Homophobia

Abstract

Homophobia names negative attitudes, emotions, and behaviour directed at people because they are, or are perceived to be, lesbian, gay, or bisexual. Coined by George Weinberg in 1972 to locate the problem in the hostile observer rather than the stigmatised person, the term has since been refined by psychologists who find “phobia” clinically misleading. Gregory Herek proposed sexual prejudice as the measurable construct and later sexual stigma as its structural counterpart. This article traces that conceptual arc, surveys the main measurement instruments, examines the robust finding that heterosexual men judge gay men more harshly than lesbian women, and sets out the minority-stress model that links experienced and internalised prejudice to the mental health of sexual-minority people.

Keywords: homophobia, sexual prejudice, minority stress

Few terms have moved as quickly from activist coinage to scientific liability as homophobia. George Weinberg introduced it in 1972 to make a then-radical claim: that the pathology in the encounter between a gay person and a hostile society lay with the hostility, not the orientation. The word did enormous political work, reframing anti-gay sentiment as the observer’s problem. But as a scientific construct it carried freight it could not support — “phobia” implies an irrational fear, an individual clinical disorder, and an anxiety response, none of which fits the ordinary, socially learned, often calm hostility that the research actually documents.

Cognitive and social psychologists therefore spent four decades rebuilding the construct on firmer ground. The result is a layered vocabulary: sexual prejudice for the individual-level negative attitude, sexual stigma for the shared social knowledge that sexual minorities are devalued, and internalised homophobia for what happens when a stigmatised person absorbs that devaluation. This article follows the construct from Weinberg’s coinage through its measurement, its most reliable empirical regularities, and its consequences for health.

What Homophobia Is

Homophobia, in ordinary use, is the whole family of negative responses to homosexuality: moral disapproval, disgust, avoidance, discrimination, and sometimes violence. Weinberg’s original definition was narrower and more literal — “the dread of being in close quarters with homosexuals” — but the term quickly broadened to cover any anti-gay sentiment (Weinberg, 1972). That breadth is precisely what later researchers found unworkable.

The core objection is that “phobia” is a clinical category with specific entailments: an irrational, excessive fear; marked physiological arousal; a desire to avoid the feared object; and insight that the fear is disproportionate. Anti-gay attitudes typically show none of this. They are usually ego-syntonic (the holder sees nothing wrong with them), socially endorsed rather than idiosyncratic, and expressed as hostility or contempt rather than fear (Herek, 1984). Treating a widely shared social attitude as an individual anxiety disorder both over-pathologises the individual and under-describes the social system that produces the attitude.

Herek (2000) therefore proposed sexual prejudice — negative attitudes toward an individual because of their sexual orientation — as the construct psychology should actually measure. It is deliberately neutral about motive and mechanism, locates the attitude in the ordinary machinery of prejudice, stereotyping, and social perception, and invites the same tools used for any other intergroup attitude. He later added sexual stigma, the shared cultural knowledge that non-heterosexual identities are devalued, which exists whether or not any given person endorses it, and heterosexism for the ideological system that embeds that devaluation in institutions and cultural practice (Herek, 2004). The two levels interlock: structural stigma supplies the raw material that individual prejudice draws on.

Dimensions of Homophobia Research

Research on anti-gay attitudes organises around a small number of crossed questions: what level of analysis is in view (the individual attitude, the shared stigma, or the internalised version), how the attitude is measured (blatant versus subtle), and whose attitudes toward whom are being assessed. Figure 1 sketches how the three principal constructs sit at different levels, and Table 1 lays out the dimensions the rest of the article develops.

Table 1

Dimensions Along Which Anti-Gay Attitudes Are Studied

Measuring sexual prejudice

The first serious scales treated homophobia as a single blatant dimension. Hudson and Ricketts’ Index of Homophobia (later the Index of Attitudes Toward Homosexuals) measured affective discomfort around gay people and, notably, already argued for the more neutral term homonegativism (Hudson & Ricketts, 1980). Herek’s Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men (ATLG) scale became the field standard, measuring condemnation of homosexuality as such and crucially splitting the target into lesbians and gay men so the two could be compared (Herek, 1988).

As openly expressed prejudice declined, these blatant instruments began to miss a great deal. Morrison and Morrison’s Modern Homonegativity Scale captures the subtler contemporary form — the belief that sexual minorities exaggerate discrimination, make unnecessary demands, or receive undeserved special attention — which a respondent can endorse while sincerely rejecting old-fashioned moral condemnation (Morrison & Morrison, 2003). The gap between what a blatant scale and a modern scale detect in the same person is the quantity Demo 1 makes concrete.

