Arch Sex Behav DOI 10.1007/s10508-014-0420-1

ORIGINAL PAPER

Sexual Fluidity and Related Attitudes and Beliefs Among Young Adults with a Same-Gender Orientation Sabra L. Katz-Wise • Janet S. Hyde

Received: 17 October 2013 / Revised: 1 April 2014 / Accepted: 3 August 2014  Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Abstract Little research has examined whether experiencing sexual fluidity—changes over time in attractions and sexual orientation identity—is related to specific cognitions. This study explored attitudes and beliefs among sexually fluid and nonsexually fluid individuals and developed two new measures of sexuality beliefs based on Diamond’s sexual fluidity research and Dweck’s psychological theory of intelligence beliefs. Participants were 188 female and male young adults in the United States with a same-gender orientation, ages 18–26 years. Participants completed an online questionnaire which assessed sexual fluidity in attractions and sexual orientation identity, attitudes toward bisexuality, sexuality beliefs, and demographics. Sexual fluidity in attractions was reported by 63 % of females and 50 % of males, with 48 % of those females and 34 % of those males reporting fluidity in sexual orientation identity. No significant gender differences in frequency of sexual fluidity were observed. Sexually fluid females had more positive attitudes toward bisexuality than non-sexually fluid females; however, no significant difference was observed for males. Females were more likely than males to endorse sexual fluidity beliefs and to believe that sexuality is changeable; and sexually fluid persons were more likely than non-sexually fluid persons to hold those two beliefs. Among males, non-sexually fluid

S. L. Katz-Wise (&) Division of Adolescent/Young Adult Medicine, Boston Children’s Hospital, 300 Longwood Ave., Boston, MA 02115, USA e-mail: [email protected] S. L. Katz-Wise Department of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA S. L. Katz-Wise
J. S. Hyde Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA

individuals were more likely than sexually fluid individuals to believe that sexuality is something an individual is born with. Females were more likely than males to endorse the belief that sexuality is influenced by the environment. Findings from this research link sexual fluidity with specific cognitions. Keywords Sexual fluidity
Sexual orientation
Sexual minority

Introduction Formation of sexual orientation is a normative part of development, typically beginning during adolescence and developing alongside attitudes and beliefs about sexuality. Although the majority of individuals develop a heterosexual sexual orientation, data from the U.S. National Survey of Family Growth indicated that up to 14 % of adult women and 8 % of adult men report some element of a same-gender orientation (Chandra, Mosher, Copen, & Sionean, 2011), which refers to attractions, sexual behavior, or a sexual orientation identity that is oriented toward same-gender others. Classic models of sexual orientation identity development proposed that sexual orientation forms prior to adolescence and remains stable over time (Bell, Weinberg, & Hammersmith, 1981; Money, 1988), but a growing body of research on sexual fluidity challenges these models for both females and males (Dickson, Paul, & Herbison, 2003; Dickson, van Roode, Camerson, & Paul, 2013; Katz-Wise, 2014; Kinnish, Strassberg, & Turner, 2005; Mock & Eibach, 2012; Ott, Corliss, Wypij, Rosario, & Austin, 2011; SavinWilliams, Joyner, & Rieger, 2012). Some researchers have begun to consider specific cognitions related to sexual fluidity, such as person-based attractions (e.g., Diamond, 2008b), but more research is needed to understand these associations in contemporary adolescents and young adults. The current study

123

Arch Sex Behav

investigated attitudes and beliefs related to sexual fluidity in attractions in a sample of female and male young adults with a same-gender orientation and examined two new measures of sexuality beliefs. Sexual Fluidity and Gender Sexual orientation can be conceptualized as amulti-dimensional construct comprising three main elements: attractions, sexual behavior, and sexual orientation identity (Institute of Medicine, 2011). Sexual fluidity has been defined as situation-dependent flexibility in sexual responsiveness which may manifest in changes in sexual orientation identity over time (Diamond, 2008b), with sexual responsiveness further operationalized as attractions. This definition implies that change in sexual orientation identity follows from change in attractions; for example, a female might identify as completely heterosexual and experience attractions only toward males, but later identify as bisexual after recognizing attractions toward both females and males. In the current study, sexual fluidity was measured based on this assumption and included measures of change in both attractions and sexual orientation identity. Sexual fluidity encompasses changes in sexual orientation in multiple directions. It may represent change in attractions or sexual orientation identity toward or away from same-gender orientation. Previous research has found evidence of sexual fluidity among heterosexually-identified and other-gender attracted individuals (Dickson et al., 2003, 2013; Katz-Wise, 2014; Kinnish et al., 2005; Mock & Eibach, 2012; Ott et al., 2011; Savin-Williams et al., 2012). This suggests that sexual fluidity is not limited to sexual minorities and may represent a coming out process for individuals who first indicate a heterosexual orientation but later indicate some element of samegender orientation (e.g., same-gender attractions, non-heterosexual sexual orientation identity). The assertion that sexual fluidity is situation-dependent (Diamond, 2008b) suggests the importance of considering the influence of social context on sexual fluidity experiences. For instance, an individual with exclusive other-gender attractions may never question their sexual orientation until becoming friends with a same-gender attracted individual. By the same token, a same-gender attracted individual may become more open to the possibility of othergender attraction if they are exposed to the notion of sexual fluidity in a college sexuality course. In this sense, one’s propensity toward sexual fluidity can never really be known until the ‘‘right’’environment or social context occurs. Although some researchers have suggested that fluidity is a general property of sexuality (e.g., Blumstein & Schwartz, 1990; Weinberg, Williams, & Pryor, 1994) and evidence of sexual fluidity exists in non-Western cultures (Wekker, 2006), sexual fluidity has been studied primarily among sexual minority females living in the United States (e.g., Diamond, 2008b; Rust, 1993). Recently, a number of studies using both

