This article was downloaded by: [Utah State University Libraries]On: 12 April 2012, At: 14:20Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of HomosexualityPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjhm20

Identity Development and ExplorationAmong Sexual Minority Adolescents:Examination of a Multidimensional ModelJenna A. Glover a , Renee V. Galliher a & Trenton G. Lamere aa Department of Psychology, Utah State University, Logan, Utah, USA

Available online: 07 Jan 2009

To cite this article: Jenna A. Glover, Renee V. Galliher & Trenton G. Lamere (2009): IdentityDevelopment and Exploration Among Sexual Minority Adolescents: Examination of a MultidimensionalModel, Journal of Homosexuality, 56:1, 77-101

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00918360802551555

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

77

Journal of Homosexuality, 56:77–101, 2009 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0091-8369 print/1540-3602 onlineDOI: 10.1080/00918360802551555

WJHM0091-83691540-3602Journal of Homosexuality, Vol. 56, No. 1, November 2008: pp. 1–38Journal of Homosexuality

Identity Development and Exploration Among Sexual Minority Adolescents: Examination

of a Multidimensional Model

Identity Development and ExplorationJ. A. Glover et al.

JENNA A. GLOVER, RENEE V. GALLIHER, and TRENTON G. LAMEREDepartment of Psychology, Utah State University, Logan, Utah, USA

Based on a multidimensional model of sexual identity development,the current study examined self-labeling, romantic, and sexualexperiences among middle and late adolescent sexual minorities.Eighty-two youths between the ages of 14 and 21 were recruitedfrom gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) communitycenters and associated Internet groups. Differences between malesand females and between middle and late adolescents were firstexamined. Males reported markedly different patterns of self-labelingand romantic experiences, relative to females, but few age differencesemerged. Additionally, patterns of association between self-labelingand sexual or romantic experiences provided support for themultidimensional model of identity development and exploration.Finally, significant associations emerged between relationshipexperiences and relational competency, such that adolescents whodescribed themselves as isolated from intimate interpersonalrelationships reported less relational esteem and more relationaldepression than those who reported predominantly engaging insame-sex romantic relationships. In addition, alternative styles ofengaging in interpersonal relationships (e.g., same-sex intimatefriendships, heterosexual dating) also were also associated withincreased relational competency.

KEYWORDS adolescent, sexual minority, romantic relationships,identity development, sexual orientation, multidimensional model,social constructionist

Portions of this manuscript were presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society forResearch in Child Development, Atlanta, GA.

Address correspondence to Renee V. Galliher, Department of Psychology, 2810 OldMain Hill, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322. E-mail: Renee.Galliher@usu.edu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uta

h St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

20 1

2 A

pril

2012

78 J. A. Glover et al.

Adolescent sexual minorities represent youth who are gay, lesbian, bisexual,transgendered (GLBT), or questioning their sexual orientation (Fisher &Akman, 2002). It is currently estimated that the prevalence of youth whoidentify as a sexual minority is between 4% and 17% of the U.S. adolescentpopulation (Anhalt & Morris, 1998). The dominant culture influences per-ceptions of sexual orientation by promoting the assumption of heterosexualityas the only normal developmental outcome, thereby creating potential chal-lenges for sexual minority youth who are attempting to explore, accept, andintegrate sexual orientation into their lives (Tharinger & Wells, 2000). Forthis reason, sexual minority youth may experience a different identity devel-opment process in which the knowledge that they are different is everpresent (Striepe & Tolman, 2003). Although there are many contributingvariables that influence sexual minorities’ development, the emphasis of thecurrent study is on two essential components of experience that collectivelyinfluence this development: identity development and identity exploration(e.g., romantic and sexual experiences).

IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT

Perhaps the most salient of the many tasks faced during adolescence is theformation of individual identity (Erikson, 1968). During this critical period,adolescents are expected to negotiate developmental tasks including forminga cohesive sense of self, achieving autonomy while maintaining belongingness,and demonstrating independence while balancing being supported (Tharinger &Wells, 2000). Often these important tasks are achieved through social com-parison or identifying with the standards and norms of the main population.Those who are unable to identify with the dominant culture may experiencea different developmental trajectory. Adolescent sexual minorities differ fromthe dominant culture in sexual orientation, and this divergence from themain culture’s assumed developmental path creates a novel point of refer-ence in identity formation. Striepe and Tolman (2003) offered further insightinto the unique developmental challenges experienced in identity formationby sexual minority adolescents.

Few adolescents worry that they will have to sit down with their parentsand confide what they have come to realize about their sexual identity,that is to say “Mom, Dad, I’m straight.” In our society, heterosexuality isassumed from birth. It is when adolescents show signs of being differentthan the heterosexual norm that sexual identity becomes a visible aspectof development. (p. 523)

Recent research on sexual identity development among GLBT youthsdraws from a social constructionist theoretical perspective, of which a key

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uta

h St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

20 1

2 A

pril

2012

Identity Development and Exploration 79

feature is emphasis on how individuals interrelate, how culture and societyimpact this process, and finally, the phenomenological reality taken fromthese integrated parts (Owen, 1992). Social constructionism underscoresthat human behavior and development cannot be understood in a social orcultural vacuum (Schaller, 2002), but must be understood through the mean-ing given to different outcomes via personal, social, and cultural perspectives.In regards to sexual orientation, the social constructionist perspective holdsthat identity is not essential or innate but rather is “constructed” from socialand cultural frameworks (Broido, 2000). From this viewpoint, researchershave recognized that sexual orientation is impacted by personal, social, andcultural factors, and have now begun to generate and examine models ofidentity development that seek to explore how this collective experienceinfluences identity development in adolescent sexual minorities (Cox &Gallois, 1996).

One recent model of sexual minority identity development is concernedwith the interactive influences between the individual and social environment(Horowitz & Newcomb, 2001). This model offers a unique advantage topast models by specifically examining desire, behavior, and identity as threeseparate constructs related to sexual orientation and identity, emphasizingthe salience of the individual meaning ascribed to each of these constructs.

Once the categories of desire, behavior, and identity are separated, it’stheoretically possible for a person to change his or her sexual identity orbehaviors while maintaining an underlying sexual orientation . . . in thissense social constructionist perspective empowers the individual’schoice in sexual expression, while recognizing that there may not be achoice in the orientation of sexual desire. (p. 16)

This multidimensional explanation of sexual orientation recognizes theimportance of society’s influence while maintaining that individuals are ableto choose how their identity will be defined within culture rather than beingdefined solely by their sexual orientation. The overall purpose of this modelis to create an inclusive description of identity that is not restricted to limitedand insufficient labels generated by past models of identity development.

The multidimensional model lends itself to the notion that sexual orien-tation and identity do not exist as fixed points (i.e., homosexual or hetero-sexual), but rather represent a continuum of experience. However, despitethe recent emergence of these models, the conceptualization of sexualorientation as a continuous variable is not new. In his landmark researchover 60 years ago, Kinsey (1941) concluded that it is erroneous to conceptu-alize sexual orientation as dichotomously distributed but rather it should beapproached as continuum based. Although several criticisms have beenraised against Kinsey’s work regarding the integrity of his methods andresults (Brecher & Brecher, 1986; Ericksen,1998), he initiated an interesting

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uta

h St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

20 1

2 A

pril

2012

80 J. A. Glover et al.

body of research that has not been revisited until recent years. More recentresearch has addressed many of the methodological issues associated withKinsey’s work and extended the literature on sexual orientation and identitydevelopment.

