Enacted Sexual Stigma,Stigma Consciousness,and Subjective Happiness Scale Adaptation

Abstract

Violence against people due to their sexual orientation is a phenomenon that exists within a framework of sexual stigma and sexual prejudice that can result in enacted stigma. The present study primarily aimed to validate the Stigma Consciousness Questionnaire (SCQ) and the Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS; for lesbian, gay, and bisexual [LGB] populations) in the Spanish context by using samples from two countries (Spain [N = 157] and the United States [N = 83]). Also, to examine how the construct of stigma consciousness correlates with anti-LGBQ (anti–lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer) hate crime victimization and violent incidents, as well as examine whether the former influences subjective happiness. The population from the United States reported higher stigma consciousness and received more anti-LGBQ threats and insults. Hate crime victimization was the same across the two samples and positively correlated with violent incidents in both samples. Subjective happiness was negatively correlated with SCQ, although its subscales it did not correlate with enacted stigma measures.

Keywords

violence against GLBT hate crimes sexual assault

Heterosexism, Homophobia, Sexual Stigma, and Sexual Prejudice

Herek (1989) uses heterosexism to describe an ideological system that denies, denigrates, and stigmatizes any non-heterosexual form of behavior, identity, relationship, or community. Herek, Gillis, and Cogan (2009) views heterosexism as a structural phenomenon that is enacted in two ways: first, that everyone is viewed as heterosexual until proven otherwise, and second, that visible non-heterosexuals are problematized. The structure and institution of heterosexism creates the environment where sexual stigma can exist, and can be expressed with enacted sexual stigma. Enacted sexual stigma refers to violent incidents such as anti-LGBQ (anti–lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer) slurs through hate crimes (Herek et al., 2009).

Research carried out in the United States has shown that institutional heterosexism such as policy and laws can influence health in sexual minority individuals on several levels: psychological distress (e.g., Hatzenbuehler, 2014; Hatzenbuehler, Keyes, & Hasin, 2009; Rostosky, Riggle, Horne, & Miller, 2009), positive psychological experiences (e.g., Riggle, Rostosky, & Horne, 2010), and reducing health care costs (e.g., Hatzenbuehler et al., 2012). In Spain, legal equality was granted in 2005 with marriage recognition and posterior discrimination protection.

The terms heterosexism and sexual stigma are utilized in this article because homophobia etymologically means “fear of the same” or “fear of equality”. This study reports violent incidents and hate crimes against lesbian, gay, Queer, and bisexual individuals, not the “fear of equality” of the perpetrators. No data were collected from aggressors regarding their motives, so the authors can only speculate within the framework of heterosexist violence theory. In all cases, following the narrow etymological definition of the word homophobia as “fear of the same,” verbal and physical homophobic aggressions would refer to incidences committed by heterosexuals against other heterosexuals. For, theoretically, their fear of the same would motivate aggression against members of the same group. When George Weinberg coined the term homophobia in the 1960s, he referred to what might be more appropriately named homosexophobia (Boswell, 1980). Although the use of homophobia continues in academic literature, these authors consider heterosexism a more adequate framework for discussing and studying anti-LGBQ stigma and violence.

Enacted Sexual Stigma

This article reports two kinds of enacted sexual stigma: violence incidents and hate crimes. Violent incidents are considered to be types of interpersonal violence that do not result in bodily harm: being chased, objects thrown at, being spit on, and verbal attacks (insults and threats). Hate crimes, in this study, are physical attacks that could injure the person or damage his or her property. Hate crimes are, as classified by Kelly, Maghan, and Tennant (1993), the victimization of the stigmatized. The stigmatization of a group creates an environment where hate crimes can be committed. This mechanism exists in a sociocultural historic moment and may not be enacted in the same way if these circumstances are changed. An anti-LGBQ hate crime is a crime motivated by the perpetrator’s bias against the victim’s sexual orientation.

Stigma Consciousness

Stigma consciousness was first described by Elizabeth Pinel in her 1999 article as a distinct construct that could potentially reveal more information about perceived and actual experiences of stereotyping among targets of stereotypes. Berghe, Dewaele, Cox, and Vincke (2010) elaborated by stating that stigma consciousness is the sensitivity that lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) individuals experience in reference to others’ disapproval of personal characteristics or beliefs that could be perceived as against cultural norms. LGBQ sexual stigma is a type of psychological victimization of a group that attaches unmerited shame and disgrace to non-heterosexual sexual desire orientations; this is accompanied by undoubted psychological repercussions. Research in the United States suggests that a stigmatized status can increase psychological distress (e.g., Talley & Bettencourt, 2011). Stigma can also have physiological consequences and negatively affect health (e.g., Hatzenbuehler et al., 2014; Huebner & Davis, 2007). There is no validated instrument in Spanish for measuring sexual minority stigma consciousness. A positive outcome is that high levels of stigma consciousness may correlate with high group consciousness and this could lead individuals to fight for social justice (Pinel, 1999, pp. 126-127).

Stigma consciousness is not exclusive to sexual minorities, it can occur in other stereotyped demographics including women, racial minorities (Pinel, 1999), and people living with disabilities (Carrasco, Martín, & Molero, 2013). In a study in Spain, a negative relationship between stigma consciousness and quality-of-life satisfaction was found in people living with disabilities (Carrasco et al., 2013). Positive, as well as negative, stereotypes may evoke stigma consciousness as shown with stereotypes with regard to superior intelligence in Asian Americans resulting in higher anxiety (Son & Shelton, 2011).