123

cross-sectional and longitudinal designs have begun to include both females and males and heterosexually-identified individuals in addition to sexual minorities. Whereas many of these studies have found greater frequency of sexual fluidity among females and sexual minorities, compared to males and heterosexual individuals (Dickson et al., 2003, 2013; Mock & Eibach, 2012; Savin-Williams et al., 2012), some studies have found the opposite pattern, with sexual minority males indicating greater likelihood of sexual fluidity than sexual minority females (Rosario, Schrimshaw, Hunter, & Braun, 2006) or no significant gender difference among some sexual orientation groups (Katz-Wise, 2014; Kinnish et al., 2005; Ott et al., 2011). Now that it has been established that both females and males experience sexual fluidity, more research is needed to understand whether specific attitudes and beliefs are related to sexual fluidity. Cognitions Related to Sexual Fluidity Diamond (2008b) suggested that the amount of sexual fluidity experienced by a female is determined by her initial propensity for sexual fluidity and her exposure to environmental, situational, and interpersonal factors that might trigger fluidity. An individual’s propensity for sexual fluidity may be related to holding particular attitudes about sexuality. Previous research has suggested that many individuals hold negative attitudes toward bisexuality (Israel & Mohr, 2004), particularly toward bisexual men (Eliason, 2001; Yost & Thomas, 2012). A recent study of heterosexual women’s and men’s beliefs found that participants used more negative stereotypes to evaluate bisexual men, compared to evaluations of heterosexual and gay men (Zivony & Lobell, 2014). In addition, bisexual individuals have reported experiencing biphobia—negative attitudes about bisexuality—from both heterosexual and sexual minority communities (Mulick & Wright, 2002). Little is known regarding how sexually fluid individuals view bisexuality. Sexual fluidity in attractions necessitates experiencing attractions toward more than one gender at some point, which could be classified as bisexual by some definitions. Exploring how sexual fluidity relates to attitudes toward bisexuality may shed light on attitudes toward sexual fluidity itself, which may be related to the likelihood of experiencing sexual fluidity. Social identity theory proposes that individuals hold more favorable views toward in-group members than toward outgroup members (Brown, 2000). Sexually fluid individuals may hold more favorable attitudes toward bisexual individuals because they are a natural in-group. On the other hand, individuals with exclusive same-gender or other-gender attractions may hold negative attitudes toward bisexuality until they are presented with a social context that allows sexual fluidity to occur. It is also possible that the relationship between attitudes toward bisexuality and sexual fluidity is bidirectional, such that positive attitudes toward bisexuality

Arch Sex Behav

may predict sexual fluidity or vice versa. As a first step toward understanding the relationship between sexual fluidity and attitudes toward bisexuality, the current study examined this association cross-sectionally among females and males with a same-gender orientation. An individual’s propensity for sexual fluidity may also be related to specific beliefs about the origin of sexuality. National survey results suggest that U.S. adults hold differing beliefs about the origins of sexual orientation as biologically or environmentally based. In 2011, 42 % of adults surveyed believed that being gay or lesbian was due to factors such as upbringing and environment whereas 40 % believed that being gay or lesbian was something an individual is born with (Gallup, 2011). Diamond’s (2008b) view of sexual fluidity as a propensity that is triggered by environmental factors suggests that a sexually fluid individual’s sexual orientation is both biological and environmentally based. Diamond (2005) measured biological (born with it) versus environmental influence views of sexuality in her longitudinal study of sexual fluidity among sexual minority females and found no significant differences in beliefs among stable lesbians (no change in sexual orientation identity), fluid lesbians (change in sexual orientation identity), and non-lesbians (bisexual and unlabeled). Sexual fluidity may also be related to other beliefs about sexuality. Diamond (2008b) has used the term person-based attractions to conceptualize the nature of attractions for women in her study who described being attracted to‘‘the person, not the gender’’(p. 172). In other words, individuals with person-based attractions consider characteristics other than gender to have a greater role in their attractions to others. Diamond (2005) measured person-based attraction beliefs in her study, finding that, compared to stable lesbians, fluid lesbians and non-lesbians were more likely to believe that their attractions were directed toward an individual rather than an individual’s gender. In the current study, we developed a scale of sexual fluidity beliefs based on Diamond’s (2003, 2005) findings, which included assessment of person-based attractions. Beliefsabout the changeability of sexual orientation mayalso be related to sexual fluidity and examining this belief may shed light on why some people experience sexual fluidity whereas others do not. For instance, if an individual initially believes that sexual orientation is changeable, they may be more open to changes in their own attractions and sexual orientation identity. An initial belief in the changeability of sexual orientation may also reflect an individual’s propensity for sexual fluidity. Dweck’s psychological theory of intelligence beliefs (Dweck, Chiu, & Hong, 1995) can be applied to beliefs about sexual fluidity. Dweck proposed two views of intelligence: an entity view suggests that intelligence is fixed and cannot change with effort whereas an incremental view suggests that intelligence is malleable and can change with effort. As applied to sexuality, an entity view suggests that sexuality is fixed and cannot change whereas an incremental view suggests that sexuality is malleable

and can change. An incremental view of sexuality may be more consistent with sexual fluidity than an entity view; this pattern was explored in the current study. An additional component of this belief deserving further attentionistheagent ofchange,that is,whethersexualorientation changesbyitselforwhetheranindividual hascontrol overchanging their sexual orientation. Dweck’s original theory was conceptualized in terms of the individual as the agent of change, as revealed in a sample item testing this theory:‘‘You have a certain amount of intelligence and you really can’t do much to change it’’ (Dweck et al., 1995, p. 269). The use of‘‘you’’in the wording of this item suggests that the individual is the agent of change. This theory can be expanded to reflect two different agents of change in beliefs about sexuality. An individual may hold an entity view, that sexuality is fixed or that one cannot change one’s sexuality, or an incremental view, that sexuality can change or that one can change one’s sexuality. Views of sexuality may not be consistent across agents; for instance, an individual may have an incremental view when sexual orientation is the agent of change, but an entity view when the individual is the agent of change. In other words, an individual may believe that their sexuality can change, but not that they themselves have control over the changes that occur. In the current study we developed a new measure of sexuality beliefs based on Dweck’s theory of intelligence beliefs, which included both sexual orientation and the individual as agents of change.

The Current Study Previously, we demonstrated that females and males were similarly likely to experience sexual fluidity in attractions and sexual orientation identity and we documented associations among sexual fluidity in attractions, specific elements of sexual orientation, and traditional conceptualizations of sexual orientation identity development (Katz-Wise, 2014). However, more research is needed to explore related cognitions as an important step toward understanding why some individuals experience sexual fluidity while others do not. In the current study, we conducted new analyses using data from the same sample to investigate attitudes and beliefs related to sexual fluidity in attractions and examined two new measures of sexuality beliefs based on Diamond’s (2003, 2005) sexual fluidity research and Dweck et al.’s (1995) theory of intelligence. Sexually fluid individuals were expected to hold more positive attitudes toward bisexuality and to endorse more sexual fluidity-related beliefs than non-sexually fluid individuals. In addition, sexually fluid individuals were expected to be more likely than non-sexually fluid individuals to believe that sexuality is influenced by environment and less likely to believe sexuality was something they were born with. Sexually fluid individuals were also expected to hold an incremental view of sexuality when both sexual orientation and the individual were agents of change whereas

123

Arch Sex Behav Table 1 Sample demographics and recruitment sources by gender for 118 female and 70 male young adults Measure

non-sexually fluid individuals were expected to hold an entity view of sexuality.

