The Role of Spirituality in Sexual Minority Identity A. Jordan Wright and Suzanne Stern Empire State College, State University of New York Spirituality has been widely associated with positive well-being within the general population. Although there is limited research on the impact of spirituality on sexual minority individuals, some evidence suggests it is associated with positive psychological outcomes and contributes to the development of a positive lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) identity. The present study aimed to elucidate the relationship between spirituality, gender normative beliefs, and LGB identity development. It was hypothesized that spirituality would be negatively associated with both heteronormative beliefs and attitudes and negative sexual minority identity, and that heteronormativity would mediate the relationship between spirituality and negative identity. Contrary to expectations, spirituality predicted greater heteronormativity and greater negative identity. The association between spirituality and negative identity was fully mediated by heteronormativity. Limitations and implications are discussed. Keywords: homosexuality, bisexuality, spirituality, heteronormativity, gay identity Within the general public, spirituality has been reliably con- nected to numerous positive outcomes (Garfield, Isacco, & Sahker, 2013; Paranjape & Kaslow, 2010; Thoresen, 1999). It has been found to promote resiliency and self-esteem (Haight, 1998; Kash- dan & Nezlek, 2012), and predicts a greater ability to adapt and cope with stressful situations (Gnanaprakash, 2013; Salas-Wright, Olate, & Vaughn, 2013), including illness (Lo et al., 2010; Nelson et al., 2009; Pagnini et al., 2011; Visser, Garssen, & Vingerhoets, 2010), exposure to violence (Benavides, 2012; Schneider & Feltey, 2009; E. A. Walker, 2000), psychological aggression (Austin & Falconier, 2013), and substance abuse (Turner-Musa & Lipscomb, 2007). Further, spirituality is associated with personality traits that are health-protective (Labbé & Fobes, 2010); it is also significantly protective against adverse mental health outcomes, such as depres- sion and anxiety (Bennett & Shepherd, 2013; Hourani et al., 2012; Hsiao et al., 2012; Sorajjakool, Aja, Chilson, Ramirez-Johnson, & Earll, 2008), and suicidal ideation (Henley, 2014; Kyle, 2013; Meadows, Kaslow, Thompson, & Jurkovic, 2005). While the research on the impact of spirituality on sexual minorities is more limited, there is evidence that spiritual well- being functions as a protective factor and a predictor of adjust- ment. Greater spirituality has been associated with positive out- comes such as increased self-esteem and identity affirmation, lower internalized homophobia, and fewer feelings of alienation (Lease, Horne, & Noffsinger-Frazier, 2005; Moleiro, Pinto, & Freire, 2013; Tan, 2005), and with greater positive affect and satisfaction with life (Harari, Glenwick, & Cecero, 2014). How- ever, awareness within this popu.

1. The Role of Spirituality in Sexual Minority Identity
A. Jordan Wright and Suzanne Stern
Empire State College, State University of New York
Spirituality has been widely associated with positive well-being
within the general population. Although
there is limited research on the impact of spirituality on sexual
minority individuals, some evidence
suggests it is associated with positive psychological outcomes
and contributes to the development of a
positive lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) identity. The present
study aimed to elucidate the relationship
between spirituality, gender normative beliefs, and LGB
identity development. It was hypothesized that
spirituality would be negatively associated with both
heteronormative beliefs and attitudes and negative
sexual minority identity, and that heteronormativity would
mediate the relationship between spirituality
and negative identity. Contrary to expectations, spirituality
predicted greater heteronormativity and
greater negative identity. The association between spirituality
and negative identity was fully mediated
by heteronormativity. Limitations and implications are
discussed.
Keywords: homosexuality, bisexuality, spirituality,
heteronormativity, gay identity
Within the general public, spirituality has been reliably con-
nected to numerous positive outcomes (Garfield, Isacco, &
Sahker,

2. 2013; Paranjape & Kaslow, 2010; Thoresen, 1999). It has been
found to promote resiliency and self-esteem (Haight, 1998;
Kash-
dan & Nezlek, 2012), and predicts a greater ability to adapt and
cope with stressful situations (Gnanaprakash, 2013; Salas-
Wright,
Olate, & Vaughn, 2013), including illness (Lo et al., 2010;
Nelson
et al., 2009; Pagnini et al., 2011; Visser, Garssen, &
Vingerhoets,
2010), exposure to violence (Benavides, 2012; Schneider &
Feltey,
2009; E. A. Walker, 2000), psychological aggression (Austin &
Falconier, 2013), and substance abuse (Turner-Musa &
Lipscomb,
2007). Further, spirituality is associated with personality traits
that
are health-protective (Labbé & Fobes, 2010); it is also
significantly
protective against adverse mental health outcomes, such as
depres-
sion and anxiety (Bennett & Shepherd, 2013; Hourani et al.,
2012;
Hsiao et al., 2012; Sorajjakool, Aja, Chilson, Ramirez-Johnson,
&
Earll, 2008), and suicidal ideation (Henley, 2014; Kyle, 2013;
Meadows, Kaslow, Thompson, & Jurkovic, 2005).
While the research on the impact of spirituality on sexual
minorities is more limited, there is evidence that spiritual well-
being functions as a protective factor and a predictor of adjust-
ment. Greater spirituality has been associated with positive out-
comes such as increased self-esteem and identity affirmation,
lower internalized homophobia, and fewer feelings of alienation
(Lease, Horne, & Noffsinger-Frazier, 2005; Moleiro, Pinto, &
Freire, 2013; Tan, 2005), and with greater positive affect and

3. satisfaction with life (Harari, Glenwick, & Cecero, 2014). How-
ever, awareness within this population of spirituality’s role as a
protective factor may be limited: in a study of lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT) individuals conducted by
Halkitis and colleagues (2009), only 1% of all participants (N �
428) actively identified spirituality as a coping or resiliency
mech-
anism.
These findings are particularly notable because the LGB com-
munity is at increased risk for a number of adverse
psychological
and physical outcomes (Diamant, Wold, Spritzer, & Gelberg,
2000; Ungvarski & Grossman, 1999), resulting from overt
factors
such as stigma-related and minority stress, perceived or experi-
enced discrimination or violence, and negative social reactions
(Hatzenbuehler, 2009; Lick, Durso, & Johnson, 2013; Plöderl,
Kralovec, Fartacek, & Fartacek, 2010), as well as exposure to
unintended, minor, or transitory homophobia (Woodford,
Howell,
Silverschanz, & Yu, 2012; Wright & Wegner, 2012). Overall,
sexual minorities experience higher rates of mood and substance
use disorders, suicide ideation or attempt (Fergusson, Horwood,
&
Beautrais, 1999; Gilman et al., 2001; Herek, Gillis, & Cogan,
1999; King et al., 2008; Meyer, 2003), and psychosomatic
disor-
ders (Lick et al., 2013) than their heterosexual counterparts.
Accordingly, given that spirituality has health protective and
coping effects among the general public, and that these effects
could positively impact psychological outcomes in the LGB
com-
munity, a more precise elucidation of the effect of spirituality

4. on
sexual minority individuals would be both clinically and
theoret-
ically relevant.
Spirituality
As interest in spirituality within the social sciences increased
throughout the past few decades, the need arose for conceptual-
ization. Broadly, spirituality can be defined as an individual
rela-
tionship with or connection to a higher power or intrinsic belief
that motivates behaviors and provides meaning and purpose
(Cow-
ard, 2014; Hill et al., 2000; Hodge & McGrew, 2004). It is
intrapsychic, experiential, and noninstitutional; it can
complement,
overlap with, or exist in the absence of organized religion.
How-
ever, the concept of spirituality is rich, complex, and defined in
multiple ways throughout the scholarly and popular literature.
This article was published Online First October 26, 2015.
A. Jordan Wright and Suzanne Stern, Empire State College,
State
University of New York.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
A. Jordan
Wright, Empire State College, State University of New York,
325 Hudson
Street, New York, NY 10013. E-mail: [email protected]
T
hi

5. s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch

6. ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs

7. .
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al

8. us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at

9. ed
br
oa
dl
y.
Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity © 2015
American Psychological Association
2016, Vol. 3, No. 1, 71–79 2329-0382/16/$12.00
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000139
71
mailto:[email protected]
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000139
Some researchers (e.g., Miller & Thoresen, 2003) have posited
that spirituality is sufficiently multifaceted as to belie a precise
definition, and numerous studies elucidate spirituality’s
complex
and multidimensional nature. For example, Elkins, Hedstrom,
Hughes, Leaf, and Saunders (1988) identified nine discrete
dimen-
sions of spirituality, while Derezotes (1995) reported seven
defi-
nitions. However, major themes in both studies included
meaning,
purpose, and mission in life. Similarly, the top three descriptors
in
a study by Canda and Furman (1999) were “meaning,”
“personal,”
and “purpose,” and Zinnbauer and colleagues (1997) noted the
salience of a personal relationship with a higher power. While

10. these similarities span across some studies, the stark differences
in
definition underscore how complex the concept is.
The aforementioned studies used general populations, whose
experiences may not echo those of sexual minorities. For
example,
Boisvert (2000) adds further dimensionality, nuance, and
complex-
ity, contending that gay spirituality is inherently nonorthodox,
eclectic, defiant, and intertwined with political activism,
motivated
by the marginalization, stigmatization, and rejection by
traditional
Western religious traditions. He contends that spirituality is
intri-
cately intertwined and inseparable from all aspects of identity
development, including sexual minority identity. Prior and
Cusack
(2009) further summarize how secular spirituality underscored
the
transformative process of gay sexual exploration and how this
helped to define the gay movement. In fact, this study revealed
that
the sexual exploration in bathhouses for certain sexual
minorities
served as spiritual experiences, and even religiouslike rituals
for
growth and self-transformation. Ritter and Terndrup (2002)
illus-
trate the diversity of exploration of spirituality undertaken
by sexual minority individuals, including alternative forms of
worship such as Wicca, witchcraft, and other prepatriarchal
spir-
itual routes; shamanism, which straddles the spiritual and
natural

11. realms; and spiritual healing and transformation, or working to
transmute loss through spiritual development. Perhaps no move-
ment captures the essence of this description better than the
Rad-
ical Faeries: diverse ancient traditions were compiled and mod-
ernized, and gender norms challenged, to reconstruct spirituality
from a uniquely gay perspective (Rodgers, 1995).
However, other LGB researchers have identified more universal
conceptions of spirituality within this population. A number of
individuals (28%) in a study by Halkitis and colleagues (2009)
defined their spirituality as a connection with or belief in a
higher
power. Other prominent themes included a means to gain self-
understanding and self-acceptance and a motivator of behavior.
Identity
Developing a positive identity is central to psychological well-
being (Ghavami, Fingerhut, Peplau, Grant, & Wittig, 2011).
Sex-
ual minorities, however, regularly encounter obstacles which
can
hinder the identity development process. These broadly include
heterosexist norms and pressures (Mock & Eibach, 2012),
negative
relationships, and a lack of social support (Rosario,
Schrimshaw,
& Hunter, 2008). A further source of distress can arise from
discord between multiple identities with disparate demands
(Burke, 1991), such as the codevelopment of sexual and
religious
identities during adolescence (Yarhouse & Tan, 2005).
There is evidence to suggest that greater spirituality is associ-
ated with identity affirmation and less homonegativity (Moleiro

