more negative attitudes from fri ends; thus linking experiences of prejudice to ment al health variables. To elucidate such stress proce sses, Meyer (1995; 2003) outlined the following four specific sources of LGB minority stress: (a) stressful ev ents and conditions that are external to the individual (i.e., prejudice and disc rimination), (b) expectations of these events (i.e., stigma), (c) concealment of sexual orientation, and (d) intern alization of negative so cietal attitudes (i.e., internalized homophobia/biphobia). Anti-Bisexual Experiences Experiences of prejudice are pos ited to be at the root of the other three m inority stress variables. Although there is a growing body of lit erature on LG persons e xperiences with sexual orientation based prejudice, few st udies have examined the frequency of similar events in the lives of bisexual individuals. In the few existi ng studies, bisexual and LG individuals have been found to experience relatively similar levels of sexual-orientation based discrimination (Herek, 2002; Herek, Gillis, & Cogan, 1999; Ochs, 1996). For example the results of a community-based survey of bias-crime by Herek, Gillis, and Cogan (1999) showed that 15% of bisexual women and 27% of bisexual men in their sample had ex perienced a personal or property crime due to their sexual orientation, with an alogous rates of occurrence fo r lesbian women (19%) and gay men (28%). As such, speculations that bisexual individuals are victims of only half as much negativity as LG persons may be a dangerous myth (Ochs, 1996) not supported by extant literature. It is also importan t to note that bisexual persons ex periences of discrimination may have been underestimated in prior studies beca use these studies have not examined forms of prejudice and discrimination that are unique to the experiences of bisexual persons (e.g., societal perceptions that their orientation is illegitimate and/or unstable).

PAGE 31

31 Expectations of Stigma Repeated ex posure to experiences of discrimi nation can promote expectations of further stigmatization and discrimination. Pinel (1999) describes stigma c onsciousness as the expectation of minority group members that they will be stereotyped by others. Such, chronic vigilance for social rejection is another form of minority stress (Meyer 1995; 2003). From selfreport data of 220 LGB individuals Lewis et al. (2003) concluded that sexual orie ntation-related stress (i.e., negative life events directly and indirectly related to experi ences of discrimination and stigma) and stigma consciousness were both significantly associat ed with depressive symptoms. Thus, persons who reported higher leve ls of minority stress and greater stigma consciousness (i.e., expectations of stigmatization) also reporte d higher levels of depression. Furthermore, there was a significant correlati on between stigma consciousness and minority stress ( r =.15, p < .01), as well as between stigma consciousness and internalized homophobia ( r =.25, p < .001). As such, this literature suggests that more experiences of prejudice are likely to be related positively to expectations of stigmatization. Concealment of Bisexuality Anti-bisexual experiences and fear of bei ng stigm atized can cont ribute to a bisexual individuals desire to conceal their bise xual orientation (DAuge lli & Grossman, 2001; Lichenstein, 2000; Stokes, Damon, & McKirnan, 1997; Stokes, McKirn an, & Burzette, 1993). Unfortunately, concealment and/or disclosure of sexual orientation and sexual activity can be a barrier to establishing social support networks and maintainin g healthy relationships with romantic partners, friends, and family (Doll et al., 1992; Meyer, 1995). Stokes, McKirnan, and Burzette (1993) examined rates of identity disclosure in bise xually self-identified men, finding that most of the men in their sample believed th at their female partners were unaware of their attraction to men and only 16% of these men had directly disclosed this information.

PAGE 32

32 Furthermore, respondents reported that within their primary soci al networks, only about 38% of their contacts were aware of their orientati on. Sadly, 21% of respondents believed that none of the people in their network were aware of thei r bisexuality. Not surprisi ngly, bisexual men who were involved with gay community groups were mo re likely to openly iden tify as bisexual, have higher levels of self-esteem, and lower levels of internalized homophobia. Thus, involvement in the gay community may provide bisexual men with experiences of affirmation that assuage feelings of self-negativity rela ted to their orientation. Unfortunately, as previously discussed, bisexual individuals are not alwa ys welcome in the LG community, therefore they may not be able to benefit from this potential source of so cial support. (e.g., Burles on, 2005; Israel & Mohr, 2004; Rust, 2000; Weinberg, Williams, & Pryor, 1994). Further support for the role of secrecy in the lives of bisexual men was noted by Doll, Petersen, White, Johnson, and Ward (1992). In th eir sample of men who have sex with men (MSM), 24% of the participants who identified as bisexual reporte d that they had never disclosed their sexual orientation to family members, hetero sexual friends, or co-workers. In sharp contrast to these findings, only 7% of men who identified as gay in the sample had never disclosed their sexual orientation to individuals in the aforementioned categories. Such notable differences in outness may be related to varying levels of soci al support from the gay community. For example, in Doll et al.s (1992) sample, compared to gay identified men (19%), fewer bisexual men (approximately 6%) reported belonging to gay or ganizations. There were also racial/ethnic differences in levels of bisexual identificat ion among Black men, White men and Hispanic men. Approximately 44% of Black men identified as bisexual, whereas less th an 25% of White men and Hispanic men identified this way.

PAGE 33

33 The scant amount literature on concealment of sexual identity and same-sex behavior within bisexual populations is largely centered on the topics of sexual transmitted diseases (STDs), HIV, and high-risk sexual behavior (Doll et al., 1992; Lichenstein, 2000; Montgomery, Mokotoff, Gentry, & Blair, 2003; Stokes, Da mon, & McKirnan, 1997; Stokes, McKirnan, & Burzette, 1993). While studies on th ese topics are important for public health and education, they also contribute to the longstanding belief that bisexual individuals particularly bisexual men, are disease vectorsperpetuating the spread of anti-bisexual attit udes. Consequently, concealment may be particularly prevalent when HIV stigma is considered (Lichtenstein, 2000). Montgomery, Mokotoff, Gentry, and Blair (2003) assessed the prevalence of bisexual sexual activity in HIVinfected men using self-report surveys and found th at 22% of the men in their sample engaged in sex with men and women. On the other hand, wi th a sample of HIV-infected women, the researchers cited that only a small proportion of the white women (14%) acknowledged having a bisexual male partner, while Black and Latina women reporting sexual encounters with bisexual men at the lowest rates (both groups at 6%). The authors extrapolated that findings such as these demonstrate that many men who partake in same-sex behavior, particularly racial/ethnic minority men, may not disclose their bisexua l activity to their female partne rs (Montgomery et al., 2003). Licthenstein (2000) argued that HIV stigma is highly prevalent in the Black community. But, because most sexual orientation based research has focused on investigating the transmission aspects of HIV among Black men, the psychological impact of carrying this disease and associated stigma has remained largely un examined. In a qualitative study, Licthenstein (2000) found that oftentimes Black bisexually be having men continue to identify as straight and hold heterosexual relationships while partaking in sneaky se x (p. 386) with other men. A few participants reported that they engage in this secretive behavior because homophobia is so

PAGE 34

34 prevalent that they fear for their lives. As mi ght be expected, bisexual behavior was found to be associated with feelings of sh ame, guilt, and denial of same-s ex activity (Licthenstein, 2000). As with most research on sexual minoritie s, there are many more studies regarding bisexual men than bisexual women (Phillips et al ., 2003), therefore it is impossible to determine whether the factors that contribute to bisexual mens concealment of identity are analogous to that of bisexual women. For instance, some res earchers suggest that while bisexual men may not choose to disclose their orientations due to HIV stigma and homophobia, bisexual women may conceal their orientations to disassociate themselves from stereotypes of promiscuity and hypersexuality (Bronn, 2001; Eliason, 1997). Sim ilar to trends in outness among bisexual and gay men, survey data from Morris, Waldo, and Rothblums (2001) examination of lesbian and bisexual womens outness suggested that the stronger a womans same-sex feelings are, the more out she will be. As such, bisexuality conceal ment for both men and women appears to be linked to perceptions of connectedness to the LG community. Findings from this study also demonstrated a modest positive association between outness levels and psychological health. Taken together, these studies illustrate that an ti-bisexual stigmatization experiences may promote bisexual individuals decision to conceal their identity. Internalized Biphobia Internalized hom ophobia has been defined as the direction of societal negative attitudes towards the self (Meyer, 1995, p. 40). Internalized homophobia can be strengthened by exposure to anti-LG attitudes and discriminati on from an early age (Meyer, 2003). Researchers postulate that LG people frequently maintain some level of internalized anti-LG affect throughout life, and even if these attitudes are covert, their existence can s till lead to negative self-perception and mental health problems (G onsiorek, 1988; Meyer, 2003). Indeed, prior data link internalized homophobia with anxiety, depression, substance abuse, eating disorders, and