Perhaps the greatest area of growth in this body of research is therecognition of a need to move away from categorical labels to continuousdefinitions, with the resultant development of measures aimed at assessingsexual orientation differently (Balter, 1998; Holden & Holden, 1995; Rothblum,2000). Sell (1996) conducted a large scale review of different measures ofsexual orientation examining various dichotomous, bipolar, orthogonal, andmultidimensional scales. The most representative scales capturing the fullrange of experiences were those that gave participants the flexibility toidentify their sexual attractions, behaviors, attitudes, and orientation on multipledimensions. Johns (2004) used multidimensional scales to measure identitydevelopment in a sample of 143 adult sexual minority participants. Partici-pants in her study viewed identity formation occurring in different phasesrather than linear stages. By using a continuum-based measure, participantshad the opportunity to describe their experiences in a manner that providedsupport for a multidimensional approach rather than a stage-based process.

A multidimensional approach was also supported by Kinnish’s (2003)work with 762 heterosexual and sexual minority participants (i.e., bisexual,gay, lesbian). Participants were asked to retrospectively report their sexualbehavior, fantasy, romantic attractions, and identity for a five-year periodbeginning at the age of 16. Individuals who identified as bisexual reportedthe most transitions in sexual identity (e.g., changing self-label of sexual ori-entation to bisexual from straight, or gay to bisexual) over the five-yearperiod, gay men and lesbian women reported the second most, and hetero-sexual individuals reported the fewest. It is interesting to note that lesbianwomen reported a greater number of transitions in sexual identity com-pared to gay men. These results suggest important gender differencesbetween different sexual minority groups in the development of identitythat could be better understood upon additional investigation. Also, the lim-itations of retrospective studies, such as uncertain accuracy of memoryaccounts, suggest that research using adolescent samples could help clarifythis body of research. Specifically, examining changes in sexual identity,behavior, and attractions throughout adolescence or examining differencesbetween younger and older adolescents in the self-descriptions of their sex-ual orientation would begin to address remaining questions about thedevelopment of sexual identity. In addition, including an examination of thedifferences between genders would provide an extension to the researchcited above and help clarify differences between or within these two sexualminority groups (i.e., gay men and lesbian women).

Due to the fairly recent emergence of the multidimensional models,research that utilizes this perspective has been limited and restricted primarily

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uta

h St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

20 1

2 A

pril

2012

Identity Development and Exploration 81

to adult samples. To address these gaps, the current study asked sexualminority adolescents to define their sexual attraction utilizing dimensionalcontinuums of sexual orientation, traditional categorical descriptions (e.g.,gay, lesbian, bisexual, heterosexual), and open-ended formats (i.e., “Whatwords would best describe the way you see your sexual orientation?” “Whatwords do you use to describe your sexual orientation to others?”). In addition,associations among self-labeling and same- and opposite-sex romantic andsexual attractions or behaviors were examined.

IDENTITY EXPLORATION

Interpersonal processes and relationship experiences in adolescence arehypothesized to serve as the foundation for future romantic relationships.Adolescents’ exploration and experiences in peer relationships help buildinteraction skills and provide the opportunity for romantic connections todevelop (Furman, Simon, Shaffer, & Bouchey, 2002). The assumption ofheterosexuality influences adolescents’ relationship development because amajority of heterosexual peer groups discourage and disapprove of homo-sexual relationships (Connolly, Furman, & Konarski, 2000). Rejection ofalternative sexual orientation development among adolescent peer groups sug-gests that adolescent sexual minorities may be forced to establish meaningfulinterpersonal, sexual, and romantic relationships independent of peer support.This pattern stands in sharp contrast to the process for heterosexual youth, whowork to develop these relationships within the supportive context of their peergroups. Thus, many adolescent sexual minorities may be forced to eitherabstain from romantic relationships or engage in alternative relationships inplace of romantic relationships (Diamond, Savin-Williams, & Dube, 1999).

Relationship Withdrawal

The stigma surrounding the development of romantic relationships withsame-sex partners and the difficulty of being able to identify other youthwith same-sex romantic interest contribute to adolescent sexual minoritiesbeing less likely to have any type of romantic relationship experience duringtheir middle and high school years compared to their heterosexual counterparts(Diamond & Dube, 2002). The difficulty in identifying any other sexualminority peers, especially a desired romantic partner, limits the opportunityfor these students to learn and practice important interpersonal relationshipskills that are critical in the development of adult romantic relationships(Connolly et al., 2000). These obstacles often result in varying degrees ofisolation and withdrawal, leading to sexual minority youth having smallerpeer groups, hindering the closeness of friendships, and cultivating negativeexpectations about romantic relationships and control over their romantic lives

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uta

h St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

20 1

2 A

pril

2012

82 J. A. Glover et al.

(Diamond & Lucas, 2004). This social and emotional isolation is concerning andresearch has documented the associated negative outcomes (e.g., compromisedself-esteem, high-risk behaviors, mental health problems) for adolescentsexual minorities who are isolated from their peers (Alexander, 2002;Diamond, 2003; Martin & Hetrick, 1988; Quinn, 2002; Savin-Williams, 1988;van Heeringen & Vincke, 2000). Due to the difficulties in creating and main-taining a same-sex romantic relationship, many adolescent sexual minoritiesmay seek alternative relationship contexts.

Alternative Relationships

As adolescent sexual minorities seek to fulfill their emerging social need forromantic and sexual involvement while navigating through the constraintsof dominant heterosexual cultural assumptions, three main types of alternativerelationships emerge. These types include: (1) commitment to a same-sexintimate friendship, (2) engagement in exclusively sexual relationship with asame-sex partner, and (4) participating in heterosexual dating.

SAME-SEX ALTERNATIVES

The many impediments faced by sexual minority adolescents in formingromantic relationships often force these youth to adapt same-sex relationshipsthat may provide limited benefits typically obtained in the context of aromantic partnership.

The difficulty inherent in simply identifying other sexual-minority youthscreates onerous risk; in response to risk sexual minorities may strike atenuous balance between risk and reward pursuing exclusively emo-tional or exclusively sexual relationships that allow them a measure ofsame-sex intimacy without placing them in jeopardy. (Diamond et al.,1999, p. 177)

Sexual minority adolescents may seek to develop intimate same-sex friendshipsin an attempt to cultivate a relationship that satisfies emotional needsthat are usually fulfilled in a romantic relationship. The dynamics of these“passionate friendships” are marked by intense emotional investment,providing intimacy and support that is not dependent on sexual consummation(Diamond et al., 1999). These types of friendships provide closeness, intimacy,and often the exclusiveness of romantic relationships, but are devoid ofother aspects such as sexual intimacy. Typically this pathway of emotionalfulfillment through intimate friendships is more likely to occur amongyoung women (Savin-Williams & Diamond, 2000). In contrast, young menappear more likely to pursue a pathway that focuses on exclusively sexualrelationships (Diamond, 2003).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uta

h St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

20 1

2 A

pril

2012

Identity Development and Exploration 83

Due to social norms and gender expectations, young men are generallynot afforded the opportunity to develop deeply intimate same-sex friendshipscharacterized by mutual self-disclosure, affection, and tenderness; therefore,relationships that are based on exclusive sexual intimacy may be the onlyavenue perceived by adolescent boys to have a same-sex relationship (Diamondet al., 1999). Such relationships may be important in serving as a means tovalidate same-sex attractions and confirm aspects of the adolescent’s sexualorientation; however, such relationships are limiting due to the lack ofemotional intimacy that is characteristically tied to more intense physicalintimacy in romantic relationships.