Demo 1 · Old-fashioned versus modern homonegativity

Blatant prejudice has fallen while subtler forms persist, so modern scales separate old-fashioned homonegativity (open moral condemnation) from modern homonegativity (denying that prejudice still exists, resenting “special attention”). Set each endorsement against a 0.50 flag threshold; when M clears the line but O does not, a respondent looks unprejudiced to an old instrument yet endorses the modern one — a detection gap of M − O.

At O = 0.25, M = 0.70 the respondent is modern-only: the 0.45 gap is exactly the prejudice an old-fashioned instrument records as zero.

The gender-of-target asymmetry

One of the most replicated findings in this literature is that attitudes depend on whose homosexuality is being judged. Heterosexual men, in particular, express markedly more negativity toward gay men than toward lesbian women, a gap that is much smaller or absent among heterosexual women (Herek, 1988). The asymmetry is usually explained in terms of masculinity and gender-role policing: for heterosexual men, hostility toward gay men functions partly to affirm their own conformity to the male role.

The pattern is not merely a feature of a few Western samples. A 23-country study by Bettinsoli, Suppes, and Napier (2020) found the gender-of-target asymmetry across a wide range of cultures, with heterosexual men consistently showing the larger gap — evidence that the effect reflects something structural about gender rather than a local quirk. Demo 2 varies a shared baseline and switches the respondent, so the gap opens for men and nearly closes for women.

Demo 2 · The gender-of-target asymmetry

Attitudes are not uniform across targets: heterosexual men, in particular, report more negativity toward gay men than toward lesbian women, while heterosexual women are closer to even-handed. Model each attitude as a shared baseline b shifted by a signed asymmetry that depends on respondent gender. Set the baseline and switch the respondent to watch the gap open and close.

At b = 0.50 a male respondent gives 0.60 versus 0.40, a 0.20 gap; the same baseline for a female respondent nearly closes it. The asymmetry is about who is judged, not only how much.

Minority stress and internalized homophobia

The most consequential line of research turns from the holders of prejudice to its targets. Meyer’s minority-stress model holds that sexual-minority people face chronic, socially based stressors — enacted discrimination and violence (distal stressors), the expectation of rejection and the concealment it demands, and internalised homophobia, the self-directed form that results when a person absorbs society’s devaluation (Meyer, 2003). These stressors are additive to, and distinct from, ordinary life stress, which is why sexual-minority populations show elevated rates of distress even after general stressors are controlled.

The model is not purely deficit-focused. Meyer later emphasised resilience — the coping resources, and above all the connection to an affirming community, that buffer minority stress (Meyer, 2015). Recent work bears this out: in a sample of young gay men in Taiwan, Liang and Huang (2021) found internalised homophobia predicted depressive symptoms, while relationship satisfaction and connectedness moderated the link. Demo 3 models distress as the product of enacted and internalised prejudice, with community connectedness absorbing part of the burden.

Demo 3 · Minority stress and the community buffer

The minority-stress model treats the distress of sexual-minority people as the product of external, enacted discrimination (distal stress) and the internalized homophobia it feeds, buffered by connection to an affirming community. Model the burden as B = 10(0.5D + 0.5P)(1 − 0.4C) on a 0–10 distress scale, and watch connectedness absorb part of it.

At D = 0.60, P = 0.50 the unbuffered burden is 5.5; raising C to 0.75 cuts it to 3.85 — 30% absorbed. Prejudice is a property of the environment, and connection is a modelled resource against it.

Worked Example

The three demos each formalise a published idea; working their arithmetic by hand shows what each is claiming.

Discussion

The trajectory of this construct is a case study in how a politically useful word can be a scientifically poor one. Homophobia did essential work in the 1970s by relocating the problem onto the hostile observer, and it remains the term the public knows. But its clinical baggage — irrational fear, individual disorder, anxiety — fits the phenomenon badly, and the field’s move to sexual prejudice and sexual stigma was a gain in precision, not mere relabelling (Herek & McLemore, 2013).

That precision matters because the three levels in Figure 1 call for different interventions. If the problem is framed as an individual phobia, the implied remedy is individual — therapy, exposure, contact. If it is framed as structural stigma, the remedy is institutional: non-discrimination law, inclusive policy, changed norms. And the minority-stress model reframes the mental-health disparities of sexual-minority people not as anything intrinsic to their orientation — the very inversion Weinberg was reaching for — but as the predictable toll of living in a prejudiced environment. Where the harm is located determines where the repair is applied.