Females

Males

21.49 (2.44)

21.25 (2.57)

Method

White

80.4 (86)

86.6 (58)

Participants

Black/African American

1.9 (2)

0 (0)

Asian

5.6 (6)

3.0 (2)

Latino/Hispanic

1.9 (2)

4.5 (3)

Native American

0.9 (1)

1.5 (1)

Mixed ethnicity

9.3 (10)

4.5 (3)

Completely heterosexual/straight

14.4 (17)

2.9 (2)

Mostly heterosexual/straight

13.6 (16)

2.9 (2)

Bisexual

19.5 (23)

11.4 (8)

Mostly lesbian/gay

9.3 (11)

12.9 (9)

Completely lesbian/gay

16.1 (19)

54.3 (38)

Queer

15.3 (18)

7.1 (5)

Individual demographics Age (years, M/SD) Race/ethnicity (%, n)

Sexual orientation identity (%, n)

Questioning/unsure

4.2 (5)

4.3 (3)

Unlabeled

7.6 (9)

4.3 (3)

Primary Midwestern state

86.9 (93)

89.7 (61)

Other U.S. state

13.1 (14)

10.3 (7)

Location (%, n)

Current level of education (%, n) Some high school/high school degree

5.6 (6)

6.0 (4)

Some college/college degree

79.4 (85)

80.6 (54)

Some grad or prof school/grad or prof degree

15.0 (16)

13.4 (9)

No

37.3 (38)

33.9 (21)

Yes

62.7 (64)

66.1 (41)

Current student (%, n)

Family demographics Mother’s level of education (%, n) Some high school/high school degree

21.5 (23)

32.4 (22)

Some college/college degree

52.3 (56)

55.9 (38)

Some grad or prof school/grad or prof degree

26.2 (28)

11.8 (8)

Father’s level of education (%, n) Some high school/high school degree

25.7 (27)

33.8 (23)

Some college/college degree

47.6 (50)

42.6 (29)

Some grad or prof school/grad or prof degree

26.7 (28)

23.5 (16)

No

76.4 (81)

74.6 (50)

Yes

23.6 (25)

25.4 (17)

Age at parental divorce (M/SD)

9.72 (6.31)

9.59 (5.87)

UW-Madison psychology department

15.0 (16)

10.4 (7)

Women’s/gender studies department

12.1 (13)

4.5 (3)

LGBT college/university/community center

12.1 (13)

11.9 (8)

Email/listserv

30.8 (33)

25.4 (17)

Parental divorce (%, n)

Recruitment Sources (%, n)

Friend

15.0 (16)

28.4 (19)

Other

15.0 (16)

19.4 (13)

Sample sizes associated with frequencies are based on the number of participants who responded to a particular item, excluding missing data. Age at parental divorce is reported only for participants who responded that their parents were divorced. Other recruitment sources included gender/sexuality class, flyer, Facebook post

123

Study participants were 188 young adults (118 females, 70 males) with a same-gender orientation, ages 18–26 years (M = 21.40, SD = 2.48). Participants were excluded from the current analyses if they reported a transgender or‘‘other’’gender identity (n = 11) or lived outside of the United States (n = 1). Participants were required to meet at least one of the following criteria: (1) identify with a sexual orientation other than heterosexual, (2) prefer not to label their sexual orientation, or (3) experience past attractions to someone of the same gender or to both females and males. Sample demographic information is shown in Table 1. Multiple methods of recruitment were utilized. Undergraduate students identifying as mostly heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual/gay/lesbian, or questioning/unsure on an introductory psychology mass survey at a large U.S. midwestern university were contacted for participation in this study. Recruitment emails were sent to instructors of gender and sexuality courses, women’s and gender studies department listservs at 15 colleges and universities, and 28 LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer) campus and community centers in cities across a midwestern U.S. state. Study information was also posted on Craigslist.org and relevant Facebook pages targeting sexual minority youth. Flyers were posted around the campus of a large midwestern university and the surrounding mid-sized city, particularly in locations where sexual minority youth typically frequent (e.g., gay bars, queer theater spaces). The recruitment materials stated the eligibility criteria and asked for volunteers to participate in a study investigating romantic and sexual attractions and behavior. The recruitment email contained the following additional text: ‘‘More and more people are seeing sexuality as something fluid that changes over our lifetimes rather than something fixed, and we would like to learn more about this. With this information, we will understand more about how people form a sexual orientation identity and why sexual orientation might or might not change over time. We hope this knowledge will improve the lives of young adults with various sexual identities, because we will understand more about their experiences.’’ Recruitment emails and electronic study postings encouraged individuals to pass information about the study on to other potential participants. All emails contained a URL link to the online survey and flyers asked potential participants to contact the investigator for more information. This study was approved by the institutional review board at the investigators’ institution.

Arch Sex Behav

Measures

Sexual Fluidity Beliefs Scale

Participants completed an online survey, which included the following measures: sexual fluidity in attractions and sexual orientation identity, attitudes toward bisexuality, sexuality beliefs, and demographics. In the survey, attitudes toward bisexuality and sexuality beliefs were assessed prior to the assessment of sexual orientation identity and sexual fluidity. Other measures included in the survey (e.g., assessment of sexual orientation dimensions, sexual orientation identity development) were not related to the current study and are reported elsewhere (Katz-Wise, 2012, 2014). Separate female and male versions of the survey were created to accommodate different versions of the attitudes toward bisexuality measure.

A 5-item Sexual Fluidity Beliefs Scale was developed for the current study with one item developed by Diamond (2005), (1)‘‘I feel my own sexual identity (how I label my sexual orientation) is something I chose’’ and four additional items based on themes related to sexual fluidity that Diamond (2003) found in her qualitative interviews: (2) ‘‘For me, I believe romantic love depends on the person, not the gender’’ (love depends on the person vs. gender), (3)‘‘I don’t know who (which gender) I will be attracted to in the future’’ (uncertainty about future attractions), (4)‘‘I don’t know how I will label my sexual orientation in the future’’(uncertainty about future sexual orientation identity), and (5) ‘‘I feel my sexuality is fluid (changeable)’’ (beliefs that sexuality is fluid). Item 1 was measured on a scale from 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree) and Items 2–5 were measured on a scale from 1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree). Item 1 was transformed to match the response scale for Items 2–5 and a scale score was created by averaging the items; higher scores indicated greater endorsement of sexual fluidity-related beliefs. In the current study, reliability was a = .86 for females and a = .85 for males.

Sexual Fluidity in Attractions and Sexual Orientation Identity A sexual fluidity measure was developed for the current study. Participants were asked the following item to assess sexual fluidity in attractions:‘‘Have you ever experienced a change in attractions to others over time (e.g., feeling only attracted to women, then feeling attracted to both women and men)?’’(yes, no). If participants answered yes to this item, they were asked (1) to report the approximate age when they experienced the initial change (years), (2) ‘‘Did the change in attractions result in a change in the labels you use to describe your sexual orientation?’’(yes, no), and (3)‘‘Have you experienced more than one change in attractions to others over time?’’ (yes, no). If participants answered yes to the item assessing multiple changes in attractions, they were asked to report the approximate number of changes experienced. An additional item assessed the likelihood of future changes,‘‘How likely is it that your attractions or sexual identity will change in the future?’’ which was measured on a scale from 1 (extremely unlikely) to 5 (extremely likely).

