Factorial Invariance of the Scale Beliefs About Children’s Adjustment in Same-Sex Families in Spanish,Chilean,and Hispanic University Students

Abstract

This study examines the factorial invariance of the Scale on Beliefs About Children’s Adjustment in Same-Sex Families (SBCASSF) across countries in three samples: Chilean, Spanish, and Hispanic university students. The scale analyzes attitudes toward the consequences of the rearing and education of children by parents with a homosexual sexual orientation. The instrument consists of two subscales: Individual Opposition and Normative Opposition. The Spanish sample is composed of 199 university students, the Chilean sample is made up of 279 students, and the Hispanic sample consists of 114 students. The results provide empirical evidence for the reliability of the SBCASSF in the samples from the countries and its factorial invariance (strict invariance). Results are also provided about differences between countries and by sex. The SBCASSF could be a potentially useful measure for educators, psychologists, and other mental health professionals who wish to study beliefs about the child-rearing practices of same-sex parents.

Keywords

attitudes same-sex family children factorial invariance reliability

Introduction

The study of public opinion about the homosexual sexual orientation varies considerably among countries, revealing different levels of social acceptance (Hadler, 2012). In some countries, marriage between people of the same sex is legal (e.g., the United States, Holland, Sweden, Canada, Belgium, and Spain), whereas in others it is illegal (e.g., in different African or Eastern European countries; The International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association [ILGA], 2013). The cultural context and social norms greatly determine the beliefs and attitudes of the members of the social community, which, furthermore, vary with the social, economic, and political evolution of the country itself (Baunach, 2012). In spite of the high visibility and acceptance of lesbians and gay men, prejudice, discrimination, and hostility toward them continue to be a problem today (Gato, Fontaine, & Carneiro, 2012; Herek, 2009a). However, the expressions of rejection have changed, and now it is manifested more subtly or with microaggressions directed at individuals only because of their homosexual sexual orientation (Wegner & Wright, 2016). The meta-analysis by Katz-Wise and Hyde (2012) analyzed the victimization experiences of LGB people (lesbians, gay men, and bisexual), concluding that 55% of LGB individuals reported experiencing “verbal harassment,” 45% suffered “sexual harassment,” 40% reported “being followed,” 37% were “threatened,” and 28% were “physically assaulted,”

The variables highlighted by the literature as predictors of rejection of people with a homosexual sexual orientation are mainly linked to religious fundamentalism and religiosity (Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 1992; Barrientos, Cárdenas, Gómez, & Frias-Navarro, 2013; Burdette, Ellison, & Hill, 2005; Hunsberger & Jackson, 2005; Olson, Cadge, & Harrison, 2006; Rowatt, Tsang, Kelly, LaMartina, McCullers et al., 2006; Schwartz & Lindley, 2005), sex, (Costa & Davies, 2012; Cramer, 2002; Herek, 1988; Nagoshi et al., 2008), educational level (Kelley, 2001; Lambert, Ventura, Hall, & Cluse-Tolar, 2006; Steffens & Wagner, 2004; Van den Akker, Van der Ploeg, & Scheepers, 2013), age (Sherkat, Powell-Williams, Maddox, & de Vries, 2011; Treas, 2002), gender role identity (Harbaugh & Lindsey, 2015), and beliefs about the etiology of the homosexual sexual orientation (Frias-Navarro, Monterde-i-Bort, Pascual-Soler, & Badenes-Ribera, 2015; Overby, 2014). Thus, the most religious people, men, older people, people with less formal education, those with a masculine gender identity, and people who believe that the sexual orientation is learned show less favorable attitudes toward homosexual people. Even economic development, race, and political stability are variables that have been studied as predictors of public opinion about nonnormative behaviors like homosexuality (Adamczyk & Piit, 2009; Andersen & Fetner, 2008; Bonilla & Porter, 1990; Inglehart, 2006; Inglehart & Baker, 2000; Inglehart, Norris, & Welzel, 2002; Kelley, 2001). For example, in a Portuguese heterosexual sample, Gato and Fontaine (2016) found that men held higher levels of sexual prejudice toward gay- and lesbian-headed families than women did. However, some studies have not detected statistically significant differences in the traditional expression of heterosexual women’s prejudice toward gay men and lesbians (Frias-Navarro & Monterde-i-Bort, 2012; Herek, 1988).

Previous studies indicate that Spain, Chile, and the United States have different attitudes toward gay men and lesbians. For example, the Pew Research Center (2013) showed that 88% of the Spaniards surveyed declared that homosexuality should be accepted, with a 6-point score change compared with 2007, whereas only 68% of Chileans stated that homosexuality should be accepted, with a 4-point score change compared with 2007. In North America, only 60% of those interviewed thought homosexuality should be accepted by society. Moreover, Frias-Navarro, Monterde-i-Bort, Barrientos-Delgado, Badenes-Ribera, and Cardenas Castro (2014) showed that Spain and Chile differed in their attitudes toward same-sex parenting, with the latter being more homophobic.

In Spain, same-sex marriage has been legal since 2005, fostering the visibility of these couples and provoking an important social change in Spanish society (Arjona, Checa, Ainz, & González, 2012; Pichardo, 2011). Spanish law 13/2005 grants same-sex couples the right to marriage, inheritance, adoption, tax benefits, and divorce, in other words, exactly the same rights and obligations as heterosexual couples. The study by Stulhofer and Rimac (2009), analyzing the determinants of homo-negativity in 33 European countries, shows that Spain is among the countries with less homo-negativity, forming part of the group of countries with stable policies and democratic legal systems. However, the controversy and debate has not ended in Spain, especially regarding the question of child-rearing and adoption by same-sex couples (Jennings, Mellish, Tasker, Lamb, & Golombok, 2014; Platero, 2007).

In Chile, as in other Latin American countries, the legal situation of sexual minorities has improved in recent years (Barrientos, 2015). Moreover, the country has spent years discussing a law to regulate civil unions, which has received fierce opposition from various different sectors. Finally, civil unions between same-sex couples were recognized (living together without being married) in January 2015, but without allowing marriage or adoption. In spite of everything, discrimination, victimization, and other forms of harassment due to one’s sexual orientation are still a problem in Chile; the topic of homo-parenting produces an especially strong rejection in the Chilean population (Instituto de Investigación en Ciencias Sociales [ICSO], 2011).

