University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The sources of impact in college on gay male student identity: the current student perspective

(USC Thesis Other)

The sources of impact in college on gay male student identity: the current student perspective

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
THE SOURCES OF IMPACT IN COLLEGE ON GAY
MALE STUDENT IDENTITY: THE CURRENT
STUDENT PERSPECTIVE
by
David Christopher Eaton
__________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2007

Copyright 2007 David Christopher Eaton

ii
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to the memory of my mother, Suzanne Elaine
Eaton. She taught me that people are the most important thing in life. She was the
most amazing person I have ever known.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I acknowledge and thank deeply the community of support that has helped
me to cross the finish line. My father, Dr. David Eaton, and brother, Kevin Eaton,
have been full of unconditional love for me throughout this long and grueling
process. Darryl Hooks, my dear friend, suffered through far too many trips to Palm
Springs in support of my writing, and I am eternally indebted to him. Without the
abiding faith and encouragement of Chester Wilson, MD, I simply would not be
here today. Doretha Murphy, the best “Mama” a boy could ever want, never
doubted that I would finish for a moment, and I did not dare to disappoint her.
Gwendolyn Baba continued throughout this journey to serve as a role model and a
shining example of what it means to persevere in the face of incredible hardship.
How very fortunate I am to have such beautiful, lovely companions. Ronald Poggi,
Jason Hartrich, Michael Terry, Sharla Rubin, Bruce Mims, and Harry Zinn have
simply been a collective mainstay in my life and a deep wellspring of strength and
hope for me.
I have had the great fortune of being a part of an incredibly talented and
supportive group of dissertation colleagues at the University of Southern
California, under the tutelage of the fantastic Dr. Rodney Goodyear. Jane Robb has
served as a source of inspiration and kindness from the first day that we met. A big
word of thanks goes to my committee members, Dr. Donahue Tuitt and Dr. Mary
Andres, who never doubted the importance of this research to academia and to the
LGBT community at large. The Rossier School at the University of Southern

iv
California has been the most wonderful place to research and study LGBT issues in
education. I am incredibly proud to be a Trojan!
Finally, thanks to Dr. Ronni Sanlo at the University of California Los
Angeles, who, by lending her imprimatur to the project, gave it instant legitimacy
in the eyes of LGBT center directors at universities nationwide.

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ..........................................................................................................ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...................................................................................... iii
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................ viii
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................ix
ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................x
Chapter 1: CONCEPTUAL AND EMPIRICAL FOUNDATIONS FOR
THE STUDY AND REVIEW OF LITERATURE ....................................1
Purpose of the Study.......................................................................................3
Terminology ...................................................................................................4
Differences and Similarities Between Lesbian and Gay Developmental
Processes...................................................................................................5
Overview of the Review of Literature............................................................6
Synthesizing Literature...................................................................................7
Foundational Theories of Identity Development......................................7
Psychosocial Theories ........................................................................7
College Student Identity Theory.........................................................9
Sources of Impact on College Student Identity Development ...............11
Student Involvement.........................................................................11
Out-of-Classroom Experiences.........................................................12
Other Sources of Impact on Student Identity Development
in College....................................................................................12
Gay Identity Development Theory .........................................................13
Psychosocial Theories ......................................................................15
Process Models.................................................................................17
Stevens’s Grounded Theory of Gay Student Identity
Development and Its Sources of Impact in College ...................21
Typology Theory of Gay Identity Development ..............................24
Gay Ethnicity Theory of Identity Development ...............................25
Multiple Identity Theory and Its Application to Gay Identity
Development in College .............................................................27
Sources of Impact in College on Gay Student Identity Development....29
Oppression on Campus as a Source of Impact on Gay Identity
Development...............................................................................30
The Impact of Positive Supports in College on Gay Identity
Development...............................................................................33
Gay Student Leadership and Its Impact on Gay Identity
Development...............................................................................39
Spiritual Struggle and Its Impact on Gay Identity Development
in College....................................................................................39

vi
Purpose of the Study.....................................................................................41
Means of Assessing Impact ..........................................................................41
Research Questions.......................................................................................46
Chapter 2: METHODS .........................................................................................47
Participants ...................................................................................................47
Raters............................................................................................................48
Measures.......................................................................................................48
Critical Incident Technique ....................................................................48
Paired Comparisons Questionnaire ........................................................49
Procedures ....................................................................................................50
Phase I: Data Collection .........................................................................50
Phase I: Creation of Themes...................................................................50
Phase II ...................................................................................................51
Data Analysis................................................................................................52
Multidimensional Scaling.......................................................................53
Clustering................................................................................................54
Chapter 3: RESULTS ...........................................................................................56
Phase I Results..............................................................................................56
Descriptions of Categories and Typical Responses................................56
Having a Positive Gay Role Model ..................................................56
Experiencing Acceptance as a Gay Person During Travel
Abroad ........................................................................................58
Having Sexual Identity Affirmed During an Academic Course.......58
Coming Out as a Gay Person to Others in the Campus
Community .................................................................................58
Assertively Identifying as a Gay Person Through Public
Behavior......................................................................................59
Challenging Others’ Homophobic Beliefs .......................................59
Participating in a Gay Activism/Leadership Role ............................60
Having a Direct Experience With Homophobic Harassment or
Assault ........................................................................................61
Receiving the Support of a Formal LGBT Campus Center or
Organization ...............................................................................62
Experiencing Gay Romance for the First Time................................62
Having a Gay Sexual Experience .....................................................63
Encountering Unexpected Adversity (Independent of Sexuality)....63
Experiencing a Sexual Assault (by Another Gay Man) ...................63
Experiencing Religious-Based Rejection .........................................64
Analysis of Incidents ..............................................................................64
Year of Occurrence...........................................................................66
Positive Value Rating .......................................................................66
Eventual Effect of Experience on Sense of Self...............................67
Phase II Results ............................................................................................68
Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) ..........................................................68
Cluster Analysis......................................................................................71

vii
Chapter 4: DISCUSSION.....................................................................................75
Phase I...........................................................................................................75
Short- and Long-Term Impact Ratings.........................................................94
Phase II .........................................................................................................97
Multidimensional Scaling.......................................................................97
Cluster Analysis......................................................................................99
Limitations of the Study .............................................................................105
Validity of Survey Data........................................................................105
Selection of Study Participants.............................................................106
Directions for Future Research...................................................................107
Technology and Healthy Identity Development in Gay Male
College Students.............................................................................107
The Skills That Support Resilience ......................................................108
Fraternities............................................................................................109
Gayness and Spirituality.......................................................................109
Implications of the Study............................................................................109
Role Models..........................................................................................110
Harassment ...........................................................................................110
Travel Abroad.......................................................................................111
Preventing Assault and Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)
Transmission...................................................................................111
Curriculum............................................................................................112
Differentiating LGBT Center Support..................................................113
Leadership Opportunities .....................................................................113
Spirituality and Gayness.......................................................................114
REFERENCES .....................................................................................................116
APPENDICES
A. INFORMATION SHEET ......................................................................123
B. COLLEGE YEARS EXPERIENCES QUESTIONNAIRE ..................127
C. PAIRED COMPARISON QUESTIONNAIRE.....................................128
D. CYEQ STUDENT RESPONSES ..........................................................145

viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Categories and Abbreviations..............................................................57
Table 2: Number of Incidences per Category, Year of Occurrence,
Positive Value, and Eventual Effect on Student’s Sense of Self.........65
Table 3: Dimension Values................................................................................69
Table 4: Themes by Cluster...............................................................................72

ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Euclidean Distance Model...................................................................70
Figure 2: Dendrogram using Ward Method ........................................................71
Figure 3: Concept map........................................................................................74

x
ABSTRACT
The visibility of the gay student population on university campuses has in-
creased substantially over the past 2 decades. Despite this, the sources of impact on
their identity development during college have remained largely a mystery. Fifty-
nine self-identified gay male undergraduate and graduate students, ages 18-30, at
public and private universities nationwide participated in a mixed-methods, two-
phase study. In the first phase students utilized a critical incident format to describe
experiences that they believed to have had the greatest impact on their identity de-
velopment during their undergraduate years in college. In the second phase study
the participants assigned similarity ratings to the 14 identified categories of impact.
Multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analysis were then used to ana-
lyze these data. This analysis resulted in the creation of a concept map that repre-
sented in pictorial form the ways in which these gay students had organized these
categories of experiences. Implications of the research for higher education practi-
tioners and suggestions for future research are presented.

CHAPTER 1
CONCEPTUAL AND EMPIRICAL FOUNDATIONS
FOR THE STUDY AND REVIEW OF
LITERATURE
Erikson (1959, 1980) suggested that a person’s identity develops during a
transition period between childhood and adulthood. This period roughly corre-
sponds to the years in which the typical student is in college. Kroger (1997)
contended, in fact, that the most facilitative context for identity development is
often the first 2 years of college. The product of achieving a stable identity is “a
firm sense of who one is, a purpose in life, a clear set of personal values, knowing
what one wants out of life and where one is headed, and having personal goals for
the future” (Lounsbury, Huffstetler, Leong, & Gibson, 2005, p. 502).
Today’s college students represent “a tapestry of differentiation in social
background, race/ethnicity, gender, disability, lifestyle, and sexual orientation”
(Rendon, 1994, p. 33). In this diverse collegiate context, it is essential to under-
stand the similarities and differences of identity development processes of specific
student subpopulations if academic communities are to serve them effectively
(Torres, Howard-Hamilton, & Cooper, 2003). One such subpopulation consists of
lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) students, a group becoming
increasingly influential and visible on campus (D’Emilio, 1992; Rhoads, 1994). It
is becoming increasingly important that higher education administrators help this
population in their processes of developing stable, healthy identities (Evans &
Herriott, 2004).
Dilley (2002a) described an American collegiate past that excluded gay
males from student culture. LGBT students experience routine, pervasive dis-

2
crimination and harassment (Evans, 2001; Rankin, 2003). Although the campus
climate for LGBT-identified students has improved dramatically, there is still
relatively little research-informed knowledge about the impacts of college on the
identity development of these students.
Rhoads (1997a) observed a decade ago that research about LGBT college
students only recently had begun to emerge in student affairs literature. More
recently, Renn and Bilodeau (2002) ascertained that the research has not adequately
addressed how colleges and universities shape gay and lesbian identity formation.
They could find only nine studies that dealt directly with LGBT student identity
formation in the university setting. Dilley (2005) reached the same conclusion,
noting that few of the many studies of college student development conducted over
the latter part of the 20th century have pertained specifically to nonheterosexual
students. Only during the past 16 years have major studies of gay youth identity
development been conducted, and only a small number of those focused on the
identity development of GLBT college students (Dilley, 2005).
Most LGBT college student identity development studies have focused on
how the college climate affects the “coming out” (self-disclosure of sexual orienta-
tion) process on static binary identity (heterosexual or nonheterosexual) or on the
social climate of colleges without examining how climate and life events during
college affect gay college student identity formation (Dilley, 2005). Rhoads (1994)
alleged that, of the approximately 200 studies focusing on LGBT students, the great
preponderance focused on campus climate and attitudes of heterosexual peers
toward nonheterosexual colleagues. Very few actually examine the lived experi-
ences of LGBT students.

3
Within this small literature, one study stands out as especially important.
Stevens (2004) used a critical incident format (Flanagan, 1954) in interviews and a
focus group with 11 undergraduate gay male college students. Critical incidents
were defined as experiences that differed from those that the participants would
define as normal or expected. These critical incidents then were coded for emerging
themes. “The students’ voices, multiple identities, and stories provided the raw data
for this grounded theory and subsequent recommendations” (Stevens, p. 188). In
other words, Stevens allowed for the lives of the students themselves, not a pre-
conceived theory or notion, to guide the development of theory around gay identity
development. This important study provided information about the kinds of college
impacts that gay students reported. However, it did not take the next step to
examine the manner in which these students conceptualized those impacts. One
method for obtaining this important additional information is concept mapping.
Concept mapping is a broad category of activity (Goodyear, Tracey,
Claiborn, Lichtenberg, & Wampold, 2005). The particular mapping technique
described by Bedi and Alexander (2004), Tracey, Lichtenberg, Goodyear, Claiborn,
and Wampold (2003), and Trochim (1989) seems particularly well suited for
understanding how college students conceptualize their experiences.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this mixed methods study was to add to the small literature
concerning gay male college students by examining aspects of their identity
development through their eyes. Specifically, it replicates and extends the work of
Stevens (2004).

4
In Phase I of the study I used a critical incident format (Flanagan, 1954) to
collect and examine retrospective data from traditional-age (18-24 years) gay male
college undergraduate students who had attained a minimum of junior class
standing. In particular, I solicited participants’ descriptions of critical incidents
which they believed to have most affected their identity development. Three raters
coded and collapsed conceptually similar themes from a minimum of 100 critical
incident forms completed by 59 students, into a group of conceptual units based on
the self-described experiences of the gay male college students.
In Phase II of the study 12 participants from Phase I completed a question-
naire in which each of the conceptual units obtained in Phase I was paired with
each of the others; participants were asked to rate the degree of similarity within
each apir. These data were analyzed using both multidimensional scaling (MDS)
and hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) to visually represent the data as concept
maps. Concept mapping is a “methodological approach to understanding the
concepts people use to understand and interpret their worlds.” (Goodyear et al.,
2005, p. 236). The use of both qualitative and quantitative methods can provide a
deeper understanding of how college affects the identity development of gay
college students than has been available so far.
Terminology
Although gay men use different terminology to define themselves,
including but not limited to the terms gay, queer, homosexual, or nonheterosexual,
all of these terms connote a uniform conceptualization of otherness or something
apart or separate from heterosexuality (Dilley, 2002a). For this reason, unless
otherwise noted explicitly in the study, these terms are used interchangeably to

5
refer to men who have “homosexual and/or homo-affectional relationships with
members of the same gender” (Dilley, 2002a, p. 8). I use various combinations of
the letters LGBT to represent lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons. All
other definitions and abbreviations are embedded in the text of the report.
Differences and Similarities Between Lesbian
and Gay Developmental Processes
D’Augelli (1994) found that the developmental trajectories and develop-
mental patterns of LGBT individuals are very similar in nature but vary around the
issue of when each respective population chooses to come out. Lesbians and gay
college students face the same verbal harassment and have to make similar
decisions about whether or not to come out to their families; they face the same
rejection from their families and friends upon disclosure and the same negative
impact on their developmental curve upon deciding not to disclose (D’Augelli,
1993). Supportive of D’Augelli’s findings, Rivers (1997) found that there were
both similarities and differences in the identity development processes of gay men
and lesbians and that the societal inequalities between men and women formed the
context for them.
Markowe (2002) suggested that gay men’s development tends to be
oriented around sexual aspects and occurs rather abruptly, compared to the more
fluid, emotionally oriented lesbian developmental process. Furthermore, Markowe
contended that a disparity exists in the quantity of literature focused on develop-
mental processes of gay and bisexual men relative to those of lesbians, possibly
stemming from the fact that gay and bisexual men retain a good deal of patriarchal
power despite their defiance of heterosexual sexual norms.

6
In spite of this fact, the literature reveals many similarities between lesbians
and gay men societally and developmentally. For this reason, although this study
focuses on the sources of impact on gay male student identity development in
college, I have not excluded theory that seeks to find applicability to both popula-
tions or to lesbians as a group.
Overview of the Review of Literature
This review of the literature focuses on the sources of impact on gay male
identity development in college to provide a theoretical framework to inform the
current study. The literature review begins with an examination of the foundational
theories of identity development both before and during college, before exploring
the general impact of college on student development. The review moves to a more
specific exploration of varying theories of gay identity development both before
and during college, as well as the sources of impact on that development. The final
section describes how the study, building on Stevens’s (2004) study assessed, from
the students’ perspective, the sources of impact on gay identity development in
college.
While I am concerned with the foundational theories of student identity
development as well as gay identity development theories both before and during
college, I did not attempt to test or confirm any of these models in this study.
Instead I attempted to identify the college impacts on gay student identity develop-
ment and how students think about them. It would not be possible via the methodo-
logy chosen for this study to make any inferences about how these experiences are
actually shaping the development of the students in the study.

7
Synthesizing Literature
Foundational Theories of Identity Development
Psychosocial Theories
Erikson’s (1959, 1980) and Marcia’s (Marcia, 1966; Marcia, Waterman,
Matteson, Archer, & Orlofsky, 1993) respective psychosocial constructs of identity
development form the foundation for the most significant theories of college
student identity development and its sources of impact (Torres et al., 2003).
Erikson (1959, 1968) alleged that the development of ego identity is integrally
related to one’s historical, cultural and social context, combined with individual
idiosyncrasies and biological makeup. In this context, the young person’s “gradual
growth and transformation make sense to those who begin to make sense to him”
(p. 120). Modern society sanctions an authorized period between childhood and
adulthood during which an inner identity is established (Erikson, 1959, 1980).
Erikson (1968) posited that the late adolescent/young adult faces a series of identity
conflicts that must be resolved.
At the core of Erikson’s theory is the idea that the ego, or the outward
expression of identity, emerges in a planned, linear, stage-like fashion (Erikson,
1959, 1980). At any juncture, the failure to resolve the task of the phase leads to
identity stagnation (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Torres et al., 2003). These
developmental crises begin in infanthood and progress to adulthood.
In basic trust versus basic mistrust infants learn to trust that their needs will
be met in a safe environment. During autonomy versus shame and doubt children
work to become more independent. At the initiative versus guilt stage children start
to take the initiative to make, move and create. As children progress in school

8
settings, they enter the industry versus inferiority stage, in which they must succeed
academically. The primary struggle of adolescence is identity versus identity
confusion. Forming intimate relationships is the domain of young adults in the
intimacy and isolation stage. In the generativity versus stagnation phase adults
have to decide whether or not to commit to their own personal growth. During the
integrity versus despair and disgust phase older adults must decide whether they
will live in dignity, self-acceptance, or wisdom. Taking a positive view of each
stage results in the formation of ego strengths, or virtues. Failure to negotiate
successfully the challenges or conflicts inherent in any stage can result in a debili-
tating sense of self later in life (Torres et al., 2003).
The critical developmental phase for college students is the identity versus
identity confusion stage (Pascarrella & Terenzini, 2005). Erikson noted that young
Biff’s statement in Arthur Miller’s Death of a Salesman was illustrative of the
difficult challenges that this stage presents for young people: “I just can’t take hold,
Mom, I can’t take hold of some kind of a life” (as cited in Erikson, 1980, p. 97). It
is a period when “life lies before one with a variety of conflicting possibilities and
choices” (p. 98). It is at this point that students need to create a stable sense of
identity on which to build a life after college (Torres et al., 2003).
Building on Erikson’s work, Marcia’s identity status model refined
Erikson’s identity formation concepts. In Marcia’s framework, when individuals
are faced with making commitments to the vocational, relational, or ideological
roles that define and shape identity, they can choose among four ways to respond.
A diffused individual has not yet committed to a meaningful life path and has little
interest in doing so. A foreclosed individual has made commitments to various life
paths without having engaged in much self-reflection. In moratorium, the

9
individual actively explores meaningful life directions in which he or she might
fully express personal interests and talents. The identity achieved individual has
made life and identity defining commitments thoughtfully. Like the stagnating
individuals in Erikson’s theory, individuals can remain foreclosed or diffused for
life if they so choose (Marcia, 1966; Marcia et al., 1993).
College Student Identity Theory
Chickering and Reisser’s (1993) model of college student development
viewed Erikson’s identity versus identity diffusion phase as a logical place on
which to base a framework of college student development. Unlike Erikson,
however, they proposed a model of development not conceived as a series of crisis
resolutions. They acknowledged that college students rarely fit into a mold and they
proposed seven vectors of core identity development.
The vectors were conceived as highways for progressing toward identity
development and group memberships. Every student employs different approaches
to learning, thinking and decision making but nonetheless journeys down similar
developmental pathways as other students. Chickering and Reisser (1993) declared
that college environments can fuel student growth by providing supportive and
challenging settings in which students are more than “degree seekers and test
takers” (p. 41). They conceived of the seven vectors as tools for higher education
practitioners to use in nurturing students in a holistic fashion.
Along the first vector, developing competence, students grow intellectually,
physically, and interpersonally. Receiving feedback, integrating skills, and learning
to trust oneself allow for a developing sense of mastery. Managing emotions, the
second vector, involves directing powerful emotions such as anger and fear into

10
acceptable channels while dealing with romantic relationships and dysfunctional
sexuality (Chickering & Reisser, 1993; Torres et al., 2003). A key challenge for
students in moving through autonomy toward interdependence (the third vector) is
discovering how to function self-sufficiently and pursuing self-chosen goals
responsibly. In the fourth vector, developing mature interpersonal relationships,
students develop a capacity for unselfish intimacy and an appreciative awareness of
diversity. Establishing identity, the fifth vector, entails the process of discovering
experiences that resonate with a student. Comfort with one’s appearance, gender,
sexual orientation and lifestyle contribute to a stable and positive sense of self. The
student’s sense of owning the “house” of self and being “comfortable in all of its
rooms” (Chickering & Reisser, p. 49) emerges in this vector. In the sixth vector,
developing purpose, students improve their ability to set goals and persist in
reaching them beyond the parameters of the college experience. Shifting away from
uncompromising belief systems and better aligning one’s values with behavior
define the seventh vector, developing integrity.
Lounsbury et al. (2005) validated the theoretical framework created by
Chickering and Reisser (1993) when they discovered a significant positive correla-
tion between sense of identity and grade point average in a study involving 434
university freshmen. Their findings affirmed what they called Chickering and
Reisser’s “prescient” (p. 509) emphasis on identity development as a key compon-
ent of college student development.

11
Sources of Impact on College
Student Identity Development
Student Involvement
Like Chickering and Reisser (1993), Astin (1984) viewed his student
involvement theory as a unifying construct around which institutions of higher
education can focus efforts aimed at encouraging student growth. In Astin’s model,
colleges play a pivotal role in identity development by offering students many
opportunities to engage with new concepts, people, and life-changing experiences
(Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). However, Astin claimed that the student is the
primary agent of change and that growth will occur only to the extent that the
student is willing to become involved in the college setting.
Astin (1984) defined involvement as the “quantity and quality of the
physical and psychological energy that students invest in the college experience”
(p. 528). Involvement can take many forms, including academics, out-of-classroom
activities, and engagement with campus faculty. Personal growth and identity
development are dependent on the quality of student effort (Pascarella & Terenzini,
2005). In Astin’s words, “The greater the student’s involvement in college, the
greater will be the amount of student learning and personal development (p. 529).
Astin (1984) noted that, while other student development theorists focused
on outcomes (what students do), his theory emphasized the processes that enable
students to develop, or as Astin stated, the how of student development. He stressed
that all institutional policies and practices, academic and otherwise, should be
designed and assessed according to how effective they are at increasing student
involvement.

12
Jones and Abes (2004) conducted a study supportive of Astin’s (1984)
principal of student involvement. The study examined the involvement of 8
students enrolled in a 10-week leadership theories course in which they completed
3 hours a week of community service. The results suggested that service learning
had an enduring impact on the students’ construction of identity, including an
expanded awareness of others, a deeper sense of social responsibility, and increased
openness to novel ideas, people, and experiences. Postintervention, the participants
were more willing to take risks and associate with diverse groups of people.
Out-of-Classroom Experiences
Also in keeping with Astin’s theory, Kuh (1995) discovered that, while the
college experience is primarily organized around the curriculum, college students
benefit greatly from out-of-classroom experiences, including gains in critical
thinking and organizational skills. Kuh suggested that colleges should create the
conditions and policies that encourage students to access them.
Other Sources of Impact on Student
Identity Development in College
Pascarella and Terenzini (1991, 2005) completed an exhaustive synthesis of
2,600 studies completed prior to 1991 and another exhaustive review of research
completed between 1991 and 2005 centering on the impact of college on student
development. They found that student change occurred broadly during the college
years. Not only did students make statistically significant acquisition of factual
knowledge across a broad spectrum of intellectual abilities; their attitudes, psycho-
social development, and personal values evolved as well.

13
Pascarella (1985) posited that these primary groups of variables influence
student development both directly: student background and characteristics,
institutional characteristics (size, competitiveness), college environment, quality of
student/faculty interactions, and quality of student effort. Pascarella and Terenzini
(2005) reported that the following factors had a positive impact on student identity
development during college: internship or work experiences that related to the
major field of study; peer networks that promoted exposure to racial, social, cul-
tural, intellectual, and value perspectives; and living on campus.
In a study of 132 first-year nontraditional college students in the community
college setting, Rendon (1994) suggested that, in order to effectively validate
diverse groups of students, colleges must respect their diverse learning and involve-
ment styles. However, Reisser (1995) noted that psychosocial theories pertaining to
the interplay between college and student identity are limited as models through
which to view subpopulations such as gay students.
Gay Identity Development Theory
This section examines the general theories of gay identity development,
along with those rooted in the college experience. The current discussion of the
sources of impact in college on student identity development is then extended to the
gay student population.
Research about homosexuality initially assumed a pathology underlying
same-sex attraction and focused on finding cures for homosexuality (Pascarella &
Terenzini, 2005). The classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder prior to
1973 has had a lasting legacy (Meyer, 2003). Against the wishes of conservatives,
homosexuality was declassified as a mental disorder in the Diagnostic and

14
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM; American Psychiatric Association,
1973). Ideological agendas and the sexual dimension of the topic have complicated
research about gay identity development. Generally, gay activists assign the roots
of homosexuality to biological causality; their opponents view homosexuality as a
chosen behavior (D’Augelli, 1994; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005).
Rivers (1997) determined that much is unknown about the personal and
social development of gay men. However, a body of research around these issues
has emerged in the past 3 decades (Elizur & Mintzer, 2001). Levine and Evans
(1991) examined the literature and found that most gay identity development
theories took either a sociological or psychological perspective. These included
Cass (1979), Troiden (1989), Savin-Williams (1998), Fassinger and Miller (1996),
D’Augelli (1994), and Stevens (2004). D’Augelli (1994) and Stevens developed
models of gay identity development specific to the college environment, although
Stevens’s use of grounded theory based on the perspective of gay college students
makes his research particularly relevant to the current study.
Another category of theories has evolved during the past decade by theorists
who espouse typology models that “examine dissimilarities within specific (simi-
lar) populations, mapping identifiable trends and characteristics that denote differ-
ences within those populations” (Dilley, 2002a, p. 19), and are “descriptive rather
than prescriptive” (p. 19). Moreover, that information is not used to classify people
as “good” or “bad.” Each type is viewed positively (Evans, Forney, & Guido-
DiBrito, as cited in Dilley, 2002a). Dilley (2002a) contended that these models are
also effective at providing data about gay students and their sources of support and
challenge in college.

15
Rhoads (1994) developed a theoretical model of gay identity that under-
stands gay identity in a fundamentally different way than other models. Rhoads
viewed identity as ethnicity, marrying biological determinism with personal choice.
Of the aforementioned theories of gay identity development, both before
and during college, only Stevens (2004) made mention of the difficulty that gay
college students have in negotiating and negotiating multiple identities. Because
the students in his study expressed the significance of this matter from their per-
spective, I will briefly address multiple identity theory as it pertains to gay college
students.
Psychosocial Theories
Cass’s (1979) stage model of homosexual identity formation is similar to
Chickering and Reisser’s (1993) model of college student development and is a
seminal study in the field of gay identity development (Dilley, 2002a), especially as
it relates to college-age individuals (Evans & Levine, 1990). Cass proposed six
stages of development through which all individuals must progress to fully inte-
grate a homosexual identity. Progress varies for each person. During any of the
stages, a person may decide to stop progressing or reach identity foreclosure
(Marcia, 1966).
At the identity confusion stage the gay male becomes sexually or emotion-
ally aware of his homosexuality. This awareness leads to labeling his behavior as
homosexual. Doing so causes cognitive discomfort. He begins to persistently
question his identity. In identity comparison the gay male begins to accept the
possibility of being homosexual. He feels different from the rest of society and
feels increasingly distressed and lonely. The realization may occur to him that the

16
expectations for his life that had been built on a heterosexual paradigm are no
longer relevant. At stage three, identity tolerance, he moves toward a homosexual
identity and becomes more aware of his needs as a gay man. Gay peers in gay
cultural settings become a newfound source of support. Normalizing being gay is
the primary task of identity acceptance, stage four. The individual now begins to
disclose his sexual orientation to heterosexual peers. When he arrives at stage five,
identity pride, he commits strongly to the gay community and feels a strong sense
of belonging. Feelings of anger at heterosexual norms and expectation are typical at
this stage. In stage six, identity synthesis, he integrates his homosexual identity into
other dimensions of himself (Cass, 1979).
Cass (1979) fully anticipated at the time that, as society changed its atti-
tudes and expectations about gay men, the model would evolve. Although other
theories and models have since emerged, Cass’s model is the most frequently
referenced (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005).
Troiden and Goode (1980) discovered a developmental sequence of gay
identity development during the teenage years. At the mean age of 16 years, indivi-
duals suspect that they might be gay and label certain emotions as homosexual.
Shortly after interacting with established gay people in the community, at the mean
age of 19, they label themselves as gay. Finally, at the mean age of 20, they
become romantically involved with their first same-sex partner (p. 387).
Troiden (1989) more recently conceptualized a four-stage model of gay
identity development. This model conceived of progress in a nonlinear process that
allows for movement back and forth between stages. In realization the individual
perceives himself as different. The identity confusion stage consists of associating
the feeling of being different with the idea of being gay. Emotional and behavioral

17
clarity develop in the identity assumption stage. Ultimately, a sense of pride and
self-acceptance grow in the commitment stage.
Savin-Williams (1990) stressed the oppression faced by gay and lesbian
youth as a minority group. In 1998 Savin-Williams described the lives of young
gay men to capture the array of their experiences. The term that Savin-Williams
(1998) used to describe this diversity was differential developmental trajectories
(p. xii). This approach investigated how gay youth are dissimilar to heterosexual
peers, and how they differ from each other. Savin-Williams (1998) explored
diversity within the population, in the way that they develop, and key turning points
in differing lives became the focus of research.
By researching the stories of the young gay men, Savin-Williams hoped to
dispel misconceptions about the sexual experiences of gay youth and how those
experiences intertwined with their identity development. Savin-Williams (1998)
showed that, while gay youth pass through similar developmental markers and
milestones as their gay and heterosexual peers, there is also “variability within and
across individuals . . . throughout the life course” (as cited in Dilley, 2002a, p. 33).
Process Models
D’Augelli (1994) argued that sexual identity development does not follow
normative guidelines, simply remaining static. Rather, in D’Augelli’s six-process
model, sexual identity is socially constructed and subject to change over time.
D’Augelli’s (1994) viewed sexual identity as plastic and influenced by environ-
mental, biological, and individual factors. He rejected an essentialist view of homo-
sexuality, positing rather that gay identities are social constructions (Dilley, 2002a).