Hatzenbuehler et al. (2014) showed a link between life expectancy and living in areas with high/low anti-gay prejudice. The Pew Research Center showed that in 2013 60% of U.S. participants felt that society should accept homosexuality, while 88% of Spanish survey-takers affirmed the same. According to COGAM (2008), 69% of participants with a sexual minority identity had experienced a minimum of one heterosexist incident in their lifetime. A meta-analysis of studies carried out in the United States found that 55% experienced verbal harassment (Katz-Wise & Hyde, 2012). Same-sex marriage recognition, adoption rights, and anti-discrimination laws vary greatly from state to state in the United States. Spain was the first country to grant full legal equality (marriage recognition, anti-discrimination laws, and access to adoption; Piñero Quintana, 2012).

Subjective Happiness

“It appears that the way people perceive the world is much more important to happiness than objective circumstances” (Diener, Lucas, & Oishi, 2002, p. 68). The Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS) was designed to provide a measure of global subjective happiness, a self-report measure assessing to what degree respondents consider themselves to be a happy or unhappy person (Lyubomirsky & Lepper, 1999).

Research Purposes

This is part of a larger study titled “The Positive and Negative Aspects of Being Non-Heterosexual.” This project was ideated to study realities of being LGBQ in a heterosexist society through using a positive psychology base. The present article primarily aimed to validate the Stigma Consciousness Questionnaire (SCQ) and the SHS in the Spanish context using a two-country sample. Another aim was to examine how the construct of stigma consciousness correlates with anti-LGBQ hate crime victimization and violent incidents, as well as examine whether the former influences subjective happiness. A two-country design allows for exploring how these constructs relate in the different societies and whether these constructs, previously used to study LGBQ experiences in the United States, are applicable in the Spanish context.

Including subjective happiness was deemed important to avoid heterosexual bias in research and to not re-victimize an already stigmatized population. Although stigma consciousness and victimization have negative psychological ramifications, resilience cannot be indicated if not sought in a study design. Resilience is defined as positive adaptation within a context of significant adversity (Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker, 2000). In the present study, adversity is measured through awareness of a stigmatized status with stigma consciousness, and enacted sexual stigma is assessed with violent incidents and hate crimes. Positive adaptation and resilience are operationally measured through subjective happiness.

Within LGBQ psychology, there is a growing advocacy for research about positive attributes (Savin-Williams, 2008), resilience, and psychological well-being. In order to represent the reality of LGBQ experiences in heterosexist societies must include both the negative aspects caused by sexual stigma of others as well as resilience to avoid an identity of victims. This can enable the application of factors relating to how those who enjoy an overall psychological and physical well-being to those who are struggling.

Method

Participants

Participation was requested through national and local LGBQ associations and organizations throughout both countries. Associations shared the study link with their members through their e-mail lists, websites, blogs, and on social networks. Participants were asked to share the link with people in their lives who might have been interested. Participants read an informational page and gave informed consent through continuing with the online survey.

A total of 83 people residing in various parts of the United States who self-identified as non-heterosexual—gay (n = 34), lesbian (n = 18), bisexual (n = 19), or Queer (n = 12)—completed the survey, with a mean age of 28.8 years (SD = 10.7). Overall, 42% had completed an undergraduate degree, 31% a graduate degree, and 27% secondary education at the time of study participation. People from 20 states and the District of Columbia completed the survey. Virginia and Ohio were the most frequent (12%) followed by California and Connecticut (10%); New York, Maryland, Texas, Oregon, and Wisconsin (6%); Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Washington, and Washington, District of Colombia (< 5%). In all, 43% live in an urban municipality, 17% in a rural area, and 40% in suburbs.

A total of 157 people residing throughout Spain who self-identified as non-heterosexual—gay (n = 62), lesbian (n = 57), bisexual (n = 35), or Queer (n = 3)—participated in the study, with mean age of 31.0 years (SD = 10.24). Of all of the participats, 43% had completed an undergraduate degree when the study was carried out, 22% trade school, 17% secondary education, and 8% a graduate degree. People residing in 13 of the 17 Autonomous Communities participated, 29% in Madrid, 28% in the Valencian Community, 16% in Catalonia, 11% in Andalusia, 6% in Aragon, 3% in Canary Islands and in Castile and León, 1% in Extremadura, Galicia, the Balearic Islands, Murcia, and the Basque Country. In all, 81% reside in an urban area, 15 % in rural regions, 3% in suburbs, and 1% in sexual minority neighborhoods.

Measures and Procedure

The study consisted of an online survey using 12 different instruments, 4 of which are reported here: the Stigma Consciousness Questionnaire, Violent Incidents, Anti-LGBQ Hate Crimes, and the Subjective Happiness Scale. To validate the adapted versions of the instruments, a two-country design was used. The data from the United States were collected to permit comparison between both language versions and were not intended to be a representative sample of that country. Other researchers have used similar multi-language designs for test validation (e.g., Beller, Gafni, & Hanani, 2005).

The first part of the survey served to gather socio-demographic information including age, sexual identity, sexual orientation, level of studies, relationship status, nationality, type of municipality, and religion. The survey included the SCQ (Pinel, 1999), a 10-item scale evaluated using a 7-point Likert-type scale (0 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree). The original scale was designed only for gay men and lesbian women; this version was modified to include people who identify as bisexual. Higher scores indicate higher perceived stigmatized status: stigma consciousness. Pinel (1999) reports one factor in the factor analyses but two subscales in the theoretical framework: Stigma Beliefs and Stigma Experiences. The mean scores of the two subscales are used to calculate overall stigma consciousness.

Questions relating to violent incidents and hate crimes from Herek and Glunt (1995) were used. This section does not form a scale and asks straight forward questions about the participants’ experiences. To collect information about hate crimes, participants were first asked “Have you ever been the victim of any sort of crime or attempted crime—such as a physical attack, sexual assault, robbery, or vandalism—because someone thought you were lesbian, gay, or bisexual?” and in the case of an affirmative answer, they were asked when the incident(s) happened, the nature of the incident(s), if a weapon was utilized by the aggressor, and if they were reported to the authorities for as many anti-LGBQ crimes that may have occurred. Hate crimes are considered incidents that caused physical harm to a person or their property, in contrast to violent incidents that did not result in physical or bodily harm.