In the United States, after a favorable ruling by the Supreme Court in June 2013, the Defense of Marriage Act was overturned, which specified that marriage could only take place between a man and a woman. From that point on, same-sex marriage gradually began to be legalized, until it became obligatory for all the States in June 2015, including the right to adopt children (Flores & Barclay, 2015). However, the results of the studies show that in the United States, there is still rejection of discrimination toward LGBT people and same-sex marriage (Herek, 2016; Moskowitz, Rieger, & Roloff, 2010; Mustanski, Andrews, & Puckett, 2016; Norton & Herek, 2013). Specifically, in San Francisco (California, the United States), the first organization defending the civil and political rights of lesbians was created (Daughters of Bilitis [DOB]). San Francisco has a large gay community with liberal attitudes toward sex and diversity, especially in the Castro District (Mattson, 2015). San Francisco has legally recognized marriage between same-sex couples since 2013, although it was initially approved in 2008, but this city has also suffered rejection of this minority group (Herek, 2016; Mattson, 2015; Moskowitz et al., 2010; Mustanski et al., 2016; Norton & Herek, 2013).

A recent study carried out by the Pew Research Center (2014) compares various countries in the world, including Spain, Chile, and the United States, on topics such as acceptance of homosexuality. Regarding the question “Do you personally believe that homosexuality is morally acceptable, morally unacceptable, or not a moral issue?” in Spain 55% consider homosexuality morally acceptable, and only 6% unacceptable, whereas in Chile only 45% consider homosexuality acceptable, and 32% consider it morally unacceptable. In the United States, only 23% think homosexuality is morally acceptable, and 37% think it is morally unacceptable. As Ball (2016) pointed out, it is a serious mistake to believe that the favorable resolution of the problem of equal marriage rights is the end of the fight for LGBT people (lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, and transsexuals) in the United States. Sexual stigma as a representation of the social devaluation of the homosexual sexual orientation continues to be present, even in societies that have already accepted marriage between same-sex couples (Herek, 2009b; Kite & Bryant-Lees, 2016).

The study of the perception of same-sex couples as parents is an important area of research. The legalization of same-sex marriage has made it possible to foment the visibility of the homosexual behavior, but the behavior of being a gay father or mother continues to produce rejection and discrimination in a society where individual antipathy toward gay men and lesbians is sanctioned, but where the social norm imposes heterosexist values and beliefs (Clarke, 2001; Costa, Almeida, Anselmo, & Leal, 2014). Two of the arguments most commonly used to reject same-sex parenting are the social rejection that the children would suffer (homophobic bullying; Clarke, Kitzinger, & Potter, 2004; Ellis, 2001; Tasker & Golombok, 1997) and the development of the gender identity (Clarke, 2002; Fedewa, Whitney, Black, & Ahn, 2015; Golombok, 2000). These two questions form part of the dimensions measured by the Scale on Beliefs About Children’s Adjustment in Same-Sex Families (SBCASSF; Barrientos et al., 2013; Frias-Navarro, 2009; Frias-Navarro & Monterde-i-Bort, 2012; Frias-Navarro et al., 2014).

This study analyzes the way the SBCASSF functions in Spain, Chile, and the United States (San Francisco), and how the nature of the beliefs, or the SBCASSF score, may operate differently across the samples. Spain and Chile have the official language of Spanish in common, and the majority of the Hispanics living in North America also know Spanish, but their social, political, and economic contexts vary considerably. There are large differences among the three countries regarding approval of the homosexual sexual orientation, given that attitudes toward the homosexual behavior are affected by individual circumstances and by characteristics of the national context (Van den Akker et al., 2013).

The measurement instrument consists of two subscales: the Individual Opposition subscale and the Normative Opposition subscale. The objective is to measure the two dimensions of rejection of same-sex parents: the individual dimension and the social or normative dimension, respectively.

The Individual Opposition subscale identifies opinions involving open and more aggressive rejection of the effects of the child-rearing and educational practices of same-sex parents. The attribution of the children’s possible psychological difficulties and maladjustments is directly linked to the sexual orientation of the same-sex parents. This subscale represents the dimension of individual-level antipathy toward gay men and lesbians (Franklin, 1998; Herek, 1990, 2004, 2007; Nielsen, 1990).

The Normative Opposition subscale identifies beliefs and opinions linked to everyday heterosexism, where heterosexuality is normalized, naturalized, and privileged as an institution. The items on this subscale attribute to society, and not to the subject’s own beliefs, the child’s social rejection and, consequently, his or her maladjustment due to belonging to a family with same-sex parents. It represents the social and normative dimension of the rejection of same-sex parents.

The lack of data related to the transcultural equivalence of the test among Spaniards, Chileans, and Hispanics who live in the United States has motivated our equivalence/invariance study to determine whether the SBCASSF instrument operates similarly in these three groups. Unless the invariance of the scale is shown, performing statistical comparisons of the three countries could lead to erroneous interpretations due to measurement bias (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002; Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 1998).

A scale’s measurement is invariant when there are no biases in the scores due to the existence of different patterns of relationships between the items and the latent variables (Lubke, Dolan, Kelderman, & Mellenbergh, 2003). Showing the measurement invariance of the scores is crucial to being able to compare these scores in samples from different countries. Thus, the formal and substantive equivalence of the results obtained with the same test in three different countries grants validity to statistical tests by comparing the scores from the three samples on a construct that has the same representation or significance in all three countries.

In practice, a researcher will be able to compare the results of a test applied in different contexts when evidence is provided about the metric equivalence of the measurement instrument, that is, when it has been shown that the values of the observed variables depend only on the values acquired by the latent variables, regardless of the group to which they belong (Meredith, 1993; Wu, Li, & Zumbo, 2007).

Therefore, our study has four objectives:

1. The main purpose of this study is to evaluate the metric invariance of the SBCASSF, using the scores of a sample of Spaniards, a sample of Chileans, and a sample of Hispanics who live in the United States. To test the hypothesis of the equivalence of the scores of the three samples on the SBCASSF, a study was carried out of the factorial invariance of the measure, based on four nested models that progressively increased the number of restrictions by constraining free parameters (Byrne, 2008). The models were evaluated by means of multigroup confirmatory factorial analysis (MG-CFA), and they were estimated based on the polychoric correlation matrix using the Maximum Likelihood (ML) procedure with the LISREL 8.8 software (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2006).

More specifically, first we evaluated the configural invariance to test the model fit without restrictions between the Spanish, Chilean, and Hispanic samples.

Second, we examined the weak or metric invariance and tested whether the fit continued to be good when, in addition to the equivalence of the model across the groups, the factorial weights were matched.

In the third stage of the analysis, we tested whether strong invariance is met; to do so, maintaining the conditions imposed in the two previous steps, we restricted the intercepts.