PAGE 35

35 various forms of self-harm (DiPlacido, 1998; Meyer & Dean, 1998; Williamson, 2000). Unfortunately, extant studies on internalized homophobia have not examined separately the unique experiences of LG and bisexual persons, therefore our knowledge of this minority stress variable as related to bisexuality is severely limited (Meyer 2003). Thus, despite the likelihood that internalized biphobia is an important minority stressor in bi sexual populations, its impact on mental health variables for this group is unknown. In order for researchers to responsibly a ssess bisexual persons experiences of antibisexual stigma, developing and evaluating a measur e of these experiences is a necessary step. Furthermore, the development of such a measure is critical because anti-bisexual stigmatization experiences may be related to other manifest ations of minority stress (i.e., concealment, internalized biphobia) and may have important mental health and well-being implications for this population. Purpose of Study Despite a g rowing body of literature that attests to the outcomes of minority stress in LG populations, the impact of minority stress on bise xual individuals remains largely speculative. As such, it is necessary to examine bisexual in dividuals experiences with prejudice and discrimination in order to elucidate how such experiences may be related to psychological symptomatology in this population. The curre nt study constructed and psychometrically evaluated a measure to assess bisexual indivi duals perceived experien ces of anti-bisexual prejudice. In addition, data from this meas ure was be used to explore the preliminary applicability of the minority stress framework with bisexual persons. More specifically, the proposed study had the following aims and hypotheses: 1. Based on prior research, an Exploratory Fact or Analysis (EFA) of items developed for the Anti-Bisexual Experiences Scale (ABES) was expected to result in at least two

PAGE 36

36 dimensions: prejudicial treatment that reflected (a) perceived illegitimacy of a bisexual orientation and (b) hostility toward and intolerance of bisexual men and women. 2. The stability of the factor structure obtained using EFA was reevaluated using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) with data from a second sample. It was expected that the resulting constructs/factors would demonstrate strong to moderate relations with one another, reflecting that they a ssessed distinct, but related aspects of antibisexual experiences. The internal consistency reliability of ABES factor/subscale items was evaluated and Cronbachs alpha va lues of at least .70 were expected. 3. In terms of validity, ABES scor es were expected to be unrel ated to socially desirable responding, and based on the minority stre ss framework, expected to correlate positively with expectations of stigmatiza tion (Meyer, 2003). Thus, these correlations were examined. 4. As a preliminary examination of the minority stress framework, the links of ABES scores with psychological distress, outness as bisexual, and internalized biphobia were explored

PAGE 37

37 CHAPTER 3 METHOD Participants Data from 727 participants were analyzed in the present study. The national sample included approximately 77.9% White Americans, 10.1% Multi-racial, 4% Hispanic/Latino, 3.4% African American/Black, 2.2% Asian American/Pacific Islander, .7% Native American, and 1.6% other races. Approximately 60% of the samp le identified as women, 38% as men, and 2% as transgender. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 70 years old ( M = 31.8, SD = 11.4, Mdn = 29). Respondents tended to be well-educated with 68% having a college degree or some college training. Moreover, a 53% majority of the participants were mi ddle class, and the remaining participants identified as 1% upper class, 19% upper-middle class, 23% working class, and 4% lower class. In terms of sexual orientation, ap proximately 75% of the sample identified as bisexual while the remaining participants identified as mostly lesbian/gay (11%) or mostly heterosexual (15%). Respondents who identified as mostly lesbian/gay or mostly heterosexual were included in this study because scholars have noted that bisexuality is a spectrum and bisexual individuals may not experience equal a ttraction to both genders (e.g., Rust, 2000). The respondents were largely disconnected from a bisexual community, as roughly 79% of participants had none or very li ttle involvement with a bisexual group. In terms of relationship status, 38% of partic ipants were married/partnered, 22% were involved in a long-term relationship, 11% were casually dati ng, and 29% were currently single. Procedures Participan ts were recruited via online resources such as electronic listserves, discussion boards, and virtual communities specifically for bisexual and other sexual minority individuals. Once recruited, participants were directed to an online survey that began with an informed

PAGE 38

38 consent page which asked them to verify that th ey were over 18 years of age, self-identified as bisexual, and resided in the United States. If they agreed to partic ipate after reading the informed consent, participants were prompted to complete the instruments described below. The internet has proven to be useful in collecting survey data from underrepresented or stigmatized groups such as LGB persons. Even if such persons ar e not out broadly, evid ence suggests that they may feel comfortable being out online because the internet provides a shield of anonymity; thus, the internet is a viable resource fo r recruiting these underrepresented individuals (Mustanski, 2001). Furthermore, online surveys have been shown to yield similar responses as traditional pen and paper methods while being more cost efficient (Gosling, Vazire, Srivastava, & John, 2004; Hiskey & Troop, 2002). Precautions were taken to prevent risks to validity (e.g., non-bisexual individuals participating to sabotage the data) by only distributing the survey link to groups or networks that were accepting of bisexuality. Additionally, 4 validity questions (e.g., Please mark strongly agree) were included am ong the items of interest to ensure that participants were attentively res ponding to the survey questions. In terms of data cleaning, no participants missed more than 1 of the validity items, thus all respondents were retained. Particip ants were deleted from the data set if they were missing more than 20% of all items. Respondent s individual scale or subscale scores were removed from analyses if they were missing more than 20% of the items on that given measure. Three respondents were removed from the database be cause they were less than 18 years old and 1 individual was removed because he identified as gay. Fifty-two participants were missing demographic data, but were retained because they thoroughly completed the other measures. These data cleaning procedures resu lted in retaining 727 participants.

PAGE 39

39 Instruments Developmen t of the Anti-Bisex ual Experiences Scale (ABES). A pool of items was developed to assess bisexual persons perceived anti-bisexual pr ejudice experiences. This item pool was informed by extant literature on bise xual persons experiences including empirical articles describing heterosexual and lesbian/gay persons attitudes towards bisexual persons (Eliason, 1997; Herek, 2002; Mohr & Rochlen, 1999; Spalding & Peplau, 1997) and theoretical and empirical scholarship discussing bisexua lity (e.g., Bradford, 2004; Ochs, 1996; Rust, 1992; 2000). Items were developed to assess the them es that emerged from this literature. When initial item development was complete, content validity was assessed by four bisexuality research experts. These four experts reviewed the item pool and provided feedback about item clarity, content validity, and suggestio ns for expansion and deletion of items. Based on this expert feedback, the ABES items were modified and revised. Fo llowing these revisions, the measure was reevaluated by fi ve individuals who self-identif ied as bisexual, and provided feedback regarding item clarity, measure length, and perceived re levance of the items to their personal experiences. Further revisions were ma de to ABES items based on this feedback. The final measure consisted of 57 items a ssessing bisexual individua ls experiences of anti-bisexual prejudice and stigma tization. Respondents were asked to reflect on each prejudice experience described (e.g., People have acted as if bisexuality is jus t a phase I am going through) and determine how frequently that expe rience may have occurred for them. Frequency of experience was measured by a 6-point Likert type scale (ranging fr om 1 = this has never happened to you to 6 = this has happened to you almost all of the time [more than 70% of the time]). To obtain a more complete understandin g of the sources of anti-bisexual prejudice, respondents were asked to answer each item twice: once to assess their experiences of prejudice with lesbian/gay persons and ag ain to assess these same experi ences with heterosexual persons.

PAGE 40

40 In addition, participants completed the followi ng measures to evalua te discriminant and convergent validity of AB ES scores, and to provide a prelim inary exploration of links with minority stressors. Socially Desirable Responding The Impression Management (IM) scale of the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR; Paulhus & Reid, 1991) was used to assess socially desirable responding. IM items are rated on a 7-po int scale (1 = not tr ue, 7 = very true). Appropriate items are reverse scored and item rati ngs are averaged, with higher scores indicating exaggeratedly desirable responses.. IM items have yielded Cronbachs alpha coefficients of .75 to .86 (Worthington, Dillon, & Becker-Schutte, 2005). Furthermore, IM scores have demonstrated convergent validity through high co rrelations (.71-.80) with other measures of social desirability (Worthington, Dillon, & B ecker-Schutte, 2005). Alpha for BIDR-IM items with the current sample was .77. Awareness of stigmatization The Stigma Consciousness Questionnaire (SCQ; Pinel, 1999). The SCQ is a 10-item, 7-point Likert-type scale that measures the extent to which members of minority populations are aware that their group is stigmatized. When items are appropriately reverse scored and averaged, high er scores indicate great er awareness of group stigmatization. The SCQ has been modified for use with people of diverse group memberships including racial/ethnic minority persons, women, and lesbian and gay persons. SCQ items have demonstrated internal consistency reliability of .81. In terms of validity, across populations, SCQ scores have correlated positively with perceived experiences of discrimination (Pinel, 1999). For the present study, SCQ items were adapted for use with bisexual in dividuals (e.g., Most heterosexuals have a problem with viewing hom osexuals as equals was modified to Most

PAGE 41

41 people have a problem with viewing bisexuals as equals). Al pha for SCQ scores with the current sample was .78. Awareness of stigmatization was further assess ed with the use of The Public Collective Self-Esteem subscale of the Colle ctive Self-Esteem Scale (CSES; Luhtanen & Crocker, 1992), a 4-item Likert-type measure (1 = strongly disa gree to 7 = strongly agree) that assesses respondents perceptions of how others view their group (in this case, bisexual persons). As such, this measure provides an assessment of participants awareness of public anti-bisexual stigma. For example, participants were asked to rate their level of agreement with In general, others think that the social groups I am a member of are unw orthy while considering the bisexual community to be their social group. In terms of reliability, Luhtanen and Crocker (1992) reported that Cronbachs alpha for the P ublic subscale was .80. Furthe r, structural validity of the Public subscale was confirmed through factor analyses, where Public CSES items emerged as a distinct construct. To facilitate interp retations regarding awareness of stigma, items reflecting positive feelings toward ones social group were reverse scored; thus, lower scores signify higher levels of public self-esteem a nd higher scores signify increased awareness of stigma. Alpha for Public CSES scores with the current sample was .80. Concealment of sexual orientation The Outness Inventory (OI) developed by Mohr and Fassinger (2000), was used to a ssess the degree to which a res pondents sexual orientation is known or talked about within different social sphe res of their life. The me asure asks participants to rate on a 7-point scale (1 = person definitely does not kn ow about your sexual orientation status to 7 = person definitely knows about your sexual orientation st atus, and it is openly talked about) how open they are about their se xual orientation to various members of their social network. Higher average scores indicate a greater de gree of outness. Balsam and

