Sexual Identity as a Universal Process 27

Frank R. Dillon, Roger L. Worthington, and Bonnie Moradi

Abstract This chapter summarizes advances in current theoretical and empirical literature on sexual identity development. It proposes a model of sexual identity that offers a more global (i.e., non-sexual identity group specific) perspective in comparison to existing sexual identity group-specific sexual identity models. Attention to commonalities in sexual identity development across sexual identity subgroups can offer a more global perspective that cap- tures shared experiences of sexual identity development as well as differences between subgroups. The proposed unifying model of sexual identity develop- ment incorporates what has been learned from years of theory and research concerning sexuality, LGB and heterosexual identity development, attitudes toward sexual minority individuals, and the meaning of ordinate and subor- dinate group membership. The model describes the intersection of various contextual factors that influence the individual and social processes under- lying sexual identity development. The unifying model is innovative in its applicability across sexual orientation identities, as well as its inclusion of a wide range of dimensions of sexual identity and possible developmental trajectories. The chapter concludes with a discussion of preliminary research findings that inform the unifying model and that have implications for future research. We hope this model allows researchers, educators, and practition- ers to develop interventions and conduct investigations on broader questions about human sexuality without being constrained to gay–straight dichotomies of sexual orientation and the related methodological limitations that have characterized sexual identity theory and research in the past.

Identity consists of a stable sense of one’s goals, beliefs, values, and life roles (Erikson, 1950; F.R. Dillon () Marcia, 1987). It includes, but is not limited to, Robert Stempel College of Public Health and Social gender, race, ethnicity, social class, spirituality, Work, Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA and sexuality. Identity development is a dynamic e-mail: fdillon@fiu.edu process of assessing and exploring one’s identity,

S.J. Schwartz et al. (eds.), Handbook of Identity Theory and Research, 649 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-7988-9_27, © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011 650 F.R. Dillon et al. and making commitments to an integrated set of The purpose of this chapter is to describe identity elements (Marcia, 1987). Identity for- current theoretical and empirical literature on mation was originally conceived as a focal task sexual identity development, and to arrive at a of adolescence (Erikson, 1950), but the concept proposed model of sexual identity that offers a has more recently been applied throughout the global (i.e., non-group specific) perspective. This lifespan (see Kroger & Marcia, Chapter 2,this proposed model can offer a complementary per- volume). spective to existing group-specific (i.e., gay and In this chapter, we focus on sexual iden- lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual) sexual iden- tity development. During the past two decades, tity models and is not intended to replace such there have been numerous theoretical and empir- models. In the subsequent sections, we (a) review ical advances in understanding sexual identity and evaluate prominent literature and concepts development as applied to individuals identi- concerning sexual identity development within fied as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and heterosexual specific sexual identity subgroups, (b) introduce (e.g., Diamond & Savin-Williams, 2000; Eliason, a unifying model of sexual identity develop- 1995; Fassinger & Miller, 1996; McCarn & ment that can be applied across sexual identity Fassinger, 1996; Savin-Williams & Diamond, subgroups, and (c) discuss preliminary findings 2000; Worthington, Savoy, Dillon, & Vernaglia, from recent research that can inform the unifying 2002; see Savin-Williams, Chapter 28,this model and that may have implications for future volume). Within these advances, conceptual research. models and measurements of sexual identity development were designed for specific sex- ual identity subgroups (e.g., lesbians, gay men, heterosexuals). It is important to note, however, Sexual Orientation, Sexual that only limited progress has been achieved Orientation Identity, and Sexual in the construction of models and measures Identity for bisexual or heterosexual individuals (see Diamond, Pardo, & Butterworth, Chapter 26, A number of scholars have argued that sexual this volume; Savin-Williams, Chapter 28,this identity would be more reliably assessed, and volume). validly represented, if it were disentangled from Sexual identity subgroup models and mea- sexual orientation (e.g., Chung & Katayama, sures serve an important role in elucidating iden- 1996; Drescher, 1998a, 1998b; Drescher, Stein, tity experiences and processes that are unique & Byne, 2005;Rust,2003; Stein, 1999; to each subgroup. Attention to commonalities in Worthington et al., 2002). Our conceptualization sexual identity development across sexual iden- of sexual orientation refers to an individual’s pat- tity subgroups can offer a global perspective terns of sexual, romantic, and affectional arousal that captures shared experiences of sexual iden- and desire for other persons based on those per- tity development as well as differences between sons’ gender and sex characteristics [American subgroups. Thus, group-specific and universal Psychological Association (APA) Task Force on models of sexual identity development can be Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual viewed as having complementary strengths and Orientation, 2009]. Sexual orientation is linked limitations in that aspects of sexual identity with individual physiological drives that are development that are uniquely salient to specific beyond conscious choice and that involve strong groups are the focus of group-specific models, emotional feelings (e.g., falling in love). Sexual and aspects that are shared across groups are the orientation identity is what we term the indi- focus of universal models. The need for both vidual’s conscious acknowledgment and inter- group-specific and universal foci also parallels nalization of sexual orientation. Sexual orienta- greater societal acceptance of diversity in sexual tion identity is thought to be linked with rela- identity groups (e.g., Yang, 2000). tional and other interpersonal factors that can 27 Sexual Identity as a Universal Process 651 shape an individual’s community, social supports, Measuring Sexual Identity role models, friendships, and partner(s) (e.g., APA Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Content analyses of research on sexual diver- Responses to Sexual Orientation, 2009;APA, sity in psychology have indicated that the most 2003). We conceptualize sexual orientation iden- common method of assessing what we term the tity as subsuming sexual orientation, with the sexual orientation identity (others term sexual former construct reflecting a conscious acknowl- orientation or sexual orientation label) of par- edgment of the latter construct. Thus, to sim- ticipants is to request self-identification as gay, plify our discussion, we use the term sexual lesbian, bisexual, heterosexual, or some variation orientation identity throughout the chapter to on these types of categories (Buhrke, Ben-Ezra, refer to these overlapping concepts in a single Hurley, & Ruprecht, 1992; Clark & Serovich, phrase. It is worth noting that Savin-Williams 1997; Huang et al., 2009; Phillips, Ingram, Smith, (Chapter 28, this volume) uses the phrase sexual & Mindes, 2003). This method provides cate- identity label to represent what we term sexual gorical self-identification. These categories are orientation identity. Savin-Williams prefers label typically used as a global proxy for the cog- over identity because the former is terminolog- nitive, behavioral, emotional, and physiological ically distinct from sexual identity and because bases underlying sexual identity. However, a sub- label captures his intent to use the term as a stantial body of research has suggested a variety group descriptor. We use the term sexual orien- of ways in which self-identified heterosexual, tation identity to be explicit about this concept gay, and lesbian individuals might exhibit bisex- as a conscious acknowledgment of identity and ual behavior or attractions without categorically to locate it within the broader construct of sexual identifying as bisexual (e.g., Diamond, 2000, identity. 2003a, 2008; Diamond & Savin-Williams, 2000; We conceptualize sexual orientation identity Worthington & Reynolds, 2009). This is further as one of many dimensions of sexual identity. complicated by the substantial number of individ- We consider other dimensions of sexual identity uals who report predominantly other-sex sexual that are commonly attributed to sexual orienta- feelings and behaviors, who also have experi- tion identity (sexual behavior with men and/or ences of same-sex attraction or behavior, but women; social affiliations with lesbian, gay, who do not identify as gay, lesbian, or bisex- bisexual (LGB) individuals, and/or heterosexual ual (Diamond, 2008; McConaghy, Buhrich, & individuals and communities; emotional attach- Silove, 1994; Worthington & Reynolds, 2009; ment preferences for men and/or women; gender see Savin-Williams, Chapter 28, this volume). A role and identity; Klein, Sepekoff, & Wolf, 1985) universal model of sexual identity may advance as correlates of sexual orientation identity, but not the current state of research and measurement by sole characteristics of sexual orientation identity. addressing limitations and constraints inherent in These elements are part of sexual identity as a categorization of sexual orientation, feelings, and larger construct. We view sexual identity as also behaviors. including other dimensions of human sexuality Both categorical and more continuous concep- (e.g., sexual needs, sexual values, modes of sex- tualizations of sexual orientation identity have ual expression, preferred characteristics of sexual evolved over the last 60 years since Kinsey partners, preferred sexual activities and behav- and his colleagues (Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, iors) as well as group membership identity (e.g., a 1948; Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin, & Gebhard, sexual orientation identity, or considering oneself 1953) first published their classic works on sexual as a member of sexuality-related social groups) behavior of males and females. Kinsey et al. used and attitudes toward sexual minority individu- a seven-category taxonomic system in which “0” als. These concepts and their roles in sexual corresponded to “exclusively heterosexual” and identity development are elaborated upon in the “6” corresponded to “exclusively homosexual.” It chapter. 652 F.R. Dillon et al. is noteworthy that, although the scale is intended samples, and investigators (Meyer & Wilson, to index sexual behavior, it is often used as a 2009; Moradi, Mohr, Worthington, & Fassinger, measure of sexual orientation identity. A num- 2009). In one attempt to reconcile incompati- ber of scholars have criticized the Kinsey Scale ble definitions and conceptualizations of vari- (e.g., Masters & Johnson, 1979; Sell, Wells, & ables related to sexual orientation, Tolman and Wypij, 1995; Shively & DeCecco, 1977) because Diamond (2001) have suggested that sexual ori- it presents same- and other-sex sexual behavior as entation can be conceptualized as having inherent opposites along a single continuum. Specifically, biological determinants (essentialism) as well as in Kinsey’s binary model, increasing desire for being strongly influenced by and given mean- one sex represents reduced desire for the other ing through socio-cultural forces (construction- sex, which in reality may not always be the case. ism). That is, rather than understanding sexual In contrast, other theorists have suggested that orientation from either a social constructionist same-sex and other-sex attractions and desires or an essentialist paradigm, the integration of may coexist relatively independently and may not aspects from both perspectives may better reflect be mutually exclusive (Diamond, 2003b, 2008; the multi-dimensionality and dynamics of human Sell et al., 1995; Shively & DeCecco, 1977; sexual orientation. Storms, 1980; Worthington & Reynolds, 2009). Tolman and Diamond’s clarification of the In multi-dimensional models of sexual orien- nature of sexual orientation as having both essen- tation identity, the intensity of an individual’s tialist and constructionist components is con- desire for or arousal toward other-sex individuals sistent with the distinctions among sexual ori- can be rated separately from the intensity of that entation, sexual orientation identity, and sex- individual’s desire for or arousal toward same-sex ual identity as proposed in this chapter and in individuals, and this allows for a more nuanced Worthington et al. (2002). Modern scholarship understanding of sexual diversity (Worthington & examining the stability of sexual orientation also Reynolds, 2009). seems to support our conceptualizations of sexual In understanding measurement issues related orientation, sexual orientation identity, and sex- to sexual identity, readers are cautioned to recog- ual identity (e.g., Diamond, 2003a; Horowitz & nize that inconsistent terms, methods, and con- Newcomb, 2001; Rosario, Schrimshaw, Hunter, cepts have plagued the sexual orientation and & Braun, 2006, see Savin-Williams, Chapter 28, sexual identity literatures. As noted earlier, schol- this volume). Specifically, some dimensions of ars often inappropriately presume interchange- sexual identity, such as relationships, emotions, ability of terms (e.g., sexual orientation, sexual behaviors, values, group affiliation, and norms, identity). The field also operationalizes key sex- appear to be relatively fluid; by contrast, sexual ual identity variables in inconsistent ways (e.g., orientation [i.e., an individual’s patterns of sex- categorical self-identification, use of a continu- ual, romantic, and affectional arousal and desire ous self-identification scale such as a Kinsey-type for other persons based on those persons’ gen- scale, and physiological measures). The sexual der and sex characteristics (APA Task Force on orientation and identity literature also does not Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual typically account for historical shifts across time Orientation, 2009)] has been suggested to be sta- in both popular and scholarly conceptualizations ble for a majority of people across the lifespan of variables tied to human sexuality, especially (Bell, Weinberg, & Hammersmith, 1981; Ellis self-ascriptions related to sexual orientation iden- & Ames, 1987; Haldeman, 1991; Money, 1987). tity (e.g., gay, lesbian, bisexual, queer, het- Our distinctions among sexual orientation, sexual erosexual, metrosexual, bicurious, heteroflexible, orientation identity, and sexual identity attempt pansexual, polyamorous, trans-amorous, uncer- to capture and acknowledge both fluid and sta- tain, disidentified, ex-gay, ex–ex-gay). Therefore, ble aspects of sexual identity. These distinctions much of this literature is difficult to interpret— are also consistent with the aforementioned con- especially when comparing findings across time, structionist and essentialist distinction. 27 Sexual Identity as a Universal Process 653