HETEROSEXUAL ALTERNATIVES

There are numerous reasons that contribute to adolescent sexual minorities’decisions to engage in heterosexual dating and relationships. Perhaps themost salient factor is the normative pressure toward opposite-sex datingduring adolescence. Such pressure may provide a myriad of motivationalaspects for adolescent sexual minorities to participate in heterosexual dating(e.g., exploration, concealment of orientation, romantic fulfillment). It is recog-nized that the majority of sexual minority youth date heterosexually throughoutadolescence (Diamond et al., 1999). However, the limited amount ofresearch focused on this topic has yet to address several possibilities of bothnegative and positive outcomes of heterosexual dating among adolescentsexual minorities. Thus, despite the importance of the dating experienceduring adolescence, only limited emerging research has sought to addressthe diverse roles that sexual minorities assume in the context of dating rela-tionships. The current study examined the function and importance of thesevarious relationship types and how they are associated with psychosocialfunctioning and relationship competency in middle and late adolescents.

In summary, two sets of hypotheses related to sexual identity develop-ment and romantic or sexual exploration were presented in this study.

1. Identity Development. We hypothesized age and gender differences inadolescents’ use of both traditional labels and scores on continuousmeasures of heterosexual attraction and homosexual attraction. Givenevidence for transition across adolescence in self-labeling and for greaterfluidity of attraction among women, we predicted that there would bemore variability in self-identification among younger adolescents andyoung women, relative to older adolescents and males. In addition, themultidimensional model of identity development predicts that, giventhe opportunity to describe their sexual orientation in their own words,adolescents would go beyond the use of traditional labels (e.g., gay,lesbian, heterosexual) and provide more individualized, meaningfuldescriptions of their sexual orientation. Finally, the multidimensional

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uta

h St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

20 1

2 A

pril

2012

84 J. A. Glover et al.

model would also predict that patterns of association between self-labeling,attraction, and behavior would be somewhat fluid, with adolescentsreporting a range of attractions and behaviors, regardless of their statedself-labels.

2. Identity Exploration. We hypothesized age and gender differences in thetypes of romantic and sexual relationships/experiences reported byadolescents. Differences were examined in terms of dating and relationshipexperiences (having a crush, dating, going steady) and sexual behaviors(affectionate behaviors such as hand holding, petting behaviors, or sex)with both same- and opposite-sex partners. As with hypotheses regardingself-identification, we predicted that women and younger adolescentswould report greater variability in same- and opposite-sex attractions andbehaviors. We also examined differences between individuals with differentpredominant dating styles (i.e., same-sex romantic relationships, same-sex passionate friendships, same-sex exclusively sexual relationships,heterosexual relationships, or no participation in relationships) in termsof self-esteem and relationship competence. Given the salience of romanticexperiences in adolescence, those who reported no participation inromantic or intimate relationships were expected to report the lowest levelsof relational competence and self-esteem. However, differences betweenthose who reported participation predominantly in same-sex romanticrelationships and those who engaged in alternative relationship stylesremained exploratory.

METHODS

Participants

Participants were 82 adolescents recruited using three strategies. First, par-ticipants were recruited from events and activities sponsored by local sexualminority community groups (approximately 76%). Second, Internet groupswere contacted using listservs provided by the community centers (approx-imately 10%). Finally, participants who completed the study were givenreferral cards to distribute to other interested individuals. The remaining14% of participants were recruited from referrals from previous participantsand project staff.

Participants were between 14 and 21 years of age and were dividedinto two groups: Middle adolescents were defined as those who were still inmiddle or high school and late adolescents were participants who wereno longer in high school but less than 22 years old. Table 1 provides a summaryof sample characteristics including age, gender, and sexual orientation labelparticipants used for themselves as well as what label they told others. Theracial background of participants was self-identified as 87% White, 2% Asian,8% Latino/Hispanic, 1% Native American, and 2% identified race as other.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uta

h St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

20 1

2 A

pril

2012

Identity Development and Exploration 85

The religious affiliation was 48% Mormon (Latter Day Saints), 4% Catholic,1% Protestant, 1% Jewish, 22% other, and 24% identified no religious affiliation.Fifty-two percent of participants’ parents were married to each other, 38%had divorced or separated parents, 4% of the parents had never married, 4%were widowed, and the remaining 2% were unspecified. Parents’ educationalstatus suggested a wide range of socioeconomic backgrounds; 37.8% offathers and 30.5% of mothers had a high school education or less; 20.7 % offathers and 29.2% of mothers had completed technical school or some college;39.1% of fathers and 39.0% of mothers had a college degree or higher. Datawere not reported for 2 fathers and 1 mother.

Procedures

Participants under the age of 18 were required to have written parentalconsent in addition to providing written assent, while those who are were18 or older provided only their own signature. The consent form wasphrased generically to indicate that the study was designed to learn moreabout the development of dating and relationships among adolescents,so that adolescents who had not disclosed to their parents would not beprecluded from participation. Participants either collected survey packets atcommunity events or received packets in the mail after providing theiraddresses to the first author or research assistants. Questionnaire measurestook 20–30 minutes to complete and were returned by participants in a self-addressed, stamped envelope. Participants were compensated for participationwith $10; the incentive was sent to participants by mail as soon as completedquestionnaires were received.

TABLE 1 Percentages and Means of Male and Female and Middle and Late AdolescentsSelf-Labeling Using Dichotomous and Continuous Variables (N = 82)

Male Female Middle Late Total

Categorical variables N, (%)Gay/lesbian 30 (83.3) 18 (39.1) 18 (51.4) 30 (63.8) 48 (58)Straight 3 (8.3) 11 (23.9) 5 (14.3) 9 (19.1) 14 (17)Bisexual 2 (5.6) 13 (28.3) 9 (25.7) 6 (12.8) 15 (18)Questioning/other 1 (2.8) 4 (8.7) 3 (8.6) 2 (4.3) 5 ( 7)

Continuous variables M (SD)Homosexual attraction 8.4 (2.6) 6.1 (3.4) 6.8 (3.5) 7.4 (3.1) 7.1 (3.3)Heterosexual attraction 2.8 (2.4) 5.5 (3.3) 4.6 (3.4) 4.0 (3.2) 4.3 (3.2)Age 18.7 (1.4) 17.8 (1.7) 16.8 (1.1) 19.2 (1.2)

Note. Middle = adolescents not graduate from high school or dropped out, Late = adolescents graduatedfrom high school.Continuous attraction variables were measured on two 10-point likert scales (1 = not at all homosexualto 10 = highly homosexual; 1 = not at all heterosexual to 10 = highly heterosexual).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uta

h St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

20 1

2 A

pril

2012

86 J. A. Glover et al.

Questionnaire Measures

DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

The demographic section assessed race, age, gender, educational attainment,educational goals, religiosity, and educational attainment of parents.

SEXUAL DEVELOPMENT/IDENTITY SURVEY

For the current study, a 25-itemed measure was created to obtain informationon sexual identity development, identity disclosure, and identity exploration.No established measures were found that captured the range of behaviors,attractions, and aspects of identity that were relevant to the currentstudy. The created measure was based on Horowitz and Newcomb’s (2001)multidimensional model and provided a series of questions pertaining toattractions, relationships, behaviors, and disclosures using categorical responses,as well as continuous and open-ended questions. Participants were firstasked to report if they had engaged in a range of dating and sexual behaviors(had a crush on, went steady with, said “I love you”, affectionate behaviors,petting, sexual intercourse) with a male or female partner. Response optionswere never, at least once in my life, at least once in the past year, and currently.Other items asked respondents to separately describe their heterosexualand same-sex attraction on continuous scales (1 = not at all, 10 = verymuch), to report which traditional labels (gay/lesbian, straight, bisexual,questioning) they used for themselves and which they told others, and todescribe their sexual orientation in their own words. An additional itemasked adolescents to select their predominant dating style from a list ofdescriptors (same-sex romantic relationships, same-sex exclusively sexualrelationships, same-sex passionate friendships, heterosexual dating, andrelationship withdrawal). Finally, participants were also asked to describetheir disclosure history as part of a larger study.