Attitudes Toward Bisexuality Attitudes toward bisexuality were assessed using the Attitudes Regarding Bisexuality Scale-Female version (ARBSF) and Male version (ARBS-M) (Mohr & Rochlen, 1999). Each scale consisted of 12 items, with two subscales: stability (e.g., ‘‘Most women who call themselves bisexual are temporarily experimenting with their sexuality’’) and tolerance (e.g.,‘‘Bisexuality in men is immoral’’). Items were measured on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), with higher scores indicating more positive attitudes toward bisexuality. Reliability in a previous study ranged from a = .85 to .93 for both subscales (Mohr & Rochlen, 1999). In the current study, reliability for all items was a = .69 for females and a = .73 for males.

Sexuality Origin Beliefs Two beliefs about the origin of sexuality were assessed separately using items developed by Diamond (2005): (1)‘‘I feel my sexuality is something I was born with’’and (2)‘‘I feel my sexuality has been influenced by my environment.’’ Items were measured on a scale from 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree). Entity Versus Incremental Views of Sexual Orientation An 8-item Entity versus Incremental Views of Sexual Orientation measure was developed for the current study based on Dweck et al.’s (1995) psychological theory of intelligence beliefs. Dweck et al.’s original items were worded as follows: (1)‘‘You have a certain amount of intelligence and you can’t do much to change it’’; (2) ‘‘Your intelligence is something about you that you can’t change very much’’; and (3) ‘‘You can learn new things, but you can’t really change your basic intelligence.’’ The measure was adapted to views of sexual orientation and extended to two subscales to reflect the agent of change. Four items were worded such that sexual orientation was the agent of change: (1) ‘‘A person’s sexual orientation is something very basic about them that can’t change’’; (2) A person can have a sexual partner that does not match their sexual orientation (e.g., a gay man who has a female sexual partner), but their real sexual orientation can’t really change’’; (3) No matter what a person’s sexual identity (how they label their sexual orientation, e.g., gay) is, it can always change quite a bit’’; and (4) A person’s sexual orientation can change substantially.’’ Four items were worded

123

Arch Sex Behav

such that the individual was the agent of change: (1)‘‘A person’s sexual orientation is something very basic about them that they can’t change’’; (2)‘‘A person can have a sexual partner that does not match their sexual orientation, but they can’t change their real sexual orientation.’’; (3)‘‘No matter what a person’s sexual identity is, they can always change it quite a bit.’’ and (4) ‘‘A person can substantially change their sexual orientation.’’Items were measured on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). A scale score was created by averaging the items; higher scores indicated an incremental view, that sexuality can change or that one can change one’s sexuality; lower scores indicated an entity view, that sexuality is fixed or that one cannot change one’s sexuality. For females, reliability was a = .80 for the sexual orientation-based scale and a = .88 for the person-based scale. For males, reliability was a = .86 for the sexual orientation-based scale and a = .91 for the person-based scale.

Table 2 Descriptive statistics for all measures by gender for 118 female and 70 male young adults Measure

Females

Males

62.7 (74)

50.0 (35)

Sexual fluidity Change in attractions (%, n)

Change in sexual orientation identity (%, n) 48.3 (57)

34.3 (24)

[1 change in attractions (%, n)

21.2 (25)

18.6 (13)

Number of changes (M/SD)

2.58 (1.03)

2.75 (1.14)

Age of first change (years; M/SD)

17.54 (2.53) 15.59 (4.18)

Likelihood of future changes in attractions/ 2.17 (1.11) sexual orientation identity (M/SD)

1.67 (0.96)

Attitudes and beliefs Attitudes toward bisexuality (M/SD)

4.39 (0.66)

4.31 (0.66)

Stability

4.08 (0.84)

3.83 (0.88)

Tolerance

4.71 (0.64)

4.78 (0.62)

Sexual fluidity beliefs scale (M/SD)

4.35 (1.45)

3.29 (1.56)

Sexuality influenced by environment

3.06 (1.19)

2.66 (1.25)

Sexuality born with

4.05 (0.56)

4.24 (0.96)

Sexuality origin beliefs (M/SD)

Demographics Individual demographics included age (month/year of birth), ethnicity (white/Caucasian, black/African American, Asian, Latino/Hispanic, Native American, mixed ethnicity, other), current level of education, and the city/state in which the participant currently lived. Family demographics included parental level of education, parental divorce, and age of the participant at the time of divorce. Education variables were measured categorically with response options ranging from some high school to graduate/professional degree. Procedure The online survey was administered between January and April 2011. Participants accessed the survey using the URL link provided in the recruitment email. They were directed to the female or male version based on their answer to an item assessing current gender identity. Participants gave consent at the start of the survey and completed it using their own computer. Duration of survey completion ranged from 20 to 60 min. As part of the larger study, participants were asked to consent to be contacted for follow-up interviews and to provide contact information. Results from the qualitative portion of the study are detailed elsewhere (Katz-Wise, 2012). Following completion of the survey, participants were entered into a random drawing for one of five $20 gift certificates to Amazon.com. Analytic Plan Scale scores were calculated and reliability statistics were computed for each scale and subscale. Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations were computed for each of the measures. Participants were classified as sexually fluid if they responded yes and non-sexually fluid if they responded no to

123

Entity vs. incremental views of sexual orientation (M/SD) Sexual orientation-based

4.09 (1.37)

3.40 (1.54)

Person-based

3.41 (1.55)

2.67 (1.50)

Frequencies for change in sexual orientation identity labels and indication of more than one change in attractions are reported only for participants who indicated a change in attractions. Number of changes in attractions (range, 1–5.5 changes) and age of first change (range, 8– 25 years) are reported only for participants who indicated more than one change in attractions. Higher scores represent greater likelihood of future changes in attractions/sexual orientation identity (range, 1–5), more positive attitudes toward bisexuality (range, 1–5), greater endorsement of sexual fluidity beliefs (range, 1–7) and sexuality origin beliefs (range, 1–5), and an incremental view of sexuality rather than an entity view (range, 1–7)

the item measuring sexual fluidity in attractions: ‘‘Have you ever experienced a change in attractions to others over time (e.g., feeling only attracted to women, then feeling attracted to both women and men)?’’ Differences between sexual fluidity groups (sexually fluid vs. non-sexually fluid) and between gender groups (female vs. male) were tested using t tests, chi square tests, univariate tests (ANOVA), and multivariate tests (MANOVA), where appropriate. For univariate and multivariate tests, Type III sums of squares were used to account for unequal sample sizes in females compared with males. Cohen’s d was calculated to determine effect sizes for gender and sexual fluidity group differences.