As the reader may have noticed, the stability coming out process for sexual minority individu- of sexual orientation is supported by some earlier als rather than as a model of identity development empirical studies (e.g., Haldeman, 1991, 1994) (e.g., McCarn & Fassinger, 1996). That is, the but is questioned by more recent empirical stud- model may only consider one aspect of sex- ies (Kinnish, Strassberg, & Turner, 2005;Savin- ual identity development—acceptance and dis- Williams, Chapter 28, this volume). New empiri- closure of one’s sexual orientation identity as gay cal data concerning sexual fluidity could reflect a or lesbian. greater acceptance of sexual minority individuals Although they are too numerous to fully in society in comparison to 20 years ago (Savin- review here, there has been a proliferation of Williams, 2005, Chapter 28, this volume). That models intended to describe lesbian and gay is, more people may be acknowledging sexual identity development. Readers are referred to minority orientations (i.e., “coming out”) because Reynolds and Hanjorgiris (2000) and Savin- of a more accepting societal climate. Yet, it is not Williams (2005, Chapter 28, this volume) for a clear from existing research whether sexual ori- thorough review and critique of existing mod- entation is more variable across time for some els. These critiques note that past gay and les- individuals and not for others, or whether individ- bian identity development models have often uals may be relatively more or less open to expe- neglected individual differences in race, ethnicity, riencing and acknowledging variations in sexual age, and socioeconomic class (Savin-Williams, arousal and desire at different points in their per- 2005, this volume). Savin-Williams (Chapter 28, sonal development. That is, experiencing arousal this volume) also discusses the previously noted may be different than acknowledging arousal, problems of the gay–straight binary inherent which may vary across contexts and relation- in many of these models (see also Moradi, ships. For instance, Diamond’s (2003a, 2003b, Mohr, et al., 2009, for more on this discussion). 2008) research on women and same-sex attrac- Specifically, these models meet their intended tions indicates that many women’s acknowledged aim to delineate identity development for specific identities vary as contexts, relationships, and groups but are limited in their generalizability to behaviors change, but that their overall levels other identities (e.g., bisexuality, heterosexuality) of sexual desire and attraction generally do not and to description of sexual identity development change. across groups. Building on existing sexual minority iden- tity formation models, Fassinger and colleagues (Fassinger & Miller, 1996; McCarn & Fassinger, Sexual Orientation Identity 1996) produced arguably the most sophisti- Development cated models of lesbian and gay identity devel- opment. Their models include four phases of Models of sexual identity development may pro- sexual identity development (awareness, explo- vide an additional perspective regarding the ration, deepening/commitment, and internaliza- nature and variety of sexual orientation identi- tion/synthesis). The Fassinger et al. models are ties over time. In her groundbreaking work, Cass distinct in its conceptualization of phases of (1979) set the foundation for much of the theory both individual and group membership iden- building and exploratory research on the sexual tity. Within the awareness phase, at the indi- identity of gay men and lesbians (e.g., Troiden, vidual level, one recognizes being different, 1988, 1993). In this work, Cass described a multi- and at the group level, one acknowledges that stage process from confusion to identity synthe- there are different possible sexual orientations. sis where the individual addresses the impact This recognition and acknowledgement leads of stigma while passing through milestones of to the next phase, exploration, wherein explo- identity awareness and formation. This work has ration of same-sex attractions occurs at the indi- been more recently considered descriptive of the vidual level and exploration of one’s position 654 F.R. Dillon et al. in the lesbian and gay community begins at from gay, lesbian, bisexual, or other participants the group level. Through this exploration, the who, on the basis of sexual orientation identity deepening/commitment phase occurs—the crys- or commitment to sexual identity, might not oth- tallization of a gay or lesbian sexual identity erwise volunteer for research exclusively related at the individual level and personal involvement to lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) identities in the lesbian and gay community at the group (see Worthington, Navarro, Savoy, & Hampton, level. The final phase is internalization/synthesis. 2008). A universal model of sexual identity is Within this final stage, a gay or lesbian iden- also applicable to heterosexual individuals, who tity is integrated into one’s general self-concept may not go through the stages identified by at the individual level and across contexts (e.g., Fassinger and colleagues. Thus, a more global home, work, neighborhood) at the group level. conceptualization of sexual identity broadens the Importantly, the individual and group phases do scope of measurement and can improve empirical not necessarily occur in parallel fashion, and an investigations of sexual identity. individual could experience concordant or non- Bisexual identity. Although there may be concordant phases of individual and group iden- some overlap in the experiences of the coming tity. For instance, a person could commit to a out process and identity development for les- lesbian or gay identity at the individual level (e.g., bians, gay men, and bisexual men and women, have a same sex partner), but still be at an earlier bisexuality has been identified as a unique and stage at the group level (i.e., not have identified often misunderstood phenomenon (Klein, 1993). self to others as lesbian or gay, not engaged in Kinsey et al. (1948) long ago advanced the lesbian and gay community). Two quantitative notion that bisexuality was much more com- measures of lesbian and gay identity develop- mon than previously expected. In their seminal ment have been developed to assess each status research on bisexuality, Weinberg, Williams, and of the models: the Gay Identity Scale (Fassinger, Pryor (1994) suggested that “becoming bisexual 1997) and the Lesbian Identity Scale (Fassinger involves the rejection of not one but two rec- & McCarn, 1997). ognized categories of sexual identity” (p. 26). Although the Fassinger and Miller (1996) They described a stagewise model of bisexual and McCarn and Fassinger (1996) models are a identity development that includes initial con- clear advance over earlier lesbian and gay iden- fusion, finding and applying the label, settling tity models, there are some limitations in the into the identity, and continued uncertainty. They Fassinger models that require attention. In partic- emphasize that a substantial amount of bisexual ular, one must identify as gay or lesbian to com- identity development involves confusion, explo- plete the instruments associated with the models. ration, and uncertainty. Nevertheless, although As a result, research using these instruments is larger proportions of their bisexual research par- likely to sample only from participants who iden- ticipants expressed ongoing and past uncertainty tify as gay or lesbian and who are in the deepen- about self-identification compared to heterosexu- ing/commitment or internalization/synthesis sta- als, lesbians, and gay men, the vast majority of tuses of sexual identity development (see Savin- bisexuals expressed comfort and certainty with Williams, Chapter 28, this volume). their bisexual identity. We contend that some of the limitations of Similar to Weinrich and Klein (2003) and to past sexual identity development models can the differential developmental trajectories frame- be addressed through a unifying, generalizable work posited by Savin-Williams (Chapter 28,this sexual identity development theory and accom- volume), empirical studies by Weinberg et al. panying instrumentation. For instance, a sexual (1994) have highlighted within-group differences identity development measure that does not cate- among bisexuals by identifying several different gorize participants into sexual orientation identity “types” of bisexuality, including the pure, mid, categories (or ask participants to do so) at recruit- heterosexual leaning, homosexual leaning, and ment has the advantage of capturing participation varied types. This research demonstrates several 27 Sexual Identity as a Universal Process 655 important aspects of bisexuality that counteract the Sullivan model include the following: what stereotypes: (a) bisexuality is a unique and legit- developmental events lead a heterosexual person imate identity; (b) substantial external pressures to examine her or his sexual identity with an to conform to the gay–straight dichotomy may appreciation of sexual minorities in society (the result in considerable confusion, exploration, and resistance stage)? And how might heterosexual uncertainty; and (c) there are important within- persons be distributed across these categories? group differences among bisexual individuals Mohr (2002) introduced a model of adult het- that have critical influences on sexual identity erosexual identity in an effort to conceptualize development (see also Worthington & Reynolds, heterosexual therapists’ barriers to and facili- 2009). tators of effective practice with LGB clients. Heterosexual identity. Heterosexual identity Like the Sullivan model, no empirical studies to development is a relatively new and understud- our knowledge have examined the Mohr model. ied area of sexual identity theory and research Nevertheless, it potentially contributes to our (Ellis & Mitchell, 2000). One of the first studies limited theoretical base concerning heterosexual of heterosexual identity applied Marcia’s iden- identity. Mohr argues that therapists’ ineffec- tity development theory (see Kroger & Marcia, tive practice with LGB clients can be under- Chapter 2, this volume) within an exploratory stood as a manifestation of efforts by therapists qualitative investigation of how undergraduate to develop, maintain, and express heterosexual students’ heterosexual sexual identities formed identities in ways that contribute to a posi- (Eliason, 1995; see Savin-Williams, Chapter 28, tive and coherent sense of self, although these this volume). Although the study was conducted efforts are detrimental to the therapy process. with a small number of participants (n = 26), Mohr’s model describes heterosexual identity as a Eliason determined that the largest proportion result of the interaction between individuals’ sex- of her participants exhibited identity foreclosure. ual orientation schemas or working models and Another large percentage of students were cat- their core motivations to fulfill basic needs for egorized in identity diffusion, primarily because social acceptance and psychological consistency. they expressed confusion about the definition of This entirely theoretical model also describes the sexual identity. Eliason found gender differences importance of social context (e.g., work, home, among the small number of participants who community) and multiple identities (e.g., race, were categorized as identity achieved. Whereas ethnicity, gender) in processes related to hetero- the men appeared to commit to heterosexuality sexual identity. based primarily on a rejection of gay identity, the Another model of heterosexual identity devel- women appeared to be more open to other alter- opment was advanced by Worthington et al. natives at a later point. Similarly, all participants (2002), who built on the earlier work of McCarn categorized as identity moratorium were women, and Fassinger (1996). A unique feature of this with no men categorized into this status. model relative to the previously described mod- Sullivan (1998) applied concepts commonly els is that it includes sexual orientation as one associated with racial identity development (i.e., component of heterosexual individuals’ broader Hardiman & Jackson, 1992) to the identity devel- sexual identity. This heterosexual identity devel- opment process of both LGB and heterosexual opment model is the foundation for the unifying college students. She described the development model proposed later in the present chapter. In the of heterosexual identities within five stepwise Worthington et al. (2002) heterosexual identity stages (naïveté, acceptance, resistance, redefini- model, sexual orientation identity was conceptu- tion, and internalization) shaped by an atmo- alized as one of six dimensions of the larger con- sphere of homophobia and heterosexism. No struct of individual sexual identity: (a) perceived research, to our knowledge, has examined the sexual needs,(b)preferred sexual activities,(c) validity of the Sullivan model. Potential ques- preferred characteristics of sexual partners,(d) tions for future empirical research concerning sexual values,(e)recognition and identification 656 F.R. Dillon et al. of sexual orientation, and (f) preferred modes of and acts according to these internalized norms sexual expression. Multiple interrelated biopsy- in her or his interpersonal interactions (West & chosocial factors (e.g., biological, microsocial, Zimmerman, 1987). An important way in which gender, cultural, religious, and systemic) were one internalizes societal constructions of gender posited as influencing an individual’s progression and acts according to these internalized norms through five heterosexual identity development is through enacting a heterosexual identity. That statuses. Although a complete presentation of is, gender role prescriptions for women include the heterosexual identity model is beyond the being sexually oriented toward men and gender scope of this chapter, we briefly review the orig- role prescriptions for men include being sexually inal tenets below because they also represent oriented toward women. Related to this notion theorized determinants of sexual identity devel- is evidence that heterosexual self-presentation opment in the unifying sexual identity model is an important societal norm for masculinity proposed later in the chapter. (Mahalik et al., 2003; Parent & Moradi, 2009), Biological determinants of sexual identity and aspects of sexual identity such as sexual were considered in the heterosexual model fidelity and relational orientation are important because many biological influences (e.g., amino societal norms for femininity (Mahalik et al., acids, hormonal variations, genetic familiality, 2005; Parent & Moradi, 2010). Furthermore, molecular genetics, prenatal sex hormones, pre- gender role traditionality is fairly consistently natal maternal stress, functional cerebral asym- correlated with prejudicial attitudes toward non- metry, neuroanatomical sex differences, sibling heterosexual groups (e.g., Goodman & Moradi, sex ratio and birth order, temperament, and phys- 2008). ical attractiveness) have been proposed to influ- Cultural context was also theorized as a crit- ence sexual identity. Although these biological ical influence on heterosexual identity develop- factors are posited to operate, empirical evi- ment. Contexts such as family (see Scabini & dence supporting their role is limited (Zucker & Manzi, Chapter 23, this volume), community, Bradley, 1995). In addition to biological factors, cultural norms, and oppression may facilitate microsocial influences (Bronfenbrenner, 1977) or inhibit an individual’s affectional preferences stemming from one’s immediate relationships and sexual behaviors, thereby affecting her or with family, peers, coworkers, neighbors, and his sexual identity development. Furthermore, others also were included in the initial model because many religions regulate sexual behav- because gender roles, sexual knowledge, sex- ior among their members and instruct specific ual attitudes/values, and some sexual behaviors values and moral convictions regarding sexual- are often learned within microsocial contexts ity, religious orientation is theorized to shape (e.g., peer group, classmates, family). In addi- sexual identity development, particularly the sta- tion, heterosexual identity was conceptualized as tuses of sexual identity exploration and commit- dependent and concomitant to gender identity ment. Related research demonstrates that sexual development processes because a person’s bio- values are associated with religious orientation logical sex triggers a range of social norms for (Davidson, Darling, & Norton, 1995; Robinson gender characteristics and behaviors, including & Calhoun, 1982; Tozer & Hayes, 2004) and that sexual identity. For instance, as soon as a new- homonegativity correlates with religiosity (e.g., born baby enters the world, her or his biological Herek & Capitanio, 1996; Johnson, Brems, & sex is emphasized (e.g., through the colors of Alford-Keating, 1997; Worthington, Dillon, & her/his bedroom and her/his clothes and toys). Becker-Schutte, 2005). Finally, because systemic In turn, gender characteristics based on societal homonegativity, sexual prejudice, and privilege and cultural norms (often stereotypically mas- are so pervasive at both macro- and micro-levels culine and feminine) are attributed to the indi- of society (Levitt et al., 2009; Rostosky, Riggle, vidual (Gilbert & Scher, 1999). The individual Horne, & Miller, 2009), these forces are hypoth- then internalizes societal constructions of gender esized to influence sexual identity development. 27 Sexual Identity as a Universal Process 657