PAGE 42

42 Szymanski (2005) reported a Cronbachs alpha of .86 for overall OI items with their sample of lesbian women. In terms of validity, OI scores co rrelate positively with level of involvement in lesbian/gay communities (Balsam & Szymanski, 2005; Mohr & Fassinger, 2000). Alpha for OI scores with the current sample was .87. Internalized Binegativity The internalized homonegativity subscale of the Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Identity Scale (LGBIS) was used in the present study. The LGBIS is a revised version of the Lesbian and Gay Identity Scale m odified for use with bisexual individuals (Mohr & Fassinger, 2000; J. Mohr & R. Sheets, pe rsonal communication, January 15, 2007; Sheets, 2004). For example, I am glad to be a lesbian/ga y person was modified to read I am glad to be a bisexual person. In the present study, the 5-item internaliz ed homonegativity/binegativity subscale of the LGBIS was administered to examine the extent to which a respondent has negative views and feelings to wards their sexual orientation. When appropriately items are appropriately reverse scored and averaged, higher scores reflect a greater level of internalized binegativity. According to Mohr and Fassi nger (2000), items on this subscale yielded a Cronbachs alpha of .78 and demonstrated validit y through negative correla tions with measures of self-esteem and connectedness to lesbian/gay organizations. Alpha for LGBIS scores with the current sample was .86. Psychological Symptomatology The Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL-58, Derogatis, Lipman, Rickels, Uhlenhuth, & Covi, 1974) was used to assess overall psychological symptomatology. Respondents were asked to indicate how often they experienced each symptom during the past week using a 4-point Likert-type scale where 1 = not at all and 4 = extremely. When items are averaged, higher to tal scores indicate greater overall levels of psychological distress. The HSCL-58, an abbr eviated version of th e HSCL-90, assesses

PAGE 43

43 symptomatology across the dimensions somati zation, obsessive-compulsive, interpersonal sensitivity, depression, and anxiety. Overall, HSCL-58 items yi elded a Cronbachs alpha of .86 (Derogatis et al., 1974). The HSCL-58 has exhi bited acceptable reliability and concurrent validity in samples of racially diverse women and men (Klonoff et al., 1999). Further, HSCL-58 has demonstrated impressive structural and cons truct validity through f actorial invariance of symptom dimensions (Derogatis et al., 1974; Klonoff et al., 1999). The HSCL-58 has been utilized successfully with sexual minority popu lations as well; notably, in a recent study examining lesbian womens psychological dist ress, HSCL-58 items yielded an alpha of .94 (Syzmanski, 2006). Alpha for HSCL-58 scores with the current sample was .96.

PAGE 44

44 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Exploratory Factor Analysis Exploratory factor analysis was conducted using SPSS 13.0 with data from a random ly selected half of participants (N = 361). Several guidelines in th e literature indicated that this sample size was appropriate for obtaining stable factor solutions. Arrindell and van der Ende (1985) demonstrated that when samples are appr oximately 20 times the number of factors drawn, stable factor solutions are obtained. Based on our expectations that at least 2 factors would emerge, a sample of 361 is adequate. Furthermore, Tabachnick and Fidell (1996) reported that about 150 cases should be sufficient when solutions have several high loading marker variables. Many of the loadings obtained in this study were substantial, (i.e., in the high .70s). Thus, the current sample exceeded this recommendation. Responses to items reflecting experiences with lesbian/gay and hete rosexual individuals were examined separately in order to consider the possible emergence of unique factor structures for the two sets of items. Both sets of items we re well-suited for factor analysis as indicated by the Barletts test of sphericity which indicates that there is multivariate normality (lesbian/gay: X 2[990, N = 361] = 13420.68, p <.001 and heterosexual: X 2[990, N = 361] = 11574.58, p <.001) and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy (lesbian/gay: .97 and heterosexual: .96; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). For the Kaiser-M eyer-Olkin, probabilitie s greater than .90 are considered excellent and indicate that data are distributed norma lly, which is necessary for data to be factor analyzed (George & Mallory, 2003). Principle axis factoring (PAF) with vari max rotation was used to conduct the factor analyses (Worthington & Whittaker, 2006). Af ter conducting PAF with both oblique and orthogonal rotation, we determined that a varimax ro tation resulted in cleane r item loadings than

PAGE 45

45 oblique rotation (e.g., fewer cross loadings). As an orthogonal ro tation appeared to be cleaner those analyses are reported in the present st udy. Factor retention was decided by examining eigenvalues, scree plots, and interp retability of factors. Specifica lly, factors with eigenvalues less than 1 and those with less than 3 items were not retained (Kaiser,1958; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). For experiences with lesbian/gay and heterosexual persons data, the scree plot suggested examination of 4, 3, and 2 factor solutions. Examin ation of the four and two factor solutions, in both experiences with lesbian/gay and heterosexual persons data sets, rev ealed that the fourth factor had a number of items that loaded at less than .50 with high cross loadings and the two factor solution resulted in the loss of an interpre table third factor. Thus, the 3 factor solution was retained for data reflecting e xperiences with lesbian/gay an d heterosexual individuals. For experiences with lesb ian/gay and heterosexual indi viduals items, the 3 factors reflected Sexual Orientation Instability, Sexual Irresponsibility, Interper sonal Hostility. For lesbian/gay items, the Sexual Orientation Instabili ty factor accounted for 52.4% of the variance, the Sexual Irresponsibilit y factor accounted for 6.5% of the variance, and the Interpersonal Hostility accounted for 4.1% of the variance in experiences with lesbian/gay people. For heterosexual items, the Sexual Orientation Instabi lity factor accounted for 46.7% of the variance, the Sexual Irresponsibilit y factor accounted for 4.5% of the variance, and the Interpersonal Hostility accounted for 7.8% of the variance in experiences with heterosexual people. Next, item retention for the final ABES wa s determined by the magnitude of factor loadings and cross-loadings. Specifically, items with factor loadings of less than .50 and a relative discrepancy (i.e., differe nce between factor lo ading and cross-loading) of less than .15 were removed to ensure the construct specificity and stability of emergent factors (Kahn, 2006). Among the 42 items that met loading and cross-load ing criteria, 19 items th at were conceptually

PAGE 46

46 redundant were removed to optimize measure length. As a result of this process, 23 of the original 57 items were retained (see Appendix F). Factor loadings and cross loadings for retained items on the 3 emergent factors are reported in Figures 1 and 2. Next, confirmatory factor analyses with only the retain ed 23 items were conducted. Confirmatory Factor Analysis AMOS 7.0 was used to conduct confirm atory fact or analyses of data with the remaining participants (N = 366). Simulation studies suggest that a sample size of at least 200 is sufficient to derive meaningful and interpretable models and fit indices (Hau & Marsh, 2004; Quintana & Maxwell, 1999). Also, MacCullum, Browne, a nd Sugawara (1996) introduced a mathematical calculation and guidelines ba sed upon model complexity and degrees of freedom ( df) for determining the sample size required to achieve adequate power (i.e., .80). In the present study, df values for all of the models tested were greater than 100, requiring a sample size of approximately 180 according to MacCullum et al.s (1996) guidelines. Thus, we deemed the size of the present sample of bisexual individuals as adequate as it exceeded these guidelines. Through the examination of individual item sk ewness and kurtosis, we determined that the data met guidelines for univariate normality as outlined by Weston and Gore (2006). Moreover we inspected the few cases that had large Maha lanobis distances (e.g., multivariate outliers). The largest multivariate outliers for items assessing both lesbian/gay and heterosexual prejudice were iteratively removed from the data set and fit indices were reex amined. Removal of these cases had minimal impact on fit indices and paramete r estimates, thus all 366 participants were retained. Model fit was determined through the use of bot h absolute fit indices and incremental fit indices. Based on cautions regarding some of th e more commonly used fit indices (e.g., GFI, AGFI, /df ratio, NFI; Hu & Bentler, 1995; Martens, 2005; Weston & Gore, 2006), we

PAGE 47

47 assessed absolute model fit with the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and the standardized root mean residual (SRMR). Add itionally, incremental model fit was evaluated with the comparative fit index (C FI). For sample sizes of less than 500, CFI values greater than .90, and RMSEA and SRMR values less than .10 suggest an acceptable fit (Weston & Gore, 2006). CFA of experiences with lesbian/gay persons data suggested that the three factor EFA model provided a good fit to th e data (CFI = .904, SRMR = .054, RMSEA = .085 [90% CI: .079, .092]). Standardized regression weights for the Se xual Orientation Instability factor ranged from .72 to .85, for the Sexual Irresponsibil ity factor ranged from .58 to .88, and for the Interpersonal Hostility factor, ranged from .68 to .88. Similarly, the three factor EFA model provided a good fit to experiences with hete rosexual persons data (CFI = .902, SRMR = .054, RMSEA = .078 [90% CI: .072, .085]). Standardized regression weights for the Se xual Orientation Instability factor ranged from .65 to .83, for the Sexual Irre sponsibility factor ranged from .59 to .85, and for the Interpersonal Hostility factor, ranged from .71 to .83. Please refer to Tables 1 and 2 for factor loadings and factor-intercorrelations. Evaluation of Reliability Reliability of the ABES wa s assessed with the full sample of 727 participants. For the full-scale ABES with lesbian/gay persons (23 items), Cronbachs alpha was .96. For the ABES with lesbian/gay persons subscales, Sexual Orientation Instability (11 items), Sexual Irresponsibility (7 items), and Interpersonal Ho stility (5 items), Cronbachs alphas were .95, .91, and .88, respectively. Similarly, for the full-scal e ABES with heterosexual persons, Cronbachs alpha was .95. For the ABES with heterosexual pe rsons subscales, Sexual Orientation Instability, Sexual Irresponsibility, and In terpersonal Hostility, Cronbach s alphas were .94, .90, and .88,