12. et
al., 2013), greater self-esteem and more openness about sexual
orientation (Rodriguez, Lytle, & Vaughan, 2013). However,
much
of the scholarly literature on LGB identity and spirituality is
from
a clinical perspective, focused on ethical considerations and
ther-
apeutic goals of reconciliation of conflicting religious and
sexual
identities. It has been widely noted that involvement in
accepting
or affirming forms of worship can support the integration of
sexual
and religious identities (Beardsley, O’Brien, & Woolley, 2010;
Daniels, 2010; Rodriguez & Ouellette, 2000; Smith & Horne,
2007); this may be accomplished through the development of
strategies that counter and reframe stigmatizing antihomosexual
doctrine (Johnson, 2000; Thumma, 1991; Yip, 1997), thereby
reducing identity conflict. However, Smith and Horne (2007)
found that participation in religious congregations that are more
highly gay-affirming may not ultimately make a significant
differ-
ence in resolution of identity conflict. Although those sexual
minority individuals in more traditional Judeo-Christian faiths
did
report more conflict than those in “Earth-spirited” faiths (which
they found to engage in many LGBT-affirming behaviors), there
was no difference in the level of conflict or resolution of the
conflict, related to internalized homonegativity and self-
acceptance. Pargament (2002) contended that the association of
religion with well-being occurs only when the religion is based
on
spirituality, while Carter (2013) reported that spirituality more
than

13. religiosity was seen as helping to buffer sexual identity conflict.
Faith development theory, developed by Fowler (1981),
organizes
faith identity development into stages related to reasoning about
spirituality and questioning reality, and Leak (2009) found that
those who were actively exploring their own identity seemed to
be
more open to questions about faith and were higher in faith
development, again showing the complexity of these intertwined
identity constructs.
Heteronormativity
Heteronormativity broadly refers to sociocultural, political, and
industrial standardization and expectations of gender normative
attitudes and behaviors (e.g., Berlant & Warner, 1998). This in-
cludes the privileging of heterosexuality and the
marginalization of
those who exist outside of heteronormative expectations
(Jackson,
2006); this stigmatization is a significant source of minority
stress
(Meyer, 2003). Among the general population, Habarth (2008)
found positive associations between heteronormativity and
social
conservatism, and heteronormativity and right-wing
authoritarian-
ism in the general population; among sexual minorities specifi-
cally, a negative relationship was found between
heteronormativity
and life satisfaction. A high degree of concern about
conforming to
established heteronormative conventions, such as compliance
with
traditional gender roles, is particularly associated with negative
LGB identity (Estrada, Rigali-Oiler, Arciniega, & Tracey, 2011;

14. Gubrium & Torres, 2011; Hamilton & Mahalik, 2009; Sánchez
&
Vilain, 2012).
Current Study
Spirituality may influence positive psychological health out-
comes among sexual minorities. Spirituality refers to an
individ-
ual’s inner relationship with a motivational or inspirational
higher
power: this higher power can take the form of a deity or can be
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by

15. th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of

16. it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so

17. le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d

18. is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
72 WRIGHT AND STERN
purely conceptual. This relationship may or may not be
expressed
externally at the individual’s discretion and is not necessarily
bound to the confines of religiosity; that is, a spiritual
individual
may or may not belong to a particular religious community or
even
identify with any religious orientation. Spirituality is defined on

19. an
individual basis in a manner that is both personal and
meaningful.
There is not a large body of research of the impact of
spirituality
in the LGB population. The current study seeks to examine how
spirituality might impact concern for gender norms, and whether
this has an effect on LGB identity development. It is
hypothesized
that a negative association will exist between spirituality and
heteronormativity, and that heteronormativity would be
positively
related to negative identity. Because spirituality can exist
outside
of religiosity, more highly spiritual LGB individuals may be
pro-
tected from religious stigma, which has been linked to higher
levels of internalized homonegativity (Ross & Rosser, 1996; J.
Walker, 2012) and negative identity (e.g., Lapinski &
McKirnan,
2013): therefore, it is further hypothesized that for sexual
minor-
ities, less concern for heteronormativity will mediate the
relation-
ship between intrinsic spirituality and negative identity.
Although
not the major focus of this study, since identity development for
sexual minorities can be influenced by considerations such as
sexual orientation (specifically less developed identity for
bisexual
individuals; e.g., Rosario, Schrimshaw, Hunter, & Braun, 2006)
and ethnicity (specifically less developed or delayed identity
de-
velopment for racial and ethnic minorities, as compared to
white

20. individuals; e.g., Rosario, Schrimshaw, & Hunter, 2004), these
demographics will be used as controls when evaluating these
hypotheses.
Method
Participants
The present sample was comprised of adult individuals (N �
109) who self-identified as lesbian (22.0%), gay (40.4%), or bi-
sexual (22.2%). Participants were nearly evenly split by gender
(male, 45.9%), with the majority of bisexual participants (68%)
being female. The mean age was 30 years old (SD � 7.8). Half
of
participants (51.4%) reported being “in a significant
relationship.”
The sample included participants from urban, suburban, and
rural
areas across the United States, with the majority of participants
self-identified as white (68.8%), followed by Asian & Pacific
Islander (11.0%), Latino/a (10.1%), Black (8.3%), and Native
American (1.8%). Table 1 presents demographic descriptors.
Design and Procedure
Participants were recruited via a Facebook group that was
established to promote the study, as well as through messages
posted on several LGB online message boards. Before beginning
the survey, which was administered online using Surveymonkey
(www.surveymonkey.com), all were informed that the study was
approved by [masked for review] Institutional Review Board
and
agreed to informed consent online by clicking an “accept”
button
at the bottom of a standard consent form. The entire survey was
comprised of 16 measures, of which the current study used

21. three,
plus demographics, and took approximately 1.5 hr to complete.
Upon completion, the participants could choose to receive a $25
Amazon.com gift card.
Measures
Demographics. Participants were asked to indicate demo-
graphic characteristics including sexual orientation (collapsed
into
lesbian, gay, bisexual), relationship status (single or in a
significant
relationship, with more nuanced responses such as “married”
and
“partnered” collapsed into “in a significant relationship”) and
race/ethnicity (White, Black, Latino/a, Asian/Pacific Islander,
Na-
tive American, Other). Because a small number of ethnic minor-
ities were represented, participants were dichotomized into
racial/
ethnic minority versus nonminority. Participants also self-
reported
their age.
Intrinsic Spirituality Scale (ISS). The ISS (Hodge, 2003) is
a 6-item measure that measures the degree to which
nonreligious
spirituality serves as a primary motivator, driving and guiding
behaviors, thoughts, and growth. The scale is modified from the
Intrinsic subscale of Allport and Ross’ (1967) Religious
Orienta-
tion Scale (ROS), which assesses this motivational power of
one’s
connection to Transcendence within a religious context. The ISS
addresses spirituality in a more general, nonreligious, and

22. nonthe-
istic framework by removing mention of God, church, or
religion,
and was designed to be administered to individuals who may not
necessarily participate in organized religious worship or
activities.
The six items employ a phrase completion method measured
along
an 11-point continuum (e.g., responses for the item “My
spiritual
beliefs affect” range from 0 � “no aspect of my life” to 10 �
“absolutely every aspect of my life”; responses for the item
“Spir-
ituality is” range from 0 � “not part of my life” to 10 � “the
master motive of my life, directing every other aspect of my
life”).
A high score is representative of a high degree of spiritual moti-
vation. Correlations were found between the ISS and the ROS
Intrinsic subscale (r � .91). Items were found through factor
analysis to load onto a single dimension of spirituality (Gough,
Wilks, & Prattini, 2010). Reliability and validity for the ISS
have
been previous ascertained; alpha for the present sample on the
ISS
was 0.97.
Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Identity Scale (LGBIS). Mohr
and Fassinger’s (2000) LGBIS is a 27-item measure developed
to
Table 1
Descriptive Data for Demographic and Study Variables
(N � 109)
Variable Minimum Maximum Mean SD Percentages

23. Age 18 62 30.38 7.78
Racial/ethnic minority 31.2
In a relationship 51.4
Sexual orientation
Gay 33.9
Lesbian 28.4
Bisexual 37.6
Spirituality 0 6.33 4.59 1.84
Heteronormativity 2.38 5.56 3.33 .64
Negative Identity 1.14 6.71 3.63 .64
Note. Spirituality � Intrinsic Spirituality Scale;
Heteronormativity �
Heteronormative Attitudes and Beliefs Scale; Negative Identity
� Nega-
tive Identity subscale from the Lesbian Gay and Bisexual
Identity Scale.
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py

24. ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti

25. on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is

26. in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du

27. al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
73SPIRITUALITY AND SEXUAL MINORITY IDENTITY
http://www.surveymonkey.com

28. evaluate seven continuous dimensions of LGB identity that have
been identified and discussed in the clinical and theoretical
liter-
ature. The seven subscales include Internalized Homonegativity/
Binegativity (e.g., “If it were possible, I would choose to be
straight”), Concealment Motivation (e.g., “I prefer to keep my
same-sex romantic relationships rather private”), Acceptance
Concerns (e.g., “I often wonder whether others judge me for my
sexual orientation”), Identity Uncertainty (e.g., “I’m not totally
sure what my sexual orientation is”), Difficult Process (e.g.,
“Ad-
mitting to myself that I’m an LGB person has been a very
painful
process”), Identity Centrality (e.g., “To understand who I am as
a
person, you have to know that I’m LGB”), and Identity
Superiority
(e.g., “I look down on heterosexuals”). All subscales have dem-
onstrated constancy in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations
(de
Oliveira, Lopes, Costa, & Nogueira, 2012). Items employ a 6-
point
Likert scale, with responses ranging from “disagree strongly” to
“agree strongly” The Internalized Homonegativity/Binegativity,
Concealment Motivation, Acceptance Concerns, and Difficult
Pro-
cess subscales were found through factor analysis to load onto a
single, second-order factor and are combined to create a single
factor reflecting the degree of Negative Identity (Mohr &
Fassinger, 2000). Although psychometrics on the Negative Iden-
tity factor are not published, the included subscales demonstrate
good internal consistency. This study utilized the computed
Neg-
ative Identity subscale, where higher scores are indicative of
greater negative identity. Alpha for the present sample on the
Negative Identity subscale was 0.93.