We describe these influences more specifically in A Unifying Model of Sexual Identity the next sections of the chapter. Development Although the McCarn and Fassinger (1996) model aims to describe the sexual identity devel- We define sexual identity development as the opment process of sexual minority individuals, individual and social processes by which per- and whereas the Worthington et al. (2002) model sons acknowledge and define their sexual needs, intends to describe this process for heterosexual values, sexual orientation, preferences for sex- individuals, these two conceptual models contain ual activities, modes of sexual expression, and quite similar features. They propose similar pro- characteristics of sexual partners. We add to this cesses of identity development (e.g., both models definition the assumption that sexual identity reflect the processes of exploration, commitment, development entails an understanding (implicit and synthesis/integration), consider individual as or explicit) of one’s membership in either a well as group identity, and account for multi- privileged dominant group (heterosexual) or a ple dimensions of—and influences on—sexual marginalized, minority group (gay, lesbian, or identity development. Bieschke (2002) suggested bisexual identity), with a corresponding set of that the Worthington et al. model may serve attitudes, beliefs, and values with respect to mem- as a unifying model of sexual identity devel- bers of other sexual identity groups. opment. Accordingly, the next section of this Similar to the Worthington et al. (2002) chapter presents a new unifying model of sex- heterosexual identity model and McCarn and ual identity development. This newer model rep- Fassinger (1996) lesbian and gay identity devel- resents an updated version of the Worthington opment model, the unifying model proposed here et al. (2002) model and attempts to integrate describes two parallel, reciprocal developmen- research on correlates of sexual identity and the- tal determinants: (a) an individual sexual identity ories of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and heterosexual development process and (b) a social identity pro- identity development into one inclusive working cess (see Fig. 27.1). These two processes are model.

