Sexual Identity As a Universal Process 27
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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