29. Heteronormative Attitudes and Beliefs Scale (HABS). The
HABS (Habarth, 2008) is a 16-item measure designed to assess
expectations of normative behavior and essentialized and binary
beliefs regarding gender and sex. Two 8-item subscales include
Gender as Binary and Normative Sexual Behavior: Gender as
Binary addresses the extent to which gender is believed to be
dichotomous, for example, “There are only two sexes: male and
female,” while Normative Sexual Behavior evaluates
expectations
of traditional gender roles, for example, “People should partner
with whomever they choose, regardless of sex or gender.” Items
are rated on a 7-point scale from “strongly disagree” to
“strongly
agree,” with higher scores reflecting a higher degree of heteron-
ormativity. The HABS was found to be associated positively
with
a measure of right-wing authoritarianism, particularly among
het-
erosexuals (Habarth, 2008). Separate analysis found the scale to
have sufficient reliability and consistency (Els, 2012). This
study
used the entire scale. Alpha for the present sample on the HABS
was 0.72.
Results
A hierarchy of regressions was used in accordance with Baron
and Kenny’s (1986) recommendations for testing for mediation
in
a linear regression framework. This four-regression approach
en-
tails that each of the first three analyses must exhibit
significance,
with the predictor predicting both outcome and proposed

30. mediator,
and proposed mediator predicting the outcome. If these analyses
are indeed significant, a fourth and final regression can be run
(with predictor and proposed mediator predict the outcome) to
test
for full mediation.
Each analysis was conducted using two steps. To control for
demographic differences, the first step in all analyses included a
number of demographic covariates; these included age as a con-
tinuous variable and minority status, relationship status,
lesbian,
and bisexual, each as dummy coded variables. These were in-
cluded for conceptual reasons, though the intercorrelations
(Pear-
son’s r, point-biserial correlations, and chi-square statistics,
where
appropriate) between these variables and the study variables
was
minimal (Table 2). The four regressions run included Negative
Identity (outcome) being regressed on Spirituality (predictor);
Negative Identity (outcome) regressed on Heteronormativity
(pro-
posed mediator); Heteronormativity (proposed mediator)
regressed
on Spirituality (predictor); and finally, to test for mediation,
Neg-
ative Identity regressed on both Heteronormativity and
Spirituality
in the same model.
Spirituality and Negative Identity
As seen in Table 3, when predicting Negative Identity, age and
minority status significantly predicted negative identity.
Specifi-

31. cally, higher ages had higher negative identity (� � 0.222, p �
.05) and minorities had higher negative identity than
nonminorities
(� � 0.215, p � .05).
Table 3 also shows that Spirituality significantly predicts Neg-
ative Identity, controlling for demographics. Specifically,
greater
Table 2
Intercorrelations Between Demographic and Study Variables (N
� 109)
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Age 1.00
2. Minority .001 1.00
3. In a relationship .225� �.217� 1.00
Sexual orientation
4. Gay .063 3.790� .000 1.00
5. Lesbian �.120 .372 2.782 .00 1.00
6. Bisexual .050 6.101� 2.424 .00 .00 1.00
7. Spirituality �.168 .110 �.104 .116 .009 �.122 1.00
8. Heteronormativity .060 .110 �.067 .165 �.115 �.054
.382�� 1.00
9. Negative Identity .193� .227� �.117 .001 .001 �.002
.288�� .543��� 1.00
Note. Spirituality � Intrinsic Spirituality Scale;
Heteronormativity � Heteronormative Attitudes and Beliefs
Scale; Negative Identity � Negative Identity
subscale from the Lesbian Gay and Bisexual Identity Scale.
Correlations include Pearson’s correlations (between continuous
variables), point-biserial

32. correlations (between dichotomous and continuous variables),
and chi-squares (between dichotomous variables).
� p � .05. �� p � .01. ��� p � .001.
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic

33. an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu

34. bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e

35. pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di

36. ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
74 WRIGHT AND STERN
Spirituality was related to greater Negative Identity (� � 0.
314;
t(101) � 3.449; p � .001). Spirituality accounted for 9.3% of
the
variance in Negative Identity (R2 change � 0.093; F(7, 101) �
4.238; p � .001).
Heteronormativity and Negative Identity
Table 4 shows that Heteronormativity independently signifi-
cantly predicts Negative Identity (� � 0.519; t(101) � 6.426; p
�
.001), such that greater Heteronormativity predicted higher
Neg-
ative Identity (see also Figure 1). Heteronormativity accounted
for
25.8% of the variance in Negative Identity (R2 change � 0.258;

37. F(7, 101) � 9.720; p � .001).
Spirituality and Heteronormativity
When predicting Heteronormativity, Table 5 shows that Spiri-
tuality significantly predicted Heteronormativity (� � 0.384;
t(101) � 4.176; p � .001), accounting for 14% of the variance
in
Heteronormativity (R2 change � 0.140; F(7, 101) � 3.831; p �
.01), such that greater Spirituality predicted higher
Heteronorma-
tivity (see also Figure 2).
Mediation Model
As presented in Table 6, when both Spirituality and Heteronor-
mativity were included together in a single step as predictors of
Negative Identity, only Heteronormativity remained a
significant
predictor (� � 0. 468; t(100) � 5.390; p � .001), and the effect
of
Spirituality was no longer significant (� � 0.134; t(100) �
1.540;
p � .05). This indicates that the association between
Spirituality
and Negative Identity is fully mediated by Heteronormativity
(see
Figure 2).
Discussion
Contemporary research defines spirituality as an internal, per-
sonal, and motivating relationship with a higher power or belief
(Hill et al., 2000; Hodge, 2003). Spirituality has widely been
associated with numerous positive psychological and physical

38. health outcomes in the general population. What limited
research
exists on spirituality’s impact on sexual minority individuals in-
dicates that it may be a protective factor and may lead to devel-
opment of a more positive LGB identity. Since this community
is
at risk for negative physical and mental health outcomes,
primarily
as a result of factors such as minority stress and victimization, a
greater understanding of how spirituality functions within this
population is needed.
Because previous research suggests that spirituality is
associated
with well-being in the general population, and possibly also
among
sexual minorities, the present study hypothesized that
spirituality
would be associated with positive outcomes for LGB
individuals.
Contrary to this hypothesis, spirituality actually predicted
greater
negative identity, and this relationship was mediated by
heteron-
ormativity. That is, the reason spirituality was found to be
related
to negative identity was because it is associated with heightened
heteronormativity.
While these results indicate that spirituality may not be a pro-
tective factor for sexual minority individuals, care should be
taken
to interpret these data in light of the ubiquitous conflation of
spirituality and religion, both in the literature and in the larger
Western culture. It is only in the past few decades that
spirituality

39. Table 3
Hierarchical Regression Analysis Summary for Demographic
Variables and Spirituality Predicting Negative Identity
(N � 109)
Block Predictor variable B SE B � R2 �R2
Block 1 Age .033 .014 .222� .106
Minority .538 .246 .215�
Relationship �.292 .230 �.126
Lesbian .076 .278 .030
Bisexual .169 .264 .070
Block 2 Spirituality .199 .058 .314��� .200 .093
Note. Spirituality � Intrinsic Spirituality Scale.
� p � .05. ��� p � .001.
Table 4
Hierarchical Regression Analysis Summary for Demographic
Variables and Heteronormativity Predicting Negative Identity
(N � 109)
Block Predictor variable B SE B � R2 �R2
Block 1 Age .033 .014 .222� .106
Minority .538 .246 .215�
Relationship �.292 .230 �.126
Lesbian .076 .278 .030
Bisexual .169 .264 .070
Block 2 Heteronormativity .941 .146 .519��� .364 .258

40. Note. Heteronormativity � Heteronormative Attitudes and
Beliefs Scale.
� p � .05. ��� p � .001.
Table 5
Hierarchical Regression Analysis Summary for Demographic
Variables and Spirituality Predicting Heteronormativity
(N � 109)
Block Predictor variable B SE B � R2 �R2
Block 1 Age .005 .008 .061 .044
Minority .106 .140 .077
Relationship �.097 .131 �.076
Lesbian �.257 .159 �.181
Bisexual �.154 .150 �.116
Block 2 Spirituality .134 .032 .384��� .184 .140
Note. Spirituality � Intrinsic Spirituality Scale;
Heteronormativity �
Heteronormative Attitudes and Beliefs Scale.
��� p � .001.
β = .314***
Spirituality
Heteronormativity
Negative Identity
β = .519***

41. Figure 1. Summary of direct effects of spirituality and
heteronormativity
on negative identity. � � � regression coefficient. ��� p �
.001.
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m

42. er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li

43. ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r

44. th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to

45. be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
75SPIRITUALITY AND SEXUAL MINORITY IDENTITY
and religion have been recognized as independent constructs,
with
much of that time spent in an attempt at operationalization
(Oman,
2013). While spirituality refers to one’s subjective, inner
relation-
ship with some higher power, religion is the externalized
involve-
ment in a standardized organization of beliefs and practices
(e.g.,
Tan, 2005). A quick review of the literature reveals that these
constructs are often used interchangeably, despite the fact that
spirituality is not predicted by measures of religiosity (Hodge &
McGrew, 2004), such as affiliation, frequency of prayer, and
attendance at services. Traditional, nonaffirming religious

46. affilia-
tion has been found to be associated with higher levels of inter-
nalized homophobia (Barnes & Meyer, 2012), which may have a
great impact on identity development.
This overlap is particularly salient when looking at sexual
minority populations. While religion, like spirituality, may be
associated with positive outcomes in the general public, a
signif-
icant number of studies have associated religious participation
with adverse health outcomes in the LGB community, even
among
individuals involved with affirming congregations. For example,
Smith and Horne (2007) reported that sexual minorities actively
involved in Judeo-Christian-based worship maintained levels of
internalized homonegativity consistent with individuals
involved
in gay-affirming alternative practices. Internalized
homonegativity
is a predictor of psychological distress (Szymanski &
Kashubeck-
West, 2008) and is correlated with increased anxiety and
depres-
sion (Newcomb & Mustanski, 2010).
The more highly spiritual LGB individuals in the present sample
may experience a personal relationship with a higher power that
is
irreconcilably connected to exposure to nonaffirming
theological
learning. Similarly, they may be currently affiliated with a reli-
gious community. In both cases, individuals may have
associated
spirituality directly with past or current religious practices and
affiliations. It is also possible that more highly spiritual
individuals

47. may be members of religious communities where they actively
encounter overt or veiled homonegative messages, thereby
stalling
development of a positive LGB identity.
Alternately, a lower spiritual score may represent a conscious
rejection of the construct of religion and, as a byproduct,
spiritu-
ality. Haldeman (2002) notes that one response of LGB
individuals
to homonegative doctrine and the distress it can engender is to
adopt an antireligious stance. Since religion and spirituality are
so
often linked, when religion is rebuffed, spiritual beliefs may be
as
well.
The ubiquitous conflation of spirituality and religion may pres-
ent further issues in regard to data collection. For example,
asso-
ciating spirituality with religiosity may color subjects’
responses
on measures of spirituality, such that the validity of the
measures
may be in question. In the current study, ISS defines spirituality
as
one’s “relationship to God, or whatever you perceive to be Ulti-
mate Transcendence,” even though theistic references are
omitted
from the items themselves. It is therefore possible that the
mention
of “God” prompted some subjects to associate this measure of
spirituality with religion. That is, some subjects may have
associ-
ated this overt reference to a religious deity or to marginalizing

48. religious traditions, and this may have primed them for higher
homonegative and negative identity scores.
Yet another consideration is that the 6-item ISS may be too
limited to evaluate spirituality within this population. The
measure
was designed to assess the degree to which one’s relationship
with
a higher power functions as a motivational force that provides
purpose, fuels personal growth, answers questions, and
influences
decisions. As previous research suggests (e.g., Halkitis et al.,
2009), these themes of personal connection to a higher power,
behavioral motivation, personal growth, and means by which
understanding is increased are consistent with many LGB
individ-
ual’s conception of spirituality. However, this measure does not
take into account specific aspects of gay spirituality such as
transformation, defiance, and political activism, and as such, it
may not be a valid measure of how spirituality is experienced
by
all sexual minority individuals.
These initial findings are important, as they not only challenge
the belief of spirituality as a protective factor for sexual
minorities
but implicate spirituality as possibly contributing to negative
psy-
chological health outcomes. In a practical light, results indicate
that within this at-risk population, there is a possibility that
spir-
itually based therapeutic interventions may have undesirable or
even harmful effects. It further illustrates the need for a greater
understanding of how spirituality functions within this
population.