Results Descriptive statistics are shown by gender in Table 2, correlations between the measures are shown by gender in Table 3,

Arch Sex Behav

and descriptive statistics and comparisons by gender and sexual fluidity are shown in Table 4. Sexual Fluidity To identify sexual fluidity groups for comparison on related attitudes and beliefs, frequencies were computed for sexual fluidity items (Table 2) and comparisons were made between females and males.1 No significant gender differences were found regarding change in attractions or sexual orientation identity. Change in attractions was reported by 63 % of females and 50 % of males; of those reporting a change in attractions, 48 % of females and 34 % of males reported that the change in attractions resulted in a change in sexual orientation identity labels used to describe their sexual orientation. Multiple changes in attractions were reported by 21 % of females (M = 2.58 changes) and 19 % of males (M = 2.75 changes) who reported one change. Although gender differences were not significant, a small effect size for gender was found for both variables (d = 0.25 for change in attractions, d = 0.30 for change in sexual orientation identity), indicating that females were slightly more likely than males to report sexual fluidity. The only significant gender differences for sexual fluidity were age of first change in attractions and likelihood of future changes in attractions and sexual orientation identity. Age of first change in attractions was older among females (M = 17.54 years) than among males (M = 15.59 years), t(103) = 2.98, p = .004; however, males first experienced a change in attractions at a wider range of ages (SD = 4.18), compared to females (SD = 2.53). Both females and males responded that future changes in attractions and sexual orientation identity were not very likely, with females believing that future changes were more likely (M = 2.17) than males (M = 1.67), t(181) = 3.08, p = .002. A moderate effect size for gender was found for both variables (d = 0.45 for age of first change, d = 0.46 for likelihood of future change).

toward bisexuality in general (females: M = 4.39; males: M = 4.31) and specifically regarding tolerance of bisexuality (females: M = 4.71; males: M = 4.78). However, females had slightly more positive attitudes toward bisexuality as a stable identity, compared to males (females: M = 4.08; males: M = 3.83) (Table 2). To test the hypothesis that sexually fluid individuals had more positive attitudes toward bisexuality compared to nonsexually fluid individuals, two 2-group (Sexual Fluidity in Attractions: Fluid vs. Non-Fluid) MANOVAs were conducted with the subscale scores for stability and tolerance as the outcome variables. Among females, the overall MANOVA was significant, F(2, 115) = 6.27, p = .003; however, the tests of univariate effects revealed that only the tolerance subscale was significant, F(1, 116) = 12.64, p\.001. Sexually fluid females were more tolerant of bisexuality (M = 4.86) than non-sexually fluid females (M = 4.45), but there was no significant difference between the sexual fluidity groups regarding beliefs about bisexualityasa stable identity (sexually fluid females:M = 4.19; non-sexually fluid females: M = 3.89) (Table 4). Among males, no significant difference was found between the two sexual fluidity groups regarding attitudes toward bisexuality. Sexual Fluidity Beliefs Scale

Attitudes and Beliefs

To test whether sexual fluidity beliefs differed by gender and sexual fluidity in attractions, a 2 (Gender: Female vs. Male) X 2 (Sexual Fluidity in Attractions: Fluid vs. Non-Fluid) ANOVA was conducted with the Sexual Fluidity Beliefs Scale score as the outcome variable. The results indicated significant main effects for gender, F(1, 184) = 19.08, p\.0001, and sexual fluidity, F(1, 184) = 12.32, p = .001, but not a significant interaction (Table 4). As expected, females indicated greater sexual fluidity beliefs (M = 4.35) than males (M = 3.29) (Table 2), and sexually fluid individuals indicated greater sexual fluidity beliefs (females: M = 4.64; males: M = 3.67) than non-sexually fluid individuals (females: M = 3.86; males: M = 2.90). Moderate effect sizes were found for gender (d = 0.66) and sexual fluidity (d = 0.52) (Table 4).

Attitudes Toward Bisexuality

Sexuality Origin Beliefs

Analyses to test for gender differences in attitudes toward bisexuality were not conducted and analyses to test for sexual fluidity group differences were conducted separately by gender because females and males completed different versions of the scale (ARBS-F and ARBS-M). Descriptively, females and males indicated similarly positive attitudes

To test the hypothesis that sexually fluid individuals were more likely than non-sexually fluid individuals to believe that sexuality is influenced by the environment and less likely to believe their sexuality is something they were born with, two 2 (Gender: Female vs. Male) X 2 (Sexual Fluidity in Attractions: Fluid vs. Non-Fluid) ANOVAs were conducted, with items testing the two beliefs as separate outcomes. The results indicated a significant main effect for gender for the belief that sexuality is influenced by the environment, F(1, 184) = 5.64, p = .02, but no significant main effect for sexual fluidity and no significant interaction (Table 4). Females were more

1

Descriptive statistics reported for sexual fluidity differ slightly from those reported in Katz-Wise (2014) because the sample for the current study was restricted to individuals who did not report a transgender or ‘‘other’’gender identity.

123

Arch Sex Behav Table 3 Correlations among attitudes and beliefs measures for 118 female and 70 male young adults Measures

1

2

1. Bisexuality attitudes

3

.92**

4

7

8

.86**

.31**

-.11

-.04

.12

.27**

-.13

-.07

.21*

.29**

-.05

.02

.10

-.17

.19*

-.40**

.21*

.92**

3. Bisexuality attitudes—Tolerance

.83**

.56**

4. Sexual fluidity beliefs scale

.19

.27*

.04

5. Sexuality origin belief—Influenced by environment

.09

.14

.01

6. Sexuality origin belief—Born with

.28*

.16

.38**

8. Entity vs. incremental—Person-based

6

.58**

2. Bisexuality attitudes—Stability

7. Entity vs. incremental—Sexual orientation-based

5

.53** -.31**

-.03

-.31*

-.25**

.07

.13

-.04

.62**

.48**

-.52**

-.06

.01

-.14

.50**

.42**

-.39**

-.07 .01 -.15 .20* .38** -.35** .66**

.61**

Bivariate correlations for females are above the diagonal and correlations for males are below the diagonal * p\.05; ** p\.01

Table 4 Comparison of sexually fluid and non-sexually fluid female (N = 118) and male (N = 70) young adults on attitudes and beliefs Females Measure

Sexually fluid (n = 74)

Males Non-sexually Sexually fluid (n = 44) fluid (n = 35)

Females vs. males Non-sexually Sig. test fluid (n = 35)