The following question was also used to inform about violent incidents: “Other than the events you have already described, how often have any of the following things happened to you in the last year because someone perceived you to be lesbian, gay or bisexual?.” The types of violent incidents included being threatened with violence, verbally insulted or abused, spit on, objects thrown at, and chased, with the response options of never, once, twice, or 3 or more times. The variable for Violent Incidents for the correlations analyses was calculated based on the total number of violent incidents experienced for each of the sub questions; for the response of 3 or more times, 3 was the number utilized for the calculations. For the variable of Hate Crimes in the correlations analyses, the total number of hate crime victimization incidents was used.

Lyubomirsky and Lepper’s (1999) 4-item SHS was used and scored on a 1 to 7 Likert-type scale. The scale has been validated in Chile by Vera-Villarroel, Celis-Atenas, and Córdova-Rubio (2011), and in Spain by Extremera and Fernández-Berrocal (2013). These two studies were published after the present study had begun.

The SCQ, SHS, and Herek and Glunt’s (1995) violent incident and hate crimes questions were adapted from English to Spanish following the International Test Commission Guidelines for Translating and Adapting Tests (International Test Commission, 2010). The Item Translation and Adaptation Review Form (Hambleton & Zenisky, 2010) was applied to attempt to reduce possible item bias.

Data Analysis

Principal components analysis (PCA) was used to ensure that the translated Spanish versions were measuring the same constructs as the original English versions and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to evaluate structural equivalence. Research has demonstrated that minimum sample size “rules of thumb” are not necessary to achieve adequate recovery in EFA (MacCallum, Widaman, Preacher, & Hong, 2001; Preacher & MacCallum, 2002). If communalities are high, recovery of population factors in sample data is normally very good, almost regardless of sample size or the presence of model error (MacCallum et al., 2001). MacCallum, Widaman, Zhang, and Hong (1999) report that a sample size between 100 and 200 is adequate when communalities are in the range of .5 and there is a small number of factors; for smaller sample sizes to be adequate, a mean level of communality of .7 is desirable. MacCallum et al. (2001) state that the same effects of good recovery should generalize from EFA to confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).

Oblique rotations were selected to allow for the factors to correlate as is customary in behavioral research (Costello & Osborne, 2005). Tests of adequacy are reported for PCA and principal axis factoring (PAF) to demonstrate that performing factorial analyses was appropriate. Significant results for Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity inform that the correlation matrix is an identity matrix and that the data are adequate for performing factorial analysis. Minimum loading for an individual item is considered to be .32 (Costello & Osborne, 2005). Likelihood ratio tests are reported, and good model fit is indicated when the null hypothesis is not rejected.

CFAs were performed using LIRSEL 9. To assess the model in CFA, the following criteria were used: for incremental fit indices, a cut-off between .95 (Hu & Bentler, 1999) and .97 (Schermelleh-Engel, Moosbrugger, & Müller, 2003), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) < .06 is considered good (Hu & Bentler, 1999), and a χ² / df ratio between 1 and 3 (Carmines & McIver as cited by Sierra, Ortega, & Zubeidat, 2006). Recommendations from Jackson, Gillaspy, and Purc-Stephenson (2009) were also followed.

Results

Scales

Stigma Consciousness

PCAs were performed on each language version. These analyses initially found three components with heavy cross-loading for Items 3 and 9. The wording for Item 3 was determined to be potentially confusing to participants and combines elements of both components that are covered in other items (“When interacting with heterosexuals who know my sexual preference, I feel like they interpret all my behaviors in terms of the fact that I am an LGB person”), whereas Item 9 (“I often think that heterosexuals are unfairly accused of being lesbophobic/homophobic/biphobic”) regards sexual prejudice of others, which is addressed by other items.

Maximum likelihood analyses with promax rotations were performed with each language version to test one-factor, two-factor, and 8-item models. The two-factor model accounts for approximately 40% of the total variance in both language versions. For the English version, the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sample adequacy was .684 and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was significant, χ²(45) = 183.53, p < .001, with alpha values as follows: Stigma Beliefs α = .54, Stigma Experiences α = .73, Stigma Consciousness α = .73. For the Spanish version, the KMO measure of sample adequacy was .770 and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was significant, χ²(45) = 326.47, p < .001 (see Table 1), with alpha values as follows: Stigma Beliefs α = .66, Stigma Experiences α = .68, Stigma Consciousness α = .75. These alphas are comparable with other studies using the English version: Pinel (1999), α = .81; Berghe et al. (2010), α = .76; Lewis et al. (2003), α = .74; Lewis, Derlega, Clarke, and Kuang (2006), α = .68.

Table 1.

Factor Loadings and Communalities Based on a Maximum Likelihood Analyses With Promax Rotation of the Stigma Consciousness Questionnaire: English Version (N = 83) and Spanish Version (N = 157).

