Beyond Labels: Sexual Fluidity and Sexual Identity Development in
Sexual Minority Young Adults
By
Sabra L. Katz-Wise
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
(Psychology)
at the
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN – MADISON
2012
Date of final oral examination: May 15, 2012
The dissertation is approved by the following members of the Final Oral Committee: Janet S. Hyde, Professor, Psychology Martha Alibali, Professor, Psychology Kristin Shutts, Assistant Professor, Psychology Jane L. Collins, Professor, Gender and Women’s Studies Julie D’Acci, Professor, Gender and Women’s Studies
© Copyright by Sabra L. Katz-Wise 2012 All Rights Reserved
i
For Stephanie and Julie, who facilitated my own sexual fluidity.
ii
Acknowledgments
First and foremost, thank you to Janet Hyde for being my advisor and mentoring me through each step of becoming a Ph.D. Thank you also to the other members of my dissertation committee for their support: Martha Alibali, Kristin Shutts, Julie D’Acci, and especially Jane Collins for her assistance with the qualitative portion of this project. Thank you to Lisa Diamond for generously sharing her measures and interview protocol with me, and to the Kinsey Institute for the Student Research Grant Award, which helped to fund this project. I had a number of excellent research assistants who helped with various stages of the project. Thank you to Alison Manley, Holly Flores, Kyle Kunz, and Caitlin Mosman Block for all your hard work. Thank you also to the following people for taking the time to give me feedback on early versions of the questionnaire and interview protocol: Aaron Stevens, Jason Orne, Felicia Barrios, Taylor Lauzon, and especially Jake Weinraub. Thank you to current, former, and honorary members of the Hyde Lab: Heather Priess, Sara Lindberg, Jenni Petersen, Rachel Salk, Carlie Allison, and especially Myeshia Price and Will Cox for giving feedback on various stages of the project. The Tuesday dinner and LGBTQ Narratives folks provided me with much needed perspective and time away from my dissertation. Thank you especially to Barrett Swanson and Kiki Kosnick for talking with me about analyses and theory over coffee. Thank you to Sarah Karon for giving feedback on an early version of the questionnaire, and keeping me sane with regular gym/coffee dates. Thank you to Karin Bleeg and Kelly Morse for their supportive phone dates, and Aaron Heller for dissertation support over breakfast. Thank you to my mom Sharon Katz and my P.F. Stephanie Budge for their boundless love and support, and especially Stephanie for her help at each stage of this project. A special thank you to my partner Julie Keller for endless conversations about sexual identity development and sexual fluidity, and for supporting and loving me through all the ups and downs. Finally, thank you to the participants who opened up to me and trusted me with their stories.
iii
Table of Contents
Page Abstract...... v Chapter 1: General Introduction……………………………………………………… 1 Chapter 2: Study 1: What Develops and How Does it Develop?……………………. 24 Chapter 3: Study 2: Situating Knowledge of Sexual Fluidity……………………….. 90 Chapter 4: General Discussion………………………………………………………… 151 References………………………………………………………………………………. 186 Tables Table 1: Demographic Characteristics for Women and Men (Study 1)……………… 202 Table 2: Descriptive Statistics for All Measures for Women and Men (Study 1)…… 204 Table 3: Frequencies for Contextual Factors Prompting First Questioning of Sexual Orientation in Women and Men (Study 1)………………………………………………. 208 Table 4: Correlations between Measures for Women and Men (Study 1)…………… 209 Table 5: Descriptive Statistics for Change in Attractions over Time and Related Variables for Women and Men (Study 1)……………………………………………….. 212 Table 6: Number of Women and Men Who Are Sexually Fluid (SF) vs. Non- Sexually Fluid (NSF) in Each Sexual Identity Group (Study 1)………………………… 213 Table 7: Descriptive Statistics for Components of Sexual Orientation for Sexually Fluid (SF) vs. Non-Sexually Fluid (NSF) Women and Men (Study 1)…………………. 214 Table 8: Number of Women and Men Who Are Sexually Fluid (SF) vs. Non- Sexually Fluid (NSF) in Each Sexual Identity Development Phase (Study 1)………….. 216 Table 9: Descriptive Statistics for Age of Sexual Identity Development Milestones for Sexually Fluid (SF) vs. Non-Sexually Fluid (NSF) Women and Men (Study 1)……. 217 Table 10: Descriptive Statistics for Negative Identity and Outness Subscales for Sexually Fluid (SF) vs. Non-Sexually Fluid (NSF) Women and Men (Study 1)……….. 218 Table 11: Descriptive Statistics for Beliefs About Sexual Identity for Sexually Fluid (SF) vs. Non-Sexually Fluid (NSF) Women and Men (Study 1)………………………... 219 Table 12: Descriptive Statistics for Attitudes Toward Bisexuality, Family Approval of Sexuality, Experiences of Sexual Orientation-Based Victimization, and Felt Stigma for Sexually Fluid (SF) vs. Non-Sexually Fluid (NSF) Women and Men (Study 1)……. 220 iv
Table 13: Frequencies of Sexual Fluidity Interpretations from Women’s and Men’s Open-Ended Responses (Study 1)……………………………………………………….. 221 Table 14: Demographic Characteristics for Interview Participants (Study 2)……….. 222 Table 15: Descriptive Statistics for Selected Study 1 Measures for Interview Participants (Study 2)……………………………………………………………………. 224 Figures Figure 1: Romantic Attraction Toward Other-Gender (-100) vs. Same-Gender (100) People for Women and Men Using Diamond’s Measure (Study 1)…………………….. 225 Figure 2: Sexual Attraction Toward Other-Gender (-100) vs. Same-Gender (100) People for Women and Men Using Diamond’s Measure (Study 1)…………………….. 226 Figure 3: Romantic (Top Chart) and Sexual (Bottom Chart) Attraction Toward Same-Gender vs. Other-Gender People for Sexually Fluid (SF) and Non-Sexually Fluid (NSF) Women and Men using Diamond’s Measure (Study 1)………………………….. 227 Figure 4: Past Sexual Behavior With Same-Gender vs. Other-Gender People for Sexually Fluid (SF) and Non-Sexually Fluid (NSF) Women and Men using a KSOG Item (Study 1)…………………………………………………………………………… 228 Figure 5: Sexual Fantasies about Same-Gender vs. Other-Gender People for Sexually Fluid (SF) and Non-Sexually Fluid (NSF) Women and Men using Diamond’s Measure (Top Chart) and a KSOG Item (Bottom Chart) (Study 1)…………………….. 229 Figure 6: Theoretical Model of Facilitative Environments of Sexual Identity Development and Sexual Fluidity (Study 2)…………………………………………….. 230 Appendices Appendix I: Study 1 Questionnaire – Female Version………………………………. 231 Appendix II: New Items Developed for Study 1…………………………………….. 271 Appendix III: Study 2 Interview Protocol…………………………………………… 275 Appendix IV: Study 2 Description of Focused Codes………………………………. 277 Appendix V: Study 2 List of Focused and Open Codes…………………………….. 280
v
Abstract
Women’s sexuality as a developmental process has been described as fluid and contextual; is the same true for men’s sexuality? This research investigated sexual identity development and change in attractions and sexual identity over time in sexual minority young adult women (N = 124) and men (N = 75), ages 18 to 26, who resided primarily in Wisconsin.
This research tested whether an existing model of sexual fluidity applies to a new sample of women, and whether this model also extends to sexual minority men. In Study 1, participants completed an online questionnaire that measured sexual identity development, changes in attractions and sexual identity over time, contextual factors, and demographics. In the current study, 64% of women and 52% of men reported sexual fluidity, as measured by change in attractions. Compared to non-sexually fluid people, sexually fluid people were more likely to have engaged in past sexual behaviors with both genders, had greater identity uncertainty, were more likely to believe they are attracted to the person rather than gender, and to believe that sexuality is changeable. In Study 2, 18 participants (6 women, 8 men, 4 transgender) from Study
1 participated in an in-depth qualitative interview that included questions about sexual identity development, use of sexual identity labels, and interpretations of sexual fluidity. Focused and open coding procedures yielded 22 focused codes and 198 open codes that were categorized into higher order themes. The themes early indicators of sexual orientation, context of first questioning sexual identity, and current perceptions of sexual identity and changes were explored in depth. The facilitative environments model was developed to integrate these findings and provide an overall conceptual framework. This model proposes that sexual identity development and sexual fluidity occur at the intersections of individual (e.g., self-realization), vi interpersonal (e.g., social interactions), and societal (e.g., cultural norms) factors. Findings from this research shed light on the complexities of sexual identity development and sexual fluidity, draw new conclusions about how sexual identity labeling operates in sexual minorities in the current sociohistorical context, and explore how sexual minority people interpret and understand their experiences of sexual fluidity.
1
Beyond Labels: Sexual Fluidity and Sexual Identity Development in
Sexual Minority Young Adults
“A sense of identity is never gained nor maintained once and for all.” (Erikson, 1959, p. 118)
“The power to name is clearly important: whether a particular term comes from medical/scientific discourses or from within an activist community, who uses it and to whom, in what context – all are necessarily implicated in the constitution and reconstitution of social identities and relationships; all signal political alliances, aims and strategies; all confirm or deny claims to moral agency.” (Parlee, 1996, p. 633)
“Sexuality is fluid, I just happen to go for particular genders at particular times, and I feel like that's pretty normal. Plus, of course I'll feel more gay if I'm dating a woman than if I'm dating a man, that's just how that works.” (Current Study 1, Female, Queer)
CHAPTER 1
General Introduction
Is sexual orientation stable, or fluid and contextual? The process of sexual identity formation and change is an essential feminist developmental question. The development of sexual identity is important not only in the development of an overall identity, but sexual orientation represents a positioning in society that confers specific risks and benefits. Identifying as a sexual minority has both social and political consequences, such as an increased risk of victimization (Katz-Wise & Hyde, 2012), as well as disadvantages regarding specific rights and policies, such as having the right to marry a person of the same gender or adopt a child. Previous theory on sexual orientation understood it to develop early in life and remain stable over time.
More recently, the process of sexual fluidity has begun to be documented in women, but it is unclear whether men experience similar changes in sexual orientation over time. In the current project I explored sexual identity development and changes in attractions and sexual identity over time in sexual minority young adult women and men. Additionally, I investigated how 2 various components of sexual orientation (identity, attraction, behavior, and fantasy) play a role in these processes, and which contextual factors are associated with sexual fluidity. Finally, I examined how sexual minority young adults who have experienced sexual fluidity, interpret and understand their sexual identity development and changes that have occurred.
Theoretical Frameworks
One of the cornerstone questions of feminist developmental psychology is how a theory of development might look different if it were based on women’s experiences rather than men’s
(Miller & Scholnick, 2000). Traditionally, theories of sexual identity development were created with gay men and then applied to lesbians. Since then, more attention has been paid to sexual identity in women with the intention of establishing how it might develop differently compared to men. Diamond’s (2008b) model of sexual fluidity is a model of women’s sexual identity development; but it could be taken as a starting point for the development of a more complex theory of sexual identity development in both women and men. The current project began with
Diamond’s model of sexual fluidity and investigated whether it can be extended to describe men’s experiences. This becomes the logical next step for theory development from a feminist perspective: to begin with a model based on women’s experiences, and use this framework to inform our knowledge of sexual identity development in both women and men.
Feminist theories. This project was situated at the intersection of developmental and feminist theories, using a framework of feminist developmental psychology. The feminist metaphor of narrative construction has been applied to cognitive development (Scholnick, 2000).
People create stories about themselves, the structure of the physical and social world, and the place of their own experiences within that world. This concept can also be applied to sexual 3 identity development. “Coming out” stories in sexual minorities are a form of narrative construction. A person situates their own narrative relative to the context of their life, and the societal context that provides opportunities for coming out as one sexual identity or another. In the current societal context in the U.S., people have more possibilities for labels to describe sexual identity (e.g., bisexual, queer), whereas in the past these labels were not widely used or were viewed as derogatory. For example, in a U.S. study of coming out in LGB (lesbian, gay, bisexual) people ages 18 to 74, findings indicated that women were more likely to adopt a bisexual identity in recent years compared with women in previous years (Floyd & Bakeman,
2006). Another recent study demonstrated that if given the choice, many people choose labels such as mostly heterosexual and mostly gay/lesbian to describe their sexual orientation
(Vrangalova & Savin-Williams, 2012), suggesting that these labels represent a new direction of labeling in which sexual orientation is viewed on a continuum, rather than categorically. These findings were supported by a study based on data from the National Longitudinal Survey of
Adolescent Health (Add Health), in which the second largest sexual identity group after heterosexual was mostly heterosexual, which was larger than all the other non-heterosexual identity groups combined (Savin-Williams, Joyner, & Rieger, 2012). In addition, the social climate in a particular sociohistorical context may affect the timing of coming out. Savin-
Williams and colleagues found that people who self-identified as LGB in adolescence came out to parents and others at an earlier age compared to previous cohorts, suggesting that the societal context has become more accepting of homosexuality over time.
The narrative of coming out as a sexual minority can be further understood in light of specific aspects of narrative knowing. Bruner (1990) identified three properties of narrative 4 knowing, or understanding the construction and meaning of a particular narrative: sequence, normative explanations, and voice. These aspects can also be conceptualized within the feminist framework of narrative construction (Scholnick, 2000), specifically in terms of sexual identity development. Sequence can tell us about the process of sexual identity development over time; normative explanations refer both to whether a person’s experiences represent experiences across groups of people, and how sexual minority identities fit into a normative heterosexual narrative; and voice identifies an individual person’s role in creating an overall narrative of sexual identity development, as well as constructing their own narrative of coming out. Kroger, Martinussen, and Marcia (2010) suggested that examining narratives of changes in identity can give valuable insight into the identity formation process. The current project included a qualitative component to allow people to share their own narratives of sexual identity development, and changes in attractions and sexual identity over time.
In representing the experience of an individual person, the voice aspect of narrative knowing also relates to the concept of situated knowledges (Haraway, 1988), in which a person’s story is grounded in his or her own experience and reflects larger contextual factors that may influence that experience. For example, the context within which people choose to use particular labels to describe their sexual identity may be related to factors such as family approval of sexual minorities, or exposure to other people who use those labels. In feminist standpoint theory, objectivity is knowledge created from multiple subjective viewpoints (Fivush, 2000). In the current study, qualitative interviews allowed for individual voices to contribute to the broader story of sexual identity development. 5
Sociocultural and social constructionist theories. The idea of situated knowledges has been compared to Vygotsky’s (1978) dialectical theory of development, in that both perspectives emphasize the contextual and social nature of knowledge production (Fivush, 2000). In sexual identity development, identity emerges both individually and interpersonally in interaction with others. For sexual minorities, people typically identify as a sexual minority, or “come out,” first to themselves and then to others. This dual nature of coming out also fits within an interactionist perspective, which assumes that both person attributes and situational factors interact dynamically to influence development (Leaper, 2000). Thus, this project also fits within the frameworks of Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural theory and social constructionist theory, which can be classified as part of the larger interactionist perspective. Vygotsky’s theory, originating in the field of developmental psychology, posits that cognitive development takes place within a sociocultural framework and that individual experience cannot be separated from context.
Complementing this view, the sociological theory of social constructionism suggests that reality is constructed through social interactions rather than inherently present (Berger & Luckmann,
1966). In contrast to Vygotsky’s (1978) theory, social constructionism proposes that the construction of reality extends beyond a person’s cognitions. However, although social constructionism is often used to describe social phenomena more generally, it can also pertain to the construction of a specific construct, such as identity.
The social constructionist perspective has been applied to sexual orientation to suggest that sexual identity is not always fixed and stable, but rather the boundaries between sexual orientations are fluid and people may shift between them across the lifespan (DeLamater &
Hyde, 1998). Furthermore, both proximal factors in the immediate setting (e.g., people’s 6 expectancies and situational demands) and the cumulative impact of individual historical factors
(e.g., having the opportunity to practice certain behaviors) are important in understanding development (Leaper, 2000). For the current study, this suggests attention to person attributes, such as beliefs about sexuality; interpersonal contexts, such as experiences of sexual orientation- based victimization or exposure to people with non-heterosexual identities; and sociocultural factors, such as increased usage in society of a variety of labels for sexual orientation (e.g., queer, mostly heterosexual).
Queer theory. Another theoretical perspective that is useful in framing sexual identity development is queer theory. This perspective draws from social constructionism and specifically applies it to sex, gender, and sexuality, proposing that these aspects of the self are socially constructed. Queer theory goes further to suggest that by constructing sex, gender, and sexuality as binary, the homosexual/heterosexual divide is further reinforced, thus promoting heteronormativity (Valocchi, 2005). This has specific implications for sexual identity development in sexual minorities, because heteronormativity may inhibit development of non- heterosexual identities, particularly those that transcend binaries of sexuality, such as bisexual or queer.
Queer theory proposes that people’s identities are created through the internalization of normative (heterosexual) discourses (Butler, 1993). Thus, non-heterosexual identities remain marginalized, while heterosexuality is upheld as normative and desirable. Additionally, queer theory critiques the homosexual/heterosexual binary in that the binary places limits on describing the full range of a person’s potential desires and affiliations (Valocchi, 2005). In the context of the current project, this justifies the need to further investigate sexual identities that fall along a 7 continuum (e.g., bisexual, queer identities), rather than focusing only on homosexual and heterosexual identities.
Identity Development
Identity formation is a fundamental process that includes development of an overall identity, in addition to specific identities, such as sexual identity. Much of identity formation is thought to take place during adolescence, as formulated by Erikson’s (1959) classic stage theory of psychosocial development, in which adolescents undergo an identity crisis and must integrate previous identities from childhood into a cohesive identity in order to develop a general sense of self. More recently, researchers believe that identity development continues well into young adulthood (Steinberg, 2005). This developmental time period of young adulthood, termed emerging adulthood, spans from the late teens through the twenties, and often focuses on ages 18 to 25 (Arnett, 2000). Research on identity development has indicated that a coherent sense of identity is not often established before age 18 (Marcia, 1980), and that the late teens and early twenties are the critical time period for solidifying a sense of identity (Nurmi, 2004). Identity development may also extend into adulthood, especially for those people who identify as sexual minorities. The current study included emerging adults ages 18 to 26 to capture the age period during which much of identity formation is thought to take place.
Erikson (1959) proposed that identity development is both a cognitive and social process.
Adolescents form an identity within themselves, while at the same time society shapes an adolescent’s sense of self. Identity is also influenced by historical contexts (Kroger, 1993).
Therefore, identity development takes place within the context of particular identity possibilities
(e.g., labels that were not used previously to describe sexual minorities, or were used 8 derogatorily), and societal beliefs about which identities are desirable, and which are not. In a heteronormative society, a heterosexual identity is viewed as more desirable than a sexual minority identity, thus shaping the context within which sexual identity development occurs. In the United States today, a wider variety of non-heterosexual labels (e.g., queer, mostly heterosexual), and therefore identities are possible than was the case 30 or 50 years ago.
Additionally, changes in identity status or turning points in identity development are influenced both by internal change processes and situational or contextual variables, such as societal expectations or the influence of a romantic partner (Kroger & Green, 1996). This suggests that sexual identity development takes place primarily within an individual person, but in interaction with contextual and situational variables. Identity status changes are also influenced by specific life events or changes in life circumstances (Kalakoski & Nurmi, 1998).
In the case of sexual identity development, identity status change might occur in the context of meeting a potential romantic partner or learning about LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer) communities in a college course. For example, a person who previously identified as heterosexual might change their identity status to gay if they became interested in and romantically involved with a person of the same gender. Although studies of identity status change have begun to provide an understanding of the processes through which identity development occurs, the current study explored this further by investigating the process of sexual identity development.
Defining Sexual Orientation
Sexual orientation, sexual identity, and other related terms (e.g., sexual orientation identity) are often conflated. One definition of sexual orientation is whom one has sexual 9 experiences with, fantasizes about, and to whom one is emotionally attached (Striepe & Tolman,
2003). Another definition states that sexual orientation is “the preponderance of erotic feelings, thoughts, and fantasies one has for members of a particular sex, both sexes, or neither sex”
(Savin-Williams, 2005, p. 28). In Diamond’s (2003b) biobehavioral model of love and desire, she proposed that “most individuals possess a relatively stable tendency to seek sexual partners of the same gender, the other gender, or both genders” (p.174), which she referred to as sexual orientation. Savin-Williams (2005) suggested that although sexual orientation influences sexual conduct (behavior) and sexual identity, it is often independent, in the sense that sexual orientation is considered to be stable over time, whereas sexual identity and behavior are seen as more fluid. Savin-Williams defined sexual identity as “a socially recognized label that names sexual feeling, attraction, and behavior” (p. 34). Thus, a definition of sexual orientation seems to include sexual identity, and at the same time, a definition of sexual identity includes sexual orientation. Furthermore, since general identity development is influenced by sociohistorical contexts (Kroger, 1993), sexual identity is also limited by the pool of potential, socially- constructed identities defined by the culture and time in which one lives (Savin-Williams, 2005).
Although definitions of these terms differ, in the current study, sexual orientation was conceptualized as a multidimensional construct comprising the following main components: sexual identity, romantic and sexual attraction, and sexual behavior; sexual orientation may also include related constructs, such as romantic relationships and sexual fantasy.
Although sexual orientation has been defined in previous studies using single components, a more complete definition would take multiple aspects into account. Thus, to whom one is attracted initially, both romantically and/or sexually, dictates whether one acts on 10 that attraction through sexual behavior or having a romantic relationship, and whether one identifies their orientation in a manner that reflects these attractions or behavior. However, different components of sexual orientation might not always coincide in an individual person. In a study of adolescents in Montreal examining concordance and discrepancy in sexual identity, attraction, and behavior, researchers did not find a consistent pattern of overlap between the three components either in heterosexually-identified or LGB-identified youth (Igartua, Thombs,
Burgos, & Montoro, 2009). Another study of adults found that a significant minority of heterosexually-identified people and the majority of gay/lesbian-identified people in the sample reported some sexual behavior and/or attraction toward their non-preferred gender (Vrangalova
& Savin-Williams, 2012). These findings highlight the importance of measuring multiple components of sexual orientation to fully understand its complexity. The current project did this through quantitative measurement of various components of sexual orientation and by asking participants to describe these multiple components in qualitative interviews.
Sexual Identity Development
Although classic models of sexual orientation posited that it is stable and fully formed early in life (Bell, Weinberg, & Hammersmith, 1981; Money, 1988), more recent research has demonstrated that sexual orientation may develop later in many people, especially females
(Diamond, 1998). For those who identify as sexual minorities, emerging adulthood is an especially crucial time for identity development, considering that many people begin to recognize their sexual orientation during late adolescence or early adulthood (Evans & Levine,
1990), and establish their first serious romantic relationship on average at age 17.2 for gay males and 16.6 for lesbians (Savin-Williams, 1990). Therefore, emerging adulthood (ages 18 to 26) is 11 a particularly important time for investigating the process of sexual identity development in sexual minorities, and was used to define the sample in the current study.
Many existing models of sexual minority identity formation outline a series of stages
(e.g., Cass, 1979; Meyer & Schwitzer, 1999). Diamond (2008b) has conceptualized these models as the “master narrative” of sexual identity development including milestones such as feeling different, gender-atypical behaviors, fascination with the same gender, gradual realization of romantic and sexual feelings toward the same gender, and consciously questioning sexual identity. However, it is more likely that “coming out” is a process rather than a developmental endpoint, and the formation of a homosexual or bisexual identity has been demonstrated to be flexible and fluctuating instead of linear (Diamond, 2008a). Additionally, sexual minorities have demonstrated a range of developmental histories regarding the age and context of the milestones listed above (e.g., Charbonneau & Lander, 1991; Diamond, 1998; Diamond & Savin-Williams,
2000; Kitzinger & Wilkinson, 1995). For example, a study of sexual identity development in urban LGB youth identified two patterns of sexual identity formation: early and more recent, suggesting sexual minorities do not follow one path of sexual identity development (Rosario,
Schrimshaw, & Hunter, 2008). Research on sexual identity in females in particular, has demonstrated flexibility in the process of forming a non-heterosexual identity. In an influential longitudinal study of young adult female sexual minorities, Diamond (2008a) found that over ten years, two-thirds of women had changed their sexual identity labels since the beginning of the study, and one-third changed their labels two or more times, suggesting that they experienced a different trajectory of sexual identity development than the master narrative would predict.
Sexual Fluidity 12
In its basic definition, sexual fluidity refers to situation-dependent flexibility in sexual responsiveness, which may manifest in changes in sexual identity over time (Diamond, 2008b).
Sexual responsiveness can be thought of in terms of feeling attractions toward others. Sexual fluidity assumes that a person comes to an understanding of their sexual identity and labels it (or chooses not to), and then later re-evaluates this initial perception of the self, resulting in a re- definition of sexual identity. Some researchers have proposed that a certain degree of fluidity is a general property of sexuality (Blumstein & Schwartz, 1990; Weinberg, Williams, & Pryor,
1994). In addition to Diamond’s (2008b) longitudinal study, other researchers have established the existence of sexual fluidity in women. For example, in a cross-sectional study using retrospective self-report, among the sample of 400 sexual minority women, 75% of bisexuals previously considered themselves to be lesbian, and 40% of lesbians previously considered themselves to be bisexual (Rust, 1993). Sexual fluidity in women is not limited to Western cultures. An anthropological study of same-sex sexuality in Creole women in the city of
Paramaribo, Suriname, revealed that in Surinamese culture, mati (women and men who have sexual relationships with both men and women) practice their sexuality within a larger cultural ideology that views women’s and men’s sexuality as fluid (Wekker, 2006).
The phenomenon of sexual fluidity is not limited to women or sexual minorities.
Although little research has addressed stability and change in heterosexual identities, two studies have demonstrated a certain degree of sexual fluidity in heterosexuals. In a study of LGB and heterosexual people living in San Francisco in the 1980s, researchers found some change in sexual feelings, sexual behaviors, and romantic feelings for heterosexual people, although more sexual fluidity was seen in gay and lesbian people, and the most fluidity was seen in bisexual 13 people (Weinberg et al., 1994). A more recent study measured retrospective reports of change in multiple components of sexual orientation (sexual fantasy, romantic attraction, and sexual behavior) in men and women who were heterosexual, gay/lesbian, and bisexual (Kinnish,
Strassberg, & Turner, 2005). This research found that heterosexual people displayed some change in sexual orientation, and that heterosexual women reported greater change than heterosexual men in the areas of sexual fantasy and romantic attraction. Diamond (2008b) also interviewed a number of heterosexually-identified women and discovered a degree of sexual fluidity, although the process of identity change was different compared to the sexual minority women in her longitudinal study.
Sexual fluidity in men is not well understood, although a few studies have begun to demonstrate a certain degree of fluidity in sexual minority men. These studies contradict essentialist assumptions about the early development and longitudinal stability of men’s sexuality. One example is Weinberg and colleagues’ (1994) study, in which men demonstrated short-term and long-term changes in sexual feelings. In a study of same-gender attraction in early adults ages 21 to 26 in New Zealand, findings demonstrated that whereas 1% of men and
1.3% of women moved toward exclusive heterosexual attraction, 1.9% of men and 9.5% of women moved away from it, demonstrating that movement away from heterosexuality was more common for both women and men, and that more change was seen in women (Dickson, Paul, &
Herbison, 2003). These findings support Weinberg and colleagues’ (1994) proposal that some fluidity may be a general property of sexuality, regardless of original orientation or gender.
Although some researchers have begun to explore the concept of sexual fluidity in men (e.g.,
Baumeister, 2000; Rosario, Schrimshaw, Hunter, & Braun, 2006), more research needs to be 14 done in this area. Specifically, an investigation is needed regarding how the process of sexual fluidity might operate differently in men in terms of prevalence, and specific contextual factors influencing whether fluidity is expressed in men. One of the goals of the current study was to examine whether Diamond’s (2008b) model of sexual fluidity also describes the experiences of men, which will enable greater understanding of sexuality in both genders.
Gender and Sexual Fluidity
Although some sexual fluidity has been demonstrated in men, women have generally been found to be more sexually fluid (Baumeister, 2000; Dickson et al., 2003; Kinnish et al.,
2005; Peplau & Garnets, 2000; Savin-Williams et al., 2012). However, the assumption of greater fluidity in women has been based on a limited amount of research directly comparing women with men. As mentioned, Dickson and colleagues (2003) found that women’s same- gender attractions were more likely to shift over time, compared to men’s. However, in a study examining changes in sexual identity among female and male LGB youths ages 14-21, findings revealed the opposite pattern: females were less likely to change identities than males (Rosario et al., 2006). In Kinnish and colleagues’ (2005) study of changes in sexual orientation in women and men, findings indicated that women were more likely than men to experience changes in sexual orientation among gay/lesbian and heterosexual people, but not among bisexual people.
Among gay/lesbian people, women reported greater change than men in sexual fantasy, romantic attraction, and sexual behavior; however, among heterosexual people, women reported greater change than men only in the components of sexual fantasy and romantic attraction. It seems that gender differences in sexual fluidity are not consistent across sexual orientation components. It is clear that more research is needed to establish whether gender differences in sexual fluidity 15 exist, as well as clarifying the direction of the gender difference. The current study compared women and men directly to gain a clearer understanding of sexual fluidity in both genders.
Greater sexual fluidity in women compared to men, has been explained in a number of different ways. One possibility for explaining women’s greater sexual fluidity is found in sexual arousal research. In a study of physiological experiences of sexual arousal, researchers found that most lesbian and heterosexual women became aroused in response to videos depicting sexual behavior, regardless of the gender of the actors, whereas gay men became aroused only to videos with men, and heterosexual men became aroused only to videos with women (Chivers,
Rieger, Latty, & Bailey, 2004). This suggests that women’s sexuality might be more open to fluidity than men’s because women’s sexual arousal is less constricted; therefore, women might experience sexual arousal in a greater array of contexts.
Observed gender differences in sexual orientation may also be due to sociocultural factors, such as the social organization of women’s and men’s lives in different cultural contexts.
Western culture creates an understanding of people as having a core sexual orientation that consists of categorical desire toward one gender or the other or both; but this assumption is contradicted by people who experience sexual desire in the context of a specific relationship rather than oriented in one direction or another (Blumstein & Schwartz, 1990). Attraction to the individual person rather than orientation toward one gender or another (or both) has been described as person-based attraction (Diamond, 2008b).
Another example of a sociocultural factor related to gender differences in sexuality is female sexual socialization. Sexual fluidity may be viewed as one response to the cultural suppression of female sexuality (Diamond, 2008b; Tolman & Diamond, 2001). The argument 16 against an essential gender difference in sexuality may help to explain why women have been found to experience more sexual fluidity than men. Sexual socialization not only affects women; men also face restrictive expectations regarding appropriateness of affection with people of the same gender, especially in male-male friendships. These restrictions prohibit open displays of affection between heterosexual men, but permit them between women (Nardi, 1992).
Additionally, intimate and affectionate same-gender friendships create a suspicion of homosexuality more so when they occur between men than when they occur between women
(Derlega, Lewis, Harrison, Winstead, & Constanza, 1989). This context might allow for more same-gender female friendships to cross over into romantic relationships, whereas the same might not be true for same-gender male friendships.
Other interpretations of sexual fluidity in women pertain to the movement from a bisexual to a lesbian identity, or vice versa. In a study of women who originally identified as lesbian, but later as bisexual, sexual fluidity was interpreted as a reluctance to adopt the bisexual label because of its stigma both in mainstream society and in lesbian/gay communities (Fox,
1995). Alternatively, bisexuality was interpreted as a transitional identity in women who previously identified as heterosexual, but later adopted a lesbian identity. In Diamond’s (2008b) longitudinal study, a number of women adopted labels other than bisexual for their sexual identity, such as unlabeled or queer. Many of these women experienced person-based attractions, in which they were attracted to the individual person, rather than their gender.
Diamond suggested that women might be more likely than men to have person-based attractions, leading to a greater degree of sexual fluidity. Another interpretation of sexual fluidity in women distinguishes between women with consistent attractions to both women and men, and women 17 with a “bisexual potential” who only experience attraction to a person of the same gender under the right conditions, such as meeting the right person or having the opportunity to explore attractions to a same-gender person (Klein, 1993; Zinik, 1985).
Mechanisms of Sexual Fluidity
How does sexual fluidity work, and what are the developmental mechanisms of sexual fluidity? Diamond (2008b) proposed the use of dynamic systems theory to represent female sexual fluidity. In this theory, developmental processes occur as a result of the presence or absence of a specific combination of factors or parameters, which act as agents of change
(Thelen, 1989). Diamond (2008b) suggested that the amount of sexual fluidity experienced by a woman is determined by her initial degree of or propensity for sexual fluidity, and her exposure to environmental, situational, and interpersonal factors that might trigger fluidity. In her study,
Diamond found that women experienced different degrees of fluidity, with some women experiencing more fluidity than others. In the context of dynamic systems theory, this suggests that women’s “bisexual potential” (Klein, 1993; Zinik, 1985) is a factor that, in interaction with other contextual factors, might result in experiences of sexual fluidity.
In her study of sexual fluidity in women, Diamond (2008a) examined a number of developmental milestones: recollections of early gender-atypical behavior, feelings of differentness compared to other girls, age of first same-gender attractions, age of first sexual questioning, age of first same-gender sexual contact, and context of first sexual questioning. She found that none of these variables predicted women’s later experiences of sexual fluidity. In other words, Diamond found that traditional conceptualizations of sexual identity development
(the master narrative) were unrelated to whether women experienced sexual fluidity. Although 18
Diamond did not find a connection between these variables and the process of sexual fluidity, it is possible that other background factors might be related, such as socioeconomic status (SES) while growing up, experiences of parental divorce, or discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Indeed, Diamond (2008a) found that although there was no association between sexual fluidity and SES while growing up or educational attainment, women who changed identities were less likely to have divorced parents, and less likely to report antigay stigmatization/harassment/fear of violence. A number of contextual factors, such as beliefs about sexual identity, outness regarding sexual orientation, family approval of sexuality, experiences of sexual orientation- based victimization, and history of parental divorce, were explored in the current study in relation to the presence or absence of sexual fluidity in women and men.
The Current Study
Traditional research on sexual orientation has concluded that sexual identity is stable across the lifespan. Although recent research has begun to document changes in sexual identity that occur over time (e.g., Diamond, 2008b), this research has mostly been conducted with women, and more research is needed to fully understand this developmental process in both women and men. The current study tested Diamond’s model of sexual fluidity in a new sample of women, and in men. This research investigated sexual identity development and explored experiences of change in attractions and sexual identity over time in sexual minority young adults. A specific goal was to investigate how different components of sexual orientation (sexual identity, sexual and romantic attraction, and sexual behavior) play a role in these processes.
Another goal was to identify similarities and differences in these processes based on gender and sexual identity label. 19
The first two research questions were: 1) Does Diamond’s model of sexual fluidity hold in a new sample of sexual minority women? And 2) Does Diamond’s model of sexual fluidity apply to sexual minority men? Diamond (2008a) found that 67% of the sexual minority women in her study changed their sexual identity label once over the course of the 10-year longitudinal study. My project assessed people cross-sectionally as young adults – the age at which Diamond first recruited her participants – and asked participants for retrospective reports of change over time. Because they were younger at the time of assessment than were Diamond’s participants after following them for 10 years, I expected participants in my study to demonstrate less sexual fluidity (change in attractions and sexual identity) compared to Diamond’s participants.
Specifically, I hypothesized that half as many (approximately 30%) women in the current study would have experienced changes in attractions and labels in the past, compared to Diamond’s findings. A common assumption in past research is that men do not experience changes in their sexual orientation. I question this assumption and hypothesized that men would experience fluidity, although at a lower rate than women. Specifically, I hypothesized that a smaller percentage of men (approximately 15%) in the current study would have experienced change in attractions and labels in the past. Diamond (2008a) found that 36% of the women in her study changed labels two or more times over the course of the 10-year longitudinal study. Based on this finding, I hypothesized that half as many women (15%) and men (7%) would experience more than one change in attractions and labels, compared to those who experienced only one change.
The third research question was: How is sexual fluidity related to different components of sexual orientation (sexual identity, sexual and romantic attraction, and sexual behavior)? I 20 hypothesized that sexually fluid women and men would be more likely to identify as mostly heterosexual, bisexual, mostly homosexual, queer, questioning, and unlabeled, than as completely homosexual or completely heterosexual. Sexually fluid women and men were expected to be romantically and sexually attracted to both genders, have past sexual behavior and romantic relationships with both genders, have sexual fantasies about both genders, and emotionally and socially prefer people of both genders; compared to non-sexually fluid people, who were expected to have attractions, behaviors, relationships, sexual fantasies, and social preference only for same-gender or other-gender people.
The fourth research question was: How is sexual fluidity related to the process of sexual identity development? In Diamond’s (2008b) longitudinal study, she investigated sexual fluidity and context of first questioning as triggered by same-gender attractions vs. exposure to a facilitative environment. The factor of same-gender attractions supports traditional views of sexual orientation, whereas exposure to a facilitative environment does not. She found that context of first questioning was unrelated to change in sexual identity or attractions.
Additionally, in analyses comparing sexual fluidity groups and the age at which women reported experiencing first same-gender attractions, sexual questioning, same-gender sexual contact, and sexual orientation, there were no significant differences between the groups (Diamond, 2005).
Therefore, I hypothesized that the phase of sexual identity development (as understood by traditional stage theories) would be unrelated to likelihood of sexual fluidity in women and men.
Although Diamond (2005) did not find significant differences between sexual fluidity groups in the age at which sexual identity developmental milestones were reached, I hypothesized that sexually fluid women and men would reach sexual identity development milestones at a later age 21 compared to non-sexually fluid people, because other research has demonstrated that sexual minority women are more likely to reach developmental milestones later (e.g., Floyd &
Bakeman, 2006), and to be sexually fluid (e.g., Kinnish et al., 2005), compared to sexual minority men. A study of sexual identity development among LGB youth found that youth who consistently identified as gay/lesbian were more likely than youth who consistently identified as bisexual and youth who changed identities, to report certainty about, comfort with, and acceptance of the homosexual part of their identity (Rosario et al., 2006). However, I had no knowledge of this finding prior to creating my hypotheses, and assumed that a certain degree of comfort with a non-heterosexual identity would allow for later changes in attractions and identity over time. Therefore, in the current study, I expected that sexually fluid women and men would have less negative sexual identity, including less internalized homonegativity and less identity uncertainty, compared to non-sexually fluid people.
The fifth research question was: How is sexual fluidity related to other contextual factors? I hypothesized that sexually fluid women and men would be more likely than non- sexually fluid people to be out as a sexual minority (e.g., use a lesbian identity; tell others about same-gender attractions). I also hypothesized that sexually fluid women and men would be more likely than non-sexually fluid people to believe they were attracted to the person rather than the gender, believe that sexuality is influenced by environment, and believe that their sexuality is something they choose. I expected that non-sexually fluid people would be more likely to believe their sexual identity is something they were born with. Sexually fluid women and men were expected to have an incremental view (Chiu, Hong, & Dweck, 1997; Dweck, 1986, 2006) of sexuality, that one’s sexuality can change or that one can change one’s sexuality; whereas 22 non-sexually fluid people were expected to have an entity view, that sexuality is fixed or that one cannot change one’s sexuality. Sexually fluid women and men were expected to have more positive attitudes toward bisexuality, have family members who were more approving of their sexuality, and to experience less felt stigma, compared to non-sexually fluid people. Rates of sexual orientation-based victimization were expected to be unrelated to likelihood of experiencing sexual fluidity.
Finally, the sixth research question was: How do the processes of sexual identity development and sexual fluidity differ by demographic characteristics such as gender, age, and sexual identity label? D’Augelli (2006) reported data from a study using a large sample of LGB youth attending community social and recreational groups. The study investigated developmental and contextual factors, including developmental milestones, and found a number of interesting gender differences. Of importance to the hypotheses for the current study, males were aware of same-gender sexual feelings, self-labeled as LGB, and initiated same-gender sexual activities at an earlier age than females; however, females and males disclosed their sexual orientation to others at approximately the same age (D’Augelli, 2006). Although the current study is conducted from a standpoint of critiquing traditional stage theories, I was still interested in exploring whether findings from earlier research on gender differences in sexual identity development would be supported in the current study. Therefore, based on the findings from D’Augelli’s research, I hypothesized that women in the current study would be more likely to be at an earlier phase of sexual identity development, whereas men would be more likely to be at a later phase. I expected that sexual identity label would not be related to phase of sexual identity development in women or men. Sexually fluid women and men were expected to be 23 older, more educated, and desire a higher level of educational attainment than non-sexually fluid people.
In order to answer the research questions, participants completed a questionnaire to assess multiple components of sexual orientation (e.g., sexual identity, romantic and sexual attraction, and sexual behavior), sexual identity development, change in sexual identity over time, contextual factors, and demographic characteristics (Study 1). The questionnaire was designed to test different aspects of Diamond’s model of sexual identity development and sexual fluidity. Additionally, using Diamond’s protocol (1998, 2000, 2003a, 2005, 2008a) as a methodological framework, I conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with a subset of sexual minority young adults from Study 1, to better understand their sexual identity development and any change in attractions or sexual identity that may have occurred (Study 2). Both the questionnaire and interviews were important in gaining a complete picture of these developmental processes. In particular, the qualitative interviews allowed for contextualization and the opportunity to explore aspects of sexual identity development that could not be fully captured with quantitative measures. Additionally, since the process of sexual fluidity in men is not well-understood, conducting qualitative interviews allowed me to compare themes related to sexual identity and change across gender groups. Although the current project used a cross- sectional design for my dissertation, the intention is to follow the sample longitudinally to obtain a clearer picture of sexual identity development and sexual fluidity as it occurs over time.
24
CHAPTER 2
Study 1: What Develops and How Does it Develop?
Study 1 was designed to test Diamond’s (2008b) model of sexual fluidity in female and male sexual minority young adults, and to examine potential related contextual factors. Another goal was to compare sexual identity development and sexual fluidity processes by gender and sexual identity label. This questionnaire included quantitative measures to understand the multiple components of sexual orientation, sexual identity development, change in attractions and sexual identity over time, and external factors such as experiences of sexual orientation- based victimization and family approval of sexuality (see Appendix I).
Method
Participants
Participants were 199 (124 female, 75 male) young adults, ages 18-26 (Female: M =
21.56, SD = 2.45; Male: M = 21.39, SD = 2.61), born between 1984 and 19921. A subset of these
(5 in the female version, 6 in the male version) reported a transgender or “other” identity, but filled out the female or male questionnaire, based on which version they felt most comfortable completing. Participants were eligible for the study if they were between the ages of 18 and 26 and met at least one of the following criteria: 1) identified with a sexual orientation other than heterosexual, 2) preferred not to label their sexual orientation, or 3) experienced attraction to someone of the same gender or to people of both genders in the past. Volunteers were asked to participate in a study about attraction, behavior, and sexuality.
1 For comparison, Diamond’s (1998) participants were recruited in 1995 at ages 16-23 (M = 20.0, SD = 2.0). 25
Most participants (86.7% of females, 90% of males) lived in Wisconsin. Major ethnic groups for female participants were White (80%), mixed ethnicity (11%), and Asian (5%); major ethnic groups for male participants were White (87%), mixed ethnicity (4%), and
Latino/Hispanic (4%). Sexual identity for female (F) and male (M) participants was completely heterosexual/straight (14% F, 3% M), mostly heterosexual/straight (14% F, 4% M), bisexual
(19% F, 12% M), mostly homosexual/gay/lesbian (9% F, 13% M), completely homosexual/gay/lesbian (16% F, 52% M), queer (17% F, 8% M), questioning/unsure (4% F, 4%
M), and unlabeled (8% F, 4% M). Complete demographic information for women and men is reported in Table 1.
Participants were recruited from five types of sources in Wisconsin, including the
University of Wisconsin (UW) system and other colleges in the state: 1) UW-Madison
Psychology Department mass survey, 2) college and university LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) centers and listservs, 3) college and university Women’s and Gender Studies
Department listservs, 4) LGBT community centers and listservs, and 5) University and college classes on gender and sexuality. Students who identified as “mostly heterosexual,” “bisexual,”
“homosexual/gay/lesbian,” or “questioning/unsure” on the UW-Madison Psychology Department mass survey and who agreed to be contacted for future research were contacted for participation in this study. Recruitment emails were sent to classes on gender and sexuality, Women’s and
Gender Studies departments, and LGBT university/college and community centers. Information about the study was also posted on Craigslist and relevant Facebook pages, such as those affiliated with LGBT community and campus centers. Flyers were posted around the UW-
Madison campus and the city of Madison, WI, especially at venues where sexual minority young 26 adults were likely to frequent (e.g., coffee shops, gay bars, queer theater spaces). Additionally, snowball sampling was utilized; the recruitment emails and electronic study postings encouraged people to pass information about the study to others who might be eligible and willing to participate. All emails contained a URL link to the online questionnaire. Flyers provided my contact information and requested that prospective participants contact me for more information about the study.
Following Diamond’s (1998) recruitment methods, participants were required to 1) identify with a sexual orientation other than heterosexual, or 2) decline to label their sexual orientation. Most social science research on sexual minority populations has focused on lesbian and gay people. Although more recent studies have begun to include those who identify as bisexual, most studies still exclude people who are unsure about their sexual identity or identify as questioning. For this study, people were eligible if they used any identity label other than heterosexual or declined to label their sexual orientation. The latter was used in an attempt to include people who were questioning their sexual identity, but had not adopted a non- heterosexual label, and people who chose not to use a label for their sexual identity or identified as unlabeled.
Additionally, participants were eligible to participate in the study if they 3) experienced any same-gender attractions in the past. Researchers have established the importance of including people who have experienced same-gender attraction, but may not identify as a sexual minority, in research on sexual identity development and sexual fluidity (Diamond & Savin-
Williams, 2000). In the current study, recruitment efforts were also directed toward people who 27 had experienced attractions to same-gender people, whether or not they acted on those attractions, or identify as non-heterosexual.
Measures
Participants completed an online questionnaire with the following measures: beliefs about sexual identity, attitudes toward bisexuality, sexual orientation, romantic and sexual attraction, sexual behavior, romantic relationships, sexual identity, change in attractions/labels, sexual identity development, sexual minority outness, sexual orientation-based victimization, family approval of sexuality, felt stigma, religion/spirituality, and demographic measures (see Appendix
I). Separate questionnaires were created for females and males.
Beliefs about sexual identity. Participants completed items to assess beliefs about their own sexual identity (Diamond, 2005). Participants indicated agreement with the following statements on a 5-point Likert scale from “completely disagree” to “completely agree”: 1) “I’m the kind of person that’s attracted to the person rather than their gender;” 2) “I feel my sexuality is something I was born with;” 3) “I feel my sexuality has been influenced by my environment;” and 4) “I feel my own sexual identity (e.g., lesbianism or bisexuality) is something I chose.” I added two items based on Diamond’s unpublished protocol from her longitudinal study.
Participants indicated agreement with the following statements on the same scale as the previous items: “I typically fall in love with someone based on who they are as a person, rather than their gender;” and “I am usually attracted to a person’s gender before I am attracted to the person.”
Diamond did not report psychometrics for these items. In the current study, items were used separately; therefore, reliability is not reported. 28
To test Diamond’s (2008b) model of sexual fluidity, participants completed six items created for the current study2 to measure the following themes related to change in sexual identity that Diamond (2003a) found in her qualitative interviews: 1) ambivalence about labeling, 2) limitations of labeling, 3) whether love depends on the person vs. gender, 4) uncertainty about future attractions, 5) uncertainty about future sexual identity, and 5) beliefs that sexuality is fluid. Items are measured on a 7-point Likert scale from “completely disagree” to “completely agree.” Examples of items are “I feel ambivalent (undecided) about using labels to describe my sexual orientation and identity” (ambivalence about labeling); and “I don’t know how I will label my sexual orientation in the future” (uncertainty about the future). Higher scores indicate more sexual fluidity. In the current study, reliability as measured by coefficient alpha was .87 for females and .85 for males. Since reliability was high, a sexual fluidity scale score was created by averaging the items.
Participants completed eight items created for the current study that were based on
Dweck’s entity vs. incremental views of intelligence (Chiu et al., 1997; Dweck, 1986, 2006).