The progressive evaluation is completed by checking the fit produced at the level of strict invariance. In this latter case, a new condition is added by restricting the variances and covariances of the errors.

The three remaining objectives propose working hypotheses that will be confirmed if the factorial invariance of the instrument is shown in the three countries represented in our study sample.

2. Another objective is to test, using a within-subjects or repeated-measures design, whether in the three countries the same pattern is maintained of greater expression of normative opinions of modern rejection compared with individual opposition or more aggressive and traditional rejection (modern rejection hypothesis).

3. Between-group designs were used to analyze possible differences between men and women on the Individual Opposition and Normative Opposition subscales in each of the three countries, in order to find out whether the pattern is similar in these three social contexts.

4. Furthermore, a between-groups design was used to analyze the differences between the scores obtained by the participants from the three countries on the subscales of the SBCASSF.

Method

Participants

Convenience nonprobability sampling was used. The total sample consists of 592 heterosexual participants. The Spanish sample is composed of 199 university students (M age = 21.63, SD = 6.86), 37 men (18.6%) and 162 women (81.4%). The sample of Chilean participants is composed of 279 university participants (M age = 20.06, SD = 2.76), 106 men (38%) and 173 women (62%). And the sample of Hispanic residents in San Francisco (California, the United States) is composed of 114 university participants (M age = 32.88, SD = 12.31), 53 men (46.5%) and 61 women (53.5%).

Measures

The survey consisted of two sections.

The first section included items related to information about sociodemographic variables: sex, age, and sexual orientation (self-identification as gay man, lesbian woman, bisexual, or heterosexual). Participants who identified themselves as homosexual or bisexual were eliminated from the analyses.

The second section included the SBCASSF (Frias-Navarro, 2009; Frias-Navarro & Monterde-i-Bort, 2012). This instrument measures subjects’ beliefs about the effects of the child-rearing and educational practices of same-sex parents on the psychological and social adjustment of their children. The SBCASSF consists of 14 items distributed in two subscales: Normative Opposition and Individual Opposition, with seven items in each subscale. A Likert-type response scale is used that ranges from 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree). The higher the score, the greater the degree of rejection of the child-rearing and educational practices of same-sex parents.

Procedure

This study was part of a cross-cultural research between Spain, Chile, and the United States about group relations and attitudes toward different social groups. Participation in the study was voluntary. The participants were guaranteed anonymity in filling out the paper-and-pencil questionnaires. The questionnaires were completed during class time, and the participants obtained extra credit in the Chilean sample, but not in the Spanish sample. In San Francisco (the United States), they received an economic compensation of US$2.

In Spain and the United States, the measurement was performed when they already had a law allowing same-sex marriage, whereas in Chile, the measurement took place before the 2015 law was passed allowing same-sex marriage.

Results

Preliminary Analyses

All the values for univariate skewness and kurtosis for all the variables in the model were satisfactorily within conventional criteria for normality (−3 to 3 for skewness and −10 to 10 for kurtosis), according to the guideline suggested by Kline (2010).

Table 1 shows the mean scores and standard deviations of each of the items that make up the SBCASSF scale for each sample analyzed.

Table 1.

SBCASSF: Items, Means, and Standard Deviations: Spain, Chile and the United States.

SBCASSF item	Spain		Chile		The United States
SBCASSF item	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
1. In general, the social development of a child is better when he or she is raised by a heterosexual father and a heterosexual mother, and not by a gay/lesbian couple. (En general, el desarrollo social de un niño es mejor cuando es educado por un padre y una madre heterosexuales y no por una pareja de padres o madres homosexuales)	2.17	1.36	3.31	1.46	2.88	1.56
2. In general, children raised by gay/lesbian parents will have more problems than those who are raised by a heterosexual father and a heterosexual mother. (En general, los niños criados con padres o madres homosexuales tendrán más problemas que los que son criados por un padre y una madre)	2.20	1.20	3.05	1.41	2.88	1.41
3. It is more likely that the child will experience social isolation if his or her friends know that his or her parents are gay/lesbian person. (Es más probable que un niño sufra aislamiento social si sus amigos saben que sus padres o madres son homosexuales)	3.00	1.17	3.89	1.15	3.31	1.224
4. If children are raised by a gay or lesbian couple, they will have more problems with their own sexual identity than when they are raised by a heterosexual father and a heterosexual mother. (Si los niños son criados por padres o madres homosexuales tendrán más problemas de confusión con su propia identidad sexual que si son criados por un padre y una madre)	2.07	1.28	3.20	1.46	3.10	1.42
5. If we want to defend the interests of the child, only heterosexual couples should be able to adopt. (Si queremos defender los intereses del niño, sólo las parejas de heterosexuales deberían poder adoptar)	1.69	1.16	2.77	1.55	2.85	1.53
6. A child adopted by a gay or lesbian couple will be the butt of jokes and rejection by his or her classmates. (Un niño adoptado por una pareja de padres o madres homosexuales será objeto de broma y rechazo por parte de sus compañeros)	2.72	1.11	3.72	1.13	3.09	1.32
7. If a child is adopted by a gay or lesbian couple, she or he will surely have psychological problems in the future. (Si un niño es adoptado por una pareja de padres o madres homosexuales seguramente tendrá problemas psicológicos en el futuro)	1.77	1.03	2.67	1.36	2.83	1.40
8. Surely, the classmates will reject a child whose father or mother is gay/lesbian person. (Seguramente los compañeros rechazarán a un niño cuyo padre o madre es homosexual)	2.58	1.09	3.53	1.15	2.99	1.17
9. A child who is raised by a gay or lesbian couple will be teased by his or her classmates. (Un niño que es educado por una pareja de padres o madres homosexuales sufrirá las burlas de sus compañeros)	2.84	1.10	3.72	1.12	3.02	1.20
10. The child raised by gay or lesbian parents will probably not be chosen as a leader by his or her classmates or friends. (Probablemente el niño criado por padres o madres homosexuales no será escogido como líder por sus compañeros de clase o amigos)	2.23	1.17	2.81	1.36	2.86	1.27
11. When a child manifests same-sex sexual orientation behaviors, it would be wise to take him or her to the psychologist. (Cuando un niño manifiesta conductas homosexuales sería conveniente llevarlo al psicólogo)	1.28	0.72	3.05	1.45	2.90	1.50
12. If the parents are gay/lesbian people, it will be difficult for the child to be invited to friends’ parties. (Si los padres o madres son homosexuales será difícil que los hijos sean invitados a las fiestas de sus amigos)	1.75	0.91	2.51	1.26	2.58	1.32
13. A boy raised by lesbian mothers will be an effeminate child. (Un niño educado por madres lesbianas será un niño afeminado)	1.44	0.87	2.12	1.23	2.23	1.24
14. The child usually hides the homosexual orientation of his or her parents from his or her friends out of fear of being rejected socially. (Lo más común es que el niño oculte la orientación homosexual de sus padres a sus amigos por el temor al rechazo social)	3.03	1.25	3.87	1.17	3.31	1.38

Note. SBCASSF = Scale on Beliefs About Children’s Adjustment in Same-Sex Families.