PAGE 48

48 respectively. Thus, all ABES scale and subscal e reliabilities were in the excellent range according to Ponterotto and Ruckdesh els (2007) reliability matrix. Convergent and Discriminant Validity Bivariate correlations were computed to evaluate convergent and disc riminant validity of ABES scores (see Figure 3). First, supporting the discrimina nt validity of ABES scores, impression management was not correlated si gnificantly with ABES full-scale scores for experiences with lesbian/gay and heterosexual persons, ABES Sexual Orientation Instability subscales, or ABES Sexual Irresponsibility s ubscales; however, IM was negligibly correlated with ABES Interpersona l Hostility subscales ( r = .08 and .09, p < .05). Second, convergent validity was supported in that all ABES subscale and total scores were correlated significantly and positively ( r = .29 to .53, p < .001) with both indicators of aw areness of anti-bisexual stigma (i.e., Stigma Consciousness, CSES Public stigma). As such, findings supported the discriminant and convergent validity of ABES total and subscale scores. Preliminary Examination of Mino rity Stressors Consistent with minority stress theory, psychological distress was correlated positively with all ABES full-scale and subscale scores with the magnitudes of these correlations ranging from small to medium ( r = .09 to .12, p < .05 for lesbian/gay items; r = .15 to .22, p < .01 for heterosexual items). Exploratory examination of correlations between AB ES scores and other minority stress variables revealed that anti-bis exual experiences with lesbian/gay people fullscale and subscale scores were correlated positively with level of outness ( r = .17 to .24, p < .001). However, for anti-bisexual experiences with heterosexual people, only the Interpersonal Hostility subscale was correlated negligibly with level of outness ( r = .08, p < .05). Moreover, the full-scale ABES and Stability subscale scor es for anti-bisexual experiences with both heterosexual and lesbian/gay people were correl ated positively with in ternalized biphobia ( r =

PAGE 49

49 .08 to .13, p < .01). Examination of correlations am ong the other minority stress variables revealed that stigma consciousness but not public stigma awareness was correlated positively with level of outness an d internalized biphobia ( r = .14, p < .001; r = .09, p < .05 respectively). Internalized biphobia was correlated negatively w ith level of outness ( r = -.29, p < .001). Finally, stigma consciousness and internalized biphobia, but not awareness of public stigma or outness, were correlated positively with psychological distress ( r = .16, p < .001; r = .14, p < .001 respectively) To explore the unique links of each minority stressor with psychological distress, as posited in the minority stress framework, a simu ltaneous multiple regression analysis was conducted in which ABES with lesbian/gay and heterosexual full-scale scores, outness, stigma consciousness, and internalized biphobia (predict or variables) were re gressed on psychological symptomatology (criterion variable). Results of the regression equation indicated that ABES with heterosexual persons, stigma consciousness and internalized biphobia each accounted for unique variance in psychological distress, but outness and anti-bise xual experiences with lesbian/gay persons did not (see Table 3). Parallel results for ABES, outness, and internalized biphobia emerged when public self-esteem (PSE) was included in the regr ession equation instead of stigma consciousness, but PSE did not accoun t for unique variance in distress (see Table 3). Taken together, this pattern of findings is cons istent with the link of anti-bisexual prejudice experience with psychological di stress as posited in the minority stress framework. Furthermore, the present findings suggest that when consid ered along with other mi nority stressors, antibisexual experiences from heterosexual people are a unique correlate of psychological distress for bisexual individuals.

PAGE 50

50 Factor 1: Orientation Instability Factor Loadings 123 People have acted as if bisexuality is just a phase I am going through Experienced this from lesbian/gay individuals .81 .24.18 People have acted as if my bisexuality is only a sexual curiosity, not a stable sexual orientation Experienced this from lesbian/gay individuals .76 .37.12 People have not taken my sexual orientation seriously, because I am bisexual Experienced this from lesbian/gay individuals .76 .30.32 People have addressed my bisexuality as if it means that I am simply confused about my sexual orientation Experienced this from lesbian/gay individuals .75 .20.15 Others have pressured me to fit into a binary system of sexual orientation (i.e., either gay or straight) Experienced this from lesbian/gay individuals .74 .22.29 When my relationships havent fi t peoples opinions about whether I am really he terosexual or lesbian/gay, they have discounted my relationships as experimentation Experienced this from lesbian/gay individuals .71 .32.15 People have said that my bisexuality is a temporary or transient sexual orientation Experienced this from lesbian/gay individuals .71 .37.23 People have tried to discredit my bisexuality Experienced this from lesbian/gay individuals .69 .36.29 When I have disclosed my sexual orientation to others, they have continued to assume that I am really heterosexual or gay/lesbian Experienced this from lesbian/gay individuals .69 .21.21 Because I am bisexual, people have treated me as a fence sitter or wishy-washy Experienced this from lesbian/gay individuals .68 .35.26 People have denied th at I am really bisexual when I te ll them about my sexual orientation Experienced this from lesbian/gay individuals .69 .33.24 Factor 2: Sexual Irresponsibility People have acted as if my bisexuality means that I cannot be loyal in relationships Experienced this from lesbian/gay individuals.40 .67 .28 People have assumed that I will cheat in a relationship because I am bisexual Experienced this from lesbian/gay individuals .43 .66 .19 People have trea ted me as if I am likely to have an STD/HIV because I identify as bisexual Experienced this from lesbian/gay individuals .17 .65 .25 People have stereotyped me as having many s exual partners without emotional commitments Experienced this from lesbian/gay individuals .47 .65 .18 People have said that I am over-sexed because of my bisexual identity Experienced this from lesbian/gay individuals .30 .64 .05 People have trea ted me as if I am incapable of having healthy romantic relationships because I am bisexual Experienced this from lesbian/gay individuals .46 .64 .30 People have trea ted me as if I am obsessed with sex because I am bisexual Experienced this from lesbian/gay individuals .31 .64 .08 Factor 3: Interpersonal Hostility People have not wanted to be my friend because I identify as bisexual Experienced this from lesbian/gay individuals.15.29 .73 I have been alienated because I am bisexual Experienced this from lesbian/gay individuals.34.29 .73 I have been excluded from social networks because I am bisexual Experienced this from lesbian/gay individuals.30.18 .66 Others have treated me negatively because I am bisexual Experienced this from lesbian/gay individuals.47.37 .62 Others have acted uncomfortable around me because of my bisexuality Experienced this from lesbian/gay individuals.32.38 .61 Note The present data are from EFA results base d on the original 57 ABES items; loadings for the 23 retained ABES items are reported above. Figure 4-1 Exploratory factor analysis of anti-bisexual experiences with lesbian/gay individuals

PAGE 51

51Factor 1: Orientation Instability Factor Loadings 123 People have acted as if my bisexuality is only a sexual curiosity, not a stable sexual orientation Experienced this from heterosexual individuals .80 .15.25 People have said that my bisexuality is a temporary or transient sexual orientation Experienced this from heterosexual individuals .75 .26.28 People have not taken my sexual orientation seriously, because I am bisexual Experienced this from heterosexual individuals .72 .29.27 People have denied that I am really bisexual when I tell them about my sexual orientation Experienced this from heterosexual individuals .72 .20.26 People have acted as if bisexuality is just a phase I am going through Experienced this from heterosexual individuals .72 .17.14 When my relationships havent fit peoples opinions about whether I am really heterosexual or lesbian/gay, they have discounted my relationships as experimentation Experienced this from heterosexual individuals .70 .19.20 People have addressed my bisexuality as if it means that I am simply confused about my sexual orientation Experienced this from heterosexual individuals .69 .16.25 People have tried to discredit my bisexuality Experienced this from heterosexual individuals .68 .33.24 When I have disclosed my sexual orientation to others, they have continued to assume that I am really heterosexual or gay/lesbian Experienced this from heterosexual individuals .67 .10.14 Others have pressured me to fit into a binary system of sexual orientation (i.e., either gay or straight) Experienced this from heterosexual individuals .66 .18.26 Because I am bisexual, people have treated me as a fence sitter or wishy-washy Experienced this from heterosexual individuals .65 .22.40 Factor 2: Interpersonal Hostility People have not wanted to be my friend because I identify as bisexual Experienced this from heterosexual individuals.06 .77 .19 I have been alienated because I am bisexual Experienced this from heterosexual individuals .23 .77 .16 Others have treated me negatively because I am bisexual Experienced this from heterosexual individuals .36 .75 .21 Others have acted uncomfortable around me because of my bisexuality Experienced this from heterosexual individuals .33 .67 .21 I have been excluded from social networks because I am bisexual Experienced this from heterosexual individuals .12 .63 .24 Factor 3: Sexual Irresponsibility People have treated me as if I am obsessed with sex because I am bisexual Experienced this from heterosexual individuals.26.15 .66 People have assumed that I will cheat in a relationship because I am bisexual Experienced this from heterosexual individuals.39.25 .65 People have treated me as if I am likely to have an STD/HIV because I identify as bisexual Experienced this from heterosexual individuals.12.41 .61 People have stereotyped me as having many sexual partners without emotional commitments Experienced this from heterosexual individuals.43.18 .61 People have said that I am over-sexed because of my bisexual identity Experienced this from heterosexual individuals.26.15 .60 People have treated me as if I am incapable of having healthy romantic relationships because I am bisexual Experienced this from heterosexual individuals.44.43 .60 People have acted as if my bisexuality means that I cannot be loyal in relationships Experienced this from heterosexual individuals.37.39 .58 Note The present data are from EFA results base d on the original 57 ABES items; loadings for the 23 retained ABES items are reported above. Figure 4-2. Exploratory factor analysis of anti-bisexual experiences with heterosexual individuals