Participants indicated agreement with the statements on a 7-point Likert scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” A sample item is “Your sexuality is something very basic about you that you can’t change.” High scores indicate an incremental view, that one’s sexuality can change or that one can change one’s sexuality; and low scores indicate an entity view, that sexuality is fixed or that one cannot change one’s sexuality. Four items were worded, such that sexual orientation was the agent of change (Sexual orientation-based scale) (e.g., “A person’s sexual orientation can change substantially”); and four items were worded, such that the person
2 All newly developed items for Study 1 are listed in Appendix II. 29 was the agent of change (Person-based scale) (e.g., “A person can substantially change their sexual orientation”). For females, reliability as measured by coefficient alpha was .80 for the
Sexual orientation-based scale, and .88 for the Person-based scale. For males, reliability was .86 for the Sexual orientation-based scale, and .91 for the Person-based scale. Since reliability was high for these two scales, scale scores were created by averaging the items.
Attitudes toward bisexuality. Participants completed the Attitudes Regarding
Bisexuality Scale – Female version (ARBS-F) and Male version (ARBS-M; Mohr & Rochlen,
1999). The scales each consist of 12 items that yield two subscales: Stability and Tolerance.
Example items are “Most women who call themselves bisexual are temporarily experimenting with their sexuality” (Stability), and “Bisexuality in men is immoral” (Tolerance). Items are measured on a 5-point Likert scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” Higher scores indicate more positive attitudes toward bisexuality. Reliability as measured by coefficient alpha ranged from .85 to .93 for both subscales (Mohr & Rochlen, 1999). In the current study, reliability for all items as measured by coefficient alpha was .69 for females and .73 for males.
Sexual orientation. Participants completed the Klein Sexual Orientation Grid (KSOG;
Klein, Sepekoff, & Wolf, 1985) to measure sexual orientation. The KSOG measures seven components of sexual orientation, six of which were used in the current study: Sexual Attraction,
Sexual Behavior, Sexual Fantasies, Emotional Preference, Social Preference, and Self-
Identification. The seventh component, Hetero/Gay Lifestyle, was excluded because lifestyle is considered to be an outdated conceptualization of sexual orientation. Each component is measured for the past (up to 12 months ago), present (past year), and ideal, resulting in 18 items total. Example items are “To whom are you sexually attracted?” (Sexual Attraction) and “About 30 whom do you have sexual fantasies?” (Sexual Fantasies), with response options ranging from 1
(other sex only) to 7 (same sex only), with a mid-point of 4 (both sexes equally). Klein and colleagues (1985) did not report reliability psychometrics. In the current study, reliability as measured by coefficient alpha was .97 for females and .96 for males. For the past items, reliability was .92 for females and .88 for males. For the present items, reliability was .93 for females and .89 for males. For the ideal items, reliability was .95 for females and .94 for males.
Romantic and sexual attraction. Participants completed a measure similar to
Diamond’s (1998) measure to assess the proportion of attraction that they currently feel for women vs. men on a day-to-day basis, on a scale of 0-100%. Romantic and sexual attraction was assessed separately. Based on participants’ responses, I created scores for romantic and sexual attraction on a scale of -100 (other-gender only) to 100 (same-gender only), with 0 representing equal same-gender and other-gender attraction. As an example, a female participant who reported 50% attraction to women and 50% attraction to men would receive a score of 0 for equal same-gender and other-gender attraction; a male participant who reported 90% attraction to men and 10% attraction to women would receive a score of 90 for mostly same-gender attractions. The distribution of romantic attraction and sexual attraction scores are represented in
Figures 1 and 2, respectively.
Participants were also asked to complete Diamond’s (2008a) attraction measure to assess desire to engage in sexual activity with people of the same gender and other gender, sexual thoughts and fantasies about people of the same gender and other gender, and sexual desire in comparison to other women/men in the participant’s age group. Open-ended items asked which traits were attractive in women vs. men. Diamond did not report psychometrics for this measure. 31
Similarly to romantic and sexual attraction, the sexual fantasy items (Diamond, 2008a) assessed the proportion of sexual fantasies participants had toward women vs. men on a scale of 0-100%.
As with attraction, I created scores for sexual fantasy on a scale of -100 (other-gender only) to
100 (same-gender only), with 0 representing equal other-gender and same-gender sexual fantasies.
Sexual behavior. Participants were asked to report the number of women and men with whom they have had sexual contact since age 13 (Diamond, 2000). Sexual contact was defined as “any [mutually consenting] sexually-motivated intimate contact”. Participants chose one of the following response options for each gender: none, one, 2 to 3, or 4 or more. Using
Diamond’s (2000) method, I created a Sexual Contact Index to reflect same-gender vs. other- gender sexual contact. I divided the number of same-gender partners by the total number of partners to represent the percentage of a participant’s past sexual partners who were of the same gender. Similarly, I divided the number of other-gender partners by the total number of partners to represent the percentage of a participant’s past sexual partners who were of the other gender. I used 3 to represent the category “2 to 3” and 4 to represent the category “4 or more”. Thus, a score of zero represents exclusive other-gender partners, a score of 50 represents equal numbers of same-gender and other-gender partners, and a score of 100 represents exclusive same-gender partners.
Romantic relationships. Participants were asked about current and past romantic relationships. Items developed for the current study asked whether the participant was in a current romantic relationship; if yes, the duration of the relationship and the gender of their 32 partner. Participants were also asked about the number of past romantic relationships they have had with women and men.
Sexual identity. Participants completed items to measure sexual identity, which were developed for the current study. An open-ended item measured how participants identify their sexual orientation, and a forced-choice item measured how participants would label their orientation if they had to choose from the following options: completely heterosexual/straight, mostly heterosexual/straight, bisexual, mostly homosexual/gay/lesbian, completely homosexual/gay/lesbian, queer, questioning/unsure, and unlabeled.
Participants also completed the Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Identity Scale (LGBIS; Mohr
& Kendra, 2011). The scale consists of 27 items that measure eight components of LGB identity: Acceptance Concerns, Concealment Motivation, Identity Uncertainty, Internalized
Homonegativity, Difficult Process, Identity Superiority, Identity Affirmation, and Identity
Centrality. Example items are “If it were possible, I would choose to be straight” (Internalized
Homonegativity), “I often wonder whether others judge me for my sexual orientation”
(Acceptance Concerns), and “I keep changing my mind about my sexual orientation” (Identity
Uncertainty). Items are measured on a 7-point Likert scale from “disagree strongly” to “agree strongly.”3 Reliability of the eight components, as measured by coefficient alpha ranged from
.72 to .94 (Mohr & Kendra, 2011). In the current study, reliability as measured by coefficient alpha ranged from .75 to .94 for females, and .77 to .91 for males.
Change in attractions/labels. Participants completed items created for the current study to assess change in attractions and sexual identity labels. Participants were asked whether they
3 I used the pre-publication version of the LGBIS, sent to me via email by Mohr. In the published version, items are measured on a 6-point Likert scale. 33 have ever experienced a change in attractions over time. If they responded yes, they were asked to report the approximate number of times they have experienced a change in attractions, the approximate age when they experienced the change, whether the change in attractions resulted in a change in sexual orientation labels used, and the labels before and after the change.
Participants were asked about the likelihood that their sexual identity will change in the future on a 5-point Likert scale from “completely unlikely” to “completely likely.” Participants were also asked to complete an open-ended question asking how they explain any changes in sexual identity that they have undergone.
Sexual identity development. Participants completed items to assess the age at which they completed four milestones of lesbian/gay identity development (identified by Garnets &
Kimmel, 1993). The four items asked about: 1) age of first same-gender romantic attraction, 2) age of first same-gender sexual encounter, 3) age of first self-labeling as LGBQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer), and 4) age of first same-gender relationship. Reliability as measured by coefficient alpha was .85 in a study that used these items (Mohr & Fassinger, 2000). An additional item was included to ask about age of first questioning of sexual orientation
(Diamond, 2003a). In the current study, items were used separately; therefore, reliability is not reported.
To test Diamond’s (1998) model of sexual identity development, participants completed five items created for the current study to measure the presence or absence of early indicators of sexual orientation. Items were measured on a 7-point Likert scale from “completely disagree” to
“completely agree.” Sample items are, “I felt sexual or romantic attractions toward other women/men before age 13” and “I felt different from other girls/boys before age 13.” Higher 34 scores indicate greater sexual minority development before age 13. Reliability as measured by coefficient alpha was .78 for females and .79 for males. Since reliability was high, a scale score was created by averaging the items.
Eleven additional items were created to test Diamond’s (1998) model of sexual identity development. Items measured the precipitation of sexual questioning by same-gender attractions vs. exposure to LGB ideas or people, and the presence or absence of same-gender attractions prior to the onset of sexual questioning. Items were answered by checking all options that applied to the participant’s experience by completing the sentence “I began to question my sexual orientation…” Examples of items are “…when I first met someone who identified as lesbian, gay, or bisexual” and “…because I found out that another woman/man was sexually interested in me” (see Appendix II for complete list of items).
Female participants completed the Lesbian Identity Questionnaire – Revised (LIQ-R;
Fassinger, 2001), and male participants completed the Gay Identity Scale (GIS; Fassinger &
Miller, 1996) to assess phase of sexual identity development based on traditional stage models.
Each of the scales measures four phases of identity development: Awareness, Exploration,
Deepening/Commitment, and Internalization/Synthesis. The LIQ-R and GIS measure each phase for Individual Sexual Identity and Group Membership Identity. Only the phases for Individual
Sexual Identity were included in the current study (24 items for women, 20 items for men). In a study using the Internalization/Synthesis items of these measures, reliability as measured by coefficient alpha was .68 for lesbians and .64 for gay men (Mohr & Fassinger, 2000). In the current study, reliability of the LIQ-R for females as measured by coefficient alpha was .89 for
Awareness, .91 for Exploration, .80 for Deepening/Commitment, and .88 for 35
Internalization/Synthesis. Reliability of the GIS for males as measured by coefficient alpha was
.50 for Awareness, .75 for Exploration, .87 for Deepening/Commitment, and .75 for
Internalization/Synthesis. Item 4 (“It scares me that I’m not attracted to women”) was dropped from the Awareness subscale of the GIS, because reliability of the scale was higher without it
(.56).
Sexual minority outness. Participants completed the Outness Inventory (OI; Mohr &
Fassinger, 2000) to measure the degree to which people are out regarding their sexual orientation. The OI consists of 10 items and three subscales: Out to Family (4 items), Out to
World (4 items), and Out to Religion (2 items). Examples of items are “Mother” (Out to
Family), “Work peers” (Out to World), and “Members of my religious community” (Out to
Religion). Items are measured on a 7-point Likert scale from “person definitely does not know about your sexual orientation status” to “person definitely knows about your sexual orientation status, and it is openly talked about.” Reliability as measured by coefficient alpha was .74 (Out to Family), .79 (Out to World), and .97 (Out to Religion) (Mohr & Fassinger, 2000). In the current study, reliability as measured by coefficient alpha was .84 for females and .83 for males
(Out to Family), .81 for females and males (Out to World), and .99 for females and .97 for males
(Out to Religion).
Sexual orientation-based victimization. Participants completed items measuring criminal victimization, harassment and threats, and discrimination based on sexual orientation
(Herek, 2009). To assess criminal victimization, participants were asked how often they had experienced a crime against their person (“You were hit, beaten, physically attacked, or sexually assaulted”), property (“You were robbed, or your property was stolen, vandalized, or purposely 36 damaged”), or an attempted crime (“Someone tried to attack you, rob you, or damage your property, but they didn’t succeed”) based on their sexual orientation. To assess harassment and threats, participants were asked about anti-gay threats (“Someone threatened you with violence”) and harassment (“Someone verbally insulted or abused you” and “Someone threw an object at you”). To assess discrimination, participants were asked about sexual orientation-based discrimination in employment (“You were fired from your job or denied a job or promotion”) and housing (“You were prevented from moving into a house or apartment by a landlord or realtor”). Response options were never, once, twice, and three or more times. For each type of victimization, if participants indicated having experienced victimization, they were asked if the victimization occurred when they were under age 18, over age 18 or during both age categories.
Response options were recoded into never, once, and twice or more times. Herek (2009) did not provide psychometrics for reliability of these items. Reliability for all items as measured by coefficient alpha was .86 for females and .71 for males.
Family approval of sexuality. Participants answered items written for the current study about family approval of sexuality that were adapted from Diamond (2008a). Items assessed whether the participant’s mother, father, and closest sibling currently approve of the participant’s sexuality, and whether each of the family members approved of the participant’s sexuality in the past. Participants indicated agreement with each item on a 5-point Likert scale from “completely disapproves/d” to “completely approves/d”. In the current study, reliability as measured by coefficient alpha was .71 for females for current approval and .73 for past approval. For males, reliability was .72 for current approval and .75 for past approval. 37
Felt stigma. Participants completed items measuring felt stigma related to sexual orientation (Herek, 2009). Participants indicated agreement with the following statements on a
5-point Likert scale from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”: 1) “Most people where I live think less of a person who is gay;” 2) “Most employers where I live will hire openly gay people if they are qualified for the job;” 3) “Most people where I live would not want someone who is openly gay to take care of their children.” Items measured felt stigma in the location where the participants currently live, and the location where they lived while growing up (e.g., “Most employers where I lived while growing up would hire openly gay people if they are qualified for the job.”). Herek (2009) did not provide psychometrics for reliability of these items. In the current study, reliability as measured by coefficient alpha for current location was .60 for females, and .69 for males. Reliability for past location was .72 for females, and .79 for males.
Religion and spirituality. Participants answered items about religion and spirituality that were created for the current study. Participants answered the following items using a 4-point
Likert scale from “not at all important” to “very important”: 1) “How important is religion/spirituality to you?” and 2) “How important is religion/spirituality to your self-identity?”
Participants were asked how often they attend religious/spiritual services, with the following response options: at least once per week, at least once per month, a few times a year, or never.
Participants were also asked open-ended questions about which religion/spirituality and specific denomination, if any, they were raised with and currently identify with. Reliability for the first two items as measured by coefficient alpha was .93 for females and .92 for males.
Demographics. Participants answered items about family, location, and individual demographics. Family demographic items measured SES while growing up; mothers’ and 38 fathers’ level of education and current occupation (open-ended); whether parents were divorced, and if yes, the participant’s age at the time of the divorce. Response options for SES were: lower-class, middle-class, and upper-class. Response options for level of education were: some high school, high school degree, some college, college degree, some graduate/professional school, and graduate/professional degree. Location demographic items assessed the city/state in which the participant currently lives.
Individual demographic items measured participants’ age (month/year of birth), ethnicity, current level of education, desired level of education, and current occupation (open-ended).
Response options for ethnicity were: White/Caucasian, Black/African American, Asian,
Latino/Hispanic, Native American, mixed ethnicity, and other. Response options for current and desired level of education were: some high school, high school degree, some college, college degree, some graduate/professional school, and graduate/professional degree.
Follow-up questions. Participants answered two follow-up questions. The first was an open-ended question asking whether participants wanted to tell me anything else. The second measured the recruitment source, in terms of where the participant heard about the study, with the following response options: UW-Madison Psychology Department, Women’s or Gender
Studies Department at your college or university, LGBT center at your college or university,
LGBT community center in your town, LezTalkMadison (listserv in Madison, WI for women who love women), class on gender and/or sexuality, flyer, email, from a friend, and other.
Participants were then requested to consent to be contacted about a future part of the study
(Study 2) or another study (potential future wave of data collection), and if they consented, to provide contact information (email and telephone number). 39
Procedure
Research has demonstrated that administration of online questionnaires is an appropriate and recommended method of data collection for obtaining information that may be considered sensitive, such as experiences of sexual attraction and behavior, particularly of a non- heterosexual nature. Answering questions online using a computer provides an extra level of anonymity; even if the participant later provides contact information, they are not being observed when they answer the questions. The anonymous nature of the internet encourages disclosure of different aspects of sexuality, such as behavior and fantasies (Cooper, 1998). In a study of adolescent sexual behavior, drug use, and violence using the internet, reports of stigmatized health, drug-related behaviors, and sexual behaviors increased as anonymity increased (Turner,
Ku, Rogers, Lindberg, Pleck, & Sonenstein, 1998). Additionally, online questionnaires can be a good way to access stigmatized populations, such as sexual minorities (Mustanski, 2001).
Therefore, an online method of data collection was used in Study 1.
Participants completed the online questionnaire during January to April 2011. People interested in the study either accessed the questionnaire from the URL link on the flyer or email received, or if I was provided with an email at the time of recruitment, I sent the participant a link to the online questionnaire. No one requested a paper copy of the questionnaire, although they were available. Informed consent was obtained from all participants at the time of participation, by including an electronic consent form at the start of the online questionnaire.4
Participants completed the questionnaire using their own computer, and completion time ranged from 20-60 minutes. At the end of the questionnaire, participants were asked a) whether they
4 Online consent was approved by the UW – Madison Institutional Review Board (IRB). 40 agreed to participate in future waves of data collection; and b) whether they agreed to participate in a follow-up interview, and if yes, were asked to provide contact information. All participants were entered into a random drawing for one of five $20 gift certificates to Amazon.com.5
The online survey was conducted using the UW-Madison Qualtrics Survey Hosting
Service. Separate female and male questionnaires were created, as well as paper versions of the online questionnaire. When participants began the questionnaire, they were asked to identify their gender using the following response options: female, male, transgender, or other.
Participants were then asked to click on the link to either the female or male questionnaire, based on which version they felt most comfortable answering. If participants were not comfortable answering either the female or male version, they were asked to contact me for participation in the second (qualitative) phase of the study, and my contact information was provided. Only one person contacted me at this stage to participate in the second phase of the study, but they were not able to complete an in-person interview because they lived outside of Wisconsin.
Pilot testing. The online questionnaire was pilot-tested with 10 participants (6 women, 4 men) to determine the average time to complete the measures and interpretability of items, as well as functionality of the online format. Pilot participants were former undergraduate students of mine (N = 3); other graduate students in Psychology, Counseling Psychology, and Sociology
(N = 5); and friends in my own age group (N = 2). Pilot participants either 1) completed the questionnaire in person on a computer in the UW-Madison Psychology lab and gave me verbal feedback afterward, or 2) completed the questionnaire on their own computer and emailed me detailed feedback. Informed consent was obtained from all pilot participants at the beginning of
5 Participant incentives were funded by a student research grant from the Kinsey Institute. 41 the questionnaire. At the end of the questionnaire, participants were asked to report how long it took them to complete the questionnaire, and to identify any items that were confusing or did not make sense. Pilot participants completed the questionnaire in 33-60 minutes. Inconsistencies among the items and errors were corrected, formatting was improved, and completion instructions and items that were confusing were rewritten for the final version unless they were part of an already established scale. For example, sexual identity was defined in the instructions for relevant scales; sexual orientation was specified as the basis for victimization for each victimization item, rather than only in the instructions at the beginning of the scale; and the response options for items measuring family support of sexuality were changed from true/false to a Likert scale.
Analytic Methodology
Data cleaning. All data cleaning was conducted using SPSS. The questionnaire was long, and a substantial number of people began, but did not finish completing the questionnaire.
Since the main variable of interest was change in attractions and the item measuring this variable was in the middle of the questionnaire, data were deleted for all participants who did not complete this question and the items that followed in the questionnaire. Data were also deleted for participants whose birthdays were before March 1984 or after March 1993, placing them outside of the required age range. In total, data were deleted for 74 female and 39 male participants, leaving 124 females and 75 males with usable data. Each previously validated scale was cleaned, and new scales were created when reliability of items was high (see Measures).
Data analysis. Results from the questionnaire were analyzed using SPSS. Scale scores were calculated for all scales, and reliability statistics were computed for each of the scales and 42 subscales. Open-ended items (e.g., sexual identity, religious affiliation) were coded into quantitative categories for further analysis. Descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations, frequencies) were computed for each of the measures and for demographic variables (see Tables
1 and 2).
Bivariate correlations were calculated between the forced-choice and open-ended (coded into quantitative categories) sexual identity questions. Although many participants reported more than one sexual identity label in the open-ended response, correlations between the forced- choice question and the first label reported in the open-ended responses were significant for both women and men, r = .42, p < .01; men: r = .57, p < .01, respectively. Therefore, the forced- choice question was used in the analyses that follow.
The following open-ended questions were coded separately: sexual identity, traits of attractiveness in women vs. men, interpretation of changes in sexual identity, sexual identity labels before and after the change, and religious affiliation. The responses from the open-ended questions were first exported from Qualtrics into Excel. Then a codebook was developed jointly by me and an undergraduate research assistant, by looking at the responses independently to produce separate lists of codes, and then coming to consensus on the final list. Participants’ responses were coded by both coders using the final codebook, first independently and then by consensus.
The item regarding whether participants had experienced a change in attractions over time was used to classify participants as sexually fluid (SF), if they had experienced a change in attractions or non-sexually fluid (NSF), if they had not experienced a change. Differences between SF and NSF participants were tested by comparing the two groups on various outcomes, 43 such as sexual identity development and contextual factors related to sexual fluidity, using chi- square tests, univariate tests (ANOVA), and multivariate tests (MANOVA), where appropriate.
Specific quantitative analyses conducted to test each of the hypotheses are described in detail below.
Results
Descriptive statistics are reported by gender for all measures in Tables 2 and 3, and correlations between measures are reported in Table 4.
Tests of Diamond’s Model of Sexual Fluidity
The first set of hypotheses addressed the question of whether Diamond’s (2008b) model of sexual fluidity holds in a new sample of women, and whether it also applies to men. Diamond
(2008a) found that 67% of the women she interviewed changed their sexual identity label once over the course of the 10-year longitudinal study. My project used a cross-sectional design to assess participants as young adults – the age at which Diamond first recruited her participants – and measured retrospective reports of change over time. Because they were younger at the time of assessment than Diamond’s participants were after following them over 10 years, I expected participants in the current study to demonstrate less change compared to Diamond’s participants.
Additionally, a common assumption in past research is that men do not experience changes in their sexuality. I question this assumption and hypothesized that men would experience sexual fluidity, although at a lower rate than women.
To test the hypothesis that a substantial percentage of women (approximately 30%) and a smaller percentage of men (approximately 15%) in the current study would have experienced change in attractions and labels in the past, frequencies were computed for the following items: 44
1) “Have you ever experienced a change in attractions to others over time? (For example, feeling only attracted to women, then feeling attracted to both women and men)?” And 2) “If yes, did the change in attractions result in a change in the labels that you use to describe your sexual orientation?” The first question is used throughout the analyses as the primary measure of sexual fluidity. Among women, 64% had experienced a change in attractions to others over time, and for 49% of the 64%, the change in attractions resulted in a change in the labels used to describe their sexual orientation (Table 5). A binomial test comparing the observed proportion of women who experienced a change in attractions to others over time (64%) to the hypothesized proportion (30%) found a significant difference (p < .001). Among men, 52% had experienced a change in attractions, and 36% of those men changed the labels they used. A binomial test comparing the observed proportion of men who experienced a change in attractions to others over time (52%) to the hypothesized proportion (15%) also found a significant difference (p <
.001). For both women and men, more people experienced a change in attractions than hypothesized, although not necessarily a corresponding change in the labels used to describe sexual orientation. However, a chi-square analysis revealed that the percentages of women vs. men who experienced a change in attractions over time did not significantly differ from one another, indicating that women were not more likely to be sexually fluid, compared to men. Age at which the change in attractions occurred was also assessed. On average, women experienced a first change in attractions at an older age (M = 17.46) compared to men (M = 15.97), although men’s attractions changed at a wider range of ages (SD = 4.29), compared to women (SD =
2.51). 45
Diamond (2008a) found that 36% of the women in her study changed sexual identity labels two or more times over the course of the 10-year longitudinal study. Based on this finding, I hypothesized that half as many women and men would experience more than one change in attractions and labels, compared to those who experienced only one change. To test the hypothesis that a smaller percentage of women (approximately 15%) and men
(approximately 7%) in the current study would have experienced more than one change in sexuality over time, frequencies and descriptive statistics were computed with items asking about more than one change in attractions to others over time, the number of changes, the age at which the subsequent change in attraction occurred, and the likelihood of attractions or identity changing in the future. Twenty-two percent of women and 21% of men reported that they had experienced more than one change in attractions to others over time (women: M = 2.56 changes; men: M = 2.73 changes; Table 4). More women and men than hypothesized experienced multiple changes in attractions over time. Binomial tests comparing the observed proportions of women and men who experienced more than one change in attractions to the hypothesized proportions found that they differed significantly (p = .012 for females; p < .001 for males).
However, a chi-square analysis revealed that the percentages of women vs. men who experienced more than one change in attractions over time did not significantly differ from one another. On average, women and men both experienced a subsequent change in attractions (in addition to an initial change) around age 17. In response to the item, “How likely is it that your attractions or sexual identity will change in the future?” both men and women responded that future changes were not very likely, and men (M = 1.71) viewed the likelihood as less than did women (M = 2.19; Table 5), t (192) = 3.04, p = .003. 46
Components of Sexual Orientation
The second set of hypotheses addressed how sexual fluidity is related to various components of sexual orientation.
Sexual identity labels. To test the hypothesis that SF women and men would be more likely to identify as mostly heterosexual/straight, bisexual, mostly homosexual/gay/lesbian, queer, questioning/unsure, and unlabeled, than as completely homosexual/gay/lesbian and completely heterosexual/straight, a 2 (SF vs. NSF) X 7 (sexual identity) chi-square analysis was conducted. Use of a chi-square test is inappropriate if any expected frequency is less than 1 or if the expected frequency is less than 5 in more than 20% of the cells. Thus, the questioning/unsure and unlabeled groups, which had low frequencies, were combined to meet this statistical assumption for a chi-square analysis. Among women, sexual fluidity was significantly associated across sexual identities, χ2 (6, N = 124) = 34.02, p < .001. In partial support of the hypothesis, the sexual identities with the greatest number of SF women were mostly heterosexual/straight, bisexual, completely homosexual/lesbian, and queer (Table 6).
Among men, sexual fluidity was not significantly associated with sexual identities; in fact, completely homosexual/gay was the most prevalent sexual identity label used among SF men
(41%).
Romantic and sexual attraction. To test the hypothesis that SF women and men are romantically and sexually attracted to both genders, whereas NSF people are attracted more to people of the same gender or other gender, a 2 (female vs. male) X 2 (SF vs. NSF) MANOVA was conducted with romantic attraction and sexual attraction as the dependent variables. Scale scores were created with romantic and sexual attraction to reflect the proportion of attraction 47 towards women vs. men on a scale of -100 to 100, such that a positive score represented more same-gender attraction, a negative score represented more other-gender attraction, and a score of zero represented equal same-gender and other-gender attractions (see Measures). The distribution of romantic and sexual attraction scores are represented in Figures 1 and 2, respectively.
For the overall MANOVA, a significant main effect was found for gender, F (2, 193) =
15.92, p < .001, but not for sexual fluidity. However, the interaction between gender and sexual fluidity was significant, F (2, 193) = 9.21, p < .001. Tests of univariate effects for gender were significant for both romantic and sexual attraction (Table 7). Men were more romantically (M =
53.77) and sexually (M = 59.20) attracted to same-gender people than were women (romantic attraction: M = 13.15; sexual attraction: M = 10.35).
The tests of univariate effects also revealed a significant interaction between gender and sexual fluidity for both romantic and sexual attraction (Table 7, Figure 3). A test of simple main effects indicated a gender difference for NSF people for romantic attraction, F (1, 194) = 37.98, p < .001, and sexual attraction, F (1, 194) = 38.09, p < .001, but no gender difference for SF people. Regarding romantic attraction, SF women and men were similar to each other in attraction to same-gender others (women: M = 32.71; men: M = 39.00), but NSF women were more likely than the other three groups to be attracted to the other gender (M = -21.20), whereas
NSF men were more likely to be attracted to the same gender (M = 69.36; Table 7). A similar pattern was found for sexual attraction: SF women and men were both attracted to same-gender people more than other-gender people, with men (M = 46.63) having greater same-gender attractions than women (M = 26.51); but NSF women were more likely than the other three 48 groups to be attracted to the other gender (M = -18.00), whereas NSF men had the greatest same- gender attractions (M = 72.47) compared to the other three groups (see Figure 3).
Additionally, the mean scores for SF women were closer to 0 (equal attraction to same and other gender) than to -100 (other-gender attraction) or 100 (same-gender attraction), providing partial support for the hypotheses. One-sample t-tests revealed that the mean scores for both romantic and sexual attraction were significantly different from zero for SF women for romantic attraction, t (78) = 4.53, p < .001, and sexual attraction, t (78) = 3.68, p < .001.
However, the mean scores were not significantly different from zero for NSF women. It should be noted that the minimum score for sexual attraction for SF women was -90, and -100 for romantic attraction. Therefore, no SF women had exclusive other-gender sexual attraction.
One-sample t-tests revealed that the mean scores for both SF and NSF men were greater than zero, such that men had more same-gender than other-gender attractions, SF men: t (37) =
3.75, p = .001 for romantic attraction, t (38) = 4.95, p < .001 for sexual attraction; NSF men: t
(35) = 7.73, p < .001 for romantic attraction, t (35) = 7.77, p < .001 for sexual attraction. It should also be noted that the minimum score for romantic attraction for SF men was -90, and -94 for sexual attraction. Therefore, no SF men had exclusive other-gender romantic or sexual attraction.
Sexual behavior. To test the hypothesis that SF women and men have engaged in sexual behaviors with both genders, whereas NSF people have engaged in sexual behaviors only with same-gender or other-gender people, a chi-square analysis was conducted for the association between sexual fluidity (SF vs. NSF) and a sexual contact index, indicating whether past sexual behavior was exclusively other-gender, with both genders, or exclusively same-gender. Among 49 both women and men, past sexual behavior was significantly associated with sexual fluidity
(Table 7). In support of the hypothesis, women and men with past sexual behaviors with both genders were more likely to be sexually fluid than those with exclusive same-gender or other- gender past sexual behaviors (Table 6).
Additionally, a 2 (female vs. male) X 2 (SF vs. NSF) ANOVA was conducted with the
KSOG item, “In the past, with whom have you actually had sex?” as the dependent variable.
This item was rated on a scale from 1 (other sex only) to 7 (same sex only), with a mid-point of 4
(both sexes equally). A significant main effect was found for gender, but not for sexual fluidity; however, the interaction between gender and sexual fluidity was significant (Table 7, Figure 4).
A test of simple main effects indicated a gender difference for SF people, F (1, 187) = 4.21, p <
.05, and for NSF people, F (1, 187) = 36.26, p < .001. SF women were slightly more likely to have actually had sex with both genders equally (M = 3.81) than were SF men (M = 4.72; Table
7). For NSF people, the gender difference was greater, although still in the same direction; NSF women were more likely to have actually had sex with both genders equally (M = 2.82) compared to NSF men (M = 5.88), who were more likely to have had sex with same-gender people than with both genders.
Romantic relationships. To test the hypothesis that SF women and men have past romantic relationships with both genders, whereas NSF people have past romantic relationships with same-gender or other-gender people, a chi-square analysis was conducted for the association between sexual fluidity (SF vs. NSF) and a romantic relationships index, indicating whether past romantic relationships were exclusively other-gender, with both genders, or exclusively same-gender. Among both women and men, past romantic relationships were not 50 significantly associated with sexual fluidity (Table 7). Although it was not significant, the hypothesized pattern was found for SF people: both men and women had more past romantic relationships with both genders than with same-gender or other-gender people (Table 7).
Sexual fantasy. To test the hypothesis that SF women and men have sexual fantasies about both genders, whereas NSF people have sexual fantasies about same-gender or other- gender people, a 2 (female vs. male) X 2 (SF vs. NSF) MANOVA was conducted with
Diamond’s (2008b) item “What percentage of your sexual fantasies is about women vs. men?” and the KSOG item “Currently whom are your sexual fantasies about?” as the dependent variables. A scale score was created for Diamond’s item in a similar manner to the scale scores created for romantic and sexual attraction (see Measures). On a scale of -100 to 100, a positive score represented more same-gender fantasies, a negative score represented more other-gender fantasies, and a score of zero represented equal same-gender and other-gender fantasies. The
KSOG item was rated on a scale from 1 (other sex only) to 7 (same sex only), with a mid-point of 4 (both sexes equally).
For the overall MANOVA, a significant main effect was found for gender, F (2, 189) =
22.61, p < .001, but not for sexual fluidity, although it trended toward significance (p = .063).
However, there was a significant overall interaction between gender and sexual fluidity, F (2,
189) = 5.67, p = .004. Tests of univariate effects were significant for gender for both Diamond’s item and the KSOG item (Table 7). For Diamond’s item, women were more likely to have sexual fantasies about both genders (M = 11.07), whereas men were more likely to have same- gender sexual fantasies (M = 65.89). The same pattern was seen for the KSOG item (women: M
= 4.37; men: M = 6.01). The tests of univariate effects were also significant for sexual fluidity 51 for the KSOG item, but not for Diamond’s item (Table 7). In response to the KSOG item, SF people were more likely to have sexual fantasies about same-gender people (M = 5.25), whereas
NSF people were more likely to have sexual fantasies about both genders (M = 4.63).
Finally, the tests of univariate effects revealed a significant interaction between gender and sexual fluidity for both Diamond’s item and the KSOG item (Table 7, Figure 5). A test of simple main effects indicated a gender difference for both items for SF people, Diamond: F (1,
190) = 4.77, p < .05, KSOG: F (1, 190) = 7.42, p < .01; and NSF people, Diamond: F (1, 190) =
42.04, p < .001, KSOG: F (1, 190) = 42.56, p < .001. SF women were more likely to have sexual fantasies about both genders, but trending toward women (M = 30.03; 4.92), whereas SF men were more likely to have sexual fantasies about men (M = 58.54; 5.92). NSF women had sexual fantasies about both genders, but trending toward men (M = -20.93, 3.44), and NSF men had more sexual fantasies about men (M = 73.44, 6.11).
The hypothesized pattern was partially supported for women, but not for men. For
Diamond’s item, both SF and NSF women had sexual fantasies about both genders, although SF women trended toward having fantasies about other women, whereas NSF women trended toward having fantasies about men (Table 6; Figure 5). However, both groups of men had sexual fantasies about other men; more so for NSF men.
Social preference. To test the hypothesis that SF women and men emotionally and socially prefer both genders, whereas NSF people emotionally and socially prefer same-gender or other-gender people, a 2 (female vs. male) X 2 (SF vs. NSF) ANOVA was conducted with the
KSOG item, “Currently, with members of which sex do you socialize?” as the dependent variable. This item was rated on a scale from 1 (other sex only) to 7 (same sex only), with a 52 mid-point of 4 (both sexes equally). A significant main effect was found for gender, F (1, 194) =
25.19, p < .001, but not for sexual fluidity; the interaction between gender and sexual fluidity was not significant. Women were more likely to socialize with people of the same gender (M =
4.45) than were men (M = 3.61; Table 7). However, since the main effect for sexual fluidity was not significant, the hypothesized pattern was not supported.
Summary. The second set of hypotheses addressed how sexual fluidity is related to various components of sexual orientation. These hypotheses addressed sexual identity, romantic and sexual attraction, sexual behavior, romantic relationships, sexual fantasy, and social preference. Generally, the hypotheses proposed that SF women and men have sexual identities, romantic and sexual attractions, sexual behavior, romantic relationships, sexual fantasies, and social preferences that include both women and men; whereas NSF people have more exclusive same-gender or other-gender tendencies.
The sexual identities with the greatest number of SF women were mostly heterosexual/straight, bisexual, completely homosexual/lesbian, and queer; however, most SF men identified as completely homosexual/gay. For both romantic and sexual attraction, SF women and men had a similar level of attraction to same-gender people, but NSF women were more likely to be attracted to the other gender, whereas NSF men were more likely to be attracted to the same gender. Regardless of sexual fluidity, men were more romantically and sexually attracted to the same gender than were women. SF women and men were more likely to have past sexual behaviors with both genders, than exclusive same-gender or other-gender past sexual behaviors. However, using another item about past sexual behavior revealed that NSF 53 women were also more likely to have had sex in the past with both women and men, compared to NSF men who were more likely to have had sex with same-gender people.
Past romantic relationships and social preference were not related to sexual fluidity.
Regarding sexual fluidity and sexual fantasies, SF people were more likely to have sexual fantasies about same-gender people, whereas NSF people were more likely to have sexual fantasies about both women and men. Using another item regarding the object of sexual fantasies, the expected pattern for sexual fantasy was partially seen in women, but not in men.
Sexually fluid and non-sexually fluid women had sexual fantasies about both women and men, although SF women trended toward having fantasies about women, whereas NSF women trended toward having fantasies about men. However, both SF and NSF men were more likely to have sexual fantasies about men.
Sexual Identity Development
The third set of hypotheses addressed sexual fluidity and the process of sexual identity development.
Sexual identity development phase. To test the hypothesis that phase of sexual identity is unrelated to likelihood of sexual fluidity in both women and men, a chi-square analysis was conducted with sexual fluidity (SF vs. NSF) and predominant phase in either the LIQ-R (for women) or the GIS (for men) (Table 8). As mentioned, use of a chi-square test is inappropriate if any expected frequency is below 1 or if the expected frequency is less than 5 in more than 20% of the cells. Therefore, the “Awareness” and “No predominant phase” groups were excluded from the analyses to meet the assumptions for chi-square analysis. The hypothesis was 54 supported for both women and men: the predominant phase of sexual identity development was unrelated to sexual fluidity.
Sexual identity milestones. To test the hypothesis that SF women and men reach milestones of sexual identity development at an older age compared to NSF people, a 2 (female vs. male) X 2 (SF vs. NSF) MANOVA was conducted with each of the five sexual identity development milestones as the dependent variables. A significant overall main effect was found for gender, F (5, 114) = 6.65, p < .001, but not for sexual fluidity; the overall interaction between gender and sexual fluidity was not significant. The tests of univariate effects revealed significant main effects for gender for three of the five sexual identity milestones. A significant gender difference was found for age of first questioning sexual orientation, age of first same-gender sexual encounter, and age of first using a LGBQ label (Table 2). For all three milestones, women reached the milestones at a later age than did men. No gender difference was found for age of first same-gender romantic attraction or crush, or age of first same-gender romantic relationship. Since the main effect for sexual fluidity was not significant, the hypothesis was not supported.
Negative sexual identity. To test the hypothesis that SF women and men are less likely to have a negative sexual identity than NSF people, a 2 (female vs. male) X 2 (SF vs. NSF)
MANOVA was conducted with the following subscales of the LGBIS as outcome variables:
Acceptance Concerns, Concealment Motivation, Identity Uncertainty, Internalized
Homonegativity, and Difficult Process. A significant overall main effect was found for gender,
F (5, 181) = 5.14, p < .001, and sexual fluidity, F (5, 181) = 4.04, p = .002. The tests of univariate effects revealed a significant gender difference for Identity Uncertainty and Difficult 55
Process, but not for Acceptance Concerns, Concealment Motivation, or Internalized
Homonegativity (Table 2). Women had greater Identity Uncertainty (M = 2.54) than did men (M
= 1.81), but the reverse was true for Difficult Process (women: M = 3.52; men: M = 4.38; Table
10). Regarding differences in sexual fluidity, the tests of univariate effects revealed a significant main effect only for Identity Uncertainty, F (1, 185) = 11.73, p = .001. SF people had greater
Identity Uncertainty (M = 2.58) than NSF people (M = 1.75). This was counter to what was hypothesized.
The overall MANOVA also revealed a significant interaction between gender and sexual fluidity, F (5, 181) = 3.33, p = .007. The tests of univariate effects revealed that only
Acceptance Concerns had a significant effect, F (1, 185) = 15.38, p < .001. Among SF people,
Acceptance Concerns did not appear to differ between women (M = 4.58) and men (M = 4.02), but among NSF people, women had fewer Acceptance Concerns (M = 3.43) than men (M =
4.66).
Summary. The third set of hypotheses addressed sexual fluidity and the process of sexual identity development. These hypotheses addressed phase of sexual identity development, sexual identity milestones, and negative sexual identity. As predicted, phase of sexual identity development was unrelated to sexual fluidity in both women and men. Contrary to expectations, sexual fluidity was not related to the age at which sexual identity milestones were reached; however, women reached the following sexual identity milestones at a later age than men: first questioning sexual orientation, first same-gender sexual encounter, and age of first use of a
LGBQ label. Regarding negative sexual identity, women scored higher than men on the Identity
Uncertainty subscale, whereas men scored higher than women on the Difficult Process subscale. 56
Contrary to expectations, SF women and men had greater Identity Uncertainty than NSF people.
Among NSF people, women had fewer Acceptance Concerns than men.
Contextual Factors
The fourth set of hypotheses addressed whether likelihood of sexual fluidity is related to other contextual factors, such as outness regarding sexual orientation, beliefs about sexual identity, attitudes toward bisexuality, family approval of sexuality, experiences of sexual orientation-based victimization, and felt stigma.
Outness. To test the hypothesis that SF women and men are more likely than NSF people to be out regarding their sexual orientation, a 2 (female vs. male) X 2 (SF vs. NSF)
ANOVA was conducted with Overall Outness as the dependent variable. The test did not reveal a significant main effect for gender, but the main effect for sexual fluidity was significant, F (1,
170) = 5.01, p = .026. The interaction between gender and sexual fluidity was not significant.
Contrary to the hypothesis, SF people were less likely to be out (M = 3.57) than NSF people (M
= 4.36; Table 10).
To explore different types of outness, a 2 (female vs. male) X 2 (SF vs. NSF) MANOVA was conducted with the following subscale scores as outcome variables: Out to Family, Out to
World, and Out to Religion. The overall MANOVA revealed a significant main effect for sexual fluidity, F (3, 77) = 2.97, p = .037, but not for gender; the interaction between gender and sexual fluidity was not significant. The tests of univariate effects revealed significant main effects for sexual fluidity for Out to World, F (1, 79) = 6.89, p = .010, and Out to Religion, F (1, 79) = 6.68, p = .012, but not for Out to Family. For both subscales, SF people were less likely to be out than
NSF people. These findings did not support the hypothesis. 57
Beliefs about sexual identity. To test the hypothesis that SF women and men are more likely than NSF people to believe they are attracted to the person rather than the gender, that sexuality is influenced by environment, and that their sexuality is something they choose, a 2
(female vs. male) X 2 (SF vs. NSF) MANOVA was conducted, with items testing the three beliefs as the dependent variables. The overall MANOVA revealed significant main effects of gender, F (3, 192) = 6.26, p < .01, and sexual fluidity, F (3, 192) = 2.76, p < .05, but not a significant interaction. The tests of univariate effects for gender revealed significant main effects for two of the beliefs: attraction to the person rather than the gender, F (1, 194) = 14.55, p < .01, and sexuality is influenced by environment, F (1, 194) = 6.81, p = .01. For both of these items, women were more likely to agree with the item than were men (Table 11). The tests of univariate effects for sexual fluidity revealed a significant main effect only for attraction to the person rather than the gender, F (1, 194) = 5.62, p = .019. SF people were more likely to endorse this belief (M = 3.48) than NSF people (M = 2.96). Therefore, the hypothesis was partially supported.
To test the hypothesis that SF women and men are less likely than NSF people to believe that their sexuality is something they were born with, a 2 (female vs. male) X 2 (SF vs. NSF)
ANOVA was conducted with an item testing this belief as the outcome. Contrary to expectations, neither of the main effects nor the interaction was significant.
To test the hypothesis that SF women and men are more likely to have an incremental view than an entity view of sexuality, a 2 (female vs. male) X 2 (SF vs. NSF) MANOVA was conducted with the other-oriented (Sexual orientation-based) and self-oriented (Person-based)
Dweck scale scores as outcome variables. The overall MANOVA revealed significant main 58 effects for gender, F (2, 192) = 5.41, p < .01, and sexual fluidity, F (2, 192) = 4.56, p = .012, but not a significant interaction. The tests of univariate effects for gender revealed significant main effects for the other-oriented Dweck scale, F (1, 193) = 6.79, p = .01, and for the self-oriented
Dweck scale, F (1, 193) = 10.30, p < .01. Higher scores indicated an incremental view, that one’s sexuality can change or that one can change one’s sexuality; and lower scores indicated an entity view, that sexuality is fixed or that one cannot change one’s sexuality. For both the other- oriented and self-oriented scales, women indicated a view that was more incremental than men
(Table 11). In other words, women were more likely than men to endorse the view that sexuality is changeable, and that a person can change their sexuality. The tests of univariate effects for sexual fluidity revealed a significant main effect only for the other-oriented Dweck scale, F (1,
193) = 6.57, p = .011. SF people indicated a more incremental view (that one’s sexuality could change) than NSF people. Thus, the hypothesis was supported.
Attitudes toward bisexuality. To test the hypothesis that SF women and men have more positive attitudes toward bisexuality compared to NSF people, a 2-group (SF vs. NSF)
ANOVA was conducted with the scale score for the ARBS as the outcome. Separate analyses were conducted for women and men, because women completed a version of the scale that specifically measured attitudes toward bisexual women, whereas men completed a version of the scale that specifically measured attitudes toward bisexual men. For women, there was a significant difference between the sexual fluidity groups in attitudes toward bisexuality, F (1,
122) = 8.65, p = .004. As predicted, SF women had more positive attitudes toward bisexuality than did NSF women (Table 12). The ANOVA was not significant for men. No difference was found between the two sexual fluidity groups on men’s attitudes toward bisexuality. 59
To examine which aspect of the ARBS had the greatest difference between the sexual fluidity groups for women, a 2-group (SF vs. NSF) MANOVA was conducted with the subscale scores for Stability and Tolerance as the outcomes. The overall MANOVA was significant, F (2,
121) = 6.69, p = .002. The tests of univariate effects revealed that only the Tolerance subscale was significant, F (1, 122) = 13.46, p < .001. SF women were more tolerant of bisexuality than
NSF women, but there was no difference between the two groups in beliefs about bisexuality as a stable identity (Table 12).
Family approval of sexuality. To test the hypothesis that SF women and men are more likely than NSF people to have family approval of their sexuality, a 2 (female vs. male) X 2 (SF vs. NSF) MANOVA was conducted with current and past family approval as the outcome variables. The overall MANOVA did not reveal significant main effects or a significant interaction (Table 12). Therefore, the hypothesis was not supported.
Victimization. To test the hypothesis that rates of sexual orientation-based victimization are unrelated to likelihood of sexual fluidity, a 2 (female vs. male) X 2 (SF vs. NSF) ANOVA was conducted with overall victimization as the dependent variable. A significant main effect was found for gender, F (1, 182) = 6.79, p = .01, but not for sexual fluidity; the interaction between gender and sexual fluidity was not significant. Men were more likely to experience victimization (M = 3.40) than women (M = 2.02; Table 12). For women, the highest rate of victimization was for being verbally assaulted (once = 14%; twice or more = 31%). For men, the highest rates of victimization were for being verbally assaulted (once = 13%; twice or more =
55%), and being threatened (once = 8%; twice or more = 23%). The hypothesis was supported; 60 there was no difference between the sexual fluidity groups regarding sexual orientation-based victimization.
Felt stigma. To test the hypothesis that SF women and men have less felt stigma compared to NSF people, a 2 (female vs. male) X 2 (SF vs. NSF) MANOVA was conducted with felt stigma in the current location, and felt stigma in the location where the participant grew up, as the outcome variables. The overall MANOVA did not reveal significant main effects or a significant interaction. Therefore, the hypothesis was not supported.
Summary. The fourth set of hypotheses addressed whether likelihood of sexual fluidity is related to the following contextual factors: outness as a sexual minority, beliefs about sexual identity, attitudes toward bisexuality, family approval of sexuality, experiences of victimization, and felt stigma. Contrary to expectations, SF women and men were less likely to be out to the world and to religion (but not less likely to be out to family), compared to NSF people. As expected, women and SF people were more likely than men and NSF people to endorse the belief that they are attracted to the person rather than the gender, and to endorse the view that their sexuality is changeable. Women were also more likely than men to endorse the belief that sexuality is influenced by the environment. Contrary to expectations, the beliefs that sexuality is something a person chooses, and that sexuality is something a person is born with, were unrelated to both gender and sexual fluidity.
As expected, SF women had more positive attitudes toward bisexuality than NSF women, but there was no difference for men. Specifically, SF women were more tolerant of bisexuality than NSF women, but there was no difference between the groups in beliefs about bisexuality as a stable identity. Contrary to expectations, family approval of sexuality and felt stigma were 61 unrelated to gender and sexual fluidity. As predicted, experiences of sexual orientation-based victimization were also unrelated to sexual fluidity.