18
Three interrelated factors account for the many ways that the pressures of
society serve as barriers to healthy sexual identity development. The first factor,
sociohistorical connections, pertains to customs, policies, laws, and cultures. The
second factor, interactive intimacies, includes parents, peers, partners, and family
members. Personal subjectivities and actions, the third factor, includes feelings and
belief systems about sexual identity across the life span (D’Augelli, 1994, p. 324).
These three factors affect the individual’s movement through six sexual
identity developmental processes. D’Augelli (1994) emphasized that the forces of
invisibility in society and the legal and social barriers that prohibit gay identity
expression also influence movement through the six processes (Pascarella &
Terenzini, 2005). Any of the six interactive processes can take place, in or out of
sequence, at any time in life, depending on the context. Each of the processes is a
self-determined progression toward an integrated gay identity (D’Augelli, 1994;
Dilley, 2002a).
In the exiting heterosexual identity process these individuals acknowledge
an attraction to members of the same sex. The lifelong coming out process begins
in this stage. They develop a more stable gay identity and seek out more support
from gay peers in the developing a personal LGB identity status process. They
continue this work by creating a network of supportive peers in the developing a
LGB social identity process. The support that students receive from this network
aid in disclosure to friends and family. Finally, coming out to one’s parents is the
primary challenge of the becoming a LGB offspring process. Developing a LGB
intimacy status involves the formation of intimate relationships with same-sex
peers. This process is complicated by the invisibility of gay couples in mainstream
society and by myths about the durability of such relationships. In the process of

19
entering a LGB community, individuals become politically active in the gay
community. As people become aware of how much of themselves they have
hidden, they become more committed to resisting oppression.
D’Augelli (1991) noted that these are stressful processes for all parties
involved. The typical challenges of handling vocational and relational dilemmas
can be especially complicated by the six sexual identity processes for students,
many of whom wait until attending college to deal with “coming out” (disclosing
their sexuality to others). The men in D’Augelli’s 1991 study of gay identity
development at a major university revealed that, after coming out, the gay students
must manage increasingly complex identity issues in order to increase personal
confidence as gay persons.
The study shed light on the way in which the six processes played out in the
college setting. D’Augelli (1991) found that the primary identity development
challenge, as perceived by the students themselves, is coming out to one’s family.
Disclosure was an uneven process in which mothers and sisters were told more
often than fathers and brothers, leading to unstable family processes. Some of the
respondents indicated that they had dealt with this by lying about their identity.
It is not surprising to discover that social networks and supportive hetero-
sexuals are extremely important to gay students. The more these students become
open to others, the more support they receive, which poses dilemmas for men who
have not come out and, as a result, lack support. The men in D’Aguelli’s (1991)
study indicated that the stresses of identity development are made worse by the
hostility of peers on campus and keeps students from seeking support from others.
McCarn and Fassinger (1996) found that existing models confuse individual
sexual identity processes (coming out and forming intimate relationships) with

20
group membership identity processes (confronting oppression and becoming a
member of an oppressed minority group). The confusing of these two variables in
other models has led to the perceptions that the public, politicized identity is a
hallmark of maturity. Fassinger and Miller (1996) cited Cass (1979) as incorpor-
ating this flaw into her model.
A failure to come out or a lack of political activity is seen as a sign of
stagnated development. Meanwhile, sexual intimacy is given short thrift (Fassinger,
1991; McCarn & Fassinger, 1996). De Cecco stated, “The puritanical strain in
recent gay research makes it sometimes appear as if gay people now have emo-
tional and political commitments but no longer do they have orgasms” (1990, as
cited in Fassinger & Miller, 1996, p. 55).
The McCarn and Fassinger (1996) model, akin to previously discussed
stage models, features gay developmental processes, including awareness, explora-
tion, deepening/commitment, and internalization/synthesis (p. 57). Unlike as in
other models however, each of these processes can take place concurrently along
the parallel trajectories of group membership and individual identity development.
For example, in the individual sexual identity branch exploration meant having
strong/erotic feelings for members of the same sex, but in the group membership
branch it meant exploring one’s attitude about gay people as a group (Fassinger &
Miller, 1996). Fassinger and Miller conceded that movement through one branch
without addressing the other branch was highly unlikely, and that one process could
trigger another.

21
Stevens’s Grounded Theory of Gay
Student Identity Development and
Its Sources of Impact in College
Stevens (2004) conducted a study, previously discussed, that examined how
critical incidents in the college environment shape gay identity development. In
five rounds of interviews with students using Flanagan’s (1954) critical incident
technique, Stevens examined past experiences through the eyes of the participants.
The technique provided Stevens a mechanism with which to understand the
relationship between gay college students and their college environments. The
research questions that Stevens asked were as follows:
1. What critical incidents have contributed to gay male identity develop-
ment in college?
2. What meaning do the men attach to these incidents?
3. How does the college experience influence identity formation of these
men?
4. In what ways do other dimensions of identity intersect with sexual
orientation and the college environment.
The critical incidents in the lives of the participants centered on the ongoing
coming out process. Stevens (2004) discovered that empowerment was the driving
force in the lives of the participants. Using grounded theory, or theory grounded in
the data itself (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1998), Stevens created a
conceptual model of gay identity development based on one central category
(finding empowerment) and five integrative categories: self-acceptance, disclosure
to others, individual factors, environmental influences and multiple identities
exploration.

22
Finding empowerment, the central categorical theme for the participants,
involves moving beyond mere acceptance to a place of holistically integrating
sexual identity with self. Empowerment also means being proud of being gay and
comfortable with being gay at college. In the process of becoming empowered,
students feel more confident and self-loving. Some college students achieve a deep
internal sense of empowerment that defies social context.
Students perceive that they achieve empowerment through self-acceptance,
through the support of accepting people on campus, and as a result of attending
college in environments free of homophobia and heterosexism. The road to
empowerment is not linear in nature; it entails multiple regressions and is highly
dependent on context (a student may feel very empowered at college but not so
much on a return visit to his hometown for Christmas vacation).
Self-acceptance, or coming out to oneself, is an entrance point to the model
and often leads to coming out to another person. This process helps students to
solidify their gay identity. Still, fear of rejection from family members was a matter
of significance to all of Stevens’s (2004) participants. They admitted feeling guilty
about lying to friends and family members for long periods of time about their
sexuality. Disclosure, or coming out, leads to building the support networks so key
to the central theme of the grounded theory, finding empowerment.
Individual factors are the personal feelings and values of gay students.
These factors help the students to process the identity-shaping critical incidents that
have influenced their journeys toward empowerment. They include support net-
works, self-assuredness, personal stereotypes, feeling rejected, isolation, invisi-
bility, and self-loathing.

23
Many students feel rejected by families, fraternities, and athletic teams.
The resulting self-loathing manifests itself in the form of depression, despair, and
suicidal ideation. In response, some gay students try to create support networks that
help to soften the anticipated blow of rejection of others. The perception of a
supportive college environment can also help the students to feel empowered as
gay men.
Stevens (2004) discovered environmental influences that shape the identity
formation of the student participants. These included relationships, locations, signs,
symbols, and resources, discrimination, and stereotypes. Students value Safe Space
programs, LGBT campus centers, and antidiscrimination policies as significant
college supports.
The gay students in Stevens’s (2004) study reported being disturbed by and
having experienced hate-filled speech, vandalism, harassment, and even violence at
school. All participants had experienced homophobia from faculty members and
other students. Because classrooms were seen as potentially hostile and cold
settings, students were very discriminating about where and when they disclosed
their identities to others.
Exploring multiple identities is contingent on having experienced empower-
ment. Only a person who has achieved empowerment is able to completely negoti-
ate the intersection of race, religion, and sexual identity. Some of Stevens’s (2004)
study participants had taken courses or participated in activism as a way of explor-
ing this intersection. Sometimes this led to a rejection of other identity dimensions.
Rhoads (1994) and Dilley (2002a, 2005) criticized the one-size-fits-all view
of development espoused by the stage-and-process models of gay identity develop-
ment. The implication was that, “if one does not fit the model, one is, by necessity,

24
flawed” (Dilley, 2002a, p. 51). I will examine their theories of gay identity
development in college now.
Typology Theory of Gay Identity
Development
Dilley (2005) found that most gay college student identity development
theories did not move beyond heterosexual norms or presumptions about the
“binary distinction between ‘normal’ and heterosexual, and ‘different’ or homo-
sexual” (p. 57). Dilley (2005) argued that a broad range of nonheterosexual
identities exist that other theories fail to describe.
Dilley (2005) interviewed 57 men who had been college undergraduates
between 1945 and 1999. He operationally defined nonheterosexual male identity as
consisting of senses, or how a person felt about himself and his context; experi-
ences, or how he behaved; and sensibilities, or the meanings he assigned to his life
(pp. 61-62). Dilley stated that collegiate identity is formed by how the gay student
“sensed himself and his world, behaved in different contexts, and created meaning
of his life” (p. 62). Indeed, some of the men in the study felt that they were in limbo
between heterosexual and nonheterosexual norms. No single nonheterosexual
identity prevailed among the men in the study. Rather, six types or sensibilities of
being nonheterosexual emerged in the interviews that Dilley conducted.
Homosexuals are aware of their feelings but feel that their sexuality is a
very private affair and never come out. Gays acknowledge their feelings and
attractions and meet with other nonheterosexual men in public settings. Queers are
extremely public about their identity. Living in opposition to heterosexual culture,
they work to change social system norms. Closeted types live with an awareness of
feelings and attractions to other men but do not disclose to many people and avoid

25
unintentional disclosure. The normal type identifies as heterosexual and does not
view his homosexuality as having an impact on his identity, nor does he experience
any resulting emotional dissonance. Parallel types identify as heterosexual within
some settings, and as non-heterosexual in others. As long as the two identities are
separate, the parallel type experiences no cognitive dissonance (Dilley, 2005).
In Dilley’s model, identity is much less fixed than in other models, and is
neither prescribed nor proscribed. Individuals can move fluidly between types or
make up their own, based on how they define their sexuality. Or they can remain
entrenched in one type. In Dilley’s model the nonheterosexual men do not view
their identity development as a process of “becoming” gay or “unbecoming”
straight (Dilley, 2005, p. 82). Furthermore, none of the men in Dilley’s study
thought that they lacked maturity or that his developmental level was unequal to
other types. In Dilley’s words, “Many forms of being non-heterosexual can
exist. . . . Not all of the forms need to have ‘coming out’ as an objective” (p. 84).
Gay Ethnicity Theory of Identity
Development
Rhoads (1994) spent 2 years at a university conducting an ethnography of
the lives of gay students. His findings were essential in creating a model of queer
identity development. In his study of gay identity development, the term queer was
adopted by the majority of gay student participants and connoted “a sense of pride
and openness about one’s same-sex desires as well as a degree of hostility toward
heterosexism” (p. 3). “For queer students, the use of the term as a unifier is a
statement of sisterhood and brotherhood” (p. 8).
The central unifying theme of Rhoads’s (1994) study was “coming out” as
the “process of proclaiming one’s queer identity” (p. 8). The participants made up a

26
contraculture that completely rejected heterosexuality. As queer students, they
believed themselves to be inherently different from heterosexuals and rejected any
definition by heterosexuals of homosexuals as deviant or aberrant. They exposed
the dualism of models that view gay identity development as either completely
socially constructed or biologically predetermined as limited.
Epstein (as cited in Rhoads, 1994, p. 55) provided an alternative to this
dualism by offering that gay sexual identity is “both inescapable and transform-
able” at once. Epstein described the dualism of constructivism versus essentialism
as “sameness versus difference and choice versus constraint” (p. 151). The con-
structivist position views people as the same, and any veering away from sameness
represents a personal choice. Essentialism posits that people are basically unalike
and do not get to choose their identity.
Rejecting this dualism, Rhoads (1994) offered instead a gay ethnicity model
of gay identity. In this model gay people are not unlike other people with ethnic
identities in that “ethnicity represents a form of group identification that one is both
born into as well as socialized to adopt” (p. 152). In Rhoads’s view, ethnicity is
passed down generationally through bloodlines but it also incorporates socially
constructed customs, language, and religion. This ethnic model of gay identity
allows gay men great variance to define themselves while concurrently unifying
them in a common bond (1994, p. 152). As with ethnic groups, ethnicity may or
may not be central to a gay man’s core identity. The gay ethnicity model allows for
both constructs of choice and no choice.
Rhoads (1994) hypothesized that a primary socialization process early in
life is responsible for extending ethnic identity to gay men early in life. Because
gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals are generally not conferred their ethnic identity

27
through this primary process, they are conferred it through a secondary socializa-
tion process after much of identity is already formed. In this secondary socializa-
tion process college students face three alternatives: (a) They can involve them-
selves in queer contraculture and identify as queer, (b) they can involve themselves
in the queer contraculture and reject identifying as queer, or (c) they can reject
queer contraculture altogether.
A gay ethnic identity moves away from the either/or dualism of the con-
structivism/essentialism debate and provides for variability in how lesbian,
gay, and bisexual people make sense of their lives. Yet at the same time, a
common ethnic identity provides for the unification, the sense of solidarity,
necessary to overcome oppression. (Rhoads, 1994, pp. 159-160)
While Dilley (2002a, 2005) and Rhoads (1994) provided alternate models
of gay identity development in college, none of the models discussed so far, with
the exception of Stevens’s (2004) model, have addressed the ways in which
students traverse the intersections of competing identities. I will next explore the
theories that provide a lens through which to view the struggle of gay men to
integrate their identities.
Multiple Identity Theory and Its
Application to Gay Identity
Development in College
Most socially constructed identity theories since 1990 have applied only to
a single dimension of identity, such as race or sexual orientation. They have not
addressed the ways that social identities intersect (Jones & McEwen, 2000). For
example, college students may have class, religious, regional, or other identity
orientations (McEwen, 1996).
In Stevens’s (2004) study of gay college students, not all participants
reported that their identity dimensions were well integrated while exploring the

28
intersections of their multiple identities. Many of them were concerned with how
their identity intersected with gender trait definitions and wanted to avoid being
seen as effeminate. Most of them struggled deeply with how their churches and
their “inflexible values” (p. 203) had labeled their homosexuality as sinful and
engaged in much introspection over the matter.
Similarly, the men of color in the Stevens (2004) study stated that their
developmental processes were made more difficult by homophobia in their
communities of color and racism in the gay community. The fact that personal
characteristics and interests determined how students explored the intersection of
their various dimensions explained why students of color spent more time in
exploring the connection between race and sexual identity.
Reynolds and Pope (1991) created the Multidimensional Identity Model,
which allows four ways for people belonging to multiply oppressed groups to
resolve identity issues. One type of person may identify with a societally assigned
dimension of self, such as race. Another type may identify with a personally
selected dimension of self. The third type may choose to identify with different
dimensions of self, depending on the setting. The fourth type synthesizes multiple
aspects of self into a unified sense of self, regardless of the context.
Jones and McEwen (2000) extended this work by creating a more fluid and
complex model that allows for different identities to intersect and develop over the
life span. In this model, the core self is surrounded by and intersects with the
various dimensions of the outer self (race, religion, etc.). The inner core and outer
self interact and are woven together. Various dimensions can be experienced at
once, intersecting with one another, as circles around a core. Similarly, Kroger and
Green (1996) found in a study of 100 New Zealanders that identity change, such as

29
a new commitment to a political ideology, appears to be strongly related to age and
sociohistorical context.
Two studies clearly illustrate the applicability of these models to the lives of
gay men with multiple identities. Phellas (2001) determined that study participants
were more concerned about their ethnic and community identities than sexual
identity and warned against assuming that sexual identity was of prime importance
to gay men.
In a German study of working-class gay men, Biechele (2001) explored the
ways that working-class gay men had difficulty in identifying with gay middle-
class lifestyle. They chose alternative ways of constructing and organizing their
lives. These multiple identity models provide a framework for understanding the
complexity and fluidity of gay identity development in college settings.
Having established a clearer understanding of how gay identity develop-
ment differs from that of heterosexuals, I now explore of the sources of impact in
college on the identity formation of gay students.
Sources of Impact in College on Gay
Student Identity Development
The research base about identity development in the college context prior to
1991 reflects a strong bias favoring full-time, traditional-age (18-22) White under-
graduate students at 4-year institutions who held no jobs, had few family responsi-
bilities, and lived on the college campus. However, Rendon (1994) suggested that
the “tapestry of differentiation in social background, race/ethnicity, gender, dis-
ability, lifestyle, and sexual orientation” (p. 33) represented by today’s student
body stood in stark contrast to the older profile of the White, privileged, male
student of yesteryear.

30
Despite this, Evans and Wall (1991) found a paucity of quality research
prior to 1990 on LGB student identity development in the college setting.
Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) found little published research in the years between
1990 and 2005. Dilley (2002a) declared that, relative to the vast amount of college
student identity literature that focuses on the lives of “presumably” (p. 26) hetero-
sexual students, a very small amount has been conducted on the lives of gay,
lesbian, or bisexual students. Furthermore, this research has focused almost exclus-
ively on the lives of gay and lesbian youth in a general sense, to the exclusion of
how college experiences shape gay identity development.
Oppression on Campus as a Source
of Impact on Gay Identity
Development
Torres et al. (2003) stated that the primary point of distinction between
college identity development theories centered on the characteristics of the majority
White population and those focused on the “socially subordinate” (p. 6) is
oppression as a key component in the lives of group members. Rendon (1994)
determined that, in university settings, nontraditional students have to adapt to
university cultures that favor traditional students and offer Eurocentric curricula
that exclude the contributions of non-Whites and women, leaving them feeling
alienated and intimidated.
Rhoads (1997b) defined homophobia as an irrational fear or hatred of gay,
lesbian, or bisexual persons. The esteemed lesbian activist and writer Audre Lorde
(1985) said that heterosexism was a belief in the innate superiority of one kind of
loving above all others, giving one the right to dominate.

31
Self-identified LGBT young adults face major stress in handling sexual
orientation issues, so much so that they are at high risk for both depression and
suicide (D’Augelli, 1991). As many as 30% of youth suicides may be committed by
lesbian and gay youth, who are also 2 to 3 times more apt to commit suicide than
their heterosexual peers (Gibson, 1989). Recent studies have found that victimiza-
tion, substance abuse, and high-risk sexual behaviors are more prevalent in gay
youths than in their heterosexual peers (Bontempo & D’Augelli, 2002).
D’Augelli (1993) maintained that gay youth are faced with many stressors
related to hiding sexual orientation. All gay and lesbian youth have discovered the
necessity of hiding identity, a coping mechanism with serious psychological costs
(Martin, 1982). Accordingly, Meyer (2003) posited three processes of minority
stress with which LGBT individuals must contend: external stressful events
(ongoing and acute), the raised level of vigilance that these events require, and
negative attitudes in society about gayness.
Herdt (1989) claimed that societal invisibility, society’s assumption of
defectiveness, and societal stigmatization all negatively affect gay identity develop-
ment. Also, the absence of positive LGBT role models and relentless homophobia
and heterosexism negatively influence development (Plummer, 1989).
Evans and Herriot (2004) contended that, as LGBT student populations
become more visible in higher education settings, administrators are faced with
learning how to assist them in developing more secure identities. Late adolescence
and early adulthood as experienced in college is scripted by society as a time for
students to explore identity, but this process is greatly complicated for LGBT
students who must also recreate themselves (D’Augelli, 1993). Very few lesbian
and gay students disclose their sexual orientation before college due to the

32
frequently severe psychological and family consequences (D’Augelli, 1993;
Gibson, 1989; Hetrick & Martin, 1987; Martin & Hetrick, 1988). The commonality
that LGB college students share is a pattern of waiting to disclose their sexual
orientation identity sometime during their college experience. College provides a
unique chance for gay and bisexual males to be more open about their sexual
identity, free from the pressures of oppressive high school settings in which
tolerance is not supported (Rhoads, 1997a).
D’Augelli (1993) determined that up to 15% of all university students may
identify as nonheterosexual. In campus climate studies gay students universally
reported having been the victims of harassment or discrimination (physical and
verbal) due to sexual orientation (Brown, Clarke, Gortmaker, & Robinson-Keilig,
2004). The combination of this high percentage of increasingly visible students on
campus and hostile higher education settings has created a potentially “incendiary”
mix to which administrators must respond (Rhoads, 1997a, p. 275).
Stevens (2004) maintained that, while understanding the gay identity
process is important, the college environment itself must be comprehended to fully
grasp gay identity exploration. For gay men, identity development is a significant
part of their lives (Rhoads, 1997a). While identity development figures very
prominently for them, it occurs in the context of the lived college experience
(Stevens).
While college campuses are generally seen as safe places for students to
explore intellectually and personally, they also harbor antihomosexual sentiments,
harassment, and violence (D’Augelli, 1993). Comstock (1991) learned that gay and
lesbian students at three universities were victimized at rates disproportionately
higher than any other group on campus. D’Augelli (1993) added that the rates

33
would have been even higher if the study had included unreported incidents or
those who escaped harm by running away and escaping.
A 1989 D’Augelli exploration of campus climate at a major state university
found that 75% of openly gay and lesbian students had experienced verbal harass-
ment, 25% had been threatened with physical violence, 22% had been chased or
followed, and most hid their sexual orientation from other students. A full 64%
feared for their personal safety.
Pointing out a paradox, D’Augelli (1993) claimed that the increasing
acceptance of the gay student population would make it easier for young LGBT
students to come out and assert themselves, resulting in a heterosexual backlash of
reactive discrimination and violence. In light of this, D’Augelli also determined
that most gay men on campuses lack the support and nurturance necessary for
healthy identity development. As a group, they are the most underserved group on
campus by health and mental health services.
In researching college environments, college environments were classified
as null (not supportive or hostile), open, or hostile to gay students. Open environ-
ments provide chances for discussion and presentations around issues of sexual
orientation, gender, or race. A hostile environment openly and subtly tolerates
homophobia. LGBT have reported that null environments are just as bad as hostile
ones because they perpetuate the homophobic status quo (Fassinger, 1991).
The Impact of Positive Supports in
College on Gay Identity
Development
Positive trends in campus climate have begun to emerge in higher education
institutions. Evans and Herriott (2004) stated that, as the awareness of LGBT issues

34
resulting from increased interactions with gay students grows, so will positive
attitudes about LGBT students. They posited that, as a result, more supportive and
positive campus climates will contribute to healthy gay identity development.
Although demeaning comments about LGBT students in the classroom can
be especially harmful, students perceive that supportive comments are very helpful
in supporting their gay student identity development. Upper-level courses are often
seen by students as more receptive and welcoming settings. Gay students also
perceived that openly gay and lesbian instructors create welcoming environments
for students; they maintained that professors have a duty to combat homophobia in
the classroom (Lopez, 1993).
Positive, supportive incidents increase comfort in the integration of the
participants’ gay identities in the college environment (Stevens, 2004). The partici-
pants in his 2004 study agreed that the support (people’s words and actions) offered
to them in the college setting was crucial in helping them to become empowered.
The students reported feeling supported in multiple college settings and that their
comfort with being gay permeated all subsettings at school (residence hall, dining
hall, classroom, etc.).
The increasing numbers of openly GLB students on campuses portends
increased levels of acceptance, and concomitantly, healthier college environments
for supporting gay identity development. The following studies support this notion.
A Cotton-Huston and Waite (2000) study involved undergraduate college
students enrolled in business or psychology classes. Participants watched films
featuring interviews with members of the LGB community around the issue of gay
pride. In a follow-up in-class discussion they met with LGB individuals to talk to
them about their lives. The researchers discovered that the mere act of meeting a

35
LGB person can reduce homophobic attitudes. Simply knowing a LGB peer on
campus functions to discourage the blind stereotyping that contributes to college
environments unsupportive of gay identity development.
A Mohr and Sedlacek (2000) study examining 2,925 incoming freshmen at
a state university illustrated this. Almost 40% of the respondents reported wanting
to have a lesbian or gay friend, despite anticipating possible discomfort. Female
participants perceived fewer barriers to friendship with gay persons, while the most
religious respondents perceived greater barriers to friendship with gay persons than
did less religious respondents. The researchers concluded that the visibility of
friendships that transcend sexual orientation lines can serve as powerful models for
students who may not have attempted to cross that line themselves.
Increasingly, the newly visible LGBT populations on campuses are
supported by their institution’s administrations. By 1996 the Chronicle of Higher
Education had identified over 2,000 LGBT-oriented student organizations in the
United States. This was a dramatic increase over the 200 such organizations
reported by Hechinger and Hechinger in 1978. In fact, until the Student Homophile
League was established at Columbia University in 1969, no LGB organization
operated freely on a campus in the United States (Dilley, 2000).
Many open LGB students have finally begun to take advantage of the
traditionally established educational chances for involvement, student services, and
educational programming (Sanlo, 1998; Wall & Evans, 2000). They have organized
and become involved in student government even at formerly notoriously homo-
phobic universities, such as the University of Kansas and the University of
Michigan (Dilley, 2002a).

36
This involvement reflects a radical transformation from the systematic
exclusion of gay students on campuses typical of the latter half of the 20th century.
As universities successfully and stringently restricted the sexual mores and
activities of gay students, they also restricted their individual identity development
(Dilley, 2002b). Prior to 1970, it was commonplace for colleges to expel students
even suspected of having homosexual relationships (Allyn, 2000). Large numbers
of educational administrators during the postwar and Cold War years perceived
LGBT students as a menace to home, family, and national security (Koskovich,
1995, as cited in Dilley, 2002b).
In 1993 D’Augelli stressed that the work of making university settings
places where LGBT students can thrive is ongoing work. He concluded that
university mental health services are critical resources for LGBT students in light
of the developmental challenges that they face. Effective centers are perceived by
students as accessible, helpful, affirming, and proactive. Gay students in need of
counsel also ascertained that anonymous telephone help lines can be a positive
form of support.
A campus LGBT support center, D’Augelli (1993) learned, is a powerful
intervention for LGBT students who have largely been isolated in the years prior to
college entry. Center support activities should include semester-long therapeutic
groups that, at a minimum, focus on family relationships, disclosure issues, and
safer sex. Students in a Renn and Bilodeau (2002) study persisted academically and
emotionally because of direct support that they received from LGBT campus
centers.
Having campus safe spaces as well as trained resident assistants in
university housing are crucial in supporting healthy gay identity development

37
(D’Augelli, 1993). Because material about lesbians and gay men is rarely included
in course content, LGBT persons remain invisible in college curricula, including
the fields of psychology, social sciences, education, the humanities, or even the
arts. D’Augelli suggested that campus climate can be improved by the simple act of
including sexual orientation in classroom discussions. Universities can break the
pattern of LGBT invisibility on campus by creating formal university policies that
prohibit harassment and discrimination in classrooms and in university hiring
practices.
The results of Rhoads’s (1997b) ethnographic study of 40 self-identified
gay and bisexual men involved in a university LGBT center supported D’Augelli’s
(1993) findings about the crucial need for campus resources supportive of LGBT
student. Almost all of the participants expressed the importance of having a LGB
student association on campus and the need for the gay student community of
support engendered by such a center. The students were also concerned about the
lack of visible LGB faculty or staff role models on campus. Students viewed these
models as needed sources of insight and advice. Of the few faculty members who
were visible on campus, most seemed overwhelmed by the level of student need.
Dilley (2005) determined that “six key areas of sense, experience, or
sensibility” (p. 74) have an impact on nonheterosexual identity development in
college. Campus environments can have either positive or negative effects on
nonheterosexual identity development depending on the level of support afforded
to students on campus.
Countering D’Augelli (1993) and Rhoads (1997a), Dilley (2005) main-
tained that gay student organizations offer benefits to some nonheterosexual
students on campus but in and of themselves do not provide enough opportunities

38
socially or developmentally for positive identity development to result. However,
fraternity life provides many men with a sense of community and rapport that is
conducive to the development of interpersonal relationships.
An early goal of many students later identifying as nonheterosexual is the
goal of being “normal.” Every type of nonheterosexual man in the study indicated
that sexual activity was central to identity development as gay college students and
to a much greater degree than has been represented by other models of gay identity
development. In many cases, emotional attraction is the often the first sign of
attraction to other.
Each of the six variables has a different effect across different types of
persons. For example, a queer type might see fraternity life as oppressive, whereas
a parallel type might have been involved in Greek life and have had erotic
attractions or intimacies with fraternity men (Dilley, 2002a, pp. 200-201).
Echoing D’Augelli (1993) and Rhoads (1994), Stevens (2004) discovered
that gay students had a great need to be supported at college. Supportive environ-
ments allow students to disclose sooner and become empowered. Stevens conc-
luded that colleges can create gay supportive environments by encouraging
discussion about diversity, displaying safe space signs around campus, and hiring
visible gay and lesbian faculty members. The college should display safe space
signs around campus and other signs of support and understand how important it is
to have visible gay and lesbian faculty. Homophobia and heterosexism and
harassment should be confronted and treated in the same way as is racism on
campus. Finally, Stevens argued that students should be encouraged to share their
feelings about being gay through journal writing.

39
When the campus cannot adequately meet the needs of its LGBT student
population with its own resources, referrals to agencies and community-based
programs become essential to their well-being (Ivory, 2005). Concurring with
D’Augelli (1993), Ivory found that the posting of local crisis hotline numbers can
be the difference between life and death for LGBT students.
Gay Student Leadership and Its
Impact on Gay Identity
Development
Renn and Bilodeau (2002) explored the connection between involvement in
student leadership activities and development of LGBT campus activists/leaders.
They learned that the opportunity to lead LGBT student activities at an annual gay-
themed college leadership conference provided great opportunity for identity
development in each of D’Augelli’s (1994) six identity process phases.
The gay student leaders in the study were forced to come out and to develop
friendships with members of the local LGBT community. They also reported that
acting in such visible leadership roles aided in the development of relationships
with family members and intimate partners. The students reported that their leader-
ship roles had made them stronger communicators and more politically active on
campus. Renn and Bilodeau (2002) also suggested that, considering the positive
impact of leadership development activities on LGBT identity development,
universities should provide more such programs for LGBT students.
Spiritual Struggle and Its Impact
on Gay Identity Development in
College
In examining another seriously overlooked source of impact in college on
gay student development, Love, Bock, Jannarone, and Richardson (2005)

40
concluded that LGBT students often feel rejected by the very religious institutions
that provide the support upon which heterosexuals rely for spiritual development.
They interviewed lesbian and gay college students about the relationship between
spiritual identity development and sexual orientation. The students in the study
stated that their gay or lesbian identity was, in fact, a sexual one. Because the
churches to which many of them had belonged as children and teenagers rejected
homosexuality, the students felt a resulting dissonance between their sexuality and
spirituality. Some of the students learned to reconcile gayness and spirituality,
typically rejecting organized religion. Other students were not reconciled and
experienced great inner conflict between their sexual and religious identities, while
others rejected spirituality or religion altogether. For the students who were work-
ing on reconciling the two identities, having been rejected by a religious institution
became the conduit that sparked a deeper exploration of a more complex, richer
spirituality that incorporated their sexual identity.
Love et al. (2005) discovered that few venues existed on campuses where
LGBT students could freely discuss issues of spirituality and its intersection with
their sexuality. For some students, the chief source of spiritual support became the
informal support of another LGBT person on campus who was actively engaged in
his or her own spiritual journey. Love et al. argued that colleges should better
address the spiritual needs of students. Student affairs professionals can openly
promote discussions about sexuality and spirituality between LGBT students and
their allies on campus. Despite the pain and frustration involved in exploring the
intersection of spirituality and sexuality, students grew substantially because of the
struggle to reconcile the two.