PAGE 52

52 Table 4-1 Confirmatory factor analysis of anti-bisexua l experiences with lesbian/gay individuals Abbreviated Items Factor Factor Loadings Uniqueness Interpersonal Hostility Treated negatively 0.88 0.23 Others uncomfortable 0.76 0.42 Alienated 0.73 0.47 Excluded 0.72 0.48 No friends 0.68 0.54 Sexual Irresponsibility Not loyal 0.88 0.23 Cheat 0.83 0.31 Unhealthy relationship 0.80 0.36 Many sex partners 0.80 0.36 Oversexed 0.62 0.62 Obsessed with sex 0.61 0.63 STD/HIV vector 0.58 0.66 Orientation Instability Transient orientation 0.85 0.28 Not serious 0.83 0.31 Experimenting 0.81 0.34 Sexually curious 0.81 0.34 Denying orientation 0.80 0.36 Fence-sitter 0.79 0.38 Confused 0.79 0.38 Discredit orientation 0.79 0.38 Just a phase 0.78 0.39 Binary system 0.77 0.41 Assume really LG/hetero 0.72 0.48 Note The latent variable correlations between Hostility and Sexual Irresponsibility Sexual Irresponsibility and Orientation Instability and Hostility and Instability were r = .76, r = .82, and r = .76, respectively. Fit indi ces: CFI = .904, SRMR = .054, RMSEA = .085 (90% CI: .079, .092).

PAGE 53

53 Table 4-2. Confirmatory factor analysis of anti -bisexual experiences with heterosexual individuals Abbreviated Items Factor Factor Loadings Uniqueness Interpersonal Hostility Treated negatively 0.83 0.31 Others uncomfortable 0.77 0.41 Alienated 0.73 0.47 No friends 0.71 0.50 Excluded 0.71 0.50 Sexual Irresponsibility Unhealthy relationship 0.85 0.28 Not loyal 0.79 0.38 Cheat 0.78 0.39 Many sex partners 0.76 0.42 STD/HIV vector 0.65 0.58 Obsessed with sex 0.65 0.58 Oversexed 0.59 0.65 Orientation Instability Transient orientation 0.83 0.31 Experimenting 0.80 0.36 Sexually curious 0.79 0.38 Discredit orientation 0.78 0.39 Not serious 0.75 0.44 Denied orientation 0.73 0.47 Just a phase 0.73 0.47 Binary system 0.72 0.48 Fence-sitter 0.69 0.52 Confused 0.69 0.52 Assume LG/hetero 0.65 0.58 Note The correlations between Hostility and Sexual Irresponsibility Sexual Irresponsibility and Orientation Instability and Hostility and Instability were r = .64, r = .77, and r = .67, respectively. Fit indices : CFI = .902, SRMR = .054, RMSEA = .078 (90% CI: .072, .085).

PAGE 54

54Variable 1234567891011121314 M SD 1. ABES Lesbian/gay (full-scale) -.962.260.99 2. Sexual Orientation Instability .95***-.882.651.22 3. Sexual Irresponsibility .88***.73***-.911.941.02 4. Interpersonal Hostility .80***.67***.66***-.951.850.94 5. ABES Heterosexual (full-scale) .69***.64***.67***.50***-.952.430.94 6. Sexual Orientation Instability .62***.65***.52***.36***.93***-.882.771.12 7. Sexual Irresponsibility .66***.54***.79***.45***.86***.68***-.902.151.07 8. Interpersonal Hostility .49***.38***.44***.60***.75***.57***.58***-.942.060.96 9. Stigma Consciousness .53***.49***.43***.53***.50***.44***.39***.50***-.784.160.97 10. Public Stigma Awareness .40***.39***.31***.35***.37***.35***.29***.32***.52***-.804.511.20 11. Outness Inventory .21***.19***.17***.24***.04.03.04.08*.14***-.02-.873.151.39 12. Internalized Biphobia .09*.13**.03.04.08*.10**.04.06.09*.07-.29***-.862.201.27 13. Psychological Symptomatology .11**.09*.12**.09*.20***.22***.12**.15***.16***.07-.06.14***--.961.580.44 14. Impression Management .04.03.03.09*.01-.02-.00.08*.01.08*.10*-.14***-.21***--.776.013.54 Note *p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001. N ranged from 673 to 724 due to missing data. Figure 4-3. Correlations a nd summary statistics

PAGE 55

55 Table 4-3 Summary of simultaneous regression analys is for variables predicting psychological symptomatology Variable Total R Adj. R B t Equation 1: With Stigma Consciousness Anti-Bisexual Experiences with Heterosexual People .07 .06.09 .203.65*** Anti-Bisexual Experiences with Lesbian/Gay People -.03 -.09-1.4 Stigma Consciousness .04 .102.12* Outness -.01 -.03-.62 Internalized Biphobia .04 .112.67** Equation 2: With Public Stigma Awareness Anti-Bisexual Experiences with Heterosexual People .06 .05.11 .234.33*** Anti-Bisexual Experiences with Lesbian/Gay People -.02 -.05-.94 Public Stigma Awareness -.00 -.00-.09 Outness -.01 -.02-.47 Internalized Biphobia .04 .112.96** Notes. p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001. Equation 1 Regression model: F (5, 663) = 9.20, p < .001. Equation 2 Regression model: F (5, 660) = 8.10, p < .001.

PAGE 56

56 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS The current study responded to calls for resear ch with bisexual i ndividuals by developing and providing a psychometric evaluation of a m eas ure to assess their uni que experiences of antibisexual prejudice. Analyses of the Anti-Bisexual Experiences Sc ale (ABES) supported internal consistency reliability, structural stability, and discriminant an d convergent validity of data produced by the measure. Specifically, the factor st ructure of ABES data s uggested that bisexual persons experiences of anti-bi sexual prejudice from lesbian/gay and heterosexual individuals reflected three dimensions of pr ejudicial treatment: (1) sexual or ientation instability, (2) sexual irresponsibility, and (3) interper sonal hostility. Reports of such treatment were independent of impression management, but were correlated as exp ected with awareness of anti-bisexual stigma. The ABESs significant correlation with awareness of stigma suggests that bisexual individuals consciousness about and expectations of stigmatiza tion are associated with their perceptions of anti-bisexual experiences. Indeed, there may be a recursive link between stigma consciousness and experiences of prejudice, such that stigma consciousness promotes identification of experiences of prejudice and expe riences of prejudice promote furt her stigma consciousness and vigilance. As highlighted by Meyer (2003) examini ng sexual orientation minority persons experiences of prejudice is important because of its relevance to me ntal health variables such as chronic stress and psychologica l symptomatology. Indeed, consiste nt with findings with gay men and lesbian women (e.g., Lewis et al., 2003) the present data pointed to positive relations between reports of anti-bisexual prejudice and psychological distress. Although previous studies have found mixed results regarding the links between psychological distress, outness, and internalized homophobia (e.g., some researchers have reported positive, negative, or no

PAGE 57

57 associations between outness, psychological well-being, and in ternalized homophobia; Ayala & Coleman, 2000; Oetjen & Rothblum, 2000; Roth eram-Borus, Hunter, & Rosario, 1994), the present data suggested that gr eater levels of internalized biphobia are linked with greater concealment of bisexuality and psychological di stress. However, further exploration of the minority stress framework with bisexual individuals is necessary and the development of the ABES facilitates such research. In particular, the unique link between anti-bi sexual experiences with heterosexual people and ps ychological symptomatology may be an important starting point for additional research and intervention efforts. The present findings must be in terpreted in light of a number of limitations and directions for future research. First, it is necessary to ac knowledge the limitations of online studies. Indeed, internet based samples inherently limit participation to indi viduals who have computer and internet access. Additionally, due to the anonymity of the internet, threats to validity present in in-person studies (e.g., deception regarding age, orientation, or gender) may be magnified in samples collected with online surveys. Precaution s were taken to address potential threats to validity by (1) including validity check questions (e.g., Skip this item) to determine if participants were actively enga ged in the survey and (2) onl y distributing the survey to bisexuality affirming web-resources to reduce the risk of sabotage. Despite the limitations of online survey methodology, it was determined that the numerous benefits outweigh the risks. Web-studies allow researchers to efficiently reach hundreds of pa rticipants located across the country (or internationally) in a matter of minutes and reduces the limitations of oversaturating standard in-person recruitment venues such as local LGBT organiza tions. Additionally, the anonyminity of the internet may enable respondents who are less out as bisexual to feel more comfortable discussing their sexual orientation and related factors.