49. Limitations and Future Directions
The present study has a number of limitations. A cross-
sectional/
correlational design means that we cannot be confident in the
direc-
tionality of associations. For example, although spirituality was
found
to predict negative identity, it is possible that negative identity
influ-
ences individuals to become more spiritual; indeed, some
aspects of
gay spirituality have developed to counteract the stigma and
victim-
ization experienced by LGB individuals. With the majority of
par-
ticipants identifying as White, the sample did not reflect a great
Table 6
Hierarchical Regression Analysis Summary for Demographic
Variables, Spirituality, and Heteronormativity Predicting
Negative Identity (N � 109)
Block Predictor variable B SE B � R2 �R2
Block 1 Age .033 .014 .222� .106
Minority .538 .246 .215�
Relationship �.292 .230 �.126
Lesbian .076 .278 .030
Bisexual .169 .264 .070
Block 2 Heteronormativity .849 .157 .468��� .378 .272
Spirituality .085 .055 .134
Note. Spirituality � Intrinsic Spirituality Scale;

50. Heteronormativity �
Heteronormative Attitudes and Beliefs Scale.
� p � .05. ��� p � .001.
Spirituality
Heteronormativity
Negative Identity
β = .468***
β = .384***
β = .134
Figure 2. Summary of direct and indirect effects of spirituality
and heter-
onormativity on negative identity. � � � regression
coefficient. ��� p � .001.
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is

51. co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc

52. ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl

53. e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di

54. vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
76 WRIGHT AND STERN

55. deal of ethnic and cultural diversity. Perhaps most significantly,
this study did not include any measures of religiosity, nor did
subjects provide demographic information pertaining to past or
current religious affiliation. Therefore, it is impossible to
account
for the effect of past or current religious beliefs, behaviors,
affil-
iations, or experiences.
Additional research is necessary to more precisely evaluate the
impact of spirituality on the LGB population. Further studies
should include more robust measures of spirituality than the 6-
item
ISS. The ISS was used in this study because we believed it to
succinctly capture the general essence of spirituality; however,
a
measure with more dimensionality may more accurately capture
the LGB spiritual experience. Additionally, employing a
measure
of religiosity and collecting religious demographics will help to
control for the effects of past or current involvement with a
religious congregation. Oversampling ethnic minority
individuals,
as well as those individuals affiliated with nontraditional, non-
Western, or affirming religious congregations, will ensure a
more
diverse evaluation of this population.
References
Allport, G. W., & Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal religious
orientation and
prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5,
432– 443.

56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0021212
Austin, J. L., & Falconier, M. K. (2013). Spirituality and
common dyadic
coping: Protective factors from psychological aggression in
Latino im-
migrant couples. Journal of Family Issues, 34, 323–346.
http://dx.doi
.org/10.1177/0192513X12452252
Barnes, D. M., & Meyer, I. H. (2012). Religious affiliation,
internalized
homophobia, and mental health in lesbians, gay men, and
bisexuals.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 82, 505–515.
http://dx.doi.org/10
.1111/j.1939-0025.2012.01185.x
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator
variable
distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual,
strategic, and
statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,
51, 1173–1182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
Beardsley, C., O’Brien, M., & Woolley, J. (2010). Exploring the
interplay:
The Sibyls’ “Gender, Sexuality and Spirituality” Workshop.
Theology &
Sexuality, 16, 259 –283. http://dx.doi.org/10.1558/tse.v16i3.259
Benavides, L. E. (2012). A phenomenological study of
spirituality as a
protective factor for adolescents exposed to domestic violence.
Journal

57. of Social Service Research, 38, 165–174.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
01488376.2011.615274
Bennett, K. S., & Shepherd, J. M. (2013). Depression in
Australian women:
The varied roles of spirituality and social support. Journal of
Health Psy-
chology, 18, 429 – 438.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1359105312443400
Berlant, L., & Warner, M. (1998). Sex in public. Critical
Inquiry, 24,
547–566. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/448884
Boisvert, D. L. (2000). Out on holy ground: Meditations on gay
men’s
spirituality. Bohemia, NY: Pilgrim Press.
Burke, P. (1991). Identity processes and social stress. American
Sociolog-
ical Review, 56, 836 – 849. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2096259
Canda, E. R., & Furman, L. D. (1999). Spiritual diversity in
social work
practice. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Carter, J. W., Jr. (2013). Giving voice to black gay and bisexual
men in the
south: Examining the influences of religion, spirituality, and
family on
the mental health and sexual behaviors of black gay and
bisexual men
(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations
and The-
ses Full Text: The Humanities and Social Sciences Collection.

58. (Order
No. 3608553)
Coward, A. I. (2013). Clarifying the overlap between religion
and spiri-
tuality (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Fairleigh Dickinson
Univer-
sity, Teaneck, NJ.
Daniels, M. (2010). Not even on the p.: Freeing God from
heterocentrism.
Journal of Bisexuality, 10, 44 –53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
15299711003609633
de Oliveira, J. M., Lopes, D., Costa, C. G., & Nogueira, C.
(2012). Lesbian,
Gay, and Bisexual Identity Scale (LGBIS): Construct validation,
sensi-
tivity analyses and other psychometric properties. The Spanish
Journal
of Psychology, 15, 334 –347.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5209/rev_SJOP.2012
.v15.n1.37340
Derezotes, D. S. (1995). Spirituality and religiosity: Neglected
factors in
social work practice. Arete, 20, 1–15.
Diamant, A. L., Wold, C., Spritzer, K., & Gelberg, L. (2000).
Health
behaviors, health status, and access to and use of health care: A
population-based study of lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual
women.
Archives of Family Medicine, 9, 1043–1051.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/
archfami.9.10.1043

59. Elkins, D. N., Hedstrom, L. J., Hughes, L. L., Leaf, J. A., &
Saunders, C.
(1988). Toward a humanistic-phenomenological spirituality:
Definition,
description, and measurement. Journal of Humanistic
Psychology, 28,
5–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022167888284002
Els, E. (2012). The relationship between a heteronormative
culture and the
affective reactions of homosexual employees (Magister’s
dissertation).
University of Pretoria, Hatfield, South Africa.
Estrada, F., Rigali-Oiler, M., Arciniega, G. M., & Tracey, T. J.
(2011).
Machismo and Mexican American men: An empirical
understanding
using a gay sample. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58, 358
–367.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0023122
Fergusson, D. M., Horwood, L. J., & Beautrais, A. L. (1999). Is
sexual
orientation related to mental health problems and suicidality in
young
people? Archives of General Psychiatry, 56, 876 – 880.
http://dx.doi.org/
10.1001/archpsyc.56.10.876
Fowler, J. W. (1981). Stages of faith: The psychology of human
develop-
ment and the quest for meaning. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
Garfield, C. F., Isacco, A., & Sahker, E. (2013). Religion and

60. spirituality
as important components of men’s health and wellness: An
analytic
review. American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine, 7, 27–37.
http://dx.doi
.org/10.1177/1559827612444530
Ghavami, N., Fingerhut, A., Peplau, L. A., Grant, S. K., &
Wittig, M. A.
(2011). Testing a model of minority identity achievement,
identity
affirmation, and psychological well-being among ethnic
minority and
sexual minority individuals. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic
Minority
Psychology, 17, 79 – 88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022532
Gilman, S. E., Cochran, S. D., Mays, V. M., Hughes, M.,
Ostrow, D., &
Kessler, R. C. (2001). Risk of psychiatric disorders among
individuals
reporting same-sex sexual partners in the National Comorbidity
Survey.
American Journal of Public Health, 91, 933–939.
http://dx.doi.org/10
.2105/AJPH.91.6.933
Gnanaprakash, C. (2013). Spirituality and resilience among
post-graduate
university students. Journal of Health Management, 15, 383–
396. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/0972063413492046
Gough, H. R., Wilks, S. E., & Prattini, R. J. (2010). Spirituality
among
alzheimer’s caregivers: Psychometric reevaluation of the

61. Intrinsic Spir-
ituality Scale. Journal of Social Service Research, 36, 278 –288.
http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/01488376.2010.493848
Gubrium, A. C., & Torres, M. (2011). “S-T-R-8 up” Latinas:
Affirming an
alternative sexual identity. American Journal of Sexuality
Education, 6,
281–305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2011.601956
Habarth, J. M. (2008). Thinking “straight”: Heteronormativity
and asso-
ciated outcomes across sexual orientation (Doctoral
dissertation). Re-
trieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
(Order No.
3328835)
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri

62. gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on

63. or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in

64. te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al

65. us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
77SPIRITUALITY AND SEXUAL MINORITY IDENTITY
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0021212
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0192513X12452252
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0192513X12452252
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.2012.01185.x

66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.2012.01185.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
http://dx.doi.org/10.1558/tse.v16i3.259
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01488376.2011.615274
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01488376.2011.615274
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1359105312443400
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/448884
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2096259
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15299711003609633
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15299711003609633
http://dx.doi.org/10.5209/rev_SJOP.2012.v15.n1.37340
http://dx.doi.org/10.5209/rev_SJOP.2012.v15.n1.37340
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archfami.9.10.1043
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archfami.9.10.1043
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022167888284002
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0023122
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.56.10.876
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.56.10.876
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1559827612444530
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1559827612444530
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022532
http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.91.6.933
http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.91.6.933
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0972063413492046
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0972063413492046
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01488376.2010.493848
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01488376.2010.493848
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2011.601956
Haight, W. L. (1998). “Gathering the spirit” at First Baptist
Church:
Spirituality as a protective factor in the lives of African
American
children. Social Work, 43, 213–221.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/sw/43.3