Sexual Orientation Identity

Individual Identity Dimensions of Human Sexuality (e.g., sexual needs, behaviors, values)

Biopsychosocial Sexual Identity Processes Development

Group Membership Identity Social Identity Attitudes Toward Sexual Identity Groups

Fig. 27.1 Determinants of sexual identity development 658 F.R. Dillon et al.

Active Exploration

Compulsory Deepening & Synthesis Heterosexuality Commitment

Diffusion

Fig. 27.2 Processes of sexual identity development

posited to occur within five discernible sexual sexual orientation identity. As in the heterosexual identity development statuses—described in the identity model, sexual identity in the univer- next section of the chapter (see Fig. 27.2): (a) sal model is understood as a multi-dimensional compulsory heterosexuality [a term first proposed construct that includes sexual orientation iden- by Rich (1980) and more recently adopted by tity and numerous other domains of human sex- Mohr (2002)], (b) active exploration, (c) diffu- uality (e.g., sexual needs, sexual values, pre- sion, (d) deepening and commitment, and (e) syn- ferred sexual activities, preferred characteristics thesis. Although the unifying model represents of sexual partners, preferred modes of sexual an attempt to describe developmental phenom- expression) (see Fig. 27.1). The social identity ena, we emphasize that there are opportunities process involves group membership identity, or for circularity and revisiting of statuses through- the recognition of oneself as a member of a out the lifespan for a given individual. Thus, group of individuals with similar sexual identi- points in the model should be thought of as non- ties, and attitudes toward other sexual identity linear, flexible, and fluid descriptions of statuses groups (see Ashmore, Deaux, & McLaughlin- through which people may pass as they develop Volpe, 2004, for more on group membership their sexual identity over the lifespan. As can be identity theory). It is important to note that seen in Fig. 27.2, which illustrates the hypothe- the recognition of oneself as a member of a sized processes underlying sexual identity devel- group of persons with similar sexual identi- opment, there are many different trajectories and ties differs from the recognition of one’s sex- outcomes of sexual identity development. ual orientation identity. The former is a broader As described earlier in the chapter, individ- group membership identification which includes ual sexual identity includes, but is not limited to, both sexual orientation identity and other salient 27 Sexual Identity as a Universal Process 659 aspects of human sexuality. For instance, a person orientation who accept and adopt the compulsory could identify as heterosexual (a sexual orien- heterosexuality as a sexual orientation identity tation identity), while also considering oneself that is institutionalized and required by social- as a member of other sexuality-related social ization in many cultures. Compulsory hetero- groups [e.g., celibates (Abbott, 1999), swingers sexuality also reflects microsocial (e.g., famil- (de Visser & McDonald, 2007), nudists (Story, ial) and macrosocial (e.g., societal) mandates 1987), voyeurs (Rye & Meaney, 2007), exhibi- for “appropriate” gender roles and sexual behav- tionists (Långström & Seto, 2006), practitioners ior and/or avoidance of sexual self-exploration, of sadomasochism (Moser & Klienplatz, 2006)]. which may preempt sexual exploration. Because We expect that dimensions of the larger construct of societal assumptions about normative devel- of individual sexual identity evolve and interact opment, most people are likely to experience with the processes of group membership iden- very little conscious thought about their adoption tity and attitudes toward sexual identity groups of compulsory heterosexuality. People exhibit- (See Fig. 27.1). For example, an individual who ing the compulsory heterosexuality identity status has (a) negative attitudes toward sexual minority can be of any age. For example, prepubescent individuals and (b) a group membership iden- boys and girls may not have had much oppor- tity grounded in societal heterosexism may not tunity to consider their sexuality at a conscious want to engage in sexual activities that involve level. Similarly, many adults may never have homoerotic taboos. considered any alternatives to heterosexuality. Regardless of whether a person is sexually Because heterosexuality is so strongly circum- active or celibate, sexual identity development scribed in most cultures, compulsory heterosex- may occur on both conscious and unconscious uality is likely to be the starting point for most levels throughout all stages of the model. For individuals, regardless of whether they later self- instance, exploration can involve cognitive or identify as heterosexual or as a sexual minority. behavioral activities (or both) and is not lim- As a result, this status represents an externally ited to behavioral experimentation. Furthermore, imposed identity rather than a self-ascribed iden- as suggested by identity status literature (e.g., tity, even when an individual identifies outwardly Pastorino, Dunham, Kidwell, Bacho, & Lamborn, as heterosexual. This status closely resembles 1997), we expect that persons experience differ- the foreclosed identity status in Marcia’s model ent sexual identity statuses (and related dimen- of identity development (see Kroger & Marcia, sions) at different times due to individual differ- Chapter 2, this volume). Movement out of com- ences in developmental context. Thus, the model pulsory heterosexuality is likely to be perma- allows for many different individual trajectories nent because entry into one of the other statuses and outcomes of identity development. ultimately precludes the type of naive commit- ment to sexual identity characteristic of this status (see the Deepening and commitment sta- tus sub-section of the chapter for our descrip- Statuses of Sexual Identity tions of two related sub-statuses of Deepening Development in the Unified Model and commitment—committed heterosexuality and committed compulsory heterosexuality). Compulsory heterosexuality. The title of this sta- In terms of group membership identity, indi- tus is based on the term coined by Rich (1980) viduals of any sexual orientation in compul- and applied by Mohr (2002) to describe the sory heterosexuality tend to operate within presumption across societal systems that (a) het- culturally prescribed norms for heterosexist erosexuality is normal and universal and (b) assumptions about normative behavior on the women and men are innately attracted to each part of others. Concrete, all-or-nothing think- other emotionally and sexually. Compulsory het- ing tends to characterize conceptions of dif- erosexuality refers to individuals of any sexual ferent sexual identity groups. For instance, 660 F.R. Dillon et al. attitudes toward heterosexuals are “group appre- characterize compulsory heterosexuality—are ciating” (cf. Atkinson, Morten, & Sue, 1995). thought to be questioned or abandoned by indi- The presumption that heterosexuality is nor- viduals of any sexual orientation when active mal and good is accepted without question. exploration occurs. However, contextual influ- Awareness that heterosexuals are a privileged, ences can constrain or promote sexual identity dominant majority group is either denied or exploration within socially acceptable bound- repressed from awareness or accepted with- aries. For example, this occurs when a person out question as normal, understandable, and is raised in a family, culture, or religion that justifiable. Attitudes toward sexual minority instructs that acceptable sexual partners are only individuals are “group depreciating” among indi- persons of the same race, different gender, similar viduals in the compulsory heterosexuality status age, same socioeconomic status, and same reli- (cf. Atkinson et al., 1995). People in this sta- gion. Although these constraints vary from per- tus are likely to assume that everyone in their son to person depending on a number of dimen- microsocial contexts (e.g., familial, work, and sions of social context (e.g., gender, culture, age, other immediate social circles) is heterosexual. religious orientation), active exploration occurs As such, sexual minority individuals are under- when the individual engages in cognitive or stood only in abstract, stereotypic terms. For behavioral exploration of individual sexual iden- individuals who have same-sex or other-sex sex- tities beyond that which is socially mandated ual orientations, the nature of this status suggests within one’s social context. For instance, even that attitudes toward sexual minority individu- if one is raised in the above-described context, als are likely to be at the condemnation end of active exploration regarding preferred character- Herek’s (1984) condemnation—tolerance contin- istics of a sexual partner for some might entail the uum, reflecting prejudice toward same-sex sex- development of sexual or romantic relationships ual orientation and sexual minority individuals with people having different types of physical, (Herek, Gillis, & Cogan, 2009). social, economic, or spiritual characteristics. For Active exploration. Purposeful exploration, others, active exploration might entail such things evaluation, or experimentation of one’s sexual as experimenting with different types of sex- needs, values, orientation and/or preferences for ual activities, transcending gender roles through activities, partner characteristics, or modes of adoption of gender atypical modes of sexual sexual expression are typical of the active explo- expression, engaging in sex with more than one ration status. Active exploration of individual partner (e.g., group sex), reading books about sexual identity is distinguished from naive behav- sex, and so on. As a result, active exploration ioral experimentation in three important ways could be characterized very differently depend- that have implications for other statuses in the ing on contextual factors. Furthermore, there is model. First, exploration can be cognitive or a wide range of levels of exploration (e.g., type, behavioral. Although there may be a bias toward depth, and duration of exploration). Thus, our behavioral sexual exploration in modern soci- notion of active exploration is inclusive and flex- ety, cognitive forms of exploration (e.g., fantasy) ible enough to account for between and within- are possible as well and may be the preferred group differences exhibited by same-sex- and form of exploration among individuals; partic- other-sex-oriented individuals, as suggested by ularly those who engage in abstinence-oriented Savin-Williams’ (Chapter 28, this volume) differ- lifestyles. Second, active exploration is purpose- ential developmental trajectories perspective on ful and usually tends to be goal directed, such sexual identity development. as purposefully experimenting (in thought or Active exploration will most typically coin- action) with different modes of sexual expres- cide with biological maturation (e.g., physical sion, different characteristics of sexual part- capacity), but could occur at nearly any point ners, and/or sexual acts. Third, the socially during the course of the lifespan. This status mandated aspects of heterosexuality—those that closely resembles Marcia’s (Kroger & Marcia, 27 Sexual Identity as a Universal Process 661