41
Purpose of the Study
This review of literature has explored the sources of impact in college on
gay student identity development. The examination has revealed that the existing
literature is extremely limited. Rhoads (1994) posited that the lack of knowledge
about the college experiences of gay students comprises a substantial gap in the
higher education literature. So little research has explored the lives of gay college
students that their experience remains “largely a mystery” (p. 39).
The purpose of the current study was to build on the extant literature by
creating a better understanding of the impact of college on the identity development
of gay students, utilizing their own perspectives and conceptual maps.
The research employed several means of assessing the sources of impact in
college on gay student identity development. I will discuss these next, as well as
the tools of assessing the sources of impact of college on gay student identity
development that are employed in the current study.
Means of Assessing Impact
In their exhaustive review of studies centered on the impact of college on
student development, Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) conducted a meta-analysis of
the existing research focused on the impact on students of such varied factors as
community college versus 4-year institutions and residential living versus commut-
ing. The research incorporated measures of student identity development perform-
ance such as quality of life indexes, postgraduate employment rates, grades,
postgraduate political activism, and volunteer activity.
Other legitimate although underutilized means of assessing impact use the
perspective of the student to assess the impact of college on student identity forma-
tion. Rhoads (1994) and Dilley (2002a) conducted ethnographic studies in which

42
they became intensively involved in the lives of the students being studied. The
interviews that emerged from these studies allowed for a rich, complex exploration
of gay student culture. Other theorists have conducted interviews in more tradi-
tional contexts (Dilley, 2005) or have distributed surveys (Mohr & Sedlacek, 2000)
to derive the data necessary for understanding the experiences of this population.
Many of these means of assessment fall short of fully describing the
nuances of identity development (Vera & de los Santos, 2005). Rhoads (1997b)
declared that research has tended to make overgeneralizations about this popula-
tion. To accurately assess the impact of college on identity formation, I employed a
mixed-methods, sequential exploratory methodology called multivariate concept
mapping (MVCM), which allowed students to describe the experiences or people
that have shaped their sense of self.
A concept map is a means of comprehending the collective understanding
of a group of persons in pictorial form (Trochim, 1989). Concept mapping is an
appropriate tool when “researchers are seeking to describe the underlying meaning
structure of a phenomenon as experienced by the individuals under consideration”
and for “investigating client experiences as self-understood when the intent is to
minimize the biasing effects of investigator-imposed connotations or conclusions”
(Bedi & Alexander, 2004, p. 5). Concept mapping is a tool for assessing how
people understand and interpret their worlds conceptually (Goodyear, Tracy,
Claiborn, Lichtenberg, & Wampold). Creswell (2003) described the two-phase,
sequential exploratory strategy chosen for this study as collecting the qualitative
data necessary to explore a phenomenon and subsequently analyzing the data
quantitatively to understand the relationships discovered in the qualitative portion
of the study.

43
In this study MVCM entailed three processes. First, I elicited participant
descriptions of the important sources of impact on their identity development in
college using the College Years Experience Questionnaire (CYEQ) that incorpor-
ated Flanagan’s (1954) critical incident technique discussed earlier. This technique
provides the researcher with the means to explore past events from the perspective
and in the verbiage of the participants (Stevens, 2004). The brief statements the
participants make in response to the open-ended questions on the CYEQ form the
basis for the creation of categories of impact on student identity development in
college, in the words of the students. The forms ask students to reflect about
particular experiences, people, or circumstances (positive or negative) that have
stood out during their college years as having been particularly influential in
affecting their sense of self. In a few sentences, respondents are asked to answer
(a) what the incident or experience was; (b) whether another person or persons
were involved in this incident or experience, describing them and their relationship
to the respondent; (c) what the respondent thought was important about this experi-
ence or incident and why; and (d) what the respondent considered to be the long-
term effect on his sense of self.
The use of retrospective data requires attention to two issues regarding the
veracity of data (Dilley, 2005): (a) Did the data provided actually happen as pre-
sented, and (b) did the respondents’ and researcher’s analyses truthfully represent
the data?
In a landmark study, Henry, Moffitt, Caspi, Langley, and Silva (1994)
found that, in the absence of difficult-to-conduct prospective longitudinal research,
researchers often resort to conducting retrospective research that asks people to tell
them about their past (Robbins, 1988). However, because of a number of cognitive

44
and motivational factors, people may not be very efficient and accurate at process-
ing information about their past. This might be because they have forgotten events
in the distant past (Squire, 1989), because they remember events as having
happened earlier than they actually happened (Thompson, Skowronski, & Lee,
1988), or because they may reinvent the past to suit current needs and life
circumstances (Ross, 1989).
Despite cautionary warnings about the use of this sort of data, social and
behavioral scientists rely heavily on it. Yarrow, Campbell, and Burton (1970)
accessed extensive childhood records to compare with retrospective developmental
reports of childrearing. They found a low correlation between retrospective reports
and available records. When relative agreement was of significance, the absolute
level of concurrence was poor. Participants in the study tended to distort the past in
the direction of overly favorable reports. Running counter to this perspective,
however, Woolsey (1986) argued that the critical incident technique is both a valid
and reliable way to conduct exploratory, qualitative research, especially in the early
stages of a study.
In the next step of the current study, the statements were sorted into cate-
gorical themes according to their conceptual similarity (Bedi & Alexander, 2004,
p. 3). A thorough description of how this part of the MVCM process coincided with
both Phases I and II of the study is presented in chapter 2.
In Phase I the CYEQ was administered by the researcher and coded and
collapsed by three graduate student raters into categorical themes using “participant
statements relevant to a particular topic [and sorting] “these statements into groups
based on conceptual similarity” (Bedi & Alexander, (p. 3).

45
In Phase II 15 participants from Phase I utilized these conceptual units to
participate in a paired-comparison activity. In this process the participants rated the
degree of similarity between all possible pairs of concept elements. “Allowing
participants to utilize their own meaning systems for organizing categories ensures
the determined categories are a better reflection of their collective conceptual struc-
ture rather than the conceptual structure of the investigators” (Bedi & Alexander,
2004, p. 6). The resulting conceptual categories, framed in the words of the parti-
cipants, became the requisite units of analysis needed to create a concept map, the
final step in the MVCM process.
In the third and final step of the MVCM process, to quote Goodyear et al.,
(2005), “These similarity judgments are analyzed using multidimensional scaling
(MDS) and clustering methods to arrive at ideographic mappings of a concept”
(p. 236). This map is a visual representation of the sources of impact in college on
gay identity development through the eyes of the students. Concept maps are a
“collective understanding of a group of individuals in a pictorial form” (Trochim,
1989, as cited in Bedi & Alexander, 2004, p. 3). Concept mapping is an appropriate
tool when “researchers are seeking to describe the underlying meaning structure of
a phenomenon as experienced by the individuals under consideration” and for
“investigating client experiences as self-understood when the intent is to minimize
the biasing effects of investigator-imposed connotations or conclusions” (Bedi &
Alexander, 2004, p. 5). Concept mapping is an approach to understanding how
people understand and interpret their worlds conceptually (Goodyear et al., 2005).
Using MDS, the units of analysis were placed spatially and variably as
elements on two-dimensional scales. In complementary fashion, clustering allowed
for the representation of the units of analysis as discreet categories.

46
Cluster analysis partitions the point map developed by MDS into nonover-
lapping clusters of related statements and superimposes this cluster solution onto
the two-dimensional MDS plot. The cluster boundaries around groups of points
represent statements that were more frequently sorted together in the same pile and
less often sorted with statements in other piles (Bedi & Alexander, 2004, p. 16).
By using both methods of knowledge structure representation in a nonover-
lapping and complementary fashion, I planned to gain a better idea of how the
multiple realities of study participants were constructed. The current study was
intended to lead to a deeper, more complex understanding, using the critical
incident format (Flanagan, 1954), MDS, and cluster analysis, of the sources of
impact on identity development in college on gay male students and how they
perceive themselves and their sense of self.
Research Questions
1. What categories of college-related impacts will gay male, traditional-age
undergraduate students of at least junior class standing report as having been par-
ticularly important to the development of their sense of self?
2. What conceptual map do gay male, traditional-age undergraduate
students of at least junior class standing use to organize their experiences of these
categories of experiences?
These questions were addressed by employing as data the categories
developed to answer the first research question and using the concept mapping
procedures described by Tracey et al. (2003), Goodyear et al. (2005), and Bedi and
Alexander (2004).

47
CHAPTER 2
METHODS
This chapter describes the methods used in the study and describes the
participants, measures, and procedures utilized. A description of the study’s
analytic procedures concludes the chapter.
Participants
Participants were Phase I were 60 students at one of 20 public (n = 39 or
65%) or 9 private (n = 21 or 35%) universities, representing every major geo-
graphic region nationwide. Twenty percent (n = 12) belonged to fraternities.
Participants were distributed by class as follows: freshmen (n = 7 or 11.9%),
sophomores (n = 10 or 16.9%), juniors (n = 7 or 11.9%), seniors (n = 17 or
28.8%), and graduate level (n = 18 or 30.5%). Most (53, 89.8 %) were of tradi-
tional college age (18-24 years), whereas the remaining 6 were between the ages of
25 and 30. The mean age of all Phase I participants was 21.54 years (SD = 2.68).
Most (46, 77.97%) identified themselves as White; 3 (5.0%) identified as Black, 3
(5.0%) as Asian, 4 (6.8%) as Latino or Hispanic, and 1 (1.69%) each as multiracial,
Asian Indian, or Middle Eastern.
In Phase II, 20% (n = 3) were freshmen, 33 percent (n = 5) were sopho-
mores, 6.7% (n = 1) were juniors, 33% (n = 5) were seniors, and 6.7% (n = 1) were
graduate students. The mean age of these participants was 20.53 years (SD = 1.67);
all were of traditional college age (18-24 years). Ten students (66.7%) identified as
White, 2 (13.3%) as Latino, and 1 each (6.7%) as Black, Middle Eastern, or Asian.
Participants read and accepted the Information Sheet approved by the
University of Southern California (appendix A) prior to participation in the study.

48
Raters
Three post-candidacy doctoral-level students, including the author, read and
categorized participants’ Phase I critical incident forms. Two raters were self-
identified gay males and one was a self-identified lesbian, all over age 25 years.
Measures
Two measures were used in this study. In Phase I a variant of Flanagan’s
(1954) Critical Incident Technique was utilized. A researcher-developed Paired
Comparison Questionnaire was created for use in Phase II. The use of the two data
collection instruments allowed for collection and analysis of data quantitatively and
qualitatively in order to utilize the mixed-methods style of research.
Critical Incident Technique
The CYEQ, an adaptation of Flanagan’s (1954) critical incident technique,
was developed by 11 doctoral students and their dissertation advisor. The critical
incident technique provides the researcher with the means to explore past events
from the perspective and in the words of the participants (Stevens, 2004). Flanagan
described a critical incident as occurring “in a situation where the purpose or intent
of the act seems fairly clear to the observer and where its consequences are
sufficiently definite to leave little doubt concerning its effects” (p. 327). Stevens
described critical incidents as “experiences that differed from what was defined as
normal, expected events by the participants” (p. 7).
The CYEQ instructed participants, “Think back over your experience as a
college student and identify once incident or experience that had particular influ-
ence on your sense of who you are. This could have been either positive or
negative.” The next segment of the survey asked participants, “Please describe that

49
incident or experience in a few sentences. Be sure to indicate: (a) what that incident
or experience was; (b) if another person or persons were involved in this incident or
experience; if so, describe them and their relationship to you; (c) what you think
was important about this incident or experience, and why; and (d) what you believe
the long-term effect has been on your sense of who you are. The last question
asked, “At what point in your college experience did this incident or experience
occur?” Students were then given the directive to rate “the degree to which you
experienced this incident or experience as positive” and “the eventual effect this
incident or experience had on your sense of yourself” using a 7-point rating scale
(1 = very negative to 7 = very positive).
Eleven doctoral candidates and their advisor piloted the CYEQ, using both
college students and nonstudents in two successive trials. After each trial, the
respondents gave feedback as to the ease of use and the clarity of the form’s
instructions. The feedback was used to refine the form for use in the study. A copy
of the CYEQ is attached as appendix B.
Paired Comparisons Questionnaire
The categories of critical incidents developed during Phase I of the study
constituted the concept elements that were used in developing the paired-compari-
son questionnaire (CYEQ). That is, each category was paired with each of the
others and participants were instructed to rate the similarity between the items in
the pair on a 6-point scale (1 = not at all alike to 6 = very much alike). The number
of items on the questionnaire depended on the number of categories developed.
(The number of items was N(N-1)/2, where N is the number of categories. For
example, if 10 categories were developed during Phase I, then the questionnaire

50
would have 45 items.) The paired comparison questionnaire is included as
appendix C.
Procedures
Phase I: Data Collection
The participants in Phase I were 59 self-identified gay male (ages 18-30)
undergraduate and graduate students at public and private universities nationwide.
They were identified through online listserve postings (a weekly or monthly e-mail
that is sent to an organization’s listserve subscribers). Each respective campus
LGBT center director gave appropriate institutional permission to solicit student
participation in the study and subsequently posted the solicitation notice on the
respective LGBT center online listserve postings. These participants generated 98
completed responses to the CYEQ utilizing an online link to a Web-based survey
design and data collection site. Each participant received written instructions for
how to complete the CYEQ on the Web site and had the option of completing
either one or two critical incident forms on the online survey. Some of the partici-
pants chose to complete only one form; none completed more than two.
Data were collected anonymously and the voluntary nature of the study was
emphasized. Upon completing the CYEQ, participants were invited to return for
Phase II of the study. The 39 who were interested, offered e-mail contact informa-
tion separately from the CYEQ.
Phase I: Creation of Themes
Three doctoral student raters coded and collapsed the data. Once the data
were collected, three doctoral student raters read student responses from the CYEQ

51
and coded and collapsed them into categorical themes using “participant statements
relevant to a particular topic [and sorting] these statements into groups based on
conceptual similarity” (Bedi & Alexander, 2004, p. 3). The exemplar statements,
representative of categories of impact on gay male identity development, became
the units of analysis for the Phase II paired comparison activity.
Specifically, the raters read all 98 CYEQ responses from Phase I. Like
statements were synthesized into groups and given conceptual labels. The raters
revised the categories several times, first individually and then as a group, until
reaching consensus on the conceptual units of analysis. Individual statements by
respondents were chosen to represent conceptual categories as exemplar statements.
The three raters assigned all 98 incidents, again first individually and then
as a group, to one of the 14 categories. As some incidents incorporated multiple
themes, the predominating theme had to be agreed upon by the raters. When there
was difficulty, agreement was obtained by the raters’ careful examination of the
critical incident, with a conscious effort to avoid biased connotations or con-
clusions that were imposed by the raters. By this means, each of the 98 incidents
was assigned to one of the categories.
Phase II
I recruited participants from Phase I of the study to volunteer for Phase II
when they had completed the CYEQ. Of the 59 Phase I participants who qualified
and completely filled out a at least one response, 39 participants indicated that they
desired to participate in Phase II of the study and provided an e-mail address at
which to notify them of the start of the study’s next phase. Those who chose to

52
volunteer were contacted via the e-mail address that they had provided during
Phase I on the online survey and data collection Web site.
The 39 participants received the Internet address link to the survey and data
collection website hosting the Phase II Paired Comparison Questionnaire in its
electronic format and were requested to complete the questionnaire. A total of 15 of
the 39 respondents completed the 91 item Phase II survey in its entirety. Fifteen of
the 39 participants completed the Paired Comparison Questionnaire in its entirety.
All 15 responses met the study’s inclusion criteria of gender, self-identification as
gay males, and age. The exemplar statements derived from Phase I constituted the
concept elements to be used in developing the paired-comparison questionnaire.
The resulting data became the units of analysis from which the multivariate concept
map was formulated.
Data Analysis
After Phase II data collection, the similarity ratings by each participant were
arranged into a separate similarity matrix. Each category was listed both vertically
and horizontally in the matrix, and the similarity score for each paired comparison
was entered in the appropriate cell below the diagonal. These data served as the
basis for the concept mapping analyses.
The similarity ratings by each participant were subjected to both nonmetric
MDS and clustering analyses, with the overall aim of depicting the structures that
participants used in thinking of the impacts that college had on them. All analyses
employed the standard computer statistical analysis program SPSS
®
.

53
Multidimensional Scaling
Multidimensional scaling utilizes a similarity matrix of categories and
creates coordinate estimates representative of points on a multidimensional graph.
The distance between these points, based on MDS estimates, is indicative of how
Phase II participants judged the similarity between categories of impact. Less
important than the exact positioning of each coordinated on the map relative to the
graph’s top, bottom, right, or left is the distance or spatial relationships of the
points to each other (Bedi & Alexander, 2004; Jackson & Trochim, 2002), which
means that the graph can be rotated and still retain its meanings.
With MDS, it has been recommended not to interpret more dimensions than
the number of elements (in this case, themes) divided by 4 (Kruskal & Wish, 1978).
Thus, the 14 categories should have no more than three dimensions. Also, because
its representations are spatial, MDS is not generally useful with greater than three
or four dimensions because, when three or more dimensions are used, it is more
difficult to graph and interpret solutions (Trochim, 1989). Bedi and Alexander
(2004) found that visually representing cluster results on a two-dimensional graph
is more appropriately and easily done than on one featuring three or more
dimensions. They indicated that, when too many dimensions are used, the risk of
picking up random variation in the data is greater. When Trochim examined
dimensionality in MDS, he learned that, when paired with HCA, two-dimensional
solutions are almost always acceptable.
Choosing the optimal number of dimensions is not always easy. The
relative fit of the MDS solution to the data serves as the primary selection criterion.
The common indicator of fit is stress
1
, which is the square root of the normalized
residual sum of squares. Values of 0 indicate perfect fit of the model to the data,

54
and larger values indicate less fit. Kruskal and Wish (1978) recommended that a
one-dimension solution with a stress
1
< .15 suggests that this solution is the best
representation. Failing this, solutions with more dimensions should be examined.
The “elbow” in the stress
1
fit values is examined in a manner similar to the scree
test in factor analysis. Kruskal and Wish recommended the cutoff of stress
1
< .10 as
a criterion of adequacy in deciding on the elbow; in other words, does the elbow
adequately account for the data by being below the .10 threshold?
After this fit criterion, Kruskal and Wish (1978) recommended interpreta-
bility, ease of use, and stability as other criteria to use in selecting dimensions.
Interpretability refers to the solution that makes the most sense conceptually. Ease
of use refers to parsimony. Fewer dimensions are preferable because they depict the
structure more simply. Stability refers to the reliability of the structure, which can
be affected by minor movement of items; however, this is more important when
MDS is used nomothetically than ideographically, as here.
Clustering
Clustering analyses were used to explore whether the data were better
depicted with a discrete, rather than dimensional, representation. Clustering focuses
on differences of “type,” in contrast to MDS’s differences of “amount,” and thus
allowed examination of how the generated themes were qualitatively different. I
examined the similarity matrix using both hierarchical clustering and add-tree
clustering methods. Both methods involve different assumptions, a presentation of
which is beyond the scope of this paper; however, it was deemed that using both
and looking for commonalties would result in greater levels of confidence in any

55
structures yielded. I chose to focus more on hierarchical clustering, using Euclidean
distance and Ward’s method of linkage, with complete linking as an added check.
The selection of the number of clusters is rarely clear (Borgen & Barnett,
1987), and selection procedures range from informal to statistical. Given the
current focus on interpretability and ease of use, I focused on the informal
approach. The logic is similar to that of the scree test in factor analysis. Hierarchi-
cal clustering presents the data in the form of a dendogram, which is a representa-
tion of the distance of each theme from each other theme. The fusion coefficient
(i.e., the value of the distance parameter listed in the clustering dendogram for each
number of clusters) is examined for an “elbow,” as in MDS, using the criteria of
interpretability and ease of use to yield the final cluster representation.

56
CHAPTER 3
RESULTS
The sequential exploratory approach employed by the MVCM research
design focused on qualitative data analysis in Phase I and quantitative data analysis
in Phase II. The results from each phase are reported separately in that order in this
chapter
Phase I Results
The 98 Phase I CYEQ responses (see appendix D) were grouped into 14
categories of incidents or experiences that participants indicated had had significant
impact on their identity development during college. Table 1 identifies the 14
categories and the abbreviations used to label them later on in the presentation of
findings.
Descriptions of Categories
and Typical Responses
This section presents descriptions of the 14 categories developed during
Phase I of the study. Each description includes responses from the CYEQ that
helped to shed light on the experiences included in the respective category.
Having a Positive Gay Role Model
This category included 7 (7.1%) of the 98 incidents. Incidents in this
category concerned knowing a confident, accomplished gay person who positively
influenced one’s gay identity development. The excerpts below typify these
statements.

57
Table 1

Categories and Abbreviations

Complete categories Abbreviation

Having a positive gay role model Role model
Experiencing acceptance as a gay person during travel abroad Abroad
Having sexual identity affirmed during an academic course Academic
Coming out as a gay person to others in the campus community Coming out
Assertively identifying as a gay person through public behavior Public
Challenging other’s homophobic beliefs Challenging
Participating in a gay activism/leadership role Activism
Having a direct experience with homophobic harassment or assault Harassment
Receiving the support of a formal lgbt center or organization Lgbt center
Experiencing gay romance for the first time Romance
Having a gay sexual experience Sex
Encountering unexpected adversity (independent of sexuality) Adversity
Experiencing a sexual assault (by another gay man) Assault
Experiencing religious-based rejection Religious

I met a 4th-year gay student while I was a 1st-year who introduced me to
other gays, which showed me that it was OK to be gay and that gay people
are diverse. This allowed me to explore my attractions toward other guys
and ultimately enabled me to accept that as who I am.
I met people whose actions (and in some cases inactions) helped lead to
how gay people are perceived in society. Having a diverse group of these
role models has really helped inspire me to grow.”

58
Experiencing Acceptance as a Gay
Person During Travel Abroad
This category included 2 (2.1%) of the 98 responses. These students
recounted traveling internationally and experiencing a new level of broad accept-
ance of gay culture in large urban settings for the first time:
Being abroad in Australia . . . and being out from the start gave me new-
found confidence in myself. Many people there were very friendly and it
seriously made no difference. I think the fact that people were so indifferent
made it even more normal.
I went abroad to London and came out there. I think it was easier because it
was a completely different environment, and I felt supported by the group
of students I was studying with, and also by the gay-friendly climate of
London. If I had not lived there for a year, I am sure that my life would
have been very different, because I am not sure when I would have had the
courage to take that step.
Having Sexual Identity Affirmed
During an Academic Course
This category included 3 (3.1%) of the 98 responses. The common theme in
these incidents was discovering aspects of one’s sexual identity through engage-
ment in intellectual discussion in classes.
I took a class called “Conceptions of Self.” The course has helped me better
understand my status as a gay man as not just a sexual orientation, but a
significant influence in shaping my identity.
Coming Out as a Gay Person to
Others in the Campus Community
This category included 21 (21.4%) of the 98 responses. Almost all of the
incidents had something to do with disclosing one’s gay sexual orientation and
receiving support from gay and straight members of the campus community,
including fraternities or, in one instance, a gay online community. Some responses
were related to coming out to oneself or to having one’s overall identity as a gay
man affirmed in positive ways by the campus community.

59
I have always looked up to my brother. He joined a fraternity when he went
to college and I decided to do the same. he men of Sigma Nu embraced me
as a brother, knowing full well that I identify as gay. Having a group of men
accept me in such a way makes me feel good about myself, and gives me a
more positive outlook on being homosexual.
Coming out to my friends when they asked me about it; it was very easy to
do so, though, because most of the people at USC seem very open. I come
from eastern Europe so imagine the difference in mentality; it was a very
nice feeling to know you are accepted fully for who you are as a whole.
When I started exploring my sexuality, I made several friends through the
Internet. I started to hang out with some of them and then met their friends
as well. I had never really had any gay friends, and I started making friends
with lots of gay people around my college/city. It was nice to have these
friends, some of which have become very, very close friends. They were a
priceless resource for me as I explored my sexuality and myself. I talked
with them about their coming out stories and their experiences and it was
extremely helpful.
Assertively Identifying as a Gay
Person Through Public Behavior
This category included 4 (4.1%) of the 98 responses. These students had
engaged in kissing, hugging, or holding hands with a boyfriend or date in a public
setting or wearing visible symbols of gay identity such as a T-shirt, pin, or ribbon.
When I for the first time was able to kiss a boy (my boyfriend for the first
time) in public and in full daylight.
Another experience that has shaped me is the first time I wore a ribbon on
coming out day. Everyone I knew or know assumed I was gay.
Challenging Others’ Homophobic
Beliefs
This category included 6 (6.1%) of the 98 responses. Assertively confront-
ing homophobic belief systems in classroom settings and in other campus settings
was the common activity in the incidents in this category. Some students
challenged viewpoints held by other gay students, which they perceived to be
misguided, offensive, or homophobic in nature.

60
An experience that shaped my sense of who I am is one that is related to my
sexuality. The specific incident would be a debate I had with my roommate,
a leader of the campus gay and etc. organization. His position is that I need
to use appropriate language and non gender-specific terms, and for example
he often enters a room full of males and says, “Hey, girls” to raise aware-
ness of how people say, “Hey, guys” to girls. I think this is ridiculous. We
debated about these issues for a long time, and I realized that I’m the kind
of gay person who doesn’t feel the need to carry other people’s burdens on
my back. I’m not a woman, nor am I “intersex.” And while I care about
equality and all that, I have my own battles to fight. So this helped me
decide to be more selective when joining activist causes, and to also think
more critically about whatever activist trend is popular at any particular
moment and not just blindly follow it.
Another student openly challenged a peer to change his perceptions of gay people.
Being told by a classmate who hailed from a small conservative town that I
changed his perception about who/what gay people are. This classmate was
someone who was in two of my classes in the same semester and someone I
collaborated with on a project. This incident not only changed one person’s
stereotypical perceptions about being homosexual, but also allowed him to
see that, no matter what persuasion one may be, they need not fit into a box.
The long-term effect this has had on me is that I allowed me to take owner-
ship of myself as a gay man, and helped me to realize that I need not sub-
scribe to a certain persona or ideology simply because I identify as gay.
Participating in a Gay
Activism/Leadership Role
This category included 6 (6.1%) of the 98 responses. The students who
mentioned this source of impact mentioned being involved in leadership roles as an
openly identifiable gay person on campus, whether with LGBT groups or in roles
not associated with LGBT identity.
(a) Being elected as one of eight class representatives for Tufts student
government during my freshman year. (b) The main other person was my
dormitory neighbor that year. He was also elected as well, and part of me
wanted to run because I saw his enthusiasm for student government. It made
me want to get involved. Eventually, we became better friends. Unfortun-
ately, I developed a very strong crush on him (although he was straight) and
it made me severely depressed throughout the rest of the year. (c) Being
elected to student government was important to me because it gave me a
sense of elite identity at Tufts. I wasn’t an athlete or member of a Greek
organization, but being elected as a member of student government gave me
a sense of elitism and belonging at a snobby university like Tufts. (d) It
gave me a group of friends who could appreciate my sense of humor.

61
Another student took a leadership role in a non-LGBT-related movement:
Last year, in the month before graduation, I was a participant in the cam-
paign for Living Wage at our school. Although not one of the main students
involved in the more dramatic sit-in, I took great interest in the movement
and ended up being active in the movement more as a whole. However, I
like to think that I was not just following the crowd blindly; learning more
about the problems at our school caused me to become much more aware of
social issues in our city and the nation as a whole. Several of my friends,
many of whom were not as privileged as I am in terms of finances, were
especially active. Basically, although our queer programs throughout under-
grad times led us to be involved in things with the minority rights com-
munity as a whole and to understand our privileges, this kind of “cemented”
that perspective in me.
Having a Direct Experience With
Homophobic Harassment or
Assault
This category included 13 (13.3%) of the 98 responses. All respondents in
this category had witnessed or experienced firsthand incidents of verbal, emotional,
or physical violence at the hands of members of the campus community, some of
them quite extreme in nature. The following incidents were typical.
I was doing my laundry at my residence hall. There were several people in
the room, and one of them was an obviously gay male. When that gay left,
another male in the room uttered, “Fuckin’ queer.” I didn’t speak up and tell
him to shut up. I wish I would’ve. That guy probably had the perception
that all gays were flaming. I am not at all flaming. Had I spoken up, I
would’ve at least made him think twice before repeating his utterance again.
A negative experience which I encountered happened at the Student Union
Building Lobby when I was 22. I was studying at a table, across from me, a
group of one man and two women were looking at the table tents. The
young man (18 or so) picked up the advertisement that was had contact
information on it for the LGBT club at school. I overheard him tell the girls,
“If these faggots were here right now, I would throw this down on the table,
and say, ‘Explain this to me.’ And, they wouldn’t be able to. Because being
a faggot is unnatural.”

