This article was downloaded by: [Universidad Del Norte]

On: 09 May 2012, At: 06:41

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Sex Research

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjsr20

The Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men Scale

(ATLG): Adaptation and Testing the Reliability and
Validity in Chile
a a
Manuel Cárdenas & Jaime Eduardo Barrientos
a
Psychology School, Universidad Católica del Norte,

Available online: 14 Jun 2008

To cite this article: Manuel Cárdenas & Jaime Eduardo Barrientos (2008): The Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men Scale
(ATLG): Adaptation and Testing the Reliability and Validity in Chile, Journal of Sex Research, 45:2, 140-149

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224490801987424

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to
anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should
be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,
proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 JOURNAL OF SEX RESEARCH, 45(2), 140–149, 2008
Copyright # The Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality
ISSN: 0022-4499 print=1559-8519 online
DOI: 10.1080/00224490801987424

The Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men Scale (ATLG): Adaptation and
Testing the Reliability and Validity in Chile
Manuel C
ardenas and Jaime Eduardo Barrientos
Psychology School, Universidad Catolica del Norte

Previous researchers have used the attitudes toward lesbians and gay men (ATLG) scale
(Herek, 1988) and reported their own reliability coefficients and validity measures, but
research on this subject is scarce in Chile. In order to determine if ATLG scale was a reliable
and valid instrument in our country, we adapted and examined the psychometrics properties
using a sample composed of 142 psychology and economics undergraduate students. This
study found the ATLG scale to be reliable (a = .90) and valid for the Chilean population
and is a recommended instrument for measuring attitudes toward gay men and lesbians.
Downloaded by [Universidad Del Norte] at 06:41 09 May 2012