Chapter 2, this volume) moratorium status, membership in a dominant heterosexual group, which is characterized by a suspension of com- such recognition might result in (a) questioning mitment in favor of active exploration. Due to the justice of the privileged heterosexual major- the powerful impact of systemic homonegativity ity position or (b) further asserting the privileges and sexual prejudice, many heterosexually of the heterosexual majority. In active explo- identified individuals who enter this status are ration, the interaction of individual and social likely to primarily explore needs, values, and processes of identity development is thought to preferences for activities, partner characteristics become considerably intertwined. For example, a (with the exception of gender), and modes of willingness to violate cultural sanctions against sexual expression—but they will likely not sexual self-exploration may result in recognition explore sexual orientation identity alter- and understanding of ordinate–subordinate group natives. dynamics and majority group privilege by indi- Sexual minority individuals are more likely to viduals of any sexual orientation identity. As explore options in all areas of their sexual iden- such, individuals of any sexual orientation iden- tities. Entry into the active exploration status for tity may be aware of and associate with persons sexual minority individuals may be prompted by from different sexual minority groups more often awareness of homoerotic feelings, behaviors, and than persons in the compulsory heterosexuality exploration (Fassinger & Miller, 1996). These status. experiences may lead to re-labeling of sexual Identifying as heterosexual (a privileged group orientation identity (e.g., from heterosexual to membership status) in active exploration can lesbian, gay, or bisexual) during active explo- sometimes be reserved as a visible orientation ration. Although some heterosexuals in this status (i.e., passing as straight) by individuals of any may also consciously experiment with symbolic sexual orientation. Homoerotic thoughts, feel- (fantasy) or real sexual activities with same- ings, and behaviors can be dismissed as transient, sex partners, most are expected to identify as concealed, and denigrated; or may be accepted “straight” to preserve the privileged status associ- as congruent with one’s of sexual, romantic, and ated with it. Others may reflect on the possibility affectional arousal and desire. Many individu- that their compulsory heterosexual orientation als in active exploration can overtly or secretly identity does not fit them and may consider or experiment with behaviors that involve more adopt another sexual orientation identity (e.g., than one partner and/or one or more same-sex gay, lesbian, bisexual, queer). We conceptualized partners without ever identifying with a sexual only two pathways out of active commitment: (a) orientation identity minority group (Diamond, into deepening and commitment following active 2008; McConaghy et al., 1994; Worthington & exploration or (b) into diffusion. This process is Reynolds, 2009). Thus, sexual behaviors and sex- described in subsequent sections of the chapter. ual orientation identity can be conveniently sep- The group membership identity process is arated by some. For instance, this discrepancy hypothesized to be more salient for individuals in could occur when persons identify as hetero- the active exploration status in comparison to the sexual to serve an “ego preservation” function, compulsory heterosexuality status. Recognition protecting individuals with heterosexist and self- of same-sex attractions might result in (a) ques- stigmatizing beliefs from threatening thoughts tioning the privileged status of heterosexuality in and feelings (Moradi, van den Berg, & Epting, society, (b) maintaining negative attitudes toward 2006). Earlier related research (Herek, 1984) oneself and toward sexual minority individuals also suggests that expressing negative attitudes (Szymanski, Kashubeck-West, & Meyer, 2008), toward lesbian and gay individuals may serve or (c) exploring one’s own attitudes toward sex- as an expression of positive self-concept for the ual minorities as a group, as well as the possibility individual (e.g., negative attitudes that are part of membership in that group (Fassinger & Miller, of one’s religious identity; Mohr, 2002). Not 1996). When a person recognizes her or his surprisingly, separation of gayness from one’s 662 F.R. Dillon et al. self-concept has been identified as a compo- diffusion does not always include the malad- nent of internalized homophobia as reported by justment commonly thought to accompany it self-identified lesbian and gay adults (Moradi, (Luyckx et al., 2005, 2008). Thus, in terms of sex- van den Berg, & Epting, 2009). Alternatively, as ual identity development, people exhibiting care- noted above, some individuals in active explo- free diffusion are similarly expected to indicate ration may more openly associate with (and come low levels of commitment or exploration, and to identify with) LGB individuals and groups apathy regarding commitment and exploration through friendship patterns, sexual exploration, (e.g., “I don’t care”). Any sexual identity-related and other types of affiliation. This process is exploration by carefree diffusers is expected to thought to be more likely for persons who either appear to be a random willingness to try or be (a) are less restricted by heterosexist contextual almost anything related to sexual identity without influences (e.g., growing up in an environment distress. The diffused diffusion status has been in which sexual diversity is normative, accept- suggested to reflect an underlying uncertainty or able, and even desirable; Savin-Williams, 2005, insecurity and is more likely to be distressed by this volume), or (b) who demonstrate resilience lack of commitments (Archer & Waterman, 1990; against such constraints (Sanders & Kroll, 2000). Luyckx et al., 2005, 2008). Attitudes toward other sexual orientation iden- Whether due to insecure apathy or a care- tity groups are likely to vary considerably both free lack of commitment, individuals in diffu- within and between individuals in the active sion may be more likely to ignore or reject exploration status. However, we posit that an ori- social and cultural prescriptions for sexual val- entation toward active self-exploration is likely to ues, behavior, and identity. In some cases, diffu- correspond with more positive attitudes toward sion may be difficult to distinguish from active sexual minority individuals and with less self- exploration, because the infrequent and random stigma compared to compulsory heterosexuality. experimentation (in thought or action) char- This hypothesis is partially supported by our ear- acteristic of this status might resemble active lier work, which found that exploration was pos- exploration. However, diffusion typically lacks itively associated with LGB-affirmative attitudes goal-directed intentionality—one of the crite- and negatively related to homonegativity among ria necessary for active exploration to occur one sample of heterosexual adults (Worthington (Soenens & Vansteenkiste, Chapter 17,this et al., 2005) and another sample of individuals volume). Although carefree diffusion may be from heterosexual, gay, lesbian, and bisexual sex- characterized by a lack of distress, it is impor- ual orientation identity groups (Worthington & tant to note that diffusion typically coincides Reynolds, 2009). In another study, we found that with a number of forms of psychological dis- exploration was related to psychotherapists’ self- tress (Schwartz, Zamboanga, Weisskirch, & efficacy to affirmatively work with sexual minor- Rodriguez, 2009). Thus, we posit that people ity clients (Dillon, Worthington, Soth-McNett, & experiencing diffusion are likely to have iden- Schwartz, 2008). tity confusion in other aspects of their lives. Diffusion. Diffusion has been defined as the They may also express a lack of self-awareness absence of commitment and of systematic explo- about their underlying motives or intentions ration (Marcia, 1987). It is one of the more com- that might characterize people in other statuses plex identity statuses. Identity literature describes (see Soenens & Vansteenkiste, Chapter 17,this two types of diffusion—diffused diffusion and volume, Luyckx, Schwartz, Goossens, Beyers, & carefree diffusion (Luyckx, Goossens, Soenens, Missotten, Chapter 4, this volume). Beyers, & Vansteenkiste, 2005; Luyckx et al., Because emerging research suggests that indi- 2008; Marcia, 1976, 1989). The carefree diffu- viduals in diffusion can transition into either fore- sion status reflects someone who is unconcerned closure or moratorium (Meeus, van de Schoot, and content with not having strong commitments Keijsers, Schwartz, & Branje, 2010), pathways or having actively explored. In fact, carefree out of diffusion could include returning to 27 Sexual Identity as a Universal Process 663 compulsory heterosexuality or progressing into this status from compulsory heterosexuality than active exploration, which in some cases may from active exploration. For such individuals, the be facilitated through professional psychologi- deepening and commitment that occurs during cal services or other interventions to address this status is contained within their compulsory potential psychological distress (Schwartz et al., heterosexuality. As such, their compulsory het- 2009). We expect that individuals are vul- erosexuality becomes a committed compulsory nerable to enter this status from any of the heterosexuality that is characterized by a more other identity statuses—but most likely com- profound commitment to compulsory heterosex- pulsory heterosexuality or active exploration— uality. while experiencing high levels of distress (e.g., It is also possible that heterosexuals could distress resulting from stigma and/or harass- move from compulsory heterosexuality to deep- ment associated with sexual exploration or ening and commitment via active exploration. We taboo behaviors). Research is needed to exam- expect such individuals to differ from individu- ine this assumption and to identify types of als in committed compulsory heterosexuality in distress that could potentially influence entry several ways. Individuals moving into this sta- into diffusion. Furthermore, given that individu- tus from active exploration may be more likely als in more integrated levels of identity are less to question the presumption that heterosexuality likely to regress into diffusion (Meeus et al., is the only normal and appropriate sexual orien- 2010), we assume a similar dynamic in sexual tation identity, and to question the need for the identity. institutionalization of heterosexuality as the only Deepening and commitment. Individuals of sexual orientation identity through, for exam- any sexual orientation identity in the deepen- ple, legislation banning same-sex marriages. In ing and commitment status exhibit a movement terms of group membership identity, individu- toward greater commitment to their identified als in deepening and commitment who commit sexual needs, values, sexual orientation and/or to a heterosexual identity orientation after active preferences for activities, partner characteristics, exploration are expected to question heterosex- and modes of sexual expression. This status ist assumptions about normative behavior on the most closely resembles Marcia’s achieved iden- part of others. Heterosexist assumptions and atti- tity status (Marcia, 1987; see Kroger & Marcia, tudes (e.g., heterosexuality is normal and univer- Chapter 2, this volume). sal; women and men should only be attracted A critical distinction between deepening and to each other emotionally and sexually) are commitment and Marcia’s achieved identity sta- expected to be maintained or strengthened among tus is that deepening and commitment in our heterosexuals entering deepening and commit- model is hypothesized to be possible (or even ment from compulsory heterosexuality without likely) without the individual’s engaging in active active exploration (i.e., committed compulsory exploration. We posit that moving to deepen- heterosexuality). ing/commitment of lesbian, gay, bisexual per- Deepening and commitment following active sons almost always involve active exploration, exploration is thought to be the most common whereas movement to deepening/commitment of identity development process for LGB individu- heterosexual identity may or may not involve als. The active inquiry into different sexual needs, active exploration. Some individuals may move values, orientation, and partner characteristics in directly from compulsory heterosexuality into active exploration is thought to yield a great deepening and commitment as a function of amount of self-understanding and knowledge maturational changes in life experiences, cogni- (McCarn & Fassinger, 1996; Riggle, Whitman, tions, and behaviors that do not meet the crite- Olson, Rostosky, & Strong, 2008). This height- ria for active exploration. For instance, hetero- ened sense of self-understanding is hypothesized sexual individuals entering deepening and com- to lead to greater levels of clarity and choices mitment may be more likely to transition into about one’s sexuality. This process is also thought 664 F.R. Dillon et al. to be linked to a greater level of acceptance than and carries over to their attitudes and behaviors earlier described statuses, and more willingness toward both LGB-identified and heterosexually to further examine one’s overall sexual identity. identified individuals. Individual sexual identity, Attitudes toward heterosexuals may still be group membership identity, and attitudes toward “group appreciating” (cf. Atkinson et al., 1995) dominant and marginalized sexual orientation on the part of individuals of any sexual ori- identity groups merge into an overall sexual self- entation identity. Persons who have entered the concept, which is conscious, congruent, and voli- deepening and commitment status are thought to tional (see Soenens & Vansteenkiste, Chapter 17, deny that heterosexuals are a privileged, dom- this volume). Other aspects of identity are likely inant majority group if they have engaged in to blend into the synthesis status—in the sense active exploration. This is because the socially that intersecting identities (e.g., along lines of mandated aspects of heterosexuality—those that gender, race/ethnicity, religious orientation) will characterize compulsory heterosexuality—are have a high degree of coherence and consistency thought to be questioned or abandoned by indi- in relation to sexual identity. Thus, we expect viduals when active exploration occurs. Both that a coherent sexual identity will correlate with LGB persons in deepening and commitment coherence and consolidation within other types of and heterosexuals in deepening and commitment identity. following active exploration are hypothesized We posit only one pathway into synthesis, to express less “group depreciating” attitudes through deepening and commitment. However, toward sexual minority individuals compared to we hypothesize that synthesis may also require heterosexuals characterized by committed com- active exploration. Individuals who experience pulsory heterosexuality. deepening and commitment directly from com- For sexual minority individuals and commit- pulsory heterosexuality are not likely to demon- ted heterosexuals in this status, group mem- strate all of the qualities of synthesis. For bership identity processes and attitudes toward instance, we hypothesize that more active explo- sexual orientation identity groups also begin to ration is associated with more affirmative and deepen and crystallize into conscious, coherent flexible thinking with respect to sexual diversity perspectives on dominant/non-dominant group for sexual minority and heterosexual individu- relations, privilege or loss of privilege, and als (Worthington & Reynolds, 2009; Worthington oppression or marginalization. This process of et al., 2005). Thus, individuals in synthesis crystallization may take virtually any form along are likely to experience little or no self- the continuum of attitudes toward sexual minor- stigma or internalized heterosexism/homophobia, ity individuals as well as toward heterosexuals to understand human sexuality as a continu- (the dominant group), from condemnation to tol- ous and nuanced—rather than all-or-nothing— erance to affirmation (Herek, 1984; Worthington phenomenon, and to be more affirmative toward et al., 2005). Based on general identity literature, LGB individuals. However, the difficulty of tran- we expect that individuals may move out of deep- sitioning into synthesis does not preclude an ening and commitment via three pathways: (a) individual from moving out of synthesis for one into synthesis (described below), (b) into active reason or another, which we hypothesize to occur exploration, or (c) into diffusion (Stephen, Fraser, via either active exploration or diffusion. & Marcia, 1992; Meeus et al., 2010). Synthesis. Potentially the most mature and adaptive status of sexual identity is characterized Preliminary Research Supporting a by a state of congruence between the individual Unifying Model of Sexual Identity and social identity processes of sexual identity Development development that were described earlier in the chapter (see also Fassinger & Miller, 1996). In the Several empirical studies have informed the synthesis status, people come to an understanding development of the unifying model. One study of sexual identity that fulfills their self-definitions involved the development of a measure that 27 Sexual Identity as a Universal Process 665 quantitatively assesses the statuses associated heterosexual (Worthington & Reynolds, 2009; with sexual identity development (Worthington Worthington et al., 2008). et al., 2008). The measure, called the measure Recent studies employing the MoSIEC have of sexual identity exploration and commitment also supported the unified model. For instance, (MoSIEC), was designed to assess sexual identity significant between-group differences in sexual statuses among individuals, regardless of sex- identity development statuses have been found ual orientation or identity. Initial psychometric among self-identified sexual minority individuals investigations yielded promising evidence of reli- (e.g., Worthington & Reynolds, 2009). For ability and validity in national adult samples instance, “mostly straight” women differed from (Worthington & Reynolds, 2009; Worthington “exclusively straight” women, showing higher et al., 2008). levels of identity exploration and uncertainty (and Similar to other literature that supports the marginally lower levels of synthesis) than their measurement of identity status (Luyckx et al., exclusively straight counterparts. In addition, in 2005, 2008; Meeus et al., 2010), the MoSIEC support of the unified model, differences in sex- yields four empirically derived dimensions: (a) ual behaviors among participants in Thompson commitment,(b)exploration,(c)sexual ori- and Morgan (2008) did not necessarily consti- entation identity uncertainty, and (d) synthe- tute differences in sexual identity development sis/integration. The MoSIEC factor structure status (mostly straight women shared similar lev- reflects constructs from Marcia’s theory that els of exploration, uncertainty, and synthesis with describe two dimensions of exploration (i.e., both bisexual and lesbian women although they exploration factor and sexual orientation identity reported different sexual behaviors). This finding uncertainty factor) and two commitment-related specifically supports the notion advanced by the dimensions (i.e., commitment factor and syn- universal model that sexual behavior is only part thesis/integration factor). The four factors also of sexual identity. represent constructs from the unifying sexual As previously mentioned, the unifying model identity development model: (a) active explo- of sexual identity development hypothesizes that ration indicated by the exploration factor, (b) individuals who have engaged in active explo- compulsory heterosexuality and deepening and ration are more likely to hold positive attitudes commitment represented by the commitment fac- toward LGB individuals and less internalized tor, and (c) synthesis characterized by the synthe- heterosexism or self-stigma. As noted earlier, sis/integration factor. this hypothesis was partially supported by prior The sexual orientation identity uncertainty research using an earlier version of the MoSIEC factor reflects what Marcia referred to as morato- (Worthington & Reynolds, 2009; Worthington rium (delay of commitment during exploration) et al., 2005). More specifically, these authors or what recently has been termed reconsidera- found that exploration and sexual orientation tion of commitment (the comparison of present identity uncertainty were positively associated commitments with possible alternatives because with LGB-affirmative attitudes (i.e., LGB civil the current commitments are no longer satis- rights, knowledge, and internalized affirmative- factory; Crocetti, Rubini, Luyckx, & Meeus, ness) and that exploration was negatively related 2008). Construct validity for this factor has been to homonegativity (i.e., religious conflict and demonstrated through its positive correlation with hate) among self-identified heterosexuals. Future exploration and its negative correlations with research is needed to explore whether (and how) commitment and synthesis. An analysis of pat- internalized heterosexism and self-stigma (Herek terns of between-groups differences on sexual et al., 2009; Moradi, van den Berg, et al., orientation identity uncertainty indicated that par- 2009; Szymanski et al., 2008) differ across self- ticipants who were bisexual, lesbian, or gay identified lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons who tended to endorse these items more strongly range in endorsement of commitment, explo- compared to those individuals who identified as ration, sexual orientation identity uncertainty, and 666 F.R. Dillon et al. synthesis/integration dimensions. Worthington integrating sexual identity with other types of and Reynolds (2009) recently began this line of identity, including racial/ethnic, gender, and reli- research in a study indicating within-group differ- gious/spiritual (among others). Ultimately, this ences among bisexual men and women, gay men, model can be a starting point from which an and heterosexual women in terms of sexual iden- extensive program of research on sexual identities tity development dimensions and LGB-related can be produced. knowledge and attitudes. The MoSIEC studies also report links of Conclusion sexual identity dimensions with age, religios- The proposed unifying model of sexual iden- ity, sexual conservatism, and multiple aspects of tity development incorporates what has been sexual self-awareness (Worthington & Reynolds, learned from years of theory and research 2009; Worthington et al., 2008). Age was concerning sexuality, LGB and heterosexual positively linked with commitment and syn- identity development, attitudes toward sexual thesis/integration. Individuals who were lower minority individuals, and the meaning of ordi- on religiosity and less sexually conservative nate and subordinate group membership. We appeared more likely to engage in exploration have attempted to describe the intersection and exhibit uncertainty, whereas sexual assertive- of various contextual factors that influence ness and sexual self-consciousness were associ- the individual and social processes underly- ated with commitment, exploration, and synthe- ing sexual identity development. The unify- sis/integration. ing model is innovative in its applicability across sexual orientation identities, as well as its inclusion of a wide range of dimen- sions of sexual identity and possible develop- Future Research mental trajectories. We hope this innovation allows researchers, educators, and practition- The unifying sexual identity development model ers to develop interventions and conduct inves- and the MoSIEC can be applied to a host of tigations on broader questions about human additional research questions and social issues. sexuality without being constrained to gay– The various dimensions of sexual identity devel- straight dichotomies of sexual orientation and opment are theorized to relate to a range of the related methodological limitations that sexual behaviors and outcomes, including unin- have characterized sexual identity theory and tended pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, research in the past. safer sex practices, sexual agency, and sexual risk behaviors. Research is needed to examine these hypothesized links with the goal of understand- References ing and impacting these behaviors. Furthermore, the unifying model and measure could be useful Abbott, E. (1999). A history of celibacy. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press. in examining the relations between sexual iden- American Psychological Association. (2003). Lawrence tity statuses and sexual health awareness and help vs. Texas: Brief for amicus curiae, Supreme Court seeking. Future research might also investigate of the United States. Washington, DC. Retrieved whether educational and psychological interven- February 25, 2008, from http://www.apa.org/about/ offices/ogc/amicus/lawrence.pdf tions targeting various social issues (e.g., risky American Psychological Association Task Force on sexual practices, antigay attitudes and behav- Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual ior, and heterosexism and homonegativity) can Orientation (2009). Report of the task force on be tailored according to aspects of sexual iden- appropriate therapeutic responses to sexual orien- tation. Washington, DC: American Psychological tity present in the target groups to increase the Association. effectiveness of these strategies. An integrated Archer, S. L., & Waterman, A. S. (1990). Varieties of sexual identity model can also facilitate research identity diffusions and foreclosures: An exploration 27 Sexual Identity as a Universal Process 667