62
Receiving the Support of a Formal
LGBT Campus Center or
Organization
This category included 7 (7.1%) of the 98 responses. These incidents had to
do with exploring gay identity development as a direct result of the support
received from LGBT centers and related support groups on campus, including a
gay fraternity. Students made mention of social events, involvement with LGBT
center activities and networking with LGBT students through campus-based
support groups.
My first LGBTQ function at USC was the Bar-B-Queer during Welcome
Week . . . . The entire experience has propelled me to attend more and more
LGBT events in an attempt to not only network with others, but also to
discover confidence within myself.
The Gay-Straight Alliance group on campus is called Vision. I got a chance
to be a part of the community on campus and have since been more at home
knowing I have friends like me.
I think that one experience that I have had that has helped me to find out
who I am would be joining the Delta Lambda Phi fraternity. The fraternity
itself is known as the “gay” fraternity and therefore I am around a lot of
guys who share the same experiences as me. This was important because it
helped me to transition to college life after living at home and starting off
college doing the same thing and then transferring to a completely different
world that was more accepting. The long-term effect that this is going to
have on me is that it is going to make me more confident in who I am.
Experiencing Gay Romance for the
First Time
This category included 9 (9.2%) of the 98 responses. These students had
fallen in love with a man who reciprocated that affection:
I met my first boyfriend. We started hanging out more and more often until
one night he kissed me, and we have been together ever since. We are
boyfriends and we care for each other.
My first long-term relationship with another guy during my second year
helped to further settle any questions in my mind. We loved each other and
the 11-month relationship enabled me to solidify a self-identity as
homosexual.

63
Having a Gay Sexual Experience
This category included 2 (2.1%) of the 98 responses. Both respondents
described having sexual relationships with other men on campus that were different
from those in the “gay romance” category.
My first sexual real sexual experience with another man was a classmate.
He caught me checking him out and asked me if I wanted to join him in the
library bathroom. I did. It was the first time I gave oral sex.
Encountering Unexpected
Adversity (Independent of
Sexuality)
This category included 12 (12.2%) of the 98 responses. Each student talked
about having dealt with difficult challenges or hardships in his life, but most also
spoke of overcoming these difficult life circumstances.
The incident that had the biggest impact on my life was my freshman year
when my ex-boyfriend tried committing suicide, twice.
Finding out I hadn’t done extremely well on a chemistry exam that I studied
really hard for . . . . Although I was upset at first, I eventually came back to
a more balanced perspective. . . . It’s reminded me that I must remain more
balanced and keep everything in perspective.
When my mother got in a car accident, I had to take on a lot more responsi-
bilities because she needed extra attention. My grades suffered a lot but I
was able to finish the quarter.
Experiencing a Sexual Assault (by
Another Gay Man)
This category included 3 (3.1%) of the 98 responses. These respondents had
been victimized sexually by other men. In two instances the men were gay, and in
another the orientation of the perpetrator was indeterminate but the tone of the
assault had a sexual undertone. The raters, two of whom were gay men (including
myself), believed that the following incident constituted assault and therefore
belonged in this category because, on an emotional level, being placed in this

64
position feels like being assaulted: “I had unprotected sex with a guy and about a
month later that bastard told me he might be HIV positive.”
Experiencing Religious-Based
Rejection
This category included 4 (4.1%) of the 98 responses. The students in this
domain had been subject to overt rejection as a gay person from members of
religious groups or individuals on campus. The responses were expressive of anger,
sadness, pain, and defiance in the face of rejection. The first incident reported
below might been placed in the “challenging others’ homophobic beliefs” category
but the raters agreed that the experience took place in the context of a classroom in
which the student was challenging religious views strongly held by members of a
church community, albeit while attending college in a secular setting:
In an English class we were discussing gay marriage. Because Idaho State
University has a high population for Mormon students, the class discussions
tend to be very conservative. After hearing a plethora of lies about gays and
gay marriage, I outed myself to the class and told them my view on the
topic.
After I finished speaking about how gay and lesbians were discriminated
against, second-class citizens, etc., one student (a Black football [player]
from California, the only other minority in the class), started clapping.
Everyone else in the class looked stunned. From that moment on I promised
myself that I would speak out whenever I got the chance. At that moment, I
became an advocate for LGBT rights.
Analysis of Incidents
Table 2 summarizes the number of incidents per category. The table also
presents the mean values of the year in college during which the incident happened,
the positive value given by the student to the event, and the long-term effect on the
student’s sense of self. These findings are discussed in this subsection.

65

Table 2

Number of Incidences per Category, Year of Occurrence, Positive Value, and
Eventual Effect on Student’s Sense of Self

Eventual effect
on sense
College year
a
Positive value
b
of self
b

Category n M SD M SD M SD

Role model 6 2.00 1.10 6.67 0.82 6.50 0.76
Abroad 2 3.00 0.00 6.50 0.50 6.00 1.00
Academic 3 1.67 0.47 6.33 0.47 5.8 1.30
Coming out 21 1.95 1.17 5.81 1.53 6.33 0.64
Public 4 1.75 0.83 5.75 1.64 6.00 1.22
Challenging 6 3.17 0.90 4.17 1.34 6.00 0.82
Activism 6 2.33 1.37 5.50 2.06 6.00 0.82
Harassment 13 2.38 1.15 2.23 1.58 4.15 1.51
LGBT center 7 2.29 1.16 5.29 1.91 6.00 0.93
Romance 9 1.89 0.88 4.78 1.40 6.11 0.99
Sex 2 3.50 0.50 5.50 1.50 5.00 0.00
Adversity 12 1.83 0.69 3.33 1.93 6.25 0.83
Assault 3 1.33 0.47 2.00 0.82 3.33 1.70
Religious 4 2.00 1.22 3.5 2.60 5.75 1.30

Note. LGBT = lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender.

aCollege year: 1 = freshman, 4 = senior.
b
Ratings are based on a 7-point scale on
which higher scores are more positive.

66
Year of Occurrence
Every respondent identified the year of college during which the significant
incident described had occurred. A class standing coding system was utilized
whereby freshman =1, sophomore = 2, junior = 3, and senior = 4. The mean value
of the all reported events was 2.22, indicating that the typical incident occurred
midway through the sophomore year.
As seen in Table 2, the year in college during which incidents occurred
ranged from freshman year (M = 1.33) for Assault to junior year (M = 3.5) for Sex.
Three categories had mean values of 3.00 or above (Sex, Challenging, and Abroad),
and eight domains had mean values of 2.00 or below (Role Model, Academic,
Coming Out, Public, Romance, Adversity, Assault, and Religious). Activism,
Harassment, and LGBT Center had mean values from 2.29 to 2.38.
Assault and Adversity were the two categories in which incidents occurred
earliest in the college careers of the students (M = 1.83 and 1.33, respectively).
Moreover, they had low standard deviation values (0.47 and 0.69, respectively).
Incidents in the categories of Sex, Abroad, and Challenging (M = 3.5, 3.00,
and 3.17, respectively) happened relatively late in the college experience. These
categories also had small standard deviation values (0.50, 0.00, and 0.90, respect-
ively). None occurred during the freshman year of college.
Positive Value Rating
Respondents answered two other questions on the CYEQ. The first question
asked the student to determine “the degree to which you experienced this incident
or experience as positive” on a scale of 1 = very negative to 7 = very positive. As
seen in Table 2, students perceived incidents related to Sex, Activism, Public,
Academic, Abroad, and Role Model very positively, with mean values ranging

67
from 5.50 to 6.67. Incidents related to having a positive gay role model (Role
Model) were rated as the most positively perceived category of experience, with a
mean value of 6.67. Students perceived incidents related to Religious, Adversity,
Harassment, and Assault very negatively, with mean values ranging from 2.00 to
3.50. Of these domains, incidents related to experiencing a sexual assault by
another gay man (Assault) were rated most negatively, with a mean value of 2.00.
Eventual Effect of Experience on
Sense of Self
The second question asked the student to assess “the eventual effect this
incident or experience had on your sense of self” using the same 7-point scale. As
Table 2 indicates, many students rated incidents very differently on the Eventual
Effect on Sense of Self than on the Positive Value scale. That is, the eventual
impact of the incidents seemed different from the level of positivity students the
students reported for the incidents.
Challenging, Harassment, Romance, Assault, Religious, and Adversity were
categories in which students assigned much higher ratings on the Eventual Effect
on Sense of Self scale than on the Positive Value scale, with mean scores ranging
from 2.00 to 4.78 on the latter and from 3.33 to 6.25 on the former. Encountering
unexpected adversity independent of sexuality (Adversity) had the greatest value
differential on the two scales, with students assigning a mean 3.33 on the Positive
Value scale and 6.25 on the Eventual Effect on Sense of Self scale, a difference of
2.92. Although Assault increased by a value of 1.33 on the Eventual Effect on
Sense of Self scale, it remained the lowest-rated category on that scale as well, at
3.33. All of the remaining categories, each of which was rated very high on the

68
Positive Value scale, were rated just slightly higher or lower on the Eventual Effect
on Sense of Self scale, maintaining very high student ratings on the second scale.
Phase II Results
Data from the similarity ratings were used to conduct MDS and hierarchical
cluster analyses to answer the research question, “What conceptual map do gay
male, self-identified gay male, 18-30 year old, freshman through graduate-level
students use to organize their experiences of these categories of experiences?”
Multidimensional Scaling (MDS)
Nonmetric MDS was applied to the Paired Comparison Questionnaire
similarity ratings and represented numerically as points on a grid. Although it is
possible to use MDS to create any number of dimensions with the similarity data,
the small number of categories (items on the grid) to which MDS was applied made
a two-dimensional grid the simplest and clearest way to represent the set of x-y
values seen in Table 3.
The use of a three-dimensional solution was examined. Because the ratio of
objects (14) to dimensions (3) was low, it was questionable whether the lower
stress value obtained using the three-dimensional solution indicated a better fit to
the data. The two-dimensional solution produced a stress value of .28, while the
three-dimensional solution produced a value of .18, in both cases meeting the .30
threshold for solution stability (Trochim, 1989). The two-dimensional solution
produced a scatter plot (Figure 1), utilizing the Euclidean Distance Model.
In order to make sense of the concept map, the dimensions must be labeled
and interpreted by “visually inspect[ing] the configuration, specifically examining
the position of the items in relation to each other and the dimensions” (Darcy,

69
Table 3

Dimension Values

Category Dimension 1 (x) Dimension 2 (y)

Role model 1.20 -0.59
Abroad 0.97 -0.01
Academic 0.48 0.38
Coming out -1.35 -0.94
Public -2.29 -0.57
Challenging 0.02 -1.92
Activism -0.60 1.78
Harassment -0.07 1.47
LGBT center -1.25 0.24
Romance -0.10 1.30
Sex 0.20 -0.73
Adversity 0.78 0.12
Assault 1.45 0.11
Religious 0.66 -0.63

Note. LGBT = lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender.

Tracey, &I Darcy, 2004, p. 148). At one end of the continuum seen in Dimension 1
is Challenging Other’s Homophobic Beliefs, while at the other end is Participating
in a Gay Activism/Leadership Role. Dimension 1 was labeled Low-Level Gay
Identity Development versus High-Level Gay Identity Development. This
dimension represents a low level of student commitment to gay identity and

70

Figure 1. Euclidean Distance Model.

community versus a high level of investment and commitment to one’s gay identity
and the gay community.
At one end of Dimension 2 appears Assertively Identifying as a Gay Person
Through Public Behavior and on the other end of Dimension 2 are clustered in very
close proximity the categories of Having a Positive Gay Role Model, Encountering
Unexpected Adversity Independent of Sexuality, Experiencing Acceptance as a
Gay Person During Travel Abroad and Experiencing a Sexual Assault by Another
Gay Man. Dimension 2 was labeled Stabilizing Gay Identity versus Exploring Gay
Identity and represents a nascent, emerging exploration of gay identity versus a
highly developed level of identity integration as a gay man.

71
Cluster Analysis
MDS and HCA revealed differences in the structure of data in complement-
ary fashion. “An important reason why a neighborhood interpretation can reveal
other patterns in the data is that its focus is primarily on the small distances (large
similarities), while a dimensional approach attends most to the large distances”
(Kruskal & Wish, 1978, p. 44). The Ward Linkage Method was used to determine
the distance of one concept from the others, forming a dendrogram, shown in
Figure 2.

Figure 2. Dendrogram using Ward Method.

A six-cluster solution is apparent if a vertical line is drawn at point 12.5 on
the dendrogram. When examined, the clustered themes possess conceptual homo-

72
geneity and a commonality around a defining attribute. The six-cluster solution was
chosen because it met the study’s criteria for ease of use and clear interpretability.
The three raters used the meaning of the themes within each cluster to label
the six clusters. Table 4 identifies the six clusters and the themes contained therein.

Table 4

Themes by Cluster

Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4 Cluster 5 Cluster 6
Exploration Developing High Integration Disclosing Out and
Resolve Commitment via Support Proud

Adversity Academic Activism Harassment Challenging Public
Abroad Sex Romance Coming Out
Assault Religious LGBT Center
Role Model

Cluster 1 consists of Abroad, Assault, Adversity, and Role Model and is
labeled Exploration. These categories suggest students who are starting to balance
the new, complex challenges of college life with a deepening, if still emerging,
exploration of sexuality while embarking on their own personal growth trajectories.
Cluster 2 consists of Academic, Sex, and Religious and is labeled Develop-
ing Resolve. These categories have as a common theme a deepening commitment
to identity development as gay men who have moved well beyond initial explora-
tions of sexuality.

73
Activism stands alone as Cluster 3 and is labeled High Commitment. This
cluster reflects students who have committed wholeheartedly to a gay identity and
who have taken an active role in providing leadership and mentoring to other gay
students on campus.
Cluster 4 consists of Harassment, Romance, and LGBT Center and is
labeled Integration Via Support. Students at this level of identity commitment have
experienced high levels of harassment on campus, in part due to high visibility,
rejection of heterosexual relationship paradigms, and likely involvement in activ-
ism. They have reached out and received support from multiple LGBT support
groups on campus, including the LGBT center, gay fraternities, and other LGBT
student organizations. This support has played a central role enhancing their
identity stabilization and deepening commitment to that identity.
Cluster 5 consists of Challenging and Coming Out and is labeled Disclos-
ing. Students in this cluster are beginning the lifelong process of coming out and
are taking the first steps toward committing to their gay identity development, as
evidenced by questioning and challenging behaviors in classrooms.
Cluster 6 involves only one category, Public, and is labeled Out and Proud.
The students in this cluster have achieved identity integration, pride, and self-
empowerment.
In combination, the MDS and cluster analysis resulted in the creation of the
concept map depicted in Figure 3. The figure is a graphic representation of how
self-identified gay male 18- to 30-year-old undergraduate and graduate students
conceptually organized their own understanding of the sources of impact during
college on their sense of self.

74

Figure 3. Concept map.

75
CHAPTER 4
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to describe, from the perspective of gay male
students, the college-related events and experiences that have affected their sense of
self and then their mental representations of these sources. This chapter discusses
the findings of the study related to the research questions and how they align with
prior research, the limitations of the current study, directions for future research
that emerged from the findings, and the implications of the findings for practi-
tioners in higher education settings.
Phase I
Fourteen categories of impact were developed from the set of CYEQ
responses. These categories are examined for alignment with the literature.
Receiving the Support of a Formal LGBT Campus Center or Organization
was a category in which the respondents rated the incidents as strongly positive.
One typically exuberant response was,
I live in an especially gay-friendly residence hall that also happens to have a
high number of gay residents. I’m happy I don’t have to go far to find
people I can talk and relate to. I’ve made many life-long gay friends!
This collective and pronounced positivity by respondents lends validity to Rhoads’s
(1997a, 1997b), Stevens’s (2004), and D’Augelli’s (1991, 1993) studies confirming
the essential role that the campus LGBT Center and social networks play in sup-
porting the identity integration and drive for empowerment in the lives of gay
students as expressed by the students themselves. Many incidents in the Coming
Out as a Gay Person to Others in the Campus Community and the Receiving the
Support of a Formal LGBT Campus Center or Organization categories centered on

76
the integral role that the LGBT center and other LGBT campus organizations play
in helping students to come out and become empowered. Empowerment was the
ultimate goal of the gay men in Stevens’s study. This heartfelt response was
typical:
This is my first quarter as a college student, and over this short period of
time I had the greatest period of self-identification. I always knew that I was
gay, but until very recently no one had the slightest idea. After 2 weeks at
UCLA I decided to check out one of the support groups on campus for
LGBTQ students. I was the first one in the room, and slowly others started
to arrive. Shortly, we moved to an introduction and I was the last person in
line. I could not believe what was happening; all these guys were openly
talking about their homosexuality! Finally, it was my turn and with a little
struggle I was able to tell everyone that this was the first time I ever came
out. Everyone was so supportive and I felt empowered. I was a little shaken
up, but I was very happy!
Conversely, student responses largely differed from Dilley’s (2005)
assertion that, whereas gay student organizations offer benefits to some gay
students on campus, in and of themselves they do not provide enough opportunities
socially or developmentally for positive identity development to result. One student
expressed, “The most formative experience for me with respect to my sexual
identity at UNC-Chapel Hill has been working with a small group of committed
students to make vibrant and active a GLBT-Straight Alliance.”
This study’s participants corroborated Dilley’s (2005) finding that fraternity
life is conducive to the development of interpersonal relationships, along with a
sense of belonging and community. The fraternity members in the study spoke
glowingly about the ways in which fraternity brothers supported and affirmed their
identity development as gay men. Said one student in the Having a Positive Gay
Role Model category,
When I decided to pledge my fraternity, I felt an amazing connection to a
larger community. During my semester of pledging I became much more
aware of how I could personally make a difference and how my actions fit

77
into the larger queer community. It was very important during this period
because I was presented with other strong, confident, accomplished gay
men who were role models for my pledge brothers and me. I met people
whose actions (and in some cases inactions) helped lead to how gay people
are perceived in society. Having a diverse group of these role models has
really helped to inspire me to grow.
Students spoke resoundingly about the importance that the coming out
process held for them collectively, as evidenced by the 21 responses in the Coming
Out as a Gay Person to Others in the Campus Community category and how highly
students rated it for both positivity and its eventual impact on them. In many
instances participants were delighted and somewhat surprised about the ease with
which they were able to disclose their orientation to the campus community and the
resulting embrace and support they received as a result. One respondent (who
currently identified himself as gay) reflected this sentiment: “When my mostly
straight friends found out I was ‘bi’ . . . I was surprised at their complete non-
chalance regarding it.” Another student stated,
It was not as hard as I thought, coming out to other people. But soon did I
realize that it is different to come out to gay people than it is to heterosexual
people. But in the end, these people form the support group [that has]
instilled a great sense of pride and courage, which until this day is carrying
me strong as I come out to someone new every day. Sometimes I don’t get
the reaction I was expecting, but I can live with it.
The broad community support that gay students in this study are encounter-
ing on private and public campuses across the nation is highly encouraging, given
that campuses were found as recently as 2003 to be places where LGBT students
experience routine and pervasive discrimination and harassment (Evans, 2001;
Rankin, 2003). This broad level of support is pivotal, given the large number of
students in this study who, like the students in Rhoads’s (1997a, 1997b) and
D’Augelli’s studies, chose to wait until college to begin the coming out process. If,
as D’Augelli (1991) found, the more open to others gay students are, the more

78
identity development support they receive, then the coming out process is central as
a source of impact on gay student identity development. The large number of
positively viewed Coming Out as a Gay Person to Others in the Campus Com-
munity incidents certainly supports the centrality of this source of impact in the
lives of the students in this study.
The thematic overlap between the experiences in the categories of Coming
Out as a Gay Person to Others in the Campus Community and Receiving the
Support of a Formal LGBT Campus Center or Organization speaks to the ways in
which these categories are deeply enmeshed and supports Stevens’s (2004) dis-
covery that gay support networks are crucial in moving students toward empower-
ment and in combating isolation, rejection, and self-loathing. Although it would be
difficult to address Dilley’s (2005) finding that coming out is not the end goal of
every nonheterosexual type (all students in the current study self-identified as gay
and not as the various nonheterosexual types examined in that study), the promin-
ence of the Coming Out as a Gay Person to Others in the Campus Community
category in the current study suggests otherwise.
The four incidents in the Experiencing Religious-Based Rejection category
concerned conflict, being conflicted, anger, pain, and rejection. These were con-
sistent with the conclusion by Love et al. (2005) that LGBT students often feel
rejected by the very religious institutions that provide the support upon which
heterosexuals rely for spiritual support and development. Participants in that study
saw their gay identity as a sexual one and felt a growing dissonance between their
spirituality and sexuality. Some students decided to reconcile those identities, some
were deeply conflicted, and others rejected spirituality altogether. The experiences
in this study revealed students at different points on the reconciliation continuum.

79
One student expressed the serious difficulty of reconciling faith with the process of
coming out and family relationships:
During my freshman year, I came out to my family, and had to do so in a
series of letters. It was difficult, my family was not receptive, and instead
bombarded me with religious pamphlets and articles about “ex-gay”
experiences. It was difficult.
Another student faced rejection from both gay and religious communities as
he tried to reconcile these multiple dimensions of self.
I tend to not be friends with gay people nor do I tend to make friends with
conservative Christians (but I do have friends of that variety), mainly
because one aspect of my personality, gay or Christian, tends to rub one of
those groups the wrong way.
In another case, disappointment was replaced with rage and resentment.
As an undergraduate, my roommates were all fundamentalist Christians. In
my junior and senior years, one of them became part of an attempt by con-
servative religious special interest groups on campus to remove funding
from the G&L students’ association. I knew at the time that I fell in love
with other men, not women, but I did not identify as gay at the time. Still, I
was outraged by the blatant unfairness and spitefulness of efforts of the
people I knew and was close to; I came to despise my roommates and their
church because I found their actions to be blatantly immoral.
It is interesting that none of the experiences centered on sources of spiritual
support on campus, echoing the conclusion by Love et al. (2005) that colleges
should do a better job of addressing the spiritual needs of LGBT students. Another
of that study’s discoveries, that initial religious rejection served as an impetus for
gay students to explore a deeper, richer and reconciled spirituality, was borne out in
the current study by the large disparity between the mean positivity value (3.50)
that participants assigned to incidents in this category versus the mean value (5.75)
of the impact of these incidents on them. This suggests that these incidents lea
students to pursue spiritual reconciliation in the long term.

80
D’Augelli (1993) discovered that LGBT persons are invisible in college
curricula across a broad range of academic domains, including the arts. He
suggested that LGBT campus climate could be dramatically improved by simply
embedding sexual orientation into classroom discussion. The more recent experi-
ences of the students in this study suggest that times may have changed somewhat
since the early 1990s as colleges are now offering more sexuality and identity-
themed courses. These classes, at a minimum, are having a profound impact on
aiding young gay students in identity exploration and integration. The following
experience supports this strongly.
My Political Science course [was] entitled The Politics of Sexuality. I really
bonded with my classmates during this class, and even briefly dated one of
my classmates. This course profoundly shaped how I understood my “gay”
identity in relationship to a past history of other LGBT people—a history I
had never before been taught. Although I now feel that identity politics can
be very limiting, this class was the first time I felt I really belonged and was
learning about “my people.” The long-term effect of this course has been
that I became addicted to these types of courses that focus on issues of
sexuality and gender. It’s like I cannot immerse myself enough in activities
and courses concerning sexuality and gender issues.
Participants rated incidents in the Having Sexual Identity Affirmed During
an Academic Course category as high on both positivity and impact; in fact, at
6.67, the incidents in this category were highest in impact of those in any category.
Evans and Herriott (2004) reported that, when LGBT students hear positive
comments from professors in class pertaining to their sexual orientation, their
identity development is very positively supported, a discovery that was validated
by one respondent: “During my Human Sexuality course I heard for the first time
that being gay or lesbian was not a choice but something you were born with.”
The category of Encountering Unexpected Adversity Independent of
Sexuality had the third largest number of incidents (12); it also had the largest

81
discrepancy between positivity (3.33) and impact (6.25). There is little in the
current body of research that addresses adversity in the lives of gay students
unrelated to sexual orientation, whether it be a tragedy, major life challenge to be
faced, or negotiating the destructive effects of a negative situation or person. Some
experiences had to do with facing a tough challenge and succeeding, as expressed
in this incident: “I got first in a competition against Old Dominion University. It
was important because I know I can do anything I put my mind to. [It gave me] a
sense of accomplishment.
Another common theme was confronting a tragedy and becoming stronger
by facing it head on.
My mother was diagnosed with a very deadly cancer my junior year. I am
very close to my mother and it devastated the family. She immediately
started treatments and I moved back into my mom’s house 2 hours away
from the school. I worked two jobs to take care of my sister and mom when
she could not. By the end of the summer she was doing very well with treat-
ments and has been in full remission. I moved back to school to start my
first senior year. My friends, teachers, and loved ones all helped in different
ways to help my family through the very difficult time. Since then, I am
way more aware that each day is a gift and am more vocal about how I feel
about people.
The third type of challenge was that of refining one’s sense of values and
self as a product of having had a difficult relationship or experience with an
individual.
I worked in residential life as an undergraduate hall director. The depart-
ment head during that year was, in my personal opinion based on experi-
ence, an unethical individual who had a tremendously negative impact on
students and staff alike. The year culminated with my choosing not to
continue in the role as a senior despite my joy for the job, and in my
decision not to pursue student affairs as a career. This event provided me
with first-hand knowledge regarding the importance of personal and
professional ethics and equitable treatment on all levels. This negative
experience changed me in many ways but most importantly it lit a fire
within me showing that I must argue and fight for this, and it is our
responsibility to represent those who cannot represent themselves.

82
By the time gay students arrive at college, many have learned to contend
with dismissive religious groups and others who have told them that their sexuality
is not determined but rather chosen (D’Augelli, 1994; Pascarella et al., 2005), and
therefore, illegitimate. They have negotiated the customs, policies, and legal and
social barriers that prohibit gay identity expression (D’Augelli, 1994). The college
students in Stevens’s (2004) study all reported experiencing homophobia from
faculty members and other students, and many had experienced hate-filled speech,
vandalism, and violence at school. Gay students have learned to begin to reconcile
multiple identities such as race, religion, ethnicity, and their own sexuality
(Stevens). They are at a much greater risk for depression and suicide than are their
heterosexual peers during their teenage and early adult years (D’Augelli, 1991).
Among gay youth, substance abuse, victimization, and high-risk sexual behaviors
(and the associated risk of Human Immunodeficiency Virus infection) are much
more prevalent than among heterosexual peers (Bontempo & D’Augelli, 2002).
What all of this would seem to say is that the gay students who have
succeeded and arrived at college are tough, smart, battle-proven young men. They
know very well how to encounter rough times in their lives because they have had
to do that on so many levels from a very early age. The personal inner fortitude of
these students is quite evident in their experiences and in the way in which they
rated the eventual effect of some very difficult situations on their sense of self. The
results seem to say that the skills that gay men are forced to develop as teenagers
serve them very well in facing the overall challenges of life.
Despite the fact that only two responses had to do with the category Experi-
encing Acceptance as a Gay Person During Travel Abroad, the raters decided that
they were unique and rated their own thematic category. These two students shared

83
the experience of having traveled to other gay metropolises and finding broad
social acceptance of LGBT people, which had assisted them in solidifying their
own coming out process and gay identity development. Both juniors, the students
rated the experiences quite highly on both positivity and impact. An exploration of
the literature failed to find research about the impact of traveling abroad during
college on gay identity development. For this reason, the topic will be discussed
later in the section on directions for future research and implications for
practitioners.
Only three incidents comprised the thematic category of experiences of
Experiencing a Sexual Assault by Another Gay Man but were distinctively different
in tone from a similar category, Having a Direct Experience with Homophobic
Harassment or Assault. Not surprisingly, students ranked the incidents very low on
both positivity (M = 2.00) and impact (M = 3.33). The students did not like what
happened to them initially or the eventual effect that it had on their sense of self.
In the incident below (discussed in chapter 3) the perpetrator was of
indeterminate sexual orientation but the raters felt that there was a discernible
sexual overtone to the assault and that it had the negative effect of making a gay
student, someone who the research says was at a high risk for victimization as a
teenager, very tentative about going out socially.
I went to a party and felt extremely uncomfortable. There was a guy there
that was being very rude and hostile to me. I kept asking my friend if she
wanted to leave, but she insisted on staying longer. I finally got out, but as I
was leaving he wrapped his arms around me and wouldn’t let me go. I was
afraid I was going to be the victim of a hate crime. I got out just fine, but I
have not been to any parties/social gatherings where I don’t know all the
people since then.
The raters, two of whom were gay men (including myself), believed that the
following incident constituted assault, because on an emotional level, being placed

84
in this position feels like being assaulted: “I had unprotected sex with a guy and
about a month later that bastard told me he might be HIV positive.”
The final incident more closely resembles a traditional rape, not only in how
the assault occurred but also in the emotional fallout the victim endured.
I was sexually assaulted in my own room my first year in college. The
person who attacked me was a fellow hallmate who was a closeted drunk
gay man. He told me that this is what I wanted because I was gay and there-
fore should give in. This has tormented me for quite some time now and it
has taken me a few years to give myself some respect and realizing that not
all people perceive men as sex-hungry humans like my hallmate thought. I
have also come to learn that I do not need to give in to anyone and no one
will ever tell me what I want as a male and especially as a gay male.
The mean year of incident in this category was the lowest of any of the 14
categories, at 1.33. The findings seem to confirm what prior research says about
gay teenagers being at a higher risk for victimization. Perhaps later in their college
careers, the gay students in the study had developed a better sense of with whom
and where they are safe. The implications for practitioners of the findings in this
thematic category are discussed later.
Despite its ranking outside of the top five categories by number of inci-
dents, Having a Positive Gay Role Model had the highest positivity (M = 6.67) and
the second-highest impact (M = 6.50) ratings of all categories, solidly affirming the
findings of prior research on the significance of role models in the lives of gay
students. Plummer (1989) ascertained that the absence of positive LGBT role
models, along with unrelenting homophobia and heterosexism, coalesce to nega-
tively influence the identity development of gay students. Likewise, in Stevens’s
(2004) study of gay student identity development, students were very concerned
about the lack of visible LGB faculty or staff role models on campus. Students
perceived these models as much needed sources of insight and advice. In that study,

85
the sheer level of student need burdened the few faculty members who were visible
on campus. Truly, then, it is very promising that two of the six responses made
mention of both individual and faculty-wide role modeling for young gay students
whose mean age value was 2. In the first incident, the student also described
receiving support from a non-LGBT organization that supported his identity
development.
My college is a small, Southern, liberal arts school. It rests on the fringe of
the Bible Belt, and it rests in arguably the most conservative city in the state
of Florida. Throughout my sophomore year, I went through a deep and
sometimes painful self-actualization and self-awareness with regards to my
sexuality. I was encouraged heartily by the administration of my college to
be who I was and to not shy away from that. The Dean of Students in par-
ticular made my coming out process easier and was a positive role model
and influence in my life at the time, and remains someone I look to for
counsel and advice. Without the encouragement, advice, and support from
the Student Life Staff at Jacksonville University my sophomore year, I
would not be the person I am today.
In another response, the student spoke of the role that students and pro-
fessors play in supporting identity development in tandem.
The entire experience of going away to a university had a profound impact
on developing/strengthening my sense of self. Friends and professors had a
profound impact on how I came to view the world and myself. It’s hard to
pin down one major event that was in itself a changing moment when it’s
really the confluence of many factors over the 4-year period.
Another incident detailed the importance of having a gay friend (just
slightly older) as a positive gay role model.
Later sophomore year, another friend of mine had a house party and she had
invited a gay friend of hers. He was older (not by much, early 20s . . . but
that’s “older” to a 19-year-old) and we were just chatting and he’s now one
of my best friends. He “took me under his wing” in a completely cliché way
(I’m not really all that outgoing, etc.) and helped me out of my shell.
Shy of having access to spiritual support on campus, these role models may in fact
have been the closest thing that the students in this study had to spiritual guides.

