14 Defining and Measuring Sexual Orientation for Research Randall L. Sell 1 Introduction Conceptually defining populations, such as those defined by race and ethnicity, and developing methods to identify members of those populations operationally have continually challenged researchers (LaVeist, 2002). Today, as scientists begin to treat sexual orientation as a demographic variable like race and ethnicity, it is important to examine critically and clarify our conceptualizations of sexual orienta- tion as well as critically examine measures used for operationally iden- tifying the sexual orientation of research subjects. There is much evidence that researchers are often confused as to what they are studying when they assess sexual orientation in their research. Several literature reviews have found that researchers’ con- ceptual definitions of these populations are rarely included in reports of their research, and when they are included they often differ theo- retically. Furthermore, the methods used to measure sexual orientation in these studies do not always correspond with the most common conceptualizations of sexual orientation (Shively et al., 1985; Sell & Petrulio, 1995; Chung & Katayama, 1996). Sell and Petrulio recom- mended that researchers work to develop uniform conceptual defini- tions of terms used to label sexual orientation and that uniform methods of operationally identifying sexual orientation be agreed upon for use in research studies. They believe it is imperative that researchers who claim to be studying these populations begin to clarify what it is they are actually studying and recognize more explicitly the effect their research methods have on their findings. Sell and Petrulio’s recom- mendation’s echo the much earlier work of Henry (1941), who con- ducted one of the most detailed studies of homosexuality ever produced. Henry concluded that: “Unless the word homosexual is This chapter has been adapted from Sell, R.L. Defining and measuring sexual orientation: a review. Archives of Sexual Behavior 1997;26:643–58. 356 R.L. Sell clearly defined, objective discussion regarding it is futile, and misun- derstanding and erroneous conclusions are inevitable” (Henry, 1955). To clear up some of this confusion, this chapter reviews and critiques conceptual definitions of sexual orientations and the measures used to identify and classify subjects’ sexual orientations that have been pro- posed and used by scientists and laypersons since the 1860s in Europe and the United States. It was during the 1860s that the formal study of sexual orientation was founded by Ulrichs. It is hoped that this review will encourage researchers to be more critical of the methods they use to identify and label the sexual orientation of research subjects. 2 Conceptual Definitions of Sexual Orientation Many terms and definitions have been proposed over the last 140 years to describe the sexual orientation of study subjects. One of the earliest and most important sexual orientation classification schemes was pro- posed by Ulrichs in a series of pamphlets he privately published in the 1860s (Carpenter, 1908; Ulrichs, 1994). Ulrichs’ scheme, which was only intended to describe males, separated them into three basic categories: dionings, urnings, and uranodionings (see Fig. 14.1). These terms were derived from a speech by Pausanias in Plato’s Symposium in which Pausanias refers to Uranus (heaven) (Plato, 1993). Arguably these cat- egories directly correspond with the categories used today: heterosex- ual, homosexual, and bisexual (Cory, 1951). Homosexual women, who were largely ignored by early researchers, were referred to as urnin- gins and heterosexual women as dioningins by Ulrichs (Bullough, 1990). The Human Male: A. Dioning1 B. Urning2 1. Mannling3 2. Weibling4 3. Zwischen5 4. Virilised6 C. Urano-Dioning7 Notes: 1 – Comparable to the modern term “heterosexual.” A Dioning that sexually behaves like a Urning is termed an “Uraniaster.” 2 – Comparable to the modern term “homosexual.” 3 – A manly Urning. 4 – An effeminate Urning. 5 – A somewhat manly and somewhat effeminate Urning. 6 – An Urning that sexually behaves like a Dioning. 7 – Comparable to the modern term “bisexual.” (for additional information see Ulrichs, K. H. The Riddle of Man-Manly Love, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY, 1994.; Carpenter, E. The Intermediate Sex, Allen and Unwin, London, 1908.) Figure 14.1 Male sexual orientation classification scheme of Karl Ulrichs. 