ROSENBERG SELF-ESTEEM SCALE

The 10-item Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES; Rosenberg, 1965, 1989)assesses global self-esteem. Items are answered on a 4-point Likert-typescale (1 = strongly agree, 4 = strongly disagree) and are averaged to create aglobal self-esteem score. Rosenberg demonstrated concurrent validity com-paring its relationship to depressive affect, psychosomatic symptoms,nurses’ ratings, peer ratings, and a number of other constructs. Additionally,Hagborg (1993) compared the RSES to nine separate self-esteem domains todetermine the unidimensional nature of the RSES. Hagborg found that theRSES was highly correlated with other measures of self-esteem. Cronbach’salpha was .91 for this study.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uta

h St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

20 1

2 A

pril

2012

Identity Development and Exploration 87

RELATIONAL ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE

The Relational Assessment Questionnaire (RAQ; Snell & Finney, 1993) is a26-item self-report questionnaire that assesses different areas of romanticrelationship functioning. Items are answered on a 5-point Likert type scale(1 = not at all characteristic of me to 5 = very characteristic of me). Threedifferent components of relationship functioning are assessed. Relational-esteemis the tendency to positively evaluate one’s capacity to relate intimately toanother person (7 items; e.g., “I am a good partner for an intimate relationship”).Relational-depression is the tendency to feel depressed about the status ofone’s intimate relationships (10 items; e.g., “I am disappointed about thequality of my close relationship”). Finally, relational preoccupation is thetendency to be highly obsessed with thoughts about intimate relationships(9 items; e.g., “I think about intimate relationships all the time”). Assessmentof convergent and discriminant validity of the RAQ found that the threerelational indexes were related in predictable ways to relationship involvementand attraction. Snell and Finney observed Cronbach’s alphas for relationalesteem, depression, and preoccupation of .81, .88, and .85, respectively,with eight-week test–retest reliabilities of .71, .73, and .70. Cronbach’s alphafor the three subscales was .80, .89, and .89, respectively, for participants inthis study.

RESULTS

Identity Development

Table 1 summarizes the number and percentages of adolescents’ endorsementof traditional labels of sexual orientation. Additionally, means and standarddeviations are presented for continuous ratings of same- and opposite-sexattraction by gender and age. Analyses were conducted to assess for differencesbetween males and females or between middle and late adolescents inself-identification using either traditional labels or scores on continuousmeasures of heterosexual attraction and homosexual attraction. None of themethods of self-identification yielded significant differences between middleand late adolescents; thus, only analyses examining differences between thegenders are presented.

A chi-square analysis was conducted to evaluate differences betweenmales and females in self-labeling using traditional labels of sexual orienta-tion (i.e., straight, gay/lesbian, bisexual). Gender and traditional labels werefound to be significantly related, χ2 (2, N = 77) = 15.12, p < .01, V = .443,with males more likely to identify as gay and females more likely to identifyas straight or bisexual. Independent-sample t tests were conducted to evalu-ate differences on continuous ratings of homosexual and heterosexualattraction. The test comparing males and females was significant for both

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uta

h St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

20 1

2 A

pril

2012

88 J. A. Glover et al.

homosexual attraction, t(75) = 3.10, p = .001, d = .698, and heterosexualattraction, t(75) = -3.90, p <.001, d = -.866. Males reported more polarizedattraction patterns with high scores for homosexual attraction and lowscores for heterosexual attraction, while means for females were roughly inthe center of each scale.

Table 2 presents percentages for same- and opposite-sex attractions,behaviors, and romantic experiences among adolescents who identified asgay/lesbian, straight, or bisexual. Chi-square analyses examining associa-tions among self-labeling and behaviors were not possible because theassumption of an expected value of at least five in each cell was violated formany cells. As might be predicted, patterns suggested that the majority ofthose who identified as gay/lesbian reported current or recent involvementin the full range of same-sex romantic and sexual experiences. The majority

TABLE 2 Percentages of Reported Attractions and Behaviors With Same- and Opposite-SexPartners in Individuals Who Self-Label as Gay/Lesbian, Straight, and Bisexual (N = 82)

Same-sex Opposite-sex

Experiences/behaviors G/L Straight Bi G/L Straight Bi

CrushNever 0.0 78.6 0.0 20.8 0.0 0.0At least once in my life 0.0 7.1 6.7 64.6 0.0 0.0At least once in the past year 12.5 7.1 13.3 8.3 7.1 46.7Currently 87.5 7.1 73.3 2.1 92.9 53.3

Gone steadyNever 10.4 92.9 13.3 50.0 14.3 26.7At least once in my life 4.2 7.1 33.3 33.3 7.1 26.7At least once in the past year 39.6 0.0 13.3 10.4 35.7 26.7Currently 45.8 0.0 40.0 2.1 42.9 20.0

Saying “I love you”Never 10.4 57.1 13.3 54.2 21.4 46.7At least once in my life 6.3 21.4 13.3 22.9 7.1 20.0At least once in the past year 33.3 0.0 20.0 12.5 21.4 20.0Currently 50.0 21.4 53.3 6.3 50.0 13.3

Affectionate behaviorsNever 2.1 42.9 6.7 16.7 0.0 0.0At least once in my life 2.1 42.9 6.7 60.4 14.3 33.3At least once in the past year 29.2 14.3 33.3 10.4 14.3 40.0Currently 66.7 0.0 53.3 8.3 71.4 26.7

PettingNever 6.3 78.6 13.3 47.9 7.1 20.0At least once in my life 4.2 7.1 20.0 37.5 7.1 33.3At least once in the past year 39.6 7.1 20.0 8.3 42.9 20.0Currently 50.0 7.1 46.7 2.1 42.9 26.7

Sexual intercourseNever 12.5 85.7 33.3 68.8 42.9 60.0At least once in my life 6.3 14.3 13.3 14.6 7.1 13.3At least once in the past year 29.2 0.0 26.7 10.4 28.6 13.3Currently 52.1 0.0 26.7 2.1 21.4 13.3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uta

h St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

20 1

2 A

pril

2012

Identity Development and Exploration 89

of those who identified as straight reported current or recent opposite-sexromantic and sexual experiences and those who identified as bisexualreported a range of romantic and sexual experience with both same- andopposite sex partners. However, adolescents who identified as gay or lesbianwere very likely to report opposite-sex romantic and sexual experiences atsome point in their lives and a noteworthy minority of adolescents whoidentified as straight reported a history of same-sex romantic or sexualexperiences.

One-way analyses of variance were (ANOVA) conducted to evaluatethe relationships between traditional labels of sexual orientation and ratingson continuous measures of heterosexual and homosexual attraction. Theindependent variable, sexual orientation, included three levels: gay/lesbian,bisexual, and straight. The dependent variables were the ratings on the twocontinuous measures of attraction. The ANOVAs were significant for bothheterosexual attraction, F (2, 76) = 196.4, p <.001, and homosexual attraction,F (2, 76) = 131.7, p <.001. Games-Howell post hoc tests were conducted toevaluate pairwise differences among the means. There were significant dif-ferences between the means for all three groups on the continuous measureof homosexual attraction: straight M = 1.21, SD = .57; gay/lesbian, M = 9.19,SD = 1.02; bisexual M = 6.67, SD = 2.35. All three pairwise comparisons forheterosexual attraction were also significant: straight M = 9.86, SD = .36; gay/lesbian M = 2.29, SD = 1.69; bisexual M = 5.00, SD = 1.73. Cohen’s d for thesix pairwise comparisons ranged from 1.39 to 9.66.