Sexually fluid vs. non-sexually fluid

Gender X sexual fluidity

d

Sig. test

d

Sig. test

Attitudes toward bisexuality 4.53 (0.52) 4.17 (0.80)

4.43 (0.57) 4.18 (0.72)

–

–

F(1, 116) = 8.64**

0.56 –

Stability

4.19 (0.79) 3.89 (0.91)

3.99 (0.89) 3.68 (0.84)

–

–

F(1, 116) = 3.70

0.37 –

Tolerance

4.86 (0.39) 4.45 (0.85)

4.87 (0.40) 4.69 (0.77)

–

–

F(1, 116) = 12.64*

0.68 –

Sexual fluidity beliefs scale

4.64 (1.30) 3.86 (1.56)

3.67 (1.59) 2.90 (1.45)

F(1, 184) = 19.08** 0.66 F(1, 184) = 12.32** 0.52 F\1

Sexuality influenced by environment

2.95 (1.22) 3.25 (1.14)

2.69 (1.28) 2.63 (1.24)

F(1, 184) = 5.64*

0.36 F\1

0.10 F\1

Sexuality born with

4.08 (0.94) 4.00 (1.01)

3.97 (0.99) 4.51 (0.85)

F(1, 183) = 1.93

0.21 F(1, 183) = 2.51

0.23 F(1, 183) = 4.63*

Sexuality origin beliefs

Entity vs. incremental views of sexual orientation Sexual orientation-based

4.23 (1.47) 3.86 (1.14)

3.63 (1.43) 3.16 (1.62)

F(1, 182) = 10.01** 0.48 F(1, 182) = 4.47*

0.31 F\1

Person-based

3.38 (1.67) 3.44 (1.34)

2.76 (1.43) 2.57 (1.59)

F(1, 182) = 10.04** 0.48 F\1

0.04 F\1

For all variables with a mean, SD is in parentheses. Higher scores represent more positive attitudes toward bisexuality (range 1–5), greater endorsement of sexual fluidity beliefs (range 1–7) and sexuality origin beliefs (range 1–5), and an incremental view of sexuality rather than an entity view (range 1–7). Significance tests and effect sizes are not reported for gender differences in attitudes toward bisexuality because females and males completed different versions of the scale. Sexual fluidity group differences in attitudes toward bisexuality are presented for females only; no significant differences were found for males. Univariate and multivariate tests with Type III sums of squares were used to assess group differences. Cohen’s d is reported for effect sizes; positive values indicate higher scores for females than males and for sexually-fluid than non-sexually fluid individuals * p\.05, ** p\.01

likely (M = 3.06) than males (M = 2.66) to endorse the belief that sexuality is influenced by the environment. A small effect size was found for gender (d = 0.36). Analyses to test the belief that sexuality is something one is born with revealed a significant interaction between gender and sexual fluidity, F(1, 183) = 4.63, p = .03, but no significant main effects for gender or sexual fluidity (Table 4). Among females, no significant sexual fluidity group difference was found, but among males, non-sexually fluid individuals were more likely to endorse this belief (M = 4.51) than sexually fluid individuals (M = 3.97). Small effect sizes were found for gender (d = 0.21) and sexual fluidity (d = 0.23 for sexual fluidity). Therefore, the

123

hypothesis was partially supported for the belief that sexuality is something a person is born with. Entity Versus Incremental Views of Sexual Orientation To test the hypothesis that sexually fluid individuals were more likely than non-sexually fluid individuals to have an incremental view of sexual orientation, a 2 (Gender: Female vs. Male) X 2 (Sexual Fluidity in Attractions: Fluid vs. NonFluid) MANOVA was conducted with the sexual orientationbased and person-based subscale scores as outcome variables. The overall MANOVA revealed significant main

Arch Sex Behav

effects for gender, F(2, 181) = 6.05, p = .003, and sexual fluidity, F(2, 181) = 3.27, p = .04, but not a significant interaction. The tests of univariate effects for gender revealed significant main effects for the sexual orientation-based scale, F(1, 182) = 10.01, p = .002, and for the person-based scale, F(1, 182) = 10.04, p = .002 (Table 4). For both scales, females indicated a view that was more incremental (sexual orientation-based: M = 4.09; person-based: M = 3.41) than males (sexual orientation-based: M = 3.40; person-based: M = 2.67; Table 2). The effect sizes for gender were moderate (d = 0.48 for both subscales). In other words, females were more likely than males to endorse the view that sexuality is changeable and that a person can change their sexuality. The tests of univariate effects for sexual fluidity revealed a significant main effect only for the sexual orientation-based scale, F(1, 182) = 4.47, p = .04 (Table 4). Sexually fluid individuals indicated a more incremental view (females: M = 4.23; males: M = 3.63) that one’s sexuality could change, than nonsexually fluid individuals (females: M = 3.86; males: M = 3.16). The effect size for sexual fluidity was small (d = 0.31). Thus, the hypothesis was supported.

Discussion The purpose of this study was to explore whether several cognitions and attitudes were related to sexual fluidity in attractions among female and male young adults with a samegender orientation, and to examine two new scales to measure sexual fluidity-related beliefs and entity versus incremental views of sexual orientation. Attitudes Toward Bisexuality One aim of this study was to examine associations between sexual fluidity in attractions and attitudes toward bisexuality. Sexually fluid females held more positive attitudes toward bisexuality than non-sexually fluid females, but there were no significant differences among males. Bisexuality may be consistent with sexual fluidity because it includes attraction toward more than one gender. We found previously that sexually fluid females in this sample were more likely than non-sexually fluid females to identify with sexual identities that indicated orientation toward more than one gender (mostly heterosexual, bisexual, mostly lesbian) (Katz-Wise, 2014). Social identity theory proposes that individuals view in-group members more favorably than out-group members (Brown, 2000). It is possible that sexually fluid females view bisexual individuals as in-group members, which may account for their positive attitudes toward bisexuality. Although sexually fluid females were more likely than non-sexually fluid females to indicate tolerance of bisexuality, there was no significant difference between the groups regarding beliefs about bisexuality as a stable identity. This