Demographic Factors
The fifth set of hypotheses addressed how the processes of sexual identity development and sexual fluidity differ by demographic characteristics, including gender, age, and sexual identity label.
Gender and sexual identity development. To test the hypothesis that women are more likely to be at an earlier phase of sexual identity development, compared to men, frequencies were conducted with the predominant phase of the LIQ-R (for women) and the GIS (for men).
For women, the majority were in the Internalization/Synthesis phase (52.4%). The second largest groups were in the Exploration phase (12.9%) and the Deepening/Commitment phase
(14.5%). Men demonstrated more variability among identity development phases, with 20% in the Exploration phase, 33.3% in the Deepening/Commitment phase, and 36% in the
Internalization/Synthesis phase. The hypothesis was not supported; instead, women were more likely than men to be at a later phase of sexual identity development.
Label and sexual identity development. To test the hypothesis that sexual identity label is not related to phase of sexual identity development in women and men, chi-square analyses were conducted with sexual identity label and predominant phase of the LIQ-R (for women) and the GIS (for men). For women, there was a significant association among sexual identity labels regarding the predominant phase of sexual identity development, χ2 (28, N = 114) = 72.39, p <
.001. Specifically, there were more bisexual, completely homosexual/lesbian, and queer women in the Internalization/Synthesis phase than in the other phases. Additionally, there were more 62 mostly heterosexual women in the Exploration phase than in the other phases. For men, there was also a significant association among sexual identity labels regarding the predominant phase of sexual identity development, χ2 (28, N = 70) = 77.76, p < .001. Specifically, there were more bisexual men in the Exploration phase and more completely homosexual/gay/lesbian men in the
Deepening/Commitment and Internalization/Synthesis phases. The hypothesis was not supported for women or men.
Age and sexual fluidity. To test the hypothesis that SF women and men are older than
NSF people, a 2 (female vs. male) X 2 (SF vs. NSF) ANOVA was conducted with age as the outcome variable. Neither of the main effects nor the interaction was significant. Therefore, the hypothesis was not supported.
Education and sexual fluidity. To test the hypothesis that SF women and men are more educated and have a higher level of desired educational attainment than NSF people, chi-square analyses were conducted with sexual fluidity (SF vs. NSF), current level of education, and desired level of educational attainment. For both women and men, sexual fluidity was not significantly associated with either current level of education or desired level of educational attainment.
Summary. The fifth set of hypotheses addressed how the processes of sexual identity development and sexual fluidity differ by demographic characteristics, including gender, age, and sexual identity label. Contrary to expectations, women were more likely to be at a later phase of sexual identity development than were men. Also contrary to expectations, sexual identity label was related to phase of sexual identity development for women and men. Women who identified as bisexual, completely homosexual/lesbian or queer were more likely to be in the 63
Internalization/Synthesis phase, whereas mostly heterosexual women were more likely to be in the Exploration phase. Bisexual men were more likely to be in the Exploration phase, whereas completely homosexual/gay men were more likely to be in the Deepening/Commitment and
Internalization/Synthesis phases. Contrary to expectations, neither age nor education was related to gender or sexual fluidity.
Interpretations of Sexual Fluidity
Another goal of this project that was addressed more thoroughly in Study 2 was to investigate whether themes from Diamond’s (2003a) research emerged in sexual minority women’s and men’s interpretations of sexual fluidity in the current study. For women and men who reported experiencing changes in attractions in the online questionnaire, participants were asked how they interpreted those changes in an open-ended question. The participants’ responses were coded for the following themes reported in Diamond’s research: ambivalence about labeling, uncertainty about the future, love depends on the person, and sexuality is fluid.
Of the participants who provided an answer to this question, 1.4% of women and 0% of men reported ambivalence about labeling and uncertainty about the future, 9.9% of women and 7.5% of men described the sentiment that love depends on the person (rather than the gender of the person), 0% of women and 2.5% of men found labels to be limiting, and 4.2% of women and
2.5% of men described sexuality as being fluid.
For 83.1% of women and 87.5% of men, responses to the open-ended question did not contain the themes found in Diamond’s (2003a) research. Therefore, new codes were created that emerged from the participants’ responses. Specific codes were categorized into the following higher order themes: romantic/sexual experiences, transgender, self-awareness/beliefs, 64 adolescence/biological, community/exposure, and heteronormativity (Table 13). Responses could be coded into one or more specific codes or higher order themes. The most common higher order theme coded for both women’s and men’s responses was self-awareness/beliefs
(80.3% women, 77.5% men), with the most common specific theme within the higher order code being self-awareness/realization of attractions (59.2% women, 62.5% men). The second most common higher order theme was romantic/sexual experiences for women (39.4%, 27.5% men), and heteronormativity for men (30%, 23.9% women). The higher order code that was least mentioned for all participants was transgender.
Discussion
The purpose of Study 1 was to test Diamond’s (2008b) model of sexual fluidity in female and male sexual minority young adults and to examine contextual factors that might be related to sexual fluidity. Specifically, Study 1 examined prevalence of sexual fluidity, the relationship between sexual fluidity and different components of sexual orientation (sexual identity labels, romantic and sexual attractions, sexual behavior, romantic relationships, sexual fantasy, and social preference), the relationship between sexual fluidity and sexual identity development, contextual factors related to sexual fluidity, and demographic factors. Study 1 also included a preliminary exploration of sexual fluidity interpretations.
Sexual Fluidity
One of the primary findings of Study 1 was the high prevalence of sexual fluidity in both women and men in a sample recruited to meet at least one of the following criteria: 1) have a non-heterosexual sexual identity, 2) decline to label their sexual orientation, or 3) have experienced any same-gender attractions in the past. Sexual fluidity, as measured by change in 65 attractions, was experienced by 64% of women and 52% of men, with 49% of women and 36% of men changing their sexual identity label in response to the change in attractions. Furthermore,
22% of women and 21% of men experienced more than one change in attractions. In Diamond’s
(2008a) 10-year longitudinal study of sexual fluidity in sexual minority women, she found that
67% of the women in her sample changed their sexual identity labels once over the course of the study, and 36% changed their labels more than once. Therefore, findings from the current study confirmed Diamond’s findings regarding prevalence of sexual fluidity in sexual minority women, and extended her findings to sexual minority men.
Considering that the design of the current study was cross-sectional rather than longitudinal, the high prevalence of sexual fluidity in both genders was striking. The similarity in prevalence of sexual fluidity in the current sample of women in comparison to Diamond’s
(2008a) findings can be interpreted in a number of ways. When Diamond (1998) initially began her longitudinal study, she was interested in investigating sexual identity development. Her attention to changes in attractions and identity only arose further along in her study when she began to observe these changes over time in the sample of women she was following. Diamond
(1998) did ask women in the initial wave of data collection whether their sexual attractions had remained stable over time; 61% reported no change, suggesting that 39% of her participants had previously experienced a change in sexual attractions. However, Diamond did not ask participants about changes in attractions more generally, in romantic attractions, or in sexual identity during the first wave of data collection. It is impossible to anticipate what the results of her initial wave of data collection might have looked like, had she asked her participants to report retrospectively about other previous changes in attractions or sexual identity. Under this 66 assumption, we must then turn to other interpretations for the similarity in findings between the current study and Diamond’s (2008a) longitudinal study.
One explanation for the similarity in findings could be a cohort effect. Diamond’s (1998) participants were initially recruited as young adults in 1995, whereas the participants in the current study were recruited as young adults in 2011. Theory about sexual orientation has changed remarkably during this time period, namely in terms of the growing awareness of
Diamond’s own model of sexual fluidity within and outside of the field of developmental psychology. Diamond’s (2008a) article reporting sexual fluidity across the 10 years of her study has been cited 44 times in the PsycINFO database, and Diamond’s (2008b) book on sexual fluidity has been cited 127 times in Google Scholar. Furthermore, numerous studies have been conducted on change in sexual identity (e.g., Brooks & Quina, 2009; Ott, Corliss, Wypij,
Rosario, & Austin, 2011) and other components of sexual orientation (e.g., Kinnish et al., 2005), in the time since articles reporting on sexual fluidity in her study began to be published. In the general public, attitudes toward sexual minorities have improved (Davis, Smith, & Marsden,
2010; Loftus, 2001) and more rights have been granted to these populations, including the legality of same-gender marriage in 7 of the 50 United States, and civil unions in an additional five states, as well as the reversal of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Act by President Barack Obama in 2011. These improvements to the social climate may have affected the willingness of sexual minorities not only to report changes in attractions and sexual identity, but perhaps even to pursue unexpected attractions in the first place.
Also striking was the gender similarity in prevalence of sexual fluidity in the current study. Sexual orientation in sexual minority men has been assumed to follow traditional 67 conceptualizations of sexual identity development in terms of emerging at an early age and remaining stable across time (Bell et al., 1981; Money, 1988). The results from the current study suggest that this assumption, however prevalent in previous research, might be a misconception.
It is true that a small body of research has demonstrated sexual fluidity in men’s attractions
(Dickson et al., 2003), sexual identity (Rosario et al., 2006), and sexual feelings (Weinberg et al.,
1994), but the prevalence of change in attractions and identity in these studies was slightly less than in the current sample. For example, Rosario and colleagues (2006) found that 29% of male youth changed their sexual identity, whereas the prevalence of sexual fluidity for men in the current sample was 52% for attractions and 36% for sexual identity. Furthermore, in previous research comparing women and men in prevalence of sexual fluidity, women have typically displayed more change in attractions and sexual identity than men (Dickson et al., 2003;
Weinberg et al., 1994). However, in the current sample, the gender difference in prevalence of sexual fluidity was not significant.
How is it that men in the current study displayed such a high prevalence of sexual fluidity? One possibility is that most previous research has not addressed the question of change in attractions and sexual identity with men, perhaps due to the aforementioned assumption of stability in men’s sexual identity. In other words, maybe men have not actually been asked about changes in their attractions and sexual identity. The prevalence of sexual fluidity in men in the current sample could also reflect increased acceptance of bisexuality both in sexual minority communities, and within the larger society (Ripley, Anderson, McCormack, Adams, & Pitts,
2011). Experiencing sexual fluidity – assuming changes in sexual identity are prompted by changes in attractions – necessitates having attractions for both women and men at one point or 68 another; viewed another way, men in the sample who experienced sexual fluidity could be described as bisexual, by some definitions. Additionally, availability of sexual identity labels could be related to greater sexual fluidity in men. Compared to previous time periods, more labels are available today to describe sexual orientation that encompass attraction to both genders and allow for change over time (e.g., queer, unlabeled). It is possible that men display greater sexual fluidity in part, because they can now choose labels that better describe their own experiences regarding attraction and sexual behavior.
The high prevalence of sexual fluidity in men might also be related to changes in how bisexual men are perceived. Double discrimination, both within sexual minority communities and within the larger society, is a common experience among bisexual people, especially men
(Mulick & Wright, 2002; Ochs, 1996). Although there is limited research on attitudes toward bisexual people, a study of undergraduates at a U.S. university revealed that almost half displayed biphobia (Mulick & Wright, 2002), defined as negative attitudes about bisexuality and bisexual people (Bennett, 1992). Another study found that bisexual men were rated more negatively than bisexual women, gay men, or lesbians (Eliason, 2001). It is possible that sexual minority men in the past may have been more accustomed to experiencing biphobia, and thus might not have been as willing to discuss attractions to women, whereas sexual minority men today might be more open about past, current, and potential attractions to women. Indeed, during a recent keynote address given by sociologist Eric Anderson at the Bisexual Research
Convention in London, he presented preliminary research suggesting declining significance of homophobia and biphobia in men’s lives today (Ripley et al., 2011). In asking sexual minority men who have experienced sexual fluidity about their experiences, Study 2 may shed some light 69 on the basis for the high prevalence of changes in attractions and sexual identity in the current study.
Components of Sexual Orientation
Study 1 also investigated the relationship between sexual fluidity and different components of sexual orientation. Regarding sexual identity, sexually fluid women were most likely to identify as mostly heterosexual/straight, bisexual, completely homosexual/lesbian, and queer; whereas sexually fluid men were most likely to identify as completely homosexual/gay.
In Diamond’s (2008a) longitudinal study, she found that women with bisexual and unlabeled identities were more likely to change their sexual identity across the 10-year study than women with lesbian identities. Therefore, the only overlap in findings between Diamond’s study and the current study was that bisexual women were more likely to experience sexual fluidity.
It is intuitive that sexual fluidity would be related to sexual identity labels that include both genders, such as mostly heterosexual/straight, bisexual, and queer; but it was surprising that for both women and men, some sexually fluid people identified as completely homosexual/gay/lesbian. Perhaps for these people, attractions to other-gender people were so fleeting or so long ago, that they did not warrant a change in sexual identity. Alternatively, it is possible that these people initially identified with a label that included both genders, but for whatever reason, their current label is exclusive to same-gender people – perhaps because they no longer feel attractions to other-gender people or because they are in a stable relationship with a same-gender person. For men, sexual fluidity was not significantly related to sexual identity per se, but the majority of men in the sample identified as completely homosexual/gay, including those who reported changes in attractions and sexual identity. This represents a clear case in 70 which the various components of sexual orientation may not match within an individual person.
Perhaps the lack of concordance in attractions and identity is related to a reluctance to adopt a bisexual label due to fears about experiencing double discrimination.
Regarding attraction and sexual behavior, those who were sexually fluid were more likely to be attracted to same-gender people and to have had past sexual behaviors with both genders compared to those who were not sexually fluid. Although sexually fluid people were more likely to be attracted to same-gender people, their attractions were not exclusively same-gender. The non-exclusivity of the attractions of sexually fluid people is congruent with sexual fluidity itself, which necessitates feeling attractions to both genders at some point. The trend toward same- gender attractions could be explained by the fact that the sample mainly comprised sexual minorities rather that heterosexual people. Past sexual behaviors with both genders suggests that sexually fluid people did not just experience attractions to both genders, but they acted on those attractions.
Regarding other constructs related to sexual orientation, sexual fluidity was not related to past romantic relationships. The lack of a significant association between romantic relationships and sexual fluidity suggests that although sexually fluid people experienced attractions to both genders and acted on these attractions through sexual behavior, some took their attractions far enough to have romantic relationships with both genders, whereas others did not. Perhaps the lack of a significant pattern between romantic relationships and sexual fluidity is a function of the age of the sample. It is possible that as young adults, participants in the current study did not have very many past romantic relationships to begin with. Indeed, 55% of women and 23% of men had not yet experienced a romantic relationship with a same-gender person, and 22% of 71 women and 29% of men had not yet experienced a romantic relationship with a person of the other gender. Thus, it is less likely that participants would have had romantic relationships with both genders.
Social preference for one gender or both genders was also unrelated to sexual fluidity. It is possible that social preference is also unrelated to other components of sexual orientation.
However, in the current study, social preference as measured by the KSOG was significantly positively correlated with sexual attraction, sexual behavior, sexual fantasies, romantic love, and sexual identity for women, although there was no relationship between social preference and other aspects of sexual orientation for men. Perhaps the lack of a relationship between the social preference component of sexual orientation and sexual fluidity in the sample is due to social preference being unrelated to other aspects of sexual orientation in men.
Sexual fantasy revealed an interesting yet complex pattern. Sexually fluid and non- sexually fluid women had sexual fantasies about both genders, although sexually fluid women trended toward having fantasies about other women, whereas non-sexually fluid women trended toward having fantasies about men. Therefore, the expected pattern was found for sexually fluid women, but not for non-sexually fluid women. It seems that both groups sexually fantasize about both genders, even though each group trended toward one gender or another. These findings confirm previous research on physiological experiences of sexual arousal, in which most lesbian and heterosexual women experienced arousal when watching erotic videos depicting any gender, whereas men were only aroused when watching erotic videos depicting a gender configuration that corresponded with their reported sexual identity (Chivers et al., 2004).
However, considering that the current study sample mainly comprised sexual minorities rather 72 than heterosexual people, it is interesting that non-sexually fluid women trended toward having fantasies about men. It would be more intuitive if the findings had revealed that sexually fluid women trended toward having more fantasies about men, because to meet the criteria for sexual fluidity, the participants had to have experienced attractions to both women and men in the past.
However, this was not the case. In a study of psychosexual development in urban LGB youths ages 14-21, findings revealed that 100% of females and 99% of males had same-gender sexual fantasies, whereas 70% of females and 58% of males had other-gender sexual fantasies, even though all participants identified as lesbian/gay or bisexual (Rosario, Meyer-Bahlburg, Hunter,
Exner, Gwadz, & Keller, 1996). These findings suggest that sexual fantasies might be unrelated to sexual identity. This could explain why sexual minority women, who have always identified as such (and therefore are not sexually fluid), may have more sexual fantasies about men. It should be noted that even though non-sexually fluid women had slightly more fantasies about men, they were far from having exclusive other-gender sexual fantasies (see Figure 3).
For men, both sexual fluidity groups had more sexual fantasies about other men than about other women, although not exclusively. Non-sexually fluid men were more likely than sexually fluid men to have more exclusive sexual fantasies about other men. This was consistent with the findings for romantic and sexual attraction; all men were more likely to have attractions toward same-gender people, although their attractions were not exclusively same-gender. The pattern regarding sexual fluidity and sexual fantasy in men seems to suggest that although some men have experienced attractions to women and may have even acted on those attractions, most sexual minority men in the current sample have more sexual fantasies about other men.
Sexual Identity Development 73
Study 1 also addressed the relationship between sexual fluidity and sexual identity development as it has traditionally been conceptualized, in terms of developmental phases and milestones. Neither phase of sexual identity development nor age at which sexual identity milestones were reached, was related to sexual fluidity. In one sense, this seems to suggest that traditional conceptualizations of sexual identity development may not be completely accurate in describing the experiences of sexual minorities today, at least for those who are sexually fluid.
This is consistent with Diamond’s (2008b) conclusions about female sexuality and sexual fluidity. Perhaps in this sense her model could be extended to men. Alternatively, the findings from the current study could represent sexual fluidity as a process of sexuality that is separate from sexual identity development. Diamond proposed that although all women have a general sexual orientation (heterosexual, bisexual, or lesbian), women also possess a capacity for sexual fluidity. However, not all women are equally fluid. This suggests that sexual fluidity may be operating as a different aspect of sexuality than sexual orientation. Perhaps the same is true for men’s sexuality. This perspective can help to explain why sexual fluidity was not related to development of sexual orientation in the current study.
Negative aspects of sexual identity were also examined in relation to sexual fluidity.
Sexually fluid people had greater uncertainty about their identity than non-sexually fluid people.
Whereas I had initially hypothesized that sexually fluid people would have a less negative identity than non-sexually fluid people, in retrospect it makes more sense that sexually fluid people would have greater identity uncertainty. Sexual fluidity refers to changes in attractions as well as changes in sexual identity. It makes sense, therefore, that people who are uncertain about their identity are more likely to change identity labels. However, I do not want to suggest that 74 people who are sexually fluid are uncertain about their attractions, but rather they might be unsure about how to label those attractions as they change over time.
Contextual Factors
One of the aims of Study 1 was to explore possible contextual factors that are related to sexual fluidity. Now that the existence of sexual fluidity has been established in the current sample, we can consider why some people might be fluid whereas others have more stable attractions and identities. The purpose of studying contextual factors was to explore possible mechanisms of change in attractions and sexual identity. The following contextual factors were investigated: outness regarding sexual orientation, beliefs about sexual identity, attitudes toward bisexuality, family approval of sexuality, experiences of victimization, and felt stigma. Outness regarding sexual orientation, beliefs about sexual identity, and attitudes toward bisexuality were all related to sexual fluidity; whereas family approval, felt stigma, and experiences of victimization were all unrelated to sexual fluidity.
Unexpectedly, women and men who were sexually fluid were less likely to be out regarding their sexual orientation to the world and to members and leaders of their religious community, if they had one. Perhaps this finding is related to having greater identity uncertainty in sexually fluid people. If people are less certain about their identity, they may be less likely to be open about being a sexual minority, particularly if they have an identity that is closer on the spectrum to heterosexual, such as identifying as mostly heterosexual. Indeed, in the current sample, women and men who identified as mostly heterosexual/straight were the least likely group to be out to the world out of all the sexual identity groups. This finding could be related to the advantage of passing as heterosexual. It is possible that the mostly heterosexual/straight 75 people are more likely to pass as heterosexual than people in other sexual identity categories.
Perhaps mostly heterosexual/straight people are the least likely to be out to the world because they are taking advantage of heterosexual privilege in terms of passing as a majority sexual identity. However, contrary to expectations, those who identified as completely heterosexual/straight were the most likely to be out. The Outness Inventory, which was used to measure outness in the current study, asks participants to report how open they are about their sexual orientation to different types of people (e.g., mother, work peers, new straight friends, etc.). Thus, participants who identified as completely heterosexual/straight were likely completing the Outness Inventory based on how open they are about being heterosexual.
Considering that we live in a heteronormative society that privileges people who are heterosexual, it makes sense that those identifying as completely heterosexual/straight would be the most open about it. The group that was most out to the world aside from the completely heterosexual/straight group was those women and men who identified as queer. Perhaps this reflects the growing popularity of the label queer, particularly among sexual minority youth
(Horner, 2007). The adoption of a queer label could represent a greater comfort with one’s non- heterosexual identity, in part, because those who would adopt a queer label might be more likely to engage in LGBTQ activism or spend time thinking about why they might adopt such a politicized label.
Women and men who were sexually fluid were also less likely to be out to members and leaders of their religious community. Among all women in the sample, those who identified as bisexual were least likely to be out to their religious community, whereas among men, those who identified as mostly heterosexual/straight were the least likely to be out. Considering that 76 women with a bisexual identity are more likely to be sexually fluid, it makes sense that they would also be less likely to be out to their religious community, since sexually fluid people in general are less likely to be out to religion. Men who identified as mostly heterosexual/straight might be the least likely to be out to their religious community because traditionally, religion is not accepting of homosexuality, particularly in men. Considering that these men identify with a sexual identity that is closer to heterosexual/straight on the spectrum, they might identify this way in part because being completely gay is less acceptable in their religious community. It should be noted, however, that when asked “How important is religion/spirituality to you?” and
“How important is religion/spirituality to your self-identity?” bisexual women and mostly heterosexual/straight men both responded that it was not very important to them. This could help explain why people with these identities are less likely to be out to their religious community.
Perhaps religion is less relevant to their lives in the first place, and thus they do not see a need to be out to members or leaders of their religious community (assuming they are affiliated with one).
Regarding beliefs about sexual identity, sexually fluid people were more likely to report that they are attracted to the person rather than the gender. Diamond (2008b) used the term person-based attractions to describe the nature of attractions for women in her sample who described being attracted to “the person, not the gender” (p. 172). This can also be thought of in terms of considering characteristics other than gender to be more important in explaining attractions to other people. In her longitudinal study, Diamond found that approximately one- fourth of her sample of sexual minority women strongly agreed with the statement “I’m the kind of person who becomes physically attracted to the person rather than the gender” and an 77 additional one-fourth somewhat agreed (Diamond, 2008b). Therefore, approximately half of her sample reported having some experience with person-based attractions. Diamond’s findings about person-based attractions were confirmed in the current sample of women and extended to men. The categories of heterosexual, lesbian/gay and bisexual are all based on the assumption that attraction is focused on gender. Diamond (2008a) proposed that person-based attractions could constitute a fourth sexual orientation, describing a category of people for whom gender is not important to attraction or desire. She alternatively proposed that rather than constituting a fourth sexual orientation, person-based attractions could be considered an independent characteristic of sexuality that all people possess to a certain degree, similar to sex drive. These are interesting interpretations and a more detailed investigation of person-based attractions would be a fruitful area of future research.
Although women were more likely than men to endorse the belief that sexuality is influenced by the environment, sexual fluidity was unrelated to this belief in the current study.
Sexual fluidity and gender were also unrelated to the belief that sexuality is something a person chooses and the belief that sexuality is something a person is born with. In Diamond’s (2005) fourth wave of data collection, eight years after the baseline interviews, she asked participants about the degree to which they felt they were born with their sexuality, whether their sexuality was influenced by their environment, and whether their sexuality was something they chose. She reported no significant differences in beliefs by identity group: stable lesbians, fluid lesbians, and stable non-lesbians.
Beliefs about the origin of sexual orientation typically fall into two camps: those who believe that people are born with their sexual orientation, and those who believe that it is 78 influenced by the environment and thus is subject to change. Although arguments for sexual minority rights, such as same-gender marriage, have been based on both types of beliefs, typically they are based on the perspective that sexual orientation is innate. The argument might be put forth as such: sexual orientation can be thought of as a stable trait similar to ethnicity; therefore, sexual minorities should be granted rights equal to heterosexual people. This perspective also argues against framing sexual orientation as a “lifestyle,” since this term infers choice. The idea of sexual orientation as environmentally influenced is often used as an argument against rights for sexual minorities, such that equal rights should not be granted to people who can choose membership in a stigmatized group. Since sexual fluidity is inherently based on change in attractions and sexual identity, it makes sense that people who are sexually fluid would be more likely to endorse the belief that sexuality is influenced by the environment, rather than the belief that sexuality is something a person is born with. However, sexual fluidity was not related to this belief in the current study. Perhaps women in the current study were more likely than men to endorse this belief men because they were also slightly more likely to be sexually fluid.
It should be noted that Diamond (2008b) cautioned against assuming that sexual fluidity implies choice about sexual orientation. In her book Sexual Fluidity: Understanding Women’s
Love and Desire, she wrote “…experiencing one’s sexuality as fluid and variable is not the same thing as choosing a particular lifestyle” (p. 248). Diamond found that the women in her sample who experienced sexual fluidity either described their attractions to same-gender and other- gender people as being out of their control, or described choice in terms of thinking about or acting on their feelings rather than choosing the feelings themselves. This was supported in the 79 current study, such that people who were sexually fluid endorsed an incremental view that one’s sexuality could change. However, although sexually fluid people believed that their sexuality could change, they did not endorse the view that one could change one’s own sexuality, or that sexuality is something that a person chooses. This is an important distinction that supports
Diamond’s findings. Participants in the current study believed that sexuality could change, but not that they themselves could control the change.
In addition to beliefs about sexuality, attitudes toward bisexuality were also related to sexual fluidity in women. Sexually fluid women had more positive attitudes toward bisexuality than non-sexually fluid women. This finding makes sense in light of Social Identity Theory, which proposes that people view ingroup members more favorably than outgroup members
(Brown, 2000). Social identity has been defined as “that part of the individual’s self-concept which derives from his or her knowledge of membership to a social group (or groups) together with the value and the emotional significance attached to it” (Tajfel, 1981, p. 255). A bisexual identity is a presumably good fit for a person who is sexually fluid, because it includes attraction toward both women and men. Since our society is based around a moral stance of monogamy, bisexual people necessarily must switch between genders if they are to completely fulfill their sexual identity within monogamous constraints. Therefore, bisexuality can be seen as a natural ingroup for sexually fluid people. It makes sense, then, that sexually fluid women would have positive attitudes toward bisexuality.
This pattern may also be understood within the context of theory on self-concept.
Specifically, compared to non-sexually fluid women, sexually fluid women were more likely to be tolerant of bisexuality, but were not more likely to believe that bisexuality is a stable identity. 80
Tolerance of bisexuality can be explained using theory on social identity and self-concept. The lack of a relationship among women between sexual fluidity and beliefs about bisexuality as a stable identity makes sense, because for sexually fluid women who identify (or have identified in the past) as bisexual, it is not a stable identity. But it is interesting that non-sexually fluid women were not more likely to believe that bisexuality is a stable identity. Perhaps this finding reflects larger societal and cultural stereotypes about bisexuality as a transitional identity, such that sexual fluidity is not related to this belief.
Sexual fluidity was unrelated to attitudes toward bisexuality for men. This was somewhat surprising, considering previous findings regarding negative attitudes toward bisexuality (particularly toward bisexual men); among gay and lesbian people in addition to the general heterosexual population (Mulick & Wright, 2002). In the current study, men reported relatively positive attitudes toward bisexuality, although the mean was lower for the stability subscale than for the tolerance subscale. This suggests that although men in this study are tolerant of male bisexuality, they may be less likely to believe that it is a legitimate and stable identity for men. This can also be related to the idea of self-concept. Psychologists have proposed that men have a more independent self-concept, whereas women have a more interdependent self-concept (Cross & Madson, 1997). This could help to explain why sexual fluidity is related to attitudes toward bisexuality in women, but not in men. Women’s self- concept as sexually fluid (or not sexually fluid) may be related to their attitudes toward bisexuality in women, because bisexuality confirms their self-concept; whereas the same may not be true for men, because their self-concept may be independent from how they feel about bisexuality in men in general. 81
Demographic Factors
Study 1 looked at the relationships between sexual identity development and the following demographic factors: gender, sexual identity label, age, and education. Study 1 also examined the relationships between sexual fluidity and the following demographic factors: age, current level of education, and educational attainment.
Sexual identity development and demographic factors. Based on traditional conceptualizations of sexual identity development, for which sexual orientation (for men in particular) develops early, I hypothesized that women would be at an earlier phase of sexual identity development compared to men. The reverse pattern was found; most women were in later phases of sexual identity development, whereas men were in both early and later phases.
The scales used to assess sexual identity development, the Lesbian Identity Questionnaire and the Gay Identity Scale, are both based on the stage model approach. Many criticisms of stage models of sexual identity development have been proposed, not least of which, was Diamond’s
(2008b) contention that traditional conceptualizations of sexual identity development did not match her findings regarding sexual fluidity in women. The same could be true for the women in the current study. On the other hand, it is possible that the women who volunteered to participate in the study were those who were more comfortable with their non-heterosexual status, and thus would be at a later stage of sexual identity development.
Unexpectedly, sexual identity development was related to sexual identity label. Women who identified as bisexual, completely homosexual/lesbian, and queer were more likely to be in the Internalization/Synthesis phase, whereas women who identified as mostly heterosexual were more likely to be in the Exploration phase. Although contrary to my initial hypothesis, this 82 finding is largely intuitive. It makes sense that those with identities that are further on the spectrum from heterosexual might have already gone through the process of claiming a non- heterosexual identity for themselves, whereas women who currently identify as mostly heterosexual are more likely to be in the early phases of understanding themselves as non- heterosexual. In a study of identity development in mostly straight women, narrative analysis of qualitative interviews revealed that same-gender exploration was described in 58% of the narratives, and identity uncertainty was present in 42% of the narratives (Thompson & Morgan,
2008). Considering these findings, it makes sense that mostly heterosexual/straight women in the current study would be the most likely sexual identity group to be in the Exploration phase of sexual identity development.
Men who identified as bisexual were more likely to be in the Exploration phase, whereas men who identified as completely homosexual/gay were more likely to be in the
Deepening/Commitment and Internalization/Synthesis phases. One of the stereotypes of bisexuality, particularly for men, is that it is a transitional identity between heterosexual and gay.
I hesitate to perpetuate this stereotype; however, the findings in the current study regarding sexual identity development and sexual identity labels seem to support it. Men who identify as bisexual appear to be just beginning to explore their non-heterosexuality, suggesting that they might eventually identify as completely homosexual/gay. However, we cannot say for sure that the bisexual men in the current sample will eventually become gay. Another interpretation is that those who currently identify as bisexual might be identifying as such because they have experienced a change in attractions, and thus they are newly exploring this part of their sexuality. 83
Sexual fluidity and demographic factors. I hypothesized that people who were older, more educated and have a higher level of desired educational attainment would be more likely to be sexually fluid. However, this was not found to be true. Perhaps the limited age range in the current study did not allow for variability in sexual fluidity. It may also be the case that specific types of education could be related to sexual fluidity. For example, taking Gender and Women’s
Studies or LGBTQ courses that increase knowledge about sexuality and the potential for experiencing changes in attractions and sexual identity could contribute to a greater likelihood for sexual fluidity. However, it seems that generally being more educated and desiring a higher level of education are not associated with likelihood of experiencing sexual fluidity.
Interpretations of Sexual Fluidity
Finally, Study 1 included a preliminary exploration of interpretations of sexual fluidity by asking participants to explain their own changes in sexual fluidity. In part, the purpose of this question was to investigate whether themes from Diamond’s (2003a) study emerged in the current sample. Only a small percentage of women and men who experienced sexual fluidity mentioned themes from Diamond’s research. Women interpreted their sexual fluidity by describing feelings of ambivalence about labeling and uncertainty about future changes in attractions and sexual identity; and women and men both mentioned the sentiment that love depends on the person rather than the gender, and that sexuality is fluid.
Since the majority of women and men who experienced sexual fluidity failed to describe it using themes from Diamond’s (2003a) research, new themes were created that emerged from the participants’ responses. The most common theme for both women and men was self- awareness/realization of attractions. This theme was coded when participants interpreted their 84 changes in attractions or sexual identity as becoming aware or realizing attractions to the other gender, or through a process of learning more about themselves. For example, one participant wrote:
At first I was incredibly opposed to anything known as bisexual, gay, lesbian, etc. But as I aged and also came to college I realized that it was ok and therefore opened my options to both. Although I am still attracted to men more, I wouldn't immediately deny a woman anymore. Now I call myself heteroflexible if anyone asks. (Female, Age 19, Mostly Heterosexual/Straight)
The second most common theme was romantic/sexual experiences for women and heteronormativity for men. Women explained changes in their attractions and sexual identity in terms of having specific romantic or sexual experiences, such as falling in love with someone or having an explicit sexual experience. For example, one participant wrote:
I think I always had attractions to women but didn't recognize them as such because I had no role models or frameworks to understand the friendships that I had that I felt so very strongly about. I went to a really liberal college where my peers helped me to understand those feelings. Then I kissed a woman and felt like I'd never go back to men, like my whole self made sense finally. (Female, Age 24, Completely Homosexual/Lesbian)
Men explained their sexual fluidity somewhat differently, in terms of growing up and living in a heteronormative society in which they did not initially have the option to be attracted to other men or to act on those attractions. They described how the process of overcoming heteronormativity also contributed to development of a sexual minority identity or later changes in their attractions and sexual identity. For example, one participant wrote:
I was indoctrinated into a hetero-normative culture; I didn't understand that I could even feel for a man until puberty. Exposure to alternative views of sexuality helped me understand that I was gay. (Male, Age 20, Completely Homosexual/Gay).
It should be emphasized that the exploration of sexual fluidity interpretations in Study 1 was preliminary, as this was a main aim of Study 2. 85
Strengths and Limitations
Study 1 provides a comprehensive look at sexual identity development and sexual fluidity in sexual minority young adults today. Findings from this study contribute to theoretical knowledge about sexual minority young adults, in part by directly testing Diamond’s (2008b) model of sexual fluidity and exploring whether it can be applied to men’s experiences. This study also provides insight into the question “Who can be considered a sexual minority?” by highlighting the complexity of the multiple components of sexual orientation. Finally, Study 1 offers valuable data on sexual fluidity in sexual minority men, an area that has been largely neglected in past research.
A specific strength of the study was its inclusion of women, men, and transgender people with a range of sexual identities. The questionnaire included many different measures to enable an in-depth exploration of sexual identity development and sexual fluidity processes, including measures to tap multiple components of sexual orientation, such as romantic and sexual attraction and sexual behavior, and contextual variables, such as sexual orientation-based victimization and family approval. Many of the methods used in Study 1, such as identification and recruitment of the sample, were modeled after Diamond’s (2008a) longitudinal study to allow for a comparison of findings between the two studies. The current study was updated in part by using an online questionnaire. This method is ideally suited for research on sexuality and encourages honest responses within a context of anonymity (Cooper, 1998). Additionally, conducting sexuality research using online questionnaires – as well as using online recruitment methods, such as snowball sampling via email – can be a good way to access stigmatized populations, such as sexual minorities (Mustanski, 2001). 86
All research studies can be improved upon and thus a number of limitations should be mentioned in regards to the current study. Although the sample was representative of the demographics of the area from which participants were recruited, the lack of ethnic diversity did not allow for an investigation of how ethnicity might affect sexual identity development and sexual fluidity. Previous research has demonstrated that different ethnic groups may experience sexual identity development differently. A study of ethnicity and sexual orientation in adult lesbian women demonstrated that although African American and Latina participants were similar in the timing and disclosure of their lesbian identity, these groups differed significantly from White women (Parks, Hughes, & Matthews, 2004). Specifically, in response to the questions “At what age did you first wonder whether you might be . . . decide you were . . . tell someone you were . . . gay/lesbian/other?” lesbians of color reached sexual identity developmental milestones one to three years earlier than White lesbians (p. 245). In a study of sexual identity development in ethnic sexual minority male young adults ages 18-25, findings revealed that Latino participants reported first awareness of same-gender attractions earlier than
African American and White participants, and Asian American participants reported that their first same-gender sexual encounter occurred at an older age compared to the other three groups
(Dubé & Savin-Williams, 1999). A more in-depth investigation of sexual identity development and sexual fluidity in a range of racial/ethnic groups would be a useful area of future research.
Another potential limitation relates to participant recruitment. I used recruitment methods similar to Diamond’s (1998) study in an effort to make my project parallel to hers.
However, participants recruited through Gender and Women’s Studies Departments and LGBTQ campus and community centers could be self-selected such that they might be more likely than 87 the general population to have experienced sexual fluidity or thought about their sexual identity development prior to completing the questionnaire. For many participants, the process of sexual identity development may have been shaped through taking courses in Gender and Women’s
Studies or being involved with LGBTQ communities. When asked where they heard about this study, 16% of women and 10% of men reported learning about it through the Gender and
Women’s Studies department or in a class about gender and/or sexuality at their college or university; and 14% of women and 13% of men reported learning about the study from the
LGBT campus or community center in their town, or from a local LGBTQ listserv. Thus, the findings from this study should be interpreted in light of the particular composition of participants in the sample. Future research on sexual fluidity would benefit from efforts made to recruit a sample that is more representative of the general population.
One of the major strengths of Diamond’s (2008b) study was its use of a longitudinal design. Indeed, since her original study did not include an investigation of sexual fluidity
(1998), following her participants longitudinally was crucial in identifying and developing her model of sexual fluidity in women. Out of necessity, the current study used a cross-sectional design and retrospective report of changes in attractions and sexual identity. However, the intention of this study is to function as the first wave of data collection in a longitudinal project.
Although the quantitative method used in Study 1 allowed me to directly test Diamond’s
(2008b) model and recruit a large enough sample size to enable significance testing, I was not able to investigate participants’ sexual identity development and sexual fluidity as they themselves experience them. In an article on feminist epistemology and autobiographical narrative in research on sexual identity development, Diamond (2006) wrote “By eliciting 88 detailed narratives I intended to more accurately represent the nature of these phenomena
[changes and discontinuities in desire, behavior, and identity] via women’s nuanced descriptions of their antecedents, subjective quality, and eventual repercussions” (p. 475). Study 2 was designed to capture these nuanced descriptions and include participants’ own voices and experiences, through use of in-depth qualitative interviews.
A final limitation arose out of my efforts to be inclusive. I had originally decided that transgender people could participate in Study 1 as long as they agreed to complete either a female or male questionnaire. However, I failed to anticipate how many of the measures included in the questionnaire do not fit the experiences of transgender people. This is largely due to the creation of the measures with cisgender (non-transgender) samples. Measures assessing transgender experiences are rare, and creating a separate online questionnaire specifically for transgender participants was beyond the scope of this project. But it is my hope that the findings from this project regarding transgender people can be used as a starting point for future research on sexual identity development and sexual fluidity in transgender people.
Conclusions
In conclusion, Study 1 tested Diamond’s (2008b) model of sexual fluidity in female and male sexual minority young adults and examined contextual factors that might be related to sexual fluidity, in addition to providing a preliminary exploration of sexual fluidity interpretations. The majority of the findings both confirmed Diamond’s model of sexual fluidity and extended it to sexual minority men. This study increases understanding about sexual identity development and sexual fluidity in sexual minority young adults and provides insight into the complexity of the relationships among different sexual orientation components. Additionally, 89 this study identified people who were more likely to be sexually fluid and began to explore possible mechanisms of change in attractions and sexual identity by examining contextual factors related to sexual fluidity. In summary, Study 1 provides a comprehensive overview of the complexities related to sexual identity development and sexual fluidity in sexual minority young adults.
90
CHAPTER 3
Study 2: Situating Knowledge of Sexual Fluidity
Study 2 was designed to be an in-depth examination of the processes of sexual identity development and sexual fluidity in a sub-sample of sexual minority young adults. This study qualitatively explored these processes to better understand people’s experiences and interpretations of change in attractions and sexual identity over time. A specific goal was to determine whether themes from Diamond’s (1998, 2003a) research were also found among a new sample of women, and whether the same themes emerged in men. Another goal was to examine how sexual minority women, men, and transgender people6 experience and interpret sexual fluidity.
Method
Participants
Participants in Study 2 were a purposive sample of 18 people (6 female, 8 male, 4 transgender) who were selected from participants in Study 1. Participants ranged in age from 19-
26 (Female: M = 22.50, SD = 1.87; Male: M = 20.57, SD = 2.15; Transgender: M = 24.20, SD =
2.49). Transgender participants identified their gender identity as trans male, FTM transsexual, gender queer, and gender queer lady. All participants lived in Wisconsin at the time of the interview. Other demographic information for Study 2 participants is reported in Table 14, and scores on selected Study 1 measures are in Table 15.
Study 2 participants were required to meet all of the following criteria: 1) report sexual fluidity (as measured by changes in attractions) in Study 1, 2) agree to be contacted for
6 Transgender people’s experiences are integrated into themes discussed for Study 2; however, an in-depth exploration of themes that were specific to transgender narratives is beyond the scope of the current project. 91 participation in Study 2, and 3) provide valid contact information. For purposive sampling, a distribution of sexual identity frequencies was created for participants who met the above criteria. One female and one male participant were chosen randomly by ID number from each of the following sexual identity categories: 1) mostly heterosexual/straight, 2) bisexual, 3) mostly homosexual/gay/lesbian, 4) completely homosexual/gay/lesbian, 5) queer; and 6) questioning/unsure/unlabeled. An additional 5 participants (2 from the female questionnaire and
3 from the male questionnaire) who were transgender or other-identified were chosen. One participant who reported a gender identity of “other” on the Study 1 questionnaire later identified as male at the time of the interview, and is considered male throughout Study 2.
Potential Study 2 participants were contacted via email three times before randomly drawing another ID number in a particular identity category. Two people failed to respond; one person scheduled an interview, but did not show up and failed to respond to my efforts to reschedule; five people were out of town for the duration of Study 2 data collection; and two people refused participation in Study 2 when they were contacted. In each of these situations, another ID number was drawn to replace the original person, until the desired sample size for
Study 2 was reached. Volunteers were asked to participate in an in-person interview to follow- up on the questionnaire that they completed in Study 1.
Researcher
Reflexivity, or turning the researcher’s gaze inward, is crucial for identifying what allows us to see, as well as what inhibits our seeing (Michalowski, 1997). Therefore, following qualitative research guidelines regarding reflexivity, I situate myself relevant to this project as follows. As the primary researcher for this study, I identify my gender identity as cisgender 92 female and my sexual identity as queer. My ethnicity is Caucasian and my gender presentation is feminine. I am active in the LGBTQ community on the UW-Madison campus, through working with PRIDE in Healthcare, a graduate student group in the health sciences, and through being a mentor for the LGBT mentorship program at the UW-Madison LGBT Campus Center. I am also involved with local off-campus LGBTQ communities through creative writing, performing, and activism. During the conceptualization, data collection, and analysis for this project, I was a doctoral student in Developmental Psychology at UW-Madison, with a minor in
Gender and Women’s Studies. My research program focuses on gender-related transitions, including gender transitioning of transgender people, sexual identity development, and sexual fluidity. Prior to conducting this study, I was involved in a qualitative study of gender transitioning in transgender adults, and conducted a meta-analysis on sexual orientation-based victimization of LGB people.
I began the current study with a specific theoretical background and a number of assumptions and biases. My graduate training is in Developmental Psychology and Gender and
Women’s Studies, and the theoretical frameworks that I chose for this project reflect these fields of inquiry, particularly in terms of using feminist and queer theories, and a social constructionist perspective. Prior to conceptualizing this study, I was familiar with Lisa Diamond’s research, having read numerous articles in addition to her book Sexual Fluidity (Diamond, 2008b), as well as attending several of her presentations at various conferences and meetings.
One of the main assumptions with which I began this project was that sexual minority men might not be as willing to share their experiences with me as sexual minority women. I also assumed that as a cisgender female, transgender participants might be reluctant to open up to me 93 about their experiences. However, I found neither of these assumptions to be true. All of the cisgender male-identified and trans-identified participants in my study spoke openly with me about their sexual identities and sexual fluidity. The data analysis for Study 1 was not completed prior to conducting the interviews for Study 2, beyond determining which participants demonstrated sexual fluidity. Therefore, I did not have any additional assumptions based on the results from Study 1, about how participants of different genders or sexual identities might respond to my questions.
Finally, it is important to mention that as a queer-identified woman who is actively involved with campus and local LGBTQ communities, my own views of sexual orientation and sexual fluidity are progressive and inclusive. I operate under the assumption that although sexual and gender minorities are marginalized within the larger heteronormative and genderist
(favoring cisgender people) society and culture in which we live, that being a sexual and/or gender minority is not inherently wrong or pathological. I also assume that any differences in mental and physical health between sexual and gender minorities, and heterosexual and cisgender people, are largely due to experiences of minority stress (see Mays & Cochran, 2001 and I. H. Meyer, 2003 for a complete discussion of the minority stress hypothesis). Additionally,
I have experienced sexual fluidity myself, particularly in changes in sexual identity labels over time. Therefore, I have firsthand knowledge of the process of sexual fluidity and can speculate on how it might operate the same or differently in other people. These assumptions and biases have shaped my perceptions and conclusions throughout the process of this project.
Measures 94
I conducted semi-structured face-to-face interviews, using a protocol modeled after
Diamond’s (1998, 2000, 2003a, 2005, 2008a) protocol (see Appendix III for Study 2 interview protocol). Interview questions were designed to elicit experiences of sexual identity development and change in attractions and sexual identity over time, as well as including questions about interpretations of sexual fluidity. The first part of the interview addressed sexual identity development and attraction histories, and the second part of the interview addressed sexual identity label usage and changes in attractions and sexual identity. Examples of specific interview questions are “Is your current identity the same as the identity you first came out as? If not, when did it change and why?” and “Has the way that you’ve thought about or interpreted your sexual identity changed over time?” Appropriate clarifying probes were used when needed to ensure that participants fully elaborated their answers. At the end of the interview, participants were asked if they wanted to add to or embellish any of their answers.
Sexual identity questioning and development. For the first part of the interview, participants were asked to describe when they first questioned their sexual identity, when they first used a non-heterosexual label for themselves and to others, and when they first experienced same-gender sexual contact and same-gender attractions. For each question, participants were asked for specific contextual information, including the age at which each experience took place.
Attraction histories. Participants were asked to describe the three people, to whom they have been the most sexually or emotionally attracted, or both, during their lifetime, regardless of gender and whether their attraction culminated in a romantic relationship. Participants were asked to describe the context of these attractions, including the approximate age at which they 95 occurred, the gender of the person they were attracted to, and the nature of their relationship with the person.
Sexual identity labels. For the second part of the interview, participants were asked
“How do you currently label your sexual identity to yourself, even if it’s different from what you might tell other people? If you are still questioning your sexual identity or you don’t apply any label to your sexual identity, please say so.” Participants were also asked whether the sexual identity that they use for themselves is the same as the identity they would tell others, and how they define the particular identity label for themselves.
Changes in attractions and sexual identity. Finally, participants were asked about changes in their attractions and sexual identity over time, how they explain and interpret any changes they have undergone, and the likelihood of changes to their sexual identity in the future.
If participants indicated that they thought their sexual identity might change in the future, they were asked to speculate about what specific factors might cause it to shift or change.
Procedure
Interviews were conducted between May and September 2011, either in a lab room in the
UW-Madison Psychology Department (N = 13) or in the city where the participant resided (N =
4). I asked each participant outside of Madison to choose a quiet place to meet, where they would feel comfortable talking about their experiences related to their sexuality. Interviews in
Milwaukee were conducted at a university library, outside a student union, and at a coffee shop; an additional interview was conducted in a public park in Prairie du Chien, WI. Two pilot interviews were conducted (1 female, 1 male); the male pilot interview was retained for analyses.