67. .213
Haldeman, D. C. (2002). Gay rights, patient rights: The
implications of
sexual orientation conversion therapy. Professional Psychology:
Re-
search and Practice, 33, 260 –264.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028
.33.3.260
Halkitis, P. N., Mattis, J. S., Sahadath, J. K., Massie, D.,
Ladyzhenskaya,
L., Pitrelli, K., . . . Cowie, S. E. (2009). The meanings and
manifesta-
tions of religion and spirituality among lesbian, gay, bisexual,
and
transgender adults. Journal of Adult Development, 16, 250 –
262. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10804-009-9071-1
Hamilton, C. J., & Mahalik, J. R. (2009). Minority stress,
masculinity, and
social norms predicting gay men’s health risk behaviors. Journal
of
Counseling Psychology, 56, 132–141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0014440
Harari, E., Glenwick, D. S., & Cecero, J. J. (2014). The
relationship
between religiosity/spirituality and well-being in gay and
heterosexual
Orthodox Jews. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 17, 886 –
897.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13674676.2014.942840
Hatzenbuehler, M. L. (2009). How does sexual minority stigma

68. “get under
the skin”? A psychological mediation framework. Psychological
Bulle-
tin, 135, 707–730. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0016441
Henley, B. M. (2014). Level of spirituality on suicidal ideations
(Doctoral
dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
data-
base. (Order No. 1542798)
Herek, G. M., Gillis, J. R., & Cogan, J. C. (1999).
Psychological sequelae
of hate-crime victimization among lesbian, gay, and bisexual
adults.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 945–951.
http://dx
.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.67.6.945
Hill, P. C., Pargament, K., Hood, R. W., McCullough, M. E.,
Swyers, J. P.,
Larson, D. B., & Zinnbauer, B. J. (2000). Conceptualizing
religion and
spirituality: Points of commonality, points of departure. Journal
for the
Theory of Social Behaviour, 30, 51–77.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-
5914.00119
Hodge, D. R. (2003). The Intrinsic Spirituality Scale. Journal of
Social
Service Research, 30, 41– 61.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J079v30n01_03
Hodge, D. R., & McGrew, C. C. (2004). Clarifying the
distinctions and

69. connections between spirituality and religion. Paper presented
at the
NACSW Convention Proceedings, Reston, VA.
Hourani, L. L., Williams, J., Forman-Hoffman, V., Lane, M. E.,
Weimer,
B., & Bray, R. M. (2012). Influence of spirituality on
depression,
posttraumatic stress disorder, and suicidality in active duty
military
personnel. Depression Research and Treatment, 2012, 425463.
http://dx
.doi.org/10.1155/2012/425463
Hsiao, Y. C., Wu, H. F., Chien, L. Y., Chiang, C. M., Hung, Y.
H., & Peng,
P. H. (2012). The differences in spiritual health between non-
depressed
and depressed nurses. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 21, 1736 –
1745.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2011.03962.x
Jackson, S. (2006). Gender, sexuality and heterosexuality: The
complexity
(and limits) of heteronormativity. Feminist Theory, 7, 105–121.
http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/1464700106061462
Johnson, T. (2000). Gay spirituality: The role of gay identity in
the
transformation of human consciousness. New York, NY: White
Crane
Institute.
Kashdan, T. B., & Nezlek, J. B. (2012). Whether, when, and
how is

70. spirituality related to well-being? Moving beyond single
occasion
questionnaires to understanding daily process. Personality and
Social
Psychology Bulletin, 38, 1523–1535. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0146167212454549
King, M., Semlyen, J., Tai, S. S., Killaspy, H., Osborn, D.,
Popelyuk, D.,
& Nazareth, I. (2008). A systematic review of mental disorder,
suicide,
and deliberate self harm in lesbian, gay and bisexual people.
BMC
Psychiatry, 8, 70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-244X-8-70
Kyle, J. (2013). Spirituality: Its role as a mediating protective
factor in
youth at risk for suicide. Journal of Spirituality in Mental
Health, 15,
47– 67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19349637.2012.744620
Labbé, E. E., & Fobes, A. (2010). Evaluating the interplay
between
spirituality, personality and stress. Applied Psychophysiology
and Bio-
feedback, 35, 141–146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10484-009-
9119-9
Lapinski, J., & McKirnan, D. (2013). Forgive me Father for I
have sinned:
The role of a Christian upbringing on lesbian, gay, and bisexual
identity
development. Journal of Homosexuality, 60, 853– 872.
http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/00918369.2013.774844

71. Leak, G. K. (2009). An assessment of the relationship between
identity
development, faith development, and religious commitment.
Identity: An
International Journal of Theory and Research, 9, 201–218.
http://dx.doi
.org/10.1080/15283480903344521
Lease, S. H., Horne, S. G., & Noffsinger-Frazier, N. (2005).
Affirming
faith experiences and psychological health for Caucasian
lesbian, gay,
and bisexual individuals. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52,
378 –
388. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.52.3.378
Lick, D. J., Durso, L. E., & Johnson, K. L. (2013). Minority
stress and
physical health among sexual minorities. Perspectives on
Psychological
Science, 8, 521–548.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691613497965
Lo, C., Lin, J., Gagliese, L., Zimmermann, C., Mikulincer, M.,
& Rodin, G.
(2010). Age and depression in patients with metastatic cancer:
The
protective effects of attachment security and spiritual
wellbeing. Ageing
& Society, 30, 325–336.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X09990201
Meadows, L. A., Kaslow, N. J., Thompson, M. P., & Jurkovic,
G. J. (2005).
Protective factors against suicide attempt risk among African

72. American
women experiencing intimate partner violence. American
Journal of
Community Psychology, 36(1–2), 109 –121.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s10464-005-6236-3
Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health
in lesbian,
gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research
evidence.
Psychological Bulletin, 129, 674 – 697.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-
2909.129.5.674
Miller, W. R., & Thoresen, C. E. (2003). Spirituality, religion,
and health.
An emerging research field. American Psychologist, 58, 24 –35.
http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.1.24
Mock, S. E., & Eibach, R. P. (2012). Stability and change in
sexual
orientation identity over a 10-year period in adulthood.
Archives of
Sexual Behavior, 41, 641– 648.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10508-011-
9761-1
Mohr, J. J., & Fassinger, R. E. (2000). Measuring dimensions of
lesbian
and gay male experience. Measurement & Evaluation in
Counseling and
Development, 33, 66 –90.
Moleiro, C., Pinto, N., & Freire, J. (2013). Effects of age on

73. spiritual
well-being and homonegativity: Religious identity and practices
among
LGB persons in Portugal. Journal of Religion, Spirituality &
Aging, 25,
93–111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15528030.2012.741561
Nelson, C., Jacobson, C. M., Weinberger, M. I., Bhaskaran, V.,
Rosenfeld,
B., Breitbart, W., & Roth, A. J. (2009). The role of spirituality
in the
relationship between religiosity and depression in prostate
cancer pa-
tients. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 38, 105–114.
http://dx.doi.org/10
.1007/s12160-009-9139-y
Newcomb, M. E., & Mustanski, B. (2010). Internalized
homophobia and
internalizing mental health problems: A meta-analytic review.
Clinical
Psychology Review, 30, 1019 –1029.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr
.2010.07.003
Oman, D. (2013). Religious and spirituality: Evolving
meanings. In R. F.
Paloutzian & C. L. Park (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of
religion
and spirituality (2nd ed., pp. 23– 47). New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Pagnini, F., Lunetta, C., Rossi, G., Banfi, P., Gorni, K.,
Cellotto, N., . . .
Corbo, M. (2011). Existential well-being and spirituality of
individuals

74. T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P

75. sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is

76. he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs

77. on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em

78. in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
78 WRIGHT AND STERN
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/sw/43.3.213
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/sw/43.3.213
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.33.3.260
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.33.3.260
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10804-009-9071-1
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10804-009-9071-1
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0014440
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0014440
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13674676.2014.942840
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0016441
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.67.6.945
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.67.6.945
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-5914.00119
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-5914.00119
http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J079v30n01_03
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/425463
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/425463
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2011.03962.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1464700106061462
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1464700106061462
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167212454549
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167212454549

79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-244X-8-70
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19349637.2012.744620
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10484-009-9119-9
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2013.774844
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2013.774844
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15283480903344521
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15283480903344521
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.52.3.378
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691613497965
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X09990201
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-005-6236-3
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-005-6236-3
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.1.24
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.1.24
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10508-011-9761-1
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10508-011-9761-1
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15528030.2012.741561
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12160-009-9139-y
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12160-009-9139-y
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2010.07.003
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2010.07.003
with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis is related to psychological
well-being
of their caregivers. Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis: Official
Publication
of the World Federation of Neurology Research Group on Motor
Neuron
Diseases, 12, 105–108.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/17482968.2010
.502941
Paranjape, A., & Kaslow, N. (2010). Family violence exposure

80. and health
outcomes among older African American women: Do
spirituality and
social support play protective roles? Journal of Women’s
Health, 19,
1899 –1904. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2009.1845
Pargament, K. I. (2002). The bitter and the sweet: An evaluation
of the
costs and benefits of religiousness. Psychological Inquiry, 13,
168 –181.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1303_02
Plöderl, M. M., Kralovec, K. K., Fartacek, C. C., & Fartacek, R.
R. (2010).
Homosexuality as a risk factor for depression and suicidality
among
men. Facts and ignorance of facts. European Psychiatry, 25,
136.
Prior, J., & Cusack, C. M. (2009). Spiritual dimensions of self-
transformation in Sydney’s gay bathhouses. Journal of
Homosexuality,
57, 71–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00918360903445327
Ritter, K. Y., & Terndrup, A. I. (2002). Handbook of
affirmative psycho-
therapy with lesbians and gay men. New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Rodgers, B. (1995). The Radical Faerie movement: A queer
spirit pathway.
Social Alternatives, 14, 34 –37.
Rodriguez, E. M., Lytle, M. C., & Vaughan, M. D. (2013).
Exploring the

81. intersectionality of bisexual, religious/spiritual, and political
identities
from a feminist perspective. Journal of Bisexuality, 13, 285–
309. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/15299716.2013.813001
Rodriguez, E. M., & Ouellette, S. C. (2000). Gay and lesbian
Christians:
Homosexual and religious identity integration in the members
and
participants of a gay positive church. Journal for the Scientific
Study of
Religion, 39, 333–347. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0021-
8294.00028
Rosario, M., Schrimshaw, E. W., & Hunter, J. (2004).
Ethnic/racial dif-
ferences in the coming-out process of lesbian, gay, and bisexual
youths:
A comparison of sexual identity development over time.
Cultural Di-
versity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 10, 215–228.
http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/1099-9809.10.3.215
Rosario, M., Schrimshaw, E. W., & Hunter, J. (2008).
Predicting different
patterns of sexual identity development over time among
lesbian, gay,
and bisexual youths: A cluster analytic approach. American
Journal of
Community Psychology, 42(3– 4), 266 –282.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s10464-008-9207-7
Rosario, M., Schrimshaw, E. W., Hunter, J., & Braun, L.