PAGE 58

58 In terms of additional limitations, it is essent ial to note that in this study the ABES was evaluated with a predominately white sample. Indee d, there may be relevant cultural variation in the underlying constructs of perceived prejudice and bisexual orientation that could impact the dimensionality of responses. Thus, it is impera tive to reevaluate the ABES with racially, ethnically, and culturally diverse populations and to conduct analys es, similar to those in the current study, that will allow for statistical inves tigation of the underlying c onstructs of interest across groups. Such efforts can inform future research and theory about bisexuality and its intersections with racial/et hnic identify and consequently contribute to the theoretical understanding of prejudice experi ences across cultural groups. The last point to highlight about the current study and about larger bodies of literature on reports of prejudice experien ces (e.g., racist events, homopho bic events) is assessment of individuals perceived experiences of prejudice, which could be affected by response-style and attribution of respondents. In consid ering the assessment and reporting of perceived versus actual discrimination experiences, researchers mu st also acknowledge the complexity of distinguishing perceived from actual discrimination events given the subjectivity of such attributions. However, pursuing research on both pre and post attribution processes is important given that different attributions and perceptions of events may have different interpersonal and mental health consequences for targets of prejudice. Potential areas for intervention, implemented at both preand post attribution, sh ould be explored. In addition, research that examines how individual differences and contextual variables ma y shape persons attributions and perceptions of events can further inform educational and therapeu tic interventions for individuals experiencing anti -bisexual prejudice. The ABES assesses targets perceived

PAGE 59

59 experiences of anti-bisexual prejudice and such perceptions are important to understanding bisexual individuals subj ective reality in rese arch and practice. The development and psychometric evaluation of the ABES as the fi rst known measure of perceived anti-bisexual prejudice experiences serves as important groundwork for future examination of the mental health correlates of bisexual persons experiences of prejudice, and represents a step towards attending to the expe riences of bisexual individuals in psychological literature. Findings from the present data can be used as a starting point for future research to inform the development of polic y, prevention, and intervention st rategies aimed to meet the mental health needs of bisexual persons.

PAGE 60

60 APPENDIX A LESBIAN, GAY, AND BISEXUAL IDENTI TY SCALE (L GBIS): INTERNALIZED HOMOPHOBIA SUBSCALE INSTRUCTIONS: For each of the following statemen ts, mark the response that best indicates your experiences as a bisexual person. Please be as honest as possible in your responses. 0 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree. 0----------------------------------------7 1. I would rather be straight if I could 2. I am glad to be a bisexual person. 3. Bisexual lifestyles ar e not as fulfilling as heterosexual lifestyles. 4. Im proud to be part of the bisexual community. 5. I wish I were heterosexual.

PAGE 61

61 APPENDIX B STIGMA CONSCIOUSNESS QUESTIONNAIRE (SCQ) INSTRUCTIONS: Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statem ents using the scale below. To indicate your response, please delete the bubble (0) from the appropriate place, and mark it with an X. 0 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree 0-----------------------------------------7 1. Stereotypes about bisexuals have not affected me personally. 2. I never worry that my behaviors will be viewed as stereotypical of bisexuals. 3. When interacting with pe ople who know of my sexual orientation, I feel like they interpret all my behaviors in terms of the fact that I am a bisexual. 4. Most people do not judge bisexuals on the basis of their sexual orientation. 5. My being bisexual does not influence how people act with me. 6. I almost never think about the fact that I am bisexual when I interact with people. 7. My being bisexual does not influence how people act with me. 8. Most people have a lot more bipobic thoughts than they actually express. 9. I often think that people are unfairly accused of being biphobic.

PAGE 62

62 10. Most people have a problem viewing bisexuals as equals.

PAGE 63

63 APPENDIX C COLLECTIVE SELF-ESTEEM (CSE): PUBLIC SUBSCALE INSTRUCTIONS: W e are all members of different social groups or social categories. Some of such social groups or categories pertain to ge nder, race, religion, nati onality, ethnicity, and socioeconomic class. We would like you to cons ider your memberships in those particular groups or categories, and respond to the following statements on the basis of how you feel about those groups and your memberships in them. There are no right or wrong answers to any of these statements; we are interested in your honest reactions and opini ons. Please read each statement carefully, and respond by using the following scale from 1 to 7: Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 1--------------------------------7 1. Overall, my social groups are considered good by others. 2. Most people consider my social groups, on the average, to be more ineffective than other social groups. 3. In general, others respect the soci al groups that I am a member of. 4. In general, others think that the soci al groups I am a member of are unworthy.

PAGE 64

64 APPENDIX D OUTNESS INVENTORY (OI) INSTRUCTIONS: Use the following rating scale to indicate how open you are about your sexual orientation to the people listed below Try to resp ond to all of the items, but leave items blank if they do not apply to you. To indicate your re sponse, please delete the bubble (0) from the appropriate place, and mark it with an X. 1 = person definitely does not know about your sexual orientation status. 2 = person might know about your sexual orient ation status, but it is never talked about. 3 = person probably knows about your sexual orientation status, but it is never talked about 4 = person probably knows about your sexual orientation status, but it is rarely talked about 5 = person definitely knows about your sexual orientation status, but it is rarely talked about 6 = person definitely knows about your sexual orientation status, and it is sometimes talked about 7 = person definitely knows about your sexual orientation status, and it is openly talked about. 1-------------------------------7 1. mother 2. father 3. siblings (sisters, brothers) 4. extended family/relatives 5. new straight friends 6. work peers 7. work supervisors 8. members of your religious community (e.g., church, temple) 9. leaders of your religious community (e.g., minister, rabbi) 10. strangers, new acquaintances

PAGE 65

65 APPENDIX E HOPKINS SYMPTOM CHECKLIST (HSCL-58) Below is a list of problems and complaints th at people sometimes have. Please read each one carefully. After you have done so, please fill in one of the numbered spaces to the right that best describes HOW MUCH THAT PROBLEM HAS BOTHERED OR DISTRESSED YOU DURING THE PAST WEEK INCLUDING TODAY. Ma rk only one numbered space foe each problem and do not skip any problems. 1 = Not at all, 4 = Extremely 1--------------------4 1. Headaches 2. Nervousness or shakiness inside 3. Being unable to get rid of bad thoughts or ideas 4. Faintness or dizziness 5. Loss of sexual interest or pleasure 6. Feeling critical of others 7. Bad dreams 8. Difficulty in speaking when you are excited 9. Trouble remembering things 10. Worried about sloppiness or carelessness 11. Feeling easily annoyed or irritable 12. Pains in heart or chest 13. Itching 14. Feeling low in energy or slowed down 15. Thoughts of ending your life 16. Sweating 17. Trembling

PAGE 66

66 18. Feeling confused 19. Poor appetite 20. Crying easily 21. Feeling shy or uneasy with the opposite sex 22. A feeling of being trapped or caught 23. Suddenly scared for no reason 24. Temper outbursts you could not control 25. Constipation 26. Blaming yourself for things 27. Pains in the lower part of your back 28. Feeling blocked or stym ied in getting things done 29. Feeling lonely 30. Feeling blue 31. Worrying or stewing about things 32. Feeling no interest in things 33. Feeling fearful 34. Your feelings being easily hurt 35. Having to ask others what you should do 36. Feeling others do no t understand you or are unsympathetic 37. Feeling that people are unfriendly or dislike you 38. Having to do things very slowly in order to be

PAGE 67

67 sure you are doing them right 39. Heart pounding or racing 40. Nausea or upset stomach 41. Feeling inferior to others 42. Soreness of your muscles 43. Loose bowel movements 44. Difficulty falling asleep or staying asleep 45. Having to check and double check what you do 46. Difficulty making decisions 47. Wanting to be alone 48. Trouble getting your breath 49. Hot or cold spells 50. Having to avoid certain places or activities because they frighten you 51. Your mind going blank 52. Numbness or tingling in parts of your body 53. A lump in your throat 54. Feeling hopeless about the future 55. Trouble concentrating 56. Weakness in parts of your body 57. Feeling tense or keyed up 58. Heavy feelings in your arms or legs

PAGE 68

68 APPENDIX F BALANCED INVENTORY OF DESIRABL E RESPONDING (BIDR): IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT SUBSCALE Using the chart below as a guide, mark a number beside each statement to indicate how much you agree with it. 1 = Not true, 7 = Very true 1---------------------------------7 1. I sometimes tell lies if I have to. 2. I never cover up my mistakes. 3. There have been occasions where I have taken advantage of someone. 4. I never swear. 5. I sometimes try to get even rather than forgive and forget. 6. I always obey laws, even if Im unlikely to get caught. 7. I have said something bad about a friend behind his or her back. 8. When I hear people ta lking privately, I avoid listening. 9. I have received too much change from a salesperson without telling him or her. 10. I always declare ev erything at customs. 11. When I was young I sometimes stole things. 12. I have never dropped litte r on the street as a child.

PAGE 69

69 13. I sometimes drive faster than the speed limit. 14. I have never read any sexy books or magazines. 15. I have done things I dont tell other people about. 16. I never take things that dont belong to me. 17. I have taken sick-leave from work or school even though I wasnt really sick. 18. I have never damaged a library book or store merchandise without reporting it. 19. I have some pretty awful habits. 20. I dont gossip about other peoples business.