The results of the three samples of participants show that the two items that obtain the highest scores belong to the Normative Opposition subscale and refer to the child’s problems of social isolation if the parents are of the same sex: “It is more likely that the child will experience social isolation if his or her friends know that his or her parents are gay/lesbians” (Item 3) and “The child usually hides the homosexual orientation of his or her parents from his or her friends out of fear of being rejected socially” (Item 14).

Objective 1: Factorial invariance analyses

Figure 1 presents the SBCASSF factor structure of the hypothesized model.

Figure 1.

The SBCASSF factor structure of the hypothesized model.

Factorial invariance analyses

The analyses of the results obtained are conducted considering both the goodness of fit indexes and the differences presented by these indexes compared with the configural invariance model used as the reference (Table 2). Specifically, we used the comparative fit index (CFI; Bentler, 1990), the nonnormalized fit index (NNFI; Bentler & Bonett, 1980) and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; Steiger, 1989). Cutoff criteria are usually used to evaluate their suitability. Thus, we can consider that CFI and NNFI values equal to or greater than .90 and RMSEA values equal to or smaller than .08 would indicate an adequate fit of the evaluated model (Fan & Sivo, 2005; Marsh, Hau, & Wen, 2004).

Table 2.

Factorial Invariance Analysis.

	Configural invariance	Weak invariance	Strong invariance	Strict invariance
Spanish-Chilean
RMSEA	.0561	.0547	.0530	.0336
90% confidence interval	[.0449, .0671]	[.0438, .0653]	[.0418, .0638]	[.0180, .0461]
NNFI	.992	.992	.993	.997
CFI	.993	.993	.994	.997
Hispanic (the United States)-Spanish
RMSEA	.0767	.0760	.0745	.0769
90% confidence interval	[.0638, .0895]	[.0636, .0882]	[.0619, .0868]	[.0651, .0887]
NNFI	.982	.983	.983	.982
CFI	.985	.984	.985	.982
Hispanic (the United States)-Chilean
RMSEA	.0717	.0710	.0697	.0732
90% confidence interval	[.0604, .0818]	[.0602, .0818]	[.0588, .0807]	[.0629, .0835]
NNFI	.986	.986	.986	.985
CFI	.988	.987	.988	.985

Note. RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; NNFI = nonnormalized fit index; CFI = comparative fit index.

Regarding the differences between the indexes of each model evaluated, following Cheung and Rensvold (2002), we consider a change equal to or greater than .01 to be inadequate, compared with the model used as the base.

Configural invariance

By constraining the model to two dimensions and 14 observed variables for the Spanish, Chilean, and Hispanic samples, it can be observed that the scale presents the same configuration in all three cases, with adequate goodness of fit indexes (CFI ≥ .985; NNFI ≥ .982, RMSEA ≥ .0561).

Thus, the results obtained allow us to state that the people in the three samples use the same conceptual framework to respond to the items that make up the scale; therefore, there is configural invariance (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002; Vandenberg & Lance, 2000).

Weak or metric invariance

The factor loadings of the items in each of the latent variables are equal in the three groups, and a change of a unit in an item produces, in the Spanish, Chilean, and Hispanic samples, the same change in the score on the factor with which it is associated (Wu et al., 2007).

Analyzing the fit indexes, it can be observed that they reach adequate levels (CFI ≥.984; NNFI ≥ .992, RMSEA ≥ .0547). At the same time, the differences between these values and those of the configural invariance level are less than .01. Therefore, we can state that the regression lines are equal in the two samples considered.

Strong invariance

When focusing on the third step in the analysis, we observe that the goodness of fit indexes continue to be adequate (CFI ≥ .985; NNFI ≥ .983, RMSEA ≥ .0530), and the differences in the indexes compared with the reference model are situated at levels less than .01. In light of these results, we can state that both the factor loadings and the intercepts are the same in all three samples.

Strict invariance

In the last step of the progressive analysis of the factorial invariance, strict invariance was evaluated. In this case, not only are the factor loadings and the intercepts equal in the three samples but also the variances and covariances of the errors. Whether we look at the fit indexes (CFI ≥ .982; NNFI ≥ .982, RMSEA = .0336) or analyze the differences compared with the base model, we are able to assert the equivalence of the three samples included in the study.

Objective 2: Within-groups comparison of the individual opposition and normative opposition scores in the three countries

The mean scores obtained on the Normative Opposition subscale are higher than those on the Individual Opposition subscale in the three samples studied, with the difference being statistically significant in Spain (intrasubjects ANOVA, F(1, 200) = 251.28, p < .001, η² = .58), in Chile (intrasubjects ANOVA, F(1, 278) = 141.47, p < .001, η² = .34), and in the United States (intrasubjects ANOVA, F(1, 114) = 11.22, p = .001, η² = .09; see Table 3). The magnitude of the difference between the means on the two subscales is much greater in Spain and Chile, with quite large effect sizes, compared with the sample from the United States, where the eta-squared effect is medium.

Table 3.

Descriptive Statistics, Correlation Between the Subscales, and Reliability Coefficients (95% CI).

	Spanish sample		Chilean sample		Hispanic sample
	Individual opposition	Normative opposition	Individual opposition	Normative opposition	Individual opposition	Normative opposition
M	12.87	18.23	20.15	24.01	19.59	21.15
SD	6.33	6.16	8.15	6.76	7.33	6.66
Minimum	7	7	7	7	7	7
Maximum	32	32	35	35	35	35
n	199		279		114
r	.71 (p < .001)		.75 (p < .001)		.74 (p < .001)
Cronbach’s α	.90	.90	.92	.91	.84	.85
95% CI	[.88, .92]	[.88, .92]	[.90, .93]	[.90, .93]	[.80, .88]	[.81, .89]

Note. CI = confidence interval.

