Heterosexual Identity Development Research Articles

Construction and validation of a new scale for measuring dimensions of the heterosexual identity: The Male Identity Scale (MIS)

This study provides preliminary psychometric data on a newly designed self-report measure assessing heterosexual male identity dimensions; it is labelled Male Identity Scale (MIS) and is an adaptation from the Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Identity Scale (Mohr & Kedra, 2011) that takes into account the theoretical models by Marcia (1987) and Worthington et al. (2002) concerning heterosexual identity development. Two studies were conducted to evaluate the validity and reliability of the MIS. In Study 1 (n = 563 straight men) an Exploratory Factor Analysis and a Confirmatory Factor Analysis supported a 5-factor solution reflecting heterosexual male identity dimensions such as Acceptance Concerns, Identity Uncertainty, Identity Superiority, Identity Centrality and Heteronormativity. Predicted associations with measures of masculinity-related constructs and psychosocial functioning provided preliminary validity evidence for MIS scores in an undergraduate university male student population. Study 2 (n = 116 straight men) provided evidence of the test–retest and internal consistency reliability of MIS scores. These studies suggest that the MIS may offer researchers an efficient means of assessing the multiple dimensions of heterosexual male identity.

Gay and lesbian disclosure and heterosexual identity threat: The role of heterosexual identity commitment in shaping de-stigmatization

We examine how heterosexual employees respond to different gay and lesbian disclosure tactics aimed at de-stigmatizing the gay or lesbian identity. Drawing from theories of stigma disclosure, inter-group social identity threat, and heterosexual identity development, we examine how heterosexual employees’ responses to de-stigmatizing disclosure can be explained by their experience of heterosexual identity threat (i.e. the appraisal of disclosure as harmful to the value, meaning, and enactment of their heterosexuality identity) and how this process is shaped by individual differences in heterosexual identity commitment—or, differences in heterosexual employees’ commitment to a heterosexual identity that is fulfilling of their sense of self. Across four studies, we find that heterosexual employees are more threatened by gay and lesbian disclosure that is in opposition to heterosexual norms than disclosure that resonates with heterosexual norms and this threat explains the extent to which they derogate or embrace the gay and lesbian identity. Further, heterosexual employees’ identity commitment buffers their experiences of threat and attenuates the impact of threat on derogating and embracing responses. We discuss the implications of our research for advancing theory and research on stigma and disclosure in organizations, in addition to practical implications toward advancing inclusion through the consideration of majority identities.

Gay Identity Development

Gay identity development is significantly different than heterosexual identity development. Through the various stages of gay identity development, which contains six stages developed by Cass, 1979; identity confusion, identity comparison, identity tolerance, identity acceptance, identity pride, and identity synthesis, we understand how complex gay identity is for these individuals. Logistically, understanding how gay identity development differs from heterosexuality identity development gives insight into the unique challenges gay individuals encounter. Navigating an identity through hate and prejudice presents itself with unique challenges for gay and lesbian individuals who are struggling with forming a healthy identity. It is through these challenges that gay and lesbian individuals suffer from higher rates of physical and mental health issues. This paper is a review of the literature and seminal knowledge to gain and gather an in-depth understanding of human behavior and the experiences and reasons that govern such behavior. The author’s role in this paper was to examine the how and why of decisions that such individuals make and encounter as demonstrated by numerical and statistical research analysis of literature reviews. Combating these mental health issues is a key goal for mental health professionals who are treating these gay and lesbian individuals. A look into the current model of gay identity development provides a greater understanding and helps researchers uncover objective knowledge for further research in the area of gay identity development. Keywords: Gay Identity Development, Identity Confusion, Comparison, Pride, Tolerance, Acceptance, and Synthesis

Researching a marginalised group: Reflections on being an outsider

AbstractAimReflective practice is common across a range of disciplines requiring self‐examination and exploration of the impact of the researcher on the research and vice versa. This article reflects on the personal issues involved in representing other groups, drawing on experiences of research into same‐sex couple counselling by a straight identified researcher.Design/methodologyA reflective exploration on the experience of conducting in‐depth interviews with participants who had been in same‐sex couple counselling. Data from interviews and an Internet survey, utilising thematic and discourse analysis, are used to illustrate the reflections.ResultsResearchers into Lesbian, Gay or Bisexual (LGB) topics are often assumed to be LGB themselves raising questions of whether or not to ‘come out’ as heterosexual. Therefore, aspects of researching a community as an outsider have an impact on how the researcher presents themselves. Reflections are linked to the researcher's own heterosexual identity development, and on the participants’ responses.Conclusions & implicationsResearching as an outsider requires a reflection on power and the impact of self‐disclosure. This will be an individual process for each researcher at that stage of their own development. Researchers working as an outsider can use heterosexual identity development models to inform their thinking about engaging with potential participants.