of subcategories of the identity statuses. Journal of Diamond, L. M. (2008). Female bisexuality from adoles- Adolescent Research, 5, 96–111. cence to adulthood: Results from a 10-year longitudi- Ashmore, R. D., Deaux, K., & McLaughlin-Volpe, T. nal study. Developmental Psychology, 44, 5–14. (2004). An organizing framework for collective iden- Diamond, L. M., & Savin-Williams, R. C. (2000). tity: Articulation and significance of multidimension- Explaining diversity in the development of same-sex ality. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 80–114. sexuality among young women. Journal of Social Atkinson, D. R., G. Morten, & D. W. Sue (Eds.). Issues, 56, 297–313. (1995). Counseling American minorities: A cross cul- Dillon, F. R., Worthington, R. L., Soth-McNett, A. tural perspective (5th ed.). Dubuque, IA: William M., & Schwartz, S. J. (2008). Gender and sexual C. Brown. identity based predictors of lesbian, gay, and bisexual Bell,A.P.,Weinberg,M.S.,&Hammersmith,S.K. affirmative counseling self-efficacy. Professional (1981). Sexual preference: Its development in men and Psychology: Research and Practice, 39, 353–360. women. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Drescher, J. (1998a). Contemporary psychoanalytic psy- Bieschke, K. (2002). Charting the waters. The Counseling chotherapy with gay men: With a commentary on Psychologist, 30, 575–581. reparative therapy of homosexuality. Journal of Gay Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecol- and Lesbian Psychotherapy, 2, 51–74. ogy of human development. American Psychologist, Drescher, J. (1998b). I’m your handyman: A history of 32, 513–531. reparative therapies. Journal of Homosexuality, 36, Buhrke,R.A.,Ben-Ezra,L.A.,Hurley,M.E.,& 19–42. Ruprecht, L. J. (1992). Content analysis and method- Drescher, J., Stein, T. S., & Byne, W. (2005). Homo- ological critique of articles concerning lesbian and sexuality, gay and lesbian identities, and homosexual gay male issues in counseling journals. Journal of behavior. In B. J. Sadock & V. A. Sadock (Eds.), Counseling Psychology, 39, 91–99. Kaplan and Sadock’s comprehensive textbook of psy- Cass, V. C. (1979). Homosexual identity formation: chiatry (8th ed.). Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & A theoretical model. Journal of Homosexuality, 4, Wilkins. 219–235. Eliason, M. J. (1995). Accounts of sexual identity Chung, Y. B., & Katayama, M. (1996). Assessment of sex- formation in heterosexual students. Sex Roles, 32, ual orientation in lesbian/gay/bisexual studies. Journal 821–834. of Homosexuality, 30, 49–62. Ellis, A. L., & Mitchell, R. W. (2000). Sexual orien- Clark, W. M., & Serovich, J. M. (1997). Twenty years and tation. In L. T. Szuchman & F. Muscarella (Eds.), still in the dark? Content analysis of articles pertain- Psychological perspectives on human sexuality (pp. ing to gay, lesbian, and bisexual issues in marriage and 196–231). New York: John Wiley. family therapy journals. Journal of Marital and Family Ellis, L., & Ames, M. A. (1987). Neurohormonal Therapy, 23, 239–253. functioning and sexual orientation: A theory Crocetti, E., Rubini, M., Luyckx, K., & Meeus, W. (2008). of homosexuality-heterosexuality. Psychological Identity formation in early and middle adolescents Bulletin, 101, 233–258. from various ethnic groups: From three dimensions to Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society.NewYork: five statuses. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, Norton. 983–996. Fassinger, R. E. (1997). Gay identity questionnaire. Davidson, J. K., Darling, C. A., & Norton, L. (1995). Unpublished instrument, University of Maryland. Religiosity and the sexuality of women: Sexual behav- Fassinger, R. E., & McCarn, S. (1997). Lesbian identity ior and sexual satisfaction revisited. Journal of Sex questionnaire. Unpublished instrument, University of Research, 32, 235–243. Maryland. de Visser, R., & McDonald, D. (2007). Swings and Fassinger, R. E., & Miller, B. A. (1996). Validation of an roundabouts: Management of jealousy in heterosex- inclusive model of sexual minority identity formation ual ‘swinging’ couples. British Journal of Social on a sample of gay men. Journal of Homosexuality, 32, Psychology, 46, 459–476. 53–78. Diamond, L. M. (2000). Sexual identity, attractions, and Gilbert, L. A., & Scher, M. (1999). Gender and sex behavior among young sexual-minority women over in counseling and psychotherapy. Boston: Allyn & a two-year period. Developmental Psychology, 36, Bacon. 241–250. Goodman, M. B., & Moradi, B. (2008). Attitudes and Diamond, L. M. (2003a). Was it a phase? Young women’s behaviors toward lesbian and gay persons: Critical cor- relinquishment of lesbian/bisexual identities over a relates and mediated relations. Journal of Counseling 5-year period. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 371–384. Psychology, 84, 352–364. Haldeman, D. C. (1991). Sexual conversion therapy for Diamond, L. M. (2003b). What does sexual orientation gay men and lesbians: A scientific examination. In J. orient? A biobehavioral model distinguishing roman- C. Gonsiorek & J. D. Weinrich (Eds.), Homosexuality: tic love and sexual desire. Psychological Review, 110, Research implications for public policy (pp. 149–160). 173–192. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 668 F.R. Dillon et al.