Objective 3: Comparison of the scores of men and women in the three countries

The analysis of the mean scores of men and women shows that the men’s scores are higher than the women’s on the Individual Opposition subscale in the samples from Spain (between-subjects ANOVA, F(1, 202) = 16.95, p < .001, η² = .08), Chile (between-subjects ANOVA, F(1, 279) = 13.23, p < .001, η² = .06), and the United States (between-subjects ANOVA, F(1, 121) = 7.55, p = .007, η² = .06). However, when the data were analyzed for the Normative Opposition subscale, the men obtained higher scores than the women in Spain (between-subjects ANOVA, F(1, 199) = 12.18, p = .001, η² = .06) and Chile (between-subjects ANOVA, F(1, 279) = 12.86, p < .001, η² = .04), but the differences are not statistically significant in the sample of Hispanic participants living in the United States (between-subjects ANOVA, F(1, 118) = 3.73, p = .056, η² = .03). The mean scores of the men and women who participated in the study appear on Table 4.

Table 4.

Mean (SD) Scores of Men and Women on Individual Opposition and Normative Opposition and Sample Size.

	Individual opposition			Normative opposition
	Spanish	Chilean	Hispanic	Spanish	Chilean	Hispanic
Men	16.89 (7.62)	22.39 (8.08)	21.64 (6.97)	21.27 (6.23)	25.76 (6.68)	22.38 (6.20)
n	37	106	53	37	106	53
Women	11.95 (5.63)	18.77 (7.91)	17.80 (7.21)	17.53 (5.94)	22.94 (6.60)	20.08 (6.90)
n	162	173	61	162	173	61
n total	199	279	114

Objective 4: Between-groups comparisons of the mean scores of the samples from the three countries

As a measure of effect size, we used the proportion of explained variance by means of eta-squared (η²) when performing the ANOVA and the Pearson r coefficient. Cohen (1988) established a conventional interpretation of effect sizes where Pearson r = .10 is considered a small effect, r = .30 is a medium-sized effect, and r = .50 is a large effect. In addition, eta-squared interpreted as η² = .1 is a small effect size, η² = .06 is a medium effect size, and η² = .14 is a large effect size. These guidelines are used throughout this article to interpret the results (Navarro, Llobell, & Pérez, 2000.

Table 3 presents the descriptive statistics and reliability coefficients estimated by Cronbach’s alpha (95% CI) for each subscale in the three samples of participants. In the three countries, the level of internal consistency of the scores obtained on the subscales was adequate, with alpha values above .83.

The analysis of the differences in the mean scores of the three samples of participants on the SBCASSF scale shows that the three groups differ in a statistically significant way, both on the Individual Opposition subscale (ANOVA, F(2, 589) = 60.89, p < .001, η² = .17), and on the Normative Opposition subscale (ANOVA, F(2, 589) = 45.70, p < .001, η² = .13).

The analysis of the a posteriori Tukey test shows that the Chilean sample obtains higher scores than the Spanish (p < .001) and Hispanic (p < .001) participants on the Normative Opposition subscale, and the difference between the scores of the Hispanic and Spanish samples is also statistically significant (p < .001). The Spanish participants obtain the lowest scores on the Normative Opposition subscale, followed by the Hispanics and Chileans. On the Individual Opposition subscale, the Spanish participants also obtain the lowest scores, differing in a statistically significant way from the Chileans (p < .001) and the Hispanics living in the United States (p < .001). In this case, the difference between the mean scores of the Chilean and Hispanic participants is not statistically significant (p = .777). On the Individual Opposition subscale, the Spanish participants obtain the lowest mean score of the three groups, and the difference between the Chileans and Hispanics is not statistically significant.

The Pearson correlation coefficient values between the two subscales of the SBCASSF instrument are high and statistically significant in the three samples studied (see Table 3).

Discussion

The results of our study point out the equivalence of the factorial structure of the SBCASSF in the sample of Spanish, Chilean, and Hispanic university students. Items loaded on the same factor (configural invariance), magnitudes of factor loadings were the same (factor loading invariance), and regression intercepts relating each item to the factor were similar (intercept invariance). In summary, the scale achieved strict invariance. Therefore, the instrument has been shown to measure the construct in the same way in the three samples.

In addition, the results show that the theoretical structure defended by the authors of the instrument regarding modern prejudice is supported in the three countries analyzed. As the authors state (Frias-Navarro & Monterde-i-Bort, 2012), based on the theory of modern prejudice, in modern societies there has been a transformation toward more subtle forms of rejection of lesbians and gay men, with the rejection extending to the child-rearing practices of same-sex parents. In effect, the individual and more aggressive rejection, characteristic of the traditional rejection, is lower, with the more subtle and indirect rejection, based on the social norm and not on personal arguments, predominating. This pattern of responses is replicated in the three countries studied.

The analysis of the differences by sex shows that the men obtain higher scores than the women on individual or traditional opposition in the three countries studied, supporting the relationship described in the literature between the sex of the subject and the attitudes toward same-sex parenting (Barrientos et al., 2013; Frias-Navarro & Monterde-i-Bort, 2012; Gato & Fontaine, 2013). Moreover, this pattern is also maintained between the Spanish and Chilean men when rating normative rejection based on the heterosexist norm, but this pattern is not maintained in the case of Hispanic men, given that their scores do not differ from those of the women. The results from the literature are not unanimous, as some authors have not found sex differences in the attitudes toward same-sex parents (Baiocco, Nardelli, Pezzuti, & Lingiardi, 2013; Swank & Raiz, 2010). Therefore, more studies are needed to understand the role of sex in explaining sexual prejudice toward same-sex parenting, especially from the theoretical perspective of modern prejudice.

Regarding the differences between the countries, Spain stands out with less rejection of same-sex parents from both the traditional and modern or normative perspectives. Spain has been consolidated as a country that recognizes all the civil rights of same-sex parents and does not distinguish between marriage between heterosexuals and same-sex couple unions. Chileans and Hispanics do not differ on their individual or traditional assessment of same-sex parents, but Chileans obtain higher scores on the Normative Opposition or Modern Rejection subscale. On this point, it should be kept in mind that when the evaluation in Chile was carried out, same-sex marriage was still not allowed, whereas in Spain and the United States, the evaluation was performed when they already had same-sex marriage laws. Thus, it would be necessary to perform a new study with a sample from Chile, given that same-sex marriage was passed in 2015.

This study has limitations. One of the limitations of our study is the type of sample used in Spain, Chile, and the United States. Broader and more representative samples are probably needed. Thus, it would be advisable to broaden this type of study to other groups of subjects, such as adults without higher studies and professionals, as well as replicating the study with university students. Furthermore, it should be taken into account that since the time of our data collection, Chile has passed a law that regulates unions between same-sex couples. Our data represent a point of comparison between the time before this law was passed and data from future studies, making it possible to study the possible effects of the legislation on attitudes toward unions between same-sex couples, as well as the perception of their quality as parents.