		English Version: 1 Factor. 10 Items		Spanish Version: 1 Factor. 10 Items		English Version: 2 Factors, 10 Items			Spanish Version: 2 Factors. 10 Items
English Version Items	Spanish Version Items	Factor Loading	Communality	Factor Loading	Communality	Factor Loading Experiences	Factor Loading Beliefs	Communality	Factor Loading Experiences	Factor Loading Beliefs	Communality
1. Stereotypes about LGB people have not affected me personally.	1. Los estereotipos sobre personas LGB no me afectan personalmente.	.51	.26	25	.06	.52		.27	.31		.11
2. Never worry that my behaviors will be viewed as stereotypical of LGB people.	2. Nunca me preocupo de que nus actos sean vistos como estereotipo LGB.	.46	.21	.32	.10	.49		.25	.35		.12
3. When interacting with heterosexuals who know my sexual preference. I feel like they interpret all my behaviors in terms of the fact that I am an LGB person.	3. Cuando me relaciono con personas heterosexuales que conocen mi orientación sexual, me siento como si interpretaran todos nus actos como estereotipo LGB.	.30	.09	45	.20		.37	.16	.38	.43	.22
4. Most heterosexuals do not judge LGB people on the basis of their sexual preference.	4. La mayoría de los heterosexuales no juzgan a las personas LGB por su orientación sexual	.42	.17	.67	.45	.37	.50	.31	.58	.60	.45
5. My being an LGB person does not influence how other LGB people act with me.	5. Ser LGB no influye como las personas LGB actúan conmigo.	.55	.30	50	.25	.57		.33	.56		.32
6. I almost never think about the fact that I am an LGB person when I interact with heterosexuals.	6. Casi nunca pienso sobre el hecho de que soy LGB cuando me relaciono con personas heterosexuales.	.71	.50	.62	.38	.71		.51	.67	.34	.45
7. My being an LGB person does not influence how people act with me.	7. Ser LGB no influye en cómo la gente actúa conmigo.	.80	.65	.74	.55	.80		.64	.76	.47	.59
8. Most heterosexuals have a lot more lesbophobic/homophobic/biphobic thoughts than they actually express.	8. La mayoría de las personas heterosexuales tienen muchos más pensamientos homofóbicos/lesbofóbicos/bifóbicos de lo que rea hílente expresan.	.19	.04	.44	.19		.81	.68		.65	.43
9. I often think that heterosexuals are unfairly accused of being lesbophobic/homophobic/biphobic.	9. A veces pienso que las personas heterosexuales son injustamente acusadas de ser homo lesbo bifóbicas.	.33	.11	.39	.15	.31	.21	.11	.37		.14
10. Most heterosexuals have a problem viewing LGB people as equals.	10. A la mayoría de las personas heterosexuales les cuesta considerar a las personas LGB como iguales.	.18	.03	.47	.22		.47	.21		.78	.63
Eigenvalues		2.36		2.56		2.42	1.01		2.64	.83
Percentage of total variance		23.63		25.57		24.23	10.46		26.41	8.25
Likelihood ratio test		χ²(35) = 72.38, p < .001		χ²(35) = 90.52, p < .001		χ²(26) = 43.46, p = .017			χ²(26) = 37.43, p =.068

Note. Factor loadings < .30 suppressed. LGB = lesbian, gay, and bisexual.

CFA was used to test the four models in both languages. Maximum likelihood estimation was used because skewness was less than 2.0 and kurtosis less than 7.0, within the recommendations of Curran, West, and Finch (1996). By eliminating Items 3 and 9, RMSEA improved and non-normed fit index (NNFI) and comparative fit index (CFI) increased. The one-factor models did not meet fit requirements. Whereas the two-factor models proved better, the two-factor eight-item model best satisfied fit requirements (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Overall Fit Indexes for Four Models of the Spanish and English Versions of the Stigma Consciousness Questionnaire.

Model	χ²	df	p	χ²/df ratio	RMSEA	NNFI	CFI
Spanish, 1 factor 10 items	52.46	33	.017	1.60	.06	.66	.96
English, 1 factor 10 items	48.74	33	.038	1.48	.08	.89	.92
Spanish, 2 factors, 10 items	41.29	32	.126	1.29	.04	.97	.98
English, 2 factors, 10 items	43.43	32	.084	1.36	.07	.92	.94
Spanish, 2 factors, 8 items	28.61	18	.053	1.60	.06	.95	.97
English, 2 factors, 8 items	21.99	18	.232	1.22	.05	.96	.98
Spanish, 1 factor, 8 items	24.29	19	.146	1.28	.05	.97	.98
English, 1 factor, 8 items	29.25	18	.045	1.63	.09	.90	.93

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

Overall, Stigma Consciousness and it subscale scores were as follows: in the U.S. sample, Stigma Experiences, M = 2.62, SD = 1.04; Stigma Beliefs, M = 3.31, SD = 1.04; and Stigma Consciousness, M = 2.97, SD = 0.81; in the Spanish sample, Stigma Experiences, M = 1.89, SD = 1.00; Stigma Beliefs, M = 3.25, SD = 1.47; and Stigma Consciousness, M = 2.57, SD = 1.01.

A Mann–Whitney U test was performed indicating that American residents experience higher overall stigma consciousness (Mdn = 3.07) than residents of Spain (Mdn = 2.67; U = 4914.5, Z = −3.13, p = .002, r = −.20). A Mann–Whitney U test was also performed for the subscale for stigma experiences, which found that LGBQ individuals in the United States have more frequent stigma experiences (Mdn = 2.80) than those in Spain (Mdn = 1.80; U = 3927.5, Z = −5.07, p < .001, r = −.33). But, there was no significant effect for the Stigma Beliefs subscale, in the United States (Mdn = 3.33) and Spain (Mdn = 3.33).

Violent incidences

Overall, 66% of the U.S. sample received heterosexist insults on at least one occasion in the past year (18% of which on two occasions and 31% on three or more) compared with 42% of the Spanish sample (8% of which twice and 15% of which three or more; U = 45775, Z = −4.08, p < .001, r = .28).

In all, 30% of the Americans who participated reported heterosexist threats in the past year, nearly double the incidence in the Spanish group (16%), although the Mann–Whitney U test did not yield significant differences (U = 5625, Z = −2.46, p = .70).

In the U.S. sample, 3% were spat on, 15% were chased, and 14% had had object(s) thrown at them on at least one occasion in the prior 12 months due to others’ perception of their sexual orientation status. Of the Spanish participants, 9% were spat on, 13% were chased, 10% had had object(s) thrown at them at least once in the preceding 12 months by other individuals due to their judgments of the participants’ desire orientation. No statistically significant differences in the two samples were found in the Mann–Whitney U tests (see Table 3).