Haldeman, D. C. (1994). The practice and ethics of sexual Luyckx, K., Schwartz, S. J., Berzonsky, M. D., Soenens, orientation conversion therapy. Journal of Consulting B., Vansteenkiste, M., Smits, I., et al. (2008). and Clinical Psychology, 62, 221–227. Capturing ruminative exploration: Extending the four- Hardiman, R., & Jackson, B. W. (1992). Racial iden- dimensional model of identity formation in late ado- tity development: Understanding racial dynamics in lescence. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, college classrooms and on campus. New Directions for 58–82. Teaching and Learning, 53, 21–37. Mahalik, J. R., Locke, B. D., Ludlow, L. H., Diemer, Herek, G. M. (1984). Attitudes toward lesbians and M. A., Scott, R. P., Gottfried, M., et al. (2003). gay men: A factor-analytic study. Journal of Development of the conformity to masculine norms Homosexuality, 10, 39–51. inventory. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 4, Herek, G. M., & Capitanio, J. (1996). “Some of my 3–25. best friends”: Intergroup contact, concealable stigma, Mahalik, J. R., Morray, E. B., Coonerty-Femiano, A., and heterosexuals’ attitudes toward gay men and les- Ludlow, L. H., Slatterly, S. M., & Smiler, A. (2005). bians. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, Development of the conformity to feminine norms 412–424. inventory. Sex Roles, 52, 417–434. Herek, G. M., Gillis, J. R., & Cogan, J. C. (2009). Marcia, J. E. (1976). Identity six years after: A follow-up Internalized stigma among sexual minority adults: study. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 5, 145–160. Insights from a social psychological perspective. Marcia, J. E. (1987). Identity in adolescence. In J. Adelson Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56, 32–43. (Ed.), Handbook of adolescent psychology.NewYork: Horowitz, J. L., & Newcomb, M. D. (2001). A multidi- Wiley. mensional approach to homosexual identity. Journal Marcia, J. E. (1989). Identity diffusion differentiated. In of Homosexuality, 42, 1–19. M. A. Luszcz & T. Nettelbeck (Eds.), Psychological Huang, Y. P., Brewster, M., Moradi, B., Goodman, M., development: Perspectives across the life-span (pp. Wiseman, M., & Martin, A. (2009). Content anal- 123–137). Dordrecht: Elsevier. ysis of literature about LGB people of color. The Masters, W. H., & Johnson, V. E. (1979). Homosexuality Counseling Psychologist, Advance online publication. in perspective. New York: Bantam Books. doi:10.1177/0011000009335255. McCarn, S. R., & Fassinger, R. E. (1996). Revisioning Johnson, M. E., Brems, C., & Alford-Keating, P. (1997). sexual minority identity formation: A new model of Personality correlates of homophobia. Journal of lesbian identity and its implications for counseling and Homosexuality, 34, 57–69. research. The Counseling Psychologist, 24, 508–534. Kinnish, K. K., Strassberg, D. S., & Turner, C. W. (2005). McConaghy, N., Buhrich, N., & Silove, D. (1994). Sex differences in the flexibility of sexual orienta- Opposite sex- linked behaviors and homosexual feel- tion: A multidimensional retrospective assessment. ings in the predominantly heterosexual male majority. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34, 173–183. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 23, 565–577. Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1948). Meeus, W., van de Schoot, R., Keijsers, L., Schwartz, S. J., Sexual behavior in the human male. Philadelphia: & Branje, S. (2010). On the progression and stability W. B. Saunders. of adolescent identity formation: A five-wave lon- Kinsey,A.C.,Pomeroy,W.B.,Martin,C.E.,&Gebhard, gitudinal study in early-to-middle and middle-to-late P. (1953). Sexual behavior in the human female. adolescence. Child Development, 81, 1565–1581. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders. Meyer, I. H., & Wilson, P. A. (2009). Sampling lesbian, Klein, F. (1993). The bisexual option (2nd ed.). New York: gay, and bisexual populations. Journal of Counseling Haworth Press. Psychology, 56, 23–31. Klein, F., Sepekoff, B., & Wolf, T. J. (1985). Sexual ori- Mohr, J. J. (2002). Heterosexual identity and the hetero- entation: A multi-variable dynamic process. Journal of sexual therapist: An identity perspective on sexual ori- Homosexuality, 11, 35–49. entation dynamics in psychotherapy. The Counseling Långström, N., & Seto, M. C. (2006). Exhibitionistic Psychologist, 30, 532–566. and voyeuristic behavior in a Swedish national pop- Money, J. (1987). Sin, sickness, or status? Homosexual ulation survey. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35, gender identity and psychoneuroendrocrinology. 427–435. American Psychologist, 43, 384–399. Levitt, H. M., Ovrebo, E., Anderson-Cleveland, M. B., Moradi, B., Mohr, J. J., Worthington, R. L., & Fassinger, Leone, C., Jae, Y. J., Arm, J. R., et al. (2009). R. E. (2009). Counseling psychology Research on Balancing dangers: GLBT experience in a time of anti- sexual (orientation) minority issues: Conceptual and GLBT legislation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, methodological challenges and opportunities. Journal 56, 67–81. of Counseling Psychology, 56, 5–22. Luyckx, K., Goossens, L., Soenens, B., Beyers, W., & Moradi, B., van den Berg, J., & Epting, F. (2009). Vansteenkiste, M. (2005). Identity statuses based on Internalized lesbian and gay threat and guilt: 4 rather than 2 identity dimensions: Extending and Links with intrapersonal and interpersonal identity refining Marcia’s paradigm. Journal of Youth and stressors. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56, Adolescence, 34, 605–618. 119–131. 27 Sexual Identity as a Universal Process 669