OPEN-ENDED ITEMS

In addition to continuum and categorical questions for reporting sexualorientation, participants were asked to answer “What word(s) would bestdescribe the way you see your sexual orientation?” Answers were reviewedand combined thematically. Four different patterns emerged from participants’responses. Sixty-one percent of participants reported a traditional mainstreamlabel (e.g., gay, lesbian, straight). Fourteen percent reported themes of inde-pendence from being understood or categorized according to their sexualorientation (e.g., “It’s an aspect of my life that does not define who I am”).Ten percent describe seeing their sexual orientation in a negative way (e.g.,“conflicting,” “challenging”). Ten percent used words or phrases that denoteda positive theme in regards to their sexual orientation (e.g., “big pile of gay,”“here and queer,” “normal”). Five percent did not respond to this item.

Identity Exploration

Differences between males and females and between middle adolescentsand older adolescents were examined with regard to the types of dating andromantic experiences reported. Table 3 presents percentages for same- and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uta

h St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

20 1

2 A

pril

2012

90 J. A. Glover et al.

opposite-sex crushes, behaviors, and romantic experiences for males andfemales and for middle and late adolescents. Chi-square analyses wereconducted to evaluate whether reports of crushes, romantic, and sexualexperiences differed by gender or age. Of the 12 chi-square analyses exam-ining associations between gender and the six behaviors (i.e., crush, gonesteady, saying “I love you,” affectionate behavior, petting, sexual intercourse)with same-sex- and opposite-sex partners, four were statistically significant.Gender and opposite-sex crush were related, Pearson χ2, (3, N = 80) = 19.59,p < .01, V = .495, as were gender and opposite-sex sexual intercourse, Pearsonχ2, (3, N = 80) = 8.09, p = .04, V = .318; females were more likely to reportcurrent or recent engagement in these behaviors with opposite-sex partners.Gender and same-sex sexual intercourse were significantly related, Pearsonχ2, (3, N = 82) = 9.80, p = .02, V = .346, as were gender and same-sex

TABLE 3 Percentages of Reported Attractions and Behaviors with Same and Opposite-SexPartners among Male and Female and among Middle and Late Adolescents (N = 82)

Same-sex Opposite-sex Same-sex Opposite sex

Experiences / behaviors Male Female Male Female Middle Late Middle Late

CrushNever 8.3 17.4 19.4 6.5 11.1 15.6 8.3 15.6At least once in my life 0.0 8.7 58.3 26.1 11.1 0.0 36.1 44.4At least once in past year 11.1 13.0 5.6 23.9 5.6 17.8 22.2 8.9Currently 77.8 60.9 11.1 43.5 69.4 66.7 33.3 26.7

Gone Steady Never 22.2 34.8 47.2 32.6 27.8 24.4 44.4 20.0At least once in my life 2.8 15.2 27.8 26.1 13.9 2.2 25.0 37.8At least once in past year 38.9 17.4 11.1 23.9 22.2 31.1 16.7 17.8Currently 36.1 32.6 8.3 17.4 36.1 42.2 13.9 20.0

Saying “I love you”Never 16.7 23.9 41.7 50.0 16.7 24.4 52.8 40.0At least once in my life 11.1 13.0 27.8 15.2 16.7 8.9 22.2 20.0At least once in past year 30.6 17.4 13.9 15.2 25.0 22.2 19.4 11.1Currently 41.7 45.7 11.1 19.6 41.7 44.4 5.6 24.4

Affectionate BehaviorsNever 8.3 13.0 13.9 6.5 11.1 11.1 13.9 6.7At least once in my life 5.6 15.2 50.0 43.5 13.9 8.9 47.2 46.7At least once in past year 30.6 26.1 13.9 19.6 19.4 35.6 13.9 17.8Currently 55.6 45.7 16.7 30.4 55.6 44.4 25.0 24.4

PettingNever 11.1 28.3 47.2 26.1 19.4 22.2 41.7 31.1At least once in my life 2.8 13.0 27.8 32.6 8.3 8.9 22.2 35.6At least once in past year 41.7 23.9 11.1 21.7 30.6 33.3 19.4 15.6Currently 44.4 34.8 8.3 19.6 41.7 35.6 16.7 13.3

Sexual IntercourseNever 16.7 43.5 72.2 54.3 38.9 26.7 58.3 66.7At least once in my life 5.6 13.0 8.3 15.2 8.3 11.1 13.9 8.9At least once in past year 30.6 17.4 13.9 13.0 13.9 28.9 19.4 8.9Currently 47.2 26.1 0.0 17.4 38.9 33.3 8.3 11.1

Note: females N = 36; males N = 46; middle adolescents N = 35; late adolescents N = 47.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uta

h St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

20 1

2 A

pril

2012

Identity Development and Exploration 91

steady dating, χ2, (3, N = 82) = 7.84, p = .05, V = .309. Males more likelyto report current or recent engagement in same-sex steady dating andsexual intercourse. Of the 12 chi-square analyses examining associationsbetween age and romantic or sexual experience with same- and opposite-sexpartners, only one was statistically significant. Age and saying “I love you” tothe opposite-sex were significantly related, Pearson χ2, (3, N = 80) = 8.58, p =.03, V = .328, with late adolescents more likely to report saying “I love you” tothe opposite-sex at least once in their lifetimes.

Table 4 presents means and standard deviations for the five relation-ship styles (i.e., close same-sex friendship, same-sex exclusively sexual,same-sex romantic relationship, heterosexual dating, and never participatein relationships) for relational esteem, relational depression, relationalpreoccupation, self-esteem. Differences among predominant dating styleswith regard to self-esteem and relationship competence were assessed viafour one-way ANOVAs. The ANOVAs for relational preoccupation, F(4, 75)= 2.07, p = .09 and self-esteem, F(4, 75) = 1.08, p = .38, were not significant.The ANOVA was significant for relational esteem, F(4, 75) = 4.47, p = .003.Sheffe post hoc tests indicated that those who engaged predominantly ineither same-sex romantic relationships or heterosexual dating reportedhigher relational esteem compared to those who do not participate in rela-tionships. Also, the ANOVA was significant for relational depression, F(4, 75) =2.77, p = .03. Scheffe post hoc tests indicated that those not in relationshipsreported significantly higher rates of relational depression compared withthose who reported same-sex close friends and same-sex romantic relationships.Table 5 presents the results of post hoc tests and Cohen’s d estimates of effectsize for each pairwise comparison. Examination of the Cohen’s d effect sizes

TABLE 4 Means and Standard Deviations for Relational Competency and Self-EsteemOutcomes

Psychosocial outcomes Mean (SD)

Relationship StyleRelational esteem

Relationaldepression

Relationalpreoccupation Self-esteem

Close same-sex friendships (N = 14)

23.2 (3.6) 20.1 (5.8) 29.8 (7.7) 3.3 (.46)

Same-sex exclusively sexual (N = 5)

24.8 (5.8) 24.0 (13.9) 30.6 (11.8) 3.0 (.74)

Same-sex romantic relationship (N = 40)

24.8 (5.1) 21.7 (7.7) 31.9 (6.8) 3.0 (.62)

Heterosexual dating (N = 9)

24.6 (6.1) 21.1 (10.7) 27.9 (12.0) 3.1 (.50)

Never participate in relationships (N = 8)

16.3 (5.2) 31.1 (5.4) 23.5 (8.0) 2.8 (.49)

Note. Higher scores on the psychosocial subscales correspond to greater relation-esteem, relationaldepression, relational preoccupation, and self-esteem.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uta

h St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

20 1

2 A

pril

2012

92 J. A. Glover et al.

in Table 5 demonstrates large effect sizes for the differences between thosewho reported not participating in relationships and all other groups (i.e.,same-sex romantic relationships, same-sex exclusive relationships, passionatefriendships, and heterosexual dating), with all relationship styles having higherrelational esteem compared to those not participating in relationships. Effectsizes for relational depression demonstrated moderate to large effectsizes for differences between those not participating in relationships andthose who reported same-sex romantic relationships, passionate friendships, orheterosexual dating; again, all relationship styles reported less relational depres-sion compared to those not participating in relationships.