Table 3.

Violent Incidents in the Last 12 Months in Spain (N = 157) and the United States (N = 83) by Sexual Orientation Identity.

Country	Type of Violent Incident	0 Times	1 Time	2 Times	3 or More Times
Spain	Insulted	Gay 55%	Gay 21%	Gay 7%	Gay 18%
		Lesbian 60%	Lesbian 23%	Lesbian 9%	Lesbian 9%
		Bisexual 66%	Bisexual 6%	Bisexual 9%	Bisexual 20%
		Queer 0%	Queer 67%	Queer 33%	Queer 0%
United States	Insulted	Gay 38%	Gay 15%	Gay 15%	Gay 32%
		Lesbian 40%	Lesbian 11%	Lesbian 17%	Lesbian 33%
		Bisexual 39%	Bisexual 32%	Bisexual 16%	Bisexual 16%
Spain	Threatened	Gay 84%	Gay 5%	Gay 7%	Gay 5%
		Lesbian 80%	Lesbian 16%	Lesbian 4%	Lesbian 2%
		Bisexual 91%	Bisexual 3%	Bisexual 0%	Bisexual 6%
		Queer 100%	Queer 0%	Queer 0%	Queer 0%
United States	Threatened	Gay 62%	Gay 21%	Gay 8%	Gay 8%
		Lesbian 78%	Lesbian 11%	Lesbian 0%	Lesbian 11%
		Bisexual 79%	Bisexual 16%	Bisexual 5%	Bisexual 0%
		Queer 67%	Queer 33%	Queer 0%	Queer 0%
Spain	Chased	Gay 87%	Gay 10%	Gay 0%	Gay 3%
		Lesbian 88%	Lesbian 7%	Lesbian 2%	Lesbian 4%
		Bisexual 86%	Bisexual 6%	Bisexual 3%	Bisexual 6%
		Queer 100%	Queer 0%	Queer 0%	Queer 0%
United States	Chased	Gay 85%	Gay 9%	Gay 0%	Gay 6%
		Lesbian 89%	Lesbian 6%	Lesbian 0%	Lesbian 6%
		Bisexual 90%	Bisexual 0%	Bisexual 11%	Bisexual 0%
		Queer 75%	Queer 17%	Queer 8%	Queer 0%
Spain	Object thrown at	Gay 86%	Gay 8%	Gay 2%	Gay 5%
		Lesbian 97%	Lesbian 2%	Lesbian 0%	Lesbian 2%
		Bisexual 89%	Bisexual 3%	Bisexual 3%	Bisexual 6%
		Queer 100%	Queer 0%	Queer 0%	Queer 0%
United States	Object thrown at	Gay 85%	Gay 9%	Gay 6%	Gay 0%
		Lesbian 83%	Lesbian 11%	Lesbian 0%	Lesbian 6%
		Bisexual 90%	Bisexual 5%	Bisexual 0%	Bisexual 5%
		Queer 83%	Queer 8%	Queer 8%	Queer 0%
Spain	Being spat on	Gay 89%	Gay 5%	Gay 3%	Gay 3%
		Lesbian 93%	Lesbian 5%	Lesbian 0%	Lesbian 2%
		Bisexual 94%	Bisexual 0%	Bisexual 3%	Bisexual 3%
		Queer 100%	Queer 0%	Queer 0%	Queer 0%
United States	Being spat on	Gay 97%	Gay 3%	Gay 0%	Gay 0%
		Lesbian 89%	Lesbian 6%	Lesbian 0%	Lesbian 6%
		Bisexual 100%	Bisexual 0%	Bisexual 0%	Bisexual 0%
		Queer 100%	Queer 0%	Queer 0%	Queer 0%

Anti-LGBQ hate crimes

In all, 85% of all participants, in both countries, reported having not been a victim of an anti-LGBQ hate crime in their lifetime up to the time of participation in this study. Of the 15% that did, the type of hate crimes perpetrated varied by country. In Spain, the most reported included physical assault (40%), attempted physical assault (35%), property break-in (10%), followed by vandalism, attempted vandalism, and attempted sexual assault (5%, each). In the United States, of the 15% who reported hate crime victimization, the seemingly anti-LGBQ hate crime of choice was sexual assault (58%), followed by vandalism (17%), physical assault, attempted physical assault, and mugging (8%). Although the percentage of hate crime survivors was the same in the two countries, the nature of these crimes varied drastically, χ²(7, N = 32) = 21.63, p = .003 (see Table 4).

Table 4.

Hate Crime Victimization by Country and Sexual Orientation.

		Sexual Orientation
Country	Type of Hate Crime and Percent Within Country	Gay	Lesbian	Bisexual	Queer
Spain	Physical assault (40%)	63%	25%	13%	0%
	Sexual assault (0%)	0%	0%	0%	0%
	Mugging (0%)	0%	0%	0%	0%
	Property break-in (10%)	0%	100%	0%	0%
	Vandalism (5%)	100%	0%	0%	0%
	Attempted physical assault (35%)	43%	57%	0%	0%
	Attempted sexual assault (5%)	0%	100%	0%	0%
	Attempted robbery (5%)	0%	100%	0%	0%
United States	Physical assault (40%)	100%	0%	0%	0%
	Sexual assault (58%)	29%	14%	14%	14%
	Mugging (8%)	100%	0%	0%	0%
	Property break-in (0%)	0%	0%	0%	0%
	Vandalism (8%)	50%	0%	0%	50%
	Attempted sexual assault (8%)	0%	0%	0%	100%
	Attempted physical assault (0%)	0%	0%	0%	0%
	Attempted vandalism (0%)	0%	0%	0%	0%

Of the sexual assault survivors in the United States, 43% self-identified as gay, 29% as lesbian, 14% as bisexual, and 14% as Queer. In the United States, none of these hate crimes were committed with a weapon, whereas 15% (n = 3) of those in Spain were committed with weapons. About 22% of the American survivors reported the crime compared with 16% of the Spanish. In the United States, the majority of these crimes were committed after 2010 (58%), whereas in Spain between 2000 and 2009 was the most frequent decade (42%).