One pilot participant was a former undergraduate student of mine, and the other was a graduate 96 student. Pilot participants were chosen because they fit the criteria for Study 2 and volunteered to help me with the project.
Prior to the interview, all participants were sent an informed consent statement via email to review. Informed consent was obtained from all participants at the time of the interview, via written informed consent.7 At the beginning of the interview, I explained the purpose of the interview and informed participants that they could skip questions or end the interview at any point. None of the participants requested skipping a question or ending the interview early.
Interviews lasted approximately 25-70 minutes. Each participant received a check for $20 after completion of the interview.8 All interviews were audio-recorded using a digital recorder, and an undergraduate research assistant and I transcribed the audio-recordings verbatim.
Analytic Methodology
Interview transcripts were imported into NVivo. Transcriptions from the interviews underwent two coding procedures using NVivo: focused and open coding. Strauss and Corbin
(1998) defined coding as “the analytic processes through which data are fractured, conceptualized, and integrated to form theory” (p. 3). The purpose of focused coding is to test existing theory by identifying concepts that were found in other research. In the current study, focused coding was conducted to identify themes found in Diamond’s (1998; 2003a) research.
The purpose of open coding is to identify concepts that newly emerge in the data that are not based on previous theory. In the current study, open-ended thematic coding was completed to identify themes that did not arise in Diamond’s previous research. Previously determined themes were identified as focused codes in NVivo. I coded each interview for focused codes, and
7 The written informed consent form was approved by the UW – Madison IRB. 8 Participant incentives were funded by a student grant from the Kinsey Institute. 97 simultaneously added open codes to the list of codes as new themes emerged in the data. After coding each interview, I coded all previously coded interviews for any new open codes that were added, resulting in multiple times coding each interview, until saturation was reached.
Saturation is the point at which no new themes have emerged, and categories have been fully developed in terms of their properties and dimensions (Strauss & Corbin, 1998).
Twenty-two codes derived from previous research were categorized as follows: early indicators of sexual orientation, context of first questioning sexual orientation (Diamond, 1998), and current perceptions of sexual orientation and changes (Diamond, 2003a). Open-ended coding yielded 198 new codes, which were categorized using the categories specified above, in addition to: context of first same-gender sexual experience and context of most significant attachments.9 (See Appendix IV for a list and description of focused codes, and Appendix V for a complete list of all focused and open codes).
Reliability coding was conducted for the focused codes using four interview transcripts (2 male, 2 female). I trained a Counseling Psychology master’s student using one of the four interviews, and then each of us independently coded the four transcripts. I identified the passages to be coded in each interview, and provided the coder with coding instructions, including a list and description of focused codes (see Appendix IV). Reliability was calculated as the percentage of the 22 focused codes identified by both coders for each of interviews.
Average reliability across all four interviews was 85%.
After a complete list of focused and open codes was identified, I engaged in theory development, using the procedures for qualitative analysis described by Strauss and Corbin
9 A full discussion of these two categories is not included, since they were not directly related to the Study 2 aims. 98
(1998). First, I used the technique of selective coding, which is the process of integrating and refining theory by organizing categories around a central explanatory concept. I identified the central explanatory concept by first examining the prevalence of each focused and open code across the sample of 18 interviews, and then integrating multiple codes and themes into a more general abstract concept. Prevalent themes were identified by the number of interviews in which they appeared, which was provided in a report created in NVivo. The central explanatory concept that I identified was facilitative environments, which became the backbone of the model
(see Results and Discussion). Facilitative environments refer to factors that provide a context within which sexual identity development and change take place. I then refined the model by excluding categories from the current analysis that were unrelated to my primary research questions, and developing categories further, as needed. Finally, I validated the model by comparing it to the raw data. Below I compare my findings to those from Diamond’s (1998,
2003a) study, in addition to describing the Facilitative Environments Model, which emerged from the data in the current study.
Results and Discussion
The purpose of Study 2 was an in-depth investigation of the processes of sexual identity development and sexual fluidity in sexual minority young adults. Focused and open coding procedures yielded 22 focused codes and 198 open codes that were categorized into the following higher order themes: early indicators of sexual orientation, context of first questioning sexual identity, current perceptions of sexual identity and changes, context of first same-gender sexual experience, and context of most significant attachments. Only the first three categories 99 are discussed, because of their direct relevance to the aims for Study 2.10 I developed a model around the central explanatory concept of facilitative environments, described in detail below
(see Figure 6).
Facilitative Environments Model
In Diamond’s (1998) initial wave of data collection, she identified exposure to facilitating environment as a primary theme for the context of first questioning sexual identity.
Diamond (2003a) described this theme as being coded when the women in her study mentioned that their sexual questioning was precipitated by a particular event, such as discussing sexual orientation with friends or learning about LGB people. She reported that 46% of the women in her sample first questioned their sexual orientation because of exposure to a facilitating environment, rather than experiencing same-gender attractions or sexual contact (Diamond,
1998). Diamond used the theme of exposure to facilitating environment to distinguish between a) women who followed the traditional conceptualization of sexual identity development by recognizing same-gender attractions early in life and developing a non-heterosexual identity based on those attractions, and b) women who developed their sexual minority identity later in life, as a result of exposure to an environment that facilitated recognition of same-gender attractions. In the article based on the initial wave of data collection, Diamond (1998) did not explore the meaning of exposure to a facilitating environment regarding sexual identity development, beyond this classification of types of sexual minority women.
Through the process of focused and open coding, I discovered that the concept of facilitative environments emerged as a key feature in the narratives of the participants that I
10 Context of first same-gender sexual experience and context of most significant attachments are retained for future analysis outside of the current project. 100 interviewed – not only in terms of providing a context for first questioning sexual identity, but also providing a context for change in attractions and sexual identity over time. The term
“facilitate” means to help forward in terms of an action or a process, or to assist in the progress of a person. The term “environment” is defined as the aggregate of surrounding conditions or influences – the milieu. Thus, facilitative environments provide the context or conditions within which development occurs, both initially and in terms of subsequent change.
Diamond (1998) distinguished between sexual minority women in her study who first questioned their sexual identity as a result of exposure to a facilitating environment, and those who first questioned their sexual identity as a result of same-gender attractions. However, I understand both of these experiences as captured within the broader concept of facilitative environments. The process of recognizing same-gender attractions and exposure to other sexual minorities or LGBTQ ideas each facilitate the development of a sexual minority identity. An individual person’s recognition of same-gender attractions is precipitated by the experience of feeling attracted to same-gender others who are in a person’s surrounding environment.
Therefore, either developmental pathway – exposure to a facilitating environment or same- gender attractions – can be thought of in terms of facilitative environments.
Another theme that emerged in many participants’ narratives in the current study was the idea of social norms, particularly heteronormativity, as influencing the processes of sexual identity development and sexual fluidity. Although it may not be intuitive, social norms can also be conceptualized in terms of facilitative environments. The term “environment” can also mean the social or cultural forces that shape an individual person’s life or a population. Thus, specific social norms, such as heteronormativity can be a sociocultural force that influences a person’s 101 sexual identity development. Specifically, heteronormativity acts as a facilitative environment by providing a context of social norms, within which non-heterosexual identities and experiences are either invisible or stigmatized.11 In other words, heteronormativity facilitates heterosexuality, but hinders homosexuality and bisexuality. It is important to recognize that facilitative environments that constitute social norms, such as heteronormativity, represent inequalities of power in society – here, inequalities between heterosexual and sexual minority people. This recognition acknowledges the contribution of feminist frameworks to the conceptualization of findings in the current study.
Essentially, the facilitative environments model uses Diamond’s (2003a) idea of exposure to a facilitating environment and makes it a central mechanism of development and change. The facilitative environments model proposes that the developmental processes of initial sexual identity development and sexual fluidity occur at the intersections of different types of factors: individual factors, such as awareness or self-realization; interpersonal factors in a person’s immediate environment, such as meeting a sexual minority person or learning about a specific sexual identity label; or factors in the larger societal environment, such as heteronormativity (see
Figure 6). This model is consistent with previous sociocultural developmental theories that understand development as happening in context (e.g. Vygotsky, 1978), and social constructionist theories that emphasize the interaction of proximal factors in a person’s immediate surroundings, and individual historical factors in contributing to development (e.g.,
Leaper, 2000). The facilitative environments model accounts for different types of sexual fluidity – change in attractions and change in sexual identity; such that all types of sexual fluidity
11 This type of facilitative environment is discussed below in light of participants’ specific narratives. 102 represent a process of development. Whether a person’s attractions change when they meet an other-gender person that they are attracted to, or whether their sexual identity label changes because they learn about a new label, such as queer, change occurs in context.
Further along in her longitudinal study, when participants began to demonstrate more sexual fluidity, Diamond (2007; 2008b) used dynamic systems theory to understand female sexual fluidity. This framework proposes that developmental processes happen as a result of bidirectional, changing interactions among endogenous (e.g., thoughts, feelings) and exogenous
(e.g., relationships, experiences) factors (Diamond, 2007). Dynamic systems theory posits that these factors or parameters act as agents of change (Thelen, 1989), and the complexity of interactions indicate the existence of “multiple pathways toward change” (Thelen, 2005, p. 255).
Diamond (2008b) suggested that sexual fluidity in women is determined by a woman’s initial degree of sexual fluidity and her exposure to environmental, situational, and interpersonal factors that might trigger fluidity. This conceptualization relates to the model developed in the current study, such that the developmental process of sexual fluidity is related to exposure to particular contextual factors. The facilitative environments model can be thought of as a simplified version of dynamic systems theory, such that development is conceptualized as occurring at the intersections of three different types of factors. Although dynamic systems theory is useful in capturing the complexity of sexual fluidity, the focus on three main types of factors in the facilitative environments model allows for a clearer examination of how the intersections of specific factors provide a context for sexual identity development and sexual fluidity. The facilitative environments model is distinct from Diamond’s (2007) use of dynamic systems 103 theory in that it applies to both initial sexual identity development and change over time, rather than sexual fluidity only.
The facilitative environments model is also related to ecological systems theory, which proposes that development occurs through the interaction of a person with various environmental systems, including the individual self (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). The facilitative environments model proposes that the developmental processes of sexual identity development and sexual fluidity are always taking place in context, and that they occur at the intersections of factors from different levels of proximity: individual, interpersonal, and societal. The model is conceptualized differently from ecological systems theory, in that it emphasizes development as occurring at the intersections of factors from different levels, rather than within nested environmental systems (see Figure 6). Diamond (2007) categorized both dynamic systems theory and ecological systems theory within “a larger family of theoretical perspectives seeking to replace deterministic models with an emphasis on dynamic person–environment interactions occurring over time” (p. 144). The facilitative environments model fits into this larger theoretical perspective.
The facilitative environments model is distinct from dynamic systems and ecological systems theories in applying a feminist lens to the processes of sexual identity development and sexual fluidity. Through a feminist lens, inequalities on a larger societal level, such as heterosexism, “the ideological system that denies, denigrates, and stigmatizes any non- heterosexual form of behavior, identity, relationship or community” (Herek, 1994, p. 91), and its counterpart genderism, are taken into account through incorporating societal-level factors.
Furthermore, in considering development and change at the intersection of different factors, the 104 facilitative environments model draws on the feminist theory of intersectionality, which proposes that people’s experiences are shaped by membership in multiple social categories (Cole, 2009).
In the current study, the facilitative environments model is used to consider how different identities, such as gender and sexual identity, intersect within the context of larger societal expectations and norms to produce specific experiences of sexual identity development and sexual fluidity.
The facilitative environments model accounts for variation among sexual minority people who are sexually fluid, by proposing that people have different developmental trajectories, represented by the intersections of different types of factors. For example, one person might realize attraction to same-gender others, but not develop a sexual minority identity until college, where in the context of a less heteronormative societal context, they learn about the possibility of being LGBQ. Another person might have fully developed exclusive same-gender attractions and a sexual minority identity, but later changed their sexual identity after they recognized attractions toward a person of another gender. Perhaps this second hypothetical person did not consider the possibility of attractions to other-gender people previously because of larger societal assumptions about sexual orientation; for example, that sexual minorities are exclusive in their attractions to same-gender people, and that sexual orientation develops early and remains stable over time. Both of these hypothetical sexual minority people experience sexual identity development and sexual fluidity at the intersection of individual, interpersonal, and societal factors, but each of their developmental trajectories is unique. The facilitative environments model is explained further in relation to participants’ specific narratives in the categories of early 105 indicators of sexual orientation, context of first questioning sexual orientation, and current perceptions of sexual orientation and changes
Early Indicators of Sexual Orientation
Diamond (1998) originally coded for early indicators of sexual orientation with the intention of examining sexual identity development as it is traditionally conceptualized, based on the idea that the process of forming a sexual identity may progress somewhat differently for the women in her study. Previously, researchers assumed that sexual identity development of sexual minorities began early in life, and proceeded through a series of stages (Cass, 1979; Meyer &
Schwitzer, 1999). Diamond (2008b) termed this the “master narrative” of sexual identity development, which has typically been measured in terms of the age at which people reach developmental milestones such as feeling different, gender-atypical behaviors, fascination with the same gender, gradual realization of romantic and sexual feelings toward the same gender, and consciously questioning sexual identity.
In her initial wave of data collection, Diamond (1998) indicated the following specific themes regarding early indicators of sexual orientation: early disinterest (sic) in the other gender, early fascination with same-gender bodies, early feelings of differentness, early gender atypicality, and early same-gender attractions. Each theme was coded if the participant experienced the milestone prior to age 13, which is consistent with traditional notions of sexual identity development that assume that non-heterosexuality develops during childhood or early adolescence. During open coding in the current study, participants’ narratives were coded for early indicators of sexual orientation, if they experienced the milestones before age 14, because multiple participants mentioned these indicators as occurring while they were age 13, rather than 106 before. I added the following themes, which emerged from the data in the current study: early intentional same-gender sexual contact, early non-heterosexual identity, early questioning of sexual orientation, and early same-gender jealousy. The three themes that were most prevalent in participants’ narratives were early same-gender attractions (focused coding), early intentional same-gender sexual contact (open coding), and early questioning of sexual orientation (open coding).
Early same-gender attractions. This theme was coded as feeling attracted – emotionally, romantically or sexually – to a person of the same gender before age 14.
Participants described a wide range of contexts within which they first realized same-gender attractions, such as having a “crush on a boy at daycare”, being “totally in love with” a best friend in third grade, or feeling attracted to a pop singer. Mike12 is a 21-year-old white male13, who described discovering same-gender attractions at age 12, through watching pornography.
Mike currently identifies his sexual identity as gay or unlabeled to himself, and as gay to other people. In his interview, he expressed reluctance toward using the label “gay” because of the different meanings that people attribute to it, such as being fashionable or preferring certain types of music (he gave the example of Madonna). Because these associations do not apply to him, he sometimes identifies as a “guy who’s attracted to other guys” rather than using a particular label. Mike described his realization of same-gender attractions,
I was just getting into pornography and I started out watching heterosexual porn, and that was all fine and good for a while. And then I kind of realized that I was paying more attention to the guy than the girl, and I was like ‘That's kind of weird. What's the deal with that?’ And eventually I just started checking out gay porn and that was nice and lesbian porn was kind of boring, so I don't know, I think that was when it kind of started.
12 Pseudonyms are used throughout. 13 Participants described as “male” or “female” are cisgender, unless otherwise specified. 107
Other participants described different contextual factors that related to first realizing same- gender attractions. Mike’s description provides one example of this process.
Early intentional same-gender sexual contact. This theme was coded as any level of intentional same-gender sexual contact before age 14, including kissing, erotic touch, oral sex, intercourse, etc. As with early same-gender attractions, participants described a range of contexts within which early intentional same-gender sexual contact took place, such as “at a sleepover with some boys”, with a classmate, or with a close friend. Jennifer is a 25-year-old white female, who currently identifies her sexual identity as lesbian both to herself and to other people. She described first exploring her sexuality through playing with other girls,
I think I was probably eight. I think – this is something that I just started talking to friends about – that when I was a little kid, we used to play sex…with my friends. That was a game that we played. And I kind of had pushed it out of my memory for the longest time, and thought that maybe that was really strange, but the more people I talk to about it are like ‘Oh, I did that with my friends too,’…I was a little kid and I don’t think we interpreted it as being lesbians. But there definitely, I mean there was a sexual component to it; it was exploratory.
Interestingly, Jennifer told me this story in response to the question “Can you tell me about the first time that you were attracted to a person of the same gender?” whereas she answered the question “Can you tell me about the first time that you had any sexual contact with a person of the same gender?” with a story about dating a woman, while Jennifer was a sophomore in college. When I pointed out this discrepancy to her, she responded that when she was “playing house” with her female friends at age 8, they did not remove clothing, which is why she classified this behavior as “play” or “exploration” rather than as sexual contact – although, as the quote above demonstrates, she initially described it as “playing sex.” This discrepancy illustrates how interpretations of sexual identity development can vary within an individual person. As 108
Jennifer said “I don’t quite know how to tell you what my 8-year-old self was thinking. But I just have these small memories of it.”
Early questioning of sexual orientation. This theme was coded as consciously questioning sexual identity before age 14. Will is a 19-year-old white male, who currently identifies his sexual identity as somewhere between bisexual and gay, or a 4.5 or 5 on the Kinsey scale (0 = completely heterosexual, 6 = completely homosexual; Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin,
1948) to himself, and gay to other people. He was the only participant to describe his sexual identity in terms of a scale, although a number of other participants described their attractions as proportions of attraction toward women vs. men (e.g., 10% women, 90% men). Will described the time period of questioning his sexual orientation between ages 10 and 14 as “…the battle ground…in my mind, that was when I was doing the serious questioning. Looking up awful quizzes online, you know…really thinking about it.”
Participants in the current study demonstrated one aspect of traditional sexual identity development, in terms of experiencing early same-gender attractions. But participants also discussed having intentional same-gender sexual contact and questioning their sexual orientation prior to age 14, both of which are not thought to take place until later in adolescence in traditional models of sexual identity development. In D’Augelli’s (2006) report on sexual identity development in LGB youth, findings indicated that youth reported being aware of same- gender feelings at age 10, with male participants becoming aware earlier than female participants
(ages 10 and 11, respectively). This was consistent with the findings in the current study, in which participants’ narratives revealed same-gender attractions before age 14. However,
Diamond (1998) found that the average age of first same-gender attraction was 15 for the sexual 109 minority women in her study. Therefore, participants in the current study seem to be realizing same-gender attractions at an earlier age than her participants, although at a similar age compared to D’Augelli’s (2006) participants.
D’Augelli (2006) reported that the first same-gender sexual experience for male youth occurred at a range of ages: 4 to 10 years (14%), 11 to 14 (24%), 15 to 18 (49%), and 19 to 21
(13%). Female youth in D’Augelli’s report had their first same-gender sexual experience slightly later than male youth, but also at a range of ages: 4 to 10 years (8%), 11 to 14 (18%), 15 to 18 (53%), 19 to 21 (21%). In his study, the majority of LGB youth had same-gender sexual experiences between ages 15 and 18. Reports from participants in the current study regarding the age at which first intentional same-gender sexual contact took place is consistent with
D’Augelli’s (2006) findings that 38% of males and 26% of females had their first same-gender sexual experience before age 14. Diamond (1998) found that the average age of first same- gender sexual contact was 18 for the sexual minority women in her study. In comparison, participants in the current study reported first same-gender sexual contact somewhat younger.
In D’Augelli’s (2006) report, youth were not asked the age at which they first began questioning their sexual orientation, although it was implied that this occurred after realization of same-gender attractions. In her study, Diamond (1998) measured the age at which participants first questioned their sexual identity and found that for the sexual minority women in her sample, the average age of first questioning was 16 (SD = 2.6). In the current study, many but not all participants discussed first questioning their sexual orientation before age 14. Perhaps this is a reflection of greater acceptability of sexual minorities in society today, such that sexual minority youth are developing their identities at an earlier age because it has become more possible to do 110 so, and because of greater visibility of LGBTQ people. In Savin-Williams’ (2005) book The
New Gay Teenager, he proposed that for sexual minority youth today, being a sexual minority is not as central to their lives as it might have been in previous sociohistorical contexts. As Savin-
Williams discussed, less centrality of sexual minority status to a person’s identity indicates that being gay is not relevant for most sexual minority youth today, to the extent that sexual orientation in general may be a thing of the past. Although “post-gay” theories have been regarded with a degree of criticism, if Savin-Williams is correct, this could help to explain why participants in the current study are developing some aspects of their sexual minority identity prior to age 14, rather than later in adolescence or young adulthood.
The findings regarding early indicators of sexual orientation support the facilitative environments model, in the sense that sexual identity development occurs at the intersection of individual and interpersonal factors. Individually, participants realize their same-gender attractions, initiate or participate in intentional same-gender sexual behavior, and cognitively question their sexual orientation. However, same-gender attractions and intentional same-gender sexual behavior are also happening interpersonally, because they require the existence or presence of same-gender others of romantic interest. Therefore, the facilitative environments model provides a framework within which to understand sexual identity development in terms of early indicators.
Context of First Questioning Sexual Identity
Diamond (1998) originally coded for the context of first questioning sexual identity as a way of distinguishing among sexual minority women who a) followed traditional conceptualizations of sexual identity development by first questioning their sexual identity in the 111 context of same-gender attractions, b) first questioned their sexual identity in the context of exposure to a specific facilitating environment, and c) first questioned their sexual identity in the context of a single emotional same-gender friendship that did not generalize to other women.
She reported the distribution of the context of first questioning sexual identity for the women in her sample as follows: same-gender attractions (46%), exposure to a facilitating environment
(38%), and single emotional same-gender bond (16%; Diamond, 2003a). Single emotional same-gender bond was not found to be a primary theme in participants’ narratives in the current study. Same-gender attractions and exposure to a facilitating environment are described below.
Facilitating environment. Diamond (1998) identified the following specific themes within facilitating environment: dating a bisexual person, discovering a friend with same-gender attractions, discussing sexual orientation with friends, learning about LGB, and object of same- gender interest. Each of these themes was coded if it provided a context that prompted the participant to think about or question their own sexual orientation. Diamond’s themes are distinct from the facilitative environments model, because they were only coded for first questioning sexual orientation, whereas my model encompasses both initial sexual identity development and subsequent sexual fluidity. I added the following themes, which emerged from the data in the current study, to the broader category of facilitating environment: involvement with the LGBTQ community and learning about transgender, which included exposure to transgender identities or people.
The theme that was most prevalent in participants’ narratives was discussing sexual orientation with friends (focused coding). This theme was coded as discussing any aspect of sexual orientation (emotional, romantic or sexual attractions; sexual behavior; or sexual identity) 112 with friends or romantic partners, which prompted participants to think about or question their own sexual orientation. Ashley is a 20-year-old white female, who currently identifies her sexual identity as unlabeled to herself, and as straight to other people. During her interview, she expressed feeling that existing sexual identity labels do not completely capture her experiences.
She has had attractions toward women, but had never been sexually or romantically involved with a woman, aside from casual kissing. Ashley described how discussions of sexual orientation with her boyfriend helped her realize that she was attracted to women,
Well, I mean, the starting point was kind of being attracted to girls, but not really understanding that almost, or not really thinking about it, or analyzing it kind of. And then, sort of, actually through talking with my boyfriend and kind of just thinking more about patterns in my life and stuff like that. I kind of came to realize, I am attracted to girls. I've never really explored that, but I might be interested in exploring that, kind of thing. So I mean, yeah, it's gone from thinking that I'm definitely straight to kind of being like, well, I still kind of identify with being straight, but not totally. You know, like being with a girl is not outside the realm of possibilities.
It is interesting that Ashley’s discussions about sexual orientation were with her other-gender partner, rather than with friends. To a certain extent, this may be viewed as progressive. I might expect a male romantic partner to feel threatened by his female partner’s attractions to other women, and thus be reluctant to engage in this type of conversation. Indeed, Ashley’s experience was distinct from other people in the current study. For the majority of other participants who described this theme, discussions of this nature took place with same-gender friends at school, rather than in a dating context.
In terms of the facilitative environments model, discussing sexual orientation with friends
(or romantic partners) was the primary interpersonal contextual factor that prompted first questioning of sexual identity. Thus, this aspect of sexual identity development occurs at the intersection of interpersonal and individual factors: participants first discuss sexual orientation 113 through social interaction with friends, and then they cognitively question their own sexual identity. In other words, exposure to ideas about sexual orientation – particularly sexual minority identity – was a specific facilitative environment for first questioning sexual identity.
This process can also be understood within the theoretical framework of symbolic interactionism. This sociological theory places emphasis on communication between and among people, and proposes that behavior is constructed through interactions with others (Charon, 1995;
Stryker, 1987). Furthermore, identity development is theorized to take place in the context of social interactions, during which others respond to specific presentations of the self (Kelly,
1992). In the case of discussing sexual orientation with others as a catalyst for sexual identity development, through the process of social interactions with others, sexual minority individuals internalize the ideas being discussed, and later adopt a sexual minority identity. Thus, sexual identity development is constructed through interaction with others, specifically in terms of discussing sexual orientation.
Same-gender attractions. Diamond (1998) identified the following specific themes within same-gender attractions: awareness of same-gender sexual desires, closeness to a same- gender person, disinterest (sic) in other-gender people, fascination with same-gender bodies, and intentional same-gender sexual contact. Each of these themes was coded if it prompted the participant to think about or question their own sexual orientation. I added the following themes that emerged from the data in the current study: fascination with androgyny and sexual dream or fantasy. The three themes that were most prevalent in participants’ narratives of same-gender attractions in the current study were awareness of same-gender sexual desires, intentional same- 114 gender sexual contact, and closeness to a same-gender person, which were all focused codes from Diamond’s (1998) research.
Awareness of same-gender sexual desires. This theme was coded as becoming aware of sexual attractions or desires toward a person or persons of the same-gender, which prompted the participant to think about or question their own sexual orientation. James is a 21-year-old white male, who currently identifies his sexual identity alternately as gay or queer, both to himself and to other people. He described the context of first questioning his sexual identity as realizing sexual attractions and desires toward men,
I remember having a sexual dream about one of the boys [from a theater production] in it. And, yeah, it was specific people, and I also remember being attracted to Nick Lachey from 98°, this specific picture. Which might've even been younger than that, but no, I think it was around 12. And it had to do with sexual feelings and fantasies and stuff that came up, but until then I had been interested in women.
Intentional same-gender sexual contact. This theme was coded as any level of intentional same-gender sexual contact – including kissing, erotic touch, oral sex, intercourse, etc. – that prompted the participant to question their own sexual orientation. Jessica is a 21-year- old white female, who currently identifies her sexual identity variously as unlabeled, bisexual, or questioning to herself, and as bisexual to other people. Although she seemed to accept her previous attractions toward women as bearing on her sexual identity, during the interview she indicated that she is currently in a state of questioning her sexual identity. She mentioned a number of factors that could be related to this, such as having previous negative sexual experiences with women, and currently being in a stable relationship with a man. Jessica described how the experience of having a threesome with her boyfriend and another woman prompted her to question her own sexual identity, 115
…that incident [the threesome] happened when I was eighteen where I had this first kind of sexual contact and I was like ‘Okay I really liked that, now what? I’m still dating this guy.’ And then the three of us hooked up one more time, and then I was kind of like ‘Okay, yeah I’m probably bisexual.’
Closeness to a same-gender person. This theme was coded as feeling emotionally close to a same-gender person, which prompted the participant to think about or question their own sexual orientation. Although previous researchers have proposed that women in particular “tend to have a relational or partner-centered orientation to sexuality” (Peplau & Garnets, 2000, p.
329), both women and men in the current study reported feeling emotionally close to a same- gender person. John is a 19-year-old white male, who currently identifies his sexual identity as queer to himself, and as unlabeled or queer to other people. He described a close friendship with a boy during high school,
I actually started getting to know this guy during my senior year of high school…I was like, ‘I’m definitely not just friends with you, and I’m not sure what’s going on there.’ So, that was about the time that I started to really be like, ‘What’s going on?’
Diamond (2008b) has emphasized the importance of distinguishing between sexual and romantic attraction. This is noteworthy in light of the theme of awareness of same-gender sexual desires, which specifically focuses on sexual attraction and desire, rather than romantic or emotional feelings. A theme that emerged in the broader category of current perceptions of sexual identity and changes that was not prominent enough for a detailed discussion below was sexual vs. romantic attractions. This theme was coded when participants distinguished between attractions that were sexual, and attractions that were of a romantic or emotional nature. Will, who I described previously as identifying his sexual identity to himself as somewhere between bisexual and gay, explained the distinction between sexual and emotional attraction, 116
I found myself wanting to impress this girl. And I didn’t really know what that meant and I kind of didn’t care, because for the most part, it’s not that I wanted to have sex with this person, but I just had an extreme want to be emotionally close to this person.
However, for awareness of same-gender sexual desires to act as a catalyst for first questioning sexual identity, a connection must be made between recognition of sexual desires, and subsequent implications for sexual identity. This connection may be made via intentional same- gender sexual contact.
Another theme that was identified for current perceptions of sexual identity and changes that is not discussed in the following section was requirements for sexual minority status. Some participants expressed that specific experiences, such as same-gender sexual contact, were necessary for being a “legitimate” sexual minority or for justifying adoption of a sexual minority identity. Josh is a 19-year-old white male, who currently identifies his sexual identity as bisexual or queer to himself; and as gay, queer, or bisexual to others, depending on the person.
He described same-gender sexual contact as a requirement for identifying his sexual identity as bisexual, “…I thought of myself as bisexual, probably because that’s when I started actually…having sexual relations with guys. So that’s why I think that might have solidified it for me, that that was my sexual identity.” Ashley, who I previously described as having an unlabeled sexual identity to herself, proposed a similar requirement for identifying as a sexual minority, “I mean I'm effectively straight. I’ve never really been involved with a girl.”
Therefore, awareness of same-gender sexual desires may act as a facilitative environment for sexual identity development only in the context of societal beliefs about sexual orientation and who can be considered an “actual” sexual minority – i.e., whether a person must display same-gender sexual behavior, or whether they can still be considered a sexual minority based on 117 same-gender attractions alone. Additionally, the requirement of sexual contact as a necessary experience for sexual minority status assumes that initiation of or participation in intentional same-gender sexual contact is preceded by recognition of same-gender sexual desires. Thus, awareness of same-gender sexual desires also acts as a facilitative environment for sexual identity development via – or in interaction with – experiences of intentional same-gender sexual contact.
Closeness to a same-gender person as prompting first questioning of sexual identity is similar to Diamond’s (1998) theme of single emotional bond, which was not prominent enough in participants’ narratives in the current study to warrant an in-depth discussion. As a reminder, closeness to a same-gender person was coded as feelings of emotional closeness to a same- gender person, whereas single emotional bond was coded as a singular emotional same-gender friendship that did not generalize to other people of the same gender. The distinction is that single emotional bond did not generalize to other same-gender people. Amanda is a 23-year-old white female, who currently identifies her sexual identity as a lesbian both to herself and to other people. During the interview, she described being comfortable with her lesbian identity, but feeling as though it is not as central to her identity as it used to be. She explained that she prefers not to come out as lesbian to other people until they get to know her. Amanda described a same- gender friendship that was similar to a single emotional bond,
I had a best friend who was a girl, and I had never thought anything of it before that, just because…I went to Lutheran grade school and middle school, and [being non- heterosexual] was never an option, so I never thought of that, never was even in my head until I met her…I don’t know, just wanted to be around her all the time, wanted to hang out with her every day. And she was older, she was three years older, so…I thought it was, you know, I just look up to her, sort of thing. And then it just kind of went from there, and grew into a relationship instead of just a friendship.
118
Both of these themes can be understood in light of Diamond’s (2002) report of findings on “passionate friendships” from her longitudinal study on sexual minority women. Diamond defined this type of friendship as a “same-sex best friendship that [the women in her study] considered as committed, intimate, passionate, and intense as a romantic relationship” (p. 5).
Passionate friendships are also typically described as romantic relationships without a sexual component. Diamond (2002) reported that 90% of the women in her study described passionate friendships. Both women and men in the current study described such relationships. John, a queer male whose close friendship with a boy in high school was mentioned earlier, described the nature of their relationship,
It was weird because it was kind of like our friendship was more or less like a romantic relationship sans anything physical. We went through the entire emotional gamut of everything, to the point of even breaking up, in a sense. So it was just, that whole thing…and then looking back, I was just like, ‘Wow, okay, that was definitely not just friendship there.’
Diamond (2008b) has proposed that differences in women’s sexuality in terms of likelihood for fluidity create situations in which a person’s closeness or single emotional bond with a same-gender person may cross the boundary between friendship and a romantic or sexual relationship. In the current study, this process also happened for sexually fluid men. Existing research is scant in the area of close same-gender friendships among sexual minority men.
However, a recent study of heterosexual male students in the U.K., found that 89% had kissed another male on the lips, and 37% reported engaging in sustained same-gender kissing
(Anderson, Adams, & Rivers, 2012). Participants in the study reported that the same-gender kissing they had engaged in was non-sexual and non-homosexual; rather, it was a way of expressing platonic affection among heterosexual friends. The researchers suggested that this 119 pattern of behavior is happening in a changing social context, in which levels of cultural homophobia are decreasing. This viewpoint can shed light on the findings in the current study regarding men and close same-gender friendships.
The facilitative environments model proposes that closeness to a same-gender person is an individual contextual factor that prompts the first questioning aspect of sexual identity development. Same-gender passionate friendships may operate similarly, at the intersection of interpersonal and individual factors. Passionate friendships are a type of relationship between two people, placing this factor on the interpersonal level; but the mechanism prompting first questioning of sexual identity is an individual factor. Thus, closeness to a same-gender person or a single emotional bond (passionate friendship) provides a facilitative environment for initial sexual identity development.
Current Perceptions of Sexual Identity and Changes
In the third wave of data collection, Diamond (2003a) asked the sexual minority women in her sample to describe how they currently perceived their sexual identity and how they interpreted any changes they had undergone. One of the primary aims of Study 2 was to investigate how participants explain and interpret changes in attractions and sexual identity.
Therefore, questions were included in the current study to investigate specific changes in attractions and sexual identity over time, how the participants explained and interpreted any changes they had undergone, and the likelihood of their sexual identity changing in the future.
Focused coding. Diamond (2003a) identified the following specific themes regarding current perceptions of sexual identity and changes: ambivalence about labeling; uncertainty about the future [in terms of changes in sexual identity]; labels are limiting; love depends on the 120 person, not gender; and sexuality is fluid. The three focused coding themes that were most prevalent in participants’ narratives in the current study were ambivalence about labeling; uncertainty about the future; and love depends on the person, not gender.
Ambivalence about labeling. This theme was coded as feeling ambivalent or negative toward the process of labeling, including disliking or being unsure about labels or the idea of labeling. Many participants expressed this sentiment by saying they were not a “big fan of labels”, “anti-label”, “don’t need a label”, or simply “I’m not much of a label person.” A female participant said in the context of a specific attraction, “I didn’t care about the label, I just liked her.” Josh, who identified his sexual identity using a variety of labels to himself and other people, described his ambivalence about labeling as an uncertainty about how to describe or identify his sexuality,
I don’t like to label my sexual identity, ‘cause I’m not sure even…how to identify my sexuality…I used to think about it a lot, but I try not to think about it anymore, because it’s just…I don’t know. It’s hard for me to put my attractions into words, and I just prefer not to. So I label my identity for the benefit of others, not for myself…It doesn’t matter to me, because…it’s how I feel more than how I describe how I feel.
Heather is a 26-year-old transgender person, who identifies her14 gender identity as gender queer lady, and her sexual identity as unlabeled to herself; and variously as pansexual, mostly straight, or queer to other people. She noted the limitations of the [English] language in describing her sexuality, “I get so frustrated with language that I generally just don’t like labeling it to myself and just leave it up to what I feel like that day, if people ask me about it.”
Identifying one’s sexual identity as unlabeled has been gaining popularity over the past couple decades. In Diamond’s (2008a) longitudinal study, she reported that by the end of the 10-
14 Pronouns used for transgender people in the current study were identified by participants themselves. 121 year study, 80% of sexual minority women had adopted a bisexual or unlabeled identity at some point in time. In a study comparing lesbian, bisexual, and unlabeled women, findings indicated that unlabeled women were less likely to view sexual orientation as fixed; compared to the other two groups (Brooks & Quina, 2009). Considering that participants in Study 2 comprised people who reported sexual fluidity in Study 1, it makes sense that sexually fluid people would be more likely to feel ambivalent about labeling, even to the point of using an unlabeled identity.
Previous research on people with unlabeled sexual identities has focused on women; a search of the PsycINFO database using the search terms sexual identity and unlabeled, revealed a small number of studies, all of which used exclusively female samples (e.g., Diamond, 2000;
Brooks & Quina, 2009). In the current study, one of the most noteworthy examples of ambivalence about labeling was feeling resistance toward society’s need to label. John, who I previously described as using a queer label to himself, and an unlabeled or queer label to other people, explained his frustration with other people’s need to label,
When I first dealt with it, it really was like you need to check a check-box, you need to either be gay, straight or bi – those are your check boxes. And you know, bi was even kind-of a half-assed check-box, you know, ‘Well you’ll get there.’ And I think for a while I tried to fit into one of those check-boxes and make that happen. And after a while I was like ‘Fuck it, I don’t care,’ you know, it’s my business, and it’s not anyone else’s business…I don’t feel the need to adopt labels, and you know, conduct myself in a certain way, to please other people, so that my sexuality is a really compartmentalized and easy to digest thing for you.
Another male participant described a similar resistance toward labeling, “I’m the type of person that I just do whatever I think and people can adapt or get lost.”
Uncertainty about the future. This theme was coded as expressing uncertainty about whether sexual orientation (attractions or sexual identity) will change in the future. Heather, 122 whom I previously described as a gender queer lady, explained her uncertainty about future changes in her attractions or sexual identity,
It’s hard to say whether it will change or not. I do feel with time that it has become more specific and I have kind of reached a point in my learning that I feel like I have a decent grasp of what gender and sexuality mean to me, and how I would describe that, but there’s always new terms and new academic findings that might make me think more or deeper. I also know that talking with older friends, is like a lot of the stuff is figured out in your twenties and once you hit a later age, you’ll feel comfortable in that setting but who knows. I don’t know how closed off my mind will become, or like how final that will be? So, so it’s hard to say.
Brooks and Quina’s (2009) study comparing lesbian, bisexual, and unlabeled women also revealed that unlabeled women were more likely than the other two groups to believe that their sexual identity will change in the future. As mentioned above, unlabeled women in their study were also less likely to view sexual orientation as fixed. It makes sense that people who have previously experienced changes in their attractions or sexual identity would also be uncertain whether these aspects of their sexual orientation will change in the future. Future sexual identity is discussed in more detail below.
Love depends on the person, not gender. This theme was coded as expressing the idea that love depends on an individual person rather than their gender, or that gender is an unimportant factor in participants’ attraction to others. Participants described feeling that gender is not “the first and most important factor” in attraction, or that “there’s more things to be attracted to than just [gender]”. As Heather stated, “It’s more like attraction to a person and their personality, behavior, actions, knowledge and not necessarily the gender label that’s attached to them.” John described the relevance of gender for attraction, “I find, gender matters, but it’s definitely not the first priority on the list for me…In terms of attraction, I just like beautiful things, and I don’t really classify those in men or women. I find both of them beautiful.” 123
A third difference among the groups in Brooks and Quina’s (2009) study was that unlabeled women were more likely to focus on the person rather than the gender, compared to lesbian and bisexual women. Considering the link between sexual fluidity and using an unlabeled identity (e.g., Diamond’s 2008a study), it follows that sexually fluid people would also be more focused on the person rather than the gender in their attractions. In her book on sexual fluidity, Diamond (2008b) devoted an entire chapter to what she termed person-based attractions. She found that in her longitudinal study, approximately half of her sample reported some degree of person-based attractions (Diamond, 2008a). In her book, Diamond (2008b) conceptualized person-based attractions in two ways: 1) as a fourth sexual orientation (in addition to heterosexual, gay/lesbian, and bisexual), describing people who do not consider gender to be important to their desire or attraction, or 2) as an independent characteristic of sexuality that everyone possesses to a certain degree, similar to other aspects of sexuality like sex drive. Although participants’ narratives in the current study did not shed light on how person- based attractions should be conceptualized in the larger sense, many participants did describe this as an experience related to sexual fluidity.
The three focused codes that were most prevalent in participants’ narratives – ambivalence about labeling; uncertainty about the future; and love depends on the person, not gender – all represent individual factors within the facilitative environments model. Each theme reflects the participant’s feelings and beliefs about labeling, change in attractions and identity, or the importance of gender to attraction. These themes were identified within the broader category of current perceptions of sexual identity and changes. Therefore, each of these individual factors 124 serves as an interpretation of each person’s sexual identity and sexual fluidity, as well as identifying specific factors that may be linked to sexual fluidity.
Open-coding. In the process of open coding, current perceptions of sexual identity and changes became the most complex category, with nine higher order themes and 101 specific themes within the larger category. The higher order themes were: bisexuality, facilitating environment, gender transition, intentional labeling, reason for labeling, queer identity, sexual orientation-based victimization, social norms, and future sexual identity. Some specific themes were not associated with higher order themes, but were categorized within current perceptions of sexual identity and changes. Only higher order themes and specific themes that were most prevalent in participants’ narratives in the current study are discussed.15 The higher order themes from open coding that were most prevalent in participants’ narratives in the current study were bisexuality, facilitating environment, intentional labeling, reason for labeling, social norms, and future sexual identity. The most prevalent specific themes from open coding that were not associated with higher order themes were exploring sexuality and contextual labeling.
Bisexuality. Bisexuality was coded as mentioning any aspect of bisexuality, such as how it is defined or specific stereotypes and perceptions associated with bisexuality. The specific themes within bisexuality that were most prevalent in participants’ narratives were definition of bisexuality, biphobia, and stereotypes and perceptions. Definition of bisexuality was coded as ways in which participants defined the concept of bisexuality or the bisexual label. The concept of bisexuality was variously defined in participants’ narratives as: person-based attraction (e.g.,
15 Although a number of specific themes not associated with higher order themes were prevalent in participants’ narratives (e.g., comfort and discomfort with sexual minority status; coming out as a difficult process; and concealment of sexual identity, attractions or relationship), a discussion of these themes is beyond the scope of the current project. 125
“It’s not really important what the sex of the person is, it’s who the person is that I’m attracted to”); attraction to both women and men in theory, but not in practice (sexual behavior); attraction to same-gender and other-gender people; “interest in both genders”; both attraction and sexual behavior (e.g., “I get attracted by girls and I get attracted to guys too. And I had sex with both girls and sex with guys before.”); or as one participant simply stated, “I was attracted to both men and women.” Notably, participants distinguished between how “most people” define bisexuality and how they define it for themselves. Josh, who currently identifies his sexual identity as bisexual or queer to himself; and gay, queer, or bisexual to others, described this distinction,
For me [bisexual] means varying degrees of attraction in men and women. It doesn’t have to be equally attracted to either, but there has to be some kind of really real interest in either having sexual relations or having just a relationship with someone, no matter of the gender. But gender is important. Like when you date a man, you’re dating a man. Or if you’re dating a woman, you’re dating a woman. That’s a clear distinction…and it can be varying degrees. If you’re bisexual you can be mostly interested in men and also date women sometimes, or have sex with women, or mostly interested in women, but you still sometimes have relationships with men. So, for me it doesn’t have to be a black and white clear-cut division, but I think a lot of people see it as that, and that’s why I don’t like that, because that’s not how it is for me.
Regardless of how individual participants defined bisexuality for themselves, most people who mentioned bisexuality seemed to agree that other people define it as equal attraction or romantic interest in women and men.
Differences in definitions of bisexuality were also specific to the bisexual label, which were in turn related to how comfortable participants felt using the label for themselves. Some participants felt that the label was inclusive and aptly described their experiences (e.g., “I just go by bisexual…’Cause it makes me feel the least limited, maybe a little oppressed, but not really limited…anyone I’m attracted to is not conflicting with [the] label I’ve chosen”); whereas other 126 participants felt that it was restrictive. Nicole is a 22-year-old white/Latina transgender person, who identifies her gender identity as gender queer, and her sexual identity as queer to herself, and queer or bi to other people. In response to the interview question about the three people to whom she has been the most attracted, she responded with her first boyfriend, her current girlfriend, and her previous girlfriend who identified as gender queer. Nicole described feeling limited by the bisexual label,
I had problems with that word because when I was dating [partner who identified as gender queer], I was like, ‘Well not everybody is a man or a women,’…And I was definitely attracted to other trans people, so the word bi seemed kind of limiting.
Biphobia was coded as prejudice or discrimination toward bisexual ideas or people, such as feeling that society “demonizes women who have sex with men who have sex with men”, noticing a “social stigma” toward bisexuality in the sense that “guys are okay with dating bisexual women, but women are not as okay with dating bisexual men”, and feeling that
“bisexuals are the most stigmatized of the group.” Previous research has demonstrated that bisexual people are more likely to experience victimization than other sexual orientation groups
(Russell & Seif, 2002; Udry & Chantala, 2002). Specifically, a recent meta-analysis of sexual orientation-based victimization indicated that bisexual people experienced more threats, physical assault, and weapon assault than lesbian and gay participants, although the differences between the two groups were small (Katz-Wise & Hyde, 2012).
In participants’ narratives, the theme of biphobia often overlapped with the specific theme of stereotypes and perceptions of bisexuality, coded for any mention of (positive or negative) stereotypes and perceptions associated with bisexuality or bisexual people.
Participants mentioned a number of stereotypes and perceptions: bisexual people are “unsure” or 127
“equally attracted to both genders”, bisexual women are promiscuous (e.g., “If you’re a bisexual women, you’re a slut”), and the perception that bisexuality is a transitional sexual identity (“a phase”) between completely heterosexual and completely homosexual/gay/lesbian. Jessica, whom I described as currently questioning her sexual identity, explained the perception of bisexuality as a transitional identity and how it related to her own sexual identity development,
I was considering [using a bisexual label]; I wasn’t like one-hundred percent…there’s so much rhetoric that circulates about, ‘Girls just have this phase and don’t worry you grow out of it.’ So I was kind of hesitant to cement it to myself, ‘cause I was like ‘Well, it’s probably just this thing that everybody goes through,’ but the more I’ve learned, the more that’s not true.
John described how he chose to identify as queer instead of bisexual because of the transitional identity stereotype,
[Bisexuality] is a loaded term…I still consider myself ‘bisexual’, but I think people when you say, ‘Oh, I’m bisexual,’ there’s this connotation with it. Like if you’re a man…I find a lot of people like, ‘Oh, are you still pretending to be bi?’ Like you’re just not all the way out yet…you know, I’ve been out for three going on four years now…I’ve made peace with myself over this. If I was just gay, I would be just gay now, but you know, that’s not what I am…I encountered people who, when you say bisexual were just like, ‘Oh that’s like, you’re just a fag who isn’t out yet.’
Interestingly, these same stereotypes and perceptions were mentioned in women’s narratives in
Bode’s (1979) now-classic book View from Another Closet: Exploring Bisexuality in Women, as well as in a more recent mixed methods study of bisexuality that included focus group discussions (Barker, Bowes-Catton, Iantaffi, Cassidy, & Brewer, 2008), suggesting that negative ideas about bisexuality still exist in the current social climate.
One of the most noteworthy themes from the current study regarding stereotypes and perceptions of bisexuality was found in the narratives of sexual minority cisgender (non- transgender) men and transgender men. The majority of participants in these gender categories, 128 who discussed bisexuality, also discussed the exclusion of bisexual men within gay male communities. In particular, participants mentioned the perception that bisexuality is a transitional identity, and that gay men in particular seem to be proponents of this view of bisexuality in men. Jason is a 25-year-old white male, who identifies his sexual identity as bisexual to himself; but uses bisexual, unlabeled, and sometimes simply “I like guys” to identify his sexual identity to other people. He stated “...even gay guys stigmatize against bisexuals and actually they can be more discriminating than the straight community, which is surprising but true.” John described the reactions of gay men to his bisexual identity prior to identifying as queer,
Even gay men who, I was always taught were very accepting with sexual orientation, and it turns out they’re not, were very like, ‘Well I was bi once, you’ll come out of that’…I’ve had arguments with probably more gay people than anything…gay men will be like, ‘Oh, well I was, and now I’m not and you can’t possibly be, and you’ll get there eventually,’ and they’ll just argue with you to your face, and I’ve had to defend it to a few people.