82. (2006). Sexual
identity development among gay, lesbian, and bisexual youths:
Consis-
tency and change over time. Journal of Sex Research, 43, 46 –
58.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224490609552298
Ross, M. W., & Rosser, B. R. (1996). Measurement and
correlates of
internalized homophobia: A factor analytic study. Journal of
Clinical
Psychology, 52, 15–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-
4679(199601)52:1�15::AID-JCLP2�3.0.CO;2-V
Salas-Wright, C. P., Olate, R., & Vaughn, M. G. (2013). The
protective
effects of religious coping and spirituality on delinquency:
Results
among high-risk and gang-involved Salvadoran youth. Criminal
Jus-
tice and Behavior, 40, 988 –1008. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0093854813482307
Sánchez, F. J., & Vilain, E. (2012). “Straight-acting gays”: The
relationship
between masculine consciousness, anti-effeminacy, and
negative gay
identity. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 111–119.
http://dx.doi.org/10
.1007/s10508-012-9912-z
Schneider, R. Z., & Feltey, K. M. (2009). “No matter what has
been done
wrong can always be redone right”: Spirituality in the lives of
impris-
oned battered women. Violence Against Women, 15, 443– 459.

83. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1177/1077801208331244
Smith, B., & Horne, S. (2007). Gay, lesbian, bisexual and
transgendered
(GLBT) experiences with Earth-spirited faith. Journal of
Homosexual-
ity, 52, 235–248. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J082v52n03_11
Sorajjakool, S., Aja, V., Chilson, B., Ramirez-Johnson, J., &
Earll, A.
(2008). Disconnection, depression, and spirituality: A study of
the role
of spirituality and meaning in the lives of individuals with
severe
depression. Pastoral Psychology, 56, 521–532.
http://dx.doi.org/10
.1007/s11089-008-0125-2
Szymanski, D., & Kashubeck-West, S. (2008). Mediators of the
relation-
ship between internalized oppressions and lesbian and bisexual
women’s
psychological distress. The Counseling Psychologist, 36, 575–
594.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0011000007309490
Tan, P. P. (2005). The importance of spirituality among gay and
lesbian
individuals. Journal of Homosexuality, 49, 135–144.
http://dx.doi.org/
10.1300/J082v49n02_08
Thoresen, C. E. (1999). Spirituality and health: Is there a
relationship?
Journal of Health Psychology, 4, 291–300.

84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
135910539900400314
Thumma, S. (1991). Negotiating a religious identity: The case
of the gay
evangelical. Sociology of Religion, 52, 333–347.
http://dx.doi.org/10
.2307/3710850
Turner-Musa, J., & Lipscomb, L. (2007). Spirituality and social
support on
health behaviors of african american undergraduates. American
Journal
of Health Behavior, 31, 495–501.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5993/AJHB.31
.5.5
Ungvarski, P. J., & Grossman, A. H. (1999). Health problems of
gay and
bisexual men. The Nursing Clinics of North America, 34, 313–
331.
Visser, A., Garssen, B., & Vingerhoets, A. (2010). Spirituality
and well-
being in cancer patients: A review. Psycho-Oncology, 19, 565–
572.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pon.1626
Walker, E. A. (2000). Spiritual support in relation to community
violence
exposure, aggressive outcomes, and psychological adjustment
among
inner city young adolescents. Dissertation Abstracts
International: Sec-
tion B: The Sciences and Engineering, 61(6), 3295.

85. Walker, J. (2012). Multiple identities: An examination of racial,
religious
and sexual identity for black men who have sex with men during
emerging adulthood (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). City
Univer-
sity of New York, NY.
Woodford, M. R., Howell, M. L., Silverschanz, P., & Yu, L.
(2012).
“That’s so gay!”: Examining the covariates of hearing this
expression
among gay, lesbian, and bisexual college students. Journal of
American
College Health, 60, 429 – 434.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2012
.673519
Wright, A. J., & Wegner, R. T. (2012). Homonegative
microaggressions
and their impact on LGB individuals: A measure validity study.
Journal
of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 6, 34 –54.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
15538605.2012.648578
Yarhouse, M. A., & Tan, E. S. N. (2005). Addressing religious
conflicts in
adolescents who experience sexual identity confusion.
Professional Psy-
chology: Research and Practice, 36, 530 –536.
http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/0735-7028.36.5.530
Yip, A. K. (1997). Attacking the attacker: Gay Christians talk
back. British
Journal of Sociology, 48, 113–127.

86. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/591913
Zinnbauer, B. J., Pargament, K. I., Cole, B., Rye, M. S., Butter,
E. M.,
Belavich, T. G., . . . Kadar, J. L. (1997). Religion and
spirituality:
Unfuzzying the fuzzy. Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion, 36,
549 –564. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1387689
Received September 17, 2014
Revision received August 19, 2015
Accepted August 24, 2015 �
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te

87. d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on

88. e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd

89. ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er

90. an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
79SPIRITUALITY AND SEXUAL MINORITY IDENTITY
http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/17482968.2010.502941
http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/17482968.2010.502941
http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2009.1845
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1303_02
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00918360903445327
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15299716.2013.813001
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15299716.2013.813001
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0021-8294.00028

91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1099-9809.10.3.215
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1099-9809.10.3.215
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-008-9207-7
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-008-9207-7
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224490609552298
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/%28SICI%291097-
4679%28199601%2952:1%3C15::AID-JCLP2%3E3.0.CO;2-V
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/%28SICI%291097-
4679%28199601%2952:1%3C15::AID-JCLP2%3E3.0.CO;2-V
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0093854813482307
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0093854813482307
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10508-012-9912-z
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10508-012-9912-z
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077801208331244
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077801208331244
http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J082v52n03_11
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11089-008-0125-2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11089-008-0125-2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0011000007309490
http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J082v49n02_08
http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J082v49n02_08
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/135910539900400314
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/135910539900400314
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3710850
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3710850
http://dx.doi.org/10.5993/AJHB.31.5.5
http://dx.doi.org/10.5993/AJHB.31.5.5
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pon.1626
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2012.673519
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2012.673519
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15538605.2012.648578
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15538605.2012.648578
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.36.5.530
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.36.5.530
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/591913
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1387689The Role of Spirituality in

92. Sexual Minority
IdentitySpiritualityIdentityHeteronormativityCurrent
StudyMethodParticipantsDesign and
ProcedureMeasuresDemographicsIntrinsic Spirituality Scale
(ISS)Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Identity Scale
(LGBIS)Heteronormative Attitudes and Beliefs Scale
(HABS)ResultsSpirituality and Negative
IdentityHeteronormativity and Negative IdentitySpirituality and
HeteronormativityMediation ModelDiscussionLimitations and
Future DirectionsReferences
Development of Gender Identity Implicit Association Tests to
Assess
Attitudes Toward Transmen and Transwomen
Tiffani “Tie” S. Wang-Jones
California School of Professional Psychology, Alliant
International University
Omar M. Alhassoon
California School of Professional Psychology and University of
California, San Diego
Kate Hattrup
San Diego State University, San Diego
Bernardo M. Ferdman and Rodney L. Lowman
California School of Professional Psychology, Alliant
International University
The purpose of this study was to develop and validate 2 gender

93. identity implicit association tests
(GI-IATs) designed to assess attitudes toward transsexual men
(Transmen-IAT) and transsexual women
(Transwomen-IAT). A sample of 344 Mechanical Turk
participants from the United States (173 women,
129 men, 43 transgender) completed the following: GI-IATs,
Genderism and Transphobia Scale,
Allophilia Toward Transsexual Individuals Scale, Social
Desirability Scale-17, feelings thermometers,
and ratings of intention to support transgender workplace
policies. Results indicate that people who are
cisgender (non-transgender), heterosexual, politically
conservative, or who reported no personal contact
with transgender individuals showed cisgender preferences on
both GI-IATs. Additionally, both mea-
sures correlated as predicted with the explicit measures (feeling
thermometers) of attitude toward
transgender individuals. As expected, the explicit attitude
measures, but not the GI-IATs, correlated with
social desirability. Further, confirmatory factor analyses
supported the model comprising 4 distinct latent
variables: implicit attitudes toward transmen, explicit attitudes
toward transmen, implicit attitudes toward
transwomen, and explicit attitudes toward transwomen. Finally,
hierarchical multiple regressions showed
that both explicit and implicit measures predicted support for
transgender workplace policies. Additional
analyses showed that both the Transmen-IAT and the
Transwomen-IAT accounted for incremental
variance above and beyond the relative feelings thermometers in
predicting policy support intentions.
These findings provide significant psychometric support for
both GI-IATs. They also highlight the
importance of incorporating implicit measures in studying
attitudes toward transgender individuals, and
of distinguishing attitudes toward transmen versus transwomen.