86
Experiencing Gay Romance for the First Time garnered fairly low positivity
ratings (4.78) but a higher impact rating (6.11). Two incidents centered on very
negative romantic relationships (mean positivity = 3), whereas two were the
opposite (mean positivity = 7), revealing a wide range of student experiences in this
domain. At positive end of the spectrum was the following experience:
Freshman year of college, falling in love for the first time. My first best
friend in college I fell in love with. This was a very important part of my
life. I knew I was physically attracted to men, but this was the first time I
was emotionally attracted to a man. From this point, I knew it was simple. If
I was emotionally and physically attracted to a man, it means I am gay. I
understood that, and was OK with what I was feeling for the first time in
my life. It has had a tremendous part of my life [because] I knew that it was
OK to be gay . . . that my feelings had been validated, and I’ve never looked
back. It helped solidify my gay identity.
This relationship was pivotal in helping the student to become more integrated as a
gay man.
At the negative end of the continuum was a respondent who said, “My ex
and I don’t really get along and we have a personality conflict. He’s self-pro-
claimed bitchy. I’m not. Our relationship ended with gossip and pretense and I felt
terrible.” The real value of a first romance may not be so much the immediate out-
come of the relationship but rather the long-term impact on the ability to maintain a
relationship and identity integration (including sexual experimentation).
The first time I truly admitted to myself (and someone else) that I was gay.
My best friend from high school was staying with me on campus and I was
very attracted to him. I told him that I was attracted him and kissed him. He
didn’t return the affection, but also didn’t flip out. He told me that he wasn’t
gay and wasn’t attracted to me, but still wanted to be my friend; but he also
told me he wouldn’t be able to be my friend if I tried to turn our relationship
into something sexual, because he couldn’t reciprocate. Obviously, admit-
ting to myself that I am gay has had a huge long-term impact. I’m now in a
long-term committed relationship with a wonderful man. I was also able to
stay friends with the object of my affection at the time. I think this helped
me realize that I can be friends with someone I’m attracted to and not act on
that attraction. I also had my first real sexual experience with a man the next
day after class.

87
Much of the literature speaks of gay romance in impersonal terms such as
processes, growth trajectories, and identity integration but the responses in the
current study are reflective of real gay students in 2007 with real lives and real
passion, just like those of their heterosexual peers. It is true that the high value
given the eventual effect on sense of self by students lends validity to the emphasis
that prior researchers place on romance as a higher level activity on the gay identity
stabilization and commitment trajectory (D’Augelli, 1994; Troiden & Goode,
1980). The responses in this category help to put a human face on gay student
romance from the perspective of the students, taking these relationships out of the
realm of the hypothetical.
Ranking just slightly above Experiencing a Sexual Assault by Another Gay
Man in mean positivity and impact (2.23 and 4.15, respectively), Having a Direct
Experience with Homophobic Harassment or Assault is a category of incidents that
brings to mind a more oppressive era on college campuses, one that the literature
has examined at length. Many of the incidents in this category of experience were
saddening, especially to the three LGBT raters. What strikes the reader is the
randomness and sheer unpredictability of the events, and the ability of the partici-
pants to muster up inner strength in bravely facing these assaults that continue to
haunt the LGBT community. The 13 incidents in this category speak to the endur-
ing issue of harassment and discrimination against the LGBT community on
college campuses nationally. The incidents speak for themselves as very real
sources of impact on gay college student identity development in 2007.
A student who was an acquaintance was gay-bashed violently by six men,
hospitalized, after leaving a bar at the main intersection of the busy, heavily
trafficked student bar and restaurant district in town. No one came forward
with information and no one was ever held accountable for the assault. I
attended a vigil held on campus against hate a few days later; I had prepared

88
some words to speak at the open microphone, but was too distraught to
deliver them. At the rally, university administrators and local politicians
spoke, making their speeches about the importance of diversity on college
campuses and the importance of hate crimes legislation, rather than defend-
ing ourselves against the subtle and blatant forms of violence we face every
day as LGBTQ people . . . the vigil only left me feeling exhausted with fury
and grief at the ongoing violence and cold opportunism of authority figures.
My sense of who I am emerging strongly from that incident was: com-
pletely disillusioned with conventional party and legislative politics and
interested in politics of self-defense and self-determination, affiliated with
communities outside of the university and outside of the gay and lesbian
mainstream.
My first boyfriend and I were on our second date and as we were walking
home, people yelled queer out the window of a passing car.
My senior year, I faced adversity with a new faculty advisor to the student
newspaper who was not gay friendly. He challenged my editorials in the
newspaper and made life difficult in many different ways. I ultimately quit
the newspaper due to differences with him, and found it to be a very nega-
tive experience working with someone who was not open to different ideas,
different people, or different philosophies.
I was called a fag outside a fraternity party and had a beer thrown in my
face. Really this just makes me angry and embarrassed on how I handled
the situation.
During my sophomore year a young gay man was hate-crimed near the part
of town know as “Frat Court.” I peripherally knew the guy that it happened
to, but not really. This experience was important because it let me know
that, even though Chapel Hill is known as one of most liberal parts of North
Carolina, violence against queers is still a reality. One long-term effect on
my sense of who I am is that now I feel like I’m someone who has to be a
little bit more on guard, aware of what’s going on around me. Being an
effeminate male in the conservative South and being aware of such inci-
dents as this, I feel like I’m always keeping an eye out, monitoring who’s
around me, etc. I suppose one could say that my sense of self is someone
who has greater potential to be a victim.
Within the first 2 months of my arrival at school, I was chased by a group of
people with guns because of my being associated with the gay community.
Shortly after the news spread throughout campus, general outrage was
present. The LGBTQA even had an anti-hate rally because of this. I realized
that although there are many jerks who would be downright medieval in
their thinking, there are also some great support people here at the Uni-
versity of Southern Maine. I am proud to be out and proud to count myself
as part of the USM community as well as the gay community!
The thematic “flip side” of Having a Direct Experience with Homophobic
Harassment or Assault is Participating in a Gay Activism/Leadership Role. Six

89
incidents were in this category and had high positivity and impact ratings (5.5 and
6.0, respectively). Responses in this category were indicative of students who had
become empowered, integrated and who validate the literature that says that
students involved in leadership and activism on campus are more integrated as gay
men and more committed to gay identity. Student experiences in this category
aligned well with Chickering and Reisser’s (1993) Establishing Identity stage, in
which a student is comfortable with his or her appearance, gender, sexual orienta-
tion, and lifestyle, contributing to a stable and positive sense of self. Other models
of gay identity development were affirmed by the experiences in this category,
including D’Augelli’s (1994) process Entering a LGB Community (at the far end of
the maturity continuum) and achieving Empowerment, the central theme of the
grounded theory in Stevens’s (2004) study in which students achieve a deep
internal sense of empowerment that defies social context.
The first experience symbolizes the emergence of the openly gay leader on
campus outside of LGBT settings, whose gayness is cause for pride in the eyes of
the participant and the people that he leads.
I was the only publicly out gay man in my Residence Hall of 1200 people!
I ran for election of the Residence Hall President, and I ran a very creative
campaign. Even though there were some homophobic incidents here and
there around my campaign (graffiti on posters, etc.), I won by a large
margin. The straight students valued my leadership and courage to be out
(this was 1996), and they didn’t care that I was gay. This experience was
important for me because it showed me that I can be gay and be a leader and
accepted, and that I did not have to hide my sexual orientation, but rather
celebrate it as part of my leadership lens.
The next incident confirms the findings of Renn and Bilodeau (2002) that
involvement in student leadership activities and the opportunity to lead LGBT
student activities provide great opportunities for gay identity development.

90
Serving on the executive board of our campus LGBT group Pride Union
was a spectacular experience. It was not all easy; however, during that time
I grew as an individual and as a leader. In particular, I was asked to serve as
a representative for the LGBT community as a part of the Dean’s forum, a
group of campus leaders helping to advise the dean of students. The knowl-
edge that my campus administrators were actively invested in soliciting a
variety of student voices was very validating and comforting.
The last incident supports Renn and Bilodeau’s (2002) discovery that
leadership roles within LGBT organizations helped to create stronger communi-
cators who were politically active on campus.
I participated in the Social Justice Leadership Retreat during my Freshman
year and it really helped develop how I see other oppressed groups and my
sense of being an ally to other groups. There were about 40 different
students from all over campus that participated and a small group of about 6
with two facilitators that we worked with to go into more depth and share
more personal stories. I still use things I learned in the retreat, and think
back to it probably at least a couple times a week. I went on to facilitate at
the retreat during my sophomore year and have even presented information
about the retreat at the MACURH 2006 conference.
Challenging Other’s Homophobic Beliefs consisted of six incidents,
(positivity rating = 4.16, impact rating = 6.0), indicating that students perceived the
long-term impact of the event much more positively than the way in which the
incident was viewed. Challenging Other’s Homophobic Beliefs also had a high
mean age value of 3.166. Ironically, the incidents are reflective of students whose
sexual identity is emerging and who are just beginning to assert themselves and
challenge misconceptions, mistaken assumptions, others’ homophobic beliefs, and
in one instance, the perceived political correctness of another gay student. The
following incident was typical.
I was at a party with one of my friends—she a female, I a male. We had
been sitting together for most of the party because we did not know many
other people there. A female student whom we both did not know came up
to us and said, “So how long have you two been together?” I came out to
my parents senior year, and was never “in the closet” during my college
experience. This event occurred during my second year, and it is certainly
not the first time someone has assumed I am straight. It actually offended
me a great deal when it happened—I’m not exactly sure why this one event

91
angered me so. But I replied to the question asker, “I am gay.” She was very
surprised and blushed. I probably made her feel pretty shitty for putting her
on the spot like that, but many heterosexuals become offended when people
question their sexuality. This event made me realize that I have every right
to get offended when people assume I am heterosexual. I realize that hetero-
sexuality is the majority and many people do not think twice about assum-
ing. But I suppose this event just really made clear that I am a minority
among a minority group: a gay guy who appears straight (whether or not
that is truly a minority could be up to debate, I suppose). Since that incident
I’ve always corrected people when they ask gendered questions. I think the
event made me more aware of how stereotypes are not fair when it is
something that is truly internal like sexuality.
The following example focuses on confronting and becoming aware of the
perceived misguided ideas and biases of a fellow gay student.
At one point in a conversation with the guys sitting next to me before class I
had a realization that he too was gay. I asked him about it and he was forth-
coming. I asked him if he knew that I was, too. He told me he did. I asked
him why he never said anything. He explained that he heard through other
gay people that I was “insecure” with myself and he didn’t want to make
me uncomfortable. At this moment I realized that I was being shunned by
the gay community and I always would be. I also eventually came to realize
how divided of a group we are. There is a certain stereotype that is perpetu-
ated that I do not buy into. Some do. I came to realize through our conversa-
tion that, because I don’t act gay, go to gay bars, or hang out at the mall, I
was considered “insecure” by my peers.
The following incident could have been placed in the Having a Direct
Experience With Homophobic Harassment or Assault category by the raters but
was placed in Challenging Other’s Homophobic Beliefs category due to the pro-
active stance of the respondent in speaking out to gay youth about the ways in
which they must stand up for themselves in personal and professional settings.
As a business economics major, I was frequently surrounded by conserva-
tive individuals. I remember hearing incredibly negative remarks made
about homosexuals within a group of folk in a finance class. This indicated
to me that, as homosexuals, we must continue to fight for equitable treat-
ment and respect. Despite our right to express ourselves, we must at all
times remember that we do have something to prove and that we must earn
and demand respect. This experience amongst others encouraged me to
speak to other gay youth about the way they conduct themselves and the
potential professional and personal limitations that can be placed on them.
We must defy the mold and show that we are capable at excelling in our
fields. We must exert our influence and rise to levels of managerial excel-

92
lence so as to dispel the rumors that homosexuals will not be respected and
cannot perform as well as heterosexuals in traditionally masculine fields
such as finance and economics.
The responses of the students in this category give a sense that the students
are beginning to feel emboldened and will eventually become active politically in
the gay community. This category coincides with Troiden’s (1989) Identity
Assumption stage, during which students begin to develop emotional and
behavioral clarity regarding their sexual orientation.
At two responses, Having a Gay Sexual Experience stood out as its own
category because of its distinctiveness and difference from Experiencing Gay
Romance for the First Time. The year of incident value was high (3.5) and the
category had high ratings for positivity and impact (5.5 and 5.0, respectively). The
experiences of the students were honest and straightforward and not the least bit
tinged with a sense of regret or shame. This student celebrated gay sex and being
young and alive.
Just the other week, I hooked up with a friend of a friend and had really
satisfying sex. Obviously, there was one other person involved. This experi-
ence was important for me because I genuinely felt a connection with my
partner and felt free to be sexually uninhibited. Although this happened
only recently, I can already feel a change in myself knowing that I am
capable of having such a positive sexual experience with someone my own
age. It made me feel sexual and alive.
The student experiences in Having a Gay Sexual Experience serve to
remind that much of the literature on gay research speaks about gay intimacy in
terms of romance and omits any mention of sexual behavior (De Cecco, as cited in
Fassinger & Miller, 1996, p. 55). The responses in this category may not be
representative of students who have developed the mature, emotionally complex
relationships seen in Experiencing Gay Romance for the First Time but they

93
emphatically state that gay men are sexual beings after all, and they do have
orgasms.
The category Assertively Identifying as a Gay Person Through Public
Behavior included four responses and had high positivity and impact ratings (5.75
and 6.00, respectively). The experiences in this category revealed bold, empowered
students who desired to make public their identity in very visible ways.
To continue with the “outing experience,” I bought a number of shirts that
made it clearly obvious that I love men. Among them, shirts that said, “I
don’t mind straight people as long as they act GAY in public.” And I wore/
wear them everywhere at school—to class, meetings, when I go out. There
were some days, I’d be walking across the Reitz Union Lawn, and I was
just unbelievably happy, cause I was out and safe and free. I’ve gotten a few
laughs at the shirts, a few stares, but it’s all good. Although I will say it’s
VERY AWKWARD to wear the damn things to places like CiCi’s, and
forgetting the number of children one finds there.
One respondent had difficulty in being publicly intimate with his more
comfortable boyfriend in the school cafeteria, indicating that he had achieved a
high level of gay identity stabilization (gay romance or intimacy), and moreover
with a boyfriend who had no problem being publicly gay. He was still struggling
with achieving this level of “out-ness.”
The first time another man ever kissed me in public was my freshman year
in my undergraduate college. This man was a junior at that university and
was my boyfriend at the time. The importance of this incident was the
public scene that was created in a university cafeteria. The long-term effect
has created a subdued nature to my interactions with relationships in public.
Though this event is not entirely the reason why I am not the most public
affectionate person.
Chickering and Reisser’s (1993) fifth vector, Establishing Identity, aligns
well with the range of experiences seen in Assertively Identifying as a Gay Person
Through Public Behavior. These are students who have the strong sense of owning
the “house” of self and of being “comfortable in all its rooms” of which Chickering
and Reisser (p. 49) spoke. The fourth of Troiden’s (1989) four-stage model of gay

94
identity development, Commitment, in which gay men develop a sense of pride and
self-acceptance, also coalesces well with Assertively Identifying as a Gay Person
Through Public Behavior, as it does with the central grounded theory, Empower-
ment, of Stevens’s (2004) study.
Short- and Long-Term Impact Ratings
The results shown in Table 2 capture the mean value assigned to experi-
ences by students initially (Positive Value scale) and the mean value students gave
to the experiences’ long-term impact on sense of self (Eventual Effect on Sense of
Self scale). Mean values ranged from 2.00 to 6.67 on the Positive Value scale
(positivity) and from 3.33 to 6.67 on the Eventual Effect on Sense of Self scale
(impact).
On the positivity scale, four of the categories of experience were negative
and had mean values ranging from 2.00 to 3.50 (Experiencing Religious-Based
Rejection, Encountering Unexpected Adversity Independent of Sexuality, Experi-
encing a Sexual Assault by Another Gay Man, and Having a Direct Experience
with Homophobic Harassment or Assault). One category of impact (Having a
Direct Experience with Homophobic Harassment or Assault) was neutral, with a
mean value of 4.17 but with a large standard deviation of 1.34. Nine categories
were positive, with mean values ranging from 4.78 to 6.67 (Receiving the Support
of a Formal LGBT Campus Center or Organization, Coming Out as a Gay Person
to Others in the Campus Community, Having Sexual Identity Affirmed During an
Academic Course, Experiencing Acceptance as a Gay Person During Travel
Abroad, Having a Positive Gay Role Model, Experiencing Gay Romance for the

95
First Time, Participating in a Gay Activism/Leadership Role, Having a Gay Sexual
Experience and Assertively Identifying as a Gay Person Through Public Behavior).
Upon review, a very different picture emerged on the impact scale. Only
one category of impact retained a low mean value (Experiencing a Sexual Assault
by Another Gay Man, 3.33). One category was rated as neutral (Having a Direct
Experience with Homophobic Harassment or Assault, 4.15). Twelve categories of
experience received positive mean value ratings of 5.00 to 6.67 (Receiving the
Support of a Formal LGBT Campus Center or Organization, Coming Out as a
Gay Person to Others in the Campus Community, Experiencing Religious-Based
Rejection, Having Sexual Identity Affirmed During an Academic Course,
Encountering Unexpected Adversity Independent of Sexuality, Experiencing
Acceptance as a Gay Person During Travel Abroad, Having a Positive Gay Role
Model, Experiencing Gay Romance for the First Time, Participating in a Gay
Activism/Leadership Role, Challenging Other’s Homophobic Beliefs and Having a
Gay Sexual Experience) and 10 of these categories received positive mean value
ratings of 6.00 to 6.67 (Receiving the Support of a Formal LGBT Campus Center
or Organization, Coming Out as a Gay Person to Others in the Campus Com-
munity, Having Sexual Identity Affirmed During an Academic Course, Encounter-
ing Unexpected Adversity Independent of Sexuality, Experiencing Acceptance as a
Gay Person During Travel Abroad, Having a Positive Gay Role Model, Experi-
encing Gay Romance for the First Time, Participating in a Gay Activism/Leader-
ship Role, Challenging Other’s Homophobic Beliefs and Assertively Identifying as
a Gay Person Through Public Behavior).
Each negative or neutral category on the positivity scale (Experiencing
Religious-Based Rejection, Encountering Unexpected Adversity Independent of

96
Sexuality, Experiencing a Sexual Assault by Another Gay Man, Having a Direct
Experience with Homophobic Harassment or Assault and Challenging Other’s
Homophobic Beliefs) was perceived by students more positively for their respective
long-term effect on sense of self, and in most instances, much more positively. The
lowest-rated experience on the positivity scale, Experiencing a Sexual Assault by
Another Gay Man, with a mean value of 2.00, was still perceived negatively on the
impact scale, although slightly less so, with a mean value of 3.33. The other
categories (Experiencing Religious-Based Rejection, Encountering Unexpected
Adversity Independent of Sexuality, Having a Direct Experience with Homophobic
Harassment or Assault, and Challenging Other’s Homophobic Beliefs) had mean
value increases ranging from 1.83 (Having a Direct Experience with Homophobic
Harassment or Assault) to 2.92 (Encountering Unexpected Adversity Independent
of Sexuality), although Having a Direct Experience with Homophobic Harassment
or Assault was still perceived negatively, with a mean value of 4.15. The mean
value of the increase in ratings for these categories of experience was 2.23, and
2.33 if Having a Direct Experience with Homophobic Harassment or Assault, a
negative category in the impact scale, was excluded. The category of experience
with the largest mean value disparity between the two scales was Encountering
Unexpected Adversity Independent of Sexuality, with an increase of 2.92.
Each of the five negative categories on the positivity scale received a higher
mean value rating on the impact scale and, in four instances, had significantly
higher mean values. The findings of this study reveal a group of students who have
become skilled at processing some very difficult life circumstances, reframing
them, and transforming themselves into stronger, more resilient and better inte-
grated individuals. The current of defiance, empowerment, positivity, personal

97
resolve, and a personal obligation to younger gay students that courses through the
CYEQ responses is evident in this response:
I came out in my Residence Hall newsletter, and my Resident Advisor and
the Hall Director were very supportive of me. They met with me before the
article was published, and had conversations about how they could support
me. This was very important for me because it made me much more com-
fortable to be out, and it let me know that I can always find pockets of
support even in the midst of otherwise hostile climate. Since then, that
experience led me to work in Student Affairs because now I can be a role
model and support for other LGBTQ students.
Phase II
The second question that the current study asked was, “What conceptual
categories do self-identified gay male, freshman through graduate-level students,
use to organize their experiences of those categories of experiences?” This study
employed MDS and hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) to obtain this information
through an analysis of the Phase II Paired Comparison Questionnaire data.
Multidimensional Scaling
Multidimensional Scaling, utilizing the Euclidean Distance model, resulted
in the creation of a two-dimensional plane configuration upon which the 14 cate-
gories of experienced are located. Figure 1 in the previous chapter displays this
configuration. MDS methodology positions the categories in such a way that the
distance between points is representative of the degree of similarity of one category
to another. The way in which respondents conceptually organize the framework of
categories becomes visible.
Respondents located Experiencing a Sexual Assault by Another Gay Man at
one end of Dimension 1 and Assertively Identifying as a Gay Person Through
Public Behavior at the other. In close proximity to Experiencing a Sexual Assault

98
by Another Gay Man were Having a Positive Gay Role Model and Experiencing
Acceptance as a Gay Person During Travel Abroad, while at the other end of the
continuum Assertively Identifying as a Gay Person Through Public Behavior
stands by itself. The location of the categories reveals that one end of Dimension 1
signifies initial exploration of sexuality identity. At this end of the continuum,
students are making their first inroads into building a stable gay identity. The other
end of the continuum symbolizes stable and integrated sexual identity. At this end
of the dimension, students have confidence and a strong sense of who they are as
gay men.
At one end of Dimension 2 is Participating in a Gay Activism/Leadership
Role, at the other, Challenging Other’s Homophobic Beliefs. Close to Participating
in a Gay Activism/Leadership in distance is Having a Direct Experience with
Homophobic Harassment or Assault and Experiencing Gay Romance for the First
Time. This end of the continuum signifies a high level of commitment to gay
identity as evidenced by a commitment to serving as leaders and role models in the
gay community, to personal intimacy and to one’s wellbeing and the wellbeing of
the gay community. The opposite end of the dimension represents a low level of
commitment to gay identity. The students at this end of the continuum are just
beginning to challenge, often tentatively and for the very first time, other people’s
perception of gay people. A new sense of responsibility for the student’s own
wellbeing and equal standing as a fully participatory member of society is
beginning to emerge. Additionally, students are beginning to understand one’s role
in creating a healthy gay community.

99
Cluster Analysis
The study employed HCA to identify coherent and meaningful clusters of
items that shed light on the foundational data structure, in this instance the respond-
ents’ conceptual organization of the sources of impact on their own identity
development during college.
The dendrogram shown in Figure 2 was created using Ward’s linkage to
analyze and find meaningful clusters. Six clusters of categories of experience were
identified, as shown in Table 4. The rationale for each cluster is discussed below.
The categories of Experiencing Acceptance as a Gay Person During Travel
Abroad, Experiencing a Sexual Assault by Another Gay Man, Encountering
Unexpected Adversity Independent of Sexuality, and Having a Positive Gay Role
Model comprised Cluster 1, entitled Exploration. The responses in this cluster are
representative of students who are only beginning to take on the challenges of
college life, balancing multiple demands, exploring sexuality, and beginning down
the growth highways which Chickering and Reisser (1993) spoke of as vectors
common to all college students. Gay identity development is unstable and, as
students feel their way through the morass of orientation issues, they may not be
making the wisest personal decisions yet, as seen in the Experiencing a Sexual
Assault by Another Gay Man category. It comes as no surprise that Having a
Positive Gay Role Model would be located so close to Experiencing a Sexual
Assault by Another Gay Man along the Dimension 1 continuum, as the students
represented in this cluster were in need of guidance and support from more
integrated gay students.
Cluster 2, entitled Resolve, includes Having Sexual Identity Affirmed
During an Academic Course, Having a Gay Sexual Experience and Experiencing

100
Religious-Based Rejection. It makes sense that this category is located roughly at
the midway point along Dimensions 1 and 2; the participants in this category have
reached some milestones in their respective journeys toward identity integration
along the Dimension 1 continuum and toward deepening commitment to gay
identity and community along the Dimension 2 continuum. The respondents in this
cluster have begun to enjoy having sex with other men and have encountered overt
rejection from churches and religious groups or individuals on campus for being
openly gay. Students in Experiencing Religious-Based Rejection gave the category
a mean positivity score of 3.50 but rated it much higher on the impact scale at 5.75.
This would seem to indicate that, as these students become more committed to their
identity and become more integrated, they also begin to explore spirituality and
come to terms with the initial religious rejection that they confront. This validates
the finding of Love et al. (2005) that, for students who were working on reconciling
the two identities (spiritual and sexual), having been rejected by a religious institu-
tion became the conduit that sparked a deeper exploration of a more complex,
richer spirituality that incorporated their sexual identity.
The students in this cluster were also finding strong validation of their
identities in academic settings with professors who were providing the students
with exposure to research and literature that has the effect of supporting their
intellectual and emotional development. This cluster validates D’Augelli’s (1994)
model of six sexual identity developmental processes and is reflective of students
at the Developing a Personal LGB Identity Status process of gay identity
development.
Cluster 3, High Commitment, consists of only one category of experience.
This cluster represents a very high level of commitment not only to gay identity but

101
also to the broader gay community. Mirroring D’Augelli’s final developmental
process, Entering a LGB Community, High Commitment is a cluster in which men
highly committed to their identity as gay individuals provide valuable leadership
and mentoring as role models to students not as far along the Dimension 2 con-
tinuum who are deeply in need of both. Students in the High Commitment cluster
are also involved in fighting oppression on campus in public and personal spheres
and generally sense an obligation to the welfare of the larger gay community. They
have begun to experience Empowerment, the driving force and central goal of the
students in Stevens’s 2004 study of gay men in college settings.
Having a Direct Experience with Homophobic Harassment or Assault,
Experiencing Gay Romance for the First Time, and Receiving the Support of a
Formal LGBT Campus Center or Organization, the three categories of experience
included in Cluster 4, entitled Integration Via Support, are representative of the
students seen in D’Augelli’s (1994) model at the Developing a LGB Intimacy
Status process who, due to their involvement in gay romantic relationships and high
level of commitment to gay identity as evidenced by the cluster’s high placement
along the Dimension 2 continuum, have also become quite visible and vulnerable to
the unfortunate incidents described in Having a Direct Experience with Homo-
phobic Harassment or Assault. Figure 1 reveals both the high placement of
Experiencing Gay Romance for the First Time along the Dimension 2 continuum
and its close physical proximity to both Participating in a Gay Activism/Leadership
Role and Having a Direct Experience with Homophobic Harassment or Assault.
The men in this cluster, as borne out by the inclusion of Receiving the Support
of a Formal LGBT Campus Center or Organization in the thematic group, seek
nurturance, community support, and guidance from types of support groups seen

102
in the Receiving the Support of a Formal LGBT Campus Center or Organization
category, as discussed in the previous chapter. The discovery by Renn and
Bilodeau (2002) that students who received direct LGBT Center support persisted
academically and emotionally would certainly seem to be mirrored in the current
study. The students in Cluster 4 were saying clearly that LGBT Center support is
central to supporting students in their evolution men highly committed to gay
identity development.
The categories of Challenging Other’s Homophobic Beliefs and Coming
Out as a Gay Person to Others in the Campus Community comprise Cluster 5,
entitled Disclosing. This cluster correlates strongly with Cass’s (1979) Identity
Acceptance stage and D’Augelli’s (1994) Exiting Heterosexual Identity Process. At
this stage of gay identity development students have moved beyond initial explora-
tions of sexuality, evident by the placement of Coming Out as a Gay Person to
Others in the Campus Community much farther along the Dimension 1 continuum
toward Assertively Identifying as a Gay Person Through Public Behavior than
either Cluster 1 or Cluster 2, and are actually disclosing sexuality and typically
doing so to broad community support on campus.
Despite its being in another cluster, Integration Via Support, it is notable
that the category of Receiving the Support of a Formal LGBT Campus Center or
Organization falls so closely on both the Dimension 1 and Dimension 2 continu-
ums to the category of Coming Out as a Gay Person to Others in the Campus
Community. As was discussed earlier, Coming Out as a Gay Person to Others in
the Campus Community is completely enmeshed with Receiving the Support of a
Formal LGBT Campus Center or Organization. By placing the two categories so
close together on the concept map, the students in the current study confirmed that

103
the dual processes of becoming committed to gay identity development and having
a more integrated and stable gay identity, the primary goals of Dimensions 1 and 2
respectively, are closely intertwined. These findings also affirm D’Augelli’s (1993)
discovery that a campus LGBT Center is a powerful intervention in supporting
healthy gay identity development.
Challenging Other’s Homophobic Beliefs is an altogether different category
from Having Sexual Identity Affirmed During an Academic Course, in which
students who fall much farther along the Dimension 2 continuum receive identity
validation through academic pursuit. In Challenging Other’s Homophobic Beliefs,
one of the anchor categories for Dimension 2, students are beginning to tentatively
confront the misconceptions that heterosexuals, religious groups and even other gay
people hold about being gay. While having moved beyond initial explorations of
sexual identity, visible by its mid-continuum placement along Dimension 1, partici-
pants in this category are in the process of coming out and disclosing but have not
decided how deeply they want to commit to the gay community or to their own
identity development. The following quote is expressive of an emerging rage at or
discomfort with the homophobic beliefs of others at an early stage of the respond-
ent’s own gay identity development process. Processing through this rage spurred
the student to a seek a deeper level of identity commitment.
As a business economics major, I was frequently surrounded by conserva-
tive individuals. I remember hearing incredibly negative remarks made
about homosexuals within a group of folk in a finance class. This indicated
to me that, as homosexuals, we must continue to fight for equitable treat-
ment and respect. Despite our right to express ourselves, we must at all
times remember that we do have something to prove and that we must earn
and demand respect. This experience amongst others encouraged me to
speak to other gay youth about the way they conduct themselves and the
potential professional and personal limitations that can be placed on them.