14 Defining and Measuring Sexual Orientation 357 Mayne, a follower of Ulrichs, provided a definition of an urning in the first major work on homosexuality to be written by an American. He defined an urning as “a human being that is more or less perfectly, even distinctly, masculine in physique; often a virile type of fine intel- lectual, oral and aesthetic sensibilities: but who, through an inborn or later-developed preference feels sexual passion for the male human species. His sexual preference may quite exclude any desire for the female sex: or may exist concurrently with that instinct” (Mayne, 1908). Mayne’s definition also encompasses male uranodionings by stating that desire for the female sex may exist concurrently. In addition to his effect on Mayne, Ulrichs had a profound influence on the works of many early researchers including Westphal (1869), Symonds (1883, 1891), Krafft-Ebing (1886), Moll (1891), Carpenter (1894, 1908), Ellis and Symonds (1898), and Hirschfeld (1914). Further- more, through the works of these researchers, Ulrichs is credited with influencing Freud and Jung (Bullough, 1994). Although they may differ significantly, the conceptualizations of sexual orientation most often cited today generally have their root in the work of Ulrichs. Even the terms “homosexuality” and “heterosexuality,” which Ulrichs did not prefer, have direct links to him. The term homosexual is an inappropriate combination of Greek and Latin that disturbed many early researchers who wanted it replaced but recognized that it was too deeply rooted in the literature by the time they arrived on the scene (Robinson, 1936; Kinsey et al., 1948). The term homosexual may have been introduced into English by Symonds in his first edition of A Problem of Modern Ethics in 1891 (Boswell, 1980). The terms homosexu- ality and heterosexuality first appeared in a letter to Ulrichs drafted on May 6, 1868, from Benkert, a German-Hungarian physician and writer (Ulrichs, 1994). Later, Benkert (cited in Robinson, 1936) outlined his def- inition of homosexuality in a pamphlet published in 1869. His defini- tion read: In addition to the normal sexual urge in man and woman, Nature in her sov- ereign mood has endowed at birth certain male and female individuals with the homosexual urge, thus placing them in a sexual bondage which renders them physically and psychically incapable—even with the best intention—of normal erection. This urge creates in advance a direct horror of the opposite sexual [sic] and the victim of this passion finds it impossible to suppress the feeling which individuals of his own sex exercise upon him. Today, “heterosexual” (straight), “homosexual” (gay and lesbian), and “bisexual” are the most commonly used terms by researchers to describe sexual orientation (Shively et al., 1985; Sell & Petrulio, 1995). Although not many other terms have been proposed to describe het- erosexuality or bisexuality, an overabundance of terms have been used by researchers to describe homosexuality: uranianism, homogenic love, contrasexuality, homoerotism, similsexualism, tribadism, sexual inver- sion, intersexuality, transexuality, third sex, and psychosexual her- maphroditism (Moll, 1891; Carpenter, 1894, 1908; Ellis & Symonds, 1898; Mayne, 1908; Kinsey et al., 1948, 1953; Ulrichs, 1994). Even today, 358 R.L. Sell terms take on new meaning and importance for describing sexual ori- entations. The term “queer,” for example, was defined by Legman in 1941 as: “Homosexual; more often used of male homosexuals than of Lesbians. As an adjective it is the most common in use in America.” At the time Legman wrote this, the term was slang and used pejoratively. Currently, the term still means “homosexual” but is frequently used nonpejoratively in scholarly works (e.g., Signorile, 1993; Brett et al., 1994; Feinberg, 1994; Goldberg, 1994; Packard & Packard, 2005). Today’s preferred terms and the term “sexual orientation” itself have a wide variety of definitions in the literature, but they generally com- prise one or both of two components: a “psychological” component and a “behavioral” component. Not all definitions include both of these components; and as is discussed in detail below, definitions that include both components use either “and” or “or” to join them. Mayne’s (1908) definition of urning and Benkert’s definition of homosexual (Robinson, 1936) included descriptions of only the psy- chological state. Mayne discussed how the individual’s feelings of sexual passion determine his or her sexual orientation, whereas Benkert talked of an “urge.” Ellis, one of the most important writers on sexuality during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century England also talked only of a psychological entity, which he described as “sexual instinct.” Ellis defined homosexuality as “sexual instinct turned by inborn constitutional abnormality toward persons of the same sex” (Ellis & Symonds, 1898). Ellis used the term “sexual inver- sion” at the time this definition was provided; but in later versions of his work he substituted the term “homosexuality” (Ellis & Symonds, 1898; Ellis, 1942).