Current Directions

Contemporary work pushes in two directions. The first is measurement under social-desirability pressure. Because blatant prejudice is now widely condemned, self-report scales increasingly miss it, and researchers turn to implicit and dual-process methods. Hamtzani and colleagues (2022) compared implicit and explicit attitudes toward gay men and lesbian women among undergraduate and graduate students in psychology and nursing, finding dissociations between what respondents endorse and what implicit measures reveal — and a target asymmetry that persists at the implicit level.

The second is the cross-cultural and resilience-focused study of consequences. The minority-stress framework, developed largely in the United States, is now tested in very different contexts, such as Liang and Huang’s (2021) work on young gay men in Taiwan, where the balance of enacted prejudice, concealment, and community connection differs. The emphasis has shifted from cataloguing deficits toward identifying the resources — affirming communities, policy protections, relationship support — that moderate the link between prejudice and ill-health.

Common Misconceptions

“Homophobia is a clinical phobia.”

It is not. Anti-gay attitudes lack the irrational fear, physiological arousal, and insight that define a phobia; they are learned, socially endorsed attitudes, which is why researchers prefer sexual prejudice (Herek, 1984; Herek, 2000).

“If someone passes a prejudice scale, they hold no prejudice.”

Only if the scale is sensitive to modern, subtle forms. A respondent can clear a blatant instrument while endorsing covert homonegativity, the detection gap of Demo 1 (Morrison & Morrison, 2003).

“The Adams study proved anti-gay men are secretly gay.”

Adams, Wright, and Lohr (1996) found greater genital arousal to male erotica among high-homophobia men, but a single small study measuring arousal (which is not the same as orientation) cannot carry that broad claim; it is suggestive, not settled.

“The mental-health disparities come from being gay.”

The minority-stress model locates them in the prejudiced environment, not the orientation — the distress is a response to stigma, concealment, and discrimination (Meyer, 2003).

Glossary

ATLG scale.

Herek’s Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men scale, a standard explicit measure that separately assesses attitudes toward each target group.

Concealment.

The ongoing management of a stigmatised identity by hiding it; in the minority-stress model, a proximal stressor that demands vigilance and carries its own psychological cost.

Distal stressor.

An objective, external minority stressor — enacted discrimination, harassment, or violence — as distinct from the internal, subjective (proximal) stressors it gives rise to.

Enacted stigma.

Overt discriminatory acts — rejection, harassment, violence — directed at a person because of their sexual orientation; a distal minority stressor.

Felt stigma.

A person’s awareness and expectation of sexual stigma, which shapes behaviour (such as concealment) even in the absence of an overt discriminatory act.

Gender-of-target asymmetry.

The replicated finding that attitudes depend on the target’s gender — heterosexual men in particular judge gay men more harshly than lesbian women.

Heterosexism.

An ideological system that denies, denigrates, and stigmatises any non-heterosexual form of behaviour, identity, relationship, or community; the structural counterpart to individual prejudice.

Homonegativity.

A deliberately neutral term for negative attitudes toward homosexuality, avoiding the clinical implications of “phobia”; the modern form denies that prejudice persists.

Internalised homophobia.

The self-directed devaluation that results when a sexual-minority person absorbs society’s negative view of their orientation.

Minority stress.

The excess, socially based stress sexual-minority people face from prejudice, concealment, and internalised stigma, over and above ordinary life stress.

Modern Homonegativity Scale.

Morrison and Morrison’s instrument for subtle contemporary prejudice — the belief that sexual minorities exaggerate discrimination or seek undeserved special treatment.

Resilience.

The coping resources — above all connection to an affirming community — that buffer the effect of minority stress on health.

Sexual prejudice.

Herek’s preferred construct: a negative attitude toward a person because of their sexual orientation, treated like any other intergroup attitude.

Sexual stigma.

The shared cultural knowledge that non-heterosexual identities are devalued, existing at the structural level independent of any individual’s attitude.

Key Researchers

Henry E. Adams

(University of Georgia). Clinical psychologist whose 1996 study reported greater genital arousal to male erotica among men high in homophobia, a widely cited and widely debated finding.

Gregory M. Herek

(University of California, Davis). The leading theorist of anti-gay attitudes; coined sexual prejudice and sexual stigma, built the ATLG scale, and authored the authoritative reviews of the construct. Wikipedia · Google Scholar

Walter W. Hudson

(Florida State University). Measurement-theory scholar who, with Wendell Ricketts, built the Index of Homophobia and argued early for the more neutral term homonegativism.

Ilan H. Meyer

(Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law). Originator of the minority-stress model, which locates the mental-health disparities of sexual minorities in the prejudiced environment rather than the orientation. ORCID · Google Scholar

Melanie A. Morrison

(University of Saskatchewan). Co-developer of the Modern Homonegativity Scale, which captures the subtle, contemporary form of anti-gay prejudice.

