M Reuel Friedman1, Brian Dodge2, Vanessa Schick3, Debby Herbenick4, Randolph Hubach5, Jessamyn Bowling6, Gabriel Goncalves7, Sarah Krier8, Michael Reece9. 1. University of Pittsburgh, Graduate School of Public Health, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, mrf9@pitt.edu. 2. Indiana University - Bloomington, Center for Sexual Health Promotion, Bloomington, Indiana, USA, bmdodge@indiana.edu. 3. University of Texas, Health Science Center, Houston, Texas, USA, Vanessa.Schick@uth.tmc.edu. 4. Indiana University - Bloomington, Center for Sexual Health Promotion, Bloomington, Indiana. USA, debby@indiana.edu. 5. Indiana University - Bloomington, Center for Sexual Health Promotion, Bloomington, Indiana, USA, rdhubach@indiana.edu. 6. Indiana University - Bloomington, Center for Sexual Health Promotion, Bloomington, Indiana, USA, bowljess@indiana.edu. 7. Indiana University - Bloomington, Center for Sexual Health Promotion, Bloomington, Indiana, USA, ggoncalv@indiana.edu. 8. University of Pittsburgh, Graduate School of Public Health, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, sek29@pitt.edu. 9. Indiana University - Bloomington, Center for Sexual Health Promotion, Bloomington, Indiana, USA, mireece@indiana.edu.
Abstract
PUROPSE: A newly emergent literature suggest that bisexual men and women face profound health disparities in comparison to both heterosexual and homosexual individuals. Additionally, bisexual individuals often experience prejudice, stigma, and discrimination from both gay/lesbian and straight communities, termed "biphobia." However, only limited research exists that empirically tests the extent and predictors of this double discrimination. The Bisexualities: Indiana Attitudes Survey (BIAS) was developed to test associations between biphobia and sexual identity. METHODS: Using standard techniques, we developed and administered a scale to a purposive online sample of adults from a wide range of social networking websites. We conducted exploratory factor analysis to refine scales assessing attitudes toward bisexual men and bisexual women, respectively. Using generalized linear modeling, we assessed relationships between BIAS scores and sexual identity, adjusting for covariates. RESULTS: Two separately gendered scales were developed, administered, and refined: BIAS-m (n=645), focusing on attitudes toward bisexual men; and BIAS-f (n=631), focusing on attitudes toward bisexual women. Across scales, sexual identity significantly predicted response variance. Lesbian/gay respondents had lower levels of bi-negative attitudes than their heterosexual counterparts (all p-values <.05); bisexual respondents had lower levels of bi-negative attitudes than their straight counterparts (all p-values <.001); and bisexual respondents had lower levels of bi-negative attitudes than their lesbian/gay counterparts (all p-values <.05). Within racial/ethnic minority respondents, biracial/multiracial status was associated with lower bi-negativity scores (all p-values <.05). CONCLUSION: This study provides important quantitative support for theories related to biphobia and double discrimination. Our findings provide strong evidence for understanding how stereotypes and stigma may lead to dramatic disparities in depression, anxiety, stress, and other health outcomes among bisexual individuals in comparison to their heterosexual and homosexual counterparts. Our results yield valuable data for informing social awareness and intervention efforts that aim to decrease bi-negative attitudes within both straight and gay/lesbian communities, with the ultimate goal of alleviating health disparities among bisexual men and women.
PUROPSE: A newly emergent literature suggest that bisexual men and women face profound health disparities in comparison to both heterosexual and homosexual individuals. Additionally, bisexual individuals often experience prejudice, stigma, and discrimination from both gay/lesbian and straight communities, termed "biphobia." However, only limited research exists that empirically tests the extent and predictors of this double discrimination. The Bisexualities: Indiana Attitudes Survey (BIAS) was developed to test associations between biphobia and sexual identity. METHODS: Using standard techniques, we developed and administered a scale to a purposive online sample of adults from a wide range of social networking websites. We conducted exploratory factor analysis to refine scales assessing attitudes toward bisexual men and bisexual women, respectively. Using generalized linear modeling, we assessed relationships between BIAS scores and sexual identity, adjusting for covariates. RESULTS: Two separately gendered scales were developed, administered, and refined: BIAS-m (n=645), focusing on attitudes toward bisexual men; and BIAS-f (n=631), focusing on attitudes toward bisexual women. Across scales, sexual identity significantly predicted response variance. Lesbian/gay respondents had lower levels of bi-negative attitudes than their heterosexual counterparts (all p-values <.05); bisexual respondents had lower levels of bi-negative attitudes than their straight counterparts (all p-values <.001); and bisexual respondents had lower levels of bi-negative attitudes than their lesbian/gay counterparts (all p-values <.05). Within racial/ethnic minority respondents, biracial/multiracial status was associated with lower bi-negativity scores (all p-values <.05). CONCLUSION: This study provides important quantitative support for theories related to biphobia and double discrimination. Our findings provide strong evidence for understanding how stereotypes and stigma may lead to dramatic disparities in depression, anxiety, stress, and other health outcomes among bisexual individuals in comparison to their heterosexual and homosexual counterparts. Our results yield valuable data for informing social awareness and intervention efforts that aim to decrease bi-negative attitudes within both straight and gay/lesbian communities, with the ultimate goal of alleviating health disparities among bisexual men and women.
Authors: Karen I Fredriksen-Goldsen; Hyun-Jun Kim; Susan E Barkan; Kimberly F Balsam; Shawn L Mincer Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2010-09-23 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Brian Dodge; Phillip W Schnarrs; Michael Reece; Gabriel Goncalves; Omar Martinez; Ryan Nix; David Malebranche; Barbara Van Der Pol; Maresa Murray; J Dennis Fortenberry Journal: Cult Health Sex Date: 2012-09-17
Authors: Mark S Friedman; Michael P Marshal; Thomas E Guadamuz; Chongyi Wei; Carolyn F Wong; Elizabeth Saewyc; Ron Stall Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2011-06-16 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Debby Herbenick; Michael Reece; Vanessa Schick; Stephanie A Sanders; Brian Dodge; J Dennis Fortenberry Journal: J Sex Med Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 3.802
Authors: Elizabeth M Saewyc; Yuko Homma; Carol L Skay; Linda H Bearinger; Michael D Resnick; Elizabeth Reis Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2008-11-13 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: M Reuel Friedman; Leigh Bukowski; Lisa A Eaton; Derrick D Matthews; Typhanye V Dyer; Dan Siconolfi; Ron Stall Journal: Arch Sex Behav Date: 2018-04-05
Authors: Jeremy W Luk; Stephen E Gilman; Kellienne R Sita; Cecilia Cheng; Denise L Haynie; Bruce G Simons-Morton Journal: Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw Date: 2019-03-21
Authors: Alissa Davis; John Best; Juhua Luo; Barbara Van Der Pol; Brian Dodge; Beth Meyerson; Matthew Aalsma; Chongyi Wei; Joseph D Tucker Journal: Int J STD AIDS Date: 2015-07-15 Impact factor: 1.359
Authors: Adil H Haider; Eric B Schneider; Lisa M Kodadek; Rachel R Adler; Anju Ranjit; Maya Torain; Ryan Y Shields; Claire Snyder; Jeremiah D Schuur; Laura Vail; Danielle German; Susan Peterson; Brandyn D Lau Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2017-06-01 Impact factor: 21.873