DISCUSSION

Stemming from social constructionist and multidimensional perspectives,current theories of sexual identity development conceptualize sexual orientationas a complex configuration of identity, attractions, behaviors, disclosures,

TABLE 5 Pairwise Comparisons and Associated Effect Sizesbetween Relationship Types for Relational Esteem and RelationDepression

Relationship types

Mean difference p Cohen’s d

Relational EsteemSSR-SSE .00 1.00 .00SSR-PF 1.58 .92 .30SSR-HD .24 1.00 .04SSR-NP 8.55 >.01 1.65SSE-PF 1.59 .99 .28SSE-HD .24 1.00 .04SSE-NP 8.55 .11 1.53PF-HD −1.34 .97 −.24PF-NP 6.96 .08 1.70HD-NP 8.31 .04 1.46

Relational DepressionSSR-SSE −2.30 .99 −.20SSR-PF 1.56 .93 .23SSR-HD .59 1.00 .06SSR-NP −9.43 >.01 −1.41SSE-PF 3.86 .97 .36SSE-HD 2.89 .99 .23SSE-NP −7.13 .80 −.67PF-HD −.97 .99 −.11PF-NP −11.00 >.01 −1.95HD-NP −10.01 .16 −1.18

Note. SSR = same-sex romantic relationship, SSE = same-sex exclusivelysexual, PF = passionate friendship, HD = heterosexual dating, NP = notparticipating in a relationship.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uta

h St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

20 1

2 A

pril

2012

Identity Development and Exploration 93

and interpersonal explorations (Horowitz & Newcomb, 2001). Althoughrecent research has begun to investigate the social constructionist and multi-dimensional models of identity development, little of this research has usedadolescent samples. The current study targeted an adolescent and emergingadult population to evaluate the efficacy of the multidimensional approachin understanding sexual minority development.

Several limitations of the current project should be considered in theinterpretation of results. First, consistent with much of the research onsexual minorities, the primary limitation of the current study is the use of aconvenience sample in recruiting participants. The initial target populationwas local sexual minority adolescents; however, due to recruitment difficultiesthe sample targeted adolescent sexual minorities who were actively engagedwith community supports. The difficulties that exist in trying to identify andcontact sexual minorities who would be interested in participating areevident. The largest proportion of the sample was recruited from a sexualminority community center “queer prom” activity. Although this activity wasopen to the community, it is likely that those attending may have beenmore likely to be in a romantic relationship with the same-sex versus thegeneral population of sexual minority adolescents. Also, the individuals atthese activities identifying as straight likely do not represent the generalpopulation of those identifying as straight. Further, the geographicallocation of data collection resulted in a sample in which almost 50% of theparticipants reported affiliation with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter DaySaints. The unique characteristics of the sample should be kept in mindduring the following discussion of results and replication with broader andmore diverse samples will be necessary. Finally, creating a new measurewas necessary to answer the research questions for this project. Because ofthe diversity of research questions, no pre-existing measure would yieldadequate information. A strength of the current measure was the addition ofcontinuous measures and open-ended items that represented a multidimensionalmodel approach, missing in existing measures. Limitations of the measureincluded a lack of questions eliciting specific details regarding motivation,intent, and purpose of different behaviors and experiences. These measure-ment issues provide directions for future research on this topic.

Identity Development

AGE AND GENDER DIFFERENCES

The results of analyses examining differences between middle adolescents(i.e., high school students) and late adolescents/emerging adults (i.e., posthigh school through 21 years) with regard to self-labeling using eithertraditional labels or continuum ratings of attraction were not significant.Thus, developmentally, adolescents appear to be identifying and labeling

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uta

h St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

20 1

2 A

pril

2012

94 J. A. Glover et al.

their attractions and sexual orientation at a consistent rate throughout theiradolescent years and in to their young adult lives. This finding is reflectiveof the trend that adolescents are now beginning to identify their sexualorientation at earlier ages (Saltzburg, 2004). Historically, the age of recognitionand disclosure was during young adulthood, which likely delayed or madedifficult the rich opportunities for interpersonal and romantic developmentavailable to adolescents during their middle and high school years (D’Augelli,Hershberger, & Pinkington, 1998). Findings that support earlier recognition inself-labeling and identification are encouraging. As the age of identifyingsame-sex attraction and disclosure continues to lower to early and middleadolescence, possible developmental gaps between younger and older sexualminority adolescents and young adults in self-labeling and participation inintimate interpersonal relationships may decrease.

The analyses examining differences between males and females inregards to self-labeling using either traditional labels or continuum ratingsof attraction were significant. Patterns of endorsement of traditional labelsand ratings of heterosexual and homosexual attraction suggested that males’attraction patterns match their use of the traditional label “gay,” whereasfemale’s variability in attraction to both sexes reflects a greater variability intraditional self-labels of sexual orientation. Females appear to be more likelyto experience nonexclusive attractions, thus making sexual orientation andidentification a much more fluid process compared to males. Past researchhas documented that females are likely to demonstrate more variability andtransitions throughout their lifetimes in regards to their sexual orientationand identity, which is likely a result of more fluid and nonexclusive attractionscompared to males (Diamond & Savin-Williams, 2000).

These findings are important and provide support for the socialconstructionist perspective and insight for future research in this area. First,the social constructionist viewpoint provides important new ways of under-standing the meaning of sexual orientation. From this perspective, the useof categorical traditional labels such as gay, bisexual, straight are sociallyconstructed and may therefore be an inadequate medium for capturing thetrue experience of an individual (Broido, 2000). Females may be more likelyto show variability and transitions in the use of traditional labels throughouttheir lifetime as these labels do not accurately reflect their attractions. Thepicture with understanding male identity development through this theoreticalperspective is more complicated. It is possible that male use of traditionalsexual minority labels is more stable because these socially constructedlabels fit male experience and attractions adequately. However, it may bepossible that social influences impact how males conceptualize their attrac-tions and that taking on a traditional sexual minority label may influence thelevel to which they commit to and report their attractions on continuousmeasures. Regardless of sexual orientation, stereotypical gender roles allowwomen a measure of flexibility and fluidity in their attractions and displayed

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uta

h St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

20 1

2 A

pril

2012

Identity Development and Exploration 95

affection toward both sexes that men are not afforded. Therefore, the differ-ences displayed may represent unique differences between males andfemales or may be a result of gender role influences that constrict males’ability to demonstrate sexual lability.

Secondly, these findings are important in guiding future research in thisarea. Several research findings and models of identity development forsexual minority youth have primarily come from samples of gay youngmen. It has been suggested that sexual minority females are more similar toheterosexual females than they are to young gay males (Savin-Williams &Diamond, 2000). Findings from gay male populations may have limitedutility in being generalized to females. Also, limiting sexual minorityresearch to those who identify as a sexual minority will likely excludenumerous females who have same-sex attractions, behaviors, and romanticexperiences but do not use the appropriate traditional label for inclusion.Understanding both heterosexual and homosexual attraction through malesexual development and female sexual development may prove more fruitfulthan grouping sexual orientation and sexual development into differentbodies of research (Savin-Williams, 2005).