Subjective happiness

A PAF was done on both language versions. For the English version, the KMO measure of sampling adequacy was 0.821, and the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was significant, χ²(6) = 225.219, p < .001. For the Spanish version, KMO measure of sampling adequacy was 0.752, and the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was significant, χ²(6) = 192.43, p < .001; see Table 5).

Table 5.

Factor Loadings and Communalities Based on a Principal Axis Factoring Without Rotation for Four Items of the Subjective Happiness Scale: English Version (N = 83) and Spanish Version (N = 157).

	English Version		Spanish Version
Item	Factor Loading	Communality	Factor Loading	Communality
1	.89	.80	.85	.83
2	.91	.82	.74	.55
3	.83	.69	.64	.41
4	.75	.56	.57	.33
Eigenvalues	2.87		2.01
Percentage of total variance	71.68		50.23

The Spanish adaptation showed acceptable internal consistency, α = .77, and the English version showed good internal consistency, α = .91. Spanish participants reported higher subjective happiness (M = 5.13, SD = 0.09) than those residing in the United States (M = 4.82, SD = 1.59) although this was not statistically significant.

Correlations

Hate crime survivors’ subjective happiness did not significantly correlate with their survivor status in either country, but Stigma Experiences, Beliefs, and Consciousness did negatively correlate in both countries. Hate crime victimization positively correlated with Violent Incidents in Spain and the United States, indicating that those who are victimized tend to be so in a range of ways and repeatedly (see Table 6).

Table 6.

Spearman Correlations for VI, Discrimination, HC, the SCQ and Its Subscales, and the SHS for the English and Spanish Versions.

	VI	HC	SE	SB	SC
USA
VI	—
HC	.478**	—
SE	.262*	.210	—
SB	.295*	.161	.302**	—
SC	.371**	.253*	.882**	.686**	—
SH	.064	−.043	−.323**	−.145	−.318**
Spain
VI	—
HC	.256**	—
SE	.234**	.105	—
SB	.176*	.163*	.415**	—
SC	.254**	.193*	.830**	.831**	—
SH	−.001	−.072	−.309**	−.292**	−.347**

Note. VI = violent incidents; HC = hate crime victimization; SE = stigma experiences; SB = stigma beliefs; SC = stigma consciousness; SH = subjective happiness.

Correlation is significant at the .05 level (two-tailed). **Correlation is significant at the .01 level (two-tailed).

Discussion

The adapted version of the SCQ with two factors and eight items showed adequate model fit. Participants in both countries reported moderate stigma consciousness with median levels around 3 where the maximum is 6, comparable with the 3.99 mean stigma consciousness reported in Lewis et al. (2006) in 105 lesbian women in the United States. There are no reports surveying Spanish LGB populations with the SCQ to compare with.

The U.S. participants reported higher levels of stigma consciousness and more violent incidents than their Spanish counterparts. The study sample was not representative and therefore cannot be extrapolated to national populations. Nevertheless, reported experiences for the participants residing in Spain were less negative than those residing in the United States. The disparities in violent incidents found could be due to a higher prevalence of verbal aggressions toward LGB individuals in the United States or a difference in interpretation of these events. The frequency of insulting and threatening words by others, which would lead a participant to report a verbal violent incident in these two societies, was not measured and is unknown. It could be that verbal aggression is more common in the United States or that Spanish participants did not interpret these words to be insults or threats and therefore do not report verbal violent incidents as frequently. The Pew Research Center (2013) study suggests that Spain is more accepting of non-exclusively heterosexual sexual orientation and this could be a reason for lower rates of some kinds of enacted stigma and lower stigma consciousness reported. Areas with lower structural heterosexism (legal rights) and lower enacted sexual stigma (violent incidents) may be more positive environments for people with LGB identities.

Violent incidents and hate crime victimization positively correlated with stigma consciousness and its subscales. This suggests that the higher prevalence of violent incidents in the United States could be a factor in the higher stigma consciousness reported. Stigma consciousness negatively correlated with subjective happiness in both countries. This suggests that the awareness of other’s stereotyping influences an individual’s happiness. Hate crime survivor status and violent incidents did not significantly correlate with happiness.

Limitations

The small sample size means that this data cannot be extrapolated to the general LGBQ populations of either country and this study is not representative. However, the aim of the study was to adapt and validate these instruments so that these constructs can be adequately measured in the Spanish language. Participants were recruited through LGB associations in both countries and this could represent a sampling bias because people who are not members of these associations were not actively sought. Using an online data collection method could imply a sampling bias as those who do not have access to information technologies could not participate. Subjective Happiness was operationally used as a measure of resilience. For a more in-depth understanding of resilience as a dynamic process and to identify protective factors, more measures would be required.

Research Implications

The adaptation and validation of SCQ and the SHS in the Spanish language allows for research both in the United States with Spanish-speaking populations and for cross-national research. Further validation studies with Spanish-speaking populations in countries other than Spain would be necessary, but the contribution of adapted versions facilitates this process. The resulting eight-item short version of the SCQ adds to its utility.

The higher occurrence of verbally enacted stigma in the United States presents for interesting future research particularly with the individuals who exercise this violence. The results regarding hate crimes and the different patterns of violence in these two countries raise many questions. One of which is the reason for statistically significant higher incidence of sexual violence in the United States.