Todd G. Morrison

(University of Saskatchewan). Co-developer of the Modern Homonegativity Scale and a researcher in the psychometrics of anti-gay prejudice. Google Scholar

Jaime L. Napier

(New York University Abu Dhabi). Social psychologist whose 23-country study established the cross-national robustness of the gender-of-target asymmetry in anti-gay attitudes. ORCID · Google Scholar

George Weinberg

(clinical psychologist). Coined the term homophobia and, in Society and the Healthy Homosexual (1972), argued that the distress of gay people arose from social hostility rather than their orientation. Wikipedia

Frequently Asked Questions

Who coined the word “homophobia”?

The psychologist George Weinberg, in his 1972 book Society and the Healthy Homosexual. He used it to argue that the pathology lay in anti-gay hostility, not in being gay.

Why do psychologists avoid the term “homophobia”?

Because “phobia” implies an irrational, excessive fear and an individual clinical disorder, whereas anti-gay attitudes are usually learned, socially endorsed, and expressed as hostility rather than fear. Researchers prefer sexual prejudice and sexual stigma.

What is the difference between sexual prejudice and sexual stigma?

Sexual prejudice is an individual’s negative attitude toward a sexual-minority person. Sexual stigma is the shared cultural knowledge that such identities are devalued, which exists at the structural level whether or not a given person endorses it.

What is internalised homophobia?

It is the self-directed form of anti-gay prejudice — the devaluation a sexual-minority person absorbs when they take society’s negative view of their orientation into their own self-concept. It is a central stressor in the minority-stress model.

Do people judge gay men and lesbian women differently?

Yes. Heterosexual men in particular report more negativity toward gay men than toward lesbian women; heterosexual women are closer to even-handed. The asymmetry holds across many countries.

Does anti-gay prejudice harm mental health?

The minority-stress model links enacted discrimination and internalised homophobia to elevated distress in sexual-minority populations, over and above ordinary life stress. Connection to an affirming community buffers the effect.

Did the Adams study show homophobic men are secretly gay?

A 1996 study found greater genital arousal to male erotica among high-homophobia men, but arousal is not orientation, and a single small study cannot support so broad a claim. It is suggestive, not conclusive.

How is modern homonegativity measured?

The Modern Homonegativity Scale captures subtle contemporary prejudice — beliefs that sexual minorities exaggerate discrimination or seek special treatment — which a respondent can endorse while rejecting old-fashioned moral condemnation.

References

Adams, H. E., Wright, L. W., Jr., & Lohr, B. A. (1996). Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 105(3), 440–445. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.105.3.440

Bettinsoli, M. L., Suppes, A., & Napier, J. L. (2020). Predictors of attitudes toward gay men and lesbian women in 23 countries. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(5), 697–708. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619887785

Hamtzani, O., Mama, Y., Blau, A., & Kushnir, T. (2022). Implicit and explicit attitudes toward gay men and lesbian women among heterosexual undergraduate and graduate psychology and nursing students. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 921313. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.921313

Herek, G. M. (1984). Beyond “homophobia”: A social psychological perspective on attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. Journal of Homosexuality, 10(1–2), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v10n01_01

Herek, G. M. (1988). Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: Correlates and gender differences. Journal of Sex Research, 25(4), 451–477. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224498809551476

Herek, G. M. (2000). The psychology of sexual prejudice. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(1), 19–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00051

Herek, G. M. (2004). Beyond “homophobia”: Thinking about sexual prejudice and stigma in the twenty-first century. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 1(2), 6–24. https://doi.org/10.1525/srsp.2004.1.2.6

Herek, G. M., & McLemore, K. A. (2013). Sexual prejudice. Annual Review of Psychology, 64(1), 309–333. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143826

Hudson, W. W., & Ricketts, W. A. (1980). A strategy for the measurement of homophobia. Journal of Homosexuality, 5(4), 357–372. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v05n04_02

Liang, Z., & Huang, Y.-T. (2021). “Strong together”: Minority stress, internalized homophobia, relationship satisfaction, and depressive symptoms among Taiwanese young gay men. The Journal of Sex Research, 59(5), 621–631. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2021.1947954

Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5), 674–697. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674

Meyer, I. H. (2015). Resilience in the study of minority stress and health of sexual and gender minorities. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 2(3), 209–213. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000132

Morrison, M. A., & Morrison, T. G. (2003). Development and validation of a scale measuring modern prejudice toward gay men and lesbian women. Journal of Homosexuality, 43(2), 15–37. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v43n02_02

Weinberg, G. (1972). Society and the healthy homosexual. St. Martin’s Press.