finding may reflect larger societal and cultural stereotypes about bisexuality as a transitional identity that may be held by sexually fluid and non-sexually fluid individuals alike. Attitudes toward bisexuality were unrelated to sexual fluidity in attractions among males, which represented a key gender difference in the findings. Consistent with previous research (Yost & Thomas, 2012), females held more positive attitudes toward bisexuality than males across sexual fluidity groups. Researchers have suggested that gender-role conflict in males is related to fears of femininity and homosexuality (O’Neil, Helms, Gable, David, & Wrightsman, 1986), and that a key component of conformity to masculine norms is disdain for homosexuals (Mahalik et al., 2003). Negative attitudes toward bisexuality among males may reflect fears of homosexuality as a threat to masculinity. Although males held more negative attitudes than females toward bisexuality, males did report relatively positive attitudes toward male bisexuality overall; the average score for males was 4.31 on a scale of 1 to 5, with higher scores representing more positive attitudes. This was somewhat surprising, considering previous findings regarding negative attitudes toward bisexuality—particularly toward bisexual men—among gay and lesbian individuals in addition to the general heterosexual population (Mulick & Wright, 2002). This level of positivity may reflect changing societal attitudes toward bisexuality. However, only 11 % of males in the current sample identified as bisexual compared to 20 % of females, suggesting that although males have positive views of bisexuality, they may not feel as comfortable adopting a bisexual label. Sexual Fluidity-Related Beliefs Another goal of this study was to examine a new scale to measure sexual fluidity-related beliefs based on Diamond’s (2003, 2005) research. Sexually fluid individuals were more likely than non-sexually fluid individuals to endorse sexual fluidity-related beliefs, including beliefs that romantic love depends on the individual rather than the individual’s gender and uncertainty about future attractions and sexual orientation identity. In her longitudinal study, Diamond (2008b) found that approximately half of her sample reported having some experience with person-based attractions. Diamond proposed that person-based attractions represent either a fourth sexual orientation, describing a category of individuals for whom gender is not important to attraction or desire, or an independent characteristic of sexuality that all individuals possess to a certain degree, similar to sex drive (Diamond, 2008a). Results from the current study suggest that females endorsed more sexual fluidity-related beliefs and may possess a greater degree of person-based attractions compared to males. A more detailed investigation of sexual fluidityrelated beliefs, particularly regarding the directionality of beliefs predicting sexual fluidity or vice versa, would be a fruitful area of future research.

123

Arch Sex Behav

Entity Versus Incremental Views of Sexual Orientation A new scale of entity versus incremental views of sexual orientation was created for this study. Gender and sexual fluidity differences on this scale were noteworthy, particularly with regards to the agent of change. Females were more likely than males to endorse the view that sexual orientation is changeable (sexual orientation as the agent of change) and that an individual can change their sexual orientation (the individual as the agent of change). Gender differences in beliefs about the changeability of sexual orientation could help to explain why some previous studies have found females to be more sexually fluid than males although this gender difference was not supported in the current study. These findingsmay also be related togenderdifferencesin sexual orientation identity in the current sample, such that males were more likely to identify as completely gay whereas females identified across a range of sexual identities. Gender differences in sexual orientation identity may reflect beliefs about the changeability of sexuality, such that non-exclusive sexual orientation identities (e.g., mostly heterosexual, bisexual, queer) may have more room for potential change than exclusive sexual orientation identities (e.g., completely heterosexual, completely gay/lesbian). Sexual fluidity group differences were found only when sexual orientation was the agent of change, such that sexually fluid individuals were more likely than non-sexually fluid individuals to endorse the view that one’s sexuality could change, but they did not believe they had control over their sexuality changing. This finding was consistent with Diamond’s (2008b) research suggesting that sexually fluid individuals do not perceive sexuality changes to be in their control. Entity versus incremental views of sexual orientation may be related to essentialist beliefs about the origin of sexuality. In particular, views that are more entity-based may indicate essentialist beliefs. Researchers have proposed that essentialist beliefs about homosexuality, which have been linked to antigay attitudes, have a three-factor structure: (1) beliefs that homosexuality is biologically based, immutable, and fixed in early life; (2) beliefs that homosexuality is universal both cross-culturally and historically; and (3) beliefs that homosexuality is binary and deeply rooted (Haslam & Levy, 2006). In the current study, compared to females and sexually fluid males, non-sexually fluid males had the most entity-oriented views of sexuality, consistent with essentialist beliefs about the nature of homosexuality. Non-sexually fluid males were also more likely than sexually fluid males to endorse the belief that sexuality was something they were born with and males across both sexual fluidity groups were less likely than females to believe that sexuality was influenced by the environment. Strengths and Limitations This study examined attitudes and beliefs related to sexual fluidity in attractions among female and male young adults with a

123

same-gender orientation. The inclusion of both females and males allowed for examination of gender differences and similarities in attitudes and beliefs related to sexual fluidity. A secondary goal of this study was to develop two new measures of sexuality beliefs based on Diamond’s (2003, 2005) sexual fluidity research and Dweck et al.’s (1995) psychological theory of intelligence beliefs, which was extended to include a distinction between two possible agents of change (sexual orientation vs. person). Findings from the new Entity versus Incremental Views of Sexual Orientation measure suggest that beliefs about sexuality as changeable may be a key characteristic of individuals who report sexual fluidity. Both scales showed good reliability among females and males in the current sample. The next step will be to validate these scales so they may be used more widely to assess sexuality beliefs. A number of limitations should be mentioned. First, the sample was largely white (83 %), although the racial/ethnic composition of the sample was representative of the region from which participants were recruited. Future research would benefit from the use of more diverse samples. Second, the study design was cross-sectional, which may be problematic for determining the direction of the relationship between attitudes and beliefs and sexual fluidity in attractions. The use of longitudinal methods will be crucial to clarify the direction of these associations. Third, movement from other-gender attractions to same- or both-gender attractions may represent a sexual minority coming out process. Some researchers consider sexual fluidity to be a change (or changes) occurring after an individual ‘‘comes out’’as a sexual minority. However, this is complicated by the fact that heterosexually-identified individuals also report experiencing sexual fluidity (Dickson et al., 2003; Katz-Wise, 2014; Kinnish et al., 2005; Ott et al., 2011); such as initially experiencing exclusive other-gender attractions, then experiencing attractions toward both genders while remaining heterosexually-identified. The current study recruited participants based on past same-gender attractions or non-heterosexual sexual orientation identity; therefore, some individuals were eligible to participate even if they were heterosexuallyidentified. The notion of sexual fluidity as a coming out process for heterosexuals assumes that all sexual minorities were originally attracted to other-gender individuals, since reporting a change in attractions assumes that an individual had attractions to begin with. Therefore, sexual minorities with exclusive same-gender attractions would not report sexual fluidity. The assessment of sexual fluidity in attractions used in the current study likely captured anyone who had experienced previous changes in attractions, regardless of the direction of those changes in terms of the gender of the object of attraction. It would be useful in future research to examine the direction of sexual fluidity (from heterosexual to sexual minority or vice versa) more closely and to more explicitly include heterosexually-identified individuals in the sample.