Clinical Implications

Given the small sample size, it is not prudent to extrapolate these findings to national populations. However, there was a high incidence of sexual violence reported by U.S. participants and 29% of those who disclosed sexual violence hate crime victimization identify as gay men. This is much higher than the 9% national average of male survivors reported by the U.S. Department of Justice (Weiss, 2010). Although more research is required to determine whether this is an anomaly, clinicians should be prepared for sexual violence disclosure in the therapy room and how to work with survivors. Special attention should be paid to how overlapping identities as male and gay can be affected by hate crime survivor status.

Higher stigma consciousness was shown by other authors to be detrimental to physical and mental health. These results suggest a link between violent incidents and hate crime victimization and higher stigma consciousness, as well as higher stigma consciousness negatively correlating subjective happiness. De-stigmatizing identities and encouraging contact with other LGB individuals can enable people to pluralize their discourse and promote the development of positive identities (Sala & De La Mata Benitez, 2009). These themes could be beneficial in the therapy room to counteract the effects of anti-LGB violence.

Conclusion

Both the SHS and the SCQ proved to be adequate and robust measures in both languages for LGB populations.

The enacted stigma of violent incidences can be divided into more physical (chased, being spat on, objects thrown at) and verbal (insults and threats). More than 80% of participants from both countries did not experience a physical violent incident in the past year. Nevertheless, the rate of verbal violence is alarmingly high, especially in the United States. Perhaps it is easier to manifest stigma verbally than physically, or it is more socially acceptable to use this type of violence.

In all, 85% of the collective sample has eluded anti-LGBQ hate crime. In the U.S. sample, the seeming hate crime of choice was sexual assault, whereas in Spain it was physical assault. Stigma Consciousness and Stigma Experiences were statistically significantly higher in the United States than in Spain and the average of Stigma Beliefs was the same. Enacted stigma measures positively correlated with Stigma Consciousness, suggesting that these influence in stigma consciousness formation. The overall scores for SCQ and its subscales revealed moderate Stigma Consciousness for both countries.

Subjective happiness, although higher in Spain than in the United States, was high overall. Subjective happiness was negatively correlated with SCQ and its subscales yet did not correlate with enacted stigma measures indicating resilience.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

In the United States, Beta Gamma Chi Fraternity, Canvass for a Cause, Marriage Equality USA, and LGBTQ Centers at various universities actively collaborated through forwarding or posting the study link and information. In Spain, COLEGAS; Associació de Famílies Lesbianes i Gais; Gais, Lesbianes, Bisexuales i Transsexuales del Camp de Tarragon; the Lesbiana Quejica blog; and Ponte en mi Piel on Rádio Círculo collaborated with publicity for the study.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Jenna Strizzi is a researcher associated with the University of Almería.

Inmaculada Fernández-Agis is a professor in the psychology department at the University of Almeria.

Tesifon Parrón-Carreño is a professor in the nursing, physical therapy, and medicine department at the University of Almeria.

Raquel Alarcón-Rodríguez is a professor in the nursing, physical therapy, and medicine department at the University of Almeria.

References

Beller

Gafni

Hanani

(2005). Constructing, adapting, and validating admissions tests in multiple languages. In Hambleton

R. K.

Merenda

P. F.

Spielberger

(Eds.), Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment (pp. 297-320). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Berghe

W. V.

Dewaele

Cox

Vincke

(2010). Minority-specific determinants of mental well-being among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40, 153-166. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00567.x

Boswell

(1980). Christianity, social tolerance, and homosexuality: Gay people in Western Europe from the beginning of the Christian era to the fourteenth century. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Carrasco

L. F.

Martín

Molero

(2013). Conciencia de estigma y calidad de vida en personas con discapacidad física y sensorial [Stigma consciousness and quality of life in people with physical and sensorial disability]. International Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 259-271.

COGAM Colectivo de Lesbianas, Gays, Transexuales y Bisexuales de Madrid [Lesbian, gay, transexual and bisexual collective of madrid]. (2008). Sondeo COGAM homofobia 2008 [COGAM homophobia survey]. Retrieved from http://www.cogam.es/secciones/stop-homotransfobia/documentos/i/429153/492/resultados-del-sondeo-de-sos-homofobia-2008

Costello

A. B.

Osborne

J. W.

(2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analyses: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(7), 1-9.

Curran

P. J.

West

S. G.

Finch

J. F.

(1996). The robustness of test statistics to non normality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1, 16-29. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.16

Diener

Lucas

R. E.

Oishi

(2002). Subjective well-being. In Snyder

C. R.

Lopez

S. J.

(Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 63-73). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Extremera

Fernández-Berrocal

(2014). The Subjective Happiness Scale: Translation and preliminary psychometric evaluation of a Spanish version. Social Indicators Research, 119, 473-481. doi:10.1007/s11205-013-0497-2

10.

Hambleton

R. K.

Zenisky

(2010). Translating and adapting tests for cross-cultural assessments. In Matsumoto

D. R.

Vijver

F. J.

(Eds.), Cross-cultural research methods in psychology (pp. 46-74). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

11.

Hatzenbuehler

M. L.

(2014). Structural stigma and the health of lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 127-132. doi:10.1177/0963721414523775

12.

Hatzenbuehler

M. L.

Bellatorre

Lee

Finch

B. K.

Muennig

Fiscella

(2014). Structural stigma and all-cause mortality in sexual minority populations. Social Science & Medicine, 103, 33-41. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed. 2013.06.005

13.

Hatzenbuehler

M. L.

Keyes

K. M.

Hasin

D. S.

(2009). State-level policies and psychiatric morbidity in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations. American Journal of Public Health, 99, 2275-2281. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/215085195?accountid=14477

14.

Hatzenbuehler

M. L.

O’Cleirigh

Grasso

Mayer

Safren

Bradford

(2012). Effect of same-sex marriage laws on health care use and expenditures in sexual minority men: A quasi-natural experiment. American Journal of Public Health, 102, 285-291. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/963359537?accountid=14477

15.