Negative attitudes toward gay men and lesbians have
become an important topic and research area in social
sciences in the last 20 years. Although the issue regarding
gay men and lesbian rights is increasingly present in the
Chilean public agenda and the Chilean population
currently seems to be more tolerant, prejudice and
stereotypes toward sexual minorities have not changed
much in the last few years, and neither have the
discriminating actions deriving from them. It must be
remembered that article 365 of the Penalty Code that
penalized sexual relations between men was repealed in
1999 during the democratic government post military
dictatorship. The unequal treatment toward gay men
and lesbians and lack of social protection for homo-
sexual persist in Chilean society when, for example,
trying to get a job and using public utility services
(MUMS, 2006).
On the other hand, studies about population attitudes
toward gay men and lesbians in Chile are scarce and only
recently have been studied via very general public opinion
surveys in which questions about homosexuality are con-
fined to two or three items or scales, for which reliability
and validity indicators were not reported. Therefore, they
can be used as illustrations only with due precautions.
Data show that there is a particularly strong social intol-
erance and homophobia regarding homo and bisexu-
ality in Chile. For example, data from a questionnaire
administered by Fundaci on IDEAS in 1997 showed that
there is a value charge of intolerance and discrimination
considered risky on different issues, particularly on
homosexuality, which were considered ‘‘very serious’’,
with a figure of 60.2% (100% was the maximum,
Correspondence should be addressed to Jaime Barrientos,
Psychology School, Universidad Cat
olica del Norte, Avenida Angamos
0610, Antofagasta 1280, Chile.
showing very strong prejudice). The second report of this
foundation showed that 45.2% of the subjects think that
homosexuality should be forbidden since it is against
human nature (Fundaci on IDEAS, 2001). Most recent
results reported by IDEAS show that 50% or more of
the population could be regarded as homophobic.
IDEAS (2001) defines homophobia as a form of personal
or institutional prejudice toward homosexuals that mani-
fests itself as fear or rejection toward physical closeness
with them.
Results also indicated that people believed homo-
sexuality should be an important issue in medical
research in order to avoid the birth of homosexuals in
the future. Moreover, in their last report (Fundaci on
IDEAS, 2003), 43% of the sample thought that homo-
sexuals should not become school teachers. Other data
from a Chilean sexual behavior survey regarding intoler-
ance levels toward homo- and bisexuality showed that,
concerning sexual relations between people of the same
sex, there are very restrictive judgments, even stricter
than for other sexual practices (CONASIDA & ANRS,
2000). Thus, data show that only 5% of the Chilean
population approve of men or women who have sexual
relations with people of the same sex. Most of the
population reports disapproval of homosexuality, both
male and female.
Previous studies have examined other factors
associated with attitudes toward homosexuality. For
example, studies report that negative attitudes toward
homosexuality closely correlate with authoritarianism
(Dumbar, Brown, & Amoroso, 1973) and political con-
servatism (Herek, 1988; Hayes, 1995; Steffens & Wagner,
2004). Also, a close relationship is observed between
negative attitudes toward homosexuality and traditional
attitudes toward gender or sex roles (Herek, 1988; Kite
& Deaux, 1986; Morrison & Morrison, 2002). If the
 PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF THE ATLG SCALE IN CHILE
subject violating the sex role is a man, transgression is
viewed as more serious (Herek, 1984; La Mar & Kite,
1998). Prejudice against gay men and lesbians is related
to variables like religiosity (Gentry, 1987; Herek, 1988;
Morrison & Morrison, 2002) and attitudes toward
feminism (Kite & Deaux, 1986). It also is connected
with variables like age: the older the subject, the more
negative the attitude; educational level: the higher the
educational level, the less the prejudice (Herek, 1988;
1994); and sex: men are more prejudiced than women
(Herek, 2000; La Mar & Kite, 1998; Lingiardi, Falanga,
& Augelli, 2005).
In a different sense, when a heterosexual population
thinks that homosexuality is a choice by subjects them-
selves, rejection figures tend to be higher (King, 2001;
Sakalli, 2002).
Studies also support the idea that people with homo-
sexual relatives, or who have established close relation-
Downloaded by [Universidad Del Norte] at 06:41 09 May 2012
ships with homosexuals, hold more favorable attitudes
toward them (Bowen & Bourgeois, 2001; Hinrichs &
Rosenberg, 2002; Steffens & Wagner, 2004), and those
without these contacts hold more prejudiced attitudes
(Lingiardi, Falanga, & Augelli, 2005). Among the latter,
men feel more rejection and put more social distance
from gay men than from lesbians (King & Black,
1999; Kite & Whitley, 1996; La Mar & Kite, 1998),
whereas women report feeling more at ease with gay
men than with lesbians (Herek, 1994). Whatever the
case, there is a positive correlation between attitudes
toward gay men and lesbians (Herek & Capitanio,
1996), and both are evaluated better than bisexuals of
their same sex (Steffens & Wagner, 2004). Finally, even
in cases in which prejudice is low and attitudes toward
homosexuals are rather favorable, subjects do not trans-
late this tendency into a defense of homosexual rights
(Ellis & Kitsinger, 2003).
There is no thorough and useful information to learn
about attitudes toward gay men and lesbians and their
connection to other relevant psychosocial and social
variables due to the unavailability of Chilean scales to
measure attitudes toward homosexuality consistently
and validly.
Therefore, this article is aimed at reporting the
phases of the process for adapting and validating
the ATLG scale (Herek, 1988). This scale has been
translated and validated for samples from various
populations and countries, but no studies have been
done for its adaptation to the Chilean context. Only
recently a study with a Spanish version was done
among U.S. residents of Mexican origin (Herek &
Gonzalez-Rivera, 2006), but using a 4-item version of
the attitudes toward gays (ATG) and attitudes toward
lesbians (ATL) scales.
So, the objective of this study was to determine if the
ATLG scale is a suitable device to measure prejudice
toward gay men and lesbians in our particular social
context and to examine the association between those
attitudes and theoretically relevant sociodemographic,
psychological, and social variables. The following
hypotheses were tested:
H1: Chilean men hold more negative attitudes toward
homosexuality than do Chilean woman. This difference
is greater for attitudes toward gay men than toward
lesbians.
H2: Chilean people from various socioeconomic levels
express different attitudes toward gay men and
lesbians. As this hypothesis is exploratory, the
significance of the above-mentioned differences is not
given.
H3: Highly religious Chilean population holds more
negative attitudes toward homosexuality.
H4: Chilean people politically identified with the
Right Wing will have more negative attitudes toward
homosexuality.
H5: Chilean people express less negative attitudes
toward homosexuality if they have had personal contact
with gay men and lesbians.
H6: The Chilean people express more positive emotions
toward homosexuals when their prejudice levels are
lower. Individuals who hold more positive attitudes
toward homosexuals express significantly less negative
emotions toward homosexuals.
H7: Chilean people belonging to an ethnic minority
express more positive attitudes toward homosexuality,
for both gay men and lesbians.
H8: Chilean people who report more negative attitudes
toward homosexuals are those who believe that homo-
sexuals have too much power. Those that hold more
positive attitudes toward homosexuals report that
homosexuals have little power.
H9: People who show more positive attitudes toward
homosexuals express their agreement with giving more
rights to them. Those with more unfavorable attitudes
will prefer restricting or eliminating rights.
H10: Students from most liberal majors (psychology)
have attitudes more positive than those that are from
traditionally more conservative majors in our country
(economics).
Method
Participants and Procedures
The participants in this study were 152 volunteers
recruited from university introductory undergraduate
psychology and economics courses. The present study
used a convenience sample consisting of 142 subjects,
50 men (35%) and 92 women (65%) whose ages ranged
from 18 to 31 years (M ¼ 19.92, SD ¼ 1.99); 10 subjects
who reported themselves as homosexual (n ¼ 5) or
bisexual (n ¼ 3), or who did not answer the questions
related to this issue (n ¼ 2) were eliminated from
the analysis. All of them were students majoring
in psychology (n ¼ 105) and economics (n ¼ 37) at
Universidad Cat
olica del Norte, Chile.
141
 CÁRDENAS AND BARRIENTOS
The study was presented to the subjects as part of a
study on group relationships and related representations
to different social groups because when studying this
kind of subject in Chile, we avoid explaining the study
topic directly to avoid negative responses. Therefore,
the words ‘‘representation’’ frequently are used for this
purpose, referring to intergroup relationships. All
respondents were assured anonymity. The undergrad-
uate students completed a battery of paper-and-pencil
measures which included independent variables. The
questionnaire was completed by individual respondents.
Volunteers received extra credit points for their course
grade. The ethical criteria of the Chilean’s Research
Commission (CONICYT) were followed.
Measures
Social and demographic measures. The question-
Downloaded by [Universidad Del Norte] at 06:41 09 May 2012
naire included items to ascertain respondent sex, age,
socioeconomic level, religious denomination, political
self-categorization, sexual orientation, and ethnic identi-
fication.
Socioeconomic level. This variable was divided into
three socioeconomic levels according to participant’s
reports on perception of belonging to a certain
socioeconomic class or level—upper, middle, and low class.
Religion. This variable consisted of a self-report on
the answer to the question, ‘‘Do you consider yourself
a religious person?’’ Then, subjects had to identify
their religious group: Catholic, Evangelist, Muslim,
Jeishw, and other.
Sexual orientation. Three categories were assessed:
homosexual, bisexual, and heterosexual. Homosexual
and bisexual people were not included in the analysis.
Political self-categorization. This measure asked
about political preference, from right to left. The scale
consisted of six alternatives, from extreme right to
extreme left, recoded in three options (right, center, and
left). Respondents were asked, ‘‘In political matters
people frequently speak of left and right. Where you
would place your ideas in the following scale?’’
Ethnic minority. Respondents were asked, ‘‘Do you
consider yourself as belonging to some ethnic
minority?’’ Two response alternatives were provided:
‘‘Yes’’ or ‘‘No.’’
Other relevant variables.
Power. This measure consisted of a 10–100 graded
scale, options being ‘‘no’’ (10) or ‘‘full power’’ (100).
Respondents were asked, ‘‘How much power (e.g.,
capacity to make decisions, move freely, economic
power, influences on administration, etc.) would you
142
say that homosexuals have as compared with
heterosexuals in our context?’’
Degree of intimacy. This means the degree of
intimacy with homosexuals, ranging from ‘‘no
closeness’’ to ‘‘very close.’’ Besides, a measurement of
pleasure with the degree of intimacy was added, from
‘‘not agreeable’’ to ‘‘very agreeable.’’ In both cases, the
response options ranged from 1 to 6.
Measures related to homosexuality.
ATLG. Students completed the ATLG scale (Herek,
1988) translated and adapted for its validation (see the
Appendix). As in other studies using this scale (Herek
& Gonzalez-Rivera, 2006), and since the extent to
which the term ‘‘gay’’ is understood by nongay
Chileans has not been documented, we used the term
‘‘homosexual’’ in the Spanish translation to refer to
gay men. The ATLG translation used in this study was
not the same as that used by Herek and Gonzalez-
Rivera (2006); that version has only four statements for
ATL and ATG scales. The ATLG Spanish version in
this study had not been used previously with Chilean
populations. The scale originally was developed in
English, and their psychometrics properties are well
established (Herek, 1994). The ATLG scale consists of
20 statements, 10 about gay men (ATG subscale) and
10 about lesbians (ATL subscale). Respondents show
their level of agreement or disagreement using Likert-
type items (from ‘‘strongly disagree’’ to ‘‘strongly
agree’’). The original scale has only 5 points, but a
6-point scale was used to encourage subjects to make
decisions. High scores, close to 6, showed greater
prejudice, and low scores reported favorable attitudes
toward homosexuals.
HATH. The subjects also reported on their attitude
toward lesbians and gay men using the heterosexual
attitudes toward homosexuals (HATH) scale Larsen,
Reed, & Hoffman, 1980). The HATH scale consisted
of 20 Likert-type items interpreted in the same
fashion. The scale used in this questionnaire consisted
of 5-point Likert-type response categories ranging
from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The HATH
scale was translated into Spanish and adapted to the
Chilean population (Barrientos & C
ardenas, 2007). In
the adapted scale, the reliability levels obtained by
means of the Cronbach alpha were .90, and all the
items showed an item–total correlation higher than .25.
This reliability index reveals high internal consistency
that., is even slightly higher than that resulting from
original studies (Larsen, Reed, & Hoffman, 1980) in
which it reached a reliability index of .86.
Homosexual rights. Respondents were asked, ‘‘I
think that homosexual rights should be . . .’’ options
 PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF THE ATLG SCALE IN CHILE

being multiple-choice: extended, restricted, supported, Factor Analysis

or eliminated.
Emotions toward homosexuals. Respondents were
asked, ‘‘Has a homosexual ever made you feel any of
these emotions?’’ Emotions follow: frustration; hope,
inspiration, hate, attraction, displeasure, fear, envy,
congeniality, inconvenience, repugnance, sorrow,
comprehension, pride (for what that individual has
done), and respect. Responses were coded ‘‘Yes’’ (1) or
‘‘No’’ (0). Participants also were asked, ‘‘As a whole,
how would you say your feelings and emotions are
toward homosexuals?’’
Results
Sample Characteristics
Downloaded by [Universidad Del Norte] at 06:41 09 May 2012
Factor structure analysis of the ATLG and subscales
was attempted and is shown in Tables 2, 3, and 4. For
the ATLG scale, an extraction procedure was used for
main components with VARIMAX command; however,
the best explanation for the existence of the predicted
factors occurred with a rotate model. Sample adequacy
measures indicated good data agreement for the factor
analysis of the full scale (Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin
measures ¼ .88 and Barttlet sphericity test, p ¼ .000)
and both the ATL scale (Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin ¼ .80
and Barttlet sphericity test p ¼ .000) and the ATG scale
(Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin ¼ .86 and Barttlet sphericity test,
p ¼ .000).
The ATLG scale factor structure illustrated the
presence of five factors explaining 62.50% of the total
variance, but previous studies showed two factors:
‘‘condemnation–tolerance’’ and ‘‘beliefs.’’ The first

The descriptive statistics for the different socio-
demogrphic variables and their corresponding mean
scores in the ATL, ATG, and HATH scales can be
observed in Table 1.
Reliability
The reliability levels obtained for the overall ATGL
scale were .90, the scale measuring attitudes toward
lesbians (ATL) was .81, and that toward gay men
(ATG) .84. In the original study, overall ATLG a ¼ .90,
ATG a ¼ .89, and ATL a ¼ .77 (Herek, 1988). The
item–total correlation of all the items was higher than
.25, so indexes shown can be considered remarkable and
would reveal high internal test consistency.
factor in previous research accounts for 35%–45% of
the total common variance in responses, which are
similar for male and female respondents and for ques-
tionnaires concerning lesbians and gay men. The second
factor accounts for another 5% of the total variance
(Herek, 1984).
In this study, three factors found referred to the ATL
subscale (Table 3) and two of them to the ATG subscale
(Table 4). Their relationship with these scales will be
commented upon because they seem to be related to
similar components but directed to the case of either les-
bians or gay men. Therefore, the three factors of the
ATL subscale would explain 61.40% of the variance.
Factor 1 would explain 30.68% of the variance with
items 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10, which could refer to

Table 1. Sociodemographical Variables

Variable n % ATG ATL HATH
Sex
Male 50 35.2 3.08 (1.14) 2.11 (.99) 2.28 (1.02)
Female 92 64.8 2.59 (.82) 1.88 (.85) 1.91 (.71)
Socioeconomical Level
Uper 27 19.1 2.63 (.98) 1.81 (.92) 1.86 (.75)
Middle 96 68.1 2.74 (1.06) 1.96 (.89) 2.05 (.87)
Low 18 12.7 3.12 (.92) 2.27 (.95) 2.30 (.83)
Religion
Religious 95 66.9 2.89 (.97) 2.13 (.94) 2.13 (.84)
Nonreligious 47 33.1 2.52 (1.10) 1.62 (.74) 1.84 (.83)
Catholic 78 82.1 2.79 (.92) 2.00 (.83) 2.08 (.83)
Evangelist 8 8.4 4.02 (.97) 3.37 (1.06) 2.87 (.99)
Other 9 9.5 2.45 (.56) 1.94 (.69) 1.68 (.30)
Political Self-Categorization
Left 31 22.5 2.35 (.81) 1.51 (.64) 1.62 (.55)
Central 86 62.3 2.97 (1.09) 2.17 (.95) 2.20 (.90)
Right 21 15.2 2.61 (.91) 1.84 (.87) 1.96 (.80)
Ethnic Identification
Minority 21 14.8 2.93 (1.23) 2.29 (1.31) 2.15 (1.09)
Nonminority 121 85.2 2.73 (.99) 1.91 (.81) 2.02 (.80)

Table reports means scale scores and (in parentheses) standard deviations.

143
 CÁRDENAS AND BARRIENTOS

Table 2. Factor Matrix Correlations for the Rotate Factor Table 4. Factor Matrix Correlations for the Rotate Factor
Analysis of ATGL Items Analysis of ATG Items

Factor Factor

1 2 3 4 5 1 2
ATL ITEM 3 .751
ITEM 1 .747 ITEM 4 .733
ITEM 2 .839 ITEM 2 .728
ITEM 3 .678 ITEM 9 .719
ITEM 4 .763 ITEM 5 .636
ITEM 5 .776 ITEM 1 .475
ITEM 6 .654 ITEM 10 .465
ITEM 7 .562 ITEM 5 .850
ITEM 8 .519 ITEM 8 .678
ITEM 9 .542 ITEM 7 .552
ITEM 10 .693 %VARIANCE 32.61% 21.68%
ATG
ITEM 1 .456
ITEM 2 .691 21.68% of the variance and includes items 5, 7, and 8.
ITEM 3 .769 These would refer to the evaluation of gay men’s
Downloaded by [Universidad Del Norte] at 06:41 09 May 2012

ITEM 4 .793
‘‘natural=antinatural’’ dimension.
ITEM 5 .758
ITEM 6 .604
ITEM 7 .713
Validity Indicators
ITEM 8 .583
ITEM 9 .576 ATLG validity was tested using a series of Student t
ITEM 10 .567
tests on results. Differences regarding prejudice levels
toward homosexuals between men (n ¼ 50, M ¼ 2.28,
‘‘traditional values.’’ Factor 2 would explain 15.45% of SD ¼ 1.02) and women (n ¼ 92, M ¼ 1.91, SD ¼ .71)
the variance and includes items 4 and 7, which would were confirmed. Women reported significantly lower
deal with ‘‘social sanction.’’ Finally, factor 3 would prejudice levels than men [t(141) ¼
2.07; p < 0.05],
explain 15.26% of the variance and includes items 1 suggesting more positive attitudes toward gay men and
and 2, which would refer to ‘‘social rights.’’ The third lesbians. On the other hand, when comparing men’s
factor is found in other studies (La Mar & Kite, 1998) scores and women’s scores on the ATL subscale
in which it is not regarded as a separate factor. (M ¼ 1.88 and M ¼ 2.12, respectively) and the ATG
For the ATG subscale, the factor structure shows two subscale (M ¼ 2.59 and M ¼ 3.08, respectively), we
main factors that would explain 54.29% of the variance. verify the above-mentioned differences. Both men
The first would explain 32.61% of the variance and (t(49) ¼ 11.14; p < .05) and women (t(91) ¼ 12.07;
includes items 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, and 10. These refer to p < .05) express significantly higher levels of prejudice
the condensation of those items dealing with gay mens toward gay men than toward lesbians.
rights and the stereotypes that relate gay men to perver- In analyzing subscale data, ATG differences confirmed
sion, which were labeled ‘‘beliefs.’’ The first ATG factor the differences found above: Women (M ¼ 2.24,
is similar to the ‘‘morality’’ dimension in other papers SD ¼ .85) showed attitudes significantly more positive
(La Mar & Kite, 1998). Factor 2 would explain than men (M ¼ 2.59, SD ¼ 1.02) [t(140) ¼
2.56;
p < 0.05]. For the ATL scale these differences did not
Table 3. Factor Matrix Correlations for the Rotate Factor appear [t(140) ¼
1.41; ns], meaning that there are no atti-
Analysis of ATL Items tudinal differences between men (M ¼ 2.11, SD ¼ .99)
and women (M ¼ 1.88, SD ¼ .85) toward lesbians. This
Factor
would confirm the fact that men hold more negative
1 2 3 attitudes toward gay men and more favorable views of
ITEM 5 .792 lesbians (Kite & Whitley, 1996; King & Black, 1999;
ITEM 3 .760 La Mar & Kite, 1998). These sex differences are equally
ITEM 8 .681 demonstrated by the number of negative emotions
ITEM 6 .677 reported [t(139) ¼
2.90; p < 0.005], women expressing
ITEM 9 .637
fewer negative feelings.
ITEM 10 .592
ITEM 7 .799 No significant differences were found among subjects
ITEM 4 .781 from different socioeconomic levels (neither in the full
ITEM 1 .868 scale, nor in the subscales).
ITEM 2 .617 Differences were detected between subjects who
%VARIANCE 30.68% 15.45% 15.26%
regarded themselves as religious and those who did

144
 PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF THE ATLG SCALE IN CHILE
not. Those who reported religious beliefs showed
attitudes significantly more negative than those who
did not, both for the full scale [t(140) ¼
2.02;
p < 0.05] and ATG [t(140) ¼
3.51; p < 0.001] and
ATL [t(140) ¼
2.72; p < 0.005] subscales.
The test for political self-categorization effects
suggested significant differences for ATLG scale scores
[F (2, 135) ¼ 4.70; p < 0.05] among subjects in the left
categories (n ¼ 31, M ¼ 1.92, SD ¼ .66), as compared
with those in the central (n ¼ 86, M ¼ 2.52, SD ¼ .97)
and right (n ¼ 21, M ¼ 2.24, SD ¼ .90) ones. ATL [F
(2, 135) ¼ 6.21; p < 0.05] and ATG [F (2, 135) ¼ 6.67;
p < 0.05] subscale scores were also significant, subjects
in the central and right categories being more prejudiced
in both cases.
Differences also were detected in the measure of
pleasure that contact with gay men and lesbians had
produced in the subjects, participants with negative
Downloaded by [Universidad Del Norte] at 06:41 09 May 2012
attitudes being those who had felt the least pleasure
[t(123) ¼ 7.35; p < 0.001]. Differences also were found
in general feelings and emotions toward gay men and
lesbians [t(123) ¼ 5.05; p < 0.001].
Another set of variables showed significant differ-
ences between subjects highly (n ¼ 53; 37%) and
slightly (n ¼ 88; 62%) prejudiced toward gay men and
lesbians divided by the theoretical middle point of the
scale. Highly negative subjects reported a significantly
greater number of negative emotions [t(138) ¼
2.98;
p < 0.05] and a significantly smaller number of positive
emotions [t(138) ¼ 2.71; p < 0.005] toward gay men and
lesbians.
No significant differences were found in the attitude
toward gay men and lesbians of subjects regarding
themselves as belonging to a minority ethnic group
and those who did not identify themselves with a
minority ethnic group (neither in the full scale, nor in
the subscales).
No differences were found between subjects scoring
high and low in the ATLG scale as to their perception
of homosexuals’ relative power. Both groups think that
gay men and lesbian people lack social power in our
environment.
Regarding rights, differences were found among
subjects highly and slightly prejudiced toward homo-
sexuals. Participants with positive attitudes express
agreement with the extension of homosexual rights
(n ¼ 81; 92%). Subjects with more negative attitudes
show more unfavorable attitudes and prefer restricting
rights or keeping them as they are (n ¼ 24; 46%). This
reveals that negative attitudes toward gay men and les-
bians were more strongly associated with restricting
homosexual rights.
To determine if attitudes toward homosexuals are
related to students’ majors, psychology students
(n ¼ 105, M ¼ 2.19, SD ¼ .80) were compared with
economics students (n ¼ 37, M ¼ 2.85, SD ¼ 1.08). A
significant effect was found for the full scale
[t(140) ¼
3.33; p ¼ 0.002], ATL scale [t(140) ¼
4.18;
p ¼ 0.000], and ATG scale [t(140) ¼
2.35; p < 0.05].
Psychology students report more positive attitudes
toward homosexuals than did economics students.
The correlation between ATGL and heterosexual
attitudes toward homosexuals (HATH) scale Larsen,
Reed, & Hoffman, 1980) was expected to show a high
correlation because they are different measures of a
similar construct (convergence validity). ATLG
(M ¼ 2.36; SD ¼ 0.92) and HATH (M ¼ 2.04;
SD ¼ 0.85) scores were correlated significantly in the
expected directions (r(150) ¼ 87; p ¼ .000). The correla-
tions between ATG and ATL with HATH also were the
expected ones (r(150) ¼ .82; p < 0.01 and r(150) ¼ .83;
p < 0.01, respectively). Finally, a correlation among
ATL and ATG subscales was found to be positive and
high (r(150) ¼ .82; p < 0.01). These correlations would
illustrate that both scales do measure the same construct
(prejudice toward gay men and lesbians). Therefore,
subjects who score high in prejudice in one scale also
do so in the other scale.
Discussion
This article reports on the reliability and validation
process of the ATLG full and subscales with the Chilean
population. The scales were found to have high internal
consistency, and the subscales were well correlated. The
full and subscales were also highly correlated with the
HATH scale, showing that these devices are measuring
the same phenomenon. Finally, the ATLG scale validity
indicators were correlated to attitudes toward gay men
and lesbians.
The original scale provides only information on the
factor structure for four separate samples of undergrad-
uates using a common factor model with oblique
rotation. Herek (1984) found a bipolar condemnation=
tolerance factor and a beliefs factor and, in another
study, La Mar and Kite (1998) found four factors:
condemnation=tolerance, morality, contacts, and stereo-
types. In our study, the ATLG scale factor structure
shows five factors, two of them belonging to ATG and
three of them belonging to ATL. The two relevant
ATG factors refer to ‘‘beliefs’’ and ‘‘natural=antinatural
atural sexual option.’’ The ATL factors refer to the
threat to ‘‘traditional values,’’ ‘‘social sanction,’’ and
‘‘lesbian rights.’’ The factor ‘‘traditional values’’ is
similar to the factor proposed as a measure of new forms
of prejudice by Pettigrew and Merteens (1995) in their
scales of subtle prejudice. The factor ‘‘social sanction’’
could be equivalent to the condemnation=tolerance
factor proposed by Herek (1984). The novel factor is
the third one, ‘‘lesbian rights,’’ that is not included by
Herek (1984) or by La Mar and Kite (1998), as expected
for the latter. This is a distinctive factor that should be
further studied. The fourth ATG factor could be similar
145
 CÁRDENAS AND BARRIENTOS
to that named ‘‘beliefs’’ by La Mar and Kite (1998).
Finally, the fifth factor, ‘‘natural=antinatural sexual
option,’’ is a new factor that is not found in previous
studies (but that is addressed directly by Herek when
asking some questions). Therefore, three of the ATLG
scale factors belong in the ATL subscale and two in
the ATG subscale. In futures studies, each subscale
eventually could include questions for the five factors
found in this research.
As expected, the attitudes toward gay men and
lesbians are affected by respondents’ sex. Women are
more favorable and not more tolerant toward homo-
sexuals than men, and men are less tolerant than
women, particularly when they evaluated gay men.
Women also are more unfavorable when they evaluated
gay men; this last data are not consistent with the litera-
ture. In fact, the ATL subscale was the only one where
no significant sex differences were found. This is prob-
Downloaded by [Universidad Del Norte] at 06:41 09 May 2012
ably due to the fact that males think that the relation-
ship between women is an erotic fantasy frequently
observed in pornographic films (Louderback & Whitley,
1997). These data are consistent with the literature and
demonstrate that negative male attitudes are especially
high for gay men. But, under no circumstances can a
statement be made to pose that lesbians are accepted
by heterosexual men; they simply are less rejected than
gay men. Results suggest that it is important to measure
prejudice toward gay men and lesbians separately,
because the literature shows different prejudice patterns
for each group, which is the same as in this study.
Moreover, in future studies, sex differences in
attitudes toward gay men and lesbians should be under-
stood by considering cultural constructions of gender
and sexuality in Chile. Although in the Western world
and in Chile an important transformation is taking place
in both sexual and gender values (Inglehart & Baker,
2000), previous studies in Latin America and Chile have
shown the great importance of social context and
social factors in sexuality, gender, and masculinity
(CONASIDA & ANRS, 2000; Viveros, 2001). Future
studies should explore this subject and include some
measures of it.
Our results reveal that people with more unfavorable
attitudes toward gay men and lesbians are also the most
religious (Gentry, 1987; Herek, 1988; Morrison &
Morrison, 2002). The growing secularization in Chile
is related to the spread of social and sexual changes,
but this state of affairs has generated negative reactions
among those who cherish traditional values. Values
about individual rights and citizen equality produced
tension in Chile with family and gender models
sustained by the Catholic Church, patriarchal traditions,
and political conservatism.
The study also suggests that when subjects meet
homosexuals and evaluate mutual contact positively,
they are less prejudiced, and subjects who express more
negative emotions toward sexual minorities are also
146
those who express fewer positive emotions toward
them, thus being consistent with the literature (Bowen
& Bourgeois, 2001; Hinrichs & Rosenberg, 2002;
Steffens & Wagner, 2004) Other results confirm that
belonging to an ethnic minority does not seem to be
related to attitudes toward gay men and lesbians, and
it does not seem to be connected with a particular socio-
economic group. A though in this study the variable
‘‘socioeconomic status’’ is not correlated with attitudes
toward gay men and lesbians as reported in other studies
(Sandfort, 1998), its association with attitudes toward
gay men and lesbians could be due to other more
psychological relations they are confused with, like
general political conservativeness (Steffens, 2005).
Finally, the response patterens found in this study
tend to confirm the prejudice that men, economics
students, religious people (mainly Catholics), and
right-wingers feel toward gay men and lesbians. These
attitudinal characteristics regarding antigay men and
lesbians could be based on a more global conservative
perspective. So, negative attitudes toward gay men and
lesbians would play a defensive role for conservative
values and ideas, since the ATLG scale allows describing
sociodemographic homophobic patterns in Chile more
appropriately. Future studies should include this subject.
Later studies will make it necessary to focus on other
limitations, that is, the existence of some forms of preju-
dice that can remain unnoticed because they are limited
by social desirability. As reported in previous studies
(Sandfort, 1998) in an intolerant environment toward
homosexuality, the expression of a socially penalized
behavior such as homo- and bisexuality may be symbo-
lically equivalent to a confession.
There are other variables that may influence attitudes
toward homosexuals that must be controlled. These
include prejudice linked to personality traits and defense
mechanisms and subjects’ adhesion to gender stereo-
types and sex roles, along with other variables that have
not been measured directly, such as conservatism and
educational level. It also would be relevant to analyze
how ways of expressing this behavior have changed
since hostile emotions traditionally expressed may have
turned into other expressions such as fear, discomfort,
insecurity, or disgust, which are proper of new forms
of prejudice (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1986; Pettigrew &
Merteens, 1995; Rueda & Navas, 1996), together with
the difficulty of expressing more positive emotions
toward the exogroup.
In the same way, the study has another limitation. The
questionnaire analyzed does not lack the common
problems occurring in self-reported measurements. These
problems refer to the facts that people significantly differ
in their capacity to be aware of their own internal states
(Nisbett & Wilson, 1977); they are not always willing to
show their attitudes publicly due to their apprehension for
evaluation (Rosenberg, 1969); and that they try to correct
their impressions (Tedeschi, Schlenker, & Bonoma, 1971)
 PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF THE ATLG SCALE IN CHILE
or judgments as they occur in order to adjust them
(Greenwald & Banaji, 1995, Petty & Wegener, 1998).
On the other hand, it is necessary to recognize that a
great part of people’s lives is conditioned by mental pro-
cesses that automatically are activated (Devine, 1989)
and would manifest themselves without the subject being
aware of them (Bargh, 1999). Due to the limitations of
these self-reported measurements, further studies should
be done to adapt indirect measurements (nonreactive),
allowing access to people’s internal states and attitudes
without directly asking for them. These measurement
procedures demand a quicker and less conscious evalu-
ation and are more difficult to adjust to expectations.
Measurements of this type are the ‘‘task of automatic
evaluation’’ (Fazio & Olson, 2003, Fazio, Sanbonmatsu,
Powell, & Kardes, 1986) and the ‘‘implicit association
test’’ (Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998; Green-
wald & Nozek, 2001; Steffens, 2005).
Downloaded by [Universidad Del Norte] at 06:41 09 May 2012
Another limitation relates to the convenience under-
graduate sample used. The generalizability limits with
such types of samples are documented, but in Chile
research on this issue is just starting. Therefore, the data
reported here should be viewed as preliminary. Also,
using a Spanish version of ATLG to measure subjects
in a cultural group different from the one for which it
was initially developed can be problematic as reported
by Herek and Gonzalez-Rivera (2006). It is likely to find
some cultural differences in the meanings assigned to
certain concepts such as ‘‘gay’’ and ‘‘natural.’’ In the
future, the properties of the Spanish ATLG version also
will be better understood if it is administered to other
Spanish-speaking samples.
As a conclusion, results were consistent with
previous studies and the theoretical framework about
homophobia and prejudice.
References
Bargh, J. A. (1999). The cognitive monster: The case against the
controllability of automatic stereotypes effects. In S. Chaiken &
Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology
(pp. 361–382). New York: Guilford Press.
Barrientos, J. & Cardenas, M. (2007). Adaptaci on y Validaci on de la
Escala de Actitudes de los Heterosexuales Hacia los Homo-
sexuales (HATH). Manuscript submitted for publication.
Bowen, A. M. & Bourgeois, M. J. (2001). Attitudes toward lesbian,
gay, and bisexual collage students: The contribution of pluralistic
ignorance, dynamic social impact, and contact theories. Journal of
American College Health, 50, 91–96.
CONASIDA & ANRS. (2000). Encuesta de comportamiento sexual.
Primeros an alisis. [National study of sex bevahior. First analysis].
Santiago: Ministerio de Salud.
Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic
and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 56, 5–18.
Dovidio, J. F. & Gaertner, S. L. (1986). Prejudice, discrimination and
racism. San Diego: Academic Press.
Dumbar, J., Brown, M., & Amoroso, D. M. (1973). Some correlates of
attitudes toward homosexuality. Journal of Social Psychology, 89,
271–279.
Ellis, S. J. & Kitsinger, C. (2003). Attitudes toward lesbian and
gay men and support for lesbian and gay human rights
among psychology students. Journal of Homosexuality, 44,
121–138.
Fazio, R. & Olson, M. (2003). Implicit measures in social cognition
research. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 297–327.
Fazio, R., Sanbonmatsu, D., Powell, M., & Kardes, F. (1986). On the
automatic activation of attitudes. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 50(2), 229–238.
Fundaci on IDEAS. (1997). Primera encuesta de tolerancia y no
discriminacion [First discrimination survey]. Santiago de Chile:
Author.
Fundaci on IDEAS. (2001). Segunda encuesta de tolerancia y no
discriminacion [Second discrimination survey]. Santiago de Chile:
Author.
Fundaci on IDEAS. (2003). Tercera encuesta de tolerancia y no
discriminacion [Third discrimination survey]. Santiago de Chile:
Author.
Gentry, C. (1987). Social distance regarding male and female
homosexuals. Journal of Social Psychology, 127, 199–208.
Greenwald, A. & Banaji, M. (1995). Implicit social cognition:
Attitudes self-esteem and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102,
4–27.
Greenwald, A., McGhee, D., & Schwartz, J. (1998). Measuring
individual differences in implicitcognition: The implicit
association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
74, 1469–1480.
Greenwald, A. & Nozek, B. (2001). Health of implicit association
test at age 3. Zeitschrift Für Experimentelle Psychologie, 48,
85–93.
Hayes, B. C. (1995). Religious identification and moral attitudes: The
british case. British Journal of Sociology, 46, 457–474.
Herek, G. M. (1984). Beyond homophobia: A social psychological per-
spective in attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. Journal of
Homosexuality, 10, 2–17.
Herek, G. M. (1988). Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay
men: Correlates and gender differences. The Journal of Sex
Research, 25, 451–477.
Herek, G. M. (1994). Assessing attitudes toward lesbians and gay men:
A review of empirical research with the ATLG scale. In B. Greene
& G. M. Herek (Eds.), Lesbian and gay psychology: Theory,
research, and clinical applications (pp. 206–228). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Herek, G. M. (2000). Sexual prejudice and gender: Do heterosexuals’
attitudes toward lesbians and gay men differ?. Journal of Social
Issues, 56, 251–266.
Herek, G. M. & Capitanio, J. P. (1996). ‘‘Some of my best friends’’:
Intergroup contact, concealable stigma, and heterosexuals’
attitudes toward gay men and lesbians. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 22, 412–424.
Herek, G. M. & Gonzalez-Rivera, M. (2006). Attitudes toward
homosexuality among U.S. residents of mexican descent. Journal
of Sex Research, 43(2), 122–135.
Hinrichs, D. W. & Rosenberg, P. J. (2002). Attitudes toward gay,
lesbian, and bisexual persons among heterosexual liberal art
college students. Journal of Homosexuality, 43, 61–84.
Inglehart, R. & Baker, W. (2000). Modernization, cultural change, and
the persistence of traditional values. American Sociological
Review, 65, 19–51.
King, B. R. (2001). Ranking of stigmatization toward lesbians and
their children and the influence of perception of controllability
of homosexuality. Journal of Homosexuality, 41, 77–97.
King, B. R. & Black, K. N. (1999). Extent of relational stigmatization
of lesbian and their children by heterosexual college students.
Journal of Homosexuality, 37, 65–81.
Kite, M. E. & Deaux, K. (1986). Attitudes toward homosexuality:
Assessment and behavioral consequences. Basic and Applied
Social Psychology, 7(2), 137–162.
147
 CÁRDENAS AND BARRIENTOS
Kite, M. E. & Whitley, B. E., Jr. (1996). Sex differences in attitudes
toward homosexual persons, behaviours, and civil rights: A
meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(4),
336–353.
La Mar, L. & Kite, M. (1998). Sex differences in attitudes toward gay
men and lesbians: A multidimensional perspective. The Journal of
Sex Research, 35(2), 189–196.
Larsen, K., Reed, M., & Hoffman, S. (1980). Attitudes of hetero-
sexuals toward homosexuality: A likert-type scale and construct
validity. The journal of Sex Researce, 16, 245–257.
Lingiardi, V., Falanga, S., & Augelli, A. (2005). The evaluation of
homophobia in an italian sample. Archives of Sexual Behavior,
34(1), 81–93.
Louderback, L. A. & Whitley, B. E. (1997). Perceived erotic value of
homosexuality and sex-role attitudes? A reassessment after a
quarter century. Sex Roles, 16, 125–135.
Morrison, M. A. & Morrison, T. G. (2002). Development and
validation of a scale measuring modern prejudice toward gay
men and lesbian women. Journal of Homosexuality, 43, 15–37.
MUMS. (2006). Informe de derechos humanos y discriminaci
on. [Human
rights and discrimination report]. Retrieved from November 1,
2006. http://alanet.org/images/Informe2006 Mums.pdf accessed
Downloaded by [Universidad Del Norte] at 06:41 09 May 2012
Nisbett, R. & Wilson, T. (1977). Telling more than we can know:
Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84,
231–259.
Pettigrew, T. F. & Merteens, R. W. (1995). Subtle and blatant preju-
dice in Western Europe. European Journal of Social Psychology,
25, 57–75.
Petty, R. E. & Wegener, D. T. (1998). Attitude change. In D. Gilbert,
S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology
(4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Rosenberg, M. J. (1969). The conditions and consequences of
evaluation apprehension. In R. Rosenthal & R. L. Rosnow
(Eds.), Artifact in behavioral research (pp. 279–349). New York:
Academic Press.
Rueda, J. F. & Navas, M. (1996). Hacia una evaluaci
on de las nuevas
formas de prejuicio racial [Towards an evaluation of the new
forms of racial prejudice]. Revista de Psicologı́a Social, 11(2),
131–149.
Sakalli, N. (2002). Application of the attribution-value model of
prejudice to homosexuality. Journal of Social Psychology, 142,
264–271.
Sandfort, T. (1998). Homosexual and bisexual behavior in European
countries. In M. Hubert, N. Bajos, & T. Sandfort (Eds.), Sexual
behavior and HIV=AIDS in Europe. Comparisons of national
surveys (pp. 68–105). London: UCL Press.
Steffens, M. (2005). Implicit and explicit attitudes towards lesbians and
gay men. Journal of Homosexuality, 49(2), 39–66.
Steffens, M. & Wagner, Ch. (2004). Attitudes toward lesbians, gay
men, bisexual women, and bisexual men in Germany. Journal of
Sex Research, 41(2), 137–149.
Tedeschi, J., Schlenker, B., & Bonoma, T. (1971). Cognitive dissonance:
Private ratiocination or public expectacle?. American Psychologist,
26, 685–695.
Viveros, M. (2001). Contemporary Latin American perspectives on
masculinity. Men and Masculinity, 3(3), 237–260.
Appendix
a) The Attitudes Toward Gay Men (ATG) Subscale and
Its Spanish Translation
1. A las parejas de hombres homosexuales deberı́a
permitı́rseles adoptar hijos como a las parejas
heterosexuales [Male homosexual couples should
148
be allowed to adopt children the same as hetero-
sexual couples]
2. Pienso que los hombres homosexuales son repug-
nantes [I think male homosexuals are disgusting]
3. A los hombres homosexuales no deberı́a permi-
tı́rseles ense~
nar en los colegios [Male homosex-
uals should not be allowed to teach school]
4. La homosexualidad masculina es una perversi
on
[Male homosexuality is a perversion]
5. La homosexualidad masculina es una expresi
on
natural de la sexualidad masculina [Just as in
other species, male homosexuality is a natural
expression of sexuality in human men]
6. Si un hombre tiene sentimientos homosexuales,
deberı́a hacer todo lo posible para superarlos
[If a man has homosexual feelings, he should do
everything he can to overcome them]
7. Si supiera que mi hijo es homosexual yo no
estarı́a deprimido=a [I would not be too upset
learned that my son was a homosexual]
8. El sexo entre dos hombres no es natural [Homo-
sexual behavior between two men is just plain
wrong]
9. La idea del matrimonio homosexual me parece
ridı́cula [The idea of male homosexual marriages
seems ridiculous to me]
10. La homosexualidad masculina es un tipo difer-
ente de opci
on de vida que no deberı́a ser conde-
nada [Male homosexuality is merely a different
kind of lifestyle that should not be
b) The Attitudes Toward Lesbians (ATL) Subscale and Its
Spanish Translation
1. Las lesbianas no deberı́an ser integradas en
nuestra sociedad [Lesbians just can’t fit into our
society]
2. La homosexualidad de una mujer no deberı́a
ser una causa de discriminaci
on [A woman’s
homosexuality should not be a cause for job
discrimination in any situation]
3. La homosexualidad femenina es mala para
nuestra sociedad porque rompe la divisi
on
natural entre los sexos [Female homosexuality is
detrimental to society because it breaks down the
natural divisions between the sexes]
4. Las leyes que castigan la conducta sexual consen-
tida por dos mujeres adultas deben ser abolidas
[State laws regulating private, consenting lesbian
behavior should be loosened]
5. La homosexualidad femenina es un pecado
[Female homosexuality is a sin]
6. El número creciente de lesbianas indica una
declinaci

on de los valores fundamentals de nues-
tra sociedad [The growing number of lesbians
indicates a decline in American morals]
 PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF THE ATLG SCALE IN CHILE
7. La homosexualidad femenina por si misma no es
un problema a menos que la sociedad la trans-
forme en un problema [Female homosexuality
in itself is no problem, but what society makes of
it can be a problem]
8. La homosexualidad femenina es una amenaza
para muchas de nuestras instituciones sociales
Downloaded by [Universidad Del Norte] at 06:41 09 May 2012
b
asicas como la familia [Female homosexu-
ality is a threat to many of our basic social
institutions]
9. La homosexualidad es una forma inferior de
sexualidad [Female homosexuality is an inferior
form of sexuality]
10. Las lesbianas son enfermas [Lesbians are sick]
149