LABELS VERSUS EXPERIENCE

Patterns of association among adolescents’ self-labeling of sexual orientationand reports of sexual attraction, sexual behaviors, and romantic experienceswere consistent with traditional understandings of sexual orientation labels.Individuals identifying as straight were likely to engage in attractions,behaviors, and romantic experiences with opposite-sex partners, whereasthose identifying as gay/lesbian were more likely to engage in these behav-iors with the same-sex. Bisexuals were engaging in romantic experienceswith both opposite-sex and same-sex partners. Although these results areintuitively logical, they prompt consideration of previous models andconceptualizations that extend from the essentialist perspective. Despitecriticism targeted at the inflexibility of the essentialist perspective, the generaltrend of these results would suggest that traditional labels may have someutility in accurately representing attractions, behaviors, and romantic experi-ences for different sexual orientation groups (Broido, 2000). Therefore,despite a general push in the literature and by new models to pull awayfrom the use of traditional labels, these labels demonstrate some inherentvalue in classifying and reflecting different contributing aspects of sexualorientation.

Another interesting aspect of self-identification and labeling was dem-onstrated through participants’ responses to the open-ended questionsinquiring how adolescents described their sexual orientation in their ownwords. A notable subset of respondents answered in a descriptive way,refusing to use labels in regards to their sexual orientation. Within these

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uta

h St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

20 1

2 A

pril

2012

96 J. A. Glover et al.

groups, positive, negative, and normalizing themes emerged in regards todescribing sexual orientation as a part of their identity; many participants,however, made it clear that their sexual orientation was not representativeof their overall identity. This suggests that labels that affix meaning tosexual orientation may not be representative of all sexual minority youth(Savin-Williams, 2005); however, it must still be recognized that a majorityof the sample did use traditional labels in response to these questions, sug-gesting that these labels have some meaning and practical application.Thus, research is needed to identify the extent to which traditional labelswill maintain utility and applicability to identity development in the future.

Notwithstanding both the quantitative and open-ended results, it isimportant to underscore that across all three groups of sexual orientationthere were reports of same- and opposite-sex attraction, affectionate andsexual behavior, and romantic experiences. Sexual minorities (i.e., gay/lesbian, bisexual) were likely to engage in these experiences with an oppo-site-sex partner more frequently than straight individuals were to engage inthem with a same-sex partner. These trends follow previous research thatdocuments sexual minorities engaging in activities with opposite-sex partnersfor a variety of reasons which include: questioning or experimenting withsexual orientation, trying to hide or deny same-sex feelings, or lacking otheralternatives for intimate relationships (Diamond et al., 1999; Zera, 1992).Less understood and researched are reports of same-sex attractions, behaviors,and romantic experiences among individuals who identify as straight. Liketheir sexual minority counterparts these individuals may be engaging insame-sex attractions and sexual behaviors to explore or question their sexualorientation; however, this knowledge remains a gap in the current studyand literature. Future research should consider qualitatively examiningmotivation and intent behind attractions and engagement with same- andopposite-sex partners. Doing such would provide important informationabout the purpose and quality of these experiences and how they influenceoverall adolescent development. Taken together it seems that traditionallabels do provide an avenue to accurately conceptualize sexual orientation;however, a diversity of experience continues to exist and measures of attrac-tions and behaviors beyond traditional labels are also needed to complimentand better understand when traditional labels are and are not appropriate.

Identity Exploration

AGE AND GENDER DIFFERENCES

Overall, there were relatively few significant differences between males andfemales in their reports of engagement in same-and opposite-sex romanticand sexual behaviors and only one significant difference between middleand late adolescents. Females were more likely to report current or recent

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uta

h St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

20 1

2 A

pril

2012

Identity Development and Exploration 97

opposite-sex crushes and opposite-sex intercourse and males were morelikely to report current or recent same-sex dating and sexual intercourse.This is consistent with other research which identifies females as beingmore nonexclusive in attractions and which documents that desire appearsto be sufficient motivation for males’ engagement in same-sex behaviorscompared to females (Savin-Williams & Diamond, 2000). The differencesthat do exist suggest that females’ nonexclusive attractions may translateinto a greater fluidity in experiences across same- and opposite-sex partners. Inconsideration of the moderate to large effect sizes that were observed, futureresearch with a larger sample size may find important gender differences.

RELATIONSHIP STYLES AND PSYCHOSOCIAL OUTCOMES

Differences in relational esteem and relational depression were observedbetween relationship styles (i.e., same-sex romantic relationships, same-sexpassionate friendships, same-sex exclusively sexual relationships, heterosexualrelationships, or no participation in relationships). Relational-esteem wassignificantly higher for those participating in same-sex romantic relationshipsand heterosexual dating compared to those who did not participate in relation-ships. These differences are understandable as those engaging in datingrelationships will have more practice and greater opportunity to relate toanother person, thus making their relational-esteem higher than adolescentswho never have this opportunity. This provides additional evidence thatyouth learn important skills by engaging in dating and romantic relation-ships regardless if they are with the same- or opposite-sex (Diamond, 2003).Relational depression was significantly lower for those in same-sex romanticrelationships and same-sex intimate friendships compared to higher ratesfor those who did not participate in relationships. Both these relationshipsprovide emotional intimacy and social support that are important aspectsin relationship satisfaction not enjoyed by those who are withdrawn fromrelationships.

Although nonsignificant, large effect sizes were observed for pairwisecomparisons between all relationship styles (same-sex romantic relationships,same-sex exclusively sexual relationships, passionate friendships, and het-erosexual dating) and those who did not participate in relationships. Gen-eral trends suggested that those who did not participate in relationships hadthe most negative results across outcomes (e.g., relational esteem, relationaldepression, self-esteem). Several research studies have documented thenegative effects for sexual minorities who become isolated (Alexander,2001; Martin & Hetrick, 1988; Quinn, 2002; Sullivan & Wodarski, 2002), andit appears that isolation from relationship participation adds less positiverelational outcomes to this list. Of course, it is important to recognize thatthose not participating in relationships likely represent a heterogeneousgroup of adolescents who are purposefully abstaining, as well as those who,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uta

h St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

20 1

2 A

pril

2012

98 J. A. Glover et al.

despite desire, are unable to be in a relationship. Also, the large proportionof adolescent sexual minorities who reported engaging predominantly insame-sex romantic relationships in this study is encouraging; these findingssuggest that although alternative relationships may be important avenues fordeveloping the capacity to engage in future intimate relationships, adoles-cents may have more access to meaningful same-sex romantic relationshipsthan previously thought.

Summary

Overall, the results of this study support the tenets of social constructionisttheory and multidimensional models of identity development. Desire,behavior, and sexual orientation do not combine in a unitary construct; on thecontrary, there is much fluidity in attraction, behavior, and self-identification. Itseems important to note that although some benefits may be apparent inrelationship styles that promote emotional intimacy, overall engagement inany interpersonal relationship style shows positive benefits compare d tothose who do not participate. Taken together, adolescent sexual minoritydevelopment is a complex process that cannot be understood through ageneralized narrow model, but must rather acknowledge meaningfuldifferences among groups and individuals in order to fully capture youths’experiences.