Herek

G. M.

(1989). Hate crimes against lesbians and gay men: Issues for research and policy. American Psychologist, 44, 948-955. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.44.6.948

16.

Herek

G. M.

Gillis

J. R.

Cogan

J. C.

(2009). Internalized stigma among sexual minority adults: Insights from a social psychological perspective. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56, 32-43. doi:10.1037/a0014672

17.

Herek

G. M.

Glunt

E. K.

(1995). Identity and community among gay and bisexual men in the AIDS era: Preliminary findings from the Sacramento men’s health study. In Herek

G. M.

Greene

(Eds.), AIDS, identity and community: The HIV epidemic and lesbians and gay men (pp. 55-84). Newbury Park, CA: Sage .

18.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/619339397?accountid=14477

19.

Huebner

D. M.

Davis

M. C.

(2007). Perceived antigay discrimination and physical health outcomes. Health Psychology, 26, 627-634. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.26.5.627

20.

International Test Commission. (2010). International Test Commission guidelines for translating and adapting tests. Available from http://www.intestcom.org

21.

Jackson

D. L.

Gillaspy

J. A.

Purc-Stephenson

(2009). Reporting practices in confirmatory factor analysis: An overview and some recommendations. Psychological Methods, 14, 6-23. doi:10.1037/a0014694

22.

Katz-Wise

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

23.

Kelly

R. J.

Maghan

Tennant

(1993). Hate crimes, victimizing the stigmatized. In Bias crime: American law enforcement and legal responses (pp. 23-47). Chicago, IL: Office of International Criminal Justice, University of Illinois at Chicago.

24.

Lewis

R. J.

Derlega

V. J.

Clarke

E. G.

Kuang

J. C.

(2006). Stigma consciousness, social constraints, and lesbian well-being. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53, 48-56.

25.

Lewis

R. J.

Derlega

V. J.

Griffin

J. L.

Krowinski

A. C.

(2003). Stressors for gay men and lesbians: life stress, gay-related stress, stigma. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology; 22(6), 716-729.

26.

Luthar

S. S.

Cicchetti

Becker

(2000). The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71, 543-601. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/65321395?accountid=14477

27.

Lyubomirsky

Lepper

H. S.

(1999). A measure of subjective happiness: Preliminary reliability and construct validation. Social Indicators Research, 46, 137-155. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/619427511?accountid=14477

28.

MacCallum

R. C.

Widaman

K. F.

Zhang

Hong

(1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4(1), 84-99.

29.

MacCallum

R. C.

Widaman

K. F.

Preacher

K. J.

Hong

(2001). Sample size in factor analysis: The role of model error. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36, 611-637.

30.

Pew Research Center. (2013, June 4). The global divide on homosexuality: Greater acceptance in more secular and affluent countries. Retrieved from http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2014/05/Pew-Global-Attitudes-Homosexuality-Report-REVISED-MAY-27-2014.pdf

31.

Pinel

E. C.

(1999). Stigma consciousness: The psychological legacy of social stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 114-128. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.1.114

32.

Piñero Quintana

(2012, July 3). Francia será el país número 12 en reconocer el matrimonio homosexual [France will be the 12th country to recognize homosexual marriage]. El País. Retrieved from http://sociedad.elpais.com/sociedad/2012/07/03/actualidad/1341339981_634167.html

33.

Preacher

K. J.

MacCallum

R. C.

(2002). Exploratory factor analysis in behavior genetics research: Factor recovery with small sample sizes. Behavior Genetics, 32, 153-161.

34.

Riggle

E. D. B.

Rostosky

S. S.

Horne

(2010). Does it matter where you live? Nondiscrimination laws and the experiences of LGB residents. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 7, 168-175. doi:10.1007/s13178-010-0016-z

35.

Rostosky

S. S.

Riggle

E. D. B.

Horne

S. G.

Miller

A. D.

(2009). Marriage amendments and psychological distress in lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) adults. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56, 56-66. doi:10.1037/a0013609

36.

Sala

De La Mata Benitez

M. L.

(2009). Developing lesbian identity: A sociohistorical approach. Journal of Homosexuality, 56, 819-838. doi:10.1080/00918360903187903

37.

Savin-Williams

(2008). Then and now: Recruitment, definition, diversity, and positive attributes of same-sex populations. Developmental Psychology, 44, 135-138. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.44.1.135

38.

Schermelleh-Engel

Moosbrugger

Müller

(2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research, 8(2), 23-74. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/620173412?accountid=14477

39.

Sierra

J. C.

Ortega

Zubeidat

(2006). Confirmatory factor analysis of a Spanish version of the Sex Fantasy Questionnaire: Assessing gender differences. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 32, 137-159. doi:10.1080/00926230500442318

40.

Son

Shelton

J. N.

(2011). Stigma consciousness among Asian Americans: Impact of positive stereotypes in interracial roommate relationships. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 2, 51-60. doi:10.1037/a0022651

41.

Talley

A. E.

Bettencourt

B. A.

(2011). The moderator roles of coping style and identity disclosure in the relationship between perceived sexual stigma and psychological distress. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41, 2883-2903. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00863.x

42.

Vera-Villarroel

Celis-Atenas

Córdova-Rubio

(2011). Evaluación de la felicidad: Análisis psicométrico de la escala de felicidad subjetiva en población chilena [Evaluating happiness: Psychometric analysis of the subjective happiness scale in the Chilean population]. Terapia psicológica/Psychological Therapy, 29(1), 127-133. Retrieved from http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&;pid=S0718-48082011000100013&lng=es&tlng=es. doi:10.4067/S0718-48082011000100013

43.

Weiss

K. G.

(2010). Male sexual victimization: Examining men’s experiences of rape and sexual assault. Men and Masculinities, 12, 75-98. doi:10.1177/1097184X08322632