Moradi, B., van den Berg, J., & Epting, F. R. (2006). families. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 26, Intrapersonal and interpersonal manifestations of anti 433–442. lesbian/gay prejudice: An application of personal con- Savin-Williams, R. C. (2005). The new gay teenager. struct theory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 57–66. Savin-Williams, R. C., & Diamond, L. M. (2000). Sexual Moser, C., & Kleinplatz, P. J. (2006). Introduction: identity trajectories among sexual-minority youths: The state of our knowledge on SM. Journal of Gender comparisons. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29, Homosexuality, 50, 1–15. 419–440. Parent, M., & Moradi, B. (2009). Confirmatory factor Schwartz, S. J., Zamboanga, B. L., Weisskirch, R. S., analysis of the conformity to masculine norms & Rodriguez, L. (2009). The relationships of per- inventory and development of the CMNI-46. sonal and ethnic identity exploration to indices of Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 10, 175–189. adaptive and maladaptive psychosocial functioning. Parent, M., & Moradi, B. (2010). Confirmatory factor International Journal of Behavioral Development, 33, analysis of the conformity to feminine norms inven- 131–144. tory and development of the CFNI-45. Psychology of Sell, R. L., Wells, J. A., & Wypij, D. (1995). The Women Quarterly, 34, 97–109. prevalence of homosexual behavior and attraction Pastorino, E., Dunham, R. M., Kidwell, J., Bacho, R., & in the United States, the United Kingdom and Lamborn, S. D. (1997). Domain-specific gender com- France: Results of national population-based samples. parisons in identity development among college youth: Archives of Sexual Behavior, 24, 235–248. Ideology and relationships. Adolescence, 32, 559–577. Shively, M. G., & DeCecco, J. P. (1977). Components of Phillips, J. C., Ingram, K. M., Smith, N. G., & sexual identity. Journal of Homosexuality, 3, 41–48. Mindes, E. J. (2003). Methodological and content Stein, E. (1999). The mismeasure of desire: The science, review of lesbian-, gay-, and bisexual-related articles theory, and ethics of sexual orientation.NewYork: in counseling journals: 1990–1999. The Counseling Oxford University Press. Psychologist, 31, 25–62. Stephen, J., Fraser, E., & Marcia, J. E. (1992). Reynolds, A. L., & Hanjorgiris, W. F. (2000). Coming Moratorium-achievement (Mama) cycles in lifespan out: Lesbian, gay, and bisexual identity development. identity development: Value orientations and reason- In R. M. Perez, K. A. DeBord, & K. Bieschke ing system correlates. Journal of Adolescence, 15, (Eds.), Handbook of counseling and psychother- 283–300. apy with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients (pp. Storms, M. D. (1980). Theories of sexual orientation. 35–55). Washington, DC: American Psychological Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, Association. 783–792. Rich, A. (1980). Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian Story, M. D. (1987). A comparison of social nudists and existence. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and non-nudists on experience with various sexual outlets. Society, 5, 631–660. Journal of Sex Research, 23, 197–211. Riggle, E. D. B., Whitman, J. S., Olson, A., Rostosky, Sullivan, P. (1998). Sexual identity development: The S. S., & Strong, S. (2008). The positive aspects of importance of target or dominant group membership. being a lesbian or gay man. Professional Psychology: In R. L. Sanlo (Ed.), Working with lesbian, gay, bisex- Research and Practice, 39, 210–217. ual, and transgender college students: A handbook for Robinson, W. L., & Calhoun, K. S. (1982). Sexual fan- faculty and administrators (pp. 3–12). Westport, CT: tasies, attitudes and behavior as a function of race, Greenwood. gender and religiosity. Imagination, Cognition and Szymanski, D. M., Kashubeck-West, S., & Meyer, J. Personality, 2, 281–290. (2008). Internalized heterosexism: A historical and Rosario, M., Schrimshaw, E. W., Hunter, J., & Braun, L. theoretical overview. The Counseling Psychologist, 36, (2006). Sexual identity development among lesbian, 525–574. gay, and bisexual youths: Consistency and change over Thompson, E. M., & Morgan, E. M. (2008). Mostly time. Journal of Sex Research, 43, 46–58. straight young women: Variations in sexual behavior Rostosky, S. S., Riggle, E. D. B., Horne, S. G., & Miller, and identity development. Developmental Psychology, A. D. (2009). Marriage amendments and psychologi- 44, 15–21. cal distress in lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) adults. Tolman, D. L., & Diamond, L. M. (2001). Desegregating Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56, 56–66. sexuality research: Cultural and biological perspec- Rust, P. (2003). Reparative science and social responsibil- tives on gender and desire. Annual Review of Sex ity: The concept of a malleable core as theoretical chal- Research, 12, 33–74. lenge and psychological comfort. Archives of Sexual Tozer, E. E., & Hayes, J. A. (2004). Why do individuals Behavior, 32, 449–451. seek conversion therapy: The role of religiosity, inter- Rye, B. J., & Meaney, G. J. (2007). Voyeurism: It is good nalized homonegativity, and identity development. The as long as we do not get caught. International Journal Counseling Psychologist, 32, 716–740. of Sexual Health, 19, 47–56. Troiden, R. R. (1988). Homosexual identity devel- Sanders, G. L., & Kroll, I. T. (2000). Generating stories opment. Journal of Adolescent Health Care, 9, of resilience: Helping gay and lesbian youth and their 105–113. 670 F.R. Dillon et al.

Troiden, R. R. (1993). The formation of homosex- Worthington, R. L., Navarro, R. L., Savoy, H. B., & ual identities. In L. Garnets & D. Kimmel (Eds.), Hampton, D. (2008). Development, reliability, and Psychological perspectives on lesbian and gay male validity of the measure of sexual identity exploration experiences (pp. 191–217). New York: Columbia and commitment. Developmental Psychology, 44, University Press. 22–33. Weinberg, M. S., Williams, C. J., & Pryor, D. W. Worthington, R. L., & Reynolds, A. L. (2009). Within- (1994). Dual attraction: Understanding bisexuality. group differences in sexual orientation and identity. New York: Oxford University Press. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56, 44–55. Weinrich, J. D., & Klein, F. (2003). Bi-gay, bi- Worthington, R. L., Savoy, H., Dillon, F. R., & straight, and bi-bi: Three bisexual subgroups iden- Vernaglia, E. R. (2002). Heterosexual identity devel- tified using cluster analysis of the Klein sex- opment: A multidimensional model of individual ual orientation grid. Journal of Bisexuality, 2, and group identity. The Counseling Psychologist, 30, 111–139. 496–531. West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Yang, A. (2000). From wrong to rights: Public opinions Gender and Society, 1, 125–151. on gay and lesbian Americans’ move toward equal- Worthington, R. L., Dillon, F. R., & Becker-Schutte, ity. Washington, DC: National Gay and Lesbian Task A. M. (2005). Development, reliability, and validity of Force Institute. the LGB knowledge and attitudes scale for heterosexu- Zucker, K. J., & Bradley, S. J. (1995). Gender identity als (LGB-KASH). Journal of Counseling Psychology, disorder and psychosexual problems in children and 52, 104–118. adolescents. New York: Guilford.