Positive aspects of being a heterosexual ally to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people.

Research on heterosexual allies has focused on heterosexual identity development models and pathways to ally activism. The positive aspects or positive experiences of identifying as an ally to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) identified individuals and communities have received little attention. Using an online survey of participants recruited from LGBT ally related social media, we collected open-ended responses to a question about the positive aspects of self-identifying as a heterosexual ally. A final analytic sample of 292 self-identified male and female heterosexual adults (age 18-71, M = 33.47, SD = 13.32) provided responses that generated 8 themes. Positive aspects of being a heterosexual ally were: (a) increased knowledge and awareness, (b) upholding values of justice, (c) beneficial individual relationships, (d) community belonging, (e) educating others, (f) being a role model, (g) using social privilege, and (h) speaking out and taking a stand. The findings suggest that being a heterosexual ally is rewarding and may enhance individual well-being. These findings provide information that may contribute to effective ally development efforts.

Correlates of Same-Sex Attractions and Behaviors Among Self-Identified Heterosexual University Students

Few studies have focused on intragroup variations in sexual orientation and fewer on self-identified heterosexuals with same-sex attractions, fantasies, and/or behaviors. Self-identified heterosexual students at a large public midwestern university (N = 263) completed measures of sexuality and gender, attitudes toward lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) people, religious and political beliefs, emotional well-being, and demographics. The sample included 82 individuals (31%; labeled "H+") who endorsed same-sex attraction, fantasy, and/or behavior and 181 (69%; labeled "H") who did not. Women were more likely to be categorized as H+ than men. H+ participants had more positive attitudes toward lesbians and gay and bisexual men and reported more support for LGB-positive public policies than did H participants. H+ participants reported less literalistic beliefs about religious scripture than did H participants. H and H+ groups did not differ significantly on measures of emotional well-being. Results were discussed in the context of recent literature arguing for a more nuanced and gender-differentiated approach toward assessing sexual orientation, as well as literature on the flexibility of sexual orientation and on heterosexual identity development.

Girls Gone Wild? Heterosexual Women’s Same-Sex Encounters at College Parties

Our purpose was to explore a relatively new sexual behavior—heterosexual women kissing one another publicly at college parties. Popular press articles suggest this is a common occurrence among college women, but no known psychological research has been conducted on its prevalence or meaning. In Study 1, we conducted an online survey of students at a private, residential college to ascertain the prevalence of this behavior. Results indicated that a substantial minority of women (33%) had engaged in this behavior, and the majority of participants (69%), both male and female, had observed this behavior. In Study 2, we recruited heterosexual women who reported having kissed another woman at a college party. We collected open-ended responses from 77 women via a questionnaire and 27 of these women also completed a semistructured interview. Thematic analyses revealed characteristics of the social context that encouraged this behavior, including pressure to so engage, high levels of alcohol consumption, heterosexist attitudes, and the belief that college is a time for experimentation. A total of seven different motivations for engaging in this behavior were described by participants, reflecting both extrinsic motivations (e.g., to gain male attention) and intrinsic motivations (e.g., to bond with female friends). Results are discussed in terms of sociocultural influences (women’s sexual objectification and sexualized college parties) and individual factors (women’s sexual fluidity and heterosexual identity development) related to this behavior, highlighting issues of empowerment versus objectification.

Not Always a Straight Path: College Students’ Narratives of Heterosexual Identity Development

Research has recently begun to examine heterosexual identity development, providing preliminary evidence of variation within a sexual identity category that has frequently been conceptualized as uniform and unremarkable. The current study sought to classify and describe young adult participants’ narratives on their heterosexual identity development using Worthington et al. (2002) heterosexual identity status model. Participants included 1,051 heterosexually-identified undergraduates (632 women; 419 men) from two public universities in the western United States who provided written narratives about their sexual identity development. Responses were analyzed for levels of identity exploration and commitment, which were used to create five identity status categories. The majority of participants described identity commitment with passive exploration, with more men in this category than women. A significant subset of participants described identity commitment with active exploration, with more women in this category than men. Smaller numbers of participants described active exploration without commitment, unexplored commitment, and identity diffusion. More women were in the active exploration without commitment status than men; no gender differences emerged in the other two statuses. Participants classified into statuses with active exploration and higher commitment also evidenced higher scores on quantitative measures of sexual identity exploration and commitment, respectively. Men evidenced higher quantitative scores than women on identity commitment; there were no gender differences in the quantitative assessment of identity exploration. Findings support the existence of variations and systematic gender-based differences in young adults’ heterosexual identity development.

Processes of Sexual Orientation Questioning among Heterosexual Women

Because very little is known about heterosexual identity development, this study assesses and describes sexual orientation questioning processes of heterosexual-identified women and offers a comparison of these processes with those employed by their sexual-minority counterparts. Participants included 333 female college students (ages 18–23; M = 19.2): 228 participants primarily identified as “exclusively straight/heterosexual,” and 105 participants indicated a sexual-minority identity. Sixty-seven percent of exclusively heterosexual respondents (n = 154) indicated having thought about or questioned their sexual orientation. The processes by which heterosexual participants described questioning their sexual orientation were coded for the presence of five emergent categories using an inductive thematic coding methodology. These five categories included unelaborated questioning (19%), other-sex experiences (16%), exposure to sexual minorities (26%), assessment of same-sex attraction (48%), and evaluations of same-sex behavior (26%). Several unifying and differentiating themes emerged between sexual orientation groups. Results from this study suggest that contemporary young women's heterosexuality is not necessarily an unexamined identity; indeed, the large majority of young women in this sample were deliberately identifying as heterosexual after contemplating alternative possibilities.

Processes of Sexual Orientation Questioning among Heterosexual Men

Male heterosexual identity development has received little empirical attention. The current study examines sexual orientation questioning processes of heterosexual-identified men and offers a comparison of these processes with those employed by their sexual-minority counterparts. Participants included 184 male college students (ages 18 to 23, M = 19.6), 149 primarily identified as “exclusively straight or heterosexual” and 35 as sexual minorities. Of exclusively straight respondents, 53 percent ( n = 79) and all of the sexual-minority respondents indicated having questioned their sexual orientation. Heterosexual men’s questioning processes included five categories: unelaborated questioning, other-sex exploration, the social context as informants or sites of knowledge, hypothetical thinking and perspective taking, and attraction comparisons between men and women. Several unifying and differentiating themes emerged between sexual orientation groups. Results suggest that conventional notions of a “standardized” heterosexual identity appear simplistic and reveal ways in which men’s identification with a majority heterosexual sexual identity can be purposeful.

Making Sense of Heterosexuality: An Exploratory Study of Young Heterosexual Identities in Turkey

On the basis of the understanding that the shaping, experience, and meaning of sexual identities is informed by the social context, an exploratory study of sexual identities was done with a college sample in urban Turkey. Participants included 225 students taking an introductory psychology course at a private urban university in Istanbul (66.5% women, 33.5% men, age range: 18–30 years, M=20.1, SD=1.7, 98% heterosexual identified). A questionnaire was used to investigate how young people explain the development of their sexual identity and how it affects their lives. An overwhelming majority identified their sexual identity, feelings, and experiences as always having been the same and were quite confident that their sexual identity would remain the same into the future. Participants saw their heterosexuality as mostly having to do with ‘outside forces’ including general references to the role of society, culture, and social expectations and norms, family structure and socialization, peer relations, and modeling. Most perceived their sexual identity to have a positive effect on their lives. Results suggest some evidence of interest in and openness to considering issues of sexual identity among these young people, and are discussed in the context of previous research on heterosexual identity development, sociocultural factors, and with reference to the historical meanings of sexual identities and practices in Turkey.

Which Way Out? A Typology of Non-Heterosexual Male Collegiate Identities

Although numerous studies over the latter half of the twentieth century examined the identities and development of students during their collegiate experiences (as summarized in Evans, Forney & Guido-DiBrito, 1998; and Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991), surprisingly few have focused specifically on students who were not heterosexual. Only within the past 15 years have major studies of identities of non-heterosexual youth been published (D'Augelli, 1994; D'Augelli & Patterson, 1995; Herdt & Boxer, 1993; Savin-Williams, 1990, 1998); a smaller number of studies specifically looks at non-heterosexual college students (Dilley, 2002b; Evans & D'Augelli, 1996; Love, 1999; Rhoads, 1994, 1997). Most investigations of this student population have focused on three related elements affecting aspects of particular non-heterosexual identities. First, much of the research posits a static binary identity (in or out, or straight), drawn from contemporary student populations. Second, this research places a primacy on the social climates of postsecondary institutions for non-heterosexual students but often does not examine those climates historically. Finally, related to campus climates is the collegiate experience of gays' and lesbians' processes of admitting to self and others one's non-heterosexual orientation (coming out) (Cohen & Savin-Williams, 1996; D'Augelli, 1989a, 1989b, 1994; D'Augelli & Rose, 1990; Evans & Broido, 1999; Evans & D'Augelli, 1996; Love, 1997, 1999; Rhoads, 1995). A few researchers (particularly Cohen & Savin-Williams, 1996; D'Augelli, 1991, 1994; Rhoads, 1994, 1997; Savin-Williams, 1990, 1998) examined how these climates and experiences might affect individual identities. A reader of this research could easily--and perhaps rightly--come to believe that there exists a singular positive or healthy identity that is attained progressively, with particular emphasis on publicly (or, at least, in increasingly public stages). Theories of how college affects students' identities and how their identities develop (such as Astin, 1993; Chickering, 1969; Chickering & Reisser, 1993; Thomas & Chickering, 1984) imply that almost everyone in a given campus population (or sub-population) progresses along specific paths, toward more complete ideation of identity or fulfillment of potential. The primacy of reflects (or begins to create) in understandings of non-heterosexual identity a very specific identity in particular relation to heterosexual identity; if all goes well, those students undergoing the process become progressively more committed to and public about a gay identity for themselves. In this regard, models of student development mirror those designed to reflect heterosexual student identity development. Despite attempts to reframe understandings of student sexual identity in higher education research (including D'Augelli, 1994; Dilley, 2002b; Rhoads, 1994; and Savin-Williams, 1999), most conceptualizations of student identity development do not move beyond the normative presumptions of heterosexual models. Other researchers have presumed a fixed non-heterosexual identity fitting within the binary distinction between normal and heterosexual, and different or homosexual; one is either heterosexual or one is gay. Various stages or points of self-realization center on how and to whom to proclaim this difference. In this view, students (straight or not) develop from one identity (or understanding of their lives and relation to society) to another. But the path is singular, the outcome unquestioned, and that outcome unquestionably either achieved or not. These colleagues calling for a reconceptualization of collegiate non-heterosexuality appear to me to be struggling with how to define the population and its experiences in ways that are understandable (and relatable) to heterosexual models. Yet, in building bridges between the normative heterosexual and the queer non-heterosexual, what we often do not convey is the multiplicity of non-heterosexual identities: the experiences and qualities of which do not match the gay student identity nor, perhaps, the experience of coming out in the ways previously explicated. …

Conceptualizing Heterosexual Identity Development: Issues and Challenges

This article summarizes the work of R. L. Worthington and J. J. Mohr (2002); R. L. Worthington, H. B. Savoy, F. R. Dillon, and E. R. Vernaglia (2002); and J. J. Mohr (2002) on heterosexual identity development that constituted the Major Contribution section of the July 2002 issue of The Counseling Psychologist. The author provides an overview of the 2 independently developed models of heterosexual identity development presented in these articles and discusses implications for counseling practice, training, and research. The author also offers a personal perspective on aspects of this body of work, including points raised by L. A. Gilbert and J. Rader (2002) and K. J. Bieschke (2002) in their reaction papers that followed these articles.

Charting the Waters

Two models of heterosexual identity development are discussed. The models were developed for different reasons and thus represent different ways of conceptualizing heterosexuality identity development. The strengths and weaknesses of each model are presented and the two models are compared and contrasted. Apart from the models themselves, these two major contribution articles serve to further expand the lexicon associated with sexual identity as well as further the lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB)-affirmative counterdiscourse in the field of counseling psychology.

Heterosexual Identity Development

This article builds on earlier conceptual models of identity development to propose a model of heterosexual identity development. A review of the existing literature on majority and minority group identity development, heterosexuality, and other relevant foundational literature is provided as a rationale for the proposed model. Based on an analysis of the strengths and limitations of the existing literature, the authors propose a preliminary model of heterosexual identity development. The article concludes with implications for research, practice, training, and measurement in counseling psychology.