Josh, who has had attractions toward and sexual behavior with both women and men, and typically identifies his sexual identity as bisexual or queer to himself, described going to the length of identifying as gay when he is around gay men because “most gay men that I have encountered just kind of refuse to accept that I could be interested in women.” Bisexuality may be a transitional identity for some men (and women), although not for all. Perhaps for gay men who previously identified as bisexual, it is hard to understand how other men could have a stable bisexual identity. Josh proposed a theory that male privilege and sexism are behind this phenomenon, positing that gay men take sexism to the extreme, such that they are not accepting of men who are interested in both men and women, 129
I’ve totally found that gay men are much more…unaccepting of other non-heterosexual identities…I think it has to do with privilege…because they’re men and they have male privilege, and there’s something weird that they think that you couldn’t be interested in a woman. I think it has to do with repressed sexism, but I’m not sure.
Another explanation could be related to the difficulty of developing and accepting a sexual minority identity for some people. In Ochs’ (1996) chapter on biphobia, she described how experiencing oppression from the larger society encourages the formation of tightly knit gay and lesbian communities with strict boundaries of insiders and outsiders. Bisexual people are problematic for gay and lesbian communities because they blur these boundaries, opening the community to further oppression. Negative feelings toward bisexuality may also be related to betrayal, in which lesbians and gay men feel that bisexual people are not fully committed to lesbian and gay communities, and thus might “choose” to leave them for the heterosexual world
(Ochs, 1996). Additionally, lesbians and gay men might feel resentment toward bisexual people who are able to take advantage of heterosexual privilege. These issues appeared in cisgender and transgender male participants’ narratives in the current study, more so than in women’s narratives.
In terms of the facilitative environments model, biphobia and negative stereotypes and perceptions of bisexuality may act at the intersection of individual, interpersonal and societal factors, to promote change in sexual identity – particularly in relinquishing a bisexual identity.
Interpersonally, a person may experience biphobia from another person or groups of people, which is based on larger societal stereotypes and perceptions of bisexuality. This in turn, may cause the individual person to reject a bisexual identity on a cognitive level, perhaps in favor of using another less stigmatized identity, such as unlabeled. 130
Facilitating environment. Facilitating environment was coded in the same way here as it was coded for context of first questioning sexual identity; but in terms of providing a context that prompted changes in attractions and sexual identity, rather than initial questioning of sexual identity. The specific themes within facilitating environment that were most prevalent in participants’ narratives were exposure to a specific label, Gender and Women’s Studies, going to college, involvement with the LGBTQ community, LGBTQ friends, and meeting or attraction to an other-gender person. Each of these themes was coded if it prompted a change in the participant’s attractions or sexual identity.
The first three themes (exposure to a specific label, Gender and Women’s Studies, and going to college) can be categorized more broadly as learning about sexual minority ideas.
Exposure to a specific label was coded as learning about or “discovering” a specific sexual identity label (e.g., queer) through various means, such as friends, reading, or taking a class.
Jennifer, who identifies as a lesbian to herself and others, described the process of learning about lesbian and queer labels as “developing a vocabulary”. Gender and Women’s Studies was coded as taking a specific course in Gender and Women’s Studies, majoring in this field, or mentioning it more generally. Going to college was coded as attending college or university, or taking college courses. For example, Nicole, who is gender queer and often uses a queer label to identify her sexual identity, attributed her fluidity in sexual identity labels to learning about the label “queer” in college classes, “The shift in labels is directly related to my Women’s Studies classes, and learning about the politics of the word queer and the history of that. ‘Cause I wouldn’t have learned that from, I don’t know, a book or something.” 131
The next two themes (involvement with the LGBTQ community and LGBTQ friends) can be categorized as exposure to LGBTQ people. These themes were similar to those coded in the context of first questioning, but here they were coded in the context of current perceptions of sexual identity and change. Involvement with the LGBTQ community was coded as any involvement with sexual and/or gender minority communities, including volunteering at an
LGBTQ campus or community center or being in “queer spaces.” The theme of LGBTQ friends was coded as exposure to LGBTQ ideas through meeting or knowing sexual or gender minorities. Nicole described her involvement in the Gay Straight Alliance (GSA) at her high school as a facilitating factor in her sexual identity development that allowed her to be open about her sexual minority status, “I never had this hidden thing; it was pretty immediate. It’s possible that being in the GSA made me more gay than I would have been on my own.” Jennifer also described how her involvement in the LGBTQ community helped shape her sexual identity development,
I also think finding a community of people, where I had moved into that feminist house, and had friends who were lesbians, or friends who were queer, vs. earlier in my life, where those words they weren’t part of the vocabulary, that wasn’t a part of my world, you know. It was something that was very far removed…I think just my ability to understand myself, you know, as reflected in a community of people.
Involvement with LGBTQ community may also confer psychological benefits for sexual minority people who feel a sense of attachment to this group. In a study of social identity and psychological well-being in ethnic and sexual minorities, the process of exploring and understanding the history and contributions of one’s minority group and understanding the meaning of a minority identity to one’s personal life, resulted in positive feelings and a greater sense of attachment to the minority group (Ghavami, Fingerhut, Peplau, Grant, & Wittig, 2011). 132
Furthermore, these positive feelings toward the minority group were associated with greater satisfaction with life, higher self-esteem, fewer depressive symptoms, and less anxiety.
Therefore, not only can involvement with LGBTQ communities provide a facilitative context within which identity development and sexual fluidity can occur, but it is also related to greater psychological well-being.
The final theme was meeting or attraction to an other-gender person. This theme was coded as exposure to an other-gender person of romantic interest that prompted a change in a participant’s attractions or sexual identity. This theme was typically coded in cases in which a participant initially adopted a sexual minority identity, such as completely homosexual/gay/lesbian, but then met a person of another gender who they were attracted to, which prompted a renewed questioning of sexual identity, resulting in use of more inclusive labels such as mostly homosexual/gay/lesbian or bisexual. Will, who currently identifies his sexual identity as somewhere between bisexual and gay to himself, and as gay to other people, mapped his sexual fluidity in such a way,
Questioning from, you know, birth, to [age] 14 or so, and then…from 14 to, until I met [a woman]…I labeled myself as gay. [The woman] was another questioning period. Then once that came to terms…I was a little unsure about how to identify, except that I do have a little bit of attraction to women, and that’s where I am now.
This situation represents how the process of sexual fluidity might progress for some people.
Specifically, a change in attractions (prompted by meeting an other-gender person of interest, in this case) precedes a change in sexual identity labels.
As within the context of first questioning sexual identity, the theme of facilitating environment played out in a similar fashion in current perceptions of sexual identity and changes. In particular, for both initial questioning of sexual identity and subsequent sexual 133 fluidity, the facilitative environments model suggests that exposure to specific contextual factors prompts development and change. This was apparent in the various contextual factors described in this section, such as learning about a specific label or being involved with LGBTQ communities and people, that participants’ interpreted as influencing their sexual identity development and sexual fluidity.
Intentional labeling. Intentional labeling was coded as using particular labels intentionally; for example, to identify with a particular community or its politics, or because the label validated the participant’s gender identity. Melissa is a 24-year-old white woman, who currently identifies her sexual identity as gay or queer to herself, and as gay or lesbian to other people. During the interview, she explained preferring the label gay because although it technically means same-gender relations, she feels that it confers a slight flexibility in accommodating future attractions to men, whereas she feels like the label lesbian is more rigid.
Melissa described validation of her gender identity as follows,
I identify as gay. I do that more so than lesbian, I think because that implies femininity to me, and I prefer kind of more neutral sex identification. I don’t identify as man, or male, or masculine, but I don’t strictly, I guess, want to be ascribed to all [aspects] of the feminine role, like feminine characteristics that go along with that.
The specific theme within intentional labeling that was most prevalent in participants’ narratives was inclusivity of label, which was coded when a participant used a label intentionally because it was inclusive of multiple sexual and/or gender identities. David is a 26-year-old Native
American male, who currently identifies his sexual identity as sexually fluid. During the interview, he talked about questioning his gender identity, but said that he currently identifies as male. David explained how he and his female partner use the term sexually fluid to describe their sexual identity because it means that “we are open to all forms of gender and sexual 134 orientation…we feel attraction towards a person that defines oneself as transsexual, transgendered, or bisexual, or cisgendered, or whatnot; it’s all encompassing.”
Reason for labeling. Reason for labeling was coded as reasons given for using specific labels, such as the convenience or flexibility of a label, the definition of a label, or using a label because of negativity associated with other labels (e.g., bisexuality). The specific themes within reason for labeling that were most prevalent in participants’ narratives were convenience of label and definition of label. Convenience of label was coded when participants used a specific label because it was convenient or “readily available”. As a male participant said, “Bisexual is more convenient ‘cause people are more familiar with it than queer.” Definition of label was coded when participants used a specific label because they agreed with its definition or felt that the label’s definition fit with their own experiences. Josh explained why he sometimes prefers to use the label queer instead of bisexual, “It’s vague. I like that…people have their own ideas about what queer identity is, so I like that. It’s appealing because I don’t have to conform to someone’s preconceived notions of what sexual identity is.”
Social norms. The theme of social norms was coded when participants mentioned the larger societal context as it relates to expectations for gender, sexuality, and sexual identity labeling. The specific themes within social norms that were most prevalent in participants’ narratives were gendered norms of appearance and heteronormativity. The theme of gendered norms of appearance was coded for any mention of gendered social norms related to appearance, such as societal definitions of female beauty (e.g., long blond hair, thin body type, wearing make-up). Both of the gender queer participants, Nicole and Heather, talked about gendered norms of appearance in relation to their queer identity in a gender identity sense. Nicole 135 described her struggle with wanting to identify as queer, but not being sure that she looked the part,
I think some people, like [previous partner who identified as gender queer] and the queer community probably would look at me and say ‘You look too straight to have that word,’ or, ‘You can’t be gender queer because you look too much like a girl.’ But I want those words for me, and I’ve thought about, I’ve kind of tried to embody them a little bit better. But then I realized that that’s beside…the point, and I think that those words should be available to me, so I’m going to use them.
Nicole’s description of her thought processes reflects norms of appearance that exist within sexual and gender minority communities that reject gendered norms of appearance in the larger society. As Nicole said, “’You can’t be gender queer because you look too much like a girl.’”
This suggests an interpersonal factor intersecting with individual and societal factors to influence how Nicole presents her gender identity and queerness. At the time of the interview, Nicole had long curly hair and was wearing fitted clothing. I asked Nicole in what ways she has try to embody a gender queer identity, and she responded,
I don’t know, just kind of trying to physically and visibly be, like look more queer. And that’s really a messed up thing, ‘cause what does that mean? Does that mean I should cut my hair? How should I cut my hair? Do I actually really want to cut my hair? You know, and then, it’s messed up to think that you’re only going to look like a queer person if you have short hair; it’s not really fair. But yeah, so I mean…I have to find ways to look queer, because I don’t want to walk into a queer space and have people say, ‘Who’s the straight girl?’ It’s really important to me to look queer, and then on the other hand, you know, that’s bullshit, and I just should look like myself too.
During my interview with Heather, I asked how her gender queer identity intersects (or does not intersect) with labels that she uses to describe her sexual identity. She responded that using gender queer in combination with sexual identities such as queer or pansexual made sense to her because she thinks of gender and sexuality as a spectrum or continuum. As she continued 136 talking to me, the complexity and confusion around gender and sexuality terminology as it relates to gendered norms of appearance, became apparent,
I get this like weird reaction in my head when I try to use mostly straight, ‘cause what does that mean? What does that mean when my gender is not…that’s why I start getting confused. Like what is straight, what is queer? And what is homosexual, heterosexual when on any given day I feel like on this crazy spectrum? Like there’s days where I’m like ‘Wow do I feel very lady-like?’ and I [say], ‘Let’s just, why don’t you put your suit on and I’ll put my dress on and we’ll go have dinner at a fancy restaurant and we’ll be heterosexual for the day,’…but it’s also like an act…Gender to me is just like, I’m really into like costuming and like role playing and…gender is another part of that. But most of society doesn’t see it that way.
Nicole’s descriptions of trying – and therefore, having the agency – to “look more queer” and
Heather’s association of gender with costuming and role playing is reminiscent of Butler’s
(1990) theory of gender performativity. Butler proposed that gender is continuously being socially constructed and performed, through specific gender acts. Nicole and Heather talked about how they perform gender in a queer sense, within constraints that have been set up on both interpersonal levels, as in Nicole’s reference to the “queer community”, and on larger societal levels in Heather’s description of being “heterosexual for the day” by putting on a dress and appearing in public with her (presumably cisgender male, as she described the majority of her partners) partner.
Heteronormativity was coded when participants mentioned social norms related to heterosexuality as the assumed standard; for example, learning as a child that people can only fall in love with or become married to person of the other-gender, or originally identifying as straight because “that’s the default”. As one participant said, “…we’re so enshrined in this sort of ‘straight until proven otherwise’ mentality that it takes a while to be able to find some distance 137 from that.” Nicole talked about heteronormativity in the context of the shifts in her sexual identity,
The shift from being more straight-identified to queer-identified? I don’t know; it might have had something to do with like just believing that being straight was more acceptable, and being bi is just kind of acceptable, but being a lesbian is not acceptable at all. You know, it’s kind of cute if a girl wants to be bi…some people will not be threatened by it, but it’s very threatening to be a lesbian. So I think there was some [part of] me trying to be safe in high school, by just kind of thinking of myself as more straight, ‘Oh, it’s okay. I’m really more straight than anything else.’
Nicole’s description of her sexual identity development also reflects perceptions of using bisexuality as a transitional identity between straight and lesbian because it is viewed as more socially acceptable.
Heteronormativity was also described in the context of gender transitioning for transgender participants. Chris is a 21-year-old white transgender person, who identifies his gender identity as trans male, and currently identifies his sexual identity variously as gay, homosexual, or queer to himself and to other people. During the interview, he told me about transitioning from female to male, and how his sexual identity shifted from straight to gay during the process of socially transitioning. For him, this was a shift in his sexual identity labels, but not in his attractions, which had always been toward cisgender men at this point in his life. Chris described heteronormative reactions to his gender transition,
I would come out to people as trans and now male…and I would either offer up that I was also attracted men or they would ask, ‘What does that mean about your sexuality? Does that mean you like women?’ ‘No, I like guys, I'm gay.’
Gendered norms of appearance and heteronormativity both represent societal factors within the facilitative environments model. These factors create a set of opportunities and constraints for appearance and behavior that become the context within which sexual identity 138 develops and changes. Danny is a 26-year-old white transgender person, who identifies his gender identity as FTM (female-to-male) transsexual, and his sexual identity as bisexual both to himself and to other people. Mapping his sexual fluidity was challenging, because he had changed identity labels no less than five separate times: straight to bi at age 13, bi to gay at age
18, gay to bisexual around ages 23 to 24, bisexual to pansexual (for two months) at age 24, and pansexual back to bisexual, also at age 24. Danny described his realization of attractions toward women as being related to gendered norms of appearance for women,
I’m not really attracted to ‘traditionally attractive’ women. And so attraction to women was, it seemed incidental because…when I think about women – like many people, I default on a particular standard of beauty, which is white, blonde, playboy model type people. But I’m not attracted to them physically…just thinking about stereotypical mental image of ‘woman’, I’m not attracted to that. So when I think ‘Am I attracted to women at all? No I’m not.’ But if I look to other categories of women, I’m attracted to butch women, I’m attracted to women of color, I’m attracted to women with alternative styles, and etc.
This illustrates a case in which Danny’s realization that he was attracted to women who were not stereotypically attractive, allowed him to broaden his sexual identity, resulting in a shift from using the label gay to using bisexual. In this sense, the societal context of gendered norms of appearance intersected with Danny’s individual realization of these norms, thereby allowing for a change in sexual identity to occur.
Future sexual identity. This theme was coded for discussions of change and stability in future attractions and sexual identity, as well as participants’ speculations about particular factors in the future that could cause their sexuality to change, such as having a partner of a particular gender, or living in a more or less restrictive social environment. The specific themes within future sexual identity that were most prevalent in participants’ narratives were future change in attractions, future change in labels, stable future attractions or orientation, stable future identity, 139 and open to future changes. Future change in attractions and future change in labels were coded when participants believed that their attractions or sexual identity might change in the future; whereas stable future attractions or orientation and stable future identity were coded when participants believed that their attractions or sexual identity would not change in the future.
Mike, who currently identifies his sexual identity as gay or unlabeled to himself, stated, “As far as labels go, if a more convenient one comes up that just means I strongly prefer men over women and that’s it, then yeah maybe I’ll use that label.” In response to the question “How likely do you think it is that your sexual identity [in terms of labels or underlying attractions] will change any more in the future?” Danny, who reported five previous sexual identity shifts, answered as follows,
I keep thinking that it could, because every once in a while I’m tricked into thinking that I’m gay again, and then I’m pulled back. So it is within the realm of possibility that at some point I will re-identify as gay. I don’t think that I would ever identify as straight, because there is no way that I’m not attracted to men. And if it, if I did that would be a legitimate actual change in sexual orientation, which I don’t think happens often, although I’ll concede that it probably does. And if it does change, I think it would be more in details than in actual gender and sexual identity.
However, some participants answered the question with a response that change was not likely: “I don’t think labels will change. I think gay is a pretty happy medium for me”; or as one participant responded, “Not likely. I’m pretty set.” James, a cisgender male, answered the question in relation to gender, “I don't think it's very likely right now, but I couldn’t say. I don't know if I'm open to the idea of being with someone of a different gender identity than male, at this point in my life.”
Open to future changes was coded when participants expressed openness toward the possibility of change, either in attractions or sexual identity: e.g., “I’m not restricting myself”; 140
“I’m not going to dig out a path for myself; whatever happens, happens”; or as another participant said, “at least theoretically, change is inevitable.” Nicole, who described two previous sexual identity shifts (straight to bi at age 16, and bi to queer at age 21), stated,
I’m not ruling out eventually dating men again or just one perhaps in the future, and if I did date a man, I think I would still be queer, but I don’t know. There would be straightness going on anyway, I don’t know, undeniably.
David, who described two previous sexual identity shifts (straight to bisexual around ages 24 to
25, and bisexual to sexually fluid around ages 25 to 26), was not only open to future change, but desired it,
I hope it changes greatly. I hope to see a further evolution in my sexuality and gender…I hope to be able to be with the opposite sex, to engage sexually with the opposite sex, or with the same sex…and engage with individuals that don’t necessarily define themselves with a sex: transgender, transsexual individuals, sexless individuals, just really exploring all bounds and territories.
Much of what participants mentioned in relation to future sexual identity is in line with the facilitative environments model. The primary factor was on the individual level, in terms of a person’s beliefs that change is possible (or not possible), and a willingness to be open to future changes. For some participants, the individual factor intersected with their prospective social environment, such as having a future partner of a particular gender that might influence their sexual identity. For other participants, the individual factor intersected with larger sociocultural factors. Lian is a 22-year-old Asian female, who currently identifies her sexual identity as bisexual to herself and to other people. She grew up in China and moved to the U.S. to attend undergraduate school. She plans to eventually return to China and anticipated that living in a culture that is less accepting of same-gender female relationships would likely affect her future 141 sexual identity and relationships. Despite telling me that she has stronger attractions toward women than men, Lian stated,
I feel like [it’s] kind of not very realistic…I think just in terms of possibility, it’s just a lot easier I feel like, to end up with a guy than a girl. So it might be, at the end if I just don’t see the probability to be with a girl, then maybe I won’t try to pursue it in the end.
Thus, for Lian, Chinese culture represents a larger sociocultural factor that has the potential to limit future possibilities for her sexual identity. Lian was the only participant who discussed ethnic identity in relation to her sexual identity; therefore, no other themes emerged for this association.
Specific themes not associated with higher order themes. Open coding revealed two specific themes that were prevalent, but not part of higher order themes: exploring sexuality and contextual labeling. Exploring sexuality was coded when participants explained their sexual identity development or changes in their attractions and sexual identity as an exploratory process.
In terms of sexual identity development, it was common among participants to describe parts of the process as exploratory or experimental in nature. David, who currently identifies as sexually fluid, explained his early attractions toward men in this way,
I’m not sure…if there was an attraction more than just the experimentation, and you know, just the curiosity, in more a sense of like a taboo, or something that I was crossing. Kind of like, Edgar Allen Poe mentioned, the kind of supernal delights, or something. I’m not sure what it was, but I was very sexually active and had a lot of sexual energy, as a young kid. So I exhibited it in a lot of different expressions and ways.
Jason, who described three previous shifts in sexual identity (straight to gay during high school, gay to bisexual during undergraduate, and bisexual to unlabeled currently), described his current sexual identity developmental process as exploratory and related it to the possibility of further changes, “I’m still exploring, but in terms of identity I don’t think it’s changing much, if nothing 142 else solidifying it.” Jason’s description is distinct from other participants’ narratives of future change, because of his use of the term “exploring.” Heather, who described three previous shifts in sexual identity (straight to questioning around ages 14 to 15, questioning to mostly straight at age 20, and mostly straight to pansexual/queer around ages 22 to 25), similarly described the current state of her sexual identity development, “I’m still learning and changing, and trying to figure out things. And I don’t like the word questioning, but like…self-reflection really, and self-exploration.” In a facilitative environments model sense, exploring sexuality represents an individual factor intersecting with an interpersonal factor, as participants explore their sexuality with other people through sexual behavior and thinking about their own sexual identities.
Contextual labeling was coded when participants used different sexual identity labels when talking to different people (e.g., “sometimes I use the word bi, when the word queer might be too scary, for my Grandma or something”), or when they were in different situations. Josh, who identifies as bisexual or queer to himself, said “It depends on who I’m talking to” and went on to describe the situations in which he uses the labels bisexual vs. queer vs. gay to describe his sexual identity to others,
Okay, it’s about to get a little bit complicated, because…I use a lot of identities. I think when I’m talking to my straight friends I use bisexual, ‘cause it’s easier for them to understand, ‘cause they don’t think about gender…or sexual identity too much. My non- heterosexual friends, it’s kind of hard…with most gay men, I say I’m gay…anyone who’s not in one of those two distinctions, like they’re heterosexual and they don’t think about gender a lot, or if they’re not gay, then I tend to use bisexual or queer depending on who it is. I use queer if I know it’s someone who studies gender, and I use bisexual if it’s someone who doesn’t study gender.
Josh’s description helps to illustrate the complexity of sexual identity labels, such that preference for a particular label because of its ability to fully describe one’s sexual orientation (e.g., queer), does not always translate into easy usage of the label with other people. Other participants 143 explained taking extra pains to describe a more complex sexual identity when it is a person they know well. As John said, “If it’s someone that I trust and think I’ll have a decent friendship with, then I’ll probably give them the long form answer…I’m more homosexual than heterosexual, but that still falls under the realm of bisexual, and I call it queer.”
Participants’ descriptions of contextual labeling can also be conceptualized within the framework of Orne’s (2011) theory of strategic outness. Orne explained strategic outness as the contextual and continual management of sexual identity, placing emphasis on the role of social context in sexual identity disclosure. Joe is a 20-year-old white male, who currently identifies his sexual identity as bisexual or unlabeled to himself, and bisexual or mostly heterosexual to other people. He initially recognized his attractions toward men somewhat recently, within a few years prior to the interview, in the context of his interest in a particular style of Japanese music
(“Japanese Kei”), in which male band members dress androgynously. Joe alluded to strategic outness, in describing with whom he shares his sexual identity,
Well if I’m just meeting the people and I don’t really know how they feel about everything, I will label it kind of as mostly heterosexual but not entirely, but just so they don’t go, ‘Oh you're weird I don’t want to get to know you’ or something. Though I don’t think most people I know would do that, it’s just sometimes I’m cautious about that. But then people I know much more, I will tell them more that I’m more bisexual, and I’m okay with that. So like, I think mostly it depends on how well I know the person.
Chris, a trans male who variously identifies as gay, homosexual, or queer to himself and others, described contextual labels somewhat differently in the context of his gender presentation as a transgender person. He explained using the labels gay and homosexual in different contexts as being related to the need to come out as a sexual minority, since he typically passed as a heterosexual cisgender man in appearance, 144
A lot of times I find that I have to come out to people, or else they just assume that I’m straight…whatever really fits the moment to sort of casually bring it up, ‘cause I don't want to have this big coming-out process to people that I don't really talk to that much, but I also would prefer to be included. Like I want them to know that I'm gay and I don't want them to just assume that I'm straight.
Chris’s description of feeling the need to come out as a sexual minority can also be interpreted as a desire to align with the LGBTQ community from a position of being perceived as heterosexual.
Thus, in light of the facilitative environments model, the interpersonal context acts as a factor within which changes in sexual identity – however brief – occur.
Strengths and Limitations
The current study provided an in-depth examination of sexual minority young adults’ experiences related to their sexual identity development and sexual fluidity. The qualitative design of this study allowed participants to be the experts, through using their own words to describe their experiences. I used purposive sampling to obtain representation of different sexual identities and a wide range of responses to the interview questions. A semi-structured interview format was used with specific probes to allow participants to fully elaborate their answers. In- person interviews created an environment of confidentiality and trust within which participants could freely share their thoughts and experiences with me. A specific strength of this study was using both focused coding to look for Diamond’s (1998, 2003a) themes, and open coding to explore new emergent themes. Open coding allowed me to expand on and elaborate Diamond’s findings and understand how participants in the current study might progress through sexual identity development and the process of sexual fluidity differently, compared to the women in
Diamond’s study. Furthermore, open coding enabled me to explore these processes in men and transgender people. 145
Another major strength of this study was its inclusion of four transgender-identified people. Although a number of themes arose during the open coding process that were unique to transgender experiences of sexual identity development and sexual fluidity, an in-depth exploration of these processes in transgender people was beyond the scope of the current project.
However, preliminary results indicated that sexual fluidity appears to operate somewhat differently in transgender people, in terms of changes in attractions and sexual identity as being related to gender transitioning. Thus, information gathered in this study about transgender people’s experiences can serve as initial data for future research on this topic.
Although the original intention of this study was not to focus on transgender people, a limitation of the study in terms of the transgender sample was that all participants were assigned female at birth, and both of the gender queer participants were female-bodied. However, I was limited by the particular sub-sample of participants from Study 1 who agreed to be interviewed for Study 2 and met the requirement of having experienced change in attractions over time. It would be useful for future research to include people with a wider range of transgender identities, to fully explore sexual fluidity in transgender people.
Another limitation was that I decided to conduct interviews in person, and thus was only able to interview participants who currently resided in Wisconsin. Of the sample in Study 1, approximately 12% of women and 10% of men lived in a U.S. state other than Wisconsin.
Unfortunately, I was not able to include their experiences in Study 2 for logistical reasons.
Future research would benefit from sampling sexual minorities who reside in different parts of the U.S. (or outside of the U.S.) to capture potential differences in sexual identity development and sexual fluidity. 146
The majority of people interviewed for Study 2 were Caucasian, although the sample did include a small number of participants of other ethnic backgrounds (see Table 14). Research on sexual fluidity in ethnic minority groups is limited; particularly studies using a qualitative approach (see Ephrem and White’s (2011) study of sexuality in five Ethiopian lesbians, for an exception). It would be useful to explore how sexual fluidity experiences might be different for people from various ethnic/racial and cultural backgrounds. For example, Lian described how her sexuality would likely change when she returned to China because she would be in a more restrictive environment that is not open to same-gender sexuality. It would be interesting to see if other people have similar experiences regarding sexuality and culture.
Finally, interviews in the current study represent only one snapshot of participants’ experiences of sexual identity development and sexual fluidity. Diamond (2008b) has demonstrated the importance of following participants longitudinally to fully capture changes in attractions and sexual identity as they evolve over time. All 18 of the people who participated in
Study 2 agreed to be contacted for participation in a future wave of data collection. Conducting follow-up interviews with the participants in future years will provide important information about how attractions and sexual identity continue to change in these individual people, and how their narratives develop over time.
Conclusions
The aim of Study 2 was to explore the processes of sexual identity development and sexual fluidity in a sub-sample of sexual minority young adults who completed Study 1. One goal was to identify whether themes from Diamond’s (1998, 2003a) research appeared in a new sample of women and men, and whether new themes emerged from participants’ narratives. 147
Another goal was to investigate how women, men, and transgender people experience and interpret sexual fluidity. Focused and open coding procedures yielded 22 focused codes and 198 open codes that were categorized into the following higher order themes: early indicators of sexual orientation, context of first questioning sexual identity, current perceptions of sexual identity and changes, context of first same-gender sexual experience, and context of most significant attachments; the first three higher order themes were explored in depth.
Although a number of Diamond’s (1998, 2003a) themes appeared in participants’ narratives in the current study (e.g., discussing sexual orientation with friends as providing a context for first questioning sexual identity, and ambivalence about labeling for current perceptions of sexual identity and changes), a number of new themes emerged from the data.
Some of the most noteworthy new themes were stereotypes and perceptions of bisexuality; social norms, such as heteronormativity, and using labels contextually. The facilitative environments model was developed to integrate these findings and provide an overall conceptual framework.
This model proposes that sexual identity development and sexual fluidity occur at the intersections of different contextual factors at the following three levels: individual (e.g., self- realization, awareness of attractions), interpersonal (e.g., social interactions), and societal (e.g., social and cultural norms). Participants’ experiences of sexual identity development and sexual fluidity can be understood within this theoretical framework.
The findings from the current study that newly emerged in comparison to Diamond’s
(1998, 2003a) findings, can be explained both in terms of the changing societal context, and the methodology used in the current study. Since Diamond conducted the first two waves of data collection for her longitudinal study (participants were originally recruited in 1995), a number of 148 changes have occurred regarding sexuality in the larger societal context. First, it has become more acceptable to be out as a sexual minority today, compared to the mid-1990s. A report from the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago, which used data from the General Social Survey, indicated a trend toward greater acceptance of same-gender sexual behavior between 1991 and 2010, and increasing support for gay marriage between 1988 and 2010 (Smith, 2011). Considering that some of the most notable themes that emerged from the data in the current study were related to heteronormativity and stereotypes about bisexuality, it is possible that as it becomes more acceptable for people to openly identify as a sexual minority, it also becomes more striking when someone displays negative attitudes toward a particular sexual identity or upholds ideas about heteronormativity. In other words, perhaps participants are more likely to recall these experiences because they seem unusual in today’s more accepting social climate. Second, perceptions of sexuality have moved toward a continuum-based view, rather than a categorical view, as evidenced by increased usage of sexual identity labels such as mostly heterosexual, mostly gay/lesbian, and queer. For example, a recent study of sexual orientation using data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent
Health (Add Health), found that mostly heterosexual was the second largest identity category after heterosexual, and it was larger than all other non-heterosexual identities combined (Savin-
Williams et al., 2012).
The differences in findings from the current study, compared to Diamond’s (1998, 2003a) findings, may also be explained in terms of differences in methodology. The interviews in the current study were all conducted with participants who had experienced sexual fluidity, whereas
Diamond’s interviews were conducted with both sexually fluid and non-sexually fluid women. It 149 is possible that the in-depth nature of the interviews in the current study as related to experiences of sexual fluidity brought forth themes that did not emerge in Diamond’s follow-up interviews with women in both sexual fluidity groups. Furthermore, the inclusion of men and transgender people in the current study was a clear departure from Diamond’s exclusively female sample.
Perhaps the new themes that emerged were a result of using a more gender diverse sample. This methodology allowed me to expand Diamond’s (2008b) model into the facilitative environments model, which can be applied to the experiences of sexual identity development and sexual fluidity in women, men, and transgender people.
In conclusion, Study 2 confirmed a number of themes from Diamond’s (1998, 2003a) previous research, and new themes were discovered. It is particularly noteworthy that both
Diamond’s themes and new themes were present in the narratives of women, men, and transgender people. A clear gender difference did not emerge in coding the themes, although some specific themes were more likely to occur in one gender group or another. For example, a number of themes pertained only to the experiences of transgender participants (e.g., gender transition, transphobia). For other themes, although the same theme was coded across genders, it was described differently in different gender groups. For instance, the theme of stereotypes and perceptions of bisexuality was typically described by male participants in terms of gay men’s responses to bisexual men, but the same theme was described by female participants more generally in terms of negative perceptions of bisexuality. The facilitative environments model provides a useful conceptual framework within which to understand experiences of sexual identity development and sexual fluidity in sexual minority young adults. Study 2 increases knowledge about these developmental processes and draws new conclusions about how sexual 150 identity labeling operates in sexual minorities in the current sociohistorical context, and how sexual minority people interpret and understand their experiences of sexual fluidity.
151
CHAPTER 4
General Discussion
Study 1 Revisited
Study 1 tested Diamond’s (2008b) model of sexual fluidity in female and male sexual minority young adults and examined contextual factors that might be related to sexual fluidity, in addition to providing a preliminary exploration of sexual fluidity interpretations. The specific research questions addressed in Study 1 were as follows: 1) Does Diamond’s model of sexual fluidity hold in a new sample of sexual minority women? 2) Does Diamond’s model of sexual fluidity apply to sexual minority men? 3) How is sexual fluidity related to different components of sexual orientation (sexual identity, sexual and romantic attraction, and sexual behavior)? 4)
How is sexual fluidity related to the process of sexual identity development? 5) How is sexual fluidity related to other contextual factors? And 6) How do the processes of sexual identity development and sexual fluidity differ by demographic characteristics such as gender, age, and sexual identity label?
Regarding questions 1 and 2, women and men in the current study had a similar prevalence of sexual fluidity, both between-genders and compared to the sexual minority women in Diamond’s (2008a) study. Regarding question 3, sexually fluid women used a range of sexual identities, whereas most men in the study identified as completely homosexual/gay. Sexually fluid women and men, and non-sexually fluid men had greater same-gender romantic and sexual attractions and sexual fantasies, whereas non-sexually fluid women were more likely to have other-gender attractions and fantasies. Sexually fluid women and men were more likely than 152 non-sexually fluid people to have past sexual behaviors with both genders; however, past romantic relationships and social preference for gender were not related to sexual fluidity.
Regarding question 4, sexual fluidity was not found to be related to traditional conceptualizations of sexual identity development, suggesting that it may constitute a separate process of sexuality and perhaps even a separate identity for some people. Regarding question 5, compared to non-sexually fluid people, sexually fluid women and men had greater identity uncertainty, were less likely to be out to the world and to members and leaders of their religious community, were more likely to endorse the belief that they are attracted to the person rather than the gender, and to believe that sexuality is changeable. Sexually fluid women had more positive attitudes toward bisexuality than non-sexually fluid women, but there was no difference for men. Family approval of sexuality, felt stigma, and sexual orientation-based victimization were unrelated to sexual fluidity. Regarding question 6, women were more likely to reach sexual identity developmental milestones at a later age and to be at a later phase of sexual identity development than men. Age and level of education were unrelated to gender or sexual fluidity.
Another goal of Study 1 was to provide a preliminary exploration of sexual fluidity interpretations, by examining whether themes from Diamond’s (2003a) research emerged in participants’ open-ended responses in the current study. The majority of people who were sexually fluid did not interpret changes in attractions and sexual identity, using themes reported in Diamond’s research. Of Diamond’s themes that did appear in participants’ responses, the most common was love depends on the person (rather than the person’s gender). New codes were created to capture newly emergent themes. The most common higher order theme coded for both women’s and men’s responses was self-awareness/beliefs, with the most common 153 specific theme within the higher order code being self-awareness/realization of attractions. The second most common higher order theme was romantic/sexual experiences for women and heteronormativity for men.
Study 2 Revisited
Study 2 explored the processes of sexual identity development and sexual fluidity in a sub-sample of sexual minority young adults who completed Study 1. One goal was to identify whether themes from Diamond’s (1998, 2003a) research appeared in a new sample of women and men, and whether new themes emerged from participants’ narratives. Another goal was to investigate how women, men, and transgender people experience and interpret sexual fluidity.
Focused and open codes were categorized into the following higher order themes: early indicators of sexual orientation, context of first questioning sexual identity, current perceptions of sexual identity and changes, context of first same-gender sexual experience, and context of most significant attachments. The first three higher order themes were explored in depth.
Regarding early indicators of sexual orientation, the three themes that were most prevalent in participants’ narratives were early same-gender attractions, early intentional same- gender sexual contact, and early questioning of sexual orientation. Context of first questioning sexual identity yielded two higher order themes: facilitating environment and same-gender attractions, with a number of specific themes (e.g., discussing sexual orientation with friends for facilitating environments, and awareness of same-gender sexual desires for same-gender attractions). Current perceptions of sexual identity and changes yielded different themes for focused and open-coding procedures. The three most prevalent themes from focused coding were ambivalence about labeling; uncertainty about the future; and love depends on the person, 154 not gender. For open coding, the most prevalent higher order themes were: bisexuality, facilitating environment, intentional labeling, reason for labeling, social norms, and future sexual identity. Two specific themes not associated with higher order themes were discussed: exploring sexuality and contextual labeling.
Many of Diamond’s (1998, 2003a) themes appeared in participants’ narratives in the current study, and a number of new themes emerged from the data. The facilitative environments model was developed to integrate these findings and provide an overall conceptual framework. This model proposes that sexual identity development and sexual fluidity occur at the intersections of different contextual factors at the following three levels: individual (e.g., self- realization, awareness of attractions), interpersonal (e.g., social interactions), and societal (e.g., social and cultural norms). Participants’ experiences of sexual identity development and sexual fluidity can be understood within this theoretical framework.
Integration of Studies 1 and 2
Although Studies 1 and 2 had different aims and addressed different research questions, a number of findings can be integrated.
Early Indicators of Sexual Orientation. In Study 1, items were developed to measure themes related to sexual identity development that Diamond (1998) found in her qualitative interviews at baseline. Items asked about the presence or absence of the following early indicators of sexual orientation before age 13: same-gender sexual or romantic attractions, fascination with same-gender bodies and beauty, gender atypicality, feeling different from other same-gender children, and disinterest (sic) in other-gender people. A scale of sexual identity development was created, with higher scores indicating greater sexual minority development 155 before age 13. In Study 1, participants’ mean scores on the sexual identity development scale were 3.83 (SD = 1.60) for women and 4.62 (SD = 1.59) for men, measured on a scale from 1
(completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree). These findings suggest that whereas men indicated greater sexual minority development before age 13 than women, neither gender group completely agreed with all statements about the presence or absence of early indicators of sexual orientation. Study 2 yielded themes within the larger category of early indicators of sexual orientation, with the three most prevalent themes being early same-gender attractions, early intentional same-gender sexual contact, and early questioning of sexual orientation. The first theme came from Diamond’s (1998) research, and I added the second two themes as they emerged in the data. The only overlapping early indicator of sexual orientation across Studies 1 and 2 was same-gender attractions.
In Study 1, participants’ mean scores for the item “I felt sexual or romantic attractions toward other women [men] before age 13” were 3.44 (SD = 2.29) for women and 4.77 (SD =
2.17) for men, measured on a scale from 1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree). This finding suggests that not all participants completely agreed with this item, such that they did not feel same-gender attractions before age 13. In light of this finding, it is interesting that one of the most prevalent themes in Study 2 within the larger category of early indicators of sexual orientation was experiencing early same-gender attractions. Considering that all Study 2 participants had experienced sexual fluidity, it is possible that sexually fluid people are more likely to experience early same-gender attractions. However, an independent samples t-test revealed that the difference in mean scores for the item from Study 1 was not significant for sexually fluid vs. non-sexually fluid people. In other words, in the larger Study 1 sample, 156 sexually fluid people were no more likely than non-sexually fluid people to report same-gender attractions before age 13.
In Diamond’s (1998) initial wave of data collection, she coded for early indicators of sexual orientation, as a way of measuring sexual identity development as it is traditionally conceptualized. Previous models of sexual identity development propose that a sexual minority identity begins forming early in life and proceeds through a series of stages (Cass, 1979; Meyer
& Schwitzer, 1999). From the findings in the current project, it appears as though many participants in the current sample are not following what Diamond (2008b) termed the “master narrative” of sexual identity development. Although some participants in both Study 1 and
Study 2 reported experiencing same-gender attractions before age 13, this was not the experience for all participants, who experienced same-gender attractions later in adolescence or more recently in young adulthood. Furthermore, findings from Study 1 indicated that sexual fluidity was not related to traditional conceptualizations of sexual identity development either in terms of the age at which participants reached various sexual identity developmental milestones, or in terms of phase of sexual identity development. These findings highlight the importance of considering individual differences when conducting research on sexual identity development in sexual minorities. Savin-Williams (2001) with Diamond (1999) argued for usage of a differential developmental trajectories perspective in studying development of sexual minority youth, suggesting that people in this group have a variety of developmental pathways. Findings from the current project regarding the variety of ways in which sexual minority people form a sexual minority identity, support this perspective. 157
Context of First Questioning Sexual Identity. In Study 1, items were developed to test
Diamond’s (1998) model of sexual identity development, by measuring the context of first questioning sexual identity. Items asked about the precipitation of sexual questioning by same- gender attractions vs. exposure to LGB ideas or people, and the presence or absence of same- gender attractions prior to the onset of sexual questioning. Participants could check as many items as applied to their experience of first questioning their sexual identity. The greatest frequency of women (59%) and men (76%) first questioned their sexual identity because they became attracted to a person of the same gender.16 The second most prevalent answer for women (48%) was first questioning sexual identity because they felt an unusual emotional closeness to a same-gender person, whereas the second most prevalent answer for men (59%) was first questioning sexual identity when they became fascinated with men’s bodies. In Study
2, the larger category of context of first questioning sexual identity yielded two higher order themes: facilitating environment and same-gender attractions, with a number of specific themes.
The most prevalent theme for facilitating environment was discussing sexual orientation with friends, and the most prevalent themes for same-gender attractions were awareness of same- gender sexual desires, intentional same-gender sexual contact, and closeness to a same-gender person, which were all focused codes from Diamond’s (1998) research. Therefore, the only overlapping themes across Studies 1 and 2 were the larger category of same-gender attractions, and closeness to a same-gender person for women, but not for men.
Regardless of the age at which it occurs, realizing same-gender attractions was an experience that commonly precipitated first questioning sexual identity for both women and
16 Frequencies by gender for all items measuring context of first questioning sexual identity are listed in Table 3. 158 men. However, other themes were also prevalent, such as emotional closeness to a same-gender person for women and fascination with men’s bodies for men (Study 1), and discussing sexual orientation with friends and intentional same-gender contact (Study 2). Considering that these themes also provided a context for first questioning sexual identity, it is possible that these different factors act in concert to push sexual identity development forward. For example, a woman might realize same-gender attractions to another woman with whom she is in an emotionally close relationship. These two factors together might prompt her to begin questioning her sexual identity. The same might be true for a man who realizes his attractions to other men while being fascinated with men’s bodies, and then begins to question his sexual identity as a result. These findings highlight the importance of considering multiple factors as providing a context within which questioning of sexual identity begins.
Interpretations of Sexual Fluidity. Study 1 provided a preliminary investigation of participants’ interpretations of sexual fluidity and examined whether Diamond’s (2003a) themes emerged in participants’ open-ended responses in the current study. The themes that were examined from her research were: ambivalence about labeling, uncertainty about the future, love depends on the person, and sexuality is fluid, with the most common theme being love depends on the person. In Study 2, these same themes became focused codes within the broader category of current perceptions of sexual identity and changes. In participants’ narratives from Study 2, three of these four themes were prevalent: ambivalence about labeling; uncertainty about the future; and love depends on the person, not gender. Therefore, it appears that the theme from
Diamond’s (2003a) research that was most common across Studies 1 and 2 was love depends on the person, not gender. 159
Diamond (2008b) proposed the idea of person-based attractions, in which attraction to specific people is based on characteristics other than gender. In Diamond’s longitudinal study and in the current study, this was a common theme. Since this theme arose in response to the question of how participants understand their own experiences of sexual fluidity, it seems that participants in the current study are using the idea of person-centered attractions to make sense of their own experiences of changing attractions and identity. Society dictates that gender is the most important feature of attraction. Indeed, this is the basis for conceptualizing sexual orientation as attraction to or preference for people of specific gender groups. But findings from both Diamond’s research and the current study suggest that gender is not the most important feature of attraction for everyone, particularly those people who might be more likely to experience changes in attractions or sexual identity.
New themes that emerged in sexually fluid participants’ open-ended responses from
Study 1 were categorized into the following higher order themes: romantic/sexual experiences, transgender, self-awareness/beliefs, adolescence/biological, community/exposure, and heteronormativity. The most common higher order theme coded for both women’s and men’s responses was self-awareness/beliefs, with the most common specific theme being self- awareness/realization of attractions. The second most common higher order theme was romantic/sexual experiences for women and heteronormativity for men. Although not all of these themes were prevalent across all participants’ responses in Study 1, they do represent the range of themes that emerged. In Study 2, the most prevalent higher order themes coded within the larger category of current perceptions of sexual identity and changes were: bisexuality, facilitating environment, intentional labeling, reason for labeling, social norms, and future 160 sexual identity; and two specific themes not associated with higher order themes: exploring sexuality and contextual labeling. Two of these themes overlap with Study 1: facilitating environment and social norms.
In Study 2, facilitating environment was coded in terms of providing a context that prompted changes in attractions and sexual identity. The specific themes within facilitating environment that were most prevalent in participants’ narratives were exposure to a specific label, Gender and Women’s Studies, going to college, involvement with the LGBTQ community,
LGBTQ friends, and meeting or attraction to an other-gender person. Although none of these specific themes encompasses romantic/sexual experiences, which emerged in sexually fluid women’s responses in Study 1, these types of experiences can be conceptualized within the broader category of exposure to a facilitating environment. In other words, having a romantic/sexual experience provides the context within which changes in women’s attractions or sexual identity can occur.
In Study 2, the theme of social norms was coded for mention of the larger societal context as it relates to expectations for gender, sexuality, and sexual identity labeling. The specific theme of heteronormativity was coded when participants mentioned social norms related to heterosexuality as the assumed standard. In Study 1, heteronormativity also emerged as a common theme in sexually fluid men’s open-ended responses. It is noteworthy that in Study 2, the specific theme of heteronormativity appeared in participants’ narratives from all three gender groups (female, male, and transgender), whereas in Study 1, it was only prevalent in men’s responses. Societal expectations regarding sexuality are different for women vs. men. In particular, expectations for men that are based on norms of masculinity provide more of a 161 constraint for men’s sexuality when it falls outside of heterosexual norms of appearance or behavior. Research on sexual orientation-based victimization, in which sexual minority men experience more victimization than sexual minority women (Katz-Wise & Hyde, 2012), confirms that when men venture outside of the bounds of heteronormativity, they are more likely to encounter punishment, than when women transgress the same norms. Perhaps men are particularly aware of these heteronormative expectations, which is why men in the current sample mentioned the theme of heteronormativity in Study 1, more than did women.
Comparison of Current Study with Diamond’s Findings
One of the main aims of Study 1 was to examine Diamond’s (2008b) model in a new sample, and a goal of Study 2 was investigate whether themes from Diamond’s (1998, 2003a) first and third waves of data collection emerged in the current sample. Therefore, a comparison of findings from the current study with results from Diamond’s research is warranted. Findings from the following five areas are assessed: prevalence of sexual fluidity in women and men, sexual fluidity and different components of sexual orientation, sexual fluidity and sexual identity development, sexual fluidity and contextual factors, and interpretations of sexual fluidity.
Prevalence of sexual fluidity in women and men. One goal of Study 1 was to determine prevalence of sexual fluidity in sexual minority young adult women and men. In
Diamond’s (2008a) longitudinal study of sexual minority women, she found that 67% of the women in her study changed their sexual identity labels once over the 10-year study, and 36% changed their labels more than once. In the current study, 64% of women and 52% of men reported experiencing a change in attractions to others over time, with 49% of those women and
36% of men also changing their sexual identity label. Additionally, 22% of women and 21% of 162 men in the current sample experienced more than one change in attractions. Therefore, findings from the current study confirmed Diamond’s findings regarding prevalence of sexual fluidity in sexual minority women, and extended her findings to sexual minority men.
Sexual fluidity and different components of sexual orientation. Another goal of
Study 1 was to determine the relationship of sexual fluidity to other components of sexual orientation, including sexual identity labels, romantic and sexual attractions, sexual behavior, romantic relationships, sexual fantasy, and social preference. Diamond did not report data on sexual fantasy or social preference in articles published on her longitudinal study; therefore, comparisons are made between the two studies for sexual identity labels, romantic and sexual attractions, sexual behavior, and romantic relationships.