Arch Sex Behav

Conclusions Endorsement of sexual fluidity-related beliefs and endorsement of an incremental view that sexuality is changeable were related to sexual fluidity in attractions in both females and males; whereas attitudes toward bisexuality were related to sexual fluidity in attractions only among females. Among males, non-sexually fluid individuals were more likely than sexually fluid individuals to believe that sexuality was something they were born with and females were more likely than males to believe that sexuality was influenced by the environment. In addition, this study presents two promising new measures of sexuality beliefs based on Diamond’s sexual fluidity research and Dweck et al.’s psychological theory of intelligence beliefs. Acknowledgments This research was supported by funding from the Kinsey Institute at Indiana University and the Graduate School of the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The authors wish to acknowledge Alison Manley for her help with the online survey; Martha Alibali, Jane Collins, Julie D’Acci, Kristin Shutts, and Stephanie Budge for their feedback throughout this project; and S. Bryn Austin and the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression (SOGIE) Working Group for their insight and suggestions.

References Bell, A. P., Weinberg, M. S., & Hammersmith, S. K. (1981). Sexual preference: Its development in men and women. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1990). Intimate relationships and the creation of sexuality. In D. P. McWhirter, S. A. Sanders, & J. M. Reinisch (Eds.), Homosexuality/heterosexuality: Concepts of sexual orientation (pp. 307–320). New York: Oxford University Press. Brown, R. (2000). Social identity theory: Past achievements, current problems and future challenges. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 745–778. doi:10.1002/1099-0992(200011/12)30:6\745:AIDEJSP24[3.0.CO;2-O. Chandra, A., Mosher, W. D., Copen, C., & Sionean, C. (2011). Sexual behavior, sexual attraction, and sexual identity in the United States: Data from the 2006–2008 National Survey of Family Growth. National Health Statistics Reports, 36. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. Diamond, L. M. (2003). Was it a phase? Young women’s relinquishment of lesbian/bisexual identities over a 5-year period. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 352–364. doi:10.1037/ 0022-3514.84.2.352. Diamond, L. M. (2005). A new view of lesbian subtypes: Stable versus fluid identity trajectories over an 8-year period. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 119–128. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2005. 00174.x. Diamond, L. M. (2008a). Female bisexuality from adolescence to adulthood: Results from a 10-year longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 44, 5–14. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.44.1.5. Diamond, L. M. (2008b). Sexual fluidity: Understanding women’s love and desire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Dickson, N., Paul, C., & Herbison, P. (2003). Same-sex attraction in a birth cohort: Prevalence and persistence in early adulthood. Social Science & Medicine, 56, 1607–1615. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(02) 00161-2.

Dickson, N., van Roode, T., Camerson, C., & Paul, C. (2013). Stability and change in same-sex attraction, experience, and identity by sex and age in a New Zealand birth cohort. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42, 753–763. doi:10.1007/s10508-012-0063-z. Dweck, C.S.,Chiu,C., & Hong,Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgments and reactions: A world from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 267–285. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli0604_1. Eliason, M. (2001). Bi-negativity: The stigma facing bisexual men. Journal of Bisexuality, 1, 137–154. doi:10.1300/J159v01n02_05. Gallup, Inc. (2011). Results of Gallup’s annual Values and Beliefs Poll. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/147785/SupportLegal-Gay-Relations-Hits-New-High.aspx. Haslam, N., & Levy, S. L. (2006). Essentialist beliefs about homosexuality: Structure and implications for prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 471–485. doi:10.1177/014616720 5276516. Institute of Medicine. (2011). The health of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people: Building a foundation for better understanding. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Israel, T., & Mohr, J. J. (2004). Attitudes toward bisexual women and men: Current research, future directions. Journal of Bisexuality, 4, 117–134. doi:10.1300/J159v04n01_09. Katz-Wise, S. L. (2012). Beyond labels: Sexual fluidity and sexual identity development in sexual minority young adults. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Katz-Wise, S. L. (2014). Sexual fluidity in young adult women and men: Associations with sexualorientation and sexual identity development. Psychology & Sexuality. doi:10.1080/19419899.2013.876445. Kinnish, K. K., Strassberg, D. S., & Turner, C. W. (2005). Sex differences in the flexibility of sexual orientation: A multidimensional retrospective assessment. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34, 173–183. doi:10.1007/s10508-005-1795-9. Mahalik, J. R., Locke, B. D., Ludlow, L. H., Diemer, M. A., Scott, R. P. J., Gottfried, M., … Freitas, G. (2003). Development of the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 4, 3–25. doi:10.1037/1524-9220.4.1.3. Mock, S. E., & Eibach, R. P. (2012). Stability and change in sexual orientation identity over a 10-year period in adulthood. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 641–648. doi:10.1007/s10508-011-9761-1. Mohr, J. J., & Rochlen, A. B. (1999). Measuring attitudes regarding bisexuality in lesbian, gay male, and heterosexual populations. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46, 353–369. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.46.3. 353. Money, J. (1988). Gay, straight, and in-between: The sexology of erotic orientation. New York: Oxford University Press. Mulick, P. S., & Wright, L. W. (2002). Examining the existence of biphobia in the heterosexual and homosexual populations. Journal of Bisexuality, 2, 45–64. doi:10.1300/J159v02n04_03. O’Neil, J. M., Helms, B. J., Gable, R. K., David, L., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1986). Gender-Role Conflict Scale: College men’s fear of femininity. Sex Roles, 14, 335–350. doi:10.1007/BF00287583. Ott, M. Q., Corliss, H. L., Wypij, D., Rosario, M., & Austin, S. B. (2011). Stability and change in self-reported sexual orientation identity in young people: Application of mobility metrics. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 519–532. doi:10.1007/s10508-010-9691-3. Rosario, M., Schrimshaw, E. W., Hunter, J., & Braun, L. (2006). Sexual identity development among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths: Consistency and change over time. Journal of Sex Research, 43, 46–58. doi:10.1080/00224490609552298. Rust, P. C. (1993). ‘‘Coming out’’ in the age of social constructionism: Sexual identity formation among lesbian and bisexual women. Gender & Society, 7, 50–77. doi:10.1177/089124393007001004. Savin-Williams, R. C., Joyner, K., & Rieger, G. (2012). Prevalence and stability of self-reported sexual orientation identity during young adulthood. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 103–110. doi:10.1007/ s10508-012-9913-y.

123

Arch Sex Behav Weinberg, M. S., Williams, C. J., & Pryor, D. W. (1994). Dual attraction: Understanding bisexuality. New York: Oxford University Press. Wekker, G. (2006). The politics of passion: Women’s sexual culture in the Afro-Surinamese diaspora. New York: Columbia University Press. Yost, M. R., & Thomas, G. D. (2012). Gender and binegativity: Men’s and women’s attitudes toward male and female bisexuals. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 691–702. doi:10.1007/s10508-011-9767-8.

123

Zivony, A., & Lobell, L. (2014). The invisible stereotypes of bisexual men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43, 1165–1176. doi:10.1007/ s10508-014-0263-9.