104
Cluster 6, entitled Out and Proud, consists of only one category, Assertively
Identifying as a Gay Person Through Public Behavior, one of the anchor categories
for Dimension 1. The students in this cluster embody the identity integration,
confidence, self-awareness, and pride that Stevens (2004), D’Augelli (1994), Cass
(1979), and Troiden (1989) found are present in gay men who have evolved to a
very stable and high level of gay identity development. Its placement at the far end
of the Dimension 1 continuum (see Figure 1) speaks to the high level of identity
stability and integration seen in students who exhibit this type of public and proud
behavior (almost all of the incidents in this category made mention of wearing
symbols of pride or being proud of publicly identifying as gay). It is interesting that
the Assertively Identifying as a Gay Person Through Public Behavior category is
not located along the Dimension 1 or 2 continuums (see Figure 1) in close
proximity to either Experiencing Gay Romance for the First Time or Having a Gay
Sexual Experience. McCarn and Fassinger’s (1996) model of parallel gay develop-
mental processes may help to explain this phenomenon. In this model gay develop-
mental processes can take place concurrently along the parallel trajectories of group
membership and individual identity development. While a student may be very
evolved on one trajectory, he may be less realized on the other. A student who is
very publicly gay and proud may still be having difficulty with developing
intimacy, for example.
Overlaying the clusters formed through HCA on the dimensional plane
created by MDS, a concept map resulted that answered the study’s last research
question: “What conceptual map do gay male, self-identified gay male, freshman
through graduate-level students, use to organize their experiences of these
categories of experiences?”

105
Limitations of the Study
Two types of study limitations are discussed in this section: the validity of
survey data and participant selection.
Validity of Survey Data
The student participants in Phase I recounted events on the CYEQ that took
place in the past, in some instances several years in the past. A known limitation of
using this type of retrospective qualitative data is that, due to a number of cognitive
and motivational factors, people may not be very proficient or accurate at recalling
information from the past (Henry et al., 1994). This may be because they have
forgotten events in the distant past as they really happened (Squire, 1989), because
they have incorrectly remembered the chronology of past events (Thompson et al.,
1988), or because they may recreate the past to suit current needs and life circum-
stances (Ross, 1989). Yarrow, Campbell, and Burton (1970) reported that people
tended to favorably distort the past. While the students in the current study
certainly gave accountings of challenging life events, the prior research about
retrospective must be acknowledged in a study so heavily reliant on retrospective
data.
Phase I participants, given the chance to rate and categorize the data along
with the three doctoral candidates, may have placed experiences from the CYEQ in
categories other than the ones chosen by the raters. The risk that the raters misin-
terpreted Phase I data exists and may have obscured how well the Phase II cate-
gories represented the conceptual organization of the sources of impact on identity
development from the perspective of the respondents in Phase I. The centrality of
the participant’s voice in MVCM was explained by Bedi and Alexander:

106
In other words, decisions made at each stage can either increase or decrease
how representative the obtained results are (e.g., the decision to use original
or proxy sorters). Some indications of the procedural validity of MVCM in
representing participant accounts has already been noted when discussing
the advantages and strengths of MVCM, and primarily relates to the high
degree to which it is a participant-inclusive method. (2004, p. 3)
By asking Phase I respondents to review the 14 categories of experience as
rated by the three doctoral raters for accuracy and faithfulness to the central theme
of each incident, the risk of misinterpretation or misrepresentation of student data
could have been mitigated.
Selection of Study Participants
Several limitations of the study resulted from the sole recruitment of survey
participants on national university LGBT center online listserve Web sites. Chief
among these limitations is that any student without access to a computer or who
was not a part of an LGBT Center community was effectively denied participation
in the study. This may have precluded students of lower socioeconomic status or
students not yet ready to disclose their sexual orientation through involvement with
and LGBT center or other campus LGBT student organizations. Also, gay students
at the multitude of campuses nationally that lack any type of LGBT support, many
on an ideological (religious) basis, were completely excluded from involvement in
the study, silencing the collective voice of these students. Finally, caution should be
taken not to generalize the findings of the study to lesbian, bisexual, or transgender
students in the campus LGBT community, as the sources of impact during college
on the identity development of these respective populations has not been examined.
A significant limitation of Phase II participant selection was that the
students who completed the 91-item survey had to be diligent and committed to
complete such a long online activity. In fact, two students from the group of Phase I

107
participants who had been invited to take part in Phase II of the study e-mailed to
express that they wanted to complete the survey but that it was simply too time
consuming. Were Phase II participants truly representative of the Phase I student
sample, or as a group did they fall farther along the Dimension 1 and 2 growth
trajectories than the larger Phase I group of students from which they were
recruited? If so, were they perhaps more persistent in completing the long activity
out of a sense of obligation to the LGBT community, a hallmark of highly inte-
grated and committed gay students? If this was the case, then caution must be taken
in generalizing the study’s findings to the broader gay student community
Directions for Future Research
With so little research having adequately explored the ways in which
colleges and universities shape gay and lesbian identity formation (Dilley, 2005;
Renn & Bilodeau, 2002), it is essential that researchers continue to examine the
ways in which colleges can optimally support the healthy identity development and
empowerment of the gay students charged to their care. From the current study
emerge four potential areas of research that hold promise: (a) the ways in which
gay students use technology to seek support for identity development, (b) the traits
responsible for creating resiliency in gay students, (c) the role that fraternities play
in supporting healthy gay identity development, and (d) how colleges support the
spiritual development of its gay students.
Technology and Healthy Identity Development
in Gay Male College Students
Every participant in the current study utilized the respective campus LGBT
center’s listserve to access the study online, but what about the students on campus

108
not brave enough to sign up for the listserve? How do closeted students learn about
this type of support on campus without having to walk into the LGBT center or and
LGBT campus organization event?
In what ways are national LGBT centers maximizing their technological
capacity to support gay student identity development? How are gay students
located on LGBT-hostile campuses or ones that lack LGBT support utilizing
technology to bolster their own identity development? Students made mention of
online communities such as facebook.com and the AOL gay online community.
Higher education administrators need to know more about the emerging role that
technology is playing in supporting gay student identity development.
The Skills That Support Resilience
A tone of resilience and inner fortitude of the student participants resounded
throughout the CYEQ responses. An important line of investigation should be to
determine what specific traits and skills that gay students develop and utilize to
become so strong and to persist in the face of some many life challenges. Much of
the research on identity development focuses on the end result of developmental
processes, such as Empowerment (Stevens, 2004), without inquiring into what
specific skills (emotional, psychological or otherwise) students use to arrive at
those destinations in their lives.
Given D’Augelli’s (1993) claim that, as a group, LGBT students are the
most underserved group on campus by health and mental health services, the
current study’s finding that a major source of impact on identity development is
adversity unrelated to sexuality gives cause for concern. Future research should
delve into whether or not gay students know how to access gay-positive mental

109
health services on campus and whether they are receiving the same caliber of
counseling as their heterosexual peers, or are they primarily receiving counseling
whose bent is the coming out process?
Fraternities
Fraternity members in the study spoke in glowing terms about how their
brothers had nurtured their identity development, whether in gay fraternities or
otherwise, affirming Dilley’s (2005) claim that fraternities are very positive sources
of influence in the lives of gay students. A review of the literature revealed a dearth
of research specifically centered on the positive ways that fraternities embrace and
support personal growth of gay men. The current study’s findings call for further
exploration of the topic.
Gayness and Spirituality
The respondents described uniformly negative experiences about reconcil-
ing their gayness and spirituality. This, combined with the complete paucity of
research in the literature regarding the topic, warrant a major focus of future inquiry
into the inner spiritual lives of gay students and how they can be better nurtured by
the campus community.
Implications of the Study
As LGBT students continue to gain visibility and influence on college
campuses (D’Emilio, 1992; Rhoads, 1994) collectively, they are throwing off the
yoke of oppression so much a part of America’s collegiate past in which gay
students were excluded and invisible (Dilley, 2002a). It is essential that higher
education administrators assist gay students in developing integrated, healthy

110
identities (Evans & Herriott, 2004). The implications stemming from the current
study’s findings lead to five recommendations for higher education administrators
and K-12 secondary administrators, who in some instances may be in denial about
the presence of gay students on campus.
Role Models
The more stable and identity-committed students in the study spoke about
the sense of obligation they felt to serving as role models to other gay students, and
many of the respondents spoke of the powerful influence of having a gay role
model on the journey toward self-realization. Relationships often develop naturally
and in unexpected ways, but higher education administrators should provide as
many contexts as possible for mentoring relationships to blossom between mature
gay students and those who are less so. These opportunities may take place in
LGBT centers, in LGBT student organizational settings, in residence halls, in
fraternities, and in the classroom. The students in Stevens’s (2004) study decried
the lack of out staff members on campus. Universities can do much to better sup-
port gay students by actively encouraging LGBT staff members to come out and
serve as role models and by provide safe environments in which LGBT allied staff
members can act freely to support LGBT students on campus.
Harassment
The sheer unpredictability and brutal nature of incidents in the Having a
Direct Experience with Homophobic Harassment or Assault category, even in
2007, mandate not only that higher education administrators and LGBT center
administrators create awareness among LGBT students about the risks of gay
bashings and hate crime but that they also take steps to stop these vicious activities

111
on campus. Creating well-articulated policies and rules that prohibit and severely
punish discrimination, harassment, and hate-motivated crimes directed at the LGBT
community can help to accomplish this.
Travel Abroad
LGBT center directors should explore the creation of group journeys to gay-
friendly destinations around the world during the winter, spring, or summer breaks
as either extracurricular ventures or as curricular offerings. The student responses
in the Experiencing Acceptance as a Gay Person During Travel Abroad category
demonstrated the value of travel overseas in expediting the coming out process and
in creating awareness of the larger global LGBT community of which they are a
part.
Preventing Assault and Human Immunodeficiency
Virus (HIV) Transmission
Several findings in the study lead to the recommendation that colleges take
action to prevent assault on members of the gay community and, separately, HIV
transmission among gay men on campus. Twenty-one CYEQ responses were
related to coming out on during college and two had to do with having sex. It does
not require a stretch of the imagination to realize that gay students may have sex on
campus for the first time. One Experiencing a Sexual Assault by Another Gay Man
response involved a possible HIV exposure between students, and another told of
being raped in a dorm room. Of even more concern is the young mean age of the
students in Experiencing a Sexual Assault by Another Gay Man (1.33, reflecting the
freshman year).

112
The findings in this study suggest a moral imperative that higher education
administrators educate young gay men about how to protect themselves against the
transmission of HIV, hepatitis, syphilis, and other sexually transmitted diseases and
to make certain at a minimum that students know how to procure condoms if the
decision is made not to dispense them (a decision that is unconscionable on
campuses whose health centers distribute condoms freely to heterosexuals seeking
birth control).
The education that LGBT center directors provide to students who are just
coming out or who are not sexually knowledgable about the risk of sexual assault
in the gay community and the dangers of mixing controlled substances or alcohol
with sex, especially with strangers, could prevent needless trauma or lifelong
infection with HIV at a very early age.
Curriculum
It is telling that the students giving responses in the Having Sexual Identity
Affirmed During an Academic Course category spoke about affirmation of sexual
identity in human sexuality/gender awareness courses but not a broader range of
academic offerings, leading to the suspicion that LGBT issues or perspectives are
still missing from classroom life and curriculum nationally. Student participants in
Stevens’s (2004) study had all experienced homophobia from faculty members and
other students and perceived classrooms as potentially hostile and cold settings.
This addresses the need for LGBT center administrations and universities to create
curricular design committees within academic divisions or schools to embed
content and dialogue in classrooms in which LGBT people have traditionally been

113
invisible. By doing so, colleges can ensure the creation of truly inclusive class-
rooms that breed open and honest discourse.
Differentiating LGBT Center Support
On the concept map (Figure 3), Receiving the Support of a Formal LGBT
Campus Center or Organization is positioned almost equidistantly from
Experiencing Gay Romance for the First Time, representing students more com-
mitted to their gay identity development, and Coming Out as a Gay Person to
Others in the Campus Community, representing students who have developed
somewhat stable gay identities but are just beginning to commit at a deeper level to
gay identity. Both types of students need the community that Receiving the Support
of a Formal LGBT Campus Center or Organization provides. Students in Experi-
encing Gay Romance for the First Time (e.g., students in relationships) may require
different types of rap groups, workshops, counseling, outings, and so forth, from
those needed by students in the Coming Out as a Gay Person to Others in the
Campus Community category, who are just beginning to meet other LGBT indivi-
duals openly for the first time. LGBT center support should differentiate program-
ming for the students who fall at every point along the two dimensions in the
concept map.
Leadership Opportunities
The findings of the current study strongly corroborate with prior research
that examined the powerful correlation between leadership activities, and the
healthy identity development of LGBT students has been discussed at length.
LGBT center administrators would do well to encourage students to take on
leadership and mentoring roles both in and outside of LGBT center/support group

114
settings. Taking on positions of leadership contributed significantly to the identity
development of the students in the study, helping to propel them on the Dimension
2 continuum toward self-actualization.
Spirituality and Gayness
By addressing the spiritual needs of their students, LGBT centers take a
more holistic approach to student development. The experiences of students in the
Experiencing Religious-Based Rejection category have been hurt deeply by
religious group/individuals. As a gay college student who shared this experience,
I know how painful it can be to be dismissed as a spiritual pariah by the people
who were thought to be the most loving of all. It took years for me to reclaim my
spirituality and understand its beauty and legitimacy. Experiencing Religious-Based
Rejection and Having a Gay Sexual Experience fall very near one another on the
concept map (Figure 3). The placement of these categories reveals that, in the
minds of the students, spirituality and sexual identity have a strong level of
interplay. By working with religious groups on campus to create safe spaces for
worship (or at a minimum, dialogue), LGBT centers could go a long way toward
helping students to emerge from a place of deep pain and rejection and to embrace
gay spiritual centeredness.
The gay students in this study were continuing the work of their gay
predecessors on university campuses in breaking down barriers to self-realization
and identity development in ways thought unimaginable even as recently as the
1980s. They were taking on leadership roles inside and outside of the LGBT com-
munity, joining “straight” fraternities as openly gay men, and receiving evolving
academic support and affirmation in classrooms from supportive professors. This

115
generation of students increasingly asserts its right to be visibly gay, to be visibly in
love, to have sex, and to feel great about it—in the context of spirituality, not in
spite of it. Fueling all of this is an inner strength bred by years of coping with
amazingly complex life challenges as young gay men. They are a highly resilient
population quite capable of turning lemons into lemonade.
But keenly insightful higher education administrators will not allow the
upbeat attitude of these students to lull them to sleep. Despite the preponderance of
positive sources of impact on gay student identity development during college
examined in this study, the negative ones were very evident. Assault, open homo-
phobia in classrooms and on campus, acts of violence perpetrated upon gay
students, unsafe sex, continued LGBT invisibility in the curriculum outside of
sexual/gender awareness classes, and religious rejection are all still highly negative
sources of impact on gay identity development during college, as seen from the
current student perspective. The students’ voices speak clearly about how
universities can nurture the healthy identity development of the next generation of
increasingly more visible and well-integrated gay men across the nation.

116
REFERENCES
Allyn, D. (2000). Make love, not war: The sexual revolution, an unfettered history.
New York: Little, Brown.
American Psychiatric Association. (1973). Diagnostic and statistical manual of
mental disorders (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher edu-
cation. Journal of College Student Development, 40, 518-529.
Bedi, R., & Alexander, D. (2004, February). Using multivariate concept-mapping
for assessing client understandings of counselling and psychotherapy. Paper
presented at the Third Conry Conference on Measurement, Evaluation and
Research Methodology, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Biechele, U. (2001). Common and uncommon homosexuals in Germany: On
working-class gay men. In M. C. Steffens & U. Biechele (Eds.), Annual
review of lesbian, gay, and bisexual issues in European psychology (Vol. 1,
pp. 75-94). Trier: ALGBP.
Bontempo, M. A., & D’Augelli, A. R. (2002). Effects of at-school victimization
and sexual orientation on lesbian, gay, or bisexual youths’ health risk be-
havior. Journal of Adolescent Health, 30, 364-374.
Borgen, F., & Barnett, D. (1987). Applying cluster analysis in counseling psychol-
ogy research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34, 456-468.
Brown, R. D., Clarke, B., Gortmaker, V., & Robinson-Keilig, R. (2004). Assessing
the campus climate for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) stu-
dents using a multiple perspectives approach. Journal of College Student
Development, 45(1), 8-26.
Cass, V. C. (1979). Homosexual identity formation: A theoretical model. Journal
of Homosexuality, 4, 219-235.
Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity (2nd ed.). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Comstock, G. D. (1991). Violence against lesbians and gay men. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Cotton-Huston, A. L., & Waite, B. M. (2000). Anti-homosexual attitudes in college
students: Predictors and classroom interventions. Journal of Homosexuality,
38(3), 117-133.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

117
Darcy, M., Lee, D., & Tracey, T. (2004). Complementary approaches to individual
differences using paired comparisons and multidimensional scaling: Appli-
cations to multicultural counseling competence. Journal of Counseling Psy-
chology, 51(2), 139-150.
D’Augelli, A. R. (1989). Lesbians’ and gay men’s experiences of discrimination
and harassment in a university community. American Journal of Com-
munity Psychology, 17, 317-321.
D’Augelli, A. R. (1991). Gay men in college: Identity processes and adaptations.
Journal of College Student Development, 32, 140-146.
D’Augelli, A. R. (1993). Preventing mental health problems among lesbian and gay
college students. Journal of Primary Prevention, 13, 245-261.
D’Augelli, A. R. (1994). Identity development and sexual orientation: Toward a
model of lesbian, gay, and bisexual development. In R. J. Trickett, E. J.
Watts, & D. Birmans (Eds.), Human diversity: Perspectives on people in
context (pp. 312-333). New York: Oxford University Press.
D’Emilio, J. (1992). Making trouble: Essays on gay history, politics, and the uni-
versity. New York: Routledge.
Dilley, P. (2000). Student organizations (U.S.). In G. E. Haggerty (Ed.), Gay his-
tories and cultures: An encyclopedia (Vol. 2, pp. 847-849). New York:
Garland.
Dilley, P. (2002a). Queer man on campus: A history of non-heterosexual college
men, 1945-2000. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Dilley, P. (2002b). 20th century postsecondary practices and policies to control gay
students. Review of Higher Education, 25, 409-431.
Dilley, P. (2005). Which way out? A typology of non-heterosexual male collegiate
identities. Journal of Higher Education, 76(1), 56-88.
Elizur, Y., & Mintzer, A. (2001). A framework for the formation of gay male iden-
tity: Processes associated with adult attachment style and support from
family and friends. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 30(2), 143-167.
Erikson, E. H. (1959). Identity and the life cycle. New York: Norton.
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity, youth and crisis. New York: Norton.
Erikson, E. H. (1980). Identity and the life cycle (2nd ed.). New York: Norton.
Evans, N. J. (2001). The experiences of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths in univer-
sity communities. In A. R. D’Augelli & C. Patterson (Eds.), Lesbian, gay
and bisexual identities and youth: Psychological perspectives (pp. 181-
198). New York: Oxford University Press.

118
Evans, N. J., & Herriott, T. K. (2004). Freshmen impressions: How investigating
the campus climate for LGBT students affected four freshmen students.
Journal of College Student Development, 45, 316-332.
Evans, N. J., & Levine, H. (1990). Perspectives on sexual orientation. In L. V.
Moore (Ed.), Evolving theoretical perspectives on students: New directions
for student services (Vol. 51, pp. 49-58). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Evans, N. J., & Wall, V. A. (Eds). (1991). Beyond tolerance: Gays, lesbians and
bisexuals on campus. Alexandria, VA: American Association for Counsel-
ing and Development.
Fassinger, R. E. (1991). The hidden minority: Issues and challenges in working
with lesbian women and gay men. The Counseling Psychologist, 19, 157-
176.
Fassinger, R. E., & Miller, B. A. (1996). Validation of an inclusive model of sexual
minority identity formation on a sample of gay men. Journal of Homosexu-
ality, 32(2), 53-78.
Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin 5,
352-358.
Gibson, P. (1989). Gay male and lesbian youth suicide. Rockville, MD: U.S. De-
partment of Health and Human Services, Secretary’s Task Force on Youth
Suicide.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
Goodyear, R. K., Tracey, T. J. G., Claiborn, C. D., Lichtenberg, J. W., & Wam-
pold, B. E. (2005). Ideographic concept mapping and counseling psychol-
ogy research: Conceptual overview, methodology, and an illustration.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 236-242.
Hechinger, G., & Hechinger, F. M. (1978, March 12). Homosexuality on campus.
New York Times Magazine, p. 15.
Henry, B., Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Langley, J., & Silva, P. A. (1994). On the re-
membrance of things past: A longitudinal evaluation of the retrospective
method. Psychological Assessment, 6(2), 92-101.
Herdt, G. (1989). Homosexuality and adolescence. New York: Warner Books.
Hetrick, E. S., & Martin, A. D. (1987). Developmental issues and their resolution
for gay and lesbian adolescents. Journal of Homosexuality, 14, 25-43.
Ivory, B. T. (2005). LGBT students in community college: Characteristics, chal-
lenges, and recommendations. New Directions for Student Services, 11, 61-
69.

119
Jackson, K. M., & Trochim, W. M. K. (2002). Concept mapping as an alternative
approach for the analysis of open-ended survey responses. Organizational
Research Methods, 5, 307-336.
Jones, S. R., & Abes, E. S. (2004). Enduring influences of service learning on col-
lege students’ identity development. Journal of College Student Develop-
ment, 45, 149-166.
Jones, S. R., & McEwen, M. K. (2000). A conceptual model of multiple dimen-
sions of identity. Journal of College Student Development, 41, 405-414.
Kroger, J. (1997). Identity in adolescence. London: Routledge.
Kroger, J., & Green, K.E. (1996). Events associated with identity status change.
Journal of Adolescence, 19, 477-490.
Kruskal, J., & Wish, M. (1978). Multidimensional scaling. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Kuh, G. D. (1995). The other curriculum: Out-of-class experiences associated with
student learning and personal development. Journal of Higher Education,
56, 123-155.
Levine, H., & Evans, N. J. (1991). The development of gay, lesbian, and bisexual
identities. In N. J. Evans & V A. Wall (Eds.), Beyond tolerance: Gays, les-
bians, and bisexuals on campus (pp. 1-24). Alexandria, VA: American
College Personnel Association.
Lopez, G. C. (1993). Classroom concerns of gay and lesbian students: The invisible
minority. College Teaching, 41(3), 97-103.
Lorde, A. (1985). I am your sister: Black women organizing across sexualities.
Latham, NY: Kitchen Table Press.
Lounsbury, J. W., Huffstetler, B. C., Leong, F. T. & Gibson, L. W. (2005). Sense
of identity and collegiate academic achievement. Journal of College Student
Development, 46, 501-514.
Love, P. G., Bock, M., Jannarone, A., & Richardson, P. (2005). Identity interaction:
Exploring the spiritual experiences of lesbian and gay college students.
Journal of College Student Development, 46, 193-209.
Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego identity status. Journal of
Psychology and Social Psychology, 3, 551-558.
Marcia, J. E., Waterman, A. S., Matteson, D. R., Archer, S. L., & Orlofsky, J. L.
(1993). Ego identity: A handbook for psychosocial research. New York:
Springer-Verlag.

120
Markowe, L. A. (2002). Lesbian and gay identity: European perspectives. Journal
of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 12, 223-229.
Martin, A. D. (1982). Learning to hide: Socialization of the gay adolescent. Adoles-
cent Psychiatry, 10, 52-65.
Martin, A. D., & Hetrick, E. S. (1988). The stigmatization of the gay and lesbian
adolescent. Adolescent Psychiatry, 10, 52-65.
McCarn, S. R., & Fassinger, R. E. (1996). Re-visioning sexual minority identity
formation: A new model of lesbian identity and its implications for coun-
seling and research. The Counseling Psychologist, 24, 508-534.
McEwan, M. K. (1996). New perspectives on identity development. In D. B.
Komives (Ed.), Student services: A handbook for the profession (3rd ed.,
pp. 188-217). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and
bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychologi-
cal Bulletin, 129, 674-697.
Mohr, J. J., & Sedlacek, W. E. (2000). Perceived barriers to friendship with les-
bians and gay men among university students. Journal of College Student
Development, 41(1), 70-80.
Pascarella, E. T. (1985). College environmental influences on learning and cogni-
tive development: A critical review and synthesis. In J. C. Smart (Ed.),
Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 1, pp. 1-10).
New York: Agathon.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings
and insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third
decade of research (Vol. 2).San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Phellas, C. N. (2001). Zorba the “gay” Anglo-Greek: Negotiating cultural and sex-
ual identities. Lesbian and Gay Psychology Review, 2, 77-82.
Plummer, K. (1989). Lesbian and gay youth in England. Journal of Homosexuality,
17, 195-223.
Rankin, S. (2003). Campus climate for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender
people: A national perspective. Washington, DC: National Gay and Lesbian
Task Force.
Reisser, L. (1995). Revisiting the seven vectors. Journal of College Student Devel-
opment, 36, 505-511.

121
Rendon, L. I. (1994). Validating culturally diverse students: Toward a new model
of learning and student development. Innovative Higher Education, 19(1),
33-50.
Renn, K. A., & Bilodeau, B. (2002, November). Queer student leaders: A case
study of leadership development and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans-
gender student involvement. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
Association for the Study of Higher Education, Sacramento, CA.
Reynolds, A. L., & Pope, R. L. (1991). The complexity of diversity: Exploring
multiple oppressions. Journal of Counseling and Development, 70, 174-
180.
Rhoads, R. A. (1994). Coming out in college: The struggle for a queer identity.
Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
Rhoads, R. A. (1997a). Implications of the growing visibility of gay and bisexual
male students on campus. NASPA Journal, 34, 275-286.
Rhoads, R. A. (1997b). A subcultural study of gay and bisexual college males: Re-
sisting developmental inclinations. Journal of Higher Education, 68, 460-
482.
Rivers, I. (1997). Lesbian, gay and bisexual development theory, research and
social issues. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 7, 329-
343.
Robbins, L. N. (1988). Data gathering and data analysis for prospective and retro-
spective longitudinal studies. In M. R. (Ed.), Studies in psychosocial risk
(pp. 315-324). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ross, M. (1989). Relation of implicit theories to the construction of personal his-
tories. Psychological Review, 96, 341-357.
Sanlo, R. L. (1998). Working with lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender college
students: A handbook for faculty and administrators. Westport, CT: Green-
wood Press.
Savin-Williams, R. C. (1990). Gay and lesbian youth: Expressions of identity. New
York: Hemisphere.
Savin-Williams, R. C. (1998). “And then I became gay”: Young men’s stories.
New York: Routledge.
Squire, L. (1989). On the course of forgetting in very long-term memory. Journal
of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 241-
245.
Stevens, R. A., Jr. (2004). Understanding gay identity development within the col-
lege environment. Journal of College Student Development, 45, 185-206.

122
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Thompson, C. P., Skowronski, J. J., & Lee, D. J. (1988). Telescoping in dating
naturally occurring events. Memory and Cognition, 16, 461-468.
Tomlinson, M. J., & Fassinger, R. E. (2003). Career development, lesbian identity
development and campus climate among lesbian college students. Journal
of College Student Development, 44, 845-860.
Torres, V., Howard-Hamilton, M., & Cooper, D. (2003). Identity development of
diverse populations: Implications for teaching and administration in higher
education. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 29(6), 1-141.
Tracey, T. J. G., Lichtenberg, J. W., Goodyear, R. K., Claiborn, C., & Wampold, B.
E. (2003). Concept mapping of therapeutic common factors. Psychotherapy
Research, 13, 401-413.
Trochim, W. M. (1989). An introduction to concept mapping for planning and
evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning, 12, 1-16.
Troiden, R. R. (1989). The formation of homosexual identities. Journal of Homo-
sexuality, 17(2), 43-73.
Troiden, R. R., & Goode, E. (1980). Variables related to the acquisition of a gay
identity. Journal of Homosexuality, 5, 383-392.
Vera, H., & de los Santos, E. (2005). Chicana identity construction: Pushing the
boundaries. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 4(2), 102-113.
Wall, V. A., & Evans, N. J. (Eds.). (2000). Toward acceptance: Sexual orientation
issues on campus. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Woolsey, L. K. (1986). The critical incident technique: An innovative qualitative
method of research. Canadian Journal of Counseling, 20, 242-254.
Yarrow, M. R., Campbell, J. D., & Burton, R. V. (1970). Recollections of child-
hood: A study of the retrospective method. Monographs of the Society for
Research in Child Development, 35(5), 1-28.

123
APPENDIX A

INFORMATION SHEET
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Ed. D. Program
Waite Phillips Hall, Room 802, Mailcode 4038
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, CA 90089-4038

THIS INFORMATION SHEET HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED
BY THE UNIVERSITY PARK INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD AT
THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA.

FOR INTERNET STUDIES, IF YOU WISH TO VIEW A COPY OF THE
STAMPED APPROVED VERSION, PLEASE CONTACT THE PRINCIPAL
INVESTIGATORS OF THIS STUDY

INFORMATION SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL
RESEARCH

Discovering the Sources of Impact on LGBTQ College
Students’ Identity Development and Mapping Those Experiences

You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Kimberlee
Woods, Vincent Vigil, Christopher Eaton and Rod Goodyear, Ph.D., from the
Rossier School of Education, Ed.D. Program, at the University of Southern Cali-
fornia. The results of this research study will contribute to a dissertation.

You were selected as a possible participant in this study because you are an
undergraduate who is in your junior or senior year of course work and you identify
as a part of the LGBTQ community. This is a two phase study and a total of 50
subjects who are LGBTQ undergraduates, in their junior or senior year of course
work, will be selected to participate in Phase One. Fifteen participants from Phase
One, who indicate interest in continuing, will participate in the second phase of the
study.