In Diamond’s (2008a) longitudinal study, she found that women with bisexual and unlabeled identities were more likely than women with lesbian identities to experience sexual fluidity. In the current study, sexually fluid women were most likely to identify as mostly heterosexual/straight, bisexual, completely homosexual/lesbian, and queer; whereas sexually fluid men were most likely to identify as completely homosexual/gay. Therefore, the current study found somewhat different results regarding sexual fluidity and sexual identity, although both Diamond’s study and the current study found that sexually fluid women were more likely than non-sexually fluid women to identify as bisexual.
Diamond’s later articles documenting findings from her longitudinal study report changes in romantic and sexual attraction and sexual behavior over time for women who identified a particular way (lesbian, bisexual, or unlabeled) at the first wave of data collection or adopted a particular label (e.g., Diamond, 2008a), but she did not report group differences in attraction and 163 behavior for sexually fluid women compared to non-sexually fluid women. However, in
Diamond’s (2003a) article describing findings across the first three waves of data collection, she reported that women who changed their sexual identity labels (sexually fluid women) had lower percentages of same-gender romantic and sexual attractions at the first wave of data collection, compared to women who did not change their sexual identity labels. In the current study, sexually fluid women and men had higher percentages of same-gender attractions, compared to non-sexually fluid people, which is the opposite of what Diamond found.
In terms of sexual behavior, Diamond (2008a) reported that women who changed sexual identities across the 10-year study experienced same-gender or other-gender sexual behavior in the two years prior to the identity change, based on the particular label adopted. For example, bisexual/unlabeled women who switched to a heterosexual identity and lesbian women who switched to a bisexual/unlabeled identity reported sexual contact with a man prior to the switch; whereas women adopting a lesbian identity reported prior sexual contact with a woman. In her earlier article, Diamond (2003a) reported that women who changed sexual identities had smaller ratios of same-gender to other-gender sexual contact, compared to women who did not change their sexual identity, suggesting that sexually fluid women in her sample were more likely than non-sexually fluid women to have more equal numbers of same-gender and other-gender past sexual partners. In the current study, sexually fluid people were more likely than non-sexually fluid people to have had past sexual behaviors with both genders. Therefore, findings in the current study regarding past sexual behavior and sexual fluidity confirmed Diamond’s findings and extended them to men. 164
Regarding romantic relationships, Diamond (2008a) reported limited findings regarding past relationships and sexual fluidity; however, she did report that all of the women who initially identified as lesbian and switched to a bisexual or unlabeled identity had had a romantic relationship with a man. Presumably, these women likely had previous romantic relationships with women, since they initially identified as lesbian. Therefore, we can postulate that at least for this group of sexually fluid women in Diamond’s sample, they experienced romantic relationships with both genders. Diamond (2003a) did not report data on romantic relationships in her earlier article describing the first three waves of data collection. In the current study, sexual fluidity was not related to romantic relationships. This finding does not seem to confirm
Diamond’s (2008a) results, and a comparison is not possible with results from earlier in her study.
Sexual fluidity and sexual identity development. Diamond (1998) identified three features of the traditional sexual identity development model, for which she reported data from her sample at the first wave of data collection: early indicators of sexual orientation, same- gender attractions prior to questioning sexual identity, and stability of attractions over time. She reported that 60% of the women in her sample recalled early indicators of sexual orientation,
71% experienced same-gender attractions prior to questioning sexual identity, and 61% reported stable attractions over time. She concluded that 78% of the women in her sample failed to report at least one of these experiences. In Study 1 of the current study, participants were asked to indicate agreement with five statements measuring early indicators of sexual orientation, including same-gender attractions, fascination with same-gender bodies, feeling atypical, feeling different from other same-gender people, and disinterest in other-gender people. In the current 165 study, 28 to 64% of women and 42 to 67% of men agreed (responded somewhat agree to completely agree on the scale) with statements about experiencing early indicators of sexual orientation before age 13. Of the participants in the current sample, 59% of women and 76% of men reported experiencing same-gender attractions prior to questioning sexual identity.
Regarding stability of attractions, 36% of women and 48% of men reported that they did not experience any changes in attractions to others over time.
It appears that participants in the current study experienced a prevalence of early indicators of sexual orientation similar to Diamond’s participants; however, women in the current study were less likely to experience same-gender attractions prior to questioning sexual identity, compared to the women in Diamond’s study. Furthermore, participants in the current study experienced greater change in same-gender attractions compared to Diamond’s participants. Therefore, participants in the current study support traditional models of sexual identity development in some areas, but not all. In Diamond’s (2003a) later article describing findings from the first three waves of data collection, she reported that there were no differences between women who changed sexual identity labels and those who had not, regarding the age at which sexual identity milestones were reached. The same conclusion was drawn for both women and men in the current study: sexual fluidity was not related to the age at which sexual identity developmental milestones were reached.
Sexual fluidity and contextual factors. Study 1 examined a variety of contextual factors as they related to sexual fluidity, including beliefs about sexual identity, attitudes toward bisexuality, outness as a sexual minority, experiences of sexual orientation-based victimization, family approval of sexuality, and felt stigma; in addition to age and level of education. In 166
Diamond’s (2008a) later article describing findings across the 10-year study, she reported associations between sexual identity change and anti-gay stigmatization/harassment/fear of violence, SES while growing up, educational attainment, age, and parental divorce. She reported no association between identity change and SES while growing up, educational attainment, or age. However, women who changed sexual identities were less likely to have divorced parents and less likely to report anti-gay stigmatization/harassment/fear of violence. Regarding the overlapping contextual factors examined both in Diamond’s study and in the current study, findings from the current study revealed that sexual fluidity was not related to level of education, age, felt stigma, or experiences of sexual orientation-based victimization. Although SES while growing up and parental divorce were not specifically examined in relation to sexual fluidity, these factors were measured in Study 1. Follow-up analyses revealed that neither SES while growing up nor parental divorce was significantly related to likelihood of experiencing sexual fluidity for women or men in the current study. Therefore, findings in the current study regarding sexual fluidity and contextual factors confirmed some of Diamond’s findings, but not others.
Interpretations of sexual fluidity. Study 1 provided a preliminary investigation of interpretations of sexual fluidity. For those participants who reported experiencing changes in attractions in Study 1, responses were coded for the following themes reported in Diamond’s
(2003) research: ambivalence about labeling, uncertainty about the future, love depends on the person, and sexuality is fluid. Of the participants who provided an answer to this question, 1% of women and 0% of men reported ambivalence about labeling and uncertainty about the future,
10% of women and 8% of men described the sentiment that love depends on the person (rather 167 than the gender of the person), 0% of women and 3% of men found labels to be limiting, and 4% of women and 3% of men described sexuality as being fluid. For 83% of women and 88% of men, responses to the open-ended question did not contain the themes found in Diamond’s research.
In Study 2, the four themes from Diamond’s (2003a) research became focused codes within the larger category of current perceptions of sexual identity and changes. In participants’ narratives from Study 2, three of these four themes were prevalent: ambivalence about labeling; uncertainty about the future; and love depends on the person, not gender. Therefore, Diamond’s themes were more likely to appear in participants’ narratives in Study 2, compared to the open- ended responses from Study 1. For both Study 1 and Study 2, new themes emerged from the data to describe participants’ interpretations of sexual fluidity that were not found in Diamond’s research.
Theoretical Frameworks Revisited
This project was conducted from a position of feminist theory development, and was framed by feminist theories, sociocultural and social constructionist theories, and queer theory. I revisit each of these in light of the results from Study 1 and 2.
Feminist theory development. In the past, the field of sexuality research has followed a similar trajectory to mainstream psychology regarding theory development. Historically, theory development has been based on the experiences of men, and later applied to women. When women did not fit the theory, they were described as deviant or underdeveloped in the sense of not achieving the same level of development as men, as defined by the theory. This interpretation is problematic for a number of reasons, not least of which is the assumption that 168 women and men progress through the same developmental processes. Although this is true in some areas of development, it may not be true in forming a sexual minority identity.
Traditionally, theories of sexual identity development were based on gay men’s experiences, and later applied to lesbians and people of other sexual identities (e.g., bisexual). Diamond (2008b) paved the way for a new model of female sexuality, based on the assumption that women have different experiences than men. Her research demonstrated that women’s sexuality operates differently from men’s sexuality, primarily in that it is more flexible and contextual. In developing a model of sexuality from women’s perspectives, Diamond used a radically different approach from previous theorists, by beginning with women’s experiences.
I would further describe Diamond’s (2008b) model of women’s sexuality as constituting a starting place for theory that can apply equally to women and men. Three basic steps are identified in this version of feminist theory development: 1) develop a theory using women’s experiences, 2) investigate whether the theory applies to men, and 3) develop a theory that applies to both women and men. This is the process with which I began the current project. I used Diamond’s (2008b) model of female sexuality as a starting point for developing a model that applies to both women and men. Diamond had already completed the first step of theory development, so I began with Step 2. I discovered that although some aspects of Diamond’s model were confirmed by the findings in the current study, other aspects newly emerged, particularly regarding gender differences. I did not find that sexual minority men in the current study fit traditional conceptualizations of sexual identity development, in forming early and remaining stable over time. Rather, some men and women followed this pathway, whereas 169 others formed a sexual identity later in life and also experienced changes in attractions and sexual identity.
Although Diamond’s (2008b) model was certainly progressive in its own right, it still appears to be based on two assumptions: 1) men’s sexual identity development follows traditional theory; and 2) women’s sexual identity development progresses differently from men’s. In assuming that men’s sexuality has been accurately described by previous theories,
Diamond ignored numerous societal and historical factors that may have changed men’s experiences of sexual identity development since the initial theory was formulated, although she is careful to acknowledge these contextual factors as being related to women’s sexual identity development. In proposing that sexual identity development progresses differently for women compared to men, Diamond was (perhaps unknowingly) further solidifying an already assumed gender difference in sexual identity development. As Hyde (2005) has outlined in her gender similarities hypothesis, the assumption of gender differences is problematic, because it perpetuates essentialist ideas about gender that form a basis for gender inequality. Therefore, we must be careful not to create gender differences that may not in fact exist.
Diamond (2008b) proposed within the framework of dynamic systems theory that all women have the potential for sexual fluidity, but only some women actually experience changes in attractions and identity in the context of specific factors, such as meeting a same-gender person of interest or exposure to a specific LGBTQ idea, such as using queer as a non-derogatory label. Furthermore, she indicated that women have “different degrees of sensitivity to the situational and interpersonal factors that trigger fluidity…though two women may be exposed to the same set of potential ‘triggers,’ one will experience the development of unexpected same-sex 170 attractions whereas the other may not” (p. 85). She stated that the likelihood of a woman experiencing different forms of sexuality is based on “a woman’s particular combination of inborn traits (including biological predispositions), environments, experiences, and relationships” (p. 243). Although this is certainly a useful framework for understanding sexual fluidity, it actually contributes to essentialist thinking through suggesting that propensity for sexual fluidity is an inherent quality in all women.
From a feminist perspective, a response to traditional theory development might be to use women’s experiences as a starting point for theory development, and later apply the theory developed from their experiences to men, in an effort to equalize the playing field, so to speak.
But we must be careful not to commit the same error that previous theorists have committed, in the sense of assuming that one gender can be held up as the normative model of development, to which the other gender is secondarily compared. Furthermore, this entire discussion of theory development further perpetuates gendered power relations, in its assumption that only two genders exist: female and male. How do the experiences of transgender people fit into theory development? Perhaps the most equalizing process would be to begin with multiple perspectives of differently gendered people, and use this variety of experiences as the basis for theory development, rather than using one gender or another as the starting point. Feminist standpoint theory proposes that multiple subjective viewpoints create knowledge that can be understood as a form of objectivity (Fivush, 2000). This might be the only way to arrive at a theory that applies to the experiences of people in any gender category or configuration. Although the current study did not use this approach, the inclusion of transgender people – particularly in Study 1 – provides another starting point for further refining theory of sexual identity development. 171
Feminist theories. This project is situated at the intersection of developmental and feminist theories, using a framework of feminist developmental psychology. One of the primary feminist theories used in this project is narrative construction, in which people create stories about their own experiences as situated in the larger world (Scholnick, 2000). Narrative construction has three components: sequence, normative explanations, and voice (Bruner, 1990).
Sequence can refer to the process of sexual identity development over time. In Study 1, I measured the age at which participants reached various developmental markers of sexual identity development, as it is traditionally conceptualized. During the interview process of Study 2, I continuously asked participants to contextualize their experiences in terms of the age at which each part of their narrative took place. This allowed me to create a sequential map for each participant of sexual identity changes, which provided a framework within which I was able to understand their experiences of sexual identity development and sexual fluidity.
The second component of narrative construction, normative explanations, refers to situating participants’ experiences in the context of other people’s experiences, as well as within the larger societal narrative of heteronormativity. The use of mixed methods allowed me to compare the experiences described by participants in Study 2, with data from the larger sample in Study 1. In both Study 1 and Study 2, I attended to contextual factors that might be associated with sexual identity development and sexual fluidity, including heteronormativity. Additionally, participants themselves introduced the idea of heteronormativity as influencing their experiences, particularly in Study 2. For example, David, who currently identifies his sexual identity as sexually fluid to himself, and as unlabeled to other people, described how heteronormativity (and religion) might have shaped his sexual identity development, 172
I was told who I was, I was a heterosexual male, and that’s how I grew up, for the first like decade and a half. And you know, not knowing that in fact that wasn’t me. That was something that I was told I was, and that was something that I had to be in the eyes of God.
The third component of narrative construction, voice, refers to agency that an individual person has in constructing their own narrative of sexual identity development and coming out as a sexual minority, in addition to their ability to contribute to an overall narrative of sexual identity development. In the construction of narratives, individual voices come to represent situated knowledges (Haraway, 1988), that are grounded in people’s own experiences, but at the same time reflect larger contextual factors that influence those experiences. The facilitative environments model, developed in Study 2, represents the component of voice in narrative construction. Participants’ individual voices contributed to an overall model of sexual identity development and sexual fluidity. Furthermore, the facilitative environments model proposes that factors situated at different levels create a context within which initial identity development and subsequent changes occur. Conceptualizing sexual identity development and sexual fluidity as happening at the intersection of multiple contextual factors, including individual factors, is consistent with the concept of situated knowledges, because participants’ experiences are situated at these intersections. In summary, this project used the feminist theories of narrative construction and situated knowledges to understand participants’ experiences of sexual identity development and sexual fluidity.
Sociocultural and social constructionist theories. This project also used Vygotsky’s
(1978) sociocultural theory and social constructionist theory, which are both part of the larger interactionist perspective. Within this perspective, individual person attributes and situational factors interact dynamically to influence development (Leaper, 2000). Vygotsky’s (1978) theory 173 proposes that cognitive development takes place within a sociocultural framework, and that a person’s individual experience cannot be separated from context. This was evidenced in Study 1 by the relationships between sexual fluidity and a number of contextual factors, such as outness as a sexual minority and beliefs about sexual identity. In Study 2, themes were prevalent that emphasized the role of contextual factors, such as discussing sexual orientation with friends and awareness of same-gender sexual desires, as providing an impetus for first questioning sexual identity. Social constructionism proposes that reality is not inherently present, but rather it is constructed through social interactions (Berger & Luckmann, 1966). In the current research, people’s individual experiences regarding sexual identity development and sexual fluidity were often constructed in conjunction with other people through interactions, such as same-gender sexual behaviors and meeting an other-gender person of romantic interest. Both Vygotsky’s
(1978) theory and social constructionist theory situate a person’s experience within their environment, suggesting that factors, such as interactions with others and larger societal factors interact with individual factors to allow development to occur. The facilitative environments model falls neatly in line with these theories, proposing that initial development of sexual identity, as well as change in attractions and sexual identity over time, occurs at the intersection of various factors on different individual, interpersonal, and societal levels. Social constructionism proposes that the boundaries of sexual orientation are fluid, and people may shift between them throughout their lives (DeLamater & Hyde, 1998). Therefore, within a social constructionist viewpoint, once a sexual minority identity or a heterosexual identity is initially established, it has the potential to be flexible and shift over time because it is continuously being re-constructed. 174
Queer theory. Finally, this project used the theoretical perspective of queer theory to understand sexual identity development and sexual fluidity. Queer theory is based on social constructionism in proposing that sex, gender, and sexuality are socially constructed, and that when these aspects of the self are constructed as binary, the homosexual/heterosexual framework is reinforced, further promoting heteronormativity (Valocchi, 2005). Similarly to the normative explanations component of the feminist theory of narrative construction, participants’ experiences are situated within the larger discourse of heteronormativity. The very notion of sexual fluidity queers the homosexual/heterosexual divide, because people are moving in and out of these sexual orientation categories – particularly those who identify as bisexual. Transgender people further problematize the homosexual/heterosexual divide by first complicating the gender binary, and then complicating the sexuality binary. Transgender people with gender queer identities perhaps create the greatest challenge to the homosexual/heterosexual divide by resisting sex, gender, and sexuality binaries altogether. Furthermore, the refusal by any person – including participants in the current study – to subscribe to gender norms in appearance, behavior, or sexuality breaks down the heteronormative ideology, which is based on these norms remaining in place.
Queer theory also proposes that people’s sexual identities are created through the internalization of heteronormative discourses (Butler, 1993). This process of internalization contributes to the marginalization of non-heterosexual identities, while at the same time promoting heteronormativity as desirable and ideal. Sexual minority participants in the current study, who move beyond the heteronormative discourse through identifying with sexual minority identity labels, pursuing a same-gender attraction, or engaging in same-gender sexual behavior, 175 resist heteronormativity. Additionally, lack of concordance among different sexual orientation components, such as people who have same-gender attractions, but do not identify as a sexual minority, blur the boundaries between heterosexuality and homosexuality, potentially reducing marginalization of non-heterosexual identities, because it becomes less clear who is considered a sexual minority. To this end, many participants in the current study, including those whose sexual identities fall along a continuum (e.g., bisexual, queer identities), have moved beyond the homosexual/heterosexual binary in their use of labels that do not conform to this dualistic framework. In summary, queer theory is a useful framework for understanding participants’ experiences of sexual identity development and sexual fluidity in the current research.
Political and Policy Implications
This research has a number of political and policy implications, based on two primary findings: 1) lack of concordance among different components of sexual orientation, and 2) sexual fluidity among sexual minority women and men. One of the findings from Studies 1 and 2 is that different components of sexual orientation, such as sexual identity, romantic and sexual attraction, and sexual behavior are not necessarily congruent within the same individual person.
As an example, the majority of men in Study 1 identified as completely homosexual/gay, even though close to half of them reported experiencing changes in attractions, suggesting that they had at some point been attracted to women as well. This supports recent research demonstrating that only 48% of men identifying as gay had exclusive attraction to and sexual behavior with other men; other participants in this group reported non-exclusivity in either attraction, sexual partners, or both (Vrangalova & Savin-Williams, 2012). On the other end of the spectrum, some women may identify as completely heterosexual/straight, even though they experience 176 attractions toward other women, and may have even kissed another woman. Both of these examples are related to the theme discussed in Study 2 of requirements for sexual minority status. This theme was coded when participants expressed the idea that specific experiences, such as same-gender sexual contact, were necessary for being a “legitimate” sexual minority or for justifying adoption of a sexual minority identity. For the majority of participants who discussed this theme, same-gender sexual behavior in particular, was a requirement for identifying as a sexual minority. This suggests that these participants are defining sexual orientation based on the single component of sexual behavior, without taking into account sexual identity or attractions. However, in the field of sexuality research, sexual minority status is typically defined using other components, such as identifying as a sexual minority or having same-gender attractions.
The relevance for policy comes from the ability to define the sexual minority population.
In a study of prevalence and stability of sexual orientation components during adolescence and young adulthood, researchers found that prevalence estimates for non-heterosexuality ranged from 1 to 15%, depending in part on which sexual orientation component was measured; for example, prevalence was highest for romantic attraction (Savin-Williams & Ream, 2007). These findings highlight the importance of operationally defining sexual orientation using specific components. Defining the population is crucial for developing policies that specifically target sexual minorities, such as anti-discrimination laws. In 2009, U.S. President Barack Obama signed the hate crimes bill into law, making it a federal crime to assault an individual based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Similarly, a number of states have laws prohibiting employment or housing discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. But how 177 is sexual orientation defined in these laws? Are protections extended to people who have same- gender attractions, but do not use a sexual minority label to identify their sexual orientation? Or are people only protected under this bill if they are publically out as a sexual minority? This begs the question, who counts as a sexual minority? This question is further complicated by sexual fluidity, in which people might be moving in and out of a sexual minority status. Taking the example of someone with a bisexual identity, is this person only considered a sexual minority when they are in a same-gender relationship? In this case, sexual orientation or sexual minority status is defined by the gender of their partner, which is true for laws regarding same-gender marriage and civil unions. However, for a bisexually-identified person, this means that they are included under the protections of a law targeting sexual minorities only when they are expressing one side of their attractions and romantic interests. Funding for research, such as public health research on sexual minority populations, is also affected by definitions of sexual minority status.
When the amount of money directed toward research in the U.S. is controlled by the political party that happens to be in office, defining the sexual minority population is essential for ensuring that funding is available for research with LGBTQ people.
Defining the sexual minority population is also relevant for public health research, which is often funded by federal grants. In the field of public health, sexual minority status is typically defined in terms of sexual behavior, because this is the component of sexual orientation that confers the greatest risk to a person’s physical health (e.g., sexually transmitted infections), although other components of sexual orientation may be indirectly related to health, such as experiencing victimization based on identifying as a sexual minority. The designing of interventions targeting sexual minorities must involve a decision about how sexual orientation 178 will be defined. For example, if an intervention is specifically related to sexual behavior, then sexual orientation must be defined as such, whereas if an intervention is related to mental health, then sexual orientation might be differentially defined as sexual identity. In either case, the sexual minority population is defined differently based on the focus of the specific intervention.
The use of some sexual orientation components as the basis for defining sexual orientation may be problematic. Savin-Williams (2006) proposed that defining the sexual minority population based on same-gender sexual behavior increases the possibility of finding a biological basis for homosexuality and compromised mental health, specifically in terms of suicidality. As Savin-Williams described, studies on the biology of homosexuality typically recruit participants based on sexual identity or sexual behavior, thereby drawing conclusions regarding biological origins of sexual orientation, that are based on the experiences of people who identify as gay or have same-gender sexual behaviors, but not people with same-gender attractions. High-risk sexual behaviors (e.g., early sex, multiple partners) are predictive of suicide in youth more so than other risk behaviors (e.g., violent behavior, drug use) (Miller &
Taylor, 2005). Therefore, recruitment of sexual minorities based on sexual behavior for studies on homosexuality and mental health may contribute to the stigmatization of sexual minorities because same-sex behavior is considered to be “risky.”
The politics of sexual orientation are often based on beliefs about the origins of sexual orientation as biologically or environmentally based. From a biological origins point of view, sexual orientation is similar to other biological traits, such as race. Therefore, sexual minorities should have equal rights because they presumably have no control over their sexual minority status. From an environmental origins point of view, because sexual orientation is not inherent, 179 sexual minorities are able to choose this particular “lifestyle”, and therefore should not receive specific protections based on something they can choose. Political survey results typically demonstrate that people who believe sexual orientation is biologically based are more likely to support legal gay and lesbian relations and to view these relations as morally acceptable, compared to those who view sexual orientation as environmentally based. For example, results from Gallup’s annual Values and Beliefs poll conducted in 2011 indicated that support for the legality of gay/lesbian relationships is 87% among people who believe that sexual orientation is biologically based, compared to 43% of people who believe that sexual orientation is environmentally based (Gallup, 2011). Furthermore, the Gallup poll indicated that Democrats are more likely than Republicans to endorse a biological basis for sexual orientation, and to believe gay and lesbian relations are morally acceptable and thus should be legal. Findings from the poll also suggested that Americans’ beliefs about the origin of sexual orientation are more strongly related to the legality and morality of gay and lesbian relations than to political party identification, religious commitment, age, and other demographic characteristics. In other words, beliefs about the origin of sexual orientation are strongly related to support for sexual minority rights.
When the debate is focused on origins of sexual orientation, the phenomenon of sexual fluidity may complicate matters considerably. Many people assume that sexual fluidity confers choice, such that people who are sexually fluid choose whether and when they cross boundaries between heterosexual and sexual minority statuses. Yet in her book on sexual fluidity in women,
Diamond (2008b) stated “Variability [in sexuality] typically occurs only within a certain range, and it appears unrelated to any conscious attempts to control it” (p. 249). She reported that the 180 sexually fluid women in her sample often described their attractions as being out of their control, or described choice in terms of thinking about or acting on their feelings rather than choosing the feelings themselves. In Study 1, sexually fluid participants endorsed an incremental view that their sexuality could change, but they did not endorse an entity view, that a person can change their own sexuality, suggesting that they do not believe someone can choose their sexuality. In
Study 2, a theme that was not prevalent enough to be described in detail was the theme of choice.
Ashley, who currently identifies her sexual identity as unlabeled to herself, and as straight to other people, used the concept of choice in terms of sexual identity labeling, “I've never actually been involved with a girl or anything like that, like on a serious level. So I guess I kind of just choose not to describe it.” She also described choice in response to the question regarding future change in sexual identity,
I mean, I think that kind of it would depend on my life, almost. Like if I were to get married and start a family, I think I would definitely consider myself pretty much straight. If I were to be with a girl, I would definitely have to say that I was bi. I mean like, right now it's kind of just, whatever happens, and like whatever I choose.
It is important that findings from the current research regarding sexual fluidity not be misused to promote the restriction of rights for sexual minorities. Sexual minority rights are an issue of equal rights without discrimination, and should not be based on the origins of sexual orientation.
In addition to the issue of choice, findings about sexual fluidity may also be misinterpreted as providing support for sexual reorientation. Historically, a number of treatments and therapies have been used, such as reparative therapies (also known as
“conversion” or “reorientation” therapies) that have aimed to “cure” people from the “disease” of homosexuality (see Beckstead, 2012 for a recent review). In 2007, the American Psychological
Association created a Task Force to review and evaluate research on sexual orientation change 181 efforts and to provide recommendations based on the evidence. The Task Force concluded that early and recent research on sexual orientation change efforts had a number of methodological problems, and results from these studies did not provide evidence that sexual reorientation efforts were effective or safe (APA, 2009). Therapeutic recommendations for treating clients who present with the desire to change their sexual orientation, include using a client-centered approach that assesses the source of their distress and their motivation for sexual reorientation
(APA, 2009; 2012), including taking social and contextual factors into account. As Beckstead
(2012) concluded in his recent article on sexual reorientation, “…our best efforts may not be in trying to change possibly immutable aspects of sexuality but in trying to reduce the misunderstanding, discrimination, and hostility that exist within non-heterosexuals and their social situations” (p. 130).
Future Directions
The current research provides a starting point for a number of future directions. First, one of the original intentions of this research was to follow participants longitudinally, in order to track sexual identity development and sexual fluidity over time. Longitudinal research is particularly important in developmental psychology for investigating developmental processes and change over time in particular phenomena. The processes of sexual identity development and sexual fluidity are also in need of further longitudinal examination. One of the strengths of
Diamond’s (2008a) study is the use of a longitudinal approach to follow participants across 10 years to document changes as they are occurring, rather than relying on retrospective reports. As
Diamond (2007) pointed out, only a few studies have tracked changes over time in sexual minority men’s sexual identity development (Rosario et al., 2006; Stokes, Damon, & McKirnan, 182
1997; Weinberg et al., 1994), and none of these studies lasted longer than five years. It is clear that more research is needed which follows men longitudinally, to further investigate sexual identity development and sexual fluidity. Therefore, Studies 1 and 2 in the current research can be considered the first wave in data collection in a longitudinal study.
Second, although it was not a primary goal to conduct an in-depth investigation of sexual identity development and sexual fluidity in transgender people, both Study 1 and Study 2 included transgender participants. This research provides preliminary data suggesting that sexual identity development and sexual fluidity may operate somewhat differently in transgender people, particularly in the context of gender transitioning. Although a small number of recent studies have explored sexual identity development in transgender people (e.g., Bockting, Benner,
& Coleman, 2009; M. D. E. Meyer, 2003) or included transgender people in studies of identity development in sexual minorities (e.g., Glover, Galliher, & Lamere, 2009), I was not able to locate published research that investigated sexual fluidity in transgender people. Therefore, an in-depth exploration of sexual identity development and changes in attractions and sexual identity over time in people with various transgender identities would be a productive area of future research.
Third, Study 2 was enlightening about the ways in which specific sexual identity labels, such as bisexual or queer, have different meaning for different people, and the phenomenon of using labels contextually. Participants in Study 2 – especially men – described a reluctance to adopt a bisexual label for general usage, because of negative stereotypes and perceptions that are associated with the label. Some bisexual male participants even went to the extreme of identifying as gay around other gay men, to avoid confronting these stereotypes. Similarly, other 183 participants described preferring the label queer, but not using it in many contexts because it would require a lengthy explanation. It would be interesting to conduct a study specifically examining the different ways in which specific sexual identity labels are defined and used among sexual minority people.
Finally, this research was limited to people who identified as a sexual minority, chose not to label their sexual orientation, or experienced same-gender attractions in the past. Although
Study 1 included a number of participants who identified as completely heterosexual/straight, it would be useful to examine specifically how sexual fluidity might operate differently in heterosexually-identified people. Little research has specifically addressed stability and change in heterosexual identities, although Weinberg and colleagues (1994) included heterosexual people in their sample, and Diamond (2008b) interviewed a small number of heterosexually- identified women who were sexually fluid. Weinberg and colleagues (1994) found some change in sexual feelings, sexual behaviors, and romantic feelings among heterosexual people, but more sexual fluidity was seen in non-heterosexual participants. Diamond (2008b) reported that the process of change in identity was different among the heterosexually-identified women compared to the sexual minority women in her primary study. More research is needed to better understand the prevalence of sexual fluidity in heterosexual people, and what the process looks like in comparison to sexual minority people.
Conclusions
In conclusion, the majority of findings from Study 1 both confirmed Diamond’s (2008b) model of sexual fluidity and extended it to sexual minority men. Study 1 provided insight into the complexity of the relationships among different sexual orientation components, and 184 identified a number of contextual factors that were related to the likelihood of experiencing sexual fluidity. Study 2 confirmed a number of themes from Diamond’s (1998, 2003a) previous research, and identified new themes that emerged from the data. Findings from Study 2 described how sexual identity labeling operates in sexual minorities today, and how people interpret and understand their experiences of sexual fluidity. The facilitative environments model was developed to provide a conceptual framework within which to understand experiences of sexual identity development and sexual fluidity in sexual minority young adults.
Sexual identity is a complex and important part of development that is a crucial aspect of developing an overall identity. This research provides valuable knowledge about sexual identity development and experiences of sexual fluidity in sexual minority young adults. Additionally, part of the development of knowledge and theory is to establish the generalizability of previous findings. This research examined whether previous findings regarding sexual fluidity in women extend to a new sample of women, and created new empirical knowledge through investigating this developmental process in men. Not only does this study inform future research on sexual minorities by increasing our understanding about who can be classified as a “sexual minority”, but this knowledge also provides a basis for evaluating policies that are relevant to this population, to ensure that all sexual minorities are fully included in their protections.
Traditionally, the field of psychology has operated under the same assumptions of heteronormativity as the rest of society, in which heterosexuality is considered the norm and people who identify as non-heterosexual are ignored or stigmatized. This has resulted in a body of research that assumes that all people are heterosexual. Although this situation has begun to change in recent decades, much is still unknown about sexual minorities. One of the important 185 tenets of feminism is to empower people who are in minority positions in society. This research is a step toward that goal in seeking to empower sexual minorities through increasing empirical knowledge.
Standpoint theory suggests that people who are not in positions of power have a particular insight because they must understand both their own situation and the situation of those in power. Similarly, people who are in positions of power stereotype those who are less powerful because the powerful pay less attention and have little information about people with less power (Fiske, 1993). In contrast, less powerful people have more information about the powerful and tend to stereotype them less. These theories suggest that sexual minorities are in a unique position to shed light on the processes of sexual identity development and sexual fluidity, in part because of their minority status within the larger heteronormative culture. Additionally, feminist approaches to research name the participants as experts of their own experiences. This research gives voice to sexual minorities by allowing participants to tell their own stories through use of qualitative interview methods. At the same time, use of mixed methods allowed for a more complete picture of sexual identity development and sexual fluidity, which can move knowledge about this population forward.
In summary, this research provides a comprehensive overview of the complexities related to sexual identity development and sexual fluidity in sexual minority young adults, and offers insight into how these developmental processes are experienced by individual people within the context of social interactions and larger societal norms and expectations. Insights about these important developmental processes inform future research in this area, and increase our understanding about the experiences of sexual minorities. 186
References
American Psychological Association. (2009). Report of the American Psychological
Association’s Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Retrieved from
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf.
American Psychological Association. (2012). Guidelines for psychological practice with lesbian,
gay, and bisexual clients. American Psychologist, 67, 10-42. doi: 10.1037/a0024659
Anderson, E., Adams, A., & Rivers, I. (2012). “I kiss them because I love them”: The emergence
of heterosexual men kissing in British institutes of education. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 41, 421-430. doi: 10.1007/s10508-010-9678-0
Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through
the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469-480. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469
Barker, M., Bowes-Catton, H., Iantaffi, A., Cassidy, A., & Brewer, L., (2008). British
bisexuality: A snapshot of bisexual representations and identities in the United Kingdom.
Journal of Bisexuality, 8, 141-162. doi: 10.1080/15299710802143026
Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Gender differences in erotic plasticity: The female sex drive as socially
flexible and responsive. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 247-374. doi: 10.1037//0033-
2909.126.3.347
Beckstead, A. L. (2012). Can we change sexual orientation? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41,
121-134. doi: 10.1007/s10508-012-9922-x
Bell, A. P., & Weinberg, M. S., & Hammersmith, S. K. (1981). Sexual preference: Its
development in men and women. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. 187
Bennett, K. (1992). Feminist bisexuality: A both/and option for an either/or world. In
E. R. Weise (Ed.), Close to home: Bisexuality and feminism (pp. 205-231). Seattle,
WA: The Seal Press.
Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology
of knowledge. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Blumstein, P., & Shwartz, P. (1990). Intimate relationships and the creation of sexuality. In D. P.
McWhirter, S. A. Sanders, & J. M. Reinisch (Eds.), Homosexuality/heterosexuality:
Concepts of sexual orientation (pp. 307-320). New York: Oxford University Press.
Bockting, W., Benner, A., & Coleman, E. (2009). Gay and bisexual identity development among
female-to-male transsexuals in North America: Emergence of a transgender sexuality.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 688-701. doi: 10.1007/s10508-009-9489-3
Bode, J. (1979). View from another closet: Exploring bisexuality in women. New York, NY:
Hawthorn Books.
Brady, S. M., & Busse, W. J. (1994). The Gay Identity Questionnaire: A brief measure of
homosexual identity formation. Journal of Homosexuality, 26, 1-22. doi:
10.1300/J082v26n04_01
Brooks, K. D., & Quina, K. (2009). Women’s sexual identity patterns: Differences
among lesbians, bisexuals, and unlabeled women. Journal of Homosexuality, 56, 1030-
1045. doi: 10.1080/00918360903275443
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and
design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Brown, R. (2000). Social identity theory: Past achievements, current problems and future 188
challenges. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 745-778. doi: 10.1002/1099-
0992(200011/12)30:6<745::AID-EJSP24>3.0.CO;2-O
Bruner, J. S. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York:
Routledge.
Butler, J. (1993). Critically queer. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 1, 17-32.
Cass, V. C. (1979). Homosexual identity formation: A theoretical model. Journal of
Homosexuality, 4, 219-235. doi: 10.1300/J082v04n03_01
Charbonneau, C., & Lander, P. S. (1991). Redefining sexuality: Women becoming lesbian in
midlife. In B. Sang, J. Warshow, & A. J. Smith (Eds.), Lesbians at midlife: The creative
transition (pp. 35-43). San Francisco: Spinsters.
Charon, J. (1995). Symbolic interactionism: An introduction, interpretation, and integration (5th
ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Chiu, C. Y., Hong, Y. Y., & Dweck, C. S. (1997). Lay dispositionism and implicit theories of
personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 19-30. doi: 10.1037/0022-
3514.73.1.19
Chivers, M. L., Rieger, G., Latty, E., & Bailey, J. M. (2004). A sex difference in the specificity
of sexual arousal. Psychological Science, 15, 736-744. doi: 10.1111/j.0956-
7976.2004.00750.x
Cole, E. R. (2009). Intersectionality and research in psychology. American Psychologist, 64,
170-180. doi : 10.1037/a0014564
Cooper, A. (1998). Sexuality and the internet: Surfing into the new millennium. 189
Cyberpsychology and behavior, 1, 187-193. doi: 10.1089/cpb.1998.1.187
Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-construals and gender. Psychological
Bulletin, 122, 5-37. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.122.1.5
D’Augelli, A. R. (2006). Developmental and contextual factors and mental health among lesbian,
gay, and bisexual youths. In A. M. Omoto, & H. S. Kurtzman (Eds.), Sexual orientation
and mental health: Examining identity and development in lesbian, gay, and bisexual
people (pp. 37-53). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Davis, J. A., Smith, T. W., & Marsden, P. V. (2010). General Social Surveys, 1972–2008. Storrs,
CT: Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut – Ann Arbor,
MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.
doi:10.3886=ICPSR25962
DeLamater, J. D., & Hyde, J. S. (1998). Essentialism vs. social constructionism in the study of
human sexuality. The Journal of Sex Research, 35, 10-18. doi:
10.1080/00224499809551913
Derlega, V. J., Lewis, R. J., Harrison, S., Winstead, B., & Constanza, R. (1989). Gender
differences in the initiation and attribution of tactile intimacy. Journal of Nonverbal
Behavior, 13, 83-96. doi: 10.1007/BF00990792
Diamond, L. M. (1998). Development of sexual orientation among adolescent and adult young
women. Developmental Psychology, 34, 1085-1095. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.34.5.1085
Diamond, L. M. (2000). Sexual identity, attractions, and behavior among young sexual-minority
women over a 2-year period. Developmental Psychology, 36, 241-250. doi:
10.1037/0012-1649.36.2.241 190
Diamond, L. M. (2002). “Having a girlfriend without knowing it”: Intimate friendships among
adolescent sexual minority women. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 6, 5-16. doi:
10.1300/J155v06n01_02
Diamond, L. M. (2003a). Was it a phase? Young women’s relinquishment of lesbian/bisexual
identities over a 5-year period. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 352-
364. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.84.2.352
Diamond, L. M. (2003b). What does sexual orientation orient? A biobehavioral model
distinguishing romantic love and sexual desire. Psychological Review, 110, 173-192. doi:
10.1037/0033-295X.110.1.173
Diamond, L. M. (2005). A new view of lesbian subtypes: Stable versus fluid identity trajectories
over an 8-year period. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 119-128. doi:
10.1111/j.1471-6402.2005.00174.x
Diamond, L. M. (2006) Careful what you ask for: Reconsidering feminist epistemology and
autobiographical narrative in research on sexual identity development. Signs, 31, 471-
491. doi: 0097-9740/2006/3102-0002
Diamond, L. M. (2007). A dynamical systems approach to the development and expression of
female same-sex sexuality. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 142-161. doi:
10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00034.x
Diamond, L. M. (2008a). Female bisexuality from adolescence to adulthood: Results from a 10-
year longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 44, 5-14. doi: 10.1037/0012-
1649.44.1.5
Diamond, L. M. (2008b). Sexual fluidity: Understanding women’s love and desire. Cambridge, 191
MA: Harvard University Press.
Diamond, L. M., & Savin-Williams, R. C. (2000). Explaining diversity in the development of
same-sex sexuality among young women. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 297-313. doi:
10.1111/0022-4537.00167
Dickson, N., Paul, C., & Herbison, P. (2003). Same-sex attraction in a birth cohort: Prevalence
and persistence in early adulthood. Social Science & Medicine, 56, 1607-1615. doi:
10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00161-2
Dubé, E. M., & Savin-Williams, R. C. (1999). Sexual identity development among ethnic sexual-
minority male youths. Developmental Psychology, 35, 1389-1398. doi: 10.1037/0012-
1649.35.6.1389
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41,
1040-1048. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.41.10.1040
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Random House.
Eliason, M. (2001). Bi-negativity: The stigma facing bisexual men. Journal of Bisexuality, 1,
137-154. doi: 10.1300/J159v01n02_05
Ephrem, B., & White, A. M. (2011). Agency and expression despite repression: A comparative
study of five Ethiopian lesbians. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 15, 226-246. doi:
10.1080/10894160.2011.527765
Erikson, E. H. (1959). Identity and the life cycle. Psychological Issues, 1, 1-171.
Evans, N., & Levine, H. (1990). Perspectives on sexual orientation. New Directions for Student
Services, 51, 49-58. doi: 10.1002/ss.37119905106
Fassinger, R. E. (2001). Lesbian identity questionnaire (Revised). Unpublished manuscript, 192
University of Maryland.
Fassinger, R. E., & Miller, B. A. (1996). Validation of an inclusive model of sexual identity
development for a sample of gay men. Journal of Homosexuality, 32, 53-79. doi:
10.1300/J082v32n02_04
Fiske, S. T. (1993). Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping. American
Psychologist, 48, 621-628. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.48.6.621
Fivush, R. (2000). Accuracy, authority, and voice: Feminist perspectives on autobiographical
memory. In P. H. Miller, & E. K. Scholnick (Eds.), Toward a feminist developmental
psychology (pp. 85-105). New York: Routledge.
Floyd, F. J., & Bakeman, R. (2006). Coming-out across the life course: Implications of age
and historical context. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35, 287-296. doi: 10.1007/s10508-
006-9022-x
Fox, R. C. (1995). Bisexual identities. In A. R. D’Augelli, & C. Patterson (Eds.), Lesbian, gay,
and bisexual identities over the lifespan (pp. 48-86). New York: Oxford University Press.
Gallup, Inc. (2011). Results of Gallup’s annual Values and Beliefs Poll. Retrieved from
http://www.gallup.com/poll/147785/Support-Legal-Gay-Relations-Hits-New-High.aspx
Garnets, L. D., & Kimmel, D. C. (1993). Lesbian and gay male dimensions in the psychological
study of human diversity. In L. D. Garnets, & D. C. Kimmel (Eds.), Psychological
perspectives on lesbian and gay male experience (pp. 1-51). New York: Columbia
University Press.)
Ghavami, N., Fingerhut, A., Peplau, L. A., Grant, S. K., & Wittig, M. A. (2011). Testing a model 193
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. doi: 10.1037/a0022532
Glover, J. A., Galliher, R. V., & Lamere, T. G. (2009). Identity development and exploration
among sexual minority adolescents: Examination of a multidimensional model. Journal
of Homosexuality, 56, 77-101. doi: 10.1080/00918360802551555
Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of
partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14, 575-599.
Herek, G. M. (1994). Heterosexism, hate crimes, and the law. In M. Costanzo & O. Oskamp
(Eds.), Violence and the law (pp. 89–112). London, England: Sage.
Herek, G. M. (2009). Hate crimes and stigma-related experiences among sexual minority adults
in the United States: Prevalence estimates from a national probability sample. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 24, 54-74. doi: 10.1177/0886260508316477
Horner, E. (2007). Queer identities and bisexual identities: What's the difference? In B. A.
Firestein (Ed.), Becoming visible: Counseling bisexuals across the lifespan (pp. 287-296).
New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 581-592. doi:
10.1037/0003-066X.60.6.581
Igartua, K., Thombs, B. D., Burgos, G., & Montoro, R. (2009). Concordance and discrepancy in
sexual identity, attraction, and behavior among adolescents. Journal of Adolescent
Health, 45, 602-608. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.03.019
Kalakoski, V., & Nurmi, J. E. (1998). Identity and educational transitions: Age differences in 194
adolescent exploration and commitment related to education, occupation and family.
Journal of Research on Adolescence, 8, 29-47. doi: 10.1207/s15327795jra0801_2
Katz-Wise, S. L., & Hyde, J. S. (2012). Victimization experiences of lesbian, gay, and bisexual
individuals: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sex Research, 49, 142-167. doi:
10.1080/00224499.2011.637247
Kelly, M. (1992). Self, identity and radical surgery. Sociology of Health and Illness, 14, 390-
415. doi: 10.1111/1467-9566.ep11357507
Kinnish, K. K., Strassberg, D. S., & Turner, C. W. (2005). Sex differences in the flexibility of
sexual orientation: A multidimensional retrospective assessment. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 34, 173-183. doi: 10.1007/s10508-005-1795-9
Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male.
Philadelphia: Saunders.
Kitzinger, C., & Wilkinson, S., (1995). Transitions from heterosexuality to lesbianism: The
discursive production of lesbian identities. Developmental Psychology, 31, 95-104. doi:
10.1037/0012-1649.31.1.95
Klein, F. (1993). The bisexual option, 2nd ed. New York: Harrington Park Press.
Klein, F., Sepekoff, B., & Wolf, T. J. (1985). Sexual orientation: A multi-variable dynamic
process. Journal of Homosexuality, 11, 35-49. doi: 10.1300/J082v11n01_04
Kroger, J. (1993). The role of historical context in the identity formation process of late
adolescence. Youth & Society, 24, 363-376. doi: 10.1177/0044118X93024004003
Kroger, J., & Green, K. E. (1996). Events associated with identity status change. Journal of
Adolescence, 19, 477-490. doi: 10.1006/jado.1996.0045 195
Kroger, J., Martinussen, M., & Marcia, J. E. (2010). Identity status change during adolescence
and adulthood: A meta-analysis. Journal of Adolescence, 33, 683-698. doi:
10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.11.002
Leaper, C. (2000). The social construction and socialization of gender during development. In P.
H. Miller, & E. K. Scholnick (Eds.), Toward a feminist developmental psychology (pp.
127-152). New York: Routledge.
Loftus, E. (2001). America’s liberalization in attitudes toward homosexuality, 1973–1998.
American Sociological Review, 66, 762–782. doi: 10.2307=3088957
Marcia, J. (1980). Identity in adolescence. In J. Adelson (Ed.), Handbook of adolescent
psychology (pp. 159-187). New York: Wiley.
Mays, V. M., & Cochran, S. D. (2001). Mental health correlates of perceived discrimination
among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults in the united states. American Journal of Public
Health, 91, 1869–1876. doi: 10.2105=AJPH.91.11.1869
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. doi: 10.1037=0033-2909.129.5.674
Meyer, M. D. E. (2003). Looking toward the interSEXtions: Examining bisexual and transgender
identity formation from a dialectical theoretical perspective. Journal of Bisexuality, 3,
151-170. doi: 10.1300/J159v03n03_11
Meyer, S., & Schwitzer, A. M. (1999). Stages of identity development among college students
with minority sexual orientations. Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 13, 41-65.
doi: 10.1300/J035v13n04_05 196
Michalowski, R. J. (1997). Ethnography and anxiety: Fieldwork and reflexivity in the
vortex of U.S.-Cuban relations. In Rosanna Hertz (Ed.), Reflexivity and voice (pp.45-69).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Miller, P. H., & Scholnick, E. K. (2000). Introduction: Beyond gender as a variable. In P.
H. Miller, & E. K. Scholnick (Eds.), Toward a feminist developmental psychology (pp. 3-
10). New York: Routledge.
Miller, T. R., & Taylor, D. M. (2005). Adolescent suicidality: Who will ideate, who will act?
Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 35, 425–435. doi: 10.1521/suli.2005.35.4.425
Mohr, J., & Fassinger, R. (2000). Measuring dimensions of lesbian and gay male experience.
Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 33, 66-90.
Mohr, J. J., & Kendra, M. S. (2011). Revision and extension of a multidimensional measure of
sexual minority identity: The Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Identity Scale. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 58, 234-245. doi: 10.1037/a0022858
Mohr, J. J., & Rochlen, A. B. (1999). Measuring attitudes regarding bisexuality in lesbian, gay
male, and heterosexual populations. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46, 353-369. doi:
10.1037/0022-0167.46.3.353
Money, J. (1988). Gay, straight, and in-between: The sexology of erotic orientation. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Mulick, P. S., & Wright, L. W. (2002). Examining the existence of biphobia in the heterosexual
and homosexual populations. Journal of Bisexuality, 2, 45-64. doi:
10.1300/J159v02n04_03
Mustanski, B. S. (2001). Getting wired: Exploiting the Internet for the collection of valid 197
sexuality data. Journal of Sex Research, 38, 292-301. doi: 10.1080/00224490109552100
Nardi, P. M. (1992). “Seamless souls” An introduction to men’s friendships. In P. Nardi (Ed.),
Men’s friendships (pp.1-14). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Nurmi, J. (2004). Socialization and self-development: Channeling, selection, adjustment, and
reflection. In R. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology. New
York: Wiley.
Ochs, R. (1996). Biphobia: It goes more than two ways. In B. A. Firestein (Ed.), Bisexuality: The
psychology and politics of an invisible minority (pp. 217-39). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Orne, J. (2011). ‘You will always have to ‘‘out’’ yourself’: Reconsidering coming out through
strategic outness. Sexualities, 14, 681-703. doi: 10.1177/1363460711420462
Ott, M. Q., Corliss, H. L., Wypij, D., Rosario, M., & Austin, S. B. (2011). Stability and change
in self-reported sexual orientation identity in young people: Application of mobility
metrics. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 519-532. doi: 10.1007/s10508-010-9691-3
Parks, C. A., Hughes, T. L., & Matthews, A. K. (2004). Race/ethnicity and sexual orientation:
Intersecting identities. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 10, 241-254.
doi: 10.1037/1099-9809.10.3.241
Parlee, M. B. (1996). Situated knowledges of personal embodiment: Transgender activists’ and
psychological theorists’ perspectives on ‘sex’ and ‘gender.’ Theory and Psychology, 6,
625-645. doi: 10.1177/0959354396064005
Peplau, L. A., & Garnets, L. D. (2000). A new paradigm for understanding women’s sexuality
and sexual orientation. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 329-350. doi: 10.1111/0022-
4537.00169 198
Ripley, M., Anderson, E., McCormack, M., Adams, A., & Pitts, R. (2011). The decreasing
significance of stigma in the lives of bisexual men: Keynote address, Bisexual Research
Convention, London. Journal of Bisexuality, 11, 195-206. doi:
10.1080/15299716.2011.571985
Rosario, M., Meyer-Bahlburg, H. F. L., Hunter, J., Exner, T. M., Gwadz, M., & Keller, A. M.
(1996). The psychosexual development of urban lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths. The
Journal of Sex Research, 33, 113-126. doi: 10.1080/00224499609551823
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, 266-282. doi:
10.1007/s10464-008-9207-7
Rosario, M., Schrimshaw, E. W., Hunter, J., & Braun, L. (2006). Sexual identity development
among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths: Consistency and change over time. Journal of
Sex Research, 43, 46-58. doi: 10.1080/00224490609552298
Russell, S. T., & Seif, H. (2002). Bisexual female adolescents: A critical analysis of past research
and results from a national survey. Journal of Bisexuality, 2, 73–94. doi:
10.1300=J159v02n02_05
Rust, P. C. (1993). “Coming out” in the age of social constructionism: Sexual identity
formation among lesbian and bisexual women. Gender & Society, 7, 50-77. doi:
10.1177/089124393007001004
Savin-Williams, R. C. (1990). Gay and lesbian youth: Expressions of identity. New York:
Hemisphere. 199
Savin-Williams, R. C. (2001). A critique of research on sexual-minority youths. Journal of
Adolescence, 24, 5–13. doi: 10.1006/jado.2000.0369
Savin-Williams, R. C. (2005). The new gay teenager. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Savin-Williams, R. C. (2006). Who’s gay? Does it matter? Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 15, 40-44. doi: 10.1111/j.0963-7214.2006.00403.x
Savin-Williams, R. C., & Diamond, L. M. (1999). Sexual orientation. In W. K. Silverman & T.
H. Ollendick (Eds.), Developmental issues in the clinical treatment of children (pp. 241–
258). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Savin-Williams, R. C., Joyner, K., & Rieger, G. (2012). Prevalence and stability of self-reported
sexual orientation identity during young adulthood. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 103-
110. doi: 10.1007/a10508-012-9913-y
Savin-Williams, R. C., & Ream, G. L. (2007). Prevalence and stability of sexual orientation
components during adolescence and young adulthood. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36,
385-394. doi: 10.1007/s10508-006-9088-5
Scholnick, E. K. (2000). Engendering development: Metaphors of change. In P. H. Miller, & E.
K. Scholnick (Eds.), Toward a feminist developmental psychology (pp. 29-42). New
York: Routledge.
Smith, T. W. (2011). Public attitudes toward sexuality. Chicago: NORC/University of Chicago.
Retrieved from http://www.norc.org/PDFs/2011%20GSS%20Reports/GSS_Public%20
Attitudes%20Toward%20Homosexuality_Sept2011.pdf
Steinberg, L. (2005). Identity. In L. Steinberg, Adolescence (pp. 263-295). New York: McGraw- 200
Hill.
Stokes, J. P., Damon, W., & McKirnan, D. J. (1997). Predictors of movement toward
homosexuality: A longitudinal study of bisexual men. Journal of Sex Research, 34, 304–
312. doi: 10.1080/00224499709551896
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory, 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Striepe, M. I., & Tolman, D. L. (2003). Mom, Dad, I’m straight: The coming out of
gender ideologies in adolescent sexual-identity development. Journal of Clinical
Child and Adolescent Psychology, 32, 525-530. doi: 10.1207/S15374424JCCP3204_4
Stryker, S. (1987). The vitalization of symbolic interactionism. Social Psychology Quarterly,
50, 83-94. doi: 10.2307/2786893
Tajfel, H. (1981). Social stereotypes and social groups. In J. C. Turner & H. Giles (Eds.),
Intergroup behavior (pp. 144–167). Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.
Thelen, E. (1989). Self-organization in developmental processes: Can systems approaches
work? In M. Gunnar & E. Thelen, Systems and development. Minnesota Symposium
on Child Psychology, Volume 22. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Thelen, E. (2005). Dynamic systems theory and the complexity of change. Psychoanalytic
Dialogues, 15, 255-283. doi: 10.1080/10481881509348831
Thompson, E. M., & Morgan, E. M. (2008). “Mostly straight” young women: Variations in
sexual behavior and identity development. Developmental Psychology, 44, 15-21. doi:
10.1037/0012-1649.44.1.15
Tolman, D. L., & Diamond, L. M. (2001). Desegregating sexuality research: Combining cultural 201
and biological perspectives on gender and desire. Annual Review of Sex Research, 12, 33-
74.
Turner, C. F., Ku, L., Rogers, S. M., Lindberg, L. D., Pleck, J. H., & Sonenstein, F. L. (1998).
Adolescent sexual behavior, drug use, and violence: Increased reporting with computer
survey technology. Science, 280, 867-873. doi: 10.1126/science.280.5365.867
Udry, J. R., & Chantala, K. M. (2002). Risk assessment of adolescents with same-sex
relationships. Journal of Adolescent Health, 31, 84–92. doi: 10.1016=S1054-
139X(02)00374-9
Valocchi, S. (2005). Not yet queer enough: The lessons of queer theory for the sociology of
gender and sexuality. Gender & Society, 19, 750-770. doi: 10.1177/0891243205280294
Vrangalova, Z., & Savin-Williams, R. C. (2012). Mostly heterosexual and mostly gay/lesbian:
Evidence for new sexual orientation identities. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 85-101.
doi: 10.1007/s10508-012-9921-y
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Weinberg, M. S., Williams, C. J., & Pryor, D. W. (1994). Dual attraction: Understanding
bisexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wekker, G. (2006). The politics of passion: Women’s sexual culture in the Afro-Surinamese
diaspora. New York: Columbia University Press.
Zinik, G. (1985). Identity conflict or adaptive flexibility? Bisexuality reconsidered. Journal of
Homosexuality, 11, 7-19. doi: 10.1300/J082v11n01_02
202
Table 1
Demographic Characteristics for Women and Men (Study 1)
Women Men Measure (N = 124) (N = 75) Individual Demographics Gender (%) Female 96.0 0 Male 0 93.3 Transgender 2.4 5.3 Other 1.6 1.3 Age (M/SD) 21.56 (2.45) 21.39 (2.61) Ethnicity (%) White/Caucasian 79.6 87.3 Black/African American 1.8 0 Asian 5.3 2.8 Latino/Hispanic 1.8 4.2 Native American .9 1.4 Mixed ethnicity 10.6 4.2 Location (%) Wisconsin 86.8 90.3 Other U.S. State 12.4 9.7 Outside U.S. .9 0 Current level of education (%) Some high school 0 2.8 High school degree 5.3 2.8 Some college 61.9 63.4 College degree 15.9 16.9 Some graduate/professional school 13.3 9.9 Graduate/professional degree 3.5 4.2 Desired level of education (%) Some high school 0 1.4 High school degree 0 1.4 Some college 0 0 College degree 21.2 25.4 Some graduate/professional school 10.6 5.6 Graduate/professional degree 68.1 66.2 Family Demographics Mother’s level of education (%) Some high school 1.8 8.3 High school degree 18.6 22.2 Some college 20.4 16.7 College degree 33.6 40.3 203
Some graduate/professional school 6.2 6.9 Graduate/professional degree 19.5 5.6 Father’s level of education (%) Some high school 1.8 8.3 High school degree 22.5 26.4 Some college 16.2 11.1 College degree 31.5 29.2 Some graduate/professional school 3.6 2.8 Graduate/professional degree 24.3 22.2 SES while growing up (%) Lower-class 8.8 15.3 Middle-class 80.5 76.4 Upper-class 10.6 8.3 Parental divorce (%) 25.9 26.8 Age at parental divorce (M/SD) 10.17 (6.54) 10.47 (6.12) Recruitment Where heard about study (%) UW-Madison Psychology Dept. 14.2 9.9 Women’s/Gender Studies Dept. at 12.4 5.6 college/university LGBT campus center 10.6 11.3 LGBT community center 1.8 1.4 LezTalkMadison listserv 1.8 0 Class on gender and/or sexuality 4.4 4.2 Flyer .9 4.2 Email 29.2 25.4 From a friend 14.2 26.8 Other 10.6 11.3
Notes. Frequencies are based on the total number of participants who responded to a particular measure, excluding missing data.
204 Table 2
Descriptive Statistics for All Measures for Women and Men (Study 1)
Women Men Measure (N = 124) (N = 75) Gender Beliefs about Sexual Identity Beliefs about sexual identity (Diamond, 2005) (M/SD) Attracted to person rather than gender 3.54 (1.13) 2.81 (1.27) F (1, 194) = 14.55** Sexuality born with 4.02 (.98) 4.24 (.94) NS Sexuality influenced by environment 3.09 (1.19) 2.65 (1.24) F (1, 194) = 6.81* Sexual identity is chosen 3.22 (1.32 2.92 (1.46) NS Fall in love with person rather than gender 3.70 (1.10) 2.93 (1.34) F (1, 198) = 19.36** Attracted to gender before person 2.75 (1.21) 3.41 (1.33) F (1, 198) = 13.15** Sexual fluidity scale (Diamond, 1998) (M/SD) 4.41 (1.51) 3.48 (1.44) F (1, 198) = 18.17** Entity vs. incremental view of sexuality (Dweck) (M/SD) Sexual orientation-based 4.08 (1.37) 3.52 (1.57) F (1, 193) = 6.78* Person-based 3.37 (1.53) 2.66 (1.48) F (1, 193) = 10.30** Attitudes toward Bisexuality Attitudes toward bisexuality (ARBS-F, ARBS-M) 4.40 (.66) 4.35 (.66) - (M/SD) Stability 4.07 (.86) 3.90 (.89) - Tolerance 4.72 (.62) 4.79 (.60) - Components of Sexual Orientation Sexual orientation (KSOG) (M/SD) 4.08 (1.72) 5.26 (1.42) F (1, 187) = 23.68** Past 3.87 (1.70) 5.05 (1.52) F (1, 198) = 24.29** Present 4.28 (1.90) 5.41 (1.43) F (1, 198) = 19.91** Ideal 4.25 (1.78) 5.23 (1.60) F (1, 198) = 15.26** Romantic attraction (Diamond, 1998) (M/SD) 13.15 (73.68) 53.77 (60.87) F (1, 194) = 24.41** Other-gender (%) 42 16 - Equal other-gender/same-gender 4 10 -
205 Same-gender 54 7 - Sexual attraction (Diamond, 1998) (M/SD) 10.35 (72.72) 59.20 (58.81) F (1, 194) = 31.99** Other-gender (%) 43 13 - Equal other-gender/same-gender 6 7 - Same-gender 52 80 - Sexual fantasy (Diamond, 2008a) (M/SD) 11.07 (73.45) 65.89 (57.17) F (1, 190) = 39.52** Other-gender (%) 38 12 - Equal other-gender/same-gender 9 0 - Same-gender 53 85 - Current sexual fantasies (KSOG) (M/SD) 4.37 (2.12) 6.01 (1.48) F (1, 190) = 44.56** Sexual contact (Diamond, 2000) (M/SD) Same-gender 1.44 (1.16) 2.41 (1.12) F (1, 198) = 34.03** Other-gender 2.28 (1.16) 1.17 (1.18) F (1, 198) = 42.27** Past sexual behavior (KSOG) (M/SD) 3.43 (2.31) 5.26 (2.24) F (1, 187) = 34.64** Romantic relationships (%) Currently in a relationship 54 47 NS Duration of relationship (years) (M/SD) .92 (1.67) .51 (.91) - Currently in a relationship with a woman 48 23 - Currently in a relationship with a man 46 74 - Currently in a relationship with a transgender person 6 3 - Currently socialize (KSOG) (M/SD) 4.45 (1.40) 3.61 (1.32) F (1, 194) = 13.64** Sexual Identity Sexual identity (forced-choice) (%) χ2 (6, N = 199) = 36.26** Completely heterosexual/straight 14 3 - Mostly heterosexual/straight 14 4 - Bisexual 19 12 - Mostly homosexual/gay/lesbian 9 13 - Completely homosexual/gay/lesbian 16 52 - Queer 17 8 - Questioning/unsure 4 4 - Unlabeled 8 4 - Sexual identity (LGBIS) (M/SD)
206 Acceptance concerns 4.16 (1.56) 4.32 (1.60) NS Concealment motivation 4.00 (1.77) 3.60 (1.97) NS Identity uncertainty 2.52 (1.57) 1.80 (1.43) F (1, 185) = 8.07** Internalized Homonegativity 2.41 (1.57) 2.59 (1.88) NS Difficult process 2.41 (1.57) 4.57 (1.89) F (1, 185) = 10.80** Identity superiority 1.95 (1.40) 2.01 (1.35) NS Identity affirmation 5.11 (1.56) 5.46 (1.56) NS Identity centrality 4.57 (1.50) 4.58 (1.58) NS Change in Attractions/Labels Change in attractions/labels (%) Change in attractions 64 52 NS Change in sexual identity labels 49 36 NS More than one change in attractions 22 21 NS Sexual Identity Development Sexual identity development milestones (M/SD) Age of first same-gender romantic attraction 12.77(4.53) 11.63 (4.18) NS Age of first same-gender sexual encounter 16.78 (3.75) 15.48 (3.94) F (1, 118) = 6.40* Age of first self-labeling as LGBQ 17.90 (2.57) 16.29 (2.76) F (1, 118) = 10.11** Age of first same-gender romantic relationship 18.06 (2.49) 17.79 (2.43) NS Age of first questioning sexual orientation 15.48 (3.24) 12.89 (2.99) F (1, 118) = 28.53** Sexual identity development scale (Diamond, 1998) 3.83 (1.60) 4.62 (1.59) F (1, 191) = 10.97** (M/SD) Sexual identity development phase (LIQ-R, GIS) (%) Awareness 6 3 - Exploration 13 20 - Deepening/Commitment 15 33 - Internalization/Synthesis 52 39 - No predominant phase 7 1 - Contextual Factors Sexual minority outness (OI) (M/SD) 3.67 (1.92) 4.08 (1.76) NS Out to family 3.92 (1.96) 4.43 (1.87) NS Out to world 3.49 (2.00) 4.09 (1.81) NS
207 Out to religion 3.42 (2.64) 2.91 (2.42) NS Sexual orientation-based victimization (Herek, 2009) 2.02 (3.79) 3.40 (3.63) F (1, 182) = 6.79* (M/SD) Criminal victimization .37 (1.20) .68 (1.17) - Harassment and threats 1.54 (2.42) 2.60 (2.61) - Discrimination .19 (.77) .43 (.84) - Family approval of sexuality (Diamond, 2008a) (M/SD) Current approval 3.55 (.85) 3.68 (.88) NS Past approval 3.36 (.96) 3.27 (.97) NS Felt stigma (Herek, 2009) (M/SD) Currently live 2.21 (.75) 2.08 (.73) NS Lived while growing up 3.27 (.91) 3.40 (.92) NS Religion/spirituality (M/SD) Importance of religion/spirituality 2.44 (1.02) 2.17 (1.04) NS Importance of religion/spirituality to self-identity 2.21 (.97) 2.07 (1.04) NS Attendance at religious/spiritual services (%) NS At least once per week 11 4 - At least once per month 9 9 - A few times a year 36 32 - Never 34 51 -
Notes: For all variables with a mean, SD is in parentheses. Higher scores represent greater endorsement sexual identity beliefs (range: 1-5), greater sexual fluidity (range: 1-7), an incremental view of sexuality rather than an entity view (range: 1-7), and more positive attitudes toward bisexuality (range: 1-5). KSOG (Klein Sexual Orientation Grid) items were measured on a Likert scale from 1 (other-sex only) to 7 (same-sex only) with 4 = both sexes equally. Romantic and sexual attraction were measured as a proportion of other-gender vs. same-gender, on a scale from -100 (exclusive other- gender) to + 100 (exclusive same-gender), with 0 representing equal attraction to women and men. Sexual contact response options were: 0 (none), 1 (1), 2 (2-3), and 3 (4 or more). Higher scores represent greater indication of each aspect of identity (range: 1-7), greater sexual identity development before age 13 (range: 1-7), greater outness as a sexual minority (range: 1-7), more experiences of victimization (range: 0-24), greater family approval of sexuality (range: 1-5), more felt stigma (range: 1-5), and more importance of religion/spirituality (range: 1-4). ARBS-F/ARBS-M = Attitudes Regarding Bisexuality Scale-Female/Male. LGBIS = Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Identity Scale. LIQ-R = Lesbian Identity Questionnaire-Revised; GIS = Gay Identity Scale. OI = Outness Inventory. *p < .05, p < .01**, NS = not significant. 208
Table 3
Frequencies for Contextual Factors Prompting First Questioning of Sexual Orientation in
Women and Men (Study 1)
Women Men Measure (N = 124) (N = 75) “I began to question my sexual orientation…” (%) When I first heard about lesbian, gay, or bisexual people. 22.6 20.0 When I first met someone who identified as lesbian, gay, or 24.2 10.7 bisexual. When I discovered that one of my friends was attracted to 16.9 9.3 someone of the same gender. After discussing issues related to sexual orientation with my 29.8 18.7 friends. Because I was dating a bisexual man/woman. 3.2 1.3 Because I found out that another woman/man was sexually 12.9 12.0 interested in me. Because I became attracted to a woman/man. 58.9 76.0 Because I felt an unusual emotional closeness to a woman/man. 48.4 37.3 When I became fascinated with women’s/men’s bodies. 32.3 58.7 When I had intentional sexual contact with another woman/man. 18.5 17.3 When I was uninterested in men/women. 16.9 29.3
Notes. Frequencies do not add up to 100% because participants could check more than one statement.
209 Table 4
Correlations between Measures for Women and Men (Study 1)
Measures 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Beliefs/Attitudes About Sexuality Beliefs about sexual identity 1. Person-centered 1 -.09 .06 -.00 .77** -.56** .09 .05 .28** .20* .31** attraction 2. Sexuality born with -.01 1 -.41** -.04 -.08 .07 -.27** -.33** -.04 -.07 -.00 3. Sexuality influenced by .24* -.30** 1 .12 .05 .05 .21* .36** -.11 -.14 -.04 environment 4. Sexual identity chosen .30** -.31** .36** 1 .01 .05 .19* .26** .04 .11 -.07 5. Fall in love with person .79** .05 .21 .20 1 -.55* .06 .05 .29** .18 .37** 6. Attracted to gender first -.57** .06 -.10 -.10 -.61** 1 -.05 -.03 -.17 -.09 -.23** Entity vs. incremental view ------7. Sexual orientation- .26* -.49** .43** .51** .22 -.03 1 .67** .11 .20* -.03 based 8. Person-based .23* -.35** .42** .45** .17 -.05 .56** 1 -.06 .03 -.16 9. Attitudes toward .30** .26* .08 -.05 .30** -.25* .13 -.07 1 .92** .84** bisexuality 10. Stability .34** .15 .13 .01 .37** -.31** .21 .00 .93** 1 .55** 11. Tolerance .16 .37** -.00 -.11 .11 -.08 -.01 -.15 .82** .55** 1 Components of Sexual 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Orientation 1. Sexual orientation (KSOG) 1 .95** .96** .97** .82** .80** .92** .90** .71** -.03 .87** 2. Past .96** 1 .83** .87** .72** .88** .82** .82** .60** -.15 .78** 3. Present .96** .92** 1 .91** .86** .74** .90** .87** .58** -.12 .86** 4. Ideal .94** .83** .83** 1 .78** .69** .88** .89** .62** -.02 .85** 5. Current sexual fantasies .86** .81** .91** .75** 1 .63** .74** .79** .47** -.10 .88** 6. Past sexual behavior .83** .88** .79** .71** .68** 1 .70** .63** .53** -.31** .62** 7. Romantic attraction .92** .88** .94** .81** .84** .77** 1 .86** .58** -.12 .85** (Diamond)
210 8. Sexual attraction .91** .85** .93** .81** .91** .70** .91** 1 .60** -.03 .87** (Diamond) Sexual contact (Diamond) ------9. Same-gender .42** .40** .43** .39** .41** .36** .39** .44** 1 .32** .56** 10. Other-gender -.68** -.71** -.64** -.56** -.56** -.63** -.64** -.60** -.00 1 -.03 11. Sexual fantasy (Diamond) .88** .81** .89** .76** .90** .66** .89** .96** .43** -.55** 1 Sexual Identity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Sexual identity (LGBIS) 1. Acceptance concerns 1 .26** .27** .18 .46** -.03 .10 .13 2. Concealment motivation .20 1 .52** .25** .35** -.27** -.29** -.32** 3. Identity uncertainty .11 .43** 1 .36** .27** .02 -.26** -.18* 4. Internalized .47** .45** .27* 1 .31** -.11 -.60** -.32** homonegativity 5. Difficult process .40** .41** .12 .49** 1 -.04 -.01 .09 6. Identity superiority .06 -.26* -.09 .22 -.05 1 .23* .38** 7. Identity affirmation -.04 -.48** -.18 -.48** -.23* .11 1 .66** 8. Identity centrality .17 -.42** -.21 -.19 -.04 .18 .59** 1 Sexual Identity Development 1 2 3 4 5 Milestones (Age) 1. Same-gender romantic 1 .62** .47** .45** .42** attraction 2. Same-gender sexual .57** 1 .21 .68** .62** encounter 3. Self-labeling as LGBQ .46** .58** 1 .39** .54** 4. Same-gender romantic .23 .25* .20 1 .81** relation. 5. Ques. sexual orientation -.07 -.21 .20 .60** 1 Contextual Factors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1. Sexual minority outness 1 .90** .92** .95** .32** .23* -.08 -.18 -.04 .41** .32** 2. Out to family .88** 1 .70** .77** .25** .35** -.00 -.09 -.01 .29** .20* 3. Out to world .87** .66** 1 .87** .29** .18 -.06 -.18 -.07 .39** .36** 4. Out to religion .89** .66** .64** 1 .34* .12 -.09 -.17 -.16 .60** .44** 5. Victimization .27* .27* .22 .14 1 -.06 -.16 .15 .19* .21* .19* Family approval of sexuality ------
211 6. Current approval .41** .59** .26* .27 -.12 1 .65** .05 .06 .07 .08 7. Past approval .29* .38** .16 .26 -.30* .80** 1 .03 -.17 -.05 -.00 Felt stigma ------8. Currently live -.19 -.14 -.27* .05 .02 -.12 -.15 1 .04 -.07 -.10 9. Lived while growing up .07 -.03 .10 .04 .35** -.36** -.38** .18 1 -.16 -.07 Religion/spirituality ------10. Importance -.06 -.06 -.04 .27 .18 -.06 -.07 .25* .09 1 .87** 11. Importance to self- -.09 -.08 -.06 .17 .21 -.13 -.10 .25* .12 .85** 1 identity
Notes: Correlations for women are above the diagonal, and correlations for men are below the diagonal. *p < .05, **p < .01.
212
Table 5
Descriptive Statistics for Change in Attractions over Time and Related Variables for Women and
Men (Study 1)
Women Men Measures (N = 124) (N = 74)
Change in attractions (%) 63.7 52.0
Change in labels (%) 49.2 36.0
Age of first change in attractions (M/SD) 17.46 (2.51) 15.97 (4.29)
More than one change in attractions (%) 22.6 21.3
Number of changes in attractions (M/SD) 2.56 (.98) 2.73 (1.10)
Age of subsequent change in attractions (M/SD) 16.94 (3.95) 16.84 (3.08)
Likelihood of future change in attractions (M/SD) 2.19 (1.12) 1.71 (.96)
Notes. For all variables with a mean, SD is in parentheses. Likelihood of future change in attractions was measured on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (completely unlikely) to 5 (completely likely).
213
Table 6
Number of Women and Men Who Are Sexually Fluid (SF) vs. Non-Sexually Fluid (NSF) in Each
Sexual Identity Group (Study 1)
Women Men
SF NSF SF NSF Sexual Identity Group (N = 79) (N = 45) (N = 39) (N = 36)
Completely heterosexual/straight 1 (1.3%) 16 (35.6%) 0 (0%) 2 (5.6%)
Mostly heterosexual/straight 11 (13.9) 6 (13.3) 3 (7.7) 0 (0)
Bisexual 21 (26.6) 2 (4.4) 6 (15.4) 3 (8.3)
Mostly homosexual/gay/lesbian 7 (8.9) 4 (8.9) 5 (12.8) 5 (13.9)
Completely homosexual/gay/lesbian 14 (17.7) 6 (13.3) 16 (41.0) 23 (63.9)
Queer 16 (20.3) 5 (11.1) 3 (7.7) 3 (8.3)
Questioning/unsure 3 (3.8) 2 (4.4) 3 (7.7) 0 (0)
Unlabeled 6 (7.6) 4 (8.9) 3 (7.7) 0 (0)
Notes. The numbers represent the count of participants in each group, with the percentage in parentheses. The Questioning/unsure and Unlabeled groups were combined to meet the statistical assumptions for chi-square analyses, but they are separated here for descriptive purposes.
214 Table 7
Descriptive Statistics for Components of Sexual Orientation for Sexually Fluid (SF) vs. Non-Sexually Fluid (NSF) Women and
Men (Study 1)
Women Men SF NSF SF NSF Gender X Measure (N = 79) (N = 45) (N = 39) (N = 36) Gender SF/NSF SF/NSF Romantic attraction 32.71 -21.20 39.00 69.36 F (1, 198) F (1, 198) (M/SD) (64.13) (77.40) (64.11) (53.82) = 24.41** NS = 18.48** 26.51 -18.00 46.46 72.47 F (1, 198) F (1, 198) Sexual attraction (M/SD) (64.12) (78.76) (58.64) (55.94) = 31.99** NS = 12.94 Sexual behavior: Women vs. men (N) Exclusive other- gender 12 18 2 2 Both genders 43 11 22 11 Exclusive same- gender 5 5 7 17 χ2 (2, N = 94) = 14.05** χ2 (2, N = 61) = 7.82* Sexual behavior: F (1, 187) F (1, 187) Past experience (M/SD) 3.81 (2.23) 2.82 (2.33) 4.72 (2.38) 5.88 (1.92) = 34.64** NS = 10.16** Romantic relationships (N) Exclusive other- gender 10 4 8 13 Both genders 26 21 9 6 Exclusive same- gender 40 15 19 12 χ2 (2, N = 116) = 3.65 χ2 (2, N = 67) = 3.02 Sexual fantasy: 30.03 -20.93 58.54 73.44 F (1, 190) F (1, 190)
215 Diamond item (M/SD) (63.89) (78.02) (57.26) (56.87) = 39.52** NS = 11.35** Sexual fantasy: F (1, 190) F (1, 190) F (1, 190) KSOG item (M/SD) 4.92 (1.77) 3.44 (2.35) 5.92 (1.32) 6.11 (1.64) = 44.56** = 5.47* = 9.24** Emotional/social F (1, 194) preference 4.66 (1.37) 4.07 (1.39) 3.56 (1.35) 3.67 (1.31) = 25.19** NS NS
Notes. For all variables with a mean, SD is in parentheses. Romantic, sexual attraction, and sexual fantasy were measured as a proportion of other- gender vs. same-gender, on a scale from -100 (exclusive other-gender) to + 100 (exclusive same-gender), with 0 representing equal attraction to or fantasy about both women and men. Sexual behavior and romantic relationships were measured by number of women vs. men, which was recoded into exclusive other-gender, both genders, and exclusive same-gender. Sexual behavior was also measured by the item, “In the past, with whom have you actually had sex?” Sexual fantasy was also measured by the item, “Currently whom are your sexual fantasies about?” Emotional/social preference was measured by the item, “Currently, with members of which sex do you socialize?” All three items were measured on a Likert scale from 1 (other-sex only) to 7 (same-sex only) with 4 = both sexes equally. *p < .05, p < .01**, NS = not significant.
216
Table 8
Number of Women and Men Who Are Sexually Fluid (SF) vs. Non-Sexually Fluid (NSF) in Each
Sexual Identity Development Phase (Study 1)
Women Men
SF NSF SF NSF Sexual Identity Development Phase (N = 76) (N = 38) (N = 36) (N = 34)
Awareness 2 (2.6) 5 (13.2) 1 (2.8) 1 (2.9)
Exploration 12 (15.8) 4 (10.5) 10 (27.8) 5 (14.7)
Deepening/Commitment 12 (15.8) 6 (15.8) 11 (30.6) 14 (41.2)
Internalizaton/Synthesis 47 (61.8) 18 (47.4) 14 (38.9) 13 (38.2)
No predominant phase 3 (3.9) 5 (13.2) 0 (0) 1 (2.9)
Notes. Sexual identity development was measured using the Lesbian Identity Scale for women, and the Gay Identity Scale for men. The numbers represent the count of participants in each group, with the percentage in parentheses. The Awareness and No predominant phase groups were excluded from the analyses to meet the statistical assumptions for chi-square, but they are presented here for descriptive purposes.
217
Table 9
Descriptive Statistics for Age of Sexual Identity Development Milestones for Sexually Fluid (SF) vs. Non-Sexually Fluid (NSF) Women and Men (Study 1)
Women Men
Sexual Identity Development SF NSF SF NSF Milestone (N = 53) (N = 16) (N = 32) (N = 21)
Age first same-gender romantic attraction/crush 13.42 (4.94) 11.63 (4.16) 11.34 (4.00) 10.55 (3.45)
Age first question sexual orientation 15.95 (3.02) 15.06 (3.94) 12.64 (2.72) 11.98 (2.44)
Age first same-gender sexual encounter 17.23 (2.55) 16.63 (3.28) 15.72 (3.87) 14.62 (3.19)
Age first LGBQ label 18.32 (2.55) 18.28 (18.31) 16.44 (2.46) 15.48 (2.34)
Age first same-gender romantic relationship 18.28 (2.65) 18.31 (1.85) 18.28 (2.53) 17.29 (2.08)
Notes. All ages are reported as a mean, with SD in parentheses.
218
Table 10
Descriptive Statistics for Negative Identity and Outness Subscales for Sexually Fluid (SF) vs.
Non-Sexually Fluid (NSF) Women and Men (Study 1)
Women Men
SF NSF SF NSF Negative Identity Subscale (N = 76) (N = 40) (N = 39) (N = 34)
Acceptance Concerns 4.58 (1.41) 3.43 (1.55) 4.02 (1.59) 4.66 (1.55)
Concealment Motivation 4.19 (1.78) 3.64 (1.72) 3.76 (2.06) 3.33 (1.82)
Identity Uncertainty 2.78 (1.63) 2.08 (1.38) 2.21 (1.64) 1.35 (1.00)
Internalized Homonegativity 2.35 (1.54) 2.56 (1.68) 2.40 (1.82) 2.85 (1.95)
Difficult Process 3.69 (1.94) 3.20 (1.66) 4.27 (1.94) 4.51 (1.87)
Overall Outness 3.48 (1.81) 4.06 (2.10) 3.75 (1.70) 4.48 (1.78)
Outness Subscale
Out to Family 3.23 (1.77) 4.26 (2.42) 3.96 (2.23) 4.33 (1.95)
Out to World 2.72 (1.74) 4.48 (2.28) 3.23 (1.96) 3.82 (2.02)
Out to Religion 2.36 (2.26) 4.60 (2.54) 2.64 (2.41) 3.22 (2.58)
Notes. All means are reported with SD in parentheses. Range = 1-7. Negative identity was measured using the Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Identity Scale. Outness was measured using the Outness Inventory. Higher scores represent more negative identity and greater outness.
219
Table 11
Descriptive Statistics for Beliefs About Sexual Identity for Sexually Fluid (SF) vs. Non-Sexually
Fluid (NSF) Women and Men (Study 1)
Women Men
SF NSF SF NSF Sexual Identity Beliefs (N = 78) (N = 45) (N = 39) (N = 36)
I’m the kind of person who is attracted to the person rather than their gender. 3.74 (1.03) 3.20 (1.24) 2.95 (1.21) 2.67 (1.33)
I feel my sexuality has been influenced by my environment. 2.97 (1.21) 3.27 (1.14) 2.67 (1.26) 2.64 (1.22)
I feel my own sexual identity is something I chose. 3.26 (1.32) 3.13 (1.33) 3.10 (1.45) 2.72 (1.47)
I feel my sexuality is something I was born with. 4.01 (.96) 4.02 (1.01) 4.03 (.96) 4.47 (.88)
Dweck Scales
Other 4.23 (1.46) 3.82 (1.16) 3.81 (1.49) 3.13 (1.58)
Self 3.35 (1.64) 3.41 (1.34) 2.76 (1.40) 2.54 (1.58)
Notes. All means are reported with SD in parentheses. Range for sexual identity beliefs: 1-5. Higher scores represent greater endorsement of the item. Range for Dweck scale scores: 1-7. Higher scores represent an incremental view, rather than an entity view of sexuality.
220
Table 12
Descriptive Statistics for Attitudes Toward Bisexuality, Family Approval of Sexuality,
Experiences of Sexual Orientation-Based Victimization, and Felt Stigma for Sexually Fluid (SF) vs. Non-Sexually Fluid (NSF) Women and Men (Study 1)
Women Men
SF NSF SF NSF Measure (N = 68-79) (N = 37-45) (N = 36-39) (N = 32-36)
Attitudes Toward Bisexuality 4.52 (.53) 4.17 (.79) 4.48 (.56) 4.20 (.72)
Stability Subscale 4.18 (.83) 3.88 (.90) 4.08 (.89) 3.71 (.85)
Tolerance Subscale 4.87 (.38) 4.46 (.85) 4.88 (.38) 4.70 (.76)
Family Approval of Sexuality
Past 3.27 (.89) 3.51 (1.08) 3.20 (.86) 3.34 (1.09)
Current 3.56 (.70) 3.59 (1.07) 3.62 (.83) 3.73 (.94)
Victimization 2.21 (3.60) 1.64 (4.15) 2.81 (3.27) 4.03 (3.93)
Felt Stigma
While Growing Up 3.41 (.89) 2.97 (.89) 3.37 (.98) 3.43 (.86)
Where Currently Live 2.19 (.74) 2.27 (.77) 2.04 (.77) 2.13 (.68)
Notes. All means are reported with SD in parentheses. Higher scores represent more positive attitudes toward bisexuality (range: 1-5), greater family approval of sexuality (range: 1-5), more experiences of victimization, and more felt stigma (range: 1-5).
221
Table 13
Frequencies of Sexual Fluidity Interpretations from Women’s and Men’s Open-Ended Responses
(Study 1)
Women Men Codes (N = 71) (N = 40) Romantic/Sexual Experiences 39.4 27.5 Emotional closeness to same-gender person 5.6 2.5 Attraction to/crush on same-gender/other-gender person 19.7 12.5 Sexual experience/relationship with same-gender/other-gender person 16.9 10.0 Being single 1.4 0 Pornography/masturbation 1.4 2.5 Negative sexual or romantic experience/sexual abuse 2.8 0 Transgender 2.8 7.5 Relationship with a transgender person 2.8 2.5 Gender transition 0 5.0 Self-Awareness/Beliefs 80.3 77.5 Self-awareness/realization of attractions 59.2 62.5 Increased comfort with sexuality 7.0 7.5 Person-centered attraction/love 11.3 7.5 Sexuality is fluid 5.6 2.5 Experimentation/exploration/openness 16.9 20.0 Adolescence/Biological 7.0 15.0 Pubertal change/adolescence 4.2 12.5 Hormones 2.8 5.0 Community/Exposure 26.8 10.0 Access to resources/support 2.8 2.5 Exposure to/knowledge of LGBTQ 11.3 2.0 Meeting/knowing LGBTQ people 9.9 0 Gender and Women’s Studies class 4.2 0 Exposure to environment welcoming of LGBTQ 2.8 0 Going to college 9.9 7.5 Heteronormativity 23.9 30.0 Familial expectations/familial pressure to be heterosexual 7.0 5.0 Societal norms/cultural expectations/heterosexuality 18.3 27.5 Fear of homophobia 2.8 5.0 Time/getting older 7.0 12.5
Notes. Numbers represent frequency of responses coded into each category. Participants’ responses could be coded into more than one category.
222
Table 14
Demographic Characteristics for Interview Participants (Study 2)
Gender Educatio Participant Identity Sexual Identity Age Ethnicity n Level Location Mostly Some Amanda Female homosexual/lesbian 23 White college Milwaukee Mostly Some Ashley Female heterosexual/straight 20 White college Madison Completely Some Chris Transgender homosexual/gay 21 White college Madison College Prairie du Danny Transgender Bisexual 26 White degree Chien Native Some David Male Unlabeled 26 American college Madison Some grad/prof Heather Transgender Queer 26 White school Madison Mostly Some James Male homosexual/gay 21 White college Madison Some grad/prof Jason Male Unlabeled 25 White school Milwaukee Some Completely grad/prof Jennifer Female homosexual/lesbian 25 White school Madison Some Jessica Female Questioning/unsure 21 White college Madison Mostly Some Joe Male heterosexual/straight 20 White college Madison Some John Male Queer 19 White college Madison Some Josh Male Bisexual 19 White college Madison 223
Some Lian Female Bisexual 22 Asian college Madison Some grad/prof Melissa Female Queer 24 White school Milwaukee Completely Some Mike Male homosexual/gay 21 White college Madison White/ Some Nicole Transgender Queer 22 Latina college Madison Mostly Some Will Male homosexual/gay 19 White college Madison
224
Table 15
Descriptive Statistics for Selected Study 1 Measures for Interview Participants (Study 2)
Entity vs. Incremental Attitudes Number of Sexual View of Toward Romantic Sexual Sexual Partners Minority Sexuality Bisexuality Attraction Attraction Since Age 13 Outness Same- Other- Participant Gender Gender Amanda 6.25 4.08 100 80 4+ 4+ 5.13 Ashley 3.75 4.83 -100 -40 1 4+ 1.75 Chris 6.00 5.00 100 100 1 1 5.67 Danny 6.25 5.00 80 20 2-3 1 4.75 David 6.25 5.00 -20 -60 1 4+ - Heather 5.25 5.00 -80 -40 1 4+ 2.13 Jason 4.00 3.58 0 40 2-3 4+ 3.08 Jennifer 5.50 4.75 80 100 4+ 4+ 4.00 Jessica 5.50 4.17 0 80 2-3 4+ 1.25 Joe 4.25 4.83 -50 -30 0 1 1.00 John 4.00 5.00 80 60 2-3 2-3 5.00 Josh 2.75 4.42 -30 30 2-3 2-3 4.50 Lian 4.50 4.17 90 -90 1 4+ 2.67 Melissa 1.00 4.75 90 90 4+ 4+ 4.00 Mike 2.75 5.00 100 100 2-3 1 3.50 Nicole 4.75 3.33 100 60 4+ 4+ 6.13 Will 3.25 5.00 80 60 2-3 2-3 3.38
Notes. James is not included because as a pilot participant, he completed a preliminary version of the Study 1 questionnaire. Higher scores represent an incremental view of sexuality, that sexuality can change, rather than an entity view, that sexuality is fixed (range: 1-7), more positive attitudes toward bisexuality (range: 1-5), and greater outness as a sexual minority (range: 1-7). Romantic and sexual attraction were measured as a proportion of other- gender vs. same-gender, on a scale from -100 (exclusive other-gender) to + 100 (exclusive same-gender), with 0 representing equal attraction to women and men.
225
Figure 1. Romantic Attraction Toward Other-Gender (-100) vs. Same-Gender (100) People for
Women and Men Using Diamond’s Measure (Study 1)
226
Figure 2. Sexual Attraction Toward Other-Gender (-100) vs. Same-Gender (100) People for
Women and Men Using Diamond’s Measure (Study 1)
227
* ns
*
ns
Figure 3. Romantic (Top Chart) and Sexual (Bottom Chart) Attraction Toward Same-Gender vs.
Other-Gender People for Sexually Fluid (SF) and Non-Sexually Fluid (NSF) Women and Men using Diamond’s Measure (Study 1) 228
*
*
Figure 4. Past Sexual Behavior With Same-Gender vs. Other-Gender People for Sexually Fluid
(SF) and Non-Sexually Fluid (NSF) Women and Men using a KSOG Item (Study 1)
229
* *
* *
Figure 5. Sexual Fantasies about Same-Gender vs. Other-Gender People for Sexually Fluid (SF) and Non-Sexually Fluid (NSF) Women and Men using Diamond’s Measure (Top Chart) and a
KSOG Item (Bottom Chart) (Study 1)
230 Individual Factors Awareness of same-gender sexual desires Ambivalence about labeling Contextual labeling Initial Sexual Identity
Exploring sexuality Development Open to future changes Intentional labeling Love depends on the person, not gender
Facilitative Environment: Interpersonal Factors Discussing sexual orientation with friends Intentional same-gender sexual contact Gender & Women’s Studies Current Attractions & Going to college Sexual Identity Involvement with LGBTQ community LGBTQ friends Meeting/attraction to other-gender person
Facilitative Envir onment: Societal Factors Bisexuality: Biphobia Future Attractions & Stereotypes & perceptions Sexual Identity Social norms: Gendered norms of appearance Heteronormativity
Figure 6. Theoretical Model of Facilitative Environments of Sexual Identity Development and Sexual Fluidity (Study 2) 231
Appendix I: Study 1 Questionnaire – Female Version17
ATTRACTION, BEHAVIOR, AND SEXUALITY FEMALE QUESTIONNAIRE
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
Many people are taking part in this important survey. This survey will help us understand your thoughts and feelings so that we can know more about attraction, behavior, and sexuality.
The questions in this survey ask about a wide range of concerns and feelings. This is NOT a test; there are not right or wrong answers. Please answer as honestly as you can. Your responses will be kept strictly confidential.
This survey should take between 30 and 45 minutes to complete. Although it seems like it might take longer, many of the questions are designed to be answered quickly. It is important to read each question carefully, but do not spend too much time on any one of them.
Please answer every question (although, you are free not to answer a question if you choose not to). It is important that you circle only one answer per question.
Thank you for your help!
PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTION BASED ON HOW YOU CURRENTLY FEEL:
1. Your gender is: (circle one) a. Female b. Male c. Transgender d. Other______(please write)
PLEASE CHOOSE THE SURVEY THAT BEST FITS THE GENDER THAT YOU CURRENTLY FEEL. IF YOUR CURRENT GENDER DOES NOT FIT ONE OF THE CHOICES, YOU MAY STILL PARTICIPATE IN THE STUDY BY BEING INTERVIEWED IN PERSON. PLEASE CONTACT THE RESEARCHERS ([email protected]) IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE INTERVIEWED.
17 Male version is available upon request from the author. 232
THINKING ABOUT YOUR SEXUALITY
Before you begin the survey, we would like you to spend a few minutes thinking about the history of your sexual and romantic attractions and behaviors. Write some notes on a piece of paper about when you first experienced attractions to women and/or men, and how old you were when this happened. It might help to list things chronologically, based on your age.
PLEASE CHOOSE A CODE WORD TO IDENTIFY YOU SO THAT YOUR ANSWERS CAN BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL. WRITE DOWN THE CODE WORD SO YOU CAN REMEMBER IT LATER.
______
ENTER THIS SAME CODE WORD FOR ALL PARTS OF THIS STUDY THAT YOU CHOOSE TO PARTICIPATE IN.
BELIEFS ABOUT SEXUALITY
Please circle the answer that best describes how closely the statement applies to you. There are no right or wrong answers. I am interested only in your thoughts and opinions. Please answer all of the questions to the best of your knowledge.
BSI-D
1. I’m the kind of person 1 2 3 4 5 who is attracted to the Completely Mostly Neither Mostly Completely person rather than Disagree Disagree Agree Nor Disagree Agree their gender. (circle one) Disagree
2. I feel my sexuality is 1 2 3 4 5 something I was born Completely Mostly Neither Mostly Completely with. (circle one) Disagree Disagree Agree Nor Disagree Agree Disagree
3. I feel my sexuality has 1 2 3 4 5 been influenced by my Completely Mostly Neither Mostly Completely environment. (circle Disagree Disagree Agree Nor Disagree Agree one) Disagree
4. I feel my own sexual 1 2 3 4 5 identity (how I label my Completely Mostly Neither Mostly Completely sexual orientation) is Disagree Disagree Agree Nor Disagree Agree something I chose. Disagree (circle one) 233
BSI-KW
5. I typically fall in love with 1 2 3 4 5 someone based on who Completely Mostly Neither Mostly Completely they are as a person, Disagree Disagree Agree Disagree Agree rather than their gender. Nor (circle one) Disagree
6. I am usually attracted to a 1 2 3 4 5 person’s gender before I Completely Mostly Neither Mostly Completely am attracted to the Disagree Disagree Agree Disagree Agree person. (circle one) Nor Disagree
SFD-KW
1. I feel ambivalent (undecided) about using labels to describe my sexual orientation and identity. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Completely Mostly Somewhat Neither Somewhat Mostly Completely Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree Nor Agree
2. I believe labels used to describe sexual orientation are limiting. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Completely Mostly Somewhat Neither Somewhat Mostly Completely Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree Nor Agree
3. For me, I believe romantic love depends on the person, not the gender. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Completely Mostly Somewhat Neither Somewhat Mostly Completely Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree Nor Agree
4. I don’t know who (which gender) I will be attracted to in the future. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Completely Mostly Somewhat Neither Somewhat Mostly Completely Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree Nor Agree 234
5. I don’t know how I will label my sexual orientation in the future. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Completely Mostly Somewhat Neither Somewhat Mostly Completely Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree Nor Agree
6. I feel my sexuality is fluid (changeable). (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Completely Mostly Somewhat Neither Somewhat Mostly Completely Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree Nor Agree
DWECK-KW
1. A person’s sexual orientation is something very basic about them that can’t change. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Mostly Somewhat Neither Somewhat Mostly Strongly Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree Nor Agree
2. A person can have a sexual partner that does not match their sexual orientation (e.g., a gay man who has a female sexual partner), but their real sexual orientation can’t really change. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Mostly Somewhat Neither Somewhat Mostly Strongly Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree Nor Agree
3. No matter what a person’s sexual identity (how they label their sexual orientation, e.g., gay) is, it can always change quite a bit. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Mostly Somewhat Neither Somewhat Mostly Strongly Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree Nor Agree
235
4. A person’s sexual orientation can change substantially. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Mostly Somewhat Neither Somewhat Mostly Strongly Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree Nor Agree
5. A person’s sexual orientation is something very basic about them that they can’t change. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Mostly Somewhat Neither Somewhat Mostly Strongly Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree Nor Agree
6. A person can have a sexual partner that does not match their sexual orientation, but they can’t change their real sexual orientation. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Mostly Somewhat Neither Somewhat Mostly Strongly Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree Nor Agree
7. No matter what a person’s sexual identity is, they can always change it quite a bit. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Mostly Somewhat Neither Somewhat Mostly Strongly Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree Nor Agree
8. A person can substantially change their sexual orientation. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Mostly Somewhat Neither Somewhat Mostly Strongly Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree Nor Agree
YOUR ATTITUDES
Please read each of the following statements and rate them according to how accurately they describe your attitudes and beliefs. Please respond honestly and answer every question according to the rating scale below. 236
BIATT-F
1. Most women who identify as bisexual have NOT yet discovered their true sexual orientation. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Somewhat Neither Disagree Somewhat Strongly Disagree Disagree Nor Agree Agree Agree
2. Female bisexuality is NOT a perversion. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Somewhat Neither Disagree Somewhat Strongly Disagree Disagree Nor Agree Agree Agree
3. Most women who call themselves bisexual are temporarily experimenting with their sexuality. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Somewhat Neither Disagree Somewhat Strongly Disagree Disagree Nor Agree Agree Agree
4. As far as I’m concerned, female bisexuality is unnatural. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Somewhat Neither Disagree Somewhat Strongly Disagree Disagree Nor Agree Agree Agree
5. Female bisexuals are afraid to commit to one lifestyle. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Somewhat Neither Disagree Somewhat Strongly Disagree Disagree Nor Agree Agree Agree
6. The growing acceptance of female bisexuality indicates a decline in American values. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Somewhat Neither Disagree Somewhat Strongly Disagree Disagree Nor Agree Agree Agree
237
7. Most women who claim to be bisexual are in denial about their true sexual orientation. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Somewhat Neither Disagree Somewhat Strongly Disagree Disagree Nor Agree Agree Agree
8. Female bisexuality is harmful to society because it breaks down the natural divisions between the sexes. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Somewhat Neither Disagree Somewhat Strongly Disagree Disagree Nor Agree Agree Agree
9. Lesbians are less confused about their sexuality than bisexual women. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Somewhat Neither Disagree Somewhat Strongly Disagree Disagree Nor Agree Agree Agree
10. Bisexuality in women is immoral. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Somewhat Neither Disagree Somewhat Strongly Disagree Disagree Nor Agree Agree Agree
11. Just like homosexuality and heterosexuality, bisexuality is a stable sexual orientation for women. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Somewhat Neither Disagree Somewhat Strongly Disagree Disagree Nor Agree Agree Agree
12. Bisexual women are sick. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Somewhat Neither Disagree Somewhat Strongly Disagree Disagree Nor Agree Agree Agree
238
YOUR SEXUALITY
Please answer the following questions about different aspects of your sexuality. There are no right or wrong answers. I am interested only in your thoughts and opinions. Please answer all of the questions to the best of your knowledge.
KLEIN
1. In the past (prior to the last year), to whom were you sexually attracted? (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Other Other Sex Other Sex Both Sexes Same Sex Same Sex Same Sex Sex Only Mostly Somewhat Equally Somewhat Mostly Only More More
2. Currently (in the most recent 12 months), to whom are you sexually attracted? (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Other Other Sex Other Sex Both Sexes Same Sex Same Sex Same Sex Sex Only Mostly Somewhat Equally Somewhat Mostly Only More More
3. Ideally (what think you would eventually like), to whom would you be sexually attracted? (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Other Other Sex Other Sex Both Sexes Same Sex Same Sex Same Sex Sex Only Mostly Somewhat Equally Somewhat Mostly Only More More 4. In the past (prior to the last year), with whom have you actually had sex? (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Other Other Sex Other Sex Both Sexes Same Sex Same Sex Same Sex Sex Only Mostly Somewhat Equally Somewhat Mostly Only More More
239
5. Currently (in the most recent 12 months), with whom do you actually have sex? (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Other Other Sex Other Sex Both Sexes Same Sex Same Sex Same Sex Sex Only Mostly Somewhat Equally Somewhat Mostly Only More More
6. Ideally (what you think you would eventually like), with whom would you actually have sex? (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Other Other Sex Other Sex Both Sexes Same Sex Same Sex Same Sex Sex Only Mostly Somewhat Equally Somewhat Mostly Only More More
7. In the past (prior to the last year), whom were your sexual fantasies about? (They may occur during masturbation, daydreaming, as part of real life, or purely in your imagination). (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Other Other Sex Other Sex Both Sexes Same Sex Same Sex Same Sex Sex Only Mostly Somewhat Equally Somewhat Mostly Only More More
8. Currently (in the most recent 12 months), whom are your sexual fantasies about? (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Other Other Sex Other Sex Both Sexes Same Sex Same Sex Same Sex Sex Only Mostly Somewhat Equally Somewhat Mostly Only More More
9. Ideally (what you think you would eventually like), whom would your sexual fantasies be about? (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Other Other Sex Other Sex Both Sexes Same Sex Same Sex Same Sex Sex Only Mostly Somewhat Equally Somewhat Mostly Only More More
240
10. Emotions influence, if not define, the actual physical act of love. In the past (prior to the last year), whom did you love or like romantically? (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Other Other Sex Other Sex Both Sexes Same Sex Same Sex Same Sex Sex Only Mostly Somewhat Equally Somewhat Mostly Only More More
11. Currently (in the most recent 12 months), whom do you love or like romantically? (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Other Other Sex Other Sex Both Sexes Same Sex Same Sex Same Sex Sex Only Mostly Somewhat Equally Somewhat Mostly Only More More
12. Ideally (what you think you would eventually like), whom would you love or like romantically? (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Other Other Sex Other Sex Both Sexes Same Sex Same Sex Same Sex Sex Only Mostly Somewhat Equally Somewhat Mostly Only More More
13. Social preference is similar to, but often different from emotional preference. In the past (prior to the last year), with members of which sex did you socialize (hang out with)? (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Other Other Sex Other Sex Both Sexes Same Sex Same Sex Same Sex Sex Only Mostly Somewhat Equally Somewhat Mostly Only More More
14. Currently (in the most recent 12 months), with members of which sex do you socialize (hang out with)? (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Other Other Sex Other Sex Both Sexes Same Sex Same Sex Same Sex Sex Only Mostly Somewhat Equally Somewhat Mostly Only More More
241
15. Ideally (what you think you would eventually like), with members of which sex would you socialize (hang out with)? (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Other Other Sex Other Sex Both Sexes Same Sex Same Sex Same Sex Sex Only Mostly Somewhat Equally Somewhat Mostly Only More More
16. In the past (prior to the last year), how did you think of yourself? (hetero = heterosexual) (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Hetero Hetero Hetero Bisexual Gay/Lesbian Gay/Lesbian Gay/Lesbia Only Mostly Somewhat (Hetero, Somewhat Mostly n Only More Gay/Lesbian More Equally)
17. Currently (in the most recent 12 months), how do you think of yourself? (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Hetero Hetero Hetero Bisexual Gay/Lesbian Gay/Lesbian Gay/Lesbia Only Mostly Somewhat (Hetero, Somewhat Mostly n Only More Gay/Lesbian More Equally)
18. Ideally (what you think you would eventually like), how would you think of yourself? (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Hetero Hetero Hetero Bisexual Gay/Lesbian Gay/Lesbian Gay/Lesbia Only Mostly Somewhat (Hetero, Somewhat Mostly n Only More Gay/Lesbian More Equally)
YOUR ATTRACTIONS
Please answer the following questions about your attractions to others. There are no right or wrong answers. I am interested only in your thoughts and opinions. Please answer all of the questions to the best of your knowledge.
242
RSATT-D
1. On a day-to-day basis, what percentage (0 to 100%) do you currently feel romantically attracted to women compared with men (for example, 40% romantically attracted to women, and 60% romantically attracted to men): (write below)
______% women
______% men
2. On a day-to-day basis, what percentage (0 to 100%) do you currently feel sexually attracted to women compared with men (for example, 40% sexually attracted to women, and 60% sexually attracted to men): (write below)
______% women
______% men
YOUR SEXUAL DESIRES
Please answer the following questions about your sexual desires. There are no right or wrong answers. I am interested only in your thoughts and opinions. Please answer all of the questions to the best of your knowledge.
RSATTM-D
1. When you have sexual thoughts about a woman, or women in general, how strong is your desire to engage in sexual activity? (circle one)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 No Desire for Maximum Sexual Desire for Activity Sexual Activity
243
2. How often have you had sexual thoughts or fantasies about a woman, or women in general, in the past month? (circle one)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Not at All Once or Once a Twice a 3-4 Once a More than Once Twice Week Week Times a Day a Day Week 3. How would you rate the intensity of the strongest attraction to a woman that you’ve experienced in the past 6 months? (circle one)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Not Attracted Extremely Attracted
a. Based on your answer to the previous question, how often do you find yourself THAT attracted to a woman? (circle one)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Not Almost Less than Once or About Once More than About Every Attracted Never Once a Twice a a Week Once a Day Month Month Week
b. Is it the same woman every time or different women? (circle one)
Same Different Not Attracted
c. How many different women have you been THAT intensely attracted to in the past 6 months? (write number below)
4. What do you find attractive in a woman? (write below)
5. When you have sexual thoughts about a man, or men in general, how strong is your desire to engage in sexual activity? (circle one)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 No Desire for Maximum Sexual Desire for Activity Sexual Activity
244
6. How often have you had sexual thoughts or fantasies about a man, or men in general, in the past month? (circle one)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Not at All Once or Once a Twice a 3-4 Once a More than Twice Week Week Times a Day Once a Day Week 7. How would you rate the intensity of the strongest attraction to a man that you’ve experienced in the past 6 months? (circle one)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Not Extremely Attracted Attracted
a. Based on your answer to the previous question, how often do you find yourself THAT attracted to a man? (circle one)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Not Almost Less than Once or About More than About Attracted Never Once a Twice a Once a Once a Every Day Month Month Week Week
b. Is it the same man every time or different men? (circle one)
Same Different Not Attracted
c. How many different men have you been THAT intensely attracted to in the past 6 months? (write number below)
8. What do you find attractive in a man? (write below)
9. What percentage of your sexual fantasies is about women versus men? (write below)
______% women
______% men
245
10. How important is it for you to act on your sexual desires through sexual activity (regardless of the gender of your sexual partner)? (circle one)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Not At All Extremely Important Important
11. Compared to what you think is true for other women of your age, how would you rate your overall desire for sexual activity? (circle one)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Much Less The Same Much More Than Other As Other Than Other People People People
12. In the past month, how often did you engage in sexual activity, either alone or with another person? (circle one)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at All Once a Once Once a Twice a 3-4 Once a More Month Every 2 Week Week Times a Day than Weeks Week Once a Day
YOUR BEHAVIORS
Please answer the following questions about your sexual behavior with others. There are no right or wrong answers. I am interested only in your thoughts and opinions. Please answer all of the questions to the best of your knowledge.
SB-D
Please answer the following questions, considering sexual contact to be ANY MUTUALLY CONSENTING SEXUALLY-MOTIVATED INTIMATE CONTACT.
1. How many men have you had sexual contact with since age 13? (circle one)
None 1 2-3 4 or More
2. How many women have you had sexual contact with since age 13? (circle one)
None 1 2-3 4 or More
246
YOUR RELATIONSHIPS
Please answer the following questions about your romantic relationships. There are no right or wrong answers. I am interested only in your thoughts and opinions. Please answer all of the questions to the best of your knowledge.
RR-KW
1. Are you currently in a romantic relationship? Yes No (circle one)
a. If YES, how long have you been in your ______Years______Months______Weeks current relationship? (write answer)
b. What is the gender of your partner? (circle Female Male Transgender one)
2. How many romantic relationships have you had with women in the past? ______(write number below)
3. How many romantic relationships have you had with men in the past? ______(write number below)
DESCRIBING YOUR SEXUALITY
Please answer the following questions about your sexuality. There are no right or wrong answers. I am interested only in your thoughts and opinions. Please answer all of the questions to the best of your knowledge.
SI-KW
1. How do you label your sexual orientation? (write below)
247
2. If you had to choose an existing label to describe your sexual orientation, what would it be? (choose one) a. Completely heterosexual/straight b. Mostly heterosexual/straight c. Bisexual d. Mostly homosexual/gay/lesbian e. Completely homosexual/gay/lesbian f. Queer g. Questioning/unsure h. Unlabeled
CHANGES IN YOUR SEXUALITY
Please answer the following questions about changes in your sexuality. There are no right or wrong answers. I am interested only in your thoughts and opinions. Please answer all of the questions to the best of your knowledge.
CHANGE-KW
1. Have you ever experienced a Yes No If Yes, At change in attractions to others What Age? over time? (For example, feeling only attracted to women, then feeling attracted to both women and men) (circle one)
a. If yes, did the change in Yes No Didn’t attractions result in a Experience change in the labels you use Change in to describe your sexual Attractions orientation? (circle one)
b. If the labels you use to describe your sexual orientation changed, what was the label you used before the change? (write below)
c. If the labels you use to describe your sexual orientation changed, what was the label you used after the change? (write below)
2. Have you experienced more than one change in attractions to others over time? Yes No
248
a. If YES, how many changes have you experienced?
______
b. If YES, at what age did you experience these changes?
______
3. How likely is it that your attractions or sexual identity will change in the future? (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 Extremely Somewhat Equally Unlikely Somewhat Extremely Unlikely Unlikely And Likely Likely Likely
4. If you have experienced changes in your attractions or sexual identity over time, how you do explain the changes that have occurred? (write below)
YOUR THOUGHTS AND FEELINGS ABOUT YOUR SEXUALITY
For each of the following statements, circle the response that best indicates your experience as a lesbian, gay, or bisexual (LGB) person, or another sexual identity other than heterosexual. Please be as honest as possible in your responses.
LGBIS
1. I keep careful control over who knows about my same-sex romantic relationships. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Agree Agree Strongly Somewhat Slightly Disagree Slightly Somewhat Strongly Nor Agree
2. I prefer to keep my same-sex romantic relationships rather private. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Agree Agree Strongly Somewhat Slightly Disagree Slightly Somewhat Strongly Nor Agree
249
3. My sexual orientation is a very personal and private matter. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Agree Agree Strongly Somewhat Slightly Disagree Slightly Somewhat Strongly Nor Agree
4. I'm not totally sure what my sexual orientation is. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Agree Agree Strongly Somewhat Slightly Disagree Slightly Somewhat Strongly Nor Agree
5. I get very confused when I try to figure out my sexual orientation. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Agree Agree Strongly Somewhat Slightly Disagree Slightly Somewhat Strongly Nor Agree
6. I keep changing my mind about my sexual orientation. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Agree Agree Strongly Somewhat Slightly Disagree Slightly Somewhat Strongly Nor Agree
7. I can't decide whether I am bisexual or gay. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Agree Agree Strongly Somewhat Slightly Disagree Slightly Somewhat Strongly Nor Agree
8. If it were possible, I would choose to be straight. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Agree Agree Strongly Somewhat Slightly Disagree Slightly Somewhat Strongly Nor Agree
250
9. I wish I were straight. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Agree Agree Strongly Somewhat Slightly Disagree Slightly Somewhat Strongly Nor Agree
10. I believe it is unfair that I am attracted to people of the same sex. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Agree Agree Strongly Somewhat Slightly Disagree Slightly Somewhat Strongly Nor Agree
11. Admitting to myself that I'm an LGB (lesbian/gay/bisexual) person has been a very painful process. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Agree Agree Strongly Somewhat Slightly Disagree Slightly Somewhat Strongly Nor Agree
12. Admitting to myself that I'm an LGB person has been a very slow process. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Agree Agree Strongly Somewhat Slightly Disagree Slightly Somewhat Strongly Nor Agree
13. I have felt comfortable with my sexual identity just about from the start. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Agree Agree Strongly Somewhat Slightly Disagree Slightly Somewhat Strongly Nor Agree
251
14. I think a lot about how my sexual orientation affects the way people see me. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Agree Agree Strongly Somewhat Slightly Disagree Slightly Somewhat Strongly Nor Agree 15. I often wonder whether others judge me for my sexual orientation. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Agree Agree Strongly Somewhat Slightly Disagree Slightly Somewhat Strongly Nor Agree
16. I can't feel comfortable knowing that others judge me negatively for my sexual orientation. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Agree Agree Strongly Somewhat Slightly Disagree Slightly Somewhat Strongly Nor Agree
17. I look down on heterosexuals. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Agree Agree Strongly Somewhat Slightly Disagree Slightly Somewhat Strongly Nor Agree
18. I feel that LGB people are superior to heterosexuals. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Agree Agree Strongly Somewhat Slightly Disagree Slightly Somewhat Strongly Nor Agree
19. Straight people have boring lives compared with LGB people. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Agree Agree Strongly Somewhat Slightly Disagree Slightly Somewhat Strongly Nor Agree
252
20. Being an LGB person is a very important aspect of my life. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Agree Agree Strongly Somewhat Slightly Disagree Slightly Somewhat Strongly Nor Agree
21. I believe being LGB is an important part of me. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Agree Agree Strongly Somewhat Slightly Disagree Slightly Somewhat Strongly Nor Agree
22. My sexual orientation is a central part of my identity. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Agree Agree Strongly Somewhat Slightly Disagree Slightly Somewhat Strongly Nor Agree
23. My sexual orientation is an insignificant part of who I am. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Agree Agree Strongly Somewhat Slightly Disagree Slightly Somewhat Strongly Nor Agree
24. To understand who I am as a person, you have to know that I’m LGB. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Agree Agree Strongly Somewhat Slightly Disagree Slightly Somewhat Strongly Nor Agree
25. I am glad to be an LGB person. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Agree Agree Strongly Somewhat Slightly Disagree Slightly Somewhat Strongly Nor Agree
253
26. I am proud to be LGB. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Agree Agree Strongly Somewhat Slightly Disagree Slightly Somewhat Strongly Nor Agree
27. I’m proud to be part of the LGB community. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Agree Agree Strongly Somewhat Slightly Disagree Slightly Somewhat Strongly Nor Agree
OTHERS’ KNOWLEDGE ABOUT YOUR SEXUALITY
Use the following rating scale to indicate how open you are about your sexual orientation to the people listed below. Try to respond to all of the items, but leave items blank if they do not apply to you. Circle ONE number for each question.
OI
1 = person definitely does NOT know about your sexual orientation status 2 = person might know about your sexual orientation status, but it is NEVER talked about 3 = person probably knows about your sexual orientation status, but it is NEVER talked about 4 = person probably knows about your sexual orientation status, but it is RARELY talked about 5 = person definitely knows about your sexual orientation status, but it is RARELY talked about 6 = person definitely knows about your sexual orientation status, and it is SOMETIMES talked about 7 = person definitely knows about your sexual orientation status, and it is OPENLY talked about
0 = not applicable to your situation; there is no such person or group of people in your life
1. mother 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0
2. father 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0
3. siblings (sisters, brothers) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0
4. extended family/relatives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0
5. my new straight friends 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0
254
6. my work peers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0
7. my work supervisor(s) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0
8. members of my religious 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 community (e.g., church, temple)
9. leaders of my religious community 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 (e.g., church, temple)
10. strangers, new acquaintances 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0
11. my old heterosexual friends 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0
PAST THOUGHTS AND FEELINGS ABOUT YOUR SEXUALITY
Please answer each question below about your sexuality. There are no right or wrong answers. I am interested only in your thoughts and opinions. Please answer all of the questions to the best of your knowledge.
IMILE
The first questions ask about your age at different times.
1. At what age did you first feel a romantic attraction to or have a crush on another person of the same gender: (write below)
______
2. At what age did you first begin to question your sexual orientation: (write below)
______
3. At what age did you first have a sexual encounter with another person of the same gender: (write below)
______
4. At what age did you first label yourself as lesbian/gay/bisexual/queer: (write below)
______
255
5. At what age did you experience your first same-gender romantic relationship: (write below)
______
SID-KW
The next questions ask about some of your thoughts and feelings about your sexuality BEFORE AGE 13.
1. I felt sexual or romantic attractions toward other women before age 13. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Completely Mostly Somewhat Neither Somewhat Mostly Completely Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree Nor Agree
2. I was fascinated with women’s bodies and beauty before age 13. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Completely Mostly Somewhat Neither Somewhat Mostly Completely Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree Nor Agree
3. I was not a typical girl before age 13. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Completely Mostly Somewhat Neither Somewhat Mostly Completely Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree Nor Agree
4. I felt different from other girls before age 13. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Completely Mostly Somewhat Neither Somewhat Mostly Completely Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree Nor Agree
256
5. I was not interested in boys before age 13. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Completely Mostly Somewhat Neither Somewhat Mostly Completely Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree Nor Agree
SID2-KW
Now think about the time when you first began to question your sexual orientation. Answer the following questions by completing the sentence, “I BEGAN TO QUESTION MY SEXUAL ORIENTATION…” (check all that apply)
______1. When I first heard about lesbian, gay, or bisexual people.
______2. When I first met someone who identified as lesbian, gay, or bisexual.
______3. When I discovered that one of my friends was attracted to someone of the same gender.
______4. After discussing issues related to sexual orientation with my friends.
______5. Because I was dating a bisexual man.
______6. Because I found out that another woman was sexually interested in me.
______7. Because I became attracted to a woman.
______8. Because I felt an unusual emotional closeness to a woman.
______9. When I became fascinated with women’s bodies.
______10. When I had intentional sexual contact with another woman.
______11. When I was uninterested in men.
LIQ
The next questions ask how you CURRENTLY think and feel about your sexuality. Some of the items may not apply to you, and some may have applied to you in the past but not the present. Respond to the items based on how you feel NOW.
For example, consider the following item: 1. I am just realizing that I may be interested in dating women. 257
If that statement reflects where you are right now, you would indicate Agree or Agree Strongly, depending on the extent to which the statement fits for you. However, if this doesn’t fit for you at the current time (e.g., perhaps you experienced this in the past but now you know you are interested in dating women and have known for some time), then you would indicate Disagree or Disagree Strongly for the statement because it doesn’t fit where you are NOW.
1. I am just realizing that I may be interested in dating women. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Agree Agree Strongly Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Strongly Nor Agree
2. I am beginning to realize from my choices that I am expressing a clear preference for women, rather than men as partners/lovers. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Agree Agree Strongly Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Strongly Nor Agree
3. Recently, I have reached the point where I clearly feel more intimate sexually and emotionally with women than men. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Agree Agree Strongly Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Strongly Nor Agree
4. I am just now recognizing that the way I feel about women may mean something. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Agree Agree Strongly Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Strongly Nor Agree
258
5. I am just beginning to think the way I am feeling means that I am in love with a woman. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Agree Agree Strongly Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Strongly Nor Agree
6. I am just realizing for the first time that I feel different from other women. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Agree Agree Strongly Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Strongly Nor Agree
7. I am beginning to notice for the first time that I have a strong desire to touch another woman’s body. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Agree Agree Strongly Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Strongly Nor Agree
8. I now recognize clearly that I am a person who has intimate romantic relationships with women. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Agree Agree Strongly Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Strongly Nor Agree
9. I am just realizing for the first time that I might be willing to live with a woman lover. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Agree Agree Strongly Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Strongly Nor Agree
259
10. Now that I am consistently doing what I want to do in terms of love and sex, I feel more integrated as a person. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Agree Agree Strongly Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Strongly Nor Agree
11. I am just realizing that I feel pulled toward women in ways I don’t understand. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Agree Agree Strongly Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Strongly Nor Agree
12. I have just become aware for the first time that I have a strong desire to kiss another woman. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Agree Agree Strongly Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Strongly Nor Agree
13. Lately, I have realized that I probably would not consider men as intimate partners. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Agree Agree Strongly Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Strongly Nor Agree
14. I have reached the point where I feel a deep commitment about my love of other women. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Agree Agree Strongly Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Strongly Nor Agree
260
15. I am just noticing for the first time that I feel nervous and emotional around women. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Agree Agree Strongly Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Strongly Nor Agree
16. Recently, I have found myself wondering for the first time what it might be like to be romantic with a woman. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Agree Agree Strongly Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Strongly Nor Agree
17. I now fully accept my emotional and sexual preference for women. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Agree Agree Strongly Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Strongly Nor Agree
18. The way I feel recently makes me think for the first time that I might like to be sexual with a woman. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Agree Agree Strongly Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Strongly Nor Agree
19. I have reached the point where I feel deeply fulfilled in my relationships with women. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Agree Agree Strongly Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Strongly Nor Agree
261
20. I have reached the point where I have successfully incorporated my intimacy with women into my overall identity. (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Agree Agree Strongly Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Strongly Nor Agree
EXPERIENCES RELATED TO YOUR SEXUALITY
Please think about how often you have experienced each of the following in your lifetime BECAUSE OF YOUR SEXUAL ORIENTATION. Only circle the answer that best describes your experiences related to your sexual orientation. Otherwise, choose “Never”. If you have experienced any of the following, please choose whether you experienced the event before age 18 or after age 18. Please answer all of the questions to the best of your knowledge.
VIC
How often has each of the following happened to you in your lifetime BECAUSE OF YOUR SEXUAL ORIENTATION?
1. You were hit, beaten, or Never Once Twice Three or physically attacked because of More your sexual orientation. (circle Times one)
a. If YES, did this happen to Before After Both Before and After you: Age 18 Age 18 Age 18
2. Someone tried to attack you, Never Once Twice Three or but they didn’t succeed More because of your sexual Times orientation. (circle one)
a. If YES, did this happen to Before After Both Before and After you: Age 18 Age 18 Age 18
3. You were sexually assaulted Never Once Twice Three or because of your sexual More orientation. (circle one) Times
a. If YES, did this happen to Before After Both Before and After you: Age 18 Age 18 Age 18 262
4. Someone tried to sexually Never Once Twice Three or assault you because of your More sexual orientation, but they Times didn’t succeed. (circle one)
a. If YES, did this happen to Before After Both Before and After you: Age 18 Age 18 Age 18
5. You were robbed or your Never Once Twice Three or property was stolen because of More your sexual orientation. (circle Times one)
a. If YES, did this happen to Before After Both Before and After you: Age 18 Age 18 Age 18
6. Someone tried to rob you Never Once Twice Three or because of your sexual More orientation, but they didn’t Times succeed. (circle one)
a. If YES, did this happen to Before After Both Before and After you: Age 18 Age 18 Age 18
7. Your property was vandalized Never Once Twice Three or or purposely damaged because More of your sexual orientation. Times (circle one)
a. If YES, did this happen to Before After Both Before and After you: Age 18 Age 18 Age 18
8. Someone tried to damage your Never Once Twice Three or property because of your More sexual orientation, but they Times didn’t succeed. (circle one)
a. If YES, did this happen to Before After Both Before and After you: Age 18 Age 18 Age 18
9. Someone threatened you with Never Once Twice Three or violence because of your sexual More orientation. (circle one) Times
263
a. If YES, did this happen to Before After Both Before and After you: Age 18 Age 18 Age 18
10. Someone verbally insulted or Never Once Twice Three or abused you because of your More sexual orientation. (circle one) Times
a. If YES, did this happen to Before After Both Before and After you: Age 18 Age 18 Age 18
11. Someone threw an object at Never Once Twice Three or you because of your sexual More orientation. (circle one) Times
a. If YES, did this happen to Before After Both Before and After you: Age 18 Age 18 Age 18
12. You were fired from your job Never Once Twice Three or or denied a job or promotion More because of your sexual Times orientation. (circle one)
a. If YES, did this happen to Before After Both Before and After you: Age 18 Age 18 Age 18
13. You were prevented from Never Once Twice Three or moving into a house or More apartment by a landlord or Times realtor because of your sexual orientation. (circle one)
a. If YES, did this happen to Before After Both Before and After you: Age 18 Age 18 Age 18
RELIGION AND SPIRITUALITY
Please answer the questions below. There are no right or wrong answers. I am interested only in your thoughts and opinions. Please answer all of the questions to the best of your knowledge.
264
RELSPIR
1. How important is religion/spirituality to you? (circle one) a. Not at all important b. Not very important c. Fairly important d. Very important
2. How important is religion/spirituality to your self-identity? (circle one) a. Not at all important b. Not very important c. Fairly important d. Very important
3. How often do you attend religious/spiritual services? (circle one) a. At least once per week b. At least once per month c. A few times a year d. Never
4. What religion/spirituality were you raised with, if any? (write below)
______
5. What specific denomination or subgroup within your religion/spirituality were you raised with, if any? (write below)
______
6. What religion/spirituality do you currently identify with, if any? (write below)
______
7. What specific denomination or subgroup within your religion/spirituality do you currently identify with, if any? (write below)
______
265
YOUR FAMILY
Please circle the answer that best describes how closely the statement applies to you. There are no right or wrong answers. I am interested only in your thoughts and opinions. Some of the questions might be hard for you to answer, but please answer all of the questions to the best of your knowledge.
DEMFAM
1. My socioeconomic status while growing up was: (choose one) a. Lower class b. Middle class c. Upper class
2. My mother’s education level is: (choose one) a. Some high school b. High school degree c. Some college d. College degree e. Graduate/professional school
3. My mother’s current occupation is: (write below)
4. My father’s education level is: (choose one) a. Some high school b. High school degree c. Some college d. College degree e. Graduate/professional school
5. My father’s current occupation is: (write below)
6. My parents are divorced. (choose one) a. Yes b. No
If your parents are divorced, how old were you when they divorced? (write age below)
266
FAD-KW
1. Does your mother currently approve of your sexual orientation? (choose one)
1 2 3 4 5 Completely Disapproves Neither Approves Completely Disapproves Approves Nor Approves Disapproves
2. In the past, did your mother approve of your sexual orientation? (choose one)
1 2 3 4 5 Completely Disapproved Neither Approved Completely Disapproved Approved Nor Approved Disapproved
3. Does your father currently approve of your sexual orientation? (choose one)
1 2 3 4 5 Completely Disapproves Neither Approves Completely Disapproves Approves Nor Approves Disapproves
4. In the past, did your father approve of your sexual orientation? (choose one)
1 2 3 4 5 Completely Disapproved Neither Approved Completely Disapproved Approved Nor Approved Disapproved
5. Does the sibling who you feel closest to currently approve of your sexual orientation? (choose one)
1 2 3 4 5 Completely Disapproves Neither Approves Completely Disapproves Approves Nor Approves Disapproves
267
6. In the past, did the sibling who you feel closest to approve of your sexual orientation? (choose one)
1 2 3 4 5 Completely Disapproved Neither Approved Completely Disapproved Approved Nor Approved Disapproved
WHERE YOU LIVE
Please answer the following questions to the best of your knowledge.
DEMLOC
1. City/State where you currently live:
City______State______
FS
1. Most people where I currently 1 2 3 4 5 live think less of a person who is Strongly Mostly Neither Mostly Strongly gay (lesbian/bisexual/queer). Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree (circle one) Nor Disagree
2. Most people where I lived while 1 2 3 4 5 growing up think less of a Strongly Mostly Neither Mostly Strongly person who is gay Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree (lesbian/bisexual/queer). (circle Nor one) Disagree
3. Most employers where I 1 2 3 4 5 currently live will hire openly Strongly Mostly Neither Mostly Strongly gay (lesbian/bisexual/queer) Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree people if they are qualified for Nor the job. (circle one) Disagree
268
4. Most employers where I lived 1 2 3 4 5 while growing up would hire Strongly Mostly Neither Mostly Strongly openly gay Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree (lesbian/bisexual/queer) people if Nor they were qualified for the job. Disagree (circle one)
5. Most people where I currently 1 2 3 4 5 live would not want someone Strongly Mostly Neither Mostly Strongly who is openly gay Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree (lesbian/bisexual/queer) to take Nor care of their children. (circle Disagree one)
6. Most people where I lived while 1 2 3 4 5 growing up would not want Strongly Mostly Neither Mostly Strongly someone who is openly gay Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree (lesbian/bisexual/queer) to take Nor care of their children. (circle Disagree one)
ABOUT YOU
Please answer the following questions to the best of your knowledge.
DEMPERS
1. When were you born? (write below)
______Month______Year
2. Your ethnicity is: (circle one) a. White/Caucasian b. Black/African American c. Asian d. Latino/Hispanic e. Native American f. Mixed ethnicity______(please specify) g. Other______(please write)
269
3. Your current level of education is: (circle one) a. Some high school b. High school degree c. Some college d. College degree e. Some graduate/professional school f. Graduate/professional degree
4. Your desired level of education is: (circle one) a. Some high school b. High school degree c. Some college d. College degree e. Some graduate/professional school f. Graduate/professional degree
5. What is your current occupation? (write below)
______
FQUES
1. Is there anything else you would like to tell us? (write below)
2. Where did you hear about this study? (circle one) a. UW-Madison Psychology Department b. Women’s or Gender Studies Department at your college or university c. LGBT center at your college or university d. LGBT community center in your town e. LezTalkMadison f. Class on gender and/or sexuality g. Flyer h. Email i. From a friend j. Other______(please write)
270
THANK YOU!
If you are interested in participating in a future part of this research study, such as a follow-up interview or another survey AND/OR if you would like to be entered into a random drawing for one of five $20 gift certificates to Amazon.com, please click here to enter your contact information.
271
Appendix II: New Items Developed for Study 1
Items Type of Scale Beliefs About Sexual Identity Items to test Diamond’s (2003a) model of sexual fluidity 1 (Completely Disagree) – (SFD-KW18) 7 (Completely Agree) I feel ambivalent (undecided) about using labels to describe my sexual orientation and identity. I believe labels used to describe sexual orientation are limiting. For me, I believe romantic love depends on the person, not the gender. I don’t know who (which gender) I will be attracted to in the future. I don’t know how I will label my sexual orientation in the future. I feel my sexuality is fluid (changeable). Items based on Dweck’s entity vs. incremental views of 1 (Strongly Disagree) – intelligence (Chiu et al., 1997; Dweck, 1986, 2006) (DWECK- 7 (Strongly Agree) KW) Sexual Orientation-Based Scale A person’s sexual orientation is something very basic about them that can’t change. A person can have a sexual partner that does not match their sexual orientation (e.g., a gay man who has a female sexual partner), but their real sexual orientation can’t really change. No matter what a person’s sexual identity (how they label their sexual orientation, e.g., gay) is, it can always change quite a bit. A person’s sexual orientation can change substantially. Person-Based Scale A person’s sexual orientation is something very basic about them that they can’t change. A person can have a sexual partner that does not match their sexual orientation, but they can’t change their real sexual orientation. No matter what a person’s sexual identity is, they can always change it quite a bit. A person can substantially change their sexual orientation. Romantic Relationships Items to measure current and past romantic relationships (RR-KW) Are you currently in a romantic relationship? Yes/No If YES, how long have you been in your current relationship? Years/Months/Weeks What is the gender of your partner? Female/Male/Transgender
18 Acronyms correspond to Appendix I: Study 1 Female Questionnaire. 272
How many romantic relationships have you had with women in Open-ended the past? How many romantic relationships have you had with men in the Open-ended past? Sexual Identity Items to measure how participants identify their sexual orientation (SI-KW) How do you label your sexual orientation? Open-ended If you had to choose an existing label to describe your sexual Completely orientation, what would it be? heterosexual/straight, Mostly heterosexual/straight, Bisexual, Mostly, homosexual/gay/lesbian, Completely homosexual/gay/lesbian, Queer, Questioning/unsure, Unlabeled Change in Attractions/Labels Items to measure sexual fluidity (CHANGE-KW) Have you ever experienced a change in attractions to others over Yes/No/If yes, at what time? (For example, feeling only attracted to women, then age? feeling attracted to both women and men) If yes, did the change in attractions result in a change in the Yes/No/Didn’t experience labels you use to describe your sexual orientation? change in attractions If the labels you use to describe your sexual orientation Open-ended changed, what was the label you used before the change? If the labels you use to describe your sexual orientation Open-ended changed, what was the label you used after the change? Have you experienced more than one change in attractions to Yes/No others over time? If YES, how many changes have you experienced? Open-ended If YES, at what age did you experience these changes? Open-ended How likely is it that your attractions or sexual identity will 1 (Extremely Unlikely) – change in the future? 5 (Extremely Likely) If you have experienced changes in your attractions or sexual Open-ended identity over time, how you do explain the changes that have occurred? Sexual Identity Development Items to test Diamond’s (1998) model of sexual identity 1 (Completely Disagree) – development – early indicators (SID-KW) 7 (Completely Agree) I felt sexual or romantic attractions toward other women [men] 273 before age 13. I was fascinated with women’s [men’s] bodies and beauty before age 13. I was not a typical girl [boy] before age 13. I felt different from other girls [boys] before age 13. I was not interested in boys [girls] before age 13. Items to test Diamond’s (1998) model of sexual identity development – context of first questioning sexual identity (SID2-KW) I began to question by sexual orientation… Check all that apply When I first heard about lesbian, gay, or bisexual people. When I first met someone who identified as lesbian, gay, or bisexual. When I discovered that one of my friends was attracted to someone of the same gender. After discussing issues related to sexual orientation with my friends. Because I was dating a bisexual man [woman]. Because I found out that another woman [man] was sexually interested in me. Because I became attracted to a woman [man]. Because I felt an unusual emotional closeness to a woman [man]. When I became fascinated with women’s [men’s] bodies. When I had intentional sexual contact with another woman [man]. When I was uninterested in men [women]. Family Approval of Sexuality Items to measure family approval of participant’s sexual 1 (Completely orientation (FAD-KW) Disapproves) – 5 (Completely Approves) Does your mother currently approve of your sexual orientation? In the past, did your mother approve of your sexual orientation? Does your father currently approve of your sexual orientation? In the past, did your father approve of your sexual orientation? Does the sibling who you feel closest to currently approve of your sexual orientation? In the past, did the sibling who you feel closest to approve of your sexual orientation? Religion and Spirituality Items to measure religion and spirituality (RELSPIR) How important is religion/spirituality to you? 1 (Not at all important) to 4 (Very important) How important is religion/spirituality to your self-identity? 1 (Not at all important) to 274
4 (Very important) How often do you attend religious/spiritual services? At least once per week, At least once per month, A few times a year, Never What religion/spirituality were you raised with, if any? What specific denomination or subgroup within your Open-ended religion/spirituality were you raised with, if any? What religion/spirituality do you currently identify with, if any? Open-ended What specific denomination or subgroup within your Open-ended religion/spirituality do you currently identify with, if any?
275
Appendix III: Study 2 Interview Protocol
Attraction, Behavior, and Sexuality in Youth Adults: Study 2 Interview Protocol
Introduction and Warm-up:
Thank you for participating in this study. The purpose of conducting this interview is to ask some detailed questions to follow-up on the questions that you answered in the online survey. You may choose to skip questions or end the interview at any point.
During this interview, the term “sexual identity” will refer to the labels that you use to describe your sexual orientation.
Interview Questions:
First I’m going to ask you some questions about your history of attractions.
1. I’d like you to think about when you first started to question your sexual identity, or think that you might not be heterosexual. Can you tell me about what was happening during that time to make you think that you might not be heterosexual? a. How old were you when that happened?
2. Can you tell me about when you first used a label other than heterosexual or straight to describe your sexual identity to yourself? Can you tell me about when you started using a label other than heterosexual or straight to describe your sexual identity to others? (coming out story) a. How old were you when that happened?
3. Can you tell me about the first time you had any sexual contact with a person of the same gender? This includes anything that would be more than just kissing, like erotically touching their body, etc. a. How old were you when that happened?
4. Can you tell me about the first time you were attracted to a person of the same gender? It’s okay if at the time, you didn’t really interpret it as attraction (but did in hindsight). a. How old were you when that happened?
5. Can you describe, without providing names, the three individuals to whom you have been the most sexually or emotionally attached, or both, during your lifetime, regardless of whether this attraction resulted in a romantic relationship? a. How did you meet and become attracted to each person? (context) b. Approximately how old were you when you experienced these attractions? c. What about these people attracted you to them? 276
d. Why are these three people the most significant? (E.g., strong emotional connection, length of the relationships, etc.)
Now I’m going to ask you about the labels that you use to describe your sexual identity.
6. How do you currently label your sexual identity to yourself, even if it’s different from what you tell other people? If you are still questioning your sexual identity or you don’t apply any label to your sexual identity, please say so. a. Is that also what you would tell other people? b. (If the two are different) Why? c. Why did you choose that label over others? d. What does that label mean to you?
7. Is your current sexual identity the same as the identity you first “came out” as? a. What were the labels used then and now? b. If not, when did it change, and why? c. How old were you when it changed? d. Has it changed more than once?
8. (If sexual identity changed) How do you explain the change/s in your sexual identity? a. Are there any specific factors that prompted you to change your sexual identity? (E.g., feeling attracted to someone of a particular gender, negative experiences related to sexual identity – sexual orientation-based victimization, disapproval from family, etc.).
9. Has the way you’ve thought about or interpreted your sexual identity changed over time? a. If yes, how?
10. How likely do you think it is that your sexual identity will change any more in the future? (identity labels, or what is behind the labels – sexual attraction, orientation) a. What do you think might cause it to shift or change?
11. Is there anything else that you would like to tell us? a. Anything that you thought of in response to one of the previous questions, but forgot to say? b. Anything else? c. Do you have any questions for me?
277
Appendix IV: Study 2 Description of Focused Codes
Early indicators of sexual orientation
1. Early disinterest in other gender Marked disinterest in the other gender before or during age 13.
2. Early fascination with same-gender bodies Marked interest or fascination with same-gender bodies before or during age 13.
3. Early feelings of differentness Feeling different from other children before or during age 13.
4. Early gender atypicality Exhibiting a gender role that does not conform with the “norm” for that person’s gender before or during age 13. Includes dress, play, choice of friends, choice of toys and activities, and self- identity.
5. Early same-gender attractions Feeling attracted (emotionally/romantically or sexually) to a person or persons of the same- gender before or during age 13.
Context of first questioning sexual orientation
6. Dating a bisexual person (Facilitating environment) Dating someone with a bisexual identity prompted the participant to think about or question their own sexual orientation.
7. Discovering friend with same-gender attractions (Facilitating environment) Finding out that a friend has same-gender attractions prompted the participant to think about or question their own sexual orientation.
8. Discussing sexual orientation with friends (Facilitating environment) Discussing any aspect of sexual orientation (emotional/romantic or sexual attractions, sexual behavior, sexual identity) with friends or romantic partners prompted the participant to think about or question their own sexual orientation.
9. Learning about LGB (Facilitating environment) Learning about anything related to being non-heterosexual (lesbian, gay, bisexual) prompted the participant to think about or question their own sexual orientation. Includes different modes of learning (e.g., reading, taking a class, talking with others, etc.).
10. Object of same-gender interest (Facilitating environment) 278
Being the object of romantic or sexual interest for another same-gender person prompted the participant to think about or question their own sexual orientation.
11. Same-gender attractions Becoming aware of attractions (emotional/romantic or sexual) to a person or persons of the same-gender prompted the participant to think about or question their own sexual orientation.
12. Awareness of same-gender sexual desires (Same-gender attractions) Becoming aware of sexual attractions or desires toward a person or persons of the same-gender prompted the participant to think about or question their own sexual orientation.
13. Closeness to same-gender person (Same-gender attractions) Feeling emotionally close to a same-gender person prompted the participant to think about or question their own sexual orientation.
14. Disinterest in other-gender people (Same-gender attractions) Feeling disinterested (emotionally/romantically or sexually) in other-gender people prompted the participant to think about or question their own sexual orientation.
15. Fascination with same-gender bodies (Same-gender attractions) Marked interest or fascination with the body of a same-gender person or the bodies of same- gender people prompted the participant to think about or question their own sexual orientation.
16. Intentional same-gender sexual contact (Same-gender attractions) Any level of intentional same-gender sexual contact prompted the participant to question their own sexual orientation. Includes kissing, erotic touch, oral sex, intercourse, etc.
17. Single emotional bond Singular emotional same-gender friendship that does not generalize to other people of the same gender prompted the participant to question their own sexual orientation.
Current perceptions of sexual orientation and changes
18. Ambivalence about labeling Feeling ambivalent or negative toward the process of labeling. Includes disliking or being unsure about labels or the idea of labeling.
19. Uncertainty about the future (Future sexual identity) Expressing uncertainty about whether sexual orientation (attractions, identity) will change in the future.
20. Labels are limiting Feeling that the use of labels is limiting, or that particular labels are limiting in their ability to fully describe the participant’s sexual orientation. 279
21. Love depends on the person, not gender Expressing the idea that love depends on an individual person rather than their gender, or that gender is an unimportant factor in the participant’s attraction to others.
22. Sexuality is fluid Expressing the idea that sexuality is fluid, or using “sexually fluid” or “fluid” as a label. Includes describing any aspect of sexuality or sexual orientation as changing over time.
280
Appendix V: Study 2 List of Focused and Open Codes
Name of Code *Early indicators of sexual orientation *Early distinterest in other gender *Early fascination with same-gender bodies *Early feelings of differentness *Early gender atypicality Internal identification as other gender Early intentional same-gender sexual contact Early non-heterosexual identity Early questioning of sexual orientation *Early same-gender attractions Attraction to classmate at daycare or school Early same-gender jealousy *Context of first questioning sexual identity Celebrity crush Discomfort with heterosexual dating *Facilitating environment *Dating a bisexual person *Discovering friend with same-gender attractions *Discussing sexual orientation with friends Involvement with LGBTQ community *Learning about LGB Learning about transgender *Object of same-gender interest Gender transition Problems with same-gender friends Religion *Same-gender attractions *Awareness of same-gender sexual desires *Closeness to same-gender person *Disinterest in other-gender people Fascination with androgyny *Fascination with same-gender bodies *Intentional same-gender sexual contact Sexual dream or fantasy *Single emotional bond Watching pornography †Context of first same-gender sexual experience †Context of most significant attachments *Current perceptions of sexual identity and changes *Ambivalence about labeling Ambivalence about specific labels Attachment to current partner 281
Attraction proportions Attraction vs. jealousy Bisexuality Biphobia Definition Stereotypes and perceptions Transitional identity Broadening of sexual identity Choice Comfort with sex Comfort with sexual minority status Coming out as a difficult process Coming out in a safe space Community identification Concealment of sexual identity, attractions, or relationship Contextual identity Contextual labeling Continued questioning or uncertainty Crossing friendship boundaries Cultural or social influences Current sexuality related to childhood Dating heterosexual people Discomfort with sexual minority status Exclusivity in queer communities Exploring sexuality Facilitating environment Coming out online first Exposure to LGBTQ ideas Exposure to specific label Gender and Women's Studies Going to college Involvement with LGBTQ community LGBTQ friends Meeting or attraction to other-gender person Meeting or attraction to same-gender person Moving to LGBTQ-friendly location Feeling pressure to use labels Future sexual identity Dependent upon environment or culture Dependent upon future partners Dependent upon gender identity Desire for biological children Fear of future changes Future change in attractions 282
Future change in labels Open to future changes Stable future attractions or orientation Stable future identity *Uncertainty about the future Gay stereotypes Gender is fluid Gender performativity Gender transition Comfort with preferred gender Coming out as transgender Interactions with others as preferred gender Taking hormones Transphobia Gradual change or realization Importance of sexual identity Incongruence in sexual orientation dimensions Intentional labeling Community identification Inclusivity of label Label includes transgender community Label validates gender identity Politics of label Label used for others only Label used for self only *Labels are limiting Life experience or growth *Love depends on the person, not gender Monogamy Negative relationship or sexual experiences Openness about sexual identity Origin of sexual orientation Parental divorce Passing as heterosexual Passionate friendship Political activism Polyamory Preference for specific-gender friends Other-gender friends Same-gender friends Previous change in labels or identity only Privilege related to sexual identity Puberty Queer identity 283
Community identification Definition Reactions from family Reason for labeling Convenience of label Definition of label Flexibility of label Negativity of other labels Reinterpretation of attractions in hindsight Relationship needs Relationship status change Requirements for sexual minority status Sexual identity related to gender identity Sexual orientation-based victimization Anti-LGBTQ prejudice Sexual repression Sexual vs. romantic attractions *Sexuality is fluid Size of dating pool Social norms Gender binary Gendered norms of appearance Heteronormativity Societal and historical context of labeling
Notes. †Specific codes for context of first same-gender sexual experience and context of most significant attachments were not explored in the current project and thus are not included here. * Focused codes; all other codes are open codes. Bolded codes are described further in the Results and Discussion for Study 2.