94. Public Significance Statement
This study created and validated the first implicit tests of
attitude toward transsexual men and
transsexual women. Current measures are limited because they
depend exclusively on self-report
methods and treat the transgender community as one
homogenous group. Our tests examine attitudes
toward transsexual men and women separately using a method
that is less affected by people’s own
judgement of how they feel and are more likely to pick up
unconscious bias.
Keywords: attitudes toward transsexual men, attitudes toward
transsexual women, implicit bias, implicit
measure, test development
Supplemental materials:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000218.supp
This article was published Online First January 12, 2017.
Tiffani “Tie” S. Wang-Jones, Dual Clinical
Psychology/Industrial-
Organizational Psychology PhD Program, California School of
Professional
Psychology, Alliant International University; Omar M.
Alhassoon, Clinical
Psychology PhD Program, California School of Professional
Psychology and
Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Diego;
Kate Hattrup,
Department of Psychology, San Diego State University, San
Diego; Bernardo
M. Ferdman and Rodney L. Lowman, Industrial/Organizational

95. Psychology
PhD Program, California School of Professional Psychology,
Alliant Interna-
tional University.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Omar
M. Alhassoon, California School of Professional Psychology,
Associate
Project Scientist, UCSD, Daley Hall 112C, 10455 Pomerado
Road, San
Diego, CA 92131. E-mail: [email protected]
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by

96. th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of

97. it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so

98. le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d

99. is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity © 2017
American Psychological Association
2017, Vol. 4, No. 2, 169 –183 2329-0382/17/$12.00
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000218
169
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000218.supp
mailto:[email protected]
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000218
Transgender1 issues are becoming more visible in the United

100. States through mainstream media and politics. Reality TV series
like I Am Cait and I Am Jazz, as well as recent controversies
regarding state laws about restroom access, have captured the
public’s attention. A national survey by the Public Religion Re-
search Institute showed that 9 out of 10 Americans supported
equal
rights for transgender people (Cox & Jones, 2011). Even
religious
and political conservatives were largely supportive of
transgender
equality (Cox & Jones, 2011). Despite positively espoused atti-
tudes, people’s support for specific protections against
transgender
discrimination is divided (Newport, 2016). Furthermore, the
over-
whelming support for transgender rights belies the fact that
trans-
gender Americans report significant discrimination (Grant et al.,
2011). These concerns highlight the need to improve on current
transphobia measures, which are limited because they depend
exclusively on self-report and treat the transgender community
as
one homogenous group. Implicit cognition research shows that
self-report is a poor method for uncovering attitudes that people
may not be fully aware of or may not be willing to disclose
(Gawronski & Payne, 2010; Greenwald & Banaji, 1995). There-
fore, it is possible that current reliance on surveys to measure
transphobia does not yield a complete picture of the underlying
biases. In addition, data indicate that certain transgender
subgroups
face more bias than others. According to crime data, male-to-
female transsexual2 individuals (transwomen) face the most
severe
consequences of bias-motivated actions such as assault and
homi-
cide (Human Rights Campaign, 2015; Human Rights Council,

101. 2011; Schilt & Westbrook, 2009). Considering these devastating
consequences of discrimination, and the limitations in current
transphobia measures, this study was aimed at developing
implicit
measures to indirectly assess attitudes toward transwomen and
transmen independently to allow necessary comparisons so that
these phenomena can be better understood and managed.
Implicit and Explicit Definitions
The terms implicit and explicit have been used in bias research
to describe both constructs and measures (Fazio & Olson, 2003;
Greenwald & Banaji, 1995). Implicit, when used to describe a
measure, pertains to the procedure of obtaining data on
something
indirectly; that is without having overtly asked the participants
about the focal topic (Fazio & Olson, 2003). Conversely,
explicit
measures gather information by directly querying participants
on
the topic of interest. When these terms are used in reference to a
construct (e.g., implicit cognition), they describe whether or not
the mental process occurs automatically (Greenwald & Banaji,
1995). Some researchers (e.g., Greenwald & Banaji, 1995)
argue
that, because implicit and explicit cognitions differ from one
another, measurement methods also need to differ to capture
these
concepts appropriately.
Implicit Association Test
The Implicit Association Test (IAT) is the most widely re-
searched implicit procedure used to assess automatic
preferences
based on the concept of reaction time (RT) differentials

102. (Gawron-
ski & Payne, 2010). Developed by Greenwald, McGhee, and
Schwartz (1998), the IAT is considered a relative measure of
attitudes because the respondent is evaluating their preferences
between two target groups. For an intergroup IAT, the
procedure
compares preferences for one target group versus another based
on
people’s response-time latency in associating positively versus
negatively valenced stimuli with each of the two target groups.
The
IAT yields consistent patterns of results that point to attitudinal
preferences favoring the privileged social group on identity
dimen-
sions such as race (Amodio & Devine, 2006), disability (Pruett
&
Chan, 2006), sexual orientation (Breen & Karpinski, 2013),
weight
(Agerström & Rooth, 2011), and gender (Nier & Gaertner,
2012).
Research has also shown that the IAT procedure can predict
discriminatory behavior. Greenwald et al. (2009) conducted a
meta-analysis of 122 studies that used the IAT with 184
indepen-
dent samples across various domains such as race, gender,
sexual
orientation, consumer behaviors, and political preferences.
Results
showed that RTs on the IAT predicted behaviors such as social
interactions, medical decisions, and voting preferences.
Employ-
ment studies that used IATs showed that scores on these
measures
predicted hiring outcomes for Middle Eastern (Rooth, 2010) and
obese applicants (Agerström & Rooth, 2011). Therefore, a large

103. and growing body of research has demonstrated the potential
usefulness of the IAT for measuring implicit attitudes.
Currently, there are no implicit measures of attitudes toward
transgender individuals. However, there are IAT studies focused
on sexual orientation that have found attitudinal preferences
within
the heterosexual population for their own group (Banse, Seise,
&
Zerbes, 2001; Jellison, McConnell, & Gabriel, 2004; Steffens,
2005). In fact, Steffens (2005) showed that heterosexual people
tend to report positive attitudes toward gay men and lesbians,
but
nonetheless show some automatic preferences for straight
individ-
uals. Furthermore, Jellison et al. (2004) found that the sexuality
IAT predicted the degree to which gay men were active in the
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, plus people of all other
sexual
orientations and gender identities (LGBT�) community,
whereas
the explicit measures were more predictive of self-disclosure of
one’s sexual orientation. The differences in the types of
behaviors
predicted by explicit and implicit measures, and the divergence
between these measurement scores, suggests that explicit and
implicit measures capture related yet disparate variance in these
attitudes. Not surprisingly, homophobia and transphobia are re-
lated (Hill & Willoughby, 2005; Nagoshi et al., 2008; Walch,
Ngamake, Francisco, Stitt, & Shingler, 2012); hence, research
that
has used IATs to assess homophobia provides insight to inform
the
development of implicit measures to assess attitudes toward
trans-
men and transwomen.

104. 1 The American Psychological Association (2011) defines
transgender
as “an umbrella term for persons whose gender identity, gender
expression
or behavior does not conform to what is typically associated
with the sex
to which they were assigned at birth” (p. 1). Sex refers to
people’s
physiology at birth in terms of genes and anatomy. Gender
identity is one’s
inner sense of self as woman, man, or transgender. Gender
expression
refers to the ways in which people choose to communicate their
gender
identity through dress, hairstyle, mannerisms, and other means
of self-
expression.
2 Transsexual individuals, “often referred to as either male-to-
female
(MtF) or female-to-male (FtM), are biological men or biological
women,
respectively, who seek hormonal, surgical, and/or other
procedures to make
their bodies conform to their desired gender” (Gerhardstein &
Anderson,
2010, p. 361). The terms transwomen and transmen are
sometimes used as
synonyms for MtF and FtM transsexuals, respectively.
T
hi
s
do

105. cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og

106. ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T

107. hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e

108. of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br

109. oa
dl
y.
170 WANG-JONES ET AL.
Research Aims and Hypotheses
The primary aim of this study was to create two gender identity
IATs (GI-IATs): one for assessing relative preferences toward
transsexual men versus biological men (Transmen-IAT), and an-
other for assessing relative preferences toward transsexual
women
versus biological women (Transwomen-IAT). Evaluation of the
instruments’ reliability and validity was based on internal
consis-
tency, stability, and various types of validity (known-groups,
con-
vergent, discriminant, and predictive).
Known-Groups Validity
Known-groups validity is a method of assessing initial construct
validity of measurements by evaluating the basic assumption
that
a test will capture differences between groups that should
logically
or empirically differ on the construct of interest (Cronbach &
Meehl, 1955). First conceptualized by Cronbach and Meehl
(1955), known-groups validity has been widely used in scale
development (Mackenzie, Podsakoff, & Podsakoff, 2011; Rubin
&

110. Babbie, 2009a, 2009b), and has been deemed critical evidence
for
evaluating meaningful differences among groups to augment
other
methods of assessing measurement validity (Hattie & Cooksey,
1984). When used for IAT development, this common approach
tests whether IAT scores diverge between two groups known to
differ in their bias against the target (Gawronski & Payne,
2010).
For example, results from race and ethnicity IATs show
expected
known-group differences between Blacks, Whites, and Latinos
(Blair, Judd, Havranek, & Steiner, 2010), Japanese and Korean
Americans (Greenwald et al., 1998), and East and West
Germans
(Kuhnen et al., 2001). Because group divergence in test scores
does not by itself provide sufficient evidence of measurement
validity, the current study did not rely exclusively on the
known-
groups method, but incorporated other lines of evidence to
support
inferences about the GI-IATs.
The basic assumption that the GI-IATs can differentiate be-
tween groups that are expected to differ on attitudes toward
trans-
men and transwomen was tested in several ways. First, because
these measures aim to assess preferences about gender identity,
and research points to the prevalence of transphobia within the
American cisgender (non-transgender) population (Flores, 2015;
Grant et al., 2011; Norton & Herek, 2013), it was expected that
cisgender individuals will show greater preference for
biological
versus transsexual targets than will transgender individuals.
Hypothesis 1a: Cisgender individuals will show greater cis-

111. gender preference on both GI-IATs compared with transgen-
der individuals.
Studies of homophobia provide evidence that heterosexual men,
compared with heterosexual women, show greater negativity to-
ward sexual minorities on implicit and explicit measures of bias
(Banse et al., 2001; Hill & Willoughby, 2005; Nagoshi et al.,
2008;
Steffens, 2005). Heterosexual men have also shown greater bias
than heterosexual women toward transgender persons in studies
using explicit measures of transphobia (Cragun & Sumerau,
2015;
Warriner, Nagoshi, & Nagoshi, 2013; Woodford, Silverschanz,
Swank, Scherrer, & Raiz, 2012). Thus, it was expected that cis-
gender heterosexual men and women will differ in their
responses
to implicit measures of bias toward transgender persons.
Hypothesis 1b: Cisgender heterosexual men will show greater
cisgender preference on both GI-IATs than cisgender hetero-
sexual women.
Other demographic factors empirically related to bias toward
transgender individuals are sexual orientation (Case & Stewart,
2013; Cragun & Sumerau, 2015; Warriner et al., 2013), personal
contact with transgender people (King, Winter, & Webster,
2009;
Walch et al., 2012), political conservatism (Warriner et al.,
2013;
Woodford et al., 2012), and degree of religiosity (Cragun &
Sumerau, 2015; Woodford et al., 2012). These variables were
also
included to test known-groups validity.
Hypothesis 1c: Heterosexual individuals will show greater
cisgender preference on both GI-IATs compared with non-

112. heterosexual individuals.
Hypothesis 1d: People without any personal contact with
transgender individuals will show greater cisgender prefer-
ence on both GI-IATs than those who personally know at least
one transgender person.
Hypothesis 1e: Degree of political conservatism and religios-
ity will be related to both GI-IATs.
Convergent Validity
Meta-analyses of IAT studies show consistent relationships be-
tween parallel implicit and explicit bias measures (Hofmann,
Gawronski, Gschwendner, Le, & Schmitt, 2005; Nosek, 2005).
Nosek (2005) examined 57 Internet IAT studies in various
attitude
domains, and reported a correlation between implicit and
explicit
measures of r � .36 (Nosek, 2005). Hofmann et al. (2005)
exam-
ined 126 IAT studies on a range of topics, such as intergroup
attitudes, consumer preferences, and clinical applications, and
observed that correlations between the IAT and its associated
explicit measures for intergroup attitudes (r � .25) were
somewhat
lower than those found for consumer attitudes (r � .34), but
were
still consistent across studies. Thus, evidence from the literature
suggests that implicit and explicit measures are weakly to
moder-
ately related to one another on issues pertaining to intergroup
attitudes. Therefore, similar results were expected in the present
study; we predicted weak to moderate correlations between ex-
plicit measures toward transgender persons and the GI-IATs.