PAGE 70

70 APPENDIX G THE ANTI-BISEXUAL EXPERIENCES SCALE (ABES) Please rate h ow often the experience reflected in each of the following items has happened to you personally. We are interested in your personal experiences as a bisexual individual and realize that each experience may or may not have happened to you. To tell us about your experiences, please rate each item using the scale below. Check 1st bubble = If this has NEVER happened to you Check 2nd bubble = If this has happened to you ONCE IN A WHILE (less t han 10% of the time) Check 3rd bubble = If this has happened to you SOMETIMES (10%25% of the time) Check 4th bubble = If this has happened to you A LOT (26%-49% of the time) Check 5th bubble = If this has happened to you MOST OF THE TIME (50%-70% of the time) Check 6th bubble = If this has happened to y ou ALMOST ALL OF THE TIME (more than 70% of the time) Please answer each question TWICE, once to report how often you have had each experience with lesbian/gay people and ag ain to report how often you have had the experience with heterosexual people. 1. People have acted as if bisexuality is just a phase I am going through 2. People have acted as if my bisexuality m eans that I cannot be l oyal in relationships 3. Because I am bisexual, people have treated me as a fence sitter or wishy-washy 4. People have not wanted to be my friend because I identify as bisexual 5. People have acted as if my bisexuality is only a sexual curiosit y, not a stable sexual orientation 6. Others have acted uncomfortable around me because of my bisexuality 7. People have tried to discredit my bisexuality 8. People have assumed that I will cheat in a relationship because I am bisexual 9. People have not taken my sexual orientation seriously, because I am bisexual 10. I have been alienated because I am bisexual 11. People have treated me as if I am likely to have an STD/HIV because I identify as bisexual 12. People have addressed my bisexuality as if it means that I am simply confused about my sexual orientation

PAGE 71

71 13. People have treated me as if I am obsessed with sex because I am bisexual 14. People have denied that I am really bisexual when I tell them about my sexual orientation 15. Others have pressured me to f it into a binary system of sexual orientation (i.e., either gay or straight) 16. People have stereotyped me as having many sexual partners without emotional commitments 17. Others have treated me negatively because I am bisexual 18. When my relationships havent fit peoples opin ions about whether I am really heterosexual or lesbian/gay, they have discounted my relationships as experimentation 19. People have said that I am over-s exed because of my bisexual identity 20. People have said that my bisexuality is a temporary or transi ent sexual orientation 21. I have been excluded from social networks because I am bisexual 22. When I have disclosed my sexual orientation to others, they have continued to assume that I am really heterosexual or gay/lesbian 23. People have treated me as if I am incapable of having healthy romantic relationships because I am bisexual

PAGE 72

72 APPENDIX H DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE Please tell us a little about yourse lf. This information will be used only to describe the sam ple as a group. Age: _______ Gender: _____Male _____Female ____Tra nsgender: ____M-to-F ____ F-to-M Your current relationship stat us (please select the best descriptor): ____Single ____Married/Partnered ____Da ting, long term ____Dating, casual If you are in a relationship, what is the gender of your partner? _____Male _____Female ____Transgender: ____M-to-F ____ F-to-M Completed Education (please select one): _____ Less than High School _____ Some High School _____ High School Graduate _____ Some College _____ College Degree (e.g. B. A., B.S.) _____ Professional Degree (e.g., MBA, MS, Ph.D, M. D.) Current Employment status (p lease select the one best descriptor): _____ Employed Full Time _____Employed Part Time _____Not employed

PAGE 73

73 Yearly household income (income of those on whom you rely financially): ______Below $10,000 ______$60,001 to $70,000 ______$10,001 to $20,000 ______$70,001 to $80,000 ______$20,001 to $30,000 ______$80,001 to $90,000 ______$30,001 to $40,000 ______$90,001 to $100,000 ______$40,001 to $50,000 ______$100,001 to $110,000 ______$50,001 to $60,000 ______Above $110,001 Your current social class (p lease select the one best descriptor): _____ lower class _____working class _____ middle class _____ upper middle class _____upper class Race/ethnicity (Please check one) _____ African American/Black _____ Asian American/Pacific Islander _____ American Indian/Native American _____ Hispanic/Latino/a White _____ Hispanic/Latino/a Black _____ Multi-racial, please specify: ___________________________ _____ White/Caucasian _____ Other, please specify: ___________________________

PAGE 74

74 Your sexual orientation (p lease check the one best descriptor): _____ Exclusively lesbian or gay _____ Mostly lesbian or gay _____ Bisexual _____ Mostly Heterosexual _____ Exclusively Heterosexual 11. How long (in weeks, months, years, etc.) have you identified with the above sexual orientation? _____ 12. How much are you physically attracted to members of your own sex? _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ low moderate high 13. How much are you physically attracted to members of the other sex? _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ low moderate high How much are you emotionally attracted to members of your own sex? _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ low moderate high 15. How much are you emotionally attracted to members of the other sex? _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ low moderate high

PAGE 75

75 16. Sexual behavior: Have you had sex with persons of your own gender, the other gender, or both genders? ___ Never had sex ___ My own gender only ___ My own gender mostly ___ Both genders equally___ Mostly other gender ___ Other gender only 17. How connected or involved are you in the lesbian/gay community? Please select one. ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ not at all very little moderately quite a bit extremely 18. Are you aware of a bisexual community in your area? ______yes _______no 19. How connected or involved are you in the bisexual community? Please select one. ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ not at all very little moderately quite a bit extremely Finally, we would like to obtain information regarding the geogr aphic location of our sample. This information will remain confidential. Please fill in the city and state in which you currently reside down below: City:_____________________ State:_____________________

PAGE 76

76 LIST OF REFERENCES Altshuler, K. Z. (1984). On the question of bisexuality. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 4, 484-493. Anderson, L. R., & Randlet, L. (1993). Self-m onito ring and life satisfaction of individuals with traditional and nontraditional sexual orientations. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 14, 345-361. Arrindell, W. A., & Van der Ende, J. (1985). Cros s-sample invariance of the structure of selfreported distress and difficulty in assertiveness. Advances in Behaviour Research & Therapy, 7, 205-243. Ault, A. (1996). Ambiguous identity in an una mbiguous sex/gender structure: The case of bisexual women. The Sociological Quarterly, 37 449-463. Bradford, M. (2004). The bisexual experience: Li ving in a dichotomous culture. In R.C. Fox (Ed.) Current research on bisexuality (pp. 7-25). New York: Haworth. Bronn, C. (2001). Attitudes and self-ima ges of male and female bisexuals. Journal of Bisexuality, 1 7-29. Brown, T. (2001). A proposed model of bisexual identity development that elaborates on experiential differences of women and men. Journal of Bisexuality, 1 69-91. Burleson, W. E. (2005) Bi America: Myths, truths, and st ruggles of an invisible community New York: Harrington Park Press. Cass, V.C. (1979). Homosexual identity formation: A theoretical model. Journal of Homosexuality, 4, 219-235. DAugelli, A.R., & Grossman, A.H. (2001). Disclosure of sexual orientation, victimization, and mental health among lesbian, gay and bisexual older adults. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16 1008-1027. Derogatis, L. R., Lipman, R. S., Rickels, K., Uhlenhuth, E. H., & Covi, L. (1974). The Hopkins Symptoms Checklist (HSCL): A self-report symptom inventory. Behavioral Science, 19 1-15. DiPlacido, J. (1998). Minority stress among lesbians gay men, and bisexuals. In G. M. Herek (Ed.), Stigma and Sexual Orientation (pp. 160-186). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Doll, L. S., Petersen, L. R., White, C. R. Johnson, Ward, J. W., & The Blood Donor Society Study Group. (1992). Homosexually and non-homose xually identified men who have sex with men: A behavioral comparison. The Journal of Sex Research, 29 1-14. Eliason, M. J. (1997). The prevalence and natu re of biphobia in hete rosexual undergraduate students. Archives of Sexual Behavior 26, 317-326.

PAGE 77

77 Eliason, M. (2001). Bi-n egativity: The stigma facing bisexual men. Journal of Bisexuality, 1 137-154. Eliason, M. J., & Raheim, S. (1996). Categorical measurement of attitudes about lesbian, gay, and bisexual people. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services, 4 51-65. Evans, T. (2003). Bisexuality: Nego tiating lives between two cultures. Journal of Bisexuality, 3 93-108. Fassinger, R. E. (1997). Gay Identity Scale Unpublished measure, University of Maryland, College Park. Fassinger, R. E., & McCarn, S. R. (1997). Lesbian Identity Scale. Unpublished measure, University of Maryland, College Park. Fox, R. C. (1996). Bisexuality in perspective: A review of theory and research. In B.A. Firestein (Ed.), Bisexuality: The psychology and politics of an invisible minority (pp. 3-50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for windows: Step by step (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Gonsiorek, J. C., (1988). Mental health i ssues of gay and lesbian adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Heath Care, 9, 114-122. Gosling, S. D., Vazire, S., Srivastava, S., & John, O. P. (2004). Should we trust web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six pr econceptions about internet questionnaires. American Psychologist, 59 93-104. Hau, K., & Marsh, H. W. (2004). The use of item parcels in structural equation modeling: Nonnormal data and small sample sizes. British Journal of Mathematical Statistical Psychology, 57, 327-351. Herek, G. M. (2000). The psychology of sexual prejudice. Current Directions in Psychological Sciences, 9, 19-22. Herek, G. M. (2002). Heterosexuals attitudes to ward bisexual men and women in the United States. The Journal of Sex Research 39, 264-274. Herek, G. M, & Capitanio, J. P. (1999). Sex di fferences in how heterosexuals think about lesbians and gay men: Evidence from survey context effects. Journal of Sex Research, 32, 95-105. Herek, G. M, Gillis, J. R., & Cogan, J. C. (1999). Psychological sequelae of hate-crime victimization among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 945-951.