The greatest contribution of future research in this area would be tofurther explore trends and significant findings of this study with larger, morerepresentative samples. Also, providing more in-depth assessment includingqualitative measures that assess personal meaning of developmental eventsand the motivation and intent behind them will provide a rich source ofdata that will supplement the current knowledge base. Finally, it is neces-sary to revisit the importance of influential variables such as age and,especially, gender in regard to sexual development. Despite the impor-tance of these factors, the current study was only able to assess the impactof these variables in a preliminary manner. Sample size limitations pre-cluded the inclusion of gender and age as factors in many analyses. Asfuture research continues, there will likely be more utility in disbandingheterosexual and homosexual research camps and looking at holisticsexual development. Such an approach will provide a potential twofoldbenefit. First, it is likely that important gender differences will continue tobe identified and give greater understanding of the adolescent sexualdevelopmental process that is likely unique for males and females. Sec-ondly, it will help move away from the stigmatization and exclusiveness ofconceptualizing sexual minority youth as different from heterosexualpeers and provide a normalized picture of development appropriate forthis population.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uta

h St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

20 1

2 A

pril

2012

Identity Development and Exploration 99

REFERENCES

Alexander, C. J. (2002). Homosexuality and risk for psychiatric disorders. Journal ofGay & Lesbian Social Services, 14, 103–107.

Anhalt, K., & Morris, T. L. (1998). Developmental and adjustment issues of gay,lesbian, and bisexual adolescents: A review of the empirical literature. ClinicalChild and Family Psychology Review, 1, 215–227.

Baltar, J. F. (1998). The Baltar Sexual Identity Inventory–Female Form: A multidi-mensional measure of sexual identity. Dissertation Abstracts International, 58,6799.

Brecher, E. M., & Brecher, J. (1986). Extracting valid sexological findings fromseverely flawed and biased population samples. Journal of Sex Research, 22,6–20.

Broido, E. M. (2000). Constructing identity: The nature and meaning of lesbian, gay,and bisexual identities. In R Perez (Ed.), Handbook of counseling and psycho-therapy with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients (pp. 13–33). Washington, DC:American Psychological Association.

Connolly, J., & Furman, W., & Konarski, R. (2000). The role of peers in theemergence of heterosexual romantic relationships in adolescence. ChildDevelopment, 71, 1395–1408.

Cox, S., & Gallois, C. (1996). Gay and lesbian identity development: A socialidentity perspective. Journal of Homosexuality, 30, 1–30.

D’Augelli, A. R., Hershberger, S. L., & Pinkington, N. W. (1998). Lesbian, gayand bisexual youth and their families: Disclosure of sexual orientation and itsconsequences. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 68, 361–370.

Diamond, L. (2003). Love matters; romantic relationships among sexual minorityadolescents. In P. Florsheim (Ed.), Adolescent romantic relations and sexualbehavior: Theory, research,and practical implications (pp. 85–107). Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum.

Diamond, L. M., & Dube, E. M. (2002). Friendship and attachment among hetero-sexual and sexual-minority youths: Does the gender of your friend matter?Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31, 155–166.

Diamond, L. M., & Lucas, S. (2004). Sexual-minority and heterosexual youths’ peerrelationships: Experiences, expectations, and implications for well-being.Journal of Research on Adolescence, 14, 313–340.

Diamond, L. M., & Savin-Williams, R. C. (2000). Explaining diversity in the develop-ment of same-sex sexuality among young women. In L. D. Garnets (Ed.),Psychological perspectives on lesbian, gay, and bisexual experiences.(pp. 130–148). New York: Columbia University Press.

Diamond, L. M., Savin-Williams, R. C., & Dube, E. M. (1999). Sex, dating, passion-ate friendships, and romance: Intimate peer relations among lesbian, gay,and bisexual adolescents. In W. Furman (Ed.), The development of romanticrelationships in adolescence (pp. 175–210). New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Ericksen, J. A. (1998). With enough cases, why do you need statistics? RevisitingKinsey’s methodology.Journal of Sex Research, 35, 132–140.

Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uta

h St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

20 1

2 A

pril

2012

100 J. A. Glover et al.

Fisher B., & Akman, J. S. (2002). Normal development in sexual minority youth. InB. Jones, & M. Hill (Eds.), Mental health issues in lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans-gender communities (pp. 1–16). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing.

Furman, W., Simon, V. A., Shaffer, L., & Bouchey, H. A. (2002). Adolescents’working models and styles for relationships with parents, friends, and romanticpartners.Child Development, 73, 241–255.

Hagborg, W. J. (1993). The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale and Harter’s Self-Perception Profile for Adolescents: A concurrent validity study. Psychology inthe Schools, 30, 132–136.

Holden, J. M., & Holden G. S. (1995). The Sexual Identity Profile: A multidimensionalbipolar model. Individual Psychology, 51, 102–113.

Horowitz, J. L., & Newcomb, M. D. (2001). A multidimensional approach tohomosexual identity. Journal of Homosexuality, 42, 1–19.

Johns, D. (2004). Sexual minority identity formation in an adult population. Journalof Homosexuality, 47, 81–90.

Kinnish, K. (2003). Gender differences in the flexibility of sexual orientation:Changes over time in sexual identity and multidimensional ratings of orientation.Dissertation Abstracts International, 64, 1496.

Kinsey, A.C. (1941). Homosexuality; criteria for a hormonal explanation of thehomosexual. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology, 1, 424–428.

Martin, A. D., & Hetrick, E. S. (1988). The stigmatization of the gay and lesbianadolescent. Journal of Homosexuality, 15, 163–183.

Owen, I. R. (1992). Applying social constructionism to psychotherapy.CounselingPsychology Quarterly, 5. 385–402.

Quinn, T. L. (2002). Sexual orientation and gender identity: An administrativeapproach to diversity. Child Welfare, 81, 913–921.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press.

Rosenberg, M. (1989). Self-concept research: A historical overview. Social Forces,68, 34–44.

Rothblum, E. D. (2000). Sexual orientation and sex in women’s lives: Conceptualand methodological issues. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 193–204.

Saltzburg, S. (2004). Learning that an adolescent child is gay or lesbian: The parentexperience.Social Work, 49, 109–119.

Savin-Williams, R. C. (1988). Theoretical perspectives accounting for adolescenthomosexuality. Journal of Adolescent Health Care, 9, 95–104.

Savin-Williams, R. C. (2005). The new gay teenager. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.

Savin-Williams, R. C., & Diamond, L. M. (2000). Sexual identity trajectories among sexual-minority youths: Gender comparisons. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29, 607–627.

Schaller, M. (2002). Any theory can be useful theory, even if it gets on ournerves.Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 199–203.

Sell, R. (1996). The Sell Assessment of Sexual Orientation: Background and scoring.Journal of Gay, Lesbian, & Bisexual Identity, 1, 295–310.

Snell, W. E., Jr., & Finney, P. D. (1993). Measuring relational aspects of theself: Relational-esteem, relational-depression, and relational-preoccupation.Contemporary Social Psychology, 17, 44–55.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uta

h St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

20 1

2 A

pril

2012

Identity Development and Exploration 101

Striepe, M. I., & Tolman, D. L. (2003). Mom, Dad, I’m straight: The coming out ofgender ideologies in adolescent sexual-identity development. Journal ofClinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 32, 523–530.

Sullivan, M., & Wodarski, J. S. (2002). Social alienation in gay youth. Journal ofHuman Behavior in the Social Environment, 5, 1–17.

Tharinger, D., & Wells, G. (2000). An attachment perspective on the developmentchallenges of gay and lesbian adolescents: The need for continuity of caregiv-ing from family and schools. School Psychology Review, 29, 158–172.

van Heeringen, C. & Vincke, J. (2000). Suicidal acts and ideation in homosexualand bisexual young people: A study of prevalence and risk factors. SocialPsychiatry & Psychiatric Epidemiology, 35, 494–499.

Zera, D. (1992). Coming of age in a heterosexist world: The development of gayand lesbian adolescents. Adolescence, 27, 849–855.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uta

h St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

20 1

2 A

pril

2012