124
Your participation is voluntary. You should read the information below, and
ask questions about anything you do not understand, before deciding whether or not
to participate

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
We are asking you to take part in a research study because we are trying to
learn the sources of impact (either positive or negative) that LGBTQ undergradu-
ates in their junior or senior year of coursework perceive to have affected their per-
sonal identity development. We are also interested to learn how LGBTQ students
conceptually organize these sources of impact.

Completion and return of the questionnaires will constitute consent to
participate in this research project.

PROCEDURES
In the first phase of the study, you will be asked to complete two question-
naires. Each asks you to reflect on your experience as a college student and iden-
tify one incident or experience that has affected your sense of who you are. This
College Years Experience Questionnaire (CYEQ) asks you to describe what the
incident was, if another person or persons was/were involved, why the incident was
important to you, and what you believe the long-term effect has been. The ques-
tionnaires also ask for basic demographic information. The questionnaires will be
completed on-line as part of your list-serve and should take you approximately one-
half hour to complete.

If you would like to participate in Phase Two of this study, you can com-
plete an Intent to Continue form. Phase Two participants will be randomly selected
from the people who completed the Intent to Continue form.

If selected to continue to Phase Two and you wish to participate, you will
be asked to rate the similarities of the categories of sources of impacts from the
CYEQ on a scale of one to six (1=not at all alike; 6=very much alike). This paired
comparison questionnaire is called the College Years Experience Concept Similar-
ity Rating Scale (CSRS) and will be posted on a web-based survey service. If you
participate in this phase of the study, the web address will be emailed to you along
with instructions for completing the CSRS. The CSRS should also take about one-
half hour to complete

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no anticipated risks to your participation. You may be inconvenienced
from taking time out of your day to complete the questionnaires and you may also
experience some discomfort completing the questionnaires.

125
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
You may not directly benefit from your participation in this research study.
However, there are potential benefits, contingent on the results of this research, to
the educational community as the sources of impact of LGBTQ undergraduates’
personal identity development emerge.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not receive any payment for your participation in this research study.

CONFIDENTIALITY
No information that is obtained in connection with this study can be identi-
fied with you. Contact information that is supplied by Phase One participants on
the Intent to Continue form will be stored in the investigator’s secured office in a
locked file cabinet.

The data from this study will also be stored in the investigator’s secured of-
fice in a locked file cabinet and in a password protected computer. Only members
of the research team will have access to the data associated with this study. The
data will be stored for three years after the study has been completed. After the
three year period, the data will be destroyed.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in
this study, you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You
may also refuse to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and still remain
in the study. The investigator may withdraw you from this research if circum-
stances arise which warrant doing so.

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation
without penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because
of your participation in this research study. If you have questions regarding your
rights as a research subject, contact the University Park IRB, Office of the Vice
Provost for Research, Grace Ford Salvatori Building, Room 306, Los Angeles, CA
90089-1695, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.

126
IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to
contact:

Kimberlee Woods Rod Goodyear, Ph. D.
1218 E. Broadway, #121 Rossier School of Education
Long Beach, CA 90802 University of Southern California
(562) 208-2248 WPH 1100A
woodsk@usc.edu Los Angeles, CA 90089-0031
(213) 740-3267
goodyea@usc.edu
Vincent Vigil
3601 Trousdale Parkway
Student Union 202B
Los Angeles, CA 90089-0890
(213) 740-7619
vincenev@usc.edu

Christopher Eaton
952 Maltman Avenue # 207
Los Angeles, CA 90026
323-610-5736
david.eaton@usc.edu

127
APPENDIX B
COLLEGE YEARS EXPERIENCES QUESTIONNAIRE

128
APPENDIX C
PAIRED COMPARISON QUESTIONNAIRE
Directions

Now that you have read the descriptions for each category, we are interested
in assessing how similar you see these to one another.
In the following sections, each line has 2 of the 14 categories as paired
items. Please rate each pair to indicate the degree to which you see the two items as
alike using a scale ranging from 1=Not at all alike to 5=Very much alike.
For example, in line one you see the two categories "Having a positive gay
role model" and "Experiencing acceptance as a gay person during travel abroad". If
you think these two categories are very much alike, you would check 5. If you
think the two categories are not at all alike, you would check 1. If you think they
are in between, you would check one of the selections between 1 and 5, based on
the degree of similarity you see.
There are a total of 91 paired comparison statements for you to rate. While
91 may seem like a lot of items to rate, you will find that this activity is actually
quite easy and not very time consuming. Remember, by completing this survey,
you are helping to make history in the field of LGBT research that could make a
difference in the lives of students just like you!

129
Questionnaire

1. Having a positive gay role model AND Experiencing acceptance as a gay person
during travel abroad.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike

_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

2. Experiencing acceptance as a gay person during travel abroad AND Assertively
identifying as a gay person through public behavior.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike

_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

3. Having sexual identity affirmed during an academic course AND Having a gay
sexual experience.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike

_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

4. Experiencing gay romance for the first time AND Coming out as a gay person to
others in the campus community.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike

_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

5. Encountering unexpected adversity (independent of sexuality) AND
Experiencing gay romance for the first time.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike

_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

130
6. Having sexual identity affirmed during an academic course AND Experiencing
gay romance for the first time.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

7. Experiencing acceptance as a gay person during travel abroad AND
Experiencing a sexual assault (by another gay man).

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

8. Assertively identifying as a gay person through public behavior AND Having
sexual identity affirmed during an academic course.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

9. Assertively identifying as a gay person through public behavior AND Having
sexual identity affirmed during an academic course.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

10. Participating in a gay activism/leadership role AND Having a positive gay role
model.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

11. Having a direct experience with homophobic harassment or assault AND
Challenging others’ homophobic beliefs.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

131
12. Having sexual identity affirmed during an academic course AND Participating
in a gay activism/leadership role.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

13. Challenging others’ homophobic beliefs AND Receiving the support of a
formal lgbt campus center or organization.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

14. Experiencing gay romance for the first time AND Assertively identifying as a
gay person through public behavior.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

15. Experiencing acceptance as a gay person during travel abroad AND
Experiencing religious-based rejection.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

16. Coming out as a gay person to others in the campus community AND Having a
gay sexual experience.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

17. Participating in a gay activism/leadership role AND Assertively identifying as a
gay person through public behavior.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

132
18. Having a direct experience with homophobic harassment or assault AND
Having sexual identity affirmed during an academic course.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

19. Receiving the support of a formal lgbt campus center or organization AND
Having sexual identity affirmed during an academic course.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

20. Having a direct experience with homophobic harassment or assault AND
Coming out as a gay person to others in the campus community.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

21. Coming out as a gay person to others in the campus community AND
Receiving the support of a formal lgbt campus center or organization.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

22. Challenging others’ homophobic beliefs AND Assertively identifying as a gay
person through public behavior.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

23. Challenging others’ homophobic beliefs AND Participating in a gay
activism/leadership role.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

133
24. Assertively identifying as a gay person through public behavior AND Having a
direct experience with homophobic harassment or assault.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

25. Assertively identifying as a gay person through public behavior AND
Encountering unexpected adversity (independent of sexuality).

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

26. Experiencing acceptance as a gay person during travel abroad AND Having a
direct experience with homophobic harassment or assault.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

27. Coming out as a gay person to others in the campus community AND
Assertively identifying as a gay person through public behavior.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

28. Having sexual identity affirmed during an academic course AND Challenging
others’ homophobic beliefs.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

29. Having a positive gay role model AND Experiencing a sexual assault (by
another gay man).

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

134
30. Having a positive gay role model AND Encountering unexpected adversity
(independent of sexuality).

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

31. Having a gay sexual experience AND Having a positive gay role model.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

32. Experiencing acceptance as a gay person during travel abroad AND
Participating in a gay activism/leadership role.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

33. Experiencing acceptance as a gay person during travel abroad AND
Experiencing gay romance for the first time.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

34. Experiencing acceptance as a gay person during travel abroad AND Having a
gay sexual experience.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

35. Experiencing religious-based rejection AND Having a positive gay role model.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

135
36. Encountering unexpected adversity (independent of sexuality) AND
Experiencing acceptance as a gay person during travel abroad.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

37. Experiencing acceptance as a gay person during travel abroad AND Coming
out as a gay person to others in the campus community.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

38. Receiving the support of a formal lgbt campus center or organization AND
Experiencing acceptance as a gay person during travel abroad.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

39. Having a positive gay role model AND Receiving the support of a formal lgbt
campus center or organization.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

40. Participating in a gay activism/leadership role AND Coming out as a gay
person to others in the campus community.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

41. Experiencing gay romance for the first time AND Having a positive gay role
model.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

136
42. Challenging others’ homophobic beliefs AND Experiencing acceptance as a
gay person during travel abroad.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

43. Having a direct experience with homophobic harassment or assault AND
Having a positive gay role model.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

44. Coming out as a gay person to others in the campus community AND Having a
positive gay role model.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

45. Having sexual identity affirmed during an academic course AND Having a
positive gay role model.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

46. Assertively identifying as a gay person through public behavior AND Having a
positive gay role model.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

47. Having a positive gay role model AND Challenging others’ homophobic
beliefs.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

137
48. Experiencing acceptance as a gay person during travel abroad AND Having
sexual identity affirmed during an academic course.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

49. Challenging others’ homophobic beliefs AND Coming out as a gay person to
others in the campus community.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

50. Coming out as a gay person to others in the campus community AND Having
sexual identity affirmed during an academic course.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

51. Assertively identifying as a gay person through public behavior AND
Receiving the support of a formal lgbt campus center or organization.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

52. Coming out as a gay person to others in the campus community AND
Experiencing religious-based rejection.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

53. Having a gay sexual experience AND Challenging others’ homophobic beliefs.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

138
54. Encountering unexpected adversity (independent of sexuality) AND Having a
direct experience with homophobic harassment or assault.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

55. Experiencing a sexual assault (by another gay man) AND Experiencing gay
romance for the first time.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

56. Having a direct experience with homophobic harassment or assault AND
Experiencing gay romance for the first time.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

57. Experiencing religious-based rejection AND Having a direct experience with
homophobic harassment or assault.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

58. Having a gay sexual experience AND Participating in a gay activism/leadership
role.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

59. Encountering unexpected adversity (independent of sexuality) AND Receiving
the support of a formal lgbt campus center or organization.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

139
60. Encountering unexpected adversity (independent of sexuality) AND
Experiencing a sexual assault (by another gay man).

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

61. Experiencing gay romance for the first time AND Having a gay sexual
experience.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

62. Encountering unexpected adversity (independent of sexuality) and Challenging
others’ homophobic beliefs.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

63. Experiencing a sexual assault (by another gay man) AND Having sexual
identity affirmed during an academic course.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

64. Having a gay sexual experience AND Encountering unexpected adversity
(independent of sexuality).

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

65. Experiencing a sexual assault (by another gay man) AND Experiencing
religious-based rejection.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

140
66. Having a gay sexual experience AND Receiving the support of a formal lgbt
campus center or organization.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

67. Having a direct experience with homophobic harassment or assault AND
Receiving the support of a formal lgbt campus center or organization.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

68. Participating in a gay activism/leadership role AND Receiving the support of a
formal lgbt campus center or organization.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

69. Participating in a gay activism/leadership role AND Experiencing a
sexual assault (by another gay man).

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

70. Encountering unexpected adversity (independent of sexuality)AND
Participating in a gay activism/leadership role.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

71. Receiving the support of a formal lgbt campus center or organization AND
Experiencing gay romance for the first time.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

141
72. Experiencing a sexual assault (by another gay man) AND Having a gay sexual
experience.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

73. Having a gay sexual experience AND Having a direct experience with
homophobic harassment or assault.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

74. Experiencing religious-based rejection AND Participating in a gay
activism/leadership role.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

75. Having sexual identity affirmed during an academic course AND Encountering
unexpected adversity (independent of sexuality).

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

76. Having sexual identity affirmed during an academic course AND Experiencing
religious-based rejection.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

77. Assertively identifying as a gay person through public behavior AND
Experiencing a sexual assault (by another gay man).

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

142
78. Experiencing gay romance for the first time AND Challenging others’
homophobic beliefs.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

79. Experiencing religious-based rejection AND Challenging others’ homophobic
beliefs.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

80. Having a gay sexual experience AND Assertively identifying as a gay person
through public behavior.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

81. Experiencing religious-based rejection AND Receiving the support of a formal
lgbt campus center or organization.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

82. Receiving the support of a formal lgbt campus center or organization AND
Experiencing a sexual assault (by another gay man).

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

83. Experiencing religious-based rejection AND Having a gay sexual experience.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

143
84. Encountering unexpected adversity (independent of sexuality) AND
Experiencing religious-based rejection.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

85. Experiencing gay romance for the first time AND Experiencing religious-based
rejection.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

86. Having a direct experience with homophobic harassment or assault AND
Experiencing a sexual assault (by another gay man).

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

87. Experiencing a sexual assault (by another gay man) AND Challenging others’
homophobic beliefs.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

88. Assertively identifying as a gay person through public behavior AND
Experiencing religious-based rejection.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

89. Experiencing a sexual assault (by another gay man) AND Coming out as a gay
person to others in the campus community.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

144
90. Participating in a gay activism/leadership role AND Experiencing gay romance
for the first time.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

91. Encountering unexpected adversity (independent of sexuality) AND Coming
out as a gay person to others in the campus community.

Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

Source: Dr. Rodney Goodyear, University of Southern California. Used and printed
with permission.

145
APPENDIX D

CYEQ STUDENT RESPONSES

1. After the first rehearsal of the first play I was in during college, two cast
members dragged me out to the bar with them, where we met up with a large
number of theatre majors and even a few faculty. All of these people were ones I
had only seen, and never spoken with, yet they accepted me openly into a tight knit
community of thespians. This showed me an incredible sense of unhindered
acceptance yet close community.
(COMING OUT)

2. while in my second year of school, my father's health dropped, and I had to
move from my former school in Chicago, back to Minnesota to care for him, took
the year off, and then transferred to the university of Minnesota after he died.
moving back into a home after I came out, where tensions were rampant, but then
coming to a healthy space between my father and I in terms of who we were, and in
terms of my sexuality was a large component to who I am now.
(ADVERSITY)

3. When I for the first time was able to kiss a boy (my boyfriend for the first
time) in public and in full daylight. I think it was the first time that I managed to be
gay openly not just by saying it but by acting like it; it definitely gave me a great
sense of liberation and new found comfort with my sexuality.
(PUBLIC)

4. Since this is all about being gay, I'll go with the typical coming out story. I
was just hanging out at my female friend's apartment sophomore year and we were
watching movies and she told me that a gay friend of hers (who was adorable)
thought that I was cute and wanted to know if I was gay. She had told him no
because she didn't think there was any way that I was gay (ha ha) but instead I told
her that I wouldn't mind going out with him and came out to her. Coming out to my
close friends was much easier from that point forward. I became proud of who I am
and haven't looked back since.
(COMING OUT)

5. An experience that shaped my sense of who I am is one that is related to
my sexuality. The specific incident would be a debate I had with my roommate, a
leader of the campus gay and etc. organization. His position is that I need to use
appropriate language and non gender-specific terms, and for example he often
enters a room full of males and says "hey girls" to raise awareness of how people
say "hey guys" to girls. I think this is ridiculous. We debated about these issues for
a long time, and I realized that I'm the kind of gay person who doesn't feel the need
to carry other people's burdens on my back. I'm not a woman, nor am I "intersex".

146
And while I care about equality and all that, I have my own battles to fight. So this
helped me decide to be more selective when joining activist causes, and to also
think more critically about whatever activist trend is popular at any particular
moment and not just blindly follow it.
(CHALLENGING)

6. I was attending a meeting of the college LGBTQ organization during my
senior year. In my earlier years I had participated in all of the organizations
extensively, taken leadership roles, attended all the meetings and events and
everything, but gradually felt more and more alienated from the direction taken,
politically and socially, by these groups. My senior year I had a weekly
commitment preventing me from attending the general body meetings of the main
LGBTQ group, but I made arrangements to have my volunteer shift at the local
radical bookstore covered one evening in order to attend the meeting because they
were discussing an issue about which I felt very passionately. Another campus
group, a non-LGBTQ political organization, had asked the group to co-sponsor a
speech by Patrick Guerrero, president of the Log Cabin Republicans. I came to
speak against this, as I felt furious that it was even up for consideration, given the
organization's ostensible social justice and not single issue/apolitical focus. Over
my vigorous protests, the cosponsorship was approved by a vote of 34 to 5. Apart
from writing an article explaining my dissent for the campus LGBTQ publication
(which I had helped refound my sophomore year) and protesting the speech, I never
participated in any further campus LGBTQ events. The importance and long-term
impact of this event on my sense of self was that I came to finally realize and
accept that my social and political beliefs set me apart from the college mainstream
and the gay and lesbian mainstream, in irrevocable ways. I have since forged an
identity for myself as a radical queer that exists separately from my gay college
student identity, and feels infinitely more comfortable and authentic.
(ACTIVISM)

7. During my Sophomore year a young gay man was hate-crimed near the
part of town know as "Frat Court." I peripherally knew the guy that it happened to,
but not really. This experience was important because it let me know that even
thought Chapel Hill is known as one of most liberal parts of North Carolina,
violence against queers is still a reality. One long-term effect on my sense of who I
am is that now I am a feel like I'm someone who has to be a little bit more on
guard, aware of what's going on around me. Being an effeminate male in the
conservative South and being aware of such incidents as this, I feel like I'm always
keeping an eye out, monitoring who's around me, etc. I suppose one could say that
my sense of self is someone who has greater potential to be a victim.
(HARASSMENT)

147
8. The most formative experience for me with respect to my sexual identity at
UNC-Chapel Hill has been working with a small group of committed students to
make vibrant and active a GLBT-Straight Alliance. This experience became
significant because of the COMMUNITY that we created simply by working
together through twice-weekly meetings, "big gay parties", and the informal
learning experiences of debating what to call our group and what activities we
wanted to plan. There is no way, however, that this group could have thrived the
way it did (and continues to today!) without also having a Sexuality Studies
program at school which had courses several of us were taking. I have no doubt
that working with this small group to create a safe space has shaped my life path. It
already has meant that I have switched my major to Women's Studies with a minor
in Sexuality Studies. As a result of my positive experiences organizing here on
campus, I am looking into careers that focus on groups that attempt to merge LGBT
work with racial and economic justice movements. My work doing LGBTQ
organizing in college has definitely been the most significant aspect of my college
experience.
(LGBT CENTER)

9. I remembered who I was the first time I laughed at a joke about my
attraction to the same sex. I don't remember exactly what it was, but I remember
being genuinely amused. The joke wasn't mean spirited at all and there was no one
else to hear it. It was told by one of my hall mates who had just learned of my
sexuality and was initially shocked, but soon learned that its not actually that
unusual. Through his humor he really made me realize that being gay didn't negate
everything else I was. I still laughed at the same things and appreciated the same
qualities in friends. Over the long term, it's made me gain confidence in myself and
my convictions.
(COMING OUT)

10. I have always looked up to my brother. He joined a fraternity when he went
to college and I decided to do the same. The men of Sigma Nu embraced me as a
brother, knowing full well that I identify as gay. Having a group of men accept me
in such a way makes me feel good about myself, and gives me a more positive
outlook on being homosexual.
(COMING OUT)

11. The first time I truly admitted to myself (and someone else) that I was gay.
My best friend from High School was staying with me on campus and I was very
attracted to him. I told him that I was attracted him and kissed him. He didn't return
the affection, but also didn't flip out. He told me that he wasn't gay and wasn't
attracted to me, but still wanted to be my friend; but he also told me he wouldn't be
able to be my friend if I tried to turn our relationship into something sexual,
because he couldn't reciprocate. Obviously, admitting to myself that I am gay has

148
had a huge long-term impact. I'm now in a long-term committed relationship with a
wonderful man. I was also able to stay friends with the object of my affection at the
time. I think this helped me realize that I can be friends with someone I'm attracted
to and not act on that attraction. I also had my first real sexual experience with a
man the next day after class.
(ROMANCE)

12. Before going to college, I had been something of a loner. After settling into
my dorm room, I started making friends with people on the floor. I had been
waiting to come out of the closet since middle school, and decided to do so at the
beginning of freshman year. So, I randomly came out to the first friend I saw one
night. He didn't take it badly, but he seemed a bit stunned I was scared at what I
had just done, so for the next few days, I avoided everyone and stayed in my room
quite a bit. Then one day, they all showed up at my door, and we went to dinner
together, cause nothing had actually changed except me being more honest and
open.
(COMING OUT)

13. When my mostly straight friends found out I was "bi'... I was surprised at
heir complete nonchalant regarding it (Student currently identifies as gay).
(COMING OUT)

14. I was at a party with one of my friends--she a female, I a male. We had
been sitting together for most of the party because we did not know many other
people there. A female student whom we both did not know came up to us and said,
"So how long have you two been together?" I came out to my parents senior year,
and was never "in the closet" during my college experience. This event occurred
during my second year, and it is certainly not the first time someone has assumed I
am straight. It actually offended me a great deal when it happened--I'm not exactly
sure why this one event angered me so. But I replied to the question asker, "I am
gay." She was very surprised and blushed. I probably made her feel pretty shitty for
putting her on the spot like that, but many heterosexuals become offended when
people question their sexuality. This event made me realize that I have every right
to get offended when people assume I am heterosexual. I realize that
heterosexuality is the majority and many people do not think twice about assuming.
But I suppose this event just really made clear that I am a minority among a
minority group: a gay guy who appears straight (whether or not that is truly a
minority could be up to debate I suppose). Since that incident I've always corrected
people when they ask gendered questions. I think the event made me more aware of
how stereotypes are not fair when it is something that is truly internal like
sexuality.
(CHALLENGING)

149
15. It was during a point in my Sophomore Year that I found out 3 of my close
friends were gay. This made me realize it was not only me. They had hesitated in
telling me due to my Mid West upbringing
(COMING OUT)

16. I was sexually assaulted in my own room my first year in college. The
person who attacked me was a fellow hallmate who was a closeted drunk gay man.
He told me that this is what I wanted because I was gay and therefore should give
in. This has tormented me for quite some time now and it has taken me a few years
to give myself some respect and realizing that not all people perceive men as sex
hungry humans like my hallmate thought. I have also come to learn that I do not
need to give in to anyone and no one will ever tell me what I want as a male and
especially as a gay male.
(ASSAULT)

17. (a) Being told by a classmate who hailed from a small conservative town
that I changed his perception about who/what gay people are. (b) This classmate
was someone who was in two of my classes in the same semester and someone I
collaborated with on a project. (c) This incident not only changed one person's
stereotypical perceptions about being homosexual, but also allowed him to see that
no matter what persuasion one may be they need not fit into a box. (d) The long
term effect this has had on me is that I allowed me to take ownership of myself as a
gay man, and helped me to realize that I need not subscribe to a certain persona or
ideology simply because I identify as gay.
(CHALLENGING)

18. Last year, in the month before graduation, I was a participant in the
campaign for Living Wage at our school. Although not one of the main students
involved in the more dramatic sit-in, I took great interest in the movement and
ended up being active in the movement more as a whole. However, I like to think
that I was not just following the crowd blindly; learning more about the problems at
our school caused me to become much more aware of social issues in our city and
the nation as a whole. Several of my friends, many of whom were not as privileged
as I am in terms of finances, were especially active. Basically, although our queer
programs throughout undergrad times led us to be involved in things with the
minority rights community as a whole and to understand our privileges, this kind of
"cemented" that perspective in me.
(ACTIVISM)

19. (a) I took a class called "Conceptions of Self" (b) n/a (c) The course taught
me a lot about how many different kinds of people define and understand
themselves, which helped me to better understand my own self and how my
sexuality affects that (d) The course has helped me better understand my status as a

150
gay man as not just a sexual orientation, but a significant influence in shaping my
identity
(ACADEMIC)

20. The entire experience of going away to a university had a profound impact
on developing/strengthening my sense of self. Friends and professors had a
profound impact on how I came to view the world and myself. It's hard to pin down
one major event that was in itself a changing moment when it's really the
confluence of many factors over the four-year period.
(ROLE MODEL)

21. a.) Freshman year of college, falling in love for the first time. b.) My first
best friend in college I fell in love with. c.) This was a very important part of my
life. I knew I was physically attracted to men, but this was the first time I was
emotionally attracted to a man. From this point, I knew it was simple. If I was
emotionally and physically attracted to a man, it means I am gay. I understood that,
and was OK with what I was feeling for the first time in my life. d.) It has had a
tremendous part of my life b/c I knew that it was OK to be gay...that my feelings
had been validated, and I've never looked back. It helped solidify my gay identity.
(ROMANCE)

22. When I decided to pledge my fraternity I felt an amazing connection to a
larger community. During my semester of pledging, I became much more aware of
how I could personally make a difference and how my actions fit into the larger
queer community. It was very important during this period because I was presented
with other strong, confident, accomplished gay men who were role models for my
pledge brothers and I. I met people who's actions (and in some cases inactions)
helped lead to how gay people are perceived in society. Having a diverse group of
these role models has really helped to inspire me to grow.
(ROLE MODEL)

23. I met a 4th year gay student while I was a 1st year who introduced me to
other gays which showed me that it was OK to be gay and that gay people are
diverse (and not just the stereotype). This allowed me to explore my attractions
toward other guys and ultimately enabled me to accept that as who I am.
(ROLE MODEL)

24. My college is a small, Southern, liberal arts school. It rests on the fringe of
the Bible Belt, and is rests in arguably the most conservative city in the state of
Florida. Throughout my sophomore year, I went through a deep and sometimes
painful self-actualization and self-awareness with regards to my sexuality. I was
encouraged heartily by the administration of my college to be who I was and to not
shy away from that. Bryan Coker (Dean of Students) in particular made my coming

151
out process easier and was a positive role model and influence in my life at the
time, and remains someone I look to for counsel and advice. Without the
encouragement, advice, and support from the Student Life Staff at Jacksonville
University my sophomore year, I would not be the person I am today.
(ROLE MODEL)

25. I was president of my fraternity. When the alumni board found out that I
was gay, they asked me to step down and quit the fraternity. They were afraid I
would give the "wrong ideals and impressions" of my fraternity. When I told the
chapter of this they unanimously voted to have me stay as president and it became
one of our most successful semesters ever. This experience helped me develop a
better sense of myself and allowed me to see how much I have affected peoples
lives. This was my first experience of being "gay bashed" my entire life. Since that
event I have made more decisions based on what I think is right and not just what
people will think of me because of it.
(HARASSMENT)

26. One of the few Queer Student Union meetings I ever attended cemented the
feelings of isolation I had been having. It was a meeting featuring a group called
Minority Squared and the ice breaker question for the meeting was "How would
you identify yourself in one word?" The point of the question was to point out the
difficulty of some people when they have more than one major group to identify
with (I hope). In many cases they are excluded from both. A vast majority of the
students present would say "queer," "gay," "lesbian," etc. Herein lies the first
problem: the fact that there is a "gay identity" at all. It is something that has been
culturally constructed and tends to see gay men as less than men and lesbians as
less than women. The QSU (aside from being just a meat market) has this group
mentality. [Related aside: Once, when I awkwardly ran into a member after I
stopped going, I mentioned I hadn't shown up because I had had rehearsal on
Thursday nights (which was true). He said something to the effect of, "Oh, well at
least you're filling your gay quota." The fact I was in a show was not assigned to
the fact that I am a person who happens to enjoy theater, but because theater has
been dubbed a "gay" activity, despite the fact that the rest of the cast except for one
other man were straight.] Back to the meeting. When it came my turn to say
something, I said, "Christian." There was a curious "Huh" said by someone in the
crowd and then we moved on. I was the only one who said Christian that night.
This experience epitomizes my experience in being a gay Christian. Moreso, a gay
evangelical Christian. In person, I have met one and heard of one other. The first
described himself as a "bad Episcopalian," which, indeed, he was. He didn't
practice at all and may have been more culturally Christian than actually Christian.
The other that I heard of actually started a gay Bible study that disappeared once
she stopped believing in Christianity. It has now become an organization for gay
people to explore "spirituality." The long term effect of all of this is that I feel alone

152
most of the time. I tend to not be friends with gay people nor do I tend to make
friends with conservative Christians (but I do have friends of that variety), mainly
because one aspect of my personality- gay or Christian- tends to rub one of those
groups the wrong way.
(RELIGIOUS)

27. a. Coming out to myself and to my friends during my first year in college. I
also came out to my mom during my second year in college. I think that it was
important because in order to live with myself I had to get it off my chest.
(COMING OUT)

28. My much older sister, while on a walk on the beach near her house, said
that it was bad to set myself up in so that my life had no possibility of a loving
relationship with another person (by which she meant romantic), after I impulsively
told her I was gay (and celibate). It took several years of mulling on this, but it was
one of two or three important factors that led me to come out to other gay people.
(COMING OUT)

29. I couldn't pay my tuition and I had to leave school for a semester. It was
negative; however, I was able to know what I wanted to do at school and no longer
helpless in my own life. I could come back, pay tuition, get the student loan I
needed, and resume studies. Overall, it was one of the best things that happened to
me. I was more afraid of what people would have thought of me.
(ADVERSITY)

30. I came out to my best friend. It was an important time because this is when
I started to like myself more after seeing the support I received from him.
(COMING OUT)

31. I had unprotected sex with a guy and about a month later that bastard told
me he might be HIV positive. I didn't get mad. I thought he did have a reason not
telling me before hand. so I forgived him and started loving people around me even
more. I also realize life is too short to waste, so I became more courageous about
coming out.
(ASSAULT)

32. At one point in a conversation with the guys sitting next to me before class
I had a realization that he too was gay. I asked him about it and he was forth-
coming. I asked him if he knew that I was too. He told me he did. I asked him why
he never said anything. He explained that he heard through other gay people that I
was "insecure" with myself and he didn't want to make me uncomfortable. At this
moment I realized that I was being shunned by the gay community and I always
would be. I also eventually came to realize how divided of a group we are. There is

153
a certain stereotype that is perpetuated that I do not buy into. Some do. I came to
realize through our conversation that because I don't act gay, go to gay bars, or
hang out at the mall I was considered "insecure" by my peers.
(CHALLENGING)

33. (a) Being elected as one of eight class representatives for Tufts student
government during my freshman year. (b) The main other person was my
dormitory neighbor that year. He was also elected as well, and part of me wanted to
run because I saw his enthusiasm for student government. It made me want to get
involved. Eventually, we became better friends. Unfortunately, I developed a very
strong crush on him (although he was straight) and it made me severely depressed
throughout the rest of the year. (c) Being elected to student government was
important to me because it gave me a sense of elite identity at Tufts. I wasn't an
athlete or member of a Greek organization, but being elected as a member of
student government gave me a sense of elitism and belonging at a snobby
university like Tufts. (d) It gave me a group of friends who could appreciate my
sense of humor.
(ACTIVISM)

34. I came out in my Residence Hall Newsletter, and my Resident Advisor and
the Hall Director were very supportive of me. They met with me before the article
was published, and had conversations about how they could support me. This was
very important for me because it made me much more comfortable to be out, and it
let me know that I can always find pockets of support even in the midst of
otherwise hostile climate. Since then, that experience led me to work in Student
Affairs because now I can be a role model and support for other LGBTQ students.
(COMING OUT)

35. (a) I got my first boyfriend. We started hanging out more and more often
until one night he kissed me, and we have been together ever since. (b) We are
boyfriends and we care for each other. (c) It was important because now I have a
chance to show to myself and to others I can have someone in my life and still be
able be myself and do the things that make me happy. (d) I understand how to
balance my school life, diving life, and personal life.
(ROMANCE)

36. Meeting my boyfriend
(ROMANCE)

37. I dated a guy who held me in really high regard, worshiped almost. It made
me feel really uncomfortable, so I broke up with him. That really helped me
understand that I'm okay to be by myself.
(ROMANCE)

154

38. My experience would definitely be meeting the first openly gay friend as a
freshman in college.
(ROMANCE) (This was a difficult response to rate. Other respondent in this
category spoke of falling in love with their first gay friend in college. The response
did not fall into COMING OUT or ROLE MODEL, and the two gay male raters
felt that there is often a romantic attraction associated with the first gay friend one
meets in college, thus this response’s placement in this category).