Given the results of the study, it appears that the SBCASSF could be a potentially useful measure for educators, psychologists, and other mental health professionals who wish to study beliefs about the child-rearing practices of same-sex parents. One of the main advantages of this instrument is its dimensionality, which allows it to measure individual antipathy toward same-sex parents and, above all, normative and subtle rejection of these parents. This type of normative rejection can be studied within the line of research on modern prejudice, which highlights that discrimination and rejection of members of minority groups (gay men, lesbian, immigrants, handicapped people, etc.) can be expressed in a socially acceptable way. External arguments are used that mask the expression of prejudice and the defense of heteronormativity, adopting a more tolerant attitude toward the prejudice (Frias-Navarro, Barrientos-Delgado, Badenes-Ribera, Monterde-i-Bort, & Cárdenas-Castro, 2013; McConahay, 1986; Meertens & Pettigrew, 1997; Morrison, Morrison, & Franklin, 2009; Pettigrew & Meertens, 1995). The radical transformation of modern societies has fostered the decriminalization of homosexuality and the elaboration of laws to protect lesbians and gay men from discrimination and violence. This change requires the social normalization of intimate relationships between same-sex couples, as well as their role as parents. For this purpose, having measurement instruments adapted to the change that has occurred in the manifestation of prejudice is fundamental to finding modern evidence of prejudice. Understanding negative attitudes toward same-sex parents is essential in order to promote supportive attitudes, tolerance, and equality, and develop prevention policies and practices.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the participants who responded to their questions.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was financed by the VALi+d program for predoctoral Training of Research Personnel (ACIF/2013/167), Conselleria d’Educació, Cultura i Esport, Generalitat Valenciana (Spain).

Author Biographies

Marcos Pascual-Soler. Psychologist. PhD. Associate Professor. Statistical analysis and research methods, discrimination and rejection of parents of the same sex, homophobia.

Dolores Frias-Navarro. Psychologist. PhD. Associate Professor. Statistical analysis and research methods, meta-researcher, discrimination and rejection of parents of the same sex, homophobia.

Jaime Barrientos-Delgado. Psychologist. PhD. Sexual behavior and gender relations, prejudice and discrimination towards minorities.

Laura Badenes-Ribera. Psychologist. PhD. Assistant Professor. Research Methods, rejection of parents of the same sex, homophobia.

Hector Monterde-i-Bort. Psychologist. PhD. Associate Professor. Statistical analysis and research methods, discrimination and rejection of parents of the same sex, homophobia.

Manuel Cárdenas Castro. Psychologist. PhD. Associate professor. Prejudice and social discrimination of minorities.

José Berrios-Riquelme. Social worker. PhD Candidate. Assistant Professor. Self-perceived prejudice, human mobility, discrimination and stigma.

References

Adamczyk

Piit

(2009). Shaping attitudes about homosexuality: The role of religion and cultural context. Social Science Research, 38, 338-351. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.01.002

Altemeyer

Hunsberger

(1992). Authoritarianism, religious fundamentalism, quest, and prejudice. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 2, 113-133. doi:10.1207/s15327582ijpr0202_5

Andersen

Fetner

(2008). Economic inequality and intolerance: Attitudes toward homosexuality in 35 democracies. American Journal of Political Science, 52, 942-958. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2008.00352.x

Arjona

Checa

J. C.

Ainz

González

M. J.

(2012). Same sex marriages in Spain: The case of international unions. Anthropological Notebooks, 18, 23-40.

Baiocco

Nardelli

Pezzuti

Lingiardi

(2013). Attitudes of Italian heterosexual older adults towards lesbian and gay parenting. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 10, 285-292. doi:10.1007/s13178-013-0129-2

Ball

C. A.

(2016). Introduction: The past and the future. In Bal

C. A.

(Ed.), After marriage equality. The future of LGBT rights (pp. 1-16). New York: New York University Press.

Barrientos

(2015). Violencia homofóbica en América Latina y Chile. Santiago de Chile, Chile: Ediciones El Buen Aire.

Barrientos

Cárdenas

Gómez

Frias-Navarro

(2013). Assessing the dimensionality of beliefs about children’s adjustment in same-sex families scale (BCASSFS) in Chile. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 10(1), 43-51. doi:10.1007/s13178-012-0107-0

Baunach

D. M.

(2012). Changing same-sex marriage attitudes in America from 1988 through 2010. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76, 364-378. doi:10.1093/poq/nfs022

10.

Bentler

P. M.

(1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238

11.

Bentler

P. M.

Bonett

D. G.

(1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588

12.

Bonilla

Porter

(1990). A comparison of Latino, Black, and Non-Hispanic White attitudes toward homosexuality. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 12, 437-452.

13.

Burdette

A. M.

Ellison

C. G.

Hill

(2005). Conservative Protestantism and tolerance toward homosexuals: An examination of potential mechanisms. Sociological Inquiry, 75, 177-196. doi:10.1111/j.1475-682X.2005.00118.x

14.

Byrne

B. M.

(2008). Testing for multigroup equivalence of a measuring instrument: A walk through the process. Psicothema, 20, 872-882.

15.

Cheung

G. W.

Rensvold

R. B.

(2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233-255. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5

16.

Clarke

(2001). What about the children? Arguments against lesbian and gay parenting. Women’s Studies International Forum, 24, 555-570.

17.

Clarke

(2002). Sameness and difference in research on lesbian parenting. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 12, 210-222.

18.

Clarke

Kitzinger

Potter

(2004). “Kids are just cruel anyway”: Lesbian and gay parents’ talk about homophobic bullying. British Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 531-550.

19.

Cohen

. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New Jersey, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

20.

Costa

P. A.

Almeida

Anselmo

Leal

A. I.

(2014). University students’ attitudes toward same-sex parenting and gay and lesbian rights in Portugal. Journal of Homosexuality, 61, 1667-1686. doi:10.1080/00918369.2014.951253

21.

Costa

P. A.

Davies

(2012). Portuguese adolescents’ attitudes toward sexual minorities: Transphobia, homophobia and gender role beliefs. Journal of Homosexuality, 59, 1424-1442. doi:10.1080/00918369.2012.724944

22.

Cramer

E. P.

(Ed.). (2002). Addressing homophobia and heterosexism on college campuses. Binghamton, NY: Harrington Park Press.

23.

Ellis

S. E.

(2001). Doing being liberal: Implicit prejudice in focus group talk about lesbian and gay human rights issues. Lesbian & Gay Psychology Review, 2, 43-9.

24.

Fan

Sivo

S. A.

(2005). Sensitivity of Fit Indexes to misspecified structural or measurement model components: Rationale of two-index strategy revisited. Structural Equation Models, 12, 343-367. doi:10.1207/s15328007sem1203_1

25.

Fedewa

A. L.

Whitney

Black

W. W.

Ahn

(2015). Children and adolescents with same-gender parents: A meta-analytic approach in assessing outcomes. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 11, 1-34. doi:10.1080/1550428X.2013.869486

26.

Flores

Barclay

(2015). Backlash, consensus, legitimacy, or polarization: The effect of same-sex marriage policy on mass attitudes. Political Research Quarterly, 69(1), 43-56. doi:10.1177/1065912915621175

27.

Franklin

(1998). Unassuming motivations: Contextualizing the narratives of antigay assailants. In Herek

G. M.

(Ed.), Stigma and sexual orientation: Understanding prejudice against lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals (pp. 1-23). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

28.

Frias-Navarro

(2009). Scale on Beliefs About Children’s Adjustment in Same-Sex Families (SBCASSF). Valencia, Spain: University of Valencia. Retrieved from http://www.uv.es/friasnav/Scale_Items14.pdf

29.

Frias-Navarro

Barrientos-Delgado

Badenes-Ribera

Monterde-i-Bort

Cárdenas-Castro

(2013). Sex differences in sexual prejudice: Contact as mediator variable. European Journal of Child Development, Education and Psychopathology, 1, 45-58.

30.

Frias-Navarro

Monterde-i-Bort

(2012). Scale of Beliefs about Children’s Adjustment in Same-Sex Families: Reliability and validity. Journal of Homosexuality, 59, 1273-1288. doi:10.1080/00918369.2012.720505

31.

Frias-Navarro

Monterde-i-Bort

Barrientos-Delgado

Badenes-Ribera

Cardenas Castro

(2014). Beliefs about children’s adjustment in same-sex families: Spanish and Chilean University students. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 17, 1-9. doi:10.1017/sjp.2014.5

32.

Frias-Navarro

Monterde-i-Bort

Pascual-Soler

Badenes-Ribera

(2015). Etiology of homosexuality and attitudes toward same-sex parenting: Results from a randomized study. Journal of Sex Research, 52, 151-161. doi:10.1080/00224499.2013.80275

33.

Gato

Fontaine

A. M.

(2013). Anticipation of the sexual and gender development of children adopted by same-sex couples. International Journal of Psychology, 48, 244-253. doi:10.1080/00207594.2011.645484

34.

Gato

Fontaine

A. M.

(2016). Attitudes toward adoption by same-sex couples: Effects of gender of the participant, sexual orientation of the couple, and gender of the child. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 12, 46-67. doi:10.1080/1550428X.2015.1049771

35.

Gato

Fontaine

A. M.

Carneiro

N. S.

(2012). Multidimensional scale of attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: Construction and preliminary validation. Paidéia, 22, 11-20.

36.

Golombok

(2000). Parenting: What really counts. London, England: Routledge.

37.

Hadler

(2012). The influence of world societal forces on social tolerance: A time comparative study of prejudices in 32 countries. The Sociological Quarterly, 53, 211-237. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.2012.01232.x

38.

Harbaugh

Lindsey

E. W.

(2015). Attitudes toward homosexuality among young adults: Connections to gender role identity, gender-typed activities, and religiosity. Journal of Homosexuality, 62, 1098-1125. doi:10.1080/00918369.2015.1021635

39.

Herek

G. M.

(1988). Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: Correlates and gender differences. Journal of Sex Research, 25, 451-477. doi:10.1080/00224498809551476

40.

Herek

G. M.

(1990). The social context of hate crimes: Notes on cultural heterosexism. In Herek

G. M.

Berrill

K. T.

(Eds.), Hate crimes: Confronting violence against lesbians and gay men (pp. 89-104). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

41.

Herek

G. M.

(2004). Beyond “homophobia”: Thinking about sexual prejudice and stigma in the twenty-first century. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 1, 6-24.

42.

Herek

G. M.

(2007). Confronting sexual stigma and prejudice: Theory and practice. Journal of Social Issues, 63, 905-925. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2007.00544.x

43.

Herek

G. M.

(2009a). Hate crimes and stigma-related experiences among sexual minority adults in the United States: Prevalence estimates from a national probability sample. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 54-74.

44.

Herek

G. M.

(2009b). Sexual stigma and sexual prejudice in the United States: A conceptual framework. In Hope

D. A.

(Ed.), Contemporary perspectives on lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities: The 54th Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 65-111). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-09556-1

45.

Herek

G. M.

(2016). The social psychology of sexual prejudice. In Nelson

T. D.

(Ed.), Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination (2nd ed., pp. 355-384). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

46.

Hunsberger

Jackson

L. M.

(2005). Religion, meaning, and prejudice. Journal of Social Issues, 61, 807-826. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2005.00433.x

47.

Inglehart

(2006). Mapping global values. Comparative Sociology, 5, 114-136. doi:10.1163/156913306778667401

48.

Inglehart

Baker

W. E.

(2000). Modernization, cultural change, and the persistence of traditional values. American Sociological Review, 65, 19-51.

49.

Inglehart

Norris

Welzel

(2002). Gender equality and democracy. Comparative Sociology, 1, 321-345. doi:10.1163/156913302100418628

50.

Instituto de Investigación en Ciencias Sociales. (2011). Chile 2010. Social perceptions and attitudes. Report from the sixth national UDP survey [Chile 2010. Percepciones y actitudes sociales. Informe de la sexta encuesta nacional UDP]. Santiago, Chile: Instituto de Investigación en Ciencias Sociales, Universidad Diego Portales.

51.

The International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association. (2013). State-sponsored homophobia. A world survey of laws: Criminalisation, protection and recognition of same-sex love. Retrieved from http://old.ilga.org/Statehomophobia/ILGA_State_Sponsored_Homophobia_2013.pdf

52.

Jennings

Mellish

Tasker

Lamb

Golombok

(2014). Why adoption? Gay, lesbian and heterosexual adoptive parents’ reproductive experiences and reasons for adoption. Adoption Quarterly, 17, 205-226. doi:10.1080/10926755.201.891549

53.

Jöreskog

K. G.

Sörbom

(2006). LISREL 8.80 for Windows [Computer software]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.

54.

Katz-Wise

S. L.

Hyde

J. S.

(2012). Victimization experiences of lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sex Research, 49, 142-167. doi:10.1080/00224499.2011.637247

55.

Kelley

(2001). Attitudes towards homosexuality in 29 nations. Australian Social Monitor, 4, 15-21.