113. Hypothesis 2a: Both GI-IATs will show weak to moderate
positive correlations (r � .10 to .30) with an explicit measure
of negative attitudes toward transgender people.
Hypothesis 2b: Both GI-IATs will show weak to moderate
negative correlations (r � �.10 to �.30) with an explicit
measure of positive attitudes toward transgender people.
Discriminant Validity
Evidence from explicit measures has also been used to support
discriminant validity of IATs. Nosek and Smyth (2007) used
multitrait-multimethod procedures to show strong evidence of
convergent and discriminant validity of the IAT across seven
target attitude pairs (e.g., straight/gay, White/Black, or flower/
insect). Convergent validity was supported by findings of
signif-
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri

114. gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on

115. or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in

116. te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al

117. us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
171DEVELOPMENT OF GENDER IDENTITY IATS
icant correlations between explicit and implicit attitudes for
five of
the seven target pairs. To demonstrate discriminant validity,

118. con-
firmatory factory analysis (CFA) was used; results indicated
that a
dual-construct model with distinct but related explicit and
implicit
factors provided the best model fit. Thus, Nosek and Smyth’s
study supported the idea that explicit and implicit attitudes were
distinct but related constructs. Similar findings were expected
in
the present study, with scores on explicit and implicit measures
of
bias against transmen and transwomen loading on four different
but related latent attitude factors.
Hypothesis 3a: CFA will support a four-factor model with
factors representing implicit attitude towards transmen, im-
plicit attitude towards transwomen, explicit attitude towards
transmen, and explicit attitude towards transwomen.
Research has also shown that implicit measures are less affected
by social desirability than are explicit measures (Gawronski &
Payne, 2010; Sherman et al., 2014). This is especially true in
studies of the sensitive social topic of intergroup bias
(Greenwald
et al., 2009; Nosek et al., 2007). Because implicit measures are
expected to be less affected by conscious self-presentation,
some
researchers have used social desirability to assess the construct
validity of their IATs, and have observed support for the
hypoth-
esized results (LaBouff, Rowatt, Johnson, Thedford, & Tsang,
2010; Pruett & Chan, 2006). This study assessed the
relationship
of the GI-IATs with a measure of social desirability to gather
additional evidence of discriminant validity.

119. Hypothesis 3b: Explicit measures, but not implicit measures of
attitudes toward transgender individuals, will be related to
social desirability.
Predictive Validity
Predictive validity of the GI-IATs was assessed by correlating
them with ratings of behavioral intentions to support
transgender
human resource policies. Studies have shown that IATs are pre-
dictive of policy attitudes, voting behavior, and political
judgments
(Hanson, 2012; Pérez, 2010; Roccato & Zogmaister, 2010). For
example, Pérez (2010) found that a race IAT predicted people’s
attitudes about illegal immigration policies affecting Latinos.
Wang-Jones, Allen, Budzyn, and Ferdman (2013) found that
feel-
ings of threat predicted people’s level of support for
transgender
workplace policies. However, overall ratings of threat were low,
whereas ratings of support were high, so people generally
reported
positive explicit attitudes toward transgender workplace
policies.
The fact that threat was a predictor of policy support even
though
people explicitly denied feeling threat suggests that people may
not be aware of, or may be unwilling to disclose, their negative
explicit attitudes. Considering these findings, both implicit and
explicit measures of attitudes toward transgender people were
expected to be significant predictors of support for transgender
workplace policies.
Hypothesis 4: Both implicit (GI-IATs) and explicit measures
(feelings thermometers) of attitude toward transgender indi-
viduals will be significant predictors of intention to support

120. transgender workplace policies.
Method
Participants
After Institutional Review Board approval, data from two sam-
ples, a pilot sample (N � 113) and a validation sample (N �
344),
were collected using Mechanical Turk (MTurk). The pilot
sample
consisted of 72 women and 41 men living in the United States
who
were between the ages of 18 and 65 (see Table 1 for
demographic
data). Participants in the validation sample were also adults
living
in the United States who were between the ages of 18 and 65.
Targeted sampling was used to obtain transgender participants
by
administering a three-item self-report screener to determine sex,
gender, and sexual orientation. Transgender-identified
individuals
were invited to participate in the validation study through
MTurk
Prime. The initial recruitment sample consisted of 459 partici-
pants. Of this number, 17 individuals dropped out, 68 had tech-
nological issues that prohibited access to the GI-IATs, 8 cases
were deleted because of duplicate data obtained from the same
IP
address, and 22 were removed for having greater than 25% error
on
either of the GI-IATs (Rudman, 2011). The final validation
sample
included 344 participants with a mean age of 34.31 (SD �
10.63) and

121. 14.82 (SD � 2.08) mean years of education (see Table 2).
The use of MTurk and other online sampling services has
flourished recently because of their efficiency for recruiting di-
verse samples that tend to be more representative than those
obtained with typical sampling methods (Berinsky, Huber, &
Lenz, 2012; Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011; Gosling,
Vazire, Srivastava, & John, 2004). Prior research evidence pro-
vides ample support for the reliability and validity of data
collected
through MTurk sampling (Buhrmester et al., 2011; Crump, Mc-
Donnell, & Gureckis, 2013; Steelman, Hammer, & Limayem,
2014), especially for the U.S. population (Steelman et al.,
2014).
Measures
Transmen-IAT and Transwomen-IAT. The two GI-IATs
were coded and administered online through Inquisit
Millisecond
(2015). The Transmen-IAT was designed to assess automatic
preferences for transsexual men versus biological men, and the
Transwomen-IAT was designed to assess automatic preferences
for transsexual women versus biological women. The block se-
quence schematic for both GI-IATs is depicted in Table 3, and
the
specific stimuli used in each test are shown in Table 4. Scoring
of
the GI-IATs followed the improved algorithm recommended by
Greenwald, Nosek, and Banaji, (2003). The built-in penalty for
Table 1
Pilot Study Participant Demographics
Demographics n

122. Total 118
Female birth sex 76
Male birth sex 42
Asian/Pacific Islander 6
Black/Caribbean/African-American 10
Hispanic 5
White/Caucasian 93
Multi-racial 4
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e

123. A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s

124. al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly

125. fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no

126. t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
172 WANG-JONES ET AL.
extreme scores eliminated all trials with �10,000 ms latency.
Data
were used from test and practice tasks of the four dual-
categorization blocks to calculate the IAT scores. The resulting
D
score is based on latency differences obtained by subtracting the
compatible blocks (bias-congruent responses) from the
incompat-
ible blocks (bias-incongruent responses). The directionality of
the
D scores was coded such that larger positive scores indicate
greater

127. relative preference toward cisgender over transgender targets,
and
larger negative scores suggest greater preference for
transgender
over cisgender targets. Reliability and validity evidence of these
measures is presented in more detail in the results section.
Genderism and Transphobia Scale (GTS). The GTS (Hill &
Willoughby, 2005) is a 32-item, 7-point Likert scale measuring
self-reported attitudes and behaviors suggestive of transphobia.
Cronbach’s � of the entire scale ranged from .79 to .96 in
previous
studies (Hill & Willoughby, 2005; Tebbe, Moradi, & Ege,
2014).
In the present sample of cisgender participants, Cronbach’s �
of
the GTS was .96 for the entire scale.
Allophilia Toward Transsexual Individuals Scale
(AlloTrans). The Allophilia Scale (Pittinsky, Rosenthal, &
Montoya, 2010), a 7-point Likert-like scale of 17-items, was
adapted by the current authors to create the AlloTrans scale
with
higher scores indicating positive attitudes toward transsexual
peo-
ple. The original Allophilia Scale was constructed as a measure
meant to be easily adapted for assessing attitudes toward
different
groups by simply inserting the name of the group as the subject.
An adaptation of this scale that assessed attitudes toward
lesbian,
gay, and bisexual people showed a Cronbach’s � of .97 for the
composite score (Fingerhut, 2011). Because the Allophilia Scale
had not been adapted for the transgender target group before, a
separate MTurk sample of 138 participants (90 women, 65 men)

128. was used to determine its overall internal consistency (� �
.99).
Evidence of validity suggest that the AlloTrans is related to
polit-
ical conservatism (r � �.58), religiosity (r � �.44), and
support
for transgender workplace policies (r � .86). For the current
study,
Cronbach’s � for the AlloTrans was .98, and the 1-week test–
retest
reliability coefficient was .94.
Transmen policy support and transwomen policy support.
Eight human resource policies were adapted from Wang-Jones
et
al. (2013) to separately assess support for employment rights
and
benefits for transsexual men and transsexual women.
Participants
were asked to rate their level of support for each policy on a
6-point Likert scale. Policy topics include general
nondiscrimina-
tion clauses, health insurance, restroom access, and dress codes.
Items were reverse-scored such that larger numbers indicated
less
support, to parallel the directionality of the GI-IAT scores.
Cron-
bach’s � for Transmen Policy Support was .94 and Transwomen
Policy Support was .94.
Transmen relative feelings & transwomen relative feelings
thermometers. Three feelings thermometer items were admin-
istered for each of the four target groups (transsexual men,
trans-
sexual women, biological men, and biological women). Each
feel-

129. ings thermometer was rated on a scale of 0 to 100 with the
anchors
of cold to warm (Renfro, Duran, Stephan, & Clason, 2006), neg-
ative to positive (Breen & Karpinski, 2013), and unfavorable to
favorable (Donakowski & Esses, 1996). The decision to use
three
thermometers was based on the desire to establish potential con-
vergence of these items. To mirror the relative-scoring method
of
the IAT procedure, the following formulas were used to obtain
relative explicit feelings scores: Transmen Relative Feelings �
(Absolute Feelings Toward Biological Men�Absolute Feelings
Toward Transsexual Men); Transwomen Relative Feelings �
(Ab-
solute Feelings Toward Biological Women�Absolute Feelings
Toward Transsexual Women). Similar scoring procedures have
been used to create relative preference measures for IAT
research
(Amodio & Devine, 2006; Blair et al., 2010; Nosek & Smyth,
2007). The valence of these relative scores matched the
direction-
ality of the IATs such that larger positive scores suggest more
Table 2
Validation Study Participant Demographics
Demographics Transgender (n) Cisgender (n)
Total 42 302
Female birth sex 33 173
Male birth sex 9 129
Asian/Pacific Islander 0 17
Black/Caribbean/African-American 6 23
Hispanic 2 16
Native American 1 3
White/Caucasian 31 234