PAGE 78

78 Hiskey, S., & Troop, N. A. (2002). Online longitudinal survey rese arch: Viability and participation. Social Science Computer Review, 20 250-259. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evalua ting model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 76-99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hutchins, L., & Ka'ahumanu, L., eds. (1991). Bi any other name: Bisexual people speak out. Boston: Alyson. Israel, T., & Mohr, J. J. (2004). Attitudes toward bisexual women and men: Current research, furture directions. In R.C. Fox (Ed.) Current research on bisexuality (pp. 117-134). New York: Haworth. Jorm, A. F., Korten, A. E., Rodgers, B., Jaco mb, P. A., & Christensen, H. (2002). Sexual orientation and metal health: Results from a community su rvey of young a nd middle aged adults. British Journal of Psychiatry, 180 427-427. Kaiser, H. F. (1958). The varimax criterion fo r analytic rotation in factor analysis. Psychometrika 23, 187-200. Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male Philadelphia: W.B Saunders. Klonoff, E. A., Landrine, H., and Ullman, J. B. (1999). Racial discrimination and psychiatric symptoms among Blacks. Cultural Diversity &. Ethnic Minority Psychology, 5 329-339. Leonardelli, G. J., & Tormala, Z. L. (2003). Th e negative impact of perceiving discrimination on collective well-being: Th e mediating role of perceived in-group status. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33 507-514. Lever, J., Kanouse, D. E., Rogers, W. H., Carson, S., & Hertz, R. (1992). Behavior patterns and sexual identity of bisexual males. The Journal of Sex Research, 29 141-167. Lewis, R. J., Derlega, Griffin, J. L., & Krow inski, A. C. (2003). Stressors for gay men and lesbians: Life stress, gay-related stress, s tigma consciousness, and depressive symptoms. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 22 716-729. Lichtenstein, B. (2000). Secret encounters: Black men, bisexu ality, and AIDS in Alabama. Medical Anthropology Quarterly 14, 374-393. Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale: Self -evaluation of ones social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 18, 302-318. MacCullum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Suga wara, H. M., (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size fo r covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130-149.

PAGE 79

79 Martens, M. P. (2005). The use of structur al equation modeling in counseling psychology research. The Counseling Psychologist, 33 269-298. Mays, V. M., & Cochran, S. D. (2001). Mental health correlates of perceived discrimination among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 91, 1869-1876. Meyer, I. H. (1995). Minority stre ss and mental health in gay men Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 36, 38-56. Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin 129, 674697. Meyer, I. H., & Dean, L. ( 1998). Internalized homophobia, in timacy, and sexual behavior among gay and bisexual men. In G.M. Herek (Ed.), Stigma and sexual orientation (pp. 160-186). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Meyer, M. D. E., (2005). Drawing the sexua lity card: Teaching, re searching, and living bisexuality. Sexuality and Culture, 9 3-13. Mohr, J. J., & Fassinger, R. (2000). Measuring di mensions of lesbian and gay male experience. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 33, 66-90. Mohr, J. J., & Rochlen, A. B. (1999). Measuring attitudes regarding bise xuality in lesbian, gay male, and heterosexual populations. Journal of Counseling Psychology 46, 353-369. Montgomery J.P., Mokotoff, E.D., Gentry, A.C., & Blair, J.M. (2003). The extent of bisexual behavior in HIV-infected men and implicat ions for transmission to their female sex partners AIDS Care, 15, 829-837. Mulick, P. S., & Wright, L. W. (2004). Examini ng the existence of biphobia in the heterosexual and homosexual populations. Journal of Bisexuality, 2 47-64. Mustanski, B. S. (2001). Getting wired: Exploi ting the internet for the collection of valid sexuality data. The Journal of Sex Research, 38 292-301. Morris, J. F., Waldo, C. R., & Rothblum, E. D. (2001). A model of predic tors and outcomes of outness among lesbian and bisexual women. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 71 61-71. Ochs, R. (1996). Biphobia: It goes more th an two ways. In B.A. Firestein (Ed.). Bisexuality: The psychology and politics of an invisible minority (pp. 217-239). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pajor, C. (2005). White trash: Manifesting the bisexual. Feminist Studies, 31 570-574.

PAGE 80

80 Paulhus, D. L., & Reid, D. B. (1991). Enhancemen t and denial in socia lly desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60 307-317. Phillips, J. C., Ingram, K. M., Smith, N. G., & Mindes, E. J. (2003). Methodological and content review of lesbian-, gay-, a nd bisexual-related ar ticles in counseli ng journals: 1990-1999. The Counseling Psychologist, 31, 25-62. Phinney, J. S. (1992). The multigroup ethnic identity measure: A new scale for use with diverse groups. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7 156-176. Pinel, E. C. (1999). Stigma consciousness: The psychological legacy of social stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76 114-128. Ponterrotto, J.G., & Ruckdeschel, D.E. (2007). An overview of the coefficient alpha and a reliability matrix for estimating adequacy of internal consistency coefficients with psychological research measures. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 105 997-1014. Quintana, S. M., & Maxwell, S. E. (1999). Impli cations of recent developments in structural equation modeling for counseling psychology. The Counseling Psychologist, 27 485527. Rust, P. C. (1992). The politics of sexual identi ty: Sexual attraction and behavior among lesbian and bisexual women. Social Problems, 39, 366-385. Rust, P. C. (1996). Managing multiple identiti es: Diversity among bisexual women and men. In B.A. Firestein (Ed.), Bisexuality: The psychology and pol itics of an invisible minority (pp. 53-83). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Rust, P. C. (2000). Bisexuality: A contemporary paradox for women. Journal of Social Issues, 36, 205-221. Sheets, R. L. (2004). Perceived social support of friends and family and its relation to the psychosocial functioning of bisexual individuals. Unpublished masters thesis, Loyola College, Baltimore, Maryland. Spalding, L. R., & Peplau, L. A. (1997). The unfaithful lover: Heterosexuals perceptions of bisexuals and their relationships. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21 611-625. Stein, T.S. (1997). Deconstructing sexual orient ation: Understanding the phenomena of sexual orientation. Journal of Homosexuality, 34, 81-86. Stokes, J. P., Damon, W., & McKirnan, D. J. (1997). Predictors of movement toward homosexuality: A longitudi nal study of bisexual men. The Journal of Sex Research, 34 304-312. Stokes, J. P., McKirnan, D. J., & Burzette, R.G. (1993). Sexual behavior, condom use, disclosure of sexuality, and stability of sexual orientation in bisexual men. The Journal of Sex Research, 30 203-213.

PAGE 81

81 Stone, S. D. (1996). Bisexual women and the threat to lesbian space: Or what if all the lesbians leave? Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies, 16 101-116. Syzmanski, D. M. (2006). Does internalized heterosexism moderate the link between heterosexist events and lesb ians psychological distress? Sex Roles, 54 227-234. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L.S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). NewYork: Harper Collins. Tabanchnick, B. G., & Fidell, L.S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). New York: Harper & Row. Troiden, R. R. (1988). Gay and lesbian identity: A sociological analysis Dix Hills, NY: General Hall. Uchino, B. N., Cacioppo, J. T., & Kiecold-Glazer, J. K. (1996). The relationship between social support and physiological processes: A review with emphasis on underlying mechanisms and implications for health. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 488. U. S. Census Bureau. (2002). American Community Survey Change Profile 2000-2002 Retrieved November 14, 2006 from http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Products/P rofiles/Chg/2002/0002/Tabular/010/01000U S1.htm Weinberg, M. S., Williams, C. J., & Pryor, D.W. (1994). Dual attraction: Understanding bisexuality. New York: Oxford University Press. Weston, R., & Gore, P. A. (2006). A brief guide to structural equation modeling. The Counseling Psychologist, 34 719-751. Williams, K. D. (2001). Ostracism: The power of silence New York: Guilford. Williamson, I. R. (2000). Internalized homophobia and health issues affecting lesbians and gay men. Health Education Research, 15 97-107. Worthington, R. L., Dillon, F. R., & Becker-Schu tte, A. M. (2005). Development, reliability, and validity of the lesbian, gay, and bisexual know ledge and attitudes scale for heterosexuals. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52 104-118. Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). S cale development research: A content analysis and recommendation for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34 806-838. Wright, L. W., Adams, H. E., & Bernat, J. (1999). Development and validation of the homophobia scale. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 21 337-347. Zinik, G.A. (1985). Identify conflict or adap tive flexibility? Bi sexuality reconsidered Journal of Homosexuality, 11, 7-19.

PAGE 82

82 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Melanie Elyse Brewster was born on August 7, 1984, in Miam i, Florida. She graduated cum laude from the University of Florida in 2005 with a Bachelor of Science in psychology and a Bachelor of Arts in criminology. Melani e began the doctoral pr ogram in counseling psychology at the University of Florida in A ugust of 2006, and hopes to earn her Ph.D. in the next few years