56.

Kite

M. E.

Bryant-Lees

K. B.

(2016). Historical and contemporary attitudes toward homosexuality. Teaching of Psychology, 43, 164-170. doi:10.1177/0098628316636297

57.

Kline

R. B.

(2010). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

58.

Lambert

E. G.

Ventura

L. A.

Hall

D. E.

Cluse-Tolar

(2006). College students’ views on gay and lesbian issues. Journal of Homosexuality, 50, 1-30. doi:10.1300/J082v50n04_01

59.

Lubke

G. H.

Dolan

C. V.

Kelderman

Mellenbergh

G. J.

(2003). On the relationship between sources of within-and between-group differences and measurement invariance in the common factor model. Intelligence, 31, 543-566. doi:10.1016/S0160-2896(03)00051-5

60.

Marsh

H. W.

Hau

Wen

(2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cut-off values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralization Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 320-341. doi:10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2

61.

Mattson

(2015). Style and the value of gay nightlife: Homonormative place making in San Francisco. Urban Studies, 52, 3144-3159. doi:10.1177/0042098014555630

62.

McConahay

J. B.

(1986). Modern racism, ambivalence and the modern racism scale. In Dovidio

J. F.

Gaertner

S. L.

(Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination and racism (pp. 91-127). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

63.

Meertens

R. W.

Pettigrew

T. F.

(1997). Is subtle prejudice really prejudice? Public Opinion Quarterly, 61, 54-71.

64.

Meredith

(1993). Measurement Invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58, 525-543.

65.

Morrison

M. A.

Morrison

T. G.

Franklin

(2009). Modern and old-fashioned homonegativity among samples of Canadian and American university students. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40, 523-542. doi:10.1177/0022022109335053

66.

Moskowitz

D. A.

Rieger

Roloff

M. E.

(2010). Heterosexual attitudes toward same-sex marriage. Journal of Homosexuality, 57, 325-336. doi:10.1080/00918360903489176

67.

Mustanski

Andrews

Puckett

J. A.

(2016). The effects of cumulative victimization on mental health among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender adolescents and young adults. American Journal of Public Health, 106, 527-533. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2015.302976

68.

Nagoshi

J. L.

Adams

K. A.

Terrell

H. K.

Hills

E. D.

Brzuzy

Nagoshi

C. T.

(2008). Gender differences in correlates of homophobia and transphobia. Sex Roles, 59, 521-531.

69.

Navarro

M. D. F.

Llobell

J. P.

Pérez

J. F. G.

(2000). Effect size of the treatment and statistical significance. Psicothema, 12, 236-240.

70.

Nielsen

J. H.

(1990). Heterosexism: Redefining homophobia for the 1990s. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy, 1, 21-35. doi:10.1300/J236v01n03_02

71.

Norton

A. T.

Herek

G. M.

(2013). Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward transgender people: Findings from a national probability sample of U.S. adults. Sex Roles, 68, 738-753. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-0110-6

72.

Olson

R. R.

Cadge

Harrison

J. T.

(2006). Religion and public opinion about same-sex marriage. Social Science Quarterly, 87, 340-360. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2006.00384.x

73.

Overby

L. M.

(2014). Etiology and attitudes: Beliefs about the origins of homosexuality and their implications for public policy. Journal of Homosexuality, 61, 568-587. doi:10.1080/00918369.2013.806175

74.

Pettigrew

T. F.

Meertens

R. W.

(1995). Subtle and blatant prejudice in Western Europe. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 57-75.

75.

Pew Research Center. (2013). The global divide on homosexuality. Retrieved from http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/06/04/the-global-divide-on-homosexuality/

76.

Pew Research Center. (2014). Global views on morality. Retrieved from http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/04/15/global-morality/

77.

Pichardo

J. I.

(2011). We are family (or not): Social and legal recognition of same-sex relationships and lesbian and gay families in Spain. Sexualities, 14, 544-561. doi:10.1177/1363460711415217

78.

Platero

(2007). Love and the state: Gay marriage in Spain. Feminist Legal Studies, 15, 329-340. doi:10.1007/s10691-007-9064-z

79.

Rowatt

Tsang

J. A.

Kelly

LaMartina

McCullers

McKinley

(2006). Associations between religious personality dimensions and implicit homosexual prejudice. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 3, 397-406. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2006.00314.x

80.

Schwartz

J. P.

Lindley

L. D.

(2005) Religious fundamentalism and attachment: Prediction of homophobia. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 15, 145-157. doi:10.1207/s15327582ijpr1502_3

81.

Sherkat

D. E.

Powell-Williams

Maddox

de Vries

H. M.

(2011). Religion, politics, and support for same-sex marriage in the United States, 1988-2008. Social Science Research, 40, 167-180. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.08.009

82.

Steenkamp

J. B. E.

Baumgartner

(1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 78-107.

83.

Steffens

Wagner

(2004). Attitudes toward lesbians, gay men, bisexual women, and bisexual men in Germany. Journal of Sex Research, 41, 137-149. doi:10.1080/00224490409552222

84.

Steiger

J. H.

(1989). EzPATH: Causal modeling. Evanston, IL: SYSTAT.

85.

Stulhofer

Rimac

(2009). Determinants of homonegativity in Europe. Journal of Sex Research, 46, 24-32. doi:10.1080/00224490802398373

86.

Swank

Raiz

(2010). Predicting the support of same-sex relationship rights among social work students. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 22, 149-164. doi:10.1080/10538720903332552

87.

Tasker

Golombok

(1997). Growing up in a lesbian family: Effects on child development. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

88.

Treas

(2002). How cohorts, education, and ideology shaped a new sexual revolution on American attitudes toward nonmarital sex, 1972-1998. Sociological Perspectives, 45, 267-283. doi:10.1525/sop.2002.45.3.267

89.

Van den Akker

Van der Ploeg

Scheepers

. (2013). Disapproval of homosexuality: Comparative research on individual and national determinants of disapproval of homosexuality in 20 European countries. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 25, 64-85. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edr058

90.

Vandenberg

R. J.

Lance

C. E.

(2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4-70. doi:10.1177/109442810031002

91.

Wegner

Wright

A. J.

(2016). A psychometric evaluation of the Homonegative Microaggressions Scale. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health, 20, 299-318. doi:10.1080/19359705.2016.1177627

92.

A. D.

Zumbo

B. D.

(2007). Decoding the meaning of factorial invariance and updating the practice of multi-group confirmatory factor analysis: A demonstration with TIMSS data. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 12, 1-26. Retrieved from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=12&n=3