39. There was a friend I had who I had kind of been ignoring for a while. He
had always been single, was gay, 25, and very smart (scored a 34 on his ACT) but
worked as security guard. He always wore the same white shirt and women's jeans,
and to be honest I felt very self-conscious with him in public. One time he asked
me to hang out, and this would be the last time we did, after this time, I told him I
wanted to pretty much cut off all contact. The whole night I listened to him talk
about how bad his life was, saying "some people are just destined to be lonely," "I
think I'm just completely unattractive," and that he dropped out of high school and
later college (after he got his GED) because his parents were "mean little people"
and he didn't want to "validate" them. How was this important? Listening to him
the whole night complaining about things that were within his control made me
realize how much I was in mine, and why our friendship would never work. I
wanted to be happy, single or in a relationship, regardless of prior circumstances.
The long-term effect has been that I've generally been happier, trying to 'avoid'
falling into my ex-friend's trap of negative thinking, and continuing my education.
(ADVERSITY)

40. Within the first two months of my arrival at school, I was chased by a
group of people with guns because of my being associated with the gay
community. Shortly after the news spread throughout campus, general outrage was
present. The LGBTQA even had an anti-hate rally because of this. I realized that
although there are many jerks who would be downright medieval in their thinking,
there are also some great support people here at the University of Southern Maine. I
am proud to be out and proud to count myself as part of the USM community as
well as the gay community!
(HARASSMENT)

41. I was in a sub shop with my co-worker from my school job. Two black
people called us faggots because we didn't realize that they were in line before us.
(HARASSMENT)

42. When I started to explore my sexuality my sophomore year I was living
with 3 friends of mine. 1 was bi, 1 was gay, and 1 was straight. the bi guy and the
gay guy weren't out to the straight guy, only me. well my straight friend started

155
getting upset with the "new crowd" I was hanging out with, aka my new gay
friends. he was always talking about how I was "changing" and how I was no
longer the person I used to in high school...obviously. well, soon the other 2
roommates (the bi guy and the gay guy) started to join sides with my straight
friend. so after about 2 months of being "out" to my roommates, I had all 3 of them
ganging up on me. this expanded to issues other than my "new friends." it seemed
like everything that went wrong in the apt was my fault. this was important because
these ppl were my friends. and even worse was the fact that 2 of them were gay/bi.
of all ppl, they should know what position I was in. the long term effect that is
easiest to see is the fact that these friendships have never been the same. I
occasionally talk with the bi guy. I don’t ever plan on talking to the gay guy again.
and my straight friend tries to pretend like none of it ever happened. I’m polite to
him, but whenever I’m around him I think of the year we lived together. this
incident certainly didn’t make my initial coming out any easier.
(HARASSMENT)

43. Coming Out to a Couple of Strangers This is my first quarter as a college
student, and over this short period of time I had the greatest period of self
identification. I always knew that I was gay, but until very recently no one had the
slightest idea. After two weeks at UCLA I decided to check out one of the support
groups on campus for LGBTQ students. I was the first one in the room, and slowly
others started to arrive. Shortly we moved to an introduction and I was the last
person in line. I could not believe what was happening, all these guys were openly
talking about their homosexuality! Finally it was my turn and with a little struggle I
was able to tell everyone that this was the first time I ever came out. Everyone was
so supportive and I felt empowered. I was a little shaken up, but I was very happy!
It was not as hard as I thought, coming out to other people. But soon did I realize
that it is different to come out to gay people that it is to heterosexual people. But in
the end, these people form the support group instilled a great sense of pride and
courage which till this day is carrying me strong as I come out to someone new
every day. Sometimes I don’t get the reaction I was expecting, but I can live with it.
(COMING OUT)

44. a-b. I was doing my laundry at my residence hall. There were several
people in the room. and one of them was an obviously gay male. When that gay
left, another male in the room uttered "Fuckin' queer." c. I didn't speak up and tell
him to shut up. d. I wish I would've. That guy probably had the perception that all
gays were flaming. I am not at all flaming. Had I spoken up, I would've at least
made him think twice before repeating his utterance again.
(HARASSMENT)

45. Leaving "home" behind has definitely been the biggest college experience.
I from northeastern WI (6+ hours away from campus). Finding a entirely new

156
network of friends here has been difficult but it has allowed me not to compromise
my identity (sexual, gender, and the whole sense of who I am).
(ADVERSITY)

46. The incident that had the biggest impact on my life was my freshman year
when my ex boyfriend tried committing suicide, twice. I learned how depression
can hurt someone and what effect it has on the people who care about them. I now
understand what goes on with people facing depression and suicide.
(ADVERSITY)

47. I participated in the Social Justice Leadership Retreat during my Freshman
year and it really helped develop how I see other oppressed groups and my sense of
being an ally to other groups. There were about 40 different students from all over
campus that participated and a small group of about 6 with 2 facilitators that we
worked with to go into more depth and share more personal stories. I still use
things I learned in the retreat, and think back to it probably at least a couple times a
week. I went on to facilitate at the retreat during my sophomore year and have even
presented information about the retreat at the MACURH 2006 conference.
(ACTIVISM)

48. I've had a very good college experience. I've had very few if any negative
experiences pertaining to be sexual preference. I've found many new ally friends
that accept me for who I am.
(COMING OUT)

49. I worked in residential life as an undergraduate hall director. The
department head during that year was, in my personal opinion based on experience,
an unethical individual who had a tremendously negative impact on students and
staff alike. The year culminated with my choosing not to continue in the role as a
senior despite my joy for the job - and in my decision not to pursue student affairs
as a career. This event provided me with first hand knowledge regarding the
importance of personal and professional ethics and equitable treatment on all levels.
This negative experience changed me in many ways but most importantly it lit a
fire within me showing that I must argue and fight for this, and it is our
responsibility to represent those who cannot represent themselves.
(ADVERSITY)

50. I have been called "the person who says what everyone else is thinking but
wont' say" by other peers for a long time. I've seemingly kept that title even when
returning to college. After hearing it from this group of people whom I have gotten
to know, it had a profound experience in making me realize that I truly am that
person.
(COMING OUT)

157

51. The first time another man ever kissed me in public was my freshman year
in my undergraduate college. This man was a junior at that university and was my
boyfriend at the time. The importance of this incident was the public scene that was
created in a university cafeteria. The long term effect has created a subdued nature
to my interactions with relationships in public. Though this event is not entirely the
reason why I am not the most public affectionate person.
(PUBLIC)

52. I think that one experience that I have had that has helped me to find out
who I am would be joining the Delta Lambda Phi fraternity. The fraternity itself is
known as the "gay" fraternity and therefore I am around a lot of guys who share the
same experiences as me. This was important because it helped me to transition to
college life after living at home and starting off college doing the same thing and
then transferring to a completely different world that was more accepting. The
long-term effect that this is going to have on me is that it is going to make me more
confident in who I am.
(LGBT CENTER)

53. I went to a party and felt extremely uncomfortable. There was a guy there
that was being very rude and hostile to me. I kept asking my friend if she wanted to
leave, but she insisted on staying longer. I finally got out, but as I was leaving the
wrapped his arms around me and wouldn't let me go. I was afraid I was going to be
the victim of a hate crime. I got out just fine, but I have not been to any
parties/social gatherings where I don't know all the people since then.
(ASSAULT)

54. There was an incident where I was involved with a guy, who in essence
was playing mind games with me. I finally decided to stand my ground, and
confront the situation. It's not that I had never confronted situations before, but this
time I put what was best for me ahead of what I felt I wanted. From this moment, I
had a truer grasp on understanding what is good for you and what you need to let
go.
(ADVERSITY)

55. A negative experience which I encountered happened at the Student Union
Building Lobby when I was 22. I was studying at a table, across from me, a group
of one man and two women were looking at the table tents. The young man (18 or
so), picked up the advertisement that was had contact information on it for the
LGBT club at school. I overheard him tell the girls "If these faggots were here right
now, I would throw this down on the table, and say; explain this to me. And, they
wouldn't be able to. Because being a faggot is unnatural."
(HARASSMENT)

158

56. I went abroad to London and came out there. I think it was easier because it
was a completely different environment, and I felt supported by the group of
students I was studying with, and also by the gay-friendly climate of London. If I
had not lived there for a year, I am sure that my life would have been very
different, because I am not sure when I would have had the courage to take that
step.
(ABROAD)

57. My first LGBTQ function at USC was the Bar-B-Queer during Welcome
Week. I remember walking by to check out the event and walking by again and
again, each time with a greater urge to join the people inside and each time with a
more intensified fear of associating myself with the queers. I called my best friend
from home who talked me through why it was so important for me to connect to
other queers and gave me lots of pep talk. I think this was a great indicator into my
view of my own identity and how fearful I am of being LGBT. As comfortable as I
may be, I'm still not comfortable with the overtly sexual LGBT community I
haven't quite understood. The entire experience has propelled me to attend more
and more LGBT events in an attempt to not only network with others, but also to
discover confidence within myself.
(LGBT CENTER)

58. coming out to my friends when they asked me about it; it was very easy to
do so though because most of the people at USC seem very open; I come from
eastern Europe so imagine the difference in mentality; it was a very nice feeling to
know you are accepted fully for who you are as a whole.
(COMING OUT)

59. during my freshman year, I came out to my family, and had to do so in a
series of letters. it was difficult, my family was not receptive, an instead bombarded
me with religious pamphlets and articles about 'ex-gay' experiences. it was difficult.
(RELIGIOUS)

60. Being abroad in Australia (the semester after my first experience) and out
from the start gave me found confidence in myself. Many people there were very
friendly and it seriously made no difference. I think the fact that people was so
indifferent made it even the more normal.
(ABROAD)

61. Later sophomore year, another friend of mine had a house party and she
had invited a gay friend of hers. He was older (not by much, early 20s... but that's
"older" to a 19-year-old) and we were just chatting and he's now one of my best

159
friends. He "took me under his wing" in completely cliche way (I'm not really all
that outgoing, etc.) and helped me out of my shell.
(ROLE MODEL)

62. A student who was an acquaintance was gay-bashed violently by six men,
hospitalized, after leaving a bar at the main intersection of the busy, heavily
trafficked student bar & restaurant district in town. No one came forward with info
and no one wads ever held accountable for the assault. I attended a vigil held on
campus against hate a few days later; I had prepared some words to speak at the
open microphone, but was too distraught to deliver them. At the rally, university
administrators and local politicians spoke, making their speeches about the
importance of diversity on college campuses and the importance of hate crimes
legislation, rather than defending ourselves against the subtle and blatant forms of
violence we face every day as LGBTQ people. The next day, I found that a picture
taken of me (without my knowledge or consent, of course) at the vigil/rally was
printed, huge and in full color, on the front page of the college newspaper. When a
week later a woman was raped by two unknown assailants on the same street a
block away (which merited hardly any coverage at all, and no public outcry) I
helped organize an unpermitted street demonstration at midnight at the same
intersection, with banners and festive costumes and drums, in the spirit of take back
the night and reclaim the streets. I felt more empowered and safe than ever before
in the course of the street party; the vigil only left me feeling exhausted with fury
and grief at the ongoing violence and cold opportunism of authority figures. My
sense of who I am emerging strongly from that incident was: -a feminist (not
willing to say that a single gay-bashing of a man deserved more outcry than the
constant, unrelenting, unacknowledged rapes of women on the same streets) -
completely disillusioned with conventional party and legislative politics and
interested in politics of self-defense and self-determination -affiliated with
communities outside of the university and outside of the gay and lesbian
mainstream.
(HARASSMENT)

63. I dated a girl for several months senior year, which was so torturous that it
was at that point that I pretty much gave up on considering myself bisexual.
(COMING OUT)

64. Just the other week, I hooked up with a friend of a friend and had really
satisfying sex. Obviously, there was one other person involved. This experience
was important for me because I genuinely felt a connection with my partner and felt
free to be sexually uninhibited. Although this happened only recently, I can already
feel a change in myself knowing that I am capable of having such a positive sexual
experience with someone my own age. It made me feel sexual and alive.
(SEX)

160

65. A) My Political Science course titled "The Politics of Sexuality" B) I really
bonded with my classmates during this class, and even briefly dated one of my
classmates :) C) This course profoundly shaped how I understood my "gay" identity
in relationship to a past history of other LGBT people--a history I had never before
been taught. Although I now feel that identity politics can be very limiting, this
class was the first time I felt I really belonged and was learning about "my people"
D) The long term effect of this course has been that I became addicted to these
types of courses that focus on issues of sexuality and gender. It's like I cannot
immerse myself enough in activities and courses concerning sexuality and gender
issues.
(ACADEMIC)

66. Finding out I hadn't done extremely well on a chem exam that I studied
really hard for. I suppose my professors and other students in the class were
involved, all of whom I respect. Although I was upset at first, I eventually came
back to a more balanced perspective and realized that it was a very minor incident
in my life that I had been catastrophising. It's reminded me that I must remain more
balanced and keep everything in perspective.
(ADVERSITY)

67. I was deceived by someone over AOL instant messenger. I thought an
acquaintance of mine was coming out of the closet, and want to “explore” some
things with me. Turns out it was a friend of this acquaintance, who didn’t even
know me, and was just leading me on for some “fun.” I became extremely upset
and haven’t talked to this acquaintance since, because he wasn’t even mad that this
girl did this to me.
(ADVERSITY)

68. My first sexual real sexual experience with another man was a classmate.
He caught me checking him out and asked me if I wanted to join him in the library
bathroom. I did. It was the first time I gave oral sex.
(SEX)

69. To continue with the "outing experience", I bought a number of shirts that
made it clearly obvious that I loves me men. Among them, shirts that said "I don't
mind straight people as long as they act GAY in public". And I wore/wear them
everywhere at school- to class, meetings, when I go out. There were some days, I'd
be walking across the Reitz Union Lawn, and I was just unbelievably happy, cause
I was out and safe and free. I've gotten a few laughs at the shirts, a few stares, but
it's all good. Although I will say it's VERY AWKWARD to wear the damn things
to places like CiCi's, and forgetting the number of children one finds there.
(PUBLIC)

161

70. I began talking with a guy on Facebook. Sooner or later it became clear
that we were both gay. Next thing I knew one of his gay friends messaged me. The
message was harmless--very similar to how the first guy and I began talking.
Shortly after this message from the second guy was sent, the original guy wrote me
a message that said, "I'VE GOT DIBS." In retrospect I can't really be too upset
about this event, because it could be argued that I was putting myself "out there" by
having a conversation with someone via Facebook in the first place. However, it
truly made me realize that it is a sex-y world, full of unspoken expectations. I told
both guys that I didn't want to talk to them and never met either. I completely
wiped my Facebook profile after this incident so as not to attract any sort of similar
situation again. If a long-term effect had to be identified, I guess this incident
exposed my confusion and frustration with the gay community in that it made me
feel (and I still feel this way) that harmless banter between homosexuals can not
exist. Perhaps it is the same for heterosexuals, but I've yet to be able to have an
innocent talk with a non-perverted homosexual who did not expect something else.
This event made me realize that I am somewhat uptight in this regard and that I am
more prude possibly(?) than most gay guys.
(HARASSMENT)

71. During my Human Sexuality course I heard for the first time that being gay
or lesbian was not a choice but something you were born with.
(ACADEMIC)

72. I was called a Fag outside a fraternity party and had a beer thrown in my
face. Really this just make me angry and embarrassed on how I handled the
situation.
(HARASSMENT)

73. Each semester, our Queer Student Union has a Drag Bingo. I would often
participate, but only once did I coordinate an act. I got together several friends and
we did a Brady Bunch number in drag. These people were all pretty good friends,
as our organization can be kind of cliquey. I don't know that this particular Drag
Bingo altered me dramatically, but as an institution, the event serves to get queer
students more involved with the program, and is also a huge hit at the school - by
far the greatest thing for our visibility.
(LGBT CENTER)

74. a.) the second experience that shaped me was joining a fraternity. I was still
in the closet at the time, and while I'm sure they knew, I didn't. I came out after I
was initiated. b.) my fraternity brothers, about 15 guys, were involved c.) The
important thing happened when I moved into the house my Junior year. Many of
the guys didn't know how well they'd do with an out gay guy living in the House,

162
but I found ways to use humor, social interaction, and genuine compassion and
friendship to break down those barriers. d.) I've been using those same
characteristics and techniques throughout my life to help people breakdown their
fears and preconceived notions about homosexuality.
(COMING OUT)

75. Serving on the executive board of our campus lgbt group Pride Union was
a spectacular experience. It was not all easy, however during that time I grew as an
individual and as a leader. In particular I was asked to serve as a representative for
the lgbt community as a part of the Dean's forum, a group of campus leaders
helping to advise the dean of students. The knowledge that my campus
administrators were actively invested in soliciting a variety of student voices was
very validating and comforting.
(ACTIVISM)

76. My first long term relationship with another guy during my second year
helped to further settle any questions in my mind. We loved each other and the 11
month relationship enabled me to solidify a self identity as homosexual.
(ROMANCE)

77. My senior year, I faced adversity with a new faculty advisor to the student
newspaper who was not gay friendly. He challenged my editorials in the newspaper
and made life difficult in many different ways. I ultimately quit the newspaper due
to differences with him, and found it to be a very negative experience working with
someone who was not open to different ideas, different people, or different
philosophies.
(HARASSMENT)

78. My mother was diagnosed with a very deadly cancer my junior year. I am
very close to my mother and it devastated the family. She immediately started
treatments and I moved back into my moms house two hours away from the school.
I worked two jobs to take care of my sister and mom when she could not. By the
end of the summer she was doing very well with treatments and has been in full
remission. I moved back to school to start my first senior year. My friends,
teachers, and loved ones all helped in different ways to help my family through the
very difficult time. Since then, I way more aware that each day is a gift and am
more vocal about how I feel about people.
(ADVERSITY)

79. The first gay Christian I met in person was when I, for the last time,
returned to the Queer Student Union. Being older, he was somewhat paternal
towards the new first years (I was in my second), steering a few away from making
some choices he thought they may have regretted. Later he turned out to be a bit of

163
a creep. I found out the things he said to me, which played up some parts of his
personality I liked much more than others, were said to get me into bed. He later
hooked up with some of the first years he was acting fatherly towards, which
personally strikes me as odd if not mildly unsettling. Essentially, it made me lose a
bit more faith in gay people as a whole because I have seen few who are not caught
up in this world of hooking up with one another and too much partying (which
definitely applies to this individual, as he would talk about all the work he had to
do and yet go out almost every night) and alcohol and narcissism. On one hand, this
has strengthened my resolve to develop an identity that cannot be watered down
into one word and is not a part of this gay culture that has been presented to me. On
the other hand, it does make me a bit more lonely. (The raters felt that this incident
could have fallen under the category of ADVERSITY, but the initial effect of his
(ROLE MODEL)

80. As an undergraduate, my roommates were all fundamentalist Christians. In
my junior & senior year, one of them became part of an attempt by conservative
religious special interest groups on campus to remove funding from the G&L
students' assoc. I knew at the time that I fell in love with other men, not women, but
I did not identify as gay at the time. Still, I was outraged by the blatant unfairness
and spitefulness of efforts of the people I knew and was close to; I came to despise
my roommates and their church because I found their actions to be blatantly
immoral.
(RELIGIOUS)

81. My ex and I don't really get along and we have a personality conflict. He's
self-proclaimed bitchy. I'm not. Our relationship ended with gossip and pretense
and I felt terrible.
(ROMANCE)

82. My first boyfriend and I were on our second date and as we were walking
home, people yelled queer out the window of a passing car.
(HARASSMENT)

83. At one point another gay guy tracked me down, came out for the first time,
and vented for hours. The course of the conversation was private and I won't even
share it here. Ultimately I learned that college is a small protective community for
some like myself. It protected me from the outside world of hate and created a
world were I could freely develop and mature in a healthy environment. I attribute
this mostly to my friends. However, for others, like this guy, college was a prison
cell.
(COMING OUT)

164
84. (a) Falling in love with my freshman year neighbor (a supposedly
heterosexual male). (b) The person I fell in love with. I don't know if I was really in
"love" or if it was just a crush. We were both very good friends and we were
involved in a lot of the same organizations. I became very attached to him and
would often change my schedule around just to be around him. (c) I think it
solidified that I was very much attracted to boys, sexually and emotionally. I don't
know why him, but I think its important that he was a boy. We live in a society
with a gender binary, and he confirmed that I would in fact need a boy to be in a
relationship with. (d) It made me realize the importance of recognizing my feelings.
It also served as an impetus for me to come out of the closet.
(ROMANCE)

85. I was the only publicly out gay man in my Residence Hall of 1200 people!
I ran for election of the Residence Hall President, and I ran a very creative
campaign. Even though there were some homophobic incidents here and there
around my campaign (graffiti on posters, etc.), I won by a large margin. The
straight students valued my leadership and courage to be out (this was 1996), and
they didn't care that I was gay. This experience was important for me because it
showed me that I can be gay and be a leader and accepted, and that I did not have to
hide my sexual orientation, but rather celebrate it as part of my leadership lens.
(ACTIVISM)

86. When my mother got in a car accident I had to take on a lot more
responsibilities because she needed extra attention. My grades suffered a lot but I
was able to finish the quarter.
(ADVERSITY)

87. when I started exploring my sexuality I made several friends through the
internet. I started to hang out with some of them and then met their friends as well.
I had never really had any gay friends and I started making friends with lots of gay
people around my college/city. it was nice to have these friends, some of which
have become very very close friends. they were a priceless resource for me as I
explored my sexuality and myself. I talked with them about their coming out stories
and their experiences and it was extremely helpful
(COMING OUT)

88. a-b. I live in an especially gay-friendly residence hall that also happens to
have a high number of gay residents. c. I'm happy I don't have to go far to find
people I can talk and relate to. d. I've made many life-long gay friends!
(LGBT CENTER)

89. As a business economics major, I was frequently surrounded by
conservative individuals. I remember hearing incredibly negative remarks made

165
about homosexuals within a group of folk in a finance class. This indicated to me
that, as homosexuals, we must continue to fight for equitable treatment and respect.
Despite our right to express ourselves, we must at all times remember that we do
have something to prove and that we must earn and demand respect. This
experience amongst others encouraged me to speak to other gay youth about the
way they conduct themselves and the potential professional and personal
limitations that can be placed on them. We must defy the mold and show that we
are capable at excelling in our fields. We must exert our influence and rise to levels
of managerial excellence so as to dispel the rumors that homosexuals will not be
respected and cannot perform as well as heterosexuals in traditionally masculine
fields such as finance and economics.
(CHALLENGING)

90. Another experience was that has shaped me is the first time I wore a ribbon
on coming out day. Everyone I knew know knew or assumed I was gay. The
incident helped me begin to live my life regardless of public opinion and also form
closer friendships with people.
(PUBLIC)

91. The Gay-Straight Alliance group on campus is called Vision. I went to
their first meeting and met a bunch of very nice people. I got a chance to be a part
of the community on campus and have since been more at home knowing I have
friends like me.
(LGBT CENTER)

92. In an English class we were discussing gay marriage. Because Idaho State
University has a high population for Mormon students, the class discussions tend to
be very conservative. After hearing a plethora of lies about gays and gay marriage,
I outed myself to the class and told them my view on the topic. After I finished
speaking about how gay and lesbians were discriminated against, second class
citizens, etc., one student (a black Football from California, the only other minority
in the class), started clapping. Everyone else in the class looked stunned. From that
moment on I promised myself that I would speak out whenever I got the chance. At
that moment, I became an advocate for LGBT rights.
(RELIGIOUS)

93. Another interesting experience has been the discussion section for my
American Studies class, which is a GE. The class is filled with conservative people,
most of whom are in a fraternity or sorority, who have no problem expressing their
ignorant and sometimes offensive viewpoints. Overall, they seem to have learned
very little from the college experience, and they continue to view the world from
their own narrow perspective. They feel that people who complain about the way

166
our society treats marginal groups should stop whining and just get over it. It has
been fascinating watching people who hold these beliefs.
(CHALLENGING)

94. My first party with alcohol at USC. I had just made an auditioned group,
and we were all celebrating when the leader of the group asked me if I wanted
something to drink. For the first time, I realized there was no one watching. I had
been an awfully conservative example in my community, and I felt that this would
finally be the time to let loose. I didn't really know the director, but I asked her to
just surprise me with something. What I came to realize is that as much as I tried to
fool myself, my conservative tendencies only came out of my need to be accepted
by the community around me, and that now, I can just accept myself and let life
take its own course.
(COMING OUT)

95. I can't really think of specific situations; I was very surprised at some point
by some letters published in the Daily Trojan against gay people (with the obvious
support of the bible); I was very impressed though with the next day letter from
teachers and students alike who brought strong arguments against letters like those
being published in the official newspaper of USC.
(HARASSMENT)

96. I was outed by my high school friend and once at the dorms found out that
all of the people at UCLA that came from my high school knew so it completely
turned my life upside down. I had to start dealing with being a gay Latino man and
trying to find a support system so that I would not feel alone, scared, or ashamed.
While it was very difficult at the beginning, me being outed was the best thing that
could have happened to me because it put me out of my comfort zone and I had to
start dealing with a part of my I had been hiding and suppressing for so long.
(COMING OUT)

97. (a) I got first in a competition against Old Dominion University. (b) N/A (c)
It was important because I know I can do anything I put my mind to. (d) A sense of
accomplishment.
(ADVERSITY)

98. Coming to the University and seeing LGBT and Ally students gather for an
even where they gave away t-shirts. Everyone at the event was LGBT friendly and
proud. It showed a change in the LGBT people are being looked at. Being an older
student then and now I remember when hiding was not only easy it was expected. I
thing with time events like this will be the standard not the exception.
(LGBT CENTER)

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The visibility of the gay student population on university campuses has increased substantially over the past 2 decades. Despite this, the sources of impact on their identity development during college have remained largely a mystery. Fifty-nine self-identified gay male undergraduate and graduate students, ages 18-30, at public and private universities nationwide participated in a mixed-methods, two-phase study. In the first phase students utilized a critical incident format to describe experiences that they believed to have had the greatest impact on their identity development during their undergraduate years in college. In the second phase study the participants assigned similarity ratings to the 14 identified categories of impact. Multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analysis were then used to analyze these data. This analysis resulted in the creation of a concept map that represented in pictorial form the ways in which these gay students had organized these categories of experiences. Implications of the research for higher education practitioners and suggestions for future research are presented.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Concept mapping of the sources of perceived impact on community college students' identity development: a students' perspective

PDF

From their perspective: discovering the sources of impact on older women undergraduates' identity development and mapping those experiences

PDF

Discovering the sources of impact of college on LGBTQ students' identity development and mapping those experiences

PDF

Concept mapping and describing the sources of impact on Black gay college student identity development at 4-year institutions

PDF

The sources of impact on first-generation Latino college students' identity development: from the students' perspective

PDF

More than one barrier to break: mapping the impact of college on identity in Latina undergraduates

PDF

Undergraduate single mothers' perception of the impacts of college on their cognitive and psychosocial development

PDF

Describing and mapping the sources of college impact on the identity development of African American college students attending a predominantly white institution

PDF

Student perspectives on identity development: describing the experiences sorority members perceive influenced their identity

PDF

First-generation Armenian American community college students' perception of events affecting their identity development

PDF

The impact of learning communities on the retention and academic integration of Latino students at a highly selective private four-year institution

PDF

Perceptions of inequality: racism, ethnic identity and student development for a master of education degree

PDF

Examining the relationship between students’ pre-college experiences and outcomes in diversity courses

PDF

The impact of remedial mathematics on the success of African American and Latino male community college students

PDF

Assessing the impact of the Puente Project on Latino males in California community colleges

PDF

Study abroad and the ethnoracial identity development of Latinx students

PDF

The impact of learning communities on the retention and academic integration of African American students at a highly selective four-year private institution

PDF

Exploring the academic success of black male former student-athletes and their experiences with academic support upon re-entry to college

PDF

What is the impact of same-race alumni mentoring on the career development of African American students attending predominantly White Universities?

PDF

Understanding the effects of the Clery Act on college students' behaviors: how can student affairs professionals change the current practices of college students with regard to safety

Asset Metadata

Creator Eaton, David Christopher (author)

Core Title The sources of impact in college on gay male student identity: the current student perspective

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 06/20/2007

Defense Date 04/30/2007

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag college,concept-mapping,Gay,identity development,Male,OAI-PMH Harvest,sources of impact

Language English

Advisor Goodyear, Rodney K. (committee chair), Andres, Mary (committee member), Tuitt, Donahue (committee member)

Creator Email christobalito1@mac.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m543

Unique identifier UC1473477

Identifier etd-Eaton-20070620 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-509466 (legacy record id),usctheses-m543 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Eaton-20070620.pdf

Dmrecord 509466

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Eaton, David Christopher

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu