University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

DISCOVERING THE SOURCES OF IMPACT OF COLLEGE
ON LGBTQ STUDENTS’ IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT
AND MAPPING THOSE EXPERIENCES

by
Kimberlee A. Woods

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements of the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2009

Copyright 2009 Kimberlee A. Woods

ii
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to the memory of all the strong, powerful women in
my life, who have both inspired and guided me. Thank you for showing me what it
means to persist.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Dr. Rodney Goodyear, chair of my dissertation committee, provided the level of
support and encouragement that only very few, and very fortunate, graduate students
receive, and to him I owe my thanks. The other members of my dissertation committee,
Dr. Mary Andres and Dr. Donahue Tuitt, were generous with their counsel; to them also I
extend my deep gratitude.
My colleagues in the dissertation group were fun, provocative, and smart; it was a
pleasure to be in a cohort of such kind and giving people. Christopher Eaton and Vincent
Vigil were especially helpful as members of my research rating team.
However, this dissertation would not exist without the love and support of
so many friends and family members: Dr. Louise Tallen, Ginger Hahn, Mary Laquet,
Celeste Haskell, Elisa McConnehea, Ann Garrett, The Lesbian Poker Group, and my
church family at Namaste Spiritual Center.
Finally, I want to thank Ethel Daniels who has been a constant guide and life
coach. My life would not be where it is today without her support and wisdom. Ethel
has given me the tools to dream outrageously, to live fiercely, and to love deeply.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ii

Acknowledgements iii

List of Tables v

List of Figures vi

Abstract vii

Chapter I: Conceptual and Empirical Foundations of the Study 1
Problem 6
Purpose of Study 11
Terminology 11
Literature Review 12
Means of Assessing the Impacts of College on 36
LGBTQ College Students
Conclusions from the Literature Review 39
Research Questions 41

Chapter II: Methods 42
Participants 42
Measures 44
Procedures 45
Data Analyses 48

Chapter III: Results 52
Phase I Results 52
Phase II Results 67

Chapter IV: Discussion 72
Phase I 73
Phase II 85
Limitations of the Study 92
Future Research 95
Implications 97

References 103

Appendix A: Information Sheet 111
Appendix B: College Years Experience Questionnaire 114
Appendix C: Paired Comparison Questionnaire 116
Appendix D: CYEQ Responses 133

v
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: A Comparison of Sexual Identity Development Models 36
Table 2: Categories, Abbreviations, Frequency of Category, Year of 53
Occurrence, Positive Value, and Eventual Effect

Table 3: Dimension Values 67
Table 4: Themes by Key Factor Categories 74
Table 5: Clusters of Categories 89

vi
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Euclidean Distance Model 68
Figure 2: Dendrogram Using Ward Method 70
Figure 3: Concept Map: Sources of Impact of College on LGBTQ 71
Students’ Identity Development

vii
ABSTRACT

Despite the growing visibility of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender,
Questioning or Queer (LGBTQ) undergraduates in colleges and universities throughout
the United States, the effect of college experiences on the development of identity for this
subgroup of students has been little studied. In a two-phase mixed methods study, 100
LGBTQ undergraduates completed critical incident reports describing the experiences
they perceived to be most influential on their developing sense of self. From these
incidents, raters identified categories of experience that reflected issues integral to sexual
and student identity. The most prominent categories identified were Experiencing
Acceptance after Coming Out and Experiencing the Support of Others which were on the
positive end of the positive rating scale and Experiencing Homophobia, Experiencing Bi-
phobia and Feeling Judged or Labeled by Others which appeared on the negative end of
the same rating scale. The categories were assigned similarity ratings by study
participants and were analyzed using multidimensional scaling (MDS). A two
dimensional scale was used with Dimension 1 labeled as External versus Internal
Processes and Dimension 2 as Finding Support through Others versus Acceptance of
Self. The concept map which resulted graphically displays how LGBTQ undergraduates
conceptually organize their understanding of the impact of college on their identity
development. The concept map was analyzed using hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA).
Three clusters were created which illustrate unity among the categories within that
particular structure. These three clusters are: Life-Changing Incidents, Interactive
Intimacy, and Affirmation of Self. Suggestions for further research and implications for
college faculty, staff, and administration are articulated. Implications for the study

viii
include suggestions regarding development and use of support systems, potential faculty
and staff trainings, course possibilities, and the need for future leadership to impact
organizational structures.

1
CHAPTER I
CONCEPTUAL AND EMPIRICAL FOUNDATIONS OF THE STUDY

College student development has been a focus of research for a half a century.
Based on their review of that literature, Chickering and Reisser (1993) developed a
psychosocial model delineating student development as dimensions or vectors. He later
modified this model with the help of Linda Reisser. Chickering and Reisser (2003)
separated the model’s dimensions into seven vectors: achieving competence,
management of emotions, moving through autonomy toward interdependence,
developing mature interpersonal relationships, establishing identity, developing purpose,
and developing integrity (Chickering & Reisser, 1993, 2003).
The seven vectors outlined by Chickering and Reisser help student development
professionals understand how students deal with uncertainty during their college years.
They also help higher education personnel better understand their roles in student
development by targeting the interrelated stages college students may experience. As a
result, Chickering and Reisser’s model provides researchers, and those involved in
student affairs, with useful descriptors of the emotional and psychological changes
students may experience in college (Flowers, 2002; Reisser, 1995; Thomas & Chickering,
1984; White & Hood, 1989). This dissertation focuses on identity development and is
primarily concerned with Chickering and Reisser’s fifth vector, “Establishing Identity,”
and student development, which focuses on the sixth vector, “Developing Purpose.”
Traversing each vector assumes some resolution of the preceding vectors. Therefore,

2
Chickering and Reisser argue, in order for college students to develop purpose in college,
they will have gone through a process of identity development.
Theorists have suggested that the intent of a college education is to assist students
in their development of identity as well as to help students increase cognitive, intellectual
and emotional abilities to form a foundation which prepares them for success and future
leadership roles (Baxter Magolda, 1999; Donaldson & Graham, 1999; Kasworm, 1990;
Kuh, 1995). College has a variety of effects on students including identity development
(Côté & Levine, 1983; Levitz-Jones & Orlofsky, 1985; Prager, 1982,1985; Straub, 1987;
Straub & Rodgers, 1986; Whitbourne & Tesch, 1985; Zucker, Ostrove, & Stewart, 2002);
intellectual and cognitive growth (Baxter Magolda, 1989, 1999; Moss, 2003; Thompson,
2001); attitudes, values and moral development (Graham & Cockriel, 1996, 1997;
Leppel, 2005; Terenzini, 1994); and educational attainment and persistence (Bean &
Metzner, 1985; Cabrera, Nora, & Castaneda, 1993; Leppel, 2005; Rendon, 1994; Somers,
Woodhouse, & Cofer, 2004; Tinto, 1997).
There are various sources of impact on college students’ development including
academic performance; environmental effects; curricular and extra-curricular activities;
campus organizations and events; college based relationships with faculty, staff and
peers; and other relationships outside of the college campus such as family, friends, and
employers (Cabrera et al., 1993; Clark, 2005; Kuh, 1995; Leppel, 2005; Pascarella,
Edison, Nora, Hagedorn, & Terenzini, 1998; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Roth & Clark,
1998; Tinto, 1997). Indicators researchers have used to examine the effect of college on
students have included such things as: courses taken, class load (Somers et al., 2004;

3
Terenzini, 1994), assessments and test scores (Cabrera et al., 1993; Leppel, 2005; Moss,
2003; Pascarella et al., 1998; Roth & Clark, 1998; Somers et al., 2004; Thompson, 2001),
study time (Thompson, 2001), hours worked (Leppel, 2005; Pascarella et al., 1998;
Somers et al., 2004), salaries (Roth & Clarke, 1998), or social and political involvement
(Graham & Cockriel, 1996, 1997; Terenzini, 1994).
Although these provide a means to measure the impact of college on student
development, they do not address the students’ perspective or how they perceive their
academic and personal growth (Clark, 2005; Graham & Cockriel, 1997). A research
strategy that employs the students’ personal and subjective viewpoint regarding college
experiences can provide a greater understanding of how individual experiences and
events shape outcomes for these students. Because LGBTQ young people are more
visible and actively involved on their college campuses and universities, the need to hear
and respond to their voices becomes all the more pertinent and necessary.
Researchers have attempted to capture the experience of LGBTQ students through
models which delineate a certain progression of sexual identity through various stages.
These models imply that almost everyone within a given sub-population will move along
a similar path toward “complete ideation of identity or fulfillment of potential” (Dilley,
2005, p. 57). Researchers have struggled with this for two reasons: first, because it is
based on a heterosexual model which often does not convey the multiplicities of non-
heterosexual identities; second, because such a comparison posits identity as binary,
assuming that one is either straight or gay, and therefore analyzed from that perspective
(Dilley, 2005).

4
The multiplicity of non-heterosexual identities is poignantly conveyed when
examining the complex definitions that make up LGBTQ as a sub-population. Those
who are LGBTQ describe themselves in terms of sex (biological or medical assignment-
male, female, intersexed, transexed, MTF, and FTM), gender identity (internal
identification-man, woman, butch, femme, transgender, gender queer and two-spirited),
gender expression (external presentation-masculine, feminine or androgynous), and
sexual orientation (affection or attraction toward physical sex characteristics or gender
characteristics-heterosexual, gay, lesbian, bisexual, queer, and asexual). To illustrate the
complex self definition that may result, consider someone who transitioned from male to
female (MTF). She sees herself as a woman (gender identity) and wants to be called she.
She may express herself in a masculine manner such as butch and retain her original
sexual orientation (prior to transitioning) of being attracted to women and so now
considers herself a lesbian. She is therefore a trans butch lesbian. Many who have made
the transition from male to female or female to male do not want to be referred to as MTF
or FTM because it reminds of them of who they were and not who they are. Those labels
are often easier for others who interact with them so that they have something to hold on
to. Many will no longer consider themselves to be transgender but simply as either
male/female or man/woman.
In addition to complex definitions, there are also intricacies in terms of
experiences. Gay men have unique experiences that are not shared by lesbian and
bisexual women, and yet much of the early research was done on only white, gay males
and generalized to others within the LGBTQ group. Bisexuals have to navigate multiple

5
identities and in doing so frequently undergo rejection by heterosexuals and non-
heterosexuals alike. Transgender and queer men and women are typically dealing with
issues of gender, and at times, sex or sexuality. Many within the LGBTQ do not
understand this distinction and discriminate against transgender and queer individuals out
of ignorance.
The second struggle among researchers has to do with the conception of identity
as binary, either gay or straight. The literature supports that identity development occurs
on several dimensional levels and in conjunction with other dimensions of identity. It is
not a linear path down which one only travels once, but rather more cyclical based on
new experiences, situations and individuals. People frequently express the struggle to
integrate sexual identities with other dimensions of themselves (Stevens, 2004). We
know, however, that involvement in a one particular aspect of identity development
supports overall exploration of identity construction (Kezar & Moriarty, 2000). LGBTQ
people are not all one identity or another but encompass any combination at any given
moment. To assume their life-changing experiences will focus only on sexual identity is
inaccurate. However, this study was about how college experiences impact LGBTQ
identity development and therefore will reflect sexual identity in a significant way.
Because identity development is a primary focus for young people who are just starting
college, the focus was on this age group.
To assume the experiences for one are also the experiences for all is naïve. But
whereas their individual definitions and experiences may differ, there are many that are
shared. For example, they all have a coming out process. As well, they experience self

6
doubt, exploration, support, involvement and pride in how they identify themselves.
They share a history of finding their voice, standing against oppression, and fighting for
rights. Whereas a gay man may not understand the gender issues of someone in
transition from male to female, he may understand what it is like to be harassed and
assaulted for being too effeminate. That shared experience is the empathy that ties the
LGBTQ community together, and why they were chosen as the sub-population for this
study.
Problem

There are three primary reasons research regarding the identity experiences of
LGBTQ college students should be undertaken: the lack of a comprehensive and current
knowledge base; LGBTQ young people can be vulnerable, and often underserved and at
risk; and the important role college environments play in the identity development of
students. Each of these reasons is described below.
A moderate body of literature has been established over the past fifteen years
regarding LGBT college students (e.g., Abes & Jones, 2004; D’Augelli, 1994; Dilley,
2002a, 2002b; Evans & Broido, 1999; House, 2004; Renn & Bilodeau, 2003, 2005a,
2005b; Rhoads, 1994, 1997a, 1998; Tomlinson & Fassinger, 2003; and Wall & Evans,
2000), but it is still incomplete in many areas. For example, few studies have focused on
LGBTQ identity development as it relates to campus life. In addition, little has been
written on how specific identity-based activities may impact LGBTQ student
development. And, finally, many of these studies are “methodologically flawed”
according to Bieschke, Eberz, and Wilson (2000) (Renn & Bilodeau, 2003).

7
The earliest studies dealt with the issue of sexual identity development and the
establishment of frameworks for how gays and lesbians, in particular, moved through
various stages in developing their identities (Cass, 1979; Coleman, 1982; and Troiden,
1989). During the 1990s, researchers began exploring aspects of LGBT student
development and identity. Areas explored included career, leadership, student
involvement, and campus climate and environments. Although researchers have looked
at these dimensions according to age, gender and other social conditions, it is not until
recently they have begun exploring intersecting social identities (race, gender, religion,
ethnicity, class, professional, and regional) (McEwen, 1996) and how they interact with
sexual orientation in terms of multiple identity development (Arminio et al., 2004; Kezar
& Moriarty, 2000; Liang, Lee, & Ting, 2002; Stevens, 2004; Young, & Scott, 2000).
A second reason this research is important is that LGBTQ young people typically
are underserved and even at risk. It is important to identify the various issues they face
and then use that knowledge to provide greater support. As lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgender people become more visible in mainstream society, they are having a greater
influence on college campuses (D’Augelli, 1991b; D’Emilio, 1992; Herdt, 1992; Rhoads,
1994). At the same time, however, many studies have noted the hostile campus climates
these students typically face (D’Emilio, 1990; Evans, 2001; Evans & Broido, 2002;
Herek, 1993; Nelson & Baker, 1990; Rankin, 2003; Shepard, 1990; Tierney, 1992). Such
environments require that researchers attend more to the issues facing LGB students on
college campuses throughout the United States (Evans, 2001; Evans & Broido, 2002;
Rankin, 2003; Rhoads, 1997).

8
Violence toward LGBTQ students remains prevalent (Carr & Ward, 2006;
D’Augelli, 1993; D'Emilio, 1990; Rankin, 2003). Although many lesbian and gay
college students acknowledge their affectional orientation in early adolescence, most
have not come out by the time they enter college. Regardless of how youth identify their
sexual identity, or their openness regarding their sexual orientation, youth and young
adults are constantly exposed to disparaging comments about LGBTQ people. Those
who do come out typically experience some harassment and abuse.
Results of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network’s 2007 National
School Climate Survey show that nine of 10 middle and high school LGBT students
experienced verbal harassment, 44.1% reported being physically harassed and 22.1%
reported being physically assaulted at school in the past year because of their sexual
orientation. 73.6% heard derogatory remarks such as “faggot” or “dyke” frequently or
often at school. Three-fifths of students reported that they felt unsafe in school because
of their sexual orientation, and more than a third (38.4%) felt unsafe because of their
gender expression (GLSEN, 2007). Each of these percentages represents an increase
from the GLSEN surveys of 2004 and 2005 respectively (GLSEN, 2004, 2005).
These results were confirmed by a study done at Gonzaga University which
showed that the majority of derogatory, prejudicial and harassing language and behavior
toward LGBTQ students regarding sexual orientation and gender expression were done
by other students on campus in residential halls. The second group to do the greatest
amount of harassment with regards to gender expression in particular was the faculty
(Lamsma et al., 2008).

9
The 2007 National School Climate Survey also showed that 31.7% of LGBT
students missed a class and about a third skipped a day of school in the past month
because of feeling unsafe, compared to only 5.5% and 4.5%, respectively, of a national
sample of secondary school students. In addition, the reported grade point average of
students who were more frequently harassed because of their sexual orientation or gender
expression was nearly half a grade point lower than for students who were less often
harassed (2.8 versus 2.4) (GLSEN, 2007).
The Department of Health and Human Services conducted a national survey of
496 lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning students under 19 years of age
who were affiliated with local youth service organizations. That survey found 42% of
students felt unsafe in their schools because of their sexual orientation. 69% reported
experiences of sexual and verbal harassment or assault (The National Center for
Education Statistics, 2001).
In 1995, Massachusetts Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance’s study of ninth
through twelfth grade public high school students found that LGB youth were three times
more likely to attempt suicide than heterosexual students. At one large Massachusetts
High School almost 40% of LGB students attempted suicide as compared to
approximately 10% of their heterosexual peers (The National Center for Education
Statistics, 2001). However, a 2009 study found the suicide rate of LGB young adults,
who reported higher levels of family rejection during adolescence, to be eight times that
of their peers; they were also six times more likely to suffer from severe depression, and
three times more likely to use drugs (Ryan, 2009).

10
A third reason for this research is that higher education institutions play a
significant role in shaping students’ sexual identity (Konik & Stewart, 2004; Renn &
Bilodeau, 2002, 2005). Researchers have shown that involvement in campus activities
leads to student development and learning (e.g. Astin, 1993; Komives, Lucas, &
McMahon, 1998; Kuh, Hu & Vesper, 2000; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). This is in
alignment with Astin’s supposition (1984) that the more time and effort a student spends
on educational activities the greater his or her learning outcomes (Renn & Bilodeau,
2002). There is also some evidence that involvement in campus activities which is
related to a specific element of identity such as race, sexual orientation, or gender
supports student identity exploration (e.g. D’Augelli, 1991; Kezar & Moriarty, 2000;
Renn, 2000b; Rhoads, 1994, 1998). These findings support the importance of
implementing programs, curricula, and policies that enhance a variety of student learning
and developmental outcomes such as critical thinking, communication skills, vocational
or career orientation, and self-esteem (Renn & Bilodeau, 2002).
A national survey of more than 2800 top achieving high school students (those
achieving As and Bs) showed positive beliefs regarding the roles of many LGBT people:
78% felt homosexuals should be allowed to enlist in the military; 74% said they should
be permitted to teach school; 62% believed it is okay to have a gay Girl or Boy Scout
Leader; 68% thought they should be able to coach sports; and 54% said LGBT people
should be allowed to marry and join the clergy (The National Center for Education
Statistics, 2001). Because these data were collected from top achieving students, those

11
more likely to attend college, it implies our academic institutions are ripe for fostering
safe educational environments that support sexual identity development.
Purpose of the Study

This study focused on college-related impacts on self-identity for LGBTQ
students using a critical incident technique. Through these incidents various categories of
college-related impacts for LGBTQ students were identified which were of specific
importance in their development of self. These incidents were sorted into categories
which participants then rated in terms of similarity to each other. These similarity data
were placed in individual matrices which were represented dimensionally using Multi-
Dimensional Scaling (MDS) and in terms of categories, using hierarchical cluster
analysis.
Results of these two analyses laid graphically over each other using a variant of
the Goodyear et al. procedure (Goodyear et al., 2005). The purpose was to depict
visually the identity forming experiences of LGBTQ college students.
Terminology
It was not until the sexual revolution of the 1960s that positive terms were created
to describe people who were Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual or Transgender. Prior to this point,
it was common for derogatory language to be used to refer to these groups. For example,
during World War II, the term used for homosexuals was “third gender.” During the
early decades of the gay rights movement, which began in late 1969 with the Stonewall
Riots, there was a supplanting of the derogatory term “queer” and clinical term
“homosexual” to the more accepted term of “gay.” As lesbians gained momentum

12
through the feminist movement and began to form their own public group identity, the
terms “gay and lesbian” became common (Miller, 1995).
Not long after, transgender and bisexual people started to demand recognition.
By the mid 1990s the term LGBT was adopted by the majority of LGBT community
centers and by the gay press in most English-speaking countries. Though this is true, the
phrase LGBT has been controversial. Some transgender and transsexual people do not
like the term, because they do not believe their issues are the same as LGB people.
There have been as many as 15 different variations from the LGB acronym
including such groups as allies (heterosexual), fetish, intersex, unsure, two-spirited,
asexual, and transsexual engendering. Most recently some organizations have added a
“Q” to the LGBT expression; some use the Q to mean queer others to mean questioning.
“Queer” has come to mean a breaking free from sexual identities and sexual labels, while
embracing a flexible range of acts and emotions. The intent is to look at the margins of
the sexual spectrum and examine and deconstruct fixed understandings of sexual identity
(Burroughs, 2002).
The terms I used in this dissertation vary. If I reference an author or a study, I use
that author’s particular acronym. Otherwise I use the term LGBTQ because I believe it is
the most inclusive, and it currently has the greatest degree of acceptance.
Literature Review
The literature review is intended to create a greater understanding of the effects of
college related experiences on identity development for LGBTQ college students and
therefore to establish the basis for this study. Three areas, in particular, are explored in

13
order to identify effects that impact this development: student development, identity
development, and LGBTQ sexual identity development.
The literature review begins with an introduction of Chickering and Reisser’s
perspective on student development. Chickering and Reisser’s vectors four, five and six
are most likely to be explored by college students. These vectors focus on interpersonal
relationships, identity and sense of purpose. This perspective is then expanded to include
the views of Astin, and Pascarella and Terenzini. Astin’s stress on student development
includes aspects such as the need for campus organizational involvement and importance
of conversations with professors. Pascarella and Terenzini, on the other hand, assess the
effects of different environments on various student outcomes. For example, they
explore the impact of a student’s background and interaction with faculty and peers.
The second major section focuses more specifically on identity development, as
highlighted by Erikson, Marcia and other gender and racial theorists. Erikson’s fifth and
sixth stages focus on identity development and sense of purpose, similar to Chickering
and Reisser. Stabilization of identity and developing intimacy are primary tasks for
adolescents and young adults, the ages of most college students. Adolescents face the
stage known as identity versus identity confusion (or identity diffusion as Marcia would
say), whereas young adults are tasked with mastering the stage of intimacy versus
isolation. Other gender and racial theories are explored because they have been shown to
have a significant impact on the development of identity as well.
The final section emphasizes LGBTQ sexual identity development, elaborating on
the most widely used paradigms and constructs. This is an important aspect of the

14
literature review because many of the life-changing impacts for LGBTQ college students
are directly related to their sexual identity. They experience periods of denial, tolerance,
acceptance, exploration of personal relationships, and desire to express their identity with
pride.
The chapter concludes with a discussion of the methods used to assess the various
experiences that impact student identity development for LGBTQ college students. A
critical incident technique was used to develop themes for comparison which are
represented in the form of a concept map.
Student Development among College Students

Chickering and Reisser’s Seven Vectors
This chapter began with allusion to Chickering and Reisser’s (1993) seven vectors
in more depth, with special attention to vectors five and six. The first vector involves the
demonstration of intellectual competence, acquisition of knowledge, and the ability to
think critically and analyze situations. Competence in this dimension comes from a sense
of self-worth through overall physical and interpersonal performance. A student moves
within this vector when she or he exhibits greater self-confidence and self-acceptance
(Karlovich et al., 2001). Vector two consists of the management of emotions, which
involves an integration of awareness of emotion and an ability to handle various feelings
in different situations. Vector three is a higher dimension encompassing the
establishment of autonomy. This vector was actually renamed “Moving through
autonomy toward interdependence” because Chickering and Reisser (1993) decided to
place “more emphasis on the importance of interdependence, while not denying the

15
significance of learning independence and self-sufficiency” (p. 40). Students who have
developed autonomy show self-direction in their activities and are able to use various
problem solving methods to develop plans and attain goals (Karlovich et al., 2001).
Vector four identifies the mode of identity establishment. Students develop
identity by experiencing some development along the first three vectors, by negotiating a
realistic and stable self-image, and by experimenting with situations which require
decision making. Chickering and Reisser (1993) changed the fourth vector from
“Freeing interpersonal relationships,” to “Developing more mature interpersonal
relationships.” In addition, the two theorists exchanged the position of this vector from
the fifth to the fourth, replacing it with the “Establishing identity” vector (currently vector
five). The basis for making this change was the belief that interpersonal relationships
have an impact on the development of self-identity. As students move through this
vector, they exhibit a greater tolerance for differences between persons, become
increasingly more capable of mature and intimate relationships, and value reciprocal
empathy (Karlovich et al., 2001; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005).
By the time a student reaches vector five, “Establishing identity,” she or he has
incorporated aspects of learning from the other four vectors. In most cases, students are
at ease with their body and appearance, comfortable with their gender/sexual orientation,
understand their social and cultural heritage, develop comfort with their roles, have a
clear self-concept, respond to feedback from those they value with a secure sense of self,
and exhibit personal stability (Evans et al., 1998; Reisser, 1995).

16
Vector six pertains to the development of purpose. Students at this vector develop
a clear purpose in life, make conscious choices, and are able to persist when moving
toward a goal, despite obstacles or barriers. The final vector, “Developing integrity,”
involves defining a set of values which will guide students’ actions and life direction.
Moving through this vector means students can balance the interests of others with their
own interest. Students can affirm their own beliefs while acknowledging and respecting
the beliefs of others. Eventually, students find congruence between what they believe
and what they do, where actions are in alignment with core beliefs and yet balanced with
social responsibility (Evans et al., 1998; Karlovich et al., 2001; Reisser, 1995).
These vectors are intended to be “maps to help determine where students are and
which way they are heading” (p. 34), and are based on the Eric Erikson’s (1980)
developmental stage which focuses on identity versus identity confusion. Yet, unlike
Erikson, their developmental model is not age-specific, based on crises, or portrayed as
one stage in need of completion in order to advance to another. Chickering and Reisser’s
(1993) seven vectors are intricately connected in a way that brings about identity
resolution. They have attempted to present a model that can be generalized “and to use
language that is gender free and appropriate for persons of diverse backgrounds” (p. 44).
Their fifth vector is of particular importance because it focuses on the various stages
students traverse as they develop and strengthen a sense of self. It is in this vector that a
student develops a comfort with his or her sexual orientation (Chickering & Reisser,
1993).

17
Astin’s Student Involvement
Another theorist of student development is Astin (1999) who has focused on
involvement and proposes that only through involvement is student development truly
fostered. By student involvement, Astin means the amount of physical and psychological
energy a student dedicates to the academic experience. This could include being
involved in organizations, how much time students spend on campus, how much energy
is devoted to studying, and how often students talk to their professors. Astin’s theory
also focuses on the concept of effort, which is intricately connected to involvement.
From his perspective, involvement is a verb and implies action. Although motivation is
important to involvement, Astin’s theory stresses a behavioral component. Thus,
involvement is not so much about thoughts or feelings, but rather how students behave
and what students do (Astin, 1999).
Astin’s involvement theory has five basic postulates; the first, mentioned above,
is that people invest physical and psychological energy into various objects (such as
tasks, people or activities). The second affirms that this involvement occurs on a
continuum and that students manifest involvement in different degrees, toward different
objects, at different times. The third postulate declares that this investment incorporates
qualitative as well as quantitative aspects, reflecting the type of investment and the
amount of involvement. The amount of learning and personal development associated
with any educational program is directly proportional to the quality and quantity of
involvement. That is postulate four. The fifth postulate asserts that for any educational

18
policy or practice to be truly effective it must increase the amount of student involvement
(Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005).
Astin’s model was one of the first, and has been the most durable, college impact
model. Often referred to as the input-environment-outcome (IEO) model, Astin’s model
is unique in not attempting to explain theoretically how or why students change, but
rather providing a conceptual guide for studying college effects. This approach attempts
to explain the effects of environmental influences on student change and growth,
focusing on those aspects over which colleges have programmatic and policy control
(Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991).
Pascarella’s Model
Pascarella’s (1985) student development model is a general causal model that
includes an institution’s structural characteristics and its environment. Pascarella
suggests growth is a function of the direct and indirect effects of five sets of variables.
Pascarella asserts that two of the sets (structural/organizational characteristics of
institutions and student background/pre-college traits) interact in ways that shape the
third set (interactions with agents of socialization). These three sets in turn influence the
fourth set (institutional environment). The fifth and final set is quality of student effort,
which is shaped by the student’s background, institutional environment and the influence
of faculty members and peers (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005).
Pascarella’s (1985) causal model assesses the effects of different environments on
various student outcomes. He believes that change is a function of a student’s
background (personality, ethnicity, aptitude, etc. avoid the use of etc.), interacting with

19
significant social agents such as faculty and peers. This is coupled with an investment of
effort in learning and developing and is mediated through the various environments
existing in institutions. Whereas this model originally was designed to explain changes
in learning and cognitive development, it can be used to explain a variety of student
outcomes (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005).
Chickering and Reisser, Astin, Pascarella and Terenzini are some of the leading
theorists of student development. One can not talk about student development, however,
without also looking at the formation and development of identity. Erik Erikson and
James Marcia are two pioneers in this field.
Identity Development among College Students
Many theorists have focused on various cognitive and psychosocial ways of
knowing that describe how students think. Cognitive theorists explore the changes in
thinking which help structure our values, beliefs and assumptions. Some theorists (King
& Kitchner, 1981, 1990a, 1990b; Kohlberg, 1970; Perry, 1969) have focused on moral or
reflective judgment. Others (Belenky et al., 1986; Gilligan, 1982; Magolda, 1992) have
examined perceptions of knowledge but also include gender in their changing patterns of
reasoning (Chickering & Reisser, 1993).
Various psychosocial theories have been developed as well. Although some
would suggest the foundation for these theories had been established much earlier by
Freud, it wasn’t until the late 1950s that Erikson (1959)- who was associated early-on
with Freud- promulgated a view of development as a series of tasks or stages through
which individuals undergo changes in the way they think, feel, behave, value and relate

20
to others and themselves. Unlike Freud, Erikson saw the stages of development
continuing beyond childhood and put more emphasis on the social contexts in which
humans grow. Rather than focus on internal energy or ego defense mechanisms, Erikson
claimed humans experience eight stages or periods where they encounter challenges to
address. These stages present themselves when physical and cognitive maturation permit,
within the contexts of social interactions and social pressures (Chickering & Reisser,
1993; Erikson, 1959, 1980).
Erikson argues that individuals move from one stage to the next as they create
change in their identity. Each stage is comprised of two polarized attributes from which
individuals emerge either feeling positive about their personal and social capabilities or
with a debilitating sense of self. These are what Erikson called nuclear conflicts and
represent a time when individuals vacillate between contradictory views of themselves.
Eventually individuals come to a point where they make a decision to take one road or
another. If the individual had a positive view of the stage, Erikson believes he/she will
develop ego strengths or virtues. These accumulate over time and assist the individual
later in life. This type of development can take place only through a certain degree of
dissonance, however. In other words, just the right amount of tension is needed and will
depend on the person, and vary based on the type and degree of challenge and support
available in the environment (Torres et al., 2003).
Erikson’s eight stages occur sequentially, from infancy through old age. The first
stage represents a challenge to infants in terms of whether they are safe, based on the
degree to which they can conclude their environment is nurturing. If this is so, infants

21
will learn basic trust rather than mistrust. In stage two, children wrestle with autonomy
versus shame as they develop muscle control and coordination. Stage three is
exemplified by the initiative to move around and make things versus the guilt that comes
from being punished. In stage four, children either experience the industry to succeed in
school or the inferiority that comes with low performance (Chickering & Reisser, 1993).
Identity stabilization and learning to be intimate are primary tasks for adolescents
and young adults, the ages of most college students. Adolescents face the stage known as
identity versus identity confusion (or identity diffusion as Marcia would say), while
young adults are tasked with mastering the stage intimacy versus isolation (Chickering &
Reisser, 1993; Maier, 1998).
The final two stages described by Erikson involve adults. Adults contend with
issues of generativity versus stagnation, where they learn the virtue of caring. By the
time they reach old age, adults enter the stage of integrity versus despair, which involves
the opportunity to express and reveal wisdom and acceptance (Chickering & Reisser,
1993).
Marcia’s Extension of Erikson’s Work
Building on Erikson’s theory, Marcia (1966) explored identity development along
two dimensions; (1) becoming aware of an identity crisis that must be explored and
resolved; and (2) making a commitment to the identity after a period of exploration of
ways of being. Marcia (1967) argues that crisis refers to the “times during adolescence
when the individual seems to be actively involved in choosing among alternative
occupations and beliefs.” Commitment refers to “the degree of personal investment the

22
individual expresses in an occupation or belief” (Marcia, 1967, p. 119). Marcia believes
the relationship of these two dimensions to each other results in a theoretical construct
made up of four quadrants. This theory emphasizes the process through which identity
develops, which is not necessarily viewed in stages. It assumes that commitments can be
expressed even though identity structures may not be seen. Likewise, it assumes that
identity can exist even though commitments may not be seen that we have made (Torres
et al., 2003).
Adolescents typically begin in a state of identity diffusion. They have not made
firm commitments to any ideology, occupation or interpersonal relationship, and are not
thinking about such commitments (no crisis, no commitment). As adolescents begin to
think about what kinds of long-term commitment they could make in the future, they
move toward identity moratorium (Dembo, 2004). At this stage, a conscious search has
begun, but not all alternatives have been explored or evaluated. This can result in a
period of instability when an individual experiments with different identities and various
ways of being, by observing and emulating those she or he wishes to be (Torres et al.,
2003). While choices are considered and different roles are experienced, a period of
uncertainty exists where a final decision is not made (crisis, no commitment) (Dembo,
2004).
Consideration of the future can create a great deal of anxiety in an adolescent,
especially when that individual does not have answers to questions for family and friends
regarding career and educational options. Some adolescents choose to stay in a state of
identity diffusion, while others opt for identity foreclosure, or, selecting a convenient set

23
of beliefs or goals without considering the alternatives. An example of this is a High
School student who decides to study pre-med because his mother is a doctor. Such a
response can feel temporarily satisfying because it lessens worry about the future and
what course of study to pursue, and results in a lessening of pressure from others
(Dembo, 2004). These individuals do not typically separate from their families, rarely
ask advice from friends, and tend to hold on to traditional social or family norms without
questioning them (no crisis, commitment) (Torres et al., 2003).
Finally, when an individual explored alternatives and choices and a commitment
to an identity, as a result of having experienced a crisis, Marcia argues this person is in a
state of identity achievement. The crisis has been endured and meaningful and stable
commitments have been made (crisis, commitment). Whereas these may be perceived as
developmental and transitional, one stage is not a prerequisite for another. Only identity
moratorium seems to be necessary for identity achievement, because one cannot develop
a mature identity without considering alternatives and options (Dembo, 2004).
Erikson’s theoretical framework of identity development has been the foundation
for much research. However, his theories have been heavily criticized, particularly as
they relate to women, people of color and LGBTQ populations (Evans et al., 1998; Jones,
1997; Maier, 1998; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Peacock, 2000; Torres et al., 2003).
Although women or people of color are not a specific focus of this study, they are
represented in LGBTQ populations, and so it is useful to highlight some of these
controversies.

24
Women and People of Color
In 1970, Marcia and Friedman established that in all of Erikson’s work on ego
identity, only one article was devoted to women. Moreover, not one of his biographical
sketches (e.g. Gandhi, Hitler, and Martin Luther King) included females. In fact, most of
Erikson’s work focused on young, White males from prestigious colleges and his
findings were later generalized to women (Torres et al., 2003).
Morgan (1982) noted that Erikson’s theory for boys and girls is similar until they
reach adolescence, where it is clear that their development begins to differ. At this time,
boys confront identity issues prior to intimacy, whereas girls fuse these two issues in their
developmental tasks. The identity task involves the pursuit of inner continuity and
uniformity (Hall, Perlmutter & Lamb, 1982), while the intimacy task necessitates the
capacity to commit to concrete partnerships and affiliations, and requires the ability to
abide by those commitments even if it calls for compromise (Erikson, 1950).
Accordingly, it becomes necessary for girls to “fill their inner space” through
relationships before their identities can be fully formed (Erikson, 1968; Morgan, 1982).
Gilligan interpreted Erikson to mean that women must wait for men to rescue them from
their emptiness and loneliness so they can pursue and form their own identities (Gilligan,
1982). Others, such as Horst (1995), argued that for Erikson to acknowledge the
significance of relationships to female development was an observation way ahead of its
time (Maier, 1998).
Nonetheless, Erikson’s recognition of the significance of relationships in female
development does not negate current beliefs and perceptions regarding the status and

25
equality of women. Such notions imply a delayed response by girls in the ideological and
occupational realms due to a focus on interpersonal relationships. Hodgson and Fischer
(1981) recommend reframing this in terms that do not evoke a negative connotation of
girls moving slower than boys. Rather, it may simply be that girls operate along
alternative pathways, and those pathways are not good or bad, they are simply different
(Maier, 1998).
Erikson’s foundational theory has been questioned with regard to race and
ethnicity as well. The widespread existence of multicultural and diversity departments at
colleges and universities is evidence of the value placed on diversity and cultural
understanding in student affairs. It is not new for these departments to consider how a
student’s cultural background and given worldview might affect their development or
experience. Yet, when it comes to research, this has not always been the case.
Racial and ethnic identity formation theories typically have been derived from the
foundational theories of identity development that follow Erikson. Erikson (1964)
defined identity “as the ability to experience one’s self as something that has continuity
and sameness, and to act accordingly” (Erikson, 1964, p. 42). Erikson stated identity is
not only based on developing a sense of who we are, but also of who we are not.
Although these concepts are foundational to Erikson’s identity model, some would argue
they do not take into account aspects of racial and identity development. Torres et al.,
(2003) noted that Erikson’s foundational theories ignore issues of social group
differences, based on race and ethnicity, in identity formation. Evans, Forney, and

26
Guido-DiBrito (1998) concurred, citing the limitations of his framework when applied to
diverse student populations (Torres et al., 2003)
Vera and de los Santos (2005) have provided an important critique of the ethnic
and racial identity formation framework. They contend that women of color have been
ill-served by traditional identity development theory, even when considering the
contributions and challenges posed by feminists and ethnic identity formation theorists.
Vera and de los Santos believe these theorists are astute at describing the processes that
occur within a particular subculture but often do not reflect the effect of interactions with
the dominant culture and their effect on identity formation (Vera & de los Santos, 2005).
Erikson also has been criticized about his lack of work on the LGBTQ
population. Peacock (2000) argues Erikson's stage model portrays life in heterosexual
terms. Although the developmental issues addressed across the life span are likely the
same or similar, the traditional time frames for these issues are not as likely for gay
people. Peacock believes that gay life paths start at different ages, based on when
identity-acceptance begins. He asserts that it is only then that a gay person can undertake
successful adult development. His findings show that being closeted can create a false
development as a result of living a double-life. He proposes that it is with acceptance of
one's sexual identity that developmental regression occurs due to an effort to address gay
identity issues previously denied or ignored. Therefore, many of the developmental
issues arise not from being gay, per se, but from discovering how to assimilate being gay
into one's life pattern. Hence, in his research, Peacock identifies the imperfection of the
traditional stage model put forth by Erikson (Peacock, 2000).

27
The limitation of a traditional stage model was also found in a study by Levine
and Bahr (1989) where data indicated that students in the earlier and later stages of sexual
identity formation exhibited more mastery of psychosocial development than those in the
middle stages. Levine and Bahr speculated that as sexual identity formation advances,
previously resolved student development tasks may require reevaluation, creating a
developmental lag. They also noted that psychosocial tasks left incomplete may place on
hold the sexual identity issue until further explored (Tomlinson & Fassinger, 2003).
Dilley (2005), in his review of the major studies regarding student sexual
identity development, argued the models used to describe sexual identity development
are based on assumptions that do not go beyond those of heterosexual models. The
studies of the past 15 years, according to Dilley, are (1) based on binary,
heterosexual/non-heterosexual identities, and (2) assume a path of coming out, wherein
those who are more out are considered better adjusted or healthier. He challenges
researchers to move beyond the normative assumptions of heterosexual identity to
convey the multiplicity of non-heterosexual identities, and to consider the possibility that
there are many paths to the development of a positive identity. How much one is “out” is
not the only measure (Dilley, 2005).
Sexual Identity Development among College Students
Several researchers have developed theoretical models elucidating the sexual
identity development processes of LGBTQ people (Cass, 1979; Chapman, 1987;
Chapman & Brannock, 1987; Coleman, 1982; Faderman, 1984; Fassinger, 1996, 1997;
Kitzinger, 1989; Minton & McDonald, 1984; Plummer, 1975; Sophie, 1985/86; Troiden,

28
1989). The most well known frameworks, developed by Cass, Coleman and Troiden,
involve multi-stage models, similar to that pioneered by Erik Erikson.
Cass’ Model
Cass (1979) developed the first of these, a six stage sexual identity model for a
treatment center that worked specifically with chemically dependent LGBTQ clients.
She developed an instrument for measuring sexual behavior in order to assign coming out
levels to those participating in treatment. The six stages were: Identity Confusion,
Identity Comparison, Identity Tolerance, Identity Acceptance, Identity Pride, and Identity
Synthesis.
In the stage of Identity Confusion, an individual has become aware that
homosexuality is relevant to his or her life and behavior. An individual moves from this
stage to a stage of Identity Comparison when he or she begins to tentatively admit the
possibility that he or she is a homosexual and thus recognizes and investigates the wider
ramifications of such a choice. After this, an individual moves to a stage known as
Identity Tolerance. This stage is similar to the one before it, differing only in the level of
commitment. It represents a tolerance of one’s sexuality as a probable fact. Identity
Acceptance, however, represents a person accepting, rather than simply tolerating, a
homosexual self-image. This person will have greater contact with other homosexuals.
At the stage of Identity Pride, an individual begins to re-evaluate homosexuals and
homosexuality from a positive perspective. By the last stage, an individual accepts that
homosexuals are bad and good. Those at the stage of Identity Synthesis integrate

29
homosexuality into all aspects of their being (Blumenfeld, 1992; Cass, 1979; Conrad &
Colwell, 1995).
Coleman’s Model
Coleman (1982) proposed a refined model. Whereas both models have much in
common, Coleman condensed his framework to five stages: Pre-Coming Out, Coming
Out, Exploration, First Relationship, and Integration. Unlike the versions proposed by
Troiden (discussed below) and Cass, Coleman’s model focuses, particularly in its later
stages, on the formation of romantic attachments (Blumenfeld, 1992; Coleman, 1982). In
Coleman’s first stage (Pre-Coming Out), gays and lesbians are not aware of feelings for
the same sex due to a strong defensive posture which does not allow such thoughts to
come to consciousness. Although they may know they are different, they do not
understand why this is so (Coleman, 1982).
In the second stage (Coming Out), individuals may begin to develop some
consciousness regarding same-sex thoughts or fantasies. This is a time of great confusion
that can result in hiding to avoid rejection. Some may confide in a few close friends who
can be trusted, but more often, will avoid telling anyone who is presumed to be
heterosexual. By the third stage (Exploration), individuals spend more time interacting
with gays and lesbians and begin experimenting with their new sexual identity.
Often this stage occurs during adolescence. For those who do not undergo this
exploration process in their younger years, there is often a developmental lag
(Blumenfeld, 1992). Tomlinson and Fassinger (2003) address this by focusing on the
delay in career development among lesbians struggling with identity issues. The majority

30
of lesbians interviewed stated that issues related to their lesbian development often took
precedence over their career choices, which sometimes resulted in job loss and career
setback. Others who have addressed the issue of multiple identity development also
acknowledge this developmental lag (Abes & Jones, 2004; House, 2004; Tomlinson &
Fassinger, 2003).
After a period of sexual experimentation, many gays and lesbians will desire a
more stable, committed relationship which involves all aspects of a person, not just the
physical. Coleman believes these first-time relationships (Stage 4), if entered into
prematurely, without fully completing the coming out and exploration stages, often fail.
The final stage for Coleman is the Integration stage. During this stage, public and private
identities are integrated into one coherent self-image which lasts for the rest of an
individual’s life. This person is better equipped to deal with relationships and address
various life problems that arise (Blumenfeld, 1992; Coleman, 1982).
Troiden’s Model
Unlike Cass and Coleman, Troiden (1989) did not simply discuss the coming-out
process; he also defined sexual identity. Troiden defines sexual identity as the perception
one has of one’s self, whether it is heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or asexual. He
also argues that this sexual identity is fundamentally social in nature (Blumenfeld, 1992).
Troiden found that only a small number of those who actually have had homosexual
experiences adopt a lesbian or gay identity. The adoption process is not linear. The first
stage of this process Troiden defined as the sensitization stage. This stage occurs before
puberty and includes a time when individuals sense they are somehow different than their

31
same-sex peers. These feelings stem from a difference in social interests or behaviors
that are either considered gender neutral or atypical. The feelings may also stem from
sexual interest in the same sex (Blumenfeld, 1992; Troiden, 1989).
The second stage, which Troiden calls identity confusion, is the same in name as
Cass’ first stage, although each describes the stage slightly differently. Troiden considers
this to be a place of “identity limbo” which comes before an acceptance of one’s self as
gay or lesbian. Many factors may be responsible for this confusion. It comes when one
begins to have an altered perception of self, due to feeling aroused by both opposite and
same sex interactions and possibly acting on those feelings. Living with the stigma and
condemnation of homosexuality within society can lead to guilt and secrecy, inhibit
access to other gay and lesbian people and further generate confusion. This confusion is
furthered by the fact that knowledge about homosexuals or homosexuality is often
inaccurate or erroneous. Troiden also identifies many ways that individuals manage
stigma in order to deal with the confusion. They may live in denial, seek professional
help, and try various avoidance techniques, from limiting exposure and association to a
more extreme action of escapism through substance abuse. They also may redefine
themselves by statements such as, “It is just a phase,” “It was only a one time thing,” or
“I was just drunk” (Blumenfeld, 1992; Troiden, 1989).
The Identity Assumption stage occurs during or after late adolescence. In this
stage, an individual is ready to have a self-identity and a presented identity. A presented
identity is when one is prepared to tell others and self-identify as gay or lesbian. At this
time, individuals will experiment sexually, associate with other gays and lesbians, and

32
begin to explore the subculture. The emphasis during this time is on tolerance and
acceptance. It becomes a time of learning to manage stigma, neutralize guilt, legitimize
desires, and explore various roles and norms of conduct. While attempting to blend the
self identity and presented identity together, individuals may try to live “double lives” or
pass as heterosexual. They also may make an effort to refer to their identity in gender
atypical ways or may avoid same-sex activities all together. It is the contact with other
LGBTQ people that enables individuals to manage stigma in effective ways (Blumenfeld,
1992; Troiden, 1989).
The fourth and final stage in Troiden’s model is Commitment. When gays and
lesbians arrive at this stage, they are comfortable and accepting of themselves. They
have adopted a gay or lesbian identity as a way of life, in the internal and external
dimensions. Internally they accept their identity is a valid state of being. Externally they
enter into same-sex love relationships, are open and out to those who are not gay, and use
a variety of strategies for managing stigma (Blumenfeld, 1992; Troiden, 1989).
Though each of these models has a different number of stages, Osteen (2003)
highlights several steps they have in common: using and accepting “homosexual” as a
self-descriptor, developing an increased positive view about one’s identity, increasing
social and personal contact with other LGBTQ people, a growing desire to “come-out” to
other people, and integrating a homosexual identity into one’s overall self-concept
(Osteen, 2003).
Although these models of sexual identity formation have historically been the
most widely used, they have also been widely critiqued. Some have stressed the fact that

33
the stages are too linear, and that the models assume one must accomplish one stage
before moving onto another, when the reality is that most individuals move back and
forth between stages (Osteen, 2003). These models were socially constructed and
therefore are bound to be rigid and exclusionary, rather than fluid and inclusive. The
responses on which the models were based came from discreet categorical questions
which preclude any other construct besides those which were presented (Osteen, 2003).
In addition, these models only represent general patterns individuals may exhibit.
But, people come from various backgrounds, geographic regions, and cultures, all of
which can result in a variety of experiences represented through unique circumstances
(Elizur & Mintzer, 2001). With this in mind, it is possible that some may take years to
come out, others may move more quickly, and still some may not progress to the final
stages at all (Blumenfeld, 1992). This is evidenced in an account made by Giddens
(1992) of the 65 year old widower who developed a homosexual relationship though he
had sexual experience with or fantasies about the same sex (Osteen, 2003).
What is of greatest concern here, however, is not the uniqueness of experience,
but the judgment regarding those experiences as being either healthy or unhealthy. The
social construction of homosexual identity development in the form of “coming out”
stages creates such categorical differences. The very nature and progression of the stages
infer that one is healthier and more psychologically adjusted the more one moves toward
the final stages. It assumes the norm is to integrate and socially disclose one’s
homosexual identity (Cain, 1991).

34
Therefore, the more one proceeds through the prescribed stages, the more intra-
psychically superior the person becomes. This also supposes that if an individual does
not proceed through the stages, that person is inferior (Cass, 1984; Coleman, 1982;
Troiden, 1989). If consideration were given to the historical, cultural, social, or internal
forces which might preclude coming out, then theorists might avoid rigid dichotomies
that conclude automatically that healthy homosexuals self-identify and disclose their
status and unhealthy homosexuals do not (Cain, 1991; Osteen, 2003).
D’Augelli’s Model
D’Augelli (1994) offered a counter model counter regarding identity and sexual
identity development. He argued that identity does not develop along normative
guidelines, nor is it stable and enduring. He proposed, instead, a life span, human
development view involving multiple factors that interact over time. D’Augelli argued
that sexual identity is a social construction that is malleable and variable over time and is
shaped by societal customs and socio-historical conditions. Those who identify as gay,
lesbian or bisexual, first have to consciously reject heterosexuality as an identity. This is
accomplished in spite of two barriers: the social invisibility of lesbians, gays and
bisexual people, and the outright social and legal suppression of lesbian, gay and bisexual
expression of sexual identity (D’Augelli, 1994; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005).
D’Augelli believes three factors influence lesbian, gay and bisexual sexual
identity: (1) personal subjectivities and actions, such as feelings and beliefs about gay
people; (2) interactive intimacies such as those with parents and partners; and (3) social
historical connections, such as laws and culture. These three factors work together as a

35
person moves through six identity processes (D’Augelli, 1994; Pascarella & Terenzini,
2005).
Mediated by the cultural and sociopolitical contexts in which they occur, the six
identity processes outlined by D’Augelli are: (1) Exiting heterosexual identity; (2)
Developing a personal lesbian-gay-bisexual personal identity; (3) Developing a personal
lesbian-gay-bisexual social identity; (4) Becoming a lesbian-gay-bisexual offspring; (5)
Developing a lesbian-gay-bisexual intimacy status; and (6) Entering a lesbian-gay-
bisexual community (D’Augelli, 1994; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). These six
processes reflect D’Augelli’s view of the social and legal context in which the LGB
community exists and the politicization surrounding the coming out process.
Fassinger’s Model
Fassinger (1996) developed another model, focusing on lesbian identity
development. Her model counters the simplicity of Cass, Coleman and Troiden, allows
for greater complexity and takes into account an individual sexual identity that is separate
from a group member identity. Separating these processes allows for more diverse ways
of expressing one’s lesbian identity without having to undergo the developmental
progression of politicization and disclosure. This accounts for those women who may be
accepting of their homo-erotic feelings without having to acknowledge or identify within
a larger, active lesbian community.
This model raised the question of what constitutes the later stages of integration,
synthesis and commitment, and whether it is possible, in fact, to have a complete sexual
identity without being politically and socially involved, active and integrated. Given that

36
as many as 75% of LGBTQ young people have been verbally harassed and as many as
64% feared for their own safety on campus (D’Augelli, 1993), this is particularly
important for lesbian college students. Understanding that college campuses across the
United States continue to have hostile and bigoted climates for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender and questioning students, decisions regarding group identification become all
the more pertinent (McCarn & Fassinger, 1996).
The table below summarizes the sexual identity development models discussed
above. Each model can help develop a greater understanding of the possible impacts on
identity development for LGBTQ college students.
Table 1. A Comparison of Sexual Identity Development Models

Vivienne Cass
(1979)
Eli Coleman
(1982)
Richard Troiden
(1989)
Anthony D’Augelli
(1994)
Ruth Fassinger
(1996, 1997)
1. Confusion
1. Pre-Coming
Out
1. Sensitization
1. Exit hetero-sexual
Identity
1. Awareness
2.Comparison 2. Coming Out 2. Identity Confusion 2. Develop LGB Identity 2. Exploration
3. Tolerance 3. Exploration
3. Identity
Assumption
3. Develop LGB Social
Identity
3. Deepening
Commitment
4. Acceptance
4. First
Relationship
4. Commitment
4. Disclose to LGB
Offspring
4. Internalization
and Synthesis
5. Pride 5. Integration
5. Develop LGB
Intimacy

6. Synthesis
6. Enter LGB
Community

Means of Assessing the Impacts of College on Students
This study focused on college-related impacts on identity for LGBTQ students.
One way of assessing students’ identity is through a critical incident technique. This
technique involves brief, written, self-reports of experiences that have impacted college

37
students’ sense of identity (Fivars & Fitzpatrick, 2001). Although individuals were asked
to reconstruct significant events, this study was not ideographic in nature. There was no
attempt to discover how each individual is unique, but rather, how LGBTQ people in
general construe some aspect of experience, as well as to determine the commonalities
that exist among them. To accomplish this, a methodological approach called concept
mapping was used (Goodyear et al., 2005). Both the Critical Incident Technique and
Concept Mapping are discussed below; however, the more technical aspects of these
concepts are discussed in the Methodology section.
Critical Incident Technique
The Critical Incident Technique, developed in World War II by Colonel John C.
Flanagan, is a set of principles grounded in systematically, designed criteria, used in
collecting incidents that hold special significance for individuals regarding their behavior
(Flanagan, 1954). These incidents may be written by participants who take a particular
action, or by a qualified observer, or both (Fivars & Fitzpatrick, 2001). In this study, the
incidents were written by the students.
Fivars and Fitzpatrick consider an incident to be critical when the action which
was taken resulted in an effective or ineffective outcome. An outcome is effective if the
action helped to solve a problem or resolve a situation. It is considered ineffective if the
action resolved only a part of the problem, and therefore created new problems or a need
for further action (Fivars & Fitzpatrick, 2001). Whether a student’s action is effective or
ineffective was not at issue in this study, rather simply what the commonalities were
among LGBTQ student experience.

38
Concept Mapping (MDS and Cluster Analysis)
Concept mapping is a method for understanding the ideas people develop and use
in describing and interpreting their world. It signifies a variety of techniques that
underlie people’s cognitive structures (Goodyear et al., 2005). Trochim (1989) describes
concept mapping as a structured way of developing a conceptual framework which
involves six steps: (1) Preparing the selection of participants and developing a focus for
conceptualization; (2) Creating statements; (3) Organizing statements; (4) Representing
statements in the form of a concept map which utilizes multidimensional scaling and
cluster analysis; (5) Interpreting those maps; and, (6) Utilizing maps in terms of daily
application (Trochim, 1989).
The first three steps involve finding themes within critical incidents, sorting and
categorizing those themes, and then placing the themes on a Paired Comparison
Questionnaire. This process is described in greater detail in the methodology section.
The last three steps, the representation and interpretation of these data as concept maps,
are further explicated below.
Multivariate concept-mapping (MVCM) is a structured strategy which allows for
the analysis of sorted information on the basis of sequential multidimensional scaling and
cluster analysis. This statistical technique is used to determine the average sort across all
participants in order to represent the most typical conceptual structure used by
participants in perceiving those factors important in college student sexual identity
development (Bedi, 2006). Dimensions were chosen and the sorted themes were placed
within those dimensions. Unlike factor analysis, emphasis is not on the interrelationships

39
among the dimensions or factors, but rather on the placement and clustering of the
elements or themes on each dimension (Goodyear et al., 2005).
Conclusions from the Literature Review
Although there is much research on college impact, much of it is outdated, limited
in scope or inadequate in design. Current research must be longitudinal, multi-
institutional and incorporate large and diverse samples of students (Astin, 1999). Current
foundational theories have been developed based on the values and assumptions of
Caucasians of European descent. Whereas some believe that current theories can be
revised to address various dimensions and aspects of diversity, there are others who
believe simple revisions are inappropriate (McEwen et al., 1999). The assumption that
the nature and process of identity development for LGBTQ people mirrors that of
heterosexuals is inappropriate. The same is true if it is assumed that women’s
experiences mirror men’s, or that the experiences of people of color echo that of Whites
(Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991).
The important life question of “Who am I?” has only been partially addressed by
current theories. For those in the non-dominant culture, this question takes on different
meaning. Many considerations must be examined and understood in the development of
identity for those who experience systemic social, political and educational oppression
(Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005).
Since the 1990s, research recognizing the increasing diversity of students in
American college systems has grown. Although there is still a tendency to focus on the
most accessible students (full-time, on-campus, primarily White), researchers have made

40
great strides to understand the impact of the post-secondary experience on identity
development among various ethnic, racial, sexual, and gender groups (McEwen, 1996;
Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005).
According to Kim (1998), several factors have led to an increased scholarly
interest in sexual identity development in particular. One factor is the growing
willingness of LGB people to come out and be open about their sexual orientations.
Another factor is the willingness of LGB people to confront harassment and
discrimination perpetrated against them. Other factors that have led to interest in
research include the HIV-AIDS epidemic and an increased legal and social visibility and
acceptance of LGB people. In spite of this, researchers face a variety of hindrances: lack
of a widely accepted theory of sexual identity formation, social and religious
condemnation both inside and outside of academia, and the difficulty in identifying and
securing study participants who are willing to divulge their orientation (Pascarella &
Terenzini, 2005).
It is clear that more research needs to be done regarding the identity and
development issues of these students, as well as ways educators can respond on college
campuses to foster support and growth. It is for these reasons that I chose the following
research questions.

41
Research Questions
1. What categories of college-related impacts will LGBTQ college students report as
having been particularly important to the development of their sense of self?
(Using Flanagan’s Critical Incident Technique)
2. What conceptual map do LGBTQ college students use to organize their
understanding of these categories of experiences?

42
CHAPTER II

METHODS
This chapter described the methods used in this study and included the study’s
participants, measures, procedures and data analyses.
Participants
Phase I
A total of 100 critical incidents were collected from 66 different students who
metthe following criteria: (a) have attained junior or senior class standing, (b) have self-
identified as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, or Queer, and (c) have attended
college within a few years of completing High School.
65 percent of the survey responses used (n=43) came from students of senior class
standing, with junior students contributing 35 percent (n=23) of the responses. The age of
students ranged from19-28. 55 percent of the respondents identified as female (n=36),
while 41 percent identified as male (n=27). One participant, or two percent, identified as
neutral; two students, or three percent, identified as transgender. 35 percent (n=23)
identified as gay, 24 percent (n=16) as lesbian, 26 percent (n=17) as bisexual and six
percent as other. Two respondents identified as lesbian/bisexual, one as lesbian/other,
and one as transgender/other for a total of 6% of the respondents.
78 percent of survey respondents were Caucasian, 12 percent were Latino or
Hispanic, and four percent were Black. Three percent identified as Asian or Pacific
Islander and three percent declined to state.

43
All participants were students at public or private four-year universities located all
across the United States including but not limited to the University of Minnesota, the
University of Wisconsin, the University of Southern California, Cornell University,
University of Maryland College Park, University of North Carolina, University of
Virginia, University of Florida, and University of Louisville. The largest number of
responses came from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, University of
Virginia and University of Maryland College Park.
Phase II
In this phase, 15 respondents were asked to participate. 13.3 percent (n=2) of the
survey responses used came from graduate students, 67 percent (n=10) were of senior
class standing, with junior students contributing 20 percent (n=3) of the responses. The
age of students in Phase II ranged from 20 to 23. 60 percent of the respondents identified
as female (n=9), while 27 percent identified as male (n=4). Two participants, equaling
13.3 percent, identified as transgender.
The majority of Phase II participants were Caucasian, representing 80 percent
(n=12) of those surveyed. 6.7 percent (n=1) were African American, and 13.3 percent
(n=2) identified as other.
Raters
I worked with two other doctoral students, one white male and one Latino male
(all of us between the ages of 28 and 43), to create units of analysis from the Critical
Incidents and then come to agreement as to how to combine and code these units by
sorting them into groups with similar themes. These themes were listed in the Paired

44
Comparison Questionnaire whereby students rated experiences on a 5-point Likert-type
scale.
Measures
Two measures were used in this study. For the first phase, Flanagan’s (1950)
Critical Incident Technique was used. For the second phase, a Paired Comparison
Questionnaire was developed that used the phase one theme categories. This
questionnaire encapsulated data used for MDS and cluster analysis to determine the
conceptual map participants used to organize their experiences.
Phase I
Critical Incident Technique
In Phase I, the measure used was a Critical Incident Technique. The intent of
Critical Incidents is to be able to make inferences and predictions about the people
performing the actions in order to solve practical problems and develop psychological
principles (Flanagan, 1954). In the past fifty years, this technique has been used to study
issues related to education, business, industry, health care, and professional and working
life. Because the Critical Incident data are analyzed qualitatively and the concept
similarity rating scale is evaluated quantitatively, the results tend to be more precise,
explicit and functional than opinion poll data (Fivars & Fitzpatrick, 2001). In Phase I, I
collected 109 critical incidents from 67 different students (students submitted one or two
critical incidents each). During this phase, concepts were drawn from the Critical
Incidents and themes were created. The critical incident that was used was titled The
College Years Experience Questionnaire (CYEQ).

45
The thematic dissertation group developed the CYEQ together, testing slightly
different versions of questions to determine which elicited the most complete description
of college experience. Agreements were made as to the specific questions asked, the
structure of the questionnaire and the descriptive information required on the CYEQ. A
copy of the Information Sheet and CYEQ measure is attached as Appendix A and B
respectively.
Phase II
Paired Comparison Questionnaire
In Phase II, I used a Paired Comparison Questionnaire which used a Concept
Similarity Rating Scale. The categories of critical incidents developed during the first
phase of the study constituted the concept elements used in developing the paired-
comparison questionnaire. That is, each category was paired with each of the others and
participants were instructed to rate the similarity between them on a 5-point scale (1 = not
at all alike; 5 = very much alike). The number of items on the questionnaire depends on
the number of categories developed. The number of questionnaire items was calculated
using N(N-1)/2, where N represented the number of categories (Bedi, 2006). Fourteen
categories were used which created 91 items on the questionnaire. The Paired
Comparison Questionnaire is included as Appendix C.
Procedures
Phase I
In Phase I, 284 completed responses to the College Years Experience
Questionnaire (CYEQ) were collected from participants by means of Survey Monkey

46
which was sent out from the list serves of five different Universities located in Southern
California. Students were directed to the list-serve through a general email appeal, as
well as through documentation containing an information sheet and a copy of the
questionnaire. The information sheet asked students to participate and directed them to
the list-serve. At that time, students were given two copies of the College Years
Experience Questionnaire and asked to submit two separate incidents. The voluntary
nature of participation was stressed. Because limited demographic information, but no
personal identifying information, was collected on the CYEQ, participants’ anonymity is
preserved.
Each participant was allowed to complete a survey describing either one or two
critical incidents. A total of 100 critical incidents were collected. 66 of the 284 surveys
were used for this study to get the 100 incidents. The remaining 216 eliminated surveys
came from students who did not fit the inclusion criteria, which were: (a) have attained
junior or senior class standing, (b) have self-identified as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,
Transgender, or Questioning, and (c) have attended college within a few years of
completing High School. At the end of each survey, students were asked if they would
be interested in participating in Phase II of the survey, and were asked to provide an
email address for such purposes.
During phase I, units of analysis were created from the 100 Critical Incidents. A
unit of analysis is a sentence or phrase containing only one concept. The three raters
each created their own units of analysis from their portion of the Critical Incidents and
then came to agreement as to how to combine and code all of the units by sorting them

47
into groups with similar themes. Any number of groups could be created, but each group
must have a theme, concept or category. No single group contained more than 33% of all
units of analysis (See Campbell & Salem, 1999; Cook, & Setze, 1994; Jackson &
Trochim, 2002; Trochim, 1989).
Phase II
Participants for Phase II included a subset of the original participants from Phase I
who volunteered to continue with the next phase of the study, as well as additional
respondents who met the inclusion criteria for the study but had not participated in Phase
I. Bedi and Alexander (2004) state that not all participants need to be included in every
phase, but advise that the participants who generated the statements engage in the
concept-comparison task to reduce the possibility that a new set of participants will bring
different conceptual structures and understandings to the process (Bedi & Alexander,
2004).
Because the requisite 15 Phase I participants did not voluntarily complete the
Phase II Paired Comparison Questionnaire, additional participants, “respondent proxies”
(Jackson & Trochim, 2002) were added to the study. 10 of the 15 Phase II participants
had participated in Phase I, five were respondent proxies. The proxy respondents were
solicited via email list serves from southern California. Students were asked the same
questions as were the original Phase II participants. These students met the same
selection criteria as Phase I participants although two graduate student responses were
allowed. There were two reasons for this. One of the original respondents became a
graduate student by the time Phase II responses were collected. The second graduate

48
student was a respondent proxy and between the ages of 20 and 23. One question was
added asking whether participants had previously completed the survey within the last
month in order to ensure that a participant would not be counted twice.
In Phase II, I used a Paired Comparison Questionnaire which uses a Concept
Similarity Rating Scale. The fifteen students needed for Phase II were drawn from the
same list-serves of large, urban, private and public Universities. The voluntary nature of
participation was stressed. Because limited demographic information, but no personal
identifying information, was collected on the Paired Comparison Questionnaire,
participants’ anonymity is preserved.
In Phase II, participants were asked to rate categories of college-related impacts
that were particularly important to the development of their sense of self. The degree of
similarity between every possible pair of concept elements or categories was tested using
a 5-point Likert scale (1 = very dissimilar; 5 = very similar). The number of questionnaire
items is N(N-1)/2, where N is the number of categories (Bedi, 2006). The number of
categories (N) to be selected in this study was 14, creating a total number of
questionnaire items of 91.
Data Analyses
Phase I
During Phase I, themes were developed by raters using the responses from the
CYEQ. The generation of themes was not limited to one per incident. As Jackson and
Trochim (2002), recommended, the raters reviewed individual phrases and sentences
which contained a single concept within the incidents (Jackson & Trochim, 2002). This

49
resulted in multiple themes being generated for some of the incidents. Raters did not try
to rank or assign importance to themes based on the frequency that the incident occurred.
All themes found in the incidents were placed on the raters’ individual lists and compared
to one another.
In order to reduce bias, the raters met as a group and compared their individual
theme lists. The lists were reviewed and commonalities among each list were chosen.
The remaining themes on the list were evaluated to determine if they should be added to
the master list. Fourteen themes were chosen and assigned to each individual incident.
Phase II
After data collection, the similarity ratings of 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 (Goodyear et al., 2005).
The similarity ratings of each participant were subjected to both non-metric MDS
and clustering analyses, with the overall aim of depicting the structures participants used
in thinking of the impacts college has had on them. All analyses employed SPSS.
Multi-Dimensional Scaling
Kruskal and Wish (1978) have recommended that with MDS it is best not to
interpret more dimensions than the number of elements or themes divided by four. For
example, if Participant A generated 8 themes, there should be no more than 2 dimensions.

50
They also affirm that due to the spatial representation, MDS is not generally useful with
greater than 3 or 4 dimensions (Goodyear et al., 2005; Kruskal & Wish, 1978).
It is not always easy to choose the optimal number of dimensions. The primary
selection criterion is determined based on the relative fit of the MDS solution to the data.
The square root of the normalized residual sum of squares is the common indicator of fit,
which is stress
1
. Perfect fit of the model to the data is indicated by a value of 0, and
larger values indicate less fit. Kruskal and Wish (1978) suggest that a 1-dimension
solution with a stress
1
< .15 is the best representation. In situations where this fails,
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 upon
the elbow; in other words, does the elbow adequately account for the data by being below
the .10 threshold (Goodyear et al., 2005; Kruskal & Wish, 1978)?
Following this fit criterion, Kruskal and Wish (1978) recommend using three
other criteria for selecting dimensions: interpretability, ease of use, and stability.
Interpretability involves the solution that makes the most sense conceptually. Ease of use
refers to parsimony, or the prudence and frugality for selection. For example, as was
stated earlier fewer dimensions are preferable because they depict the structure more
simply. Stability refers to the reliability of the structure. Stability can be affected by
minor movement of items; however, this is more important when MDS is used
nomothetically than ideographically, as is the case here (Goodyear et al., 2005; Kruskal
& Wish, 1978).

51
Hierarchical Cluster Analysis
Cluster analyses are used to explore whether the data are better depicted with a
discrete, rather than dimensional, representation. Clustering focuses on differences of
“type,” in contrast to the differences of “amount” found in MDS, and thus allows for an
examination of how the themes generated are qualitatively different. Using both
hierarchical clustering and add-tree clustering methods, I examine the similarity matrix.
Both methods involve different assumptions, an explanation of which is beyond the scope
of this paper; however, by using both and looking for commonalities, I am confident in
the structures yielded (Goodyear, 2005; Tracey et al., 2003; Trochim, 1989a, 1993). I
focus more on hierarchical clustering, using Euclidean distance and Ward’s method of
linkage, with complete linking as an added check (Borgatti, 1997; Goodyear, 2005;
Tracey et al., 2003; Trochim, 1989a, 1993).
The selection of the number of clusters is rarely clear (Borgen & Barnett, 1987),
with the selection procedure ranging from informal to statistical. Given my focus on
interpretability and ease of use, I use the informal approach. The logic is similar to the
scree test in factor analysis. Hierarchical clustering presents the data in the form of a
dendrogram, which is a representation of the distance of each theme from the other. As
in MDS, the value of the distance parameter listed in the clustering dendrogram for each
number of clusters (also known as the fusion coefficient) is examined for an “elbow,”
using the criteria of interpretability and ease of use to yield the final cluster representation
(Goodyear et al., 2005).

52
CHAPTER III

RESULTS

This study employed a sequential, exploratory approach that focused on qualitative
data analysis in Phase I and quantitative data analysis in Phase II. The results of each phase
are reported below.
Phase I Results

Phase I results answer the first research question which asks What categories of
college-related impacts will LGBTQ college students report as having been particularly
important to the development of their sense of self? The 100 Phase I CYEQ responses
(see Appendix D) were grouped into 14 categories which were identified by lesbian, gay,
bisexual, transgender, questioning or queer college students as being significant in
developing their identity. Table 2 lists the 14 categories, as well as the abbreviations
used for easier identification in the later presentation of findings.

53
Table 2. Categories, Abbreviations, Frequency of Category, Year of Occurrence,
Positive Value, and Eventual Effect

Complete Categories

Abbreviations

No. of
Incidents

Year in
College
(Junior=1;
Senior=2)

M SD

Positive
Value

M SD

Eventual Effect
on Sense of Self

M SD
Experiencing acceptance
after coming out
Acceptance 13 1.77 .44 6.60 .55 6.60 .55
Experiencing positive
role models
Role Models 5 1.6 .55 6.50 .71 6.50 .71
Participating in campus
organizations
Campus Orgs 5 1.8 .45 6.50 .71 5.50 .71
Experiencing a class that
changed my worldview
Class 6 1.67 .52 5.75 2.50 6.00 2.00
Being involved with
leadership
Leadership 3 1.33 .58 5.67 2.31 6.67 .58
Having a significant
relationship
Signif Rel 7 1.57 .53 5.67 .58 5.67 .58
Experiencing the support
of others
Support 7 1.86 .38 5.40 2.51 7.00 .00
Experiencing a sexual
awakening
Sex Awaken 7 1.71 .49 5.20 1.64 5.60 1.14
Having an experience
that resulted in greater
self-awareness
Self-Aware 13 1.46 .52 4.00 1.63 4.43 2.64
Experiencing bi-phobia Bi-phobia 7 1.43 .53 3.50 2.65 5.25 2.06
Experiencing a tragic
event
Tragedy 5 1.6 .55 3.25 1.50 5.25 1.26
Being involved in a
conflictual situation that
solidified my view of
myself
Conflict 4 1.75 .5 3.00 2.83 6.50 .71
Experiencing
homophobia
Homophobia 12 1.75 .45 2.20 1.14 4.00 1.83
Feeling judged or
labeled by others
Judgment 6 1.67 .52 2.00 1.00 4.33 1.15

Description of Categories

Descriptions of the 14 categories developed during Phase I of the study are presented
starting with the category of highest mean positivity value to the lowest. Two to three
responses from the CYEQ are given to elucidate an array of experiences included in each
category. All responses from the CYEQ are included in Appendix D.

54
Experiencing Acceptance after Coming Out
Two categories included 13 of the 100 responses (13%), the largest number of
incidents for a category. In this category (Acceptance) students disclosed either experiencing
acceptance from others or experiencing acceptance of self after coming out as gay, lesbian,
bisexual, transgender, questioning or queer. The acceptance received was by roommates,
friends, internet acquaintances, organizations and family. One student stated, “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.” Other students had similar responses.
But a senior captain came out and was really open about her sexuality and the
team was fine about it. Having her be out really helped me be out as I saw it was
fine and there was not much to worry about. Since then, I have been a lot closer to
my teammates as I can be myself and I am not worried about hiding a part of me.
My experience on the softball team has led me to be more out in general and my
level of comfort with being gay is a lot higher.

I was nervous about coming out to my then roommate because of the type of
reaction that I might get from her. Surprisingly, she was totally cool with the
whole thing and warmly accepted my girlfriend as well as the whole girls’ floor.
This is important to me in the area of my sense of self because it showed me that
not all people are bigots and homophobic. This gave me a boost of confidence.

Experiencing Positive Role Models
This category included five of the 100 incidents (5%). Incidents in this category (Role
Models) entailed knowing a self-assured, accomplished lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender
person who positively influenced one’s sexual or gender identity development. The excerpts
below illustrate this.
An acquaintance transitioned from female to male. This person was not like the
crazy "Jerry Springer" types. He was extremely bright and was a college student
just like me. This was the first time I realized that trans people weren't all crazy,
chair-throwing drama kings/queens. This gave me more confidence long-term
about my decision to transition.

55
I have been an executive member of the UWSP Gay-Straight Alliance for several
years. My junior year the organization brought Kate Bornstein to speak on
campus. Kate has been very influential to my understanding of gender identity
and expression, and I have read several of her books. One could say she has been
one of my mentors in the queer community.

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. [The] Dean of Students in particular 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.

Participating in Campus Organizations
This category (Campus Orgs) included five of the 100 responses (5%). The
incidents describe those who were involved in or receiving support from LGBT and other
campus organizations and are indicated below.
In February of my freshman year I had an opportunity to attend an LGBT
collegiate conference. I had been involved with our campus organization already
for one semester, and out as bisexual for a year, but this was the first time I had a
real sense of a large queer community, a bisexual community in particular; a
sense that I was not alone in my identity. My fellow students from here that went
were acquaintances, good enough friends, but I was not close to them. At the
conference I made a point to get to every session I could on identity and
bisexuality, just to hear others' voices and experiences.

Being elected as one of eight class representatives for Tufts student government
during my freshman year. 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.

Becoming actively involved in the Queer Student Union (QSU) when I first
arrived at Towson University as a freshman greatly impacted my sense of self.
That was the first time I had met so many people who were in my age group and
identified openly as queer. I also met many queer Asians and Filipinos.

56
Experiencing a Class that Changed my Worldview
This category (Class) included six of the 100 responses (6%). The common theme
in these incidents was discovering aspects of one’s sexual, gender, or student identity
through involvement in intellectual, and often controversial, class discussion that brought
about personal reflection and self discovery. Such examples are noted below.
At Syracuse we have a class labeled QSX 112, where we discuss Bodies,
Genders, Sexualities and Identities. In this class, under the guidance of Minnie
Bruce Pratt, I became aware of the false and unbalanced dichotomy of masculine
and feminine. This made me begin to question everything that we take for
granted, that I take for granted; the social constructs that I can choose or not
choose to accept as long as I am aware of them. These social constructs are
frustratingly destructive and beneficial. They serve a purpose and cause great
harm simultaneously.

I took a class called "Conceptions of Self". 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 gay man as not just a
sexual orientation, but a significant influence in shaping my identity.

In an acting class that i was in we learned about how we must sell ourselves if we
wanted to be considered as serious actors. The professor told us that people would
expect women to have long hair. It was at this moment that I decided I didn't want
to be an actor because I didn't want to have to compromise who I was.

Being Involved with Leadership
This category (Leadership) included three of the 100 responses (3%). Those who
identified this as a source of impact mentioned being involved in leadership roles on campus.
None of these instances noted below exemplify roles associated with LGBTQ identified
groups, organizations or identity.
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.

57

I was recognized by a number of people for my leadership skills within the
University community. Administrators, peers, and people I don't even know
directly all took time to acknowledge my work at UVA. In the work that I do, I
often forget how strong I am and how much of a positive impact I actually do
have on my community. Being recognized reminded me of my strengths and
continues to inspire my work so as not to let down those people that are aware of
what I am doing.

Also in the fall of my sophomore year - and one of the catalysts for my depression
- I took an intense leadership seminar through a selective program. Every week I
dreaded the course because of how it forced me to look at the way I thought of
myself and examine where I stood on crucial issues. Group work, hypotheticals,
lengthy discussions about the world's greatest questions...these tore me apart.

Having a Significant Relationship with Another Person
Seven of the 100 incidents (7%) in this category were included. Incidents in this
category (SIGNIF REL) described being involved in significant relationships, some romantic
and some not, in a way that had a considerable impact on identity. One gay man wrote,
“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.” This category is also
exemplified in the passage below.
When I fell in love with my girlfriend. My girlfriend was involved and I guess
my friends were too. This was important because it made me realize that I wasn't
destined to be alone and searching for someone who could love me back forever.
I believe this experience has made me confident in myself and made me realize I
really am capable of being loved and finding love.

Experiencing the Support of Others
Seven of 100 incidents (7%) fit into this category (Support) and involved
experiences where students felt supported by others for being who they were in terms of

58
their sexual or gender identity. These experiences could have occurred in a variety of
contexts and by individuals or groups of people. Various examples are cited below.
It has meant so much to me to be able to come home to people I'm totally
comfortable with, who know me and love me, and who I can relate with. My
roommates (including men and women, gay and bi, trans and not) have really
become my family.

When I was a freshman, I joined a lesbian organization. It was the first time I was
around people that had non-conventional gender expression. After this, I realized
there were other people like me and that it was okay to express whatever gender I
felt internally.

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.

Experiencing a Sexual Awakening
Seven of 100 incidents (7%) in this category (Sex Awaken) involved people who
have had some kind of sexual feeling or experience which led to a new consciousness or
awakening. These experiences weren’t always considered positive but none the less had
a significant impact. Examples of this category are below.
My first sexual experience was an accidental threesome…I rushed into sex
because I thought I was past due, but it just created ALOT of drama. It was an
important mark of bad judgment, but it happened and it's over. I'll always regret
how the experience happened, but I won't regret what I learned from it and the
friendship that I gained out of the catastrophe as a whole.

Falling in love with my freshman year neighbor (a supposedly heterosexual male).
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. I think it solidified that I was very much attracted to boys, sexually
and emotionally. I don't know why him, but I think it’s important that he was a
boy. It made me realize the importance of recognizing my feelings. It also served
as an impetus for me to come out of the closet.

59
The first time I kissed another girl was at the very end of my freshman year. It
was very innocent and I didn't think much of it at the time, but the next day I
remember thinking how that ‘wasn't so bad, and actually kind of fun.’ One of my
teammates shared that she felt the same way…We went out a lot. This went on
for a few months, and I began to question whether I was possibly bisexual. This
was an important incident in my life because it was the first time I ever gave any
real and in-depth thought to my sexuality. I always had boyfriends, guys always
liked me...I just assumed I was straight. About a year later I came out as a lesbian.
I will always consider that night to be the first glimpse of a deeper and truer
understanding of who I really am.

Having an Experience that Resulted in Greater Self-Awareness
The other category, that also included 13 of the 100 responses (13%), involved
experiences that ended in greater self-awareness. In this category (Self-Aware) students gave
a variety of examples that promoted more awareness: reflecting on one’s prejudices,
changing majors, being of service to others, changing significant relationships, or embracing
a different religious expression. Most of these examples are components of student identity.
Examples are listed below.
The most significant experience I have had in my college career, an experience
that greatly influences my sense of self, was my decision to switch my major. I
came to IU as a music education major and had been preparing myself as a
musician and an educator for 10 years. I spent two years in music school and
decided that I could not function in that environment and do what I needed to
anymore. I decided to change my major to another education related field, and
leaving music had a huge affect on me. I had to change my entire sense of
identity. I was no longer a musician, a band geek, a trombone player. I could not
longer identify myself in a way that had become critical to my sense of self.

I took 4 years off of school and just returned this year after completing an
AmeriCorps program. Taking the time off was the most beneficial thing I could
have done in my college learning. I have returned a much more committed and
focused student. I had the opportunity to work with people throughout the
country, learn more about myself and others. I am now doing great at school and
I'm looking at pursuing a PhD.

During college I began to explore Judaism and found that I identify with the
values present in this religion more so than those in the Christian one in which I
had been raised. When I came to college, I began to work with our campus rabbi,

60
who oversaw my formal conversion to Judaism this past year (2006). This has
strongly affected my identity in terms of how others view me and how I view
myself, because I place Judaism very highly in terms of how I define myself and
relate to the world around me.

Experiencing Bi-Phobia
Seven out of 100 incidents (7%) were included in this category. Responses in this
category (Bi-phobia) describe experiences of phobia surrounding the discovery or
expression of bisexuality. In all of the incidents reported and as seen below, bi-phobia
was solely expressed by members of the LGBTQ community.
I started a new job this year in which two of the women whom I work with
identify as lesbians. I didn’t come out to them due to the fact that I was dating a
man and because the women coworkers had made some comments about how
‘straight I was.’ I think this was a very significant experience because I am very
open about who I date or have sex with. However, this incident has made me not
want to share certain information because it feels like I am not 'gay enough' for
some people in the gay community due to the fact that I date men. It got to the
point where I questioned who I was and I think I will continue to do so for a
while.

I went to a support group for queer women. One woman went off on a rant about
bisexuals, and then paused mid-rant to ask, ‘are there any bisexuals here?’ I knew
that if I didn't raise my hand I would never be able to feel safe in the group again
or to respect myself. So I did, and she stopped her rant. It bothered me that no one
else challenged her behavior, even the supposedly 'supportive' lesbians who
comforted me afterwards. From that point on I've made a point of challenging
offensive behavior even if it's not directed at me. My sophomore year, I was
interested in a girl that I met in Queer Student Union. We started spending a lot of
time together. When I told her about my feelings for her, she told me that she felt
the same way but did not want to be in a relationship with me because I am
bisexual. She was a lesbian and thought that it was disgusting that I had kissed
men before. I was very angry and hurt that she did not want to be with me because
of my sexuality.

A negative experience has been the continual labeling and questioning of my
sexuality in the LGBT community. Even within the LGBT community there are
hierarchies and assumptions, "bisexual" individuals, like myself, are constantly
made aware of being of different communities, gay and straight, at all instances.

61
Experiencing a Tragic Event
Five out of 100 incidents (5%) were included in this grouping. Respondents in
this category (Tragedy) experienced a significant tragic event that impacted their identity.
Some of these events involved family members, some lovers, and some strangers.
Illustrations can be seen below.
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.

I was sexually assaulted in my own room my first year in college. The person who
attacked me was a fellow hall mate 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 hall mate 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.

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.

Being Involved in a Conflictual Situation that Solidified my View of Myself
Four out of 100 incidents (4%) were included in this grouping. Respondents in
this category (Conflict) experienced a significant conflict that had the impact of changing
their world view.
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 me and what I need to let go of.

62

My roommate and I got into a fight my sophomore year. We were very close or so
I thought until I tried to get to know her better and found her unwilling to be as
intimate with me as I had wanted to be. This caused a rift between us and really
made me step back and reevaluate myself and how I deal with others. I think it
helped me because it forced me to try with a friendship instead of giving up on it,
as before I would have just cut ties with this person. I found it also helped me
with confrontation and constructive disagreements as well as speaking more
concisely without being hurtful. It really made me love people a lot more and
helped me come full circle in the quest to love myself as I accepted that I had
personality flaws that made me uniquely who I am.

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 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.’ 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 following it.

Experiencing Homophobia
This category (Homophobia) was the second largest category and included 12 of
the 100 responses (12%). Respondents in this category had witnessed or experienced
homophobic remarks or actions that were violent, harassing or offensive in nature. These
remarks and actions were instigated or condoned by roommates, dorm residents, students,
teachers, neighbors, and local community members.
When I lived in the dorms on our campus, I was harassed quite a bit. One
particular incident involved someone taking my name plate off my door, ripping it
up into pieces in our bathroom, and burning a swastika on the ceiling above it.
That person was never caught. I felt very unsafe and the incident was reported to
the police and campus security and I had to move to a new dorm.

63
A close friend of mine told me he would not let his children hang out with my
children because he would not want his children to believe that homosexuality is
okay. I knew he was conservative and we had often discussed homosexuality in
the past. But this statement struck me as one of the cruelest things a friend could
say to another friend. It created a sense in me that no matter how 'normal' I am, I
would still be seen as an 'other,' even to my friends.

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.

Feeling Judged or Labeled by Others
Six of 100 incidents (6%) fit into this category (Judgment) and involved
experiences where students felt labeled or judged, often as being part of a marginalized
group and in reference to their sexual or gender identities. Instances are cited below.
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
who 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 our
society treats marginal groups should stop whining and just get over it.

I went to the health center to ask about the possibility of sterilization surgery and
the doctor was very hesitant about even talking about it. She finally sighed and
gave me the ‘Are you trans?’ interview, and I answered no. She then labeled me
as ‘gender neutral’ and sent me off to watch videos about safe sex for
heterosexual couples. I felt this was a very important day in my life because I
realized how quick people are to label me, my sexual orientation, and my gender
status. I like to live without definite labels and more of a floating status, so this
accusation just hurt since it was so cold and abrupt. This doctor doesn't know me.
She can't possibly know how I view myself and my body, but she labeled it all. It
makes me nervous to talk about any of these topics to people other than my
partner.

This year I chose to move back into the dorms on campus. The building I live in
has only single rooms, but the floors are still gendered (two for 'boys' and two for
'girls'). The bathrooms are also gendered, unfortunately. I identify as gender queer
or gender variant, I am female-bodied, and I present as male. So, public
bathrooms pose a huge issue for me. After getting really awful looks from some

64
of the girls on my floor when they saw me in the female bathroom (while
presenting male), I decided I would be much more comfortable in the male
bathroom, especially since I knew more people on the male floor, so I felt safer.
After a week of using the male bathroom, I felt confident that the guys either
thought I was male or didn't care one way or the other. Even the RA didn't say
anything. It was an amazing feeling to have some sense of being in the ‘right’
bathroom. One day, however, I walked out of the male bathroom and my female
RA was standing outside the door. She called me by my female name (which I
haven't used in a really long time), and told me I have to use the girls' bathroom
like the rest of them. It was devastating. I felt like my RA didn't respect me and
that although the campus is gay-friendly, there is nothing but ignorance and
intolerance toward the queer and Trans community. I now use the female
bathroom because I can get serious fines getting caught in the ‘wrong’ bathroom.
I feel uncomfortable and unwelcome in my own living situation. It made me feel
like it would just be easier to closet myself again until I got out of the dorms.
Very little makes me feel that way.

Frequency of Categories
Table 2 is a summarization of the frequency of categories found in the Phase I
CYEQ responses in addition to the mean values of the year during college in which the
experience occurred, the positive value attributed to the incidents, and the eventual effect
on sense of self. These findings are reported in the following sections.
Year in College
The College Years Experience Questionnaire asked respondents to identify their
standing in college. Using a coding system where 1=Junior and 2=Senior class standing,
the mean value of the reported standing was 1.65, indicating there were over one and a
half times more Seniors participating than Juniors.
Because the mean value of class standing was 1.65, this was used as the marker
for determining whether there was more than the average number of respondents who
were seniors or juniors for any given category. In eight categories, seniors responded on
average (more than 1.65) more often than juniors. Those categories include

65
ACCEPTANCE, CAMPUS ORGS, CLASS, SUPPORT, SEX AWAKEN, CONFLICT,
HOMOPHOBIA, and JUDGMENT. ACCEPTANCE, CAMPUS ORGS, SUPPORT,
CONFLICT, and HOMOPHOBIA, were among the highest scores, ranging from 1.75 to
1.86, indicating that more seniors responded with life experiences in these categories. In
six categories, juniors responded on average (less than 1.65) less often than seniors.
Those categories include ROLE MODELS, LEADERSHIP, SIGNIF REL, SELF-
AWARE, BI-PHOBIA, and TRAGEDY. Of these, LEADERSHIP, SELF-AWARE, and
BI-PHOBIA were among the lowest scores, ranging from 1.33 to 1.46, indicating that
more juniors responded to these categories.
Positive Value Rating
The CYEQ concluded with two additional questions. The first question asked
respondents to determine the degree to which they experienced the incident as positive on
a continuum ranging from 1, being Very Negative, to 7, being Very Positive. The second
question asked the respondents to assess what the eventual effect this incident or
experience had on their sense of self using the same seven point scale.
Table 2 shows eight categories of experiences were perceived as generally
positive with mean values ranging from 5.20 to 6.60 on the seven point scale.
Experiencing Acceptance after Coming Out was perceived as the most positive category
of experience. Experiencing Positive Role Models and Participating in Campus
Organizations were the next highest scores at 6.50. Six categories were perceived as
generally negative with mean values ranging from 2.00 to 4.00. Feeling Judged or
Labeled by Others was the category that received the most negative rating by Phase I

66
respondents. Being Involved in a Conflictual Situation that Solidified my View of Myself
and Experiencing Homophobia were the next to most negative ratings.
Eventual Effect of Experience on Sense of Self
This CYEQ question assumed the respondents would differentiate between the
perceived positive or negative quality of the described incident as it was experienced at
the time and its eventual effect on sense of self.
The category of Experiencing the Support of Others is the only category where all
respondents indicated that the eventual effect was a seven, the highest ranking possible
on the 7 point scale, yet in nine others, the eventual effect rating is still higher than the
original rating of the participant. Only one of these categories (CAMPUS ORGS) had a
more negative eventual effect than the initial experience but was still on the positive end
of the continuum.
In three categories (SIGNIF REL, ROLE MODELS, ACCEPTANCE) the
eventual effect and the initial experience received the same mean value on the positive
continuum with values of 5.67, 6.50 and 6.60 respectively. Likewise, in three categories
(HOMOPHOBIA, JUDGMENT, AND SELF-AWARE), while they showed an increase
from the positivity value, still remained on the negative end of the continuum with scores
of 4.0, 4.33, and 4.43 respectively. There were also three categories where the positivity
rating was negative but the eventual effect was positive. Those three categories were
Being Involved in a Conflictual Situation that Solidified my View of Myself, Experiencing
Bi-Phobia and Experiencing a Tragic Event.

67
Phase II Results
During Phase II, the MDS and cluster analyses were conducted on the similarity
data resulting in a concept map that attempts to answer the second research question
What graphic representation in the form of a concept map best describes the impact of
college on identity development for LGBTQ students? The results of the procedures
conducted as part of the overall analysis process are presented below.
Multidimensional Scaling (MDS)
The sum of similarity ratings from respondents was used by the non-metric MDS
from the Paired Comparison Questionnaire to represent the numerical values as points on
a plane. Though several different dimensions are theoretically possible, there were only
14 categories that were subjected to MDS and therefore the solution was constrained to
two dimensions. As shown in Table 3 below, the two dimensions are represented with a
set of x-y coordinates, or dimensional weights.
Table 3. Dimension Values

Category Dimension 1 (x) Dimension 2 (y)
Support .96 -1.80
Acceptance -.13 1.69
Sex Awaken -.83 -.50
Self-Aware 2.49 .40
Role Models .16 -1.67
Signif Rel .38 1.17
Bi-phobia -1.10 -.44
Homophobia -1.09 -.28
Conflict -.15 -.78
Campus Orgs .48 1.21
Leadership -.88 -.18
Class -.46 .27
Tragedy -1.06 .76
Judgment 1.22 .17

68
Although a three dimensional solution was also examined, in this instance the
ratio of objects (14) to dimensions (3) was low, indicating that a three dimensional
solution would not be a better fit to the data. The three dimensional solution produced a
stress value of .21, while the two dimensional solution produced a stress value of .31.
The lower the stress value score the more stable the solution. Bedi and Alexander (2004)
stated that, if cluster analysis is combined with multi-dimensional scaling, then a two
dimensional model can be used. The .30 threshold for solution stability is met in the
three dimensional model and at the cusp of stable solutions in the two dimensional model
(Bedi & Alexander, 2004). Limitations of this will be discussed in Chapter 4. Using the
Euclidean Distance Model, a two dimensional solution was represented in the scatter plot
as shown in Figure 1. The RSQ value is .51 and represents the proportion of variance of
the scaled data (disparities) accounted for by the corresponding distances (Bedi &
Alexander, 2004).
Figure 1. Euclidean Distance Model

69
Visual inspection of the Euclidean Distance Model, with regards to position of
each item in relation to each other and the dimensions, is an important step in interpreting
the concept map (Darcy et al., 2004). The category of Having an Experience that
Resulted in Greater Self-Awareness (SELF-AWARE) is at one end of the continuum
represented by Dimension 1, while Experiencing Bi-Phobia or Homophobia (BI-
PHOBIA or HOMORPHOBIA) appears at the other end. Dimension 1 was labeled
Responding to External versus Internal Processes. Dimension 2 was anchored by the
category of Experiencing Acceptance after Coming Out (ACCEPTANCE) on one end of
the spectrum to the categories of Experiencing the Support of Others (SUPPORT) and
Experiencing Positive Role Models (ROLE MODELS) at the other end. This dimension
was labeled Finding Support through Others versus Acceptance of Self.
Hierarchical Cluster Analysis
Different structures in data are revealed through the complementary nature of
MDS and hierarchical cluster analysis. “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 distance of each concept from the
others was evaluated using the Ward Linkage Method, forming the dendrogram displayed
in Figure 2.

70
Figure 2. Dendrogram using Ward Method

The dendrogram above was cut at point 19 creating three clusters illustrating
cohesion among the categories within that particular structure. This conceptual
uniformity among categories is what determines the cutting point and number of clusters
chosen.
Cluster 1 is titled Life-Changing Incidents and includes the categories of
Experiencing homophobia, Experiencing bi-phobia, Being involved with leadership,
Experiencing a sexual awakening, Experiencing a tragic event, and Experiencing a class
that changed my view of myself. These six categories reflect life-changing incidents that
helped to integrate and solidify both public and private identities.
Cluster 2 is titled Interactive Intimacy and is comprised of the categories of
Participating in campus organizations, Having a significant relationship, and Being
involved in a conflictual situation that solidified my view of myself. Each of these

71
categories involves a social interaction of a more personal nature that required a greater
commitment to one’s identity.
Cluster 3 is composed of five categories: Experiencing positive role models,
Experiencing the support of others, Feeling judged or labeled by others, Having an
experience that resulted in greater self-awareness, and Experiencing acceptance after
coming out. This cluster is titled Affirmation of Self. These categories represent those
who undergo greater awareness, begin to see themselves as different and separate as a
group, who speak up as part of that group, and seek acceptance through support and role
models. Each of these represents a different aspect of affirming one’s self.
Figure 3. Concept Map: Sources of Impact of College on LGBTQ Students’ Identity
Development

CHAPTER 4

Life-Changing
Incidents
Affirmation
of Self
Interactive
Intimacy
Responding to External vs. Internal Processes
Finding Support through Others
vs. Acceptance of Self

72
CHAPTER IV
DISCUSSION
This study articulated two research questions to be examined:
1. What categories of college-related impacts will LGBTQ college students report as
having been particularly important to the development of their sense of self?
2. What conceptual map do LGBTQ college students use to organize their
understanding of these categories of experiences?
The first question was answered through Phase I data and its connection to literature
whereas the second question was addressed from the analyses conducted on data
collected during Phase II. Research findings, limitations of the study, directions for
future research, as well as implications for higher education practitioners, are discussed.
Although there have been many studies of factors that affect identity development
of college students, this study was one of few to focus specifically on the unique
experiences of LGBTQ college students. The results add to the current body of literature
by supporting recent findings regarding sources of impact for LGBTQ college students.
In particular, this study confirmed the importance of visible and accessible role models in
the lives of LGBTQ students; the need to participate in leadership opportunities; the
significance of campus support networks including campus organizations and LGBTQ
Centers; and the need for support systems, residence halls that are open and affirming,
and class curriculum that reflects LGBTQ experiences and perspectives.
The study also draws attention to those sources of impact that have been
detrimental to their development and overall well-being. There are many things that can

73
make a college or university campus environment unsafe for LGBTQ college students.
Some of those mentioned are: deficiency of resources including a scarcity of staff,
organizations, or support networks; shortage of sensitivity, awareness and training; and
lack of access to curriculum, role models, or gender neutral bathrooms. Unfortunately,
some of what can make a campus environment unsafe are people within the LGBTQ
community itself indicating a need to support structures, events and activities that
promote healing.
It is clear that the identity development for LGBTQ college students is complex
and needs further study. Each individual sub-group of this study deserves extensive
research to uncover its unique nuances, indicators and needs. No groups are more
unexamined than transgender and queer which warrants particular attention.
Phase I
College Experiences LGBTQ Students Perceive as Influential on Identity
Of the 100 CYEQ responses given by LGBTQ college students, 14 categories
emerged which represent the relationships, events and experiences participants identified
as having significance regarding their identity and sense of self. These themes can be
associated with key factors that theory and previous research have identified as
influencing personal identity development. These were stated previously and help
organize the study into the following categories: college-based relationships (faculty,
staff and peers); non-college-based relationships (family, friends and employers);
curricular and extra-curricular activities; and campus organizations and events. Table 4
lists these key factor categories that were identified during the literature review.

74
Although each theme could go under several of the categories listed (e.g. Homophobia is
a phenomenon experienced in college and non-college based relationships), each is listed
with the category under which it will be discussed. These categories are examined for
alignment with current research.
Table 4. Themes by Key Factor Categories

Category Themes
College-Based Relationships
Experiencing acceptance after coming out
Experiencing the support of others
Having a significant relationship
Experiencing positive role models
Non-College-Based Relationships
Experiencing a sexual awakening
Having an experience that resulted in greater self-awareness
Experiencing a tragic event
Being involved in a conflictual situation that solidified my view of myself
Curricular and Extra-Curricular Activities
Experiencing a class that changed my worldview
Experiencing bi-phobia
Experiencing homophobia
Feeling judged or labeled by others
Campus Organizations and Events
Participating in campus organizations
Being involved with leadership

College-Based Relationships

Experiencing Acceptance after Coming Out received the highest positivity value
rating among the fourteen themes and Experiencing the Support of Others received the
highest eventual effect rating. There is an obvious thematic overlap between these two
themes in that incidents of support were predicated on coming out. Students spoke of
experiencing support from various social networks which helped them embrace and
express their identity more courageously. These experiences are supported in

75
D’Augelli’s (1991) research which found college students receive more support in their
identity development after coming out to other students.
Many respondents indicated in their critical incidents that after coming out, they
felt more accepting of and confident in themselves. The theme of Experiencing
Acceptance after Coming Out is confirmed by Rhoads (1994, 1997) research which
suggests that college settings provide freedom from parental oversight and narrow high
school norms, tolerance and openness toward differences, and availability of gay social
networks affording a context in which sexual identities can be comfortably explored and
disclosed (Rhoads, 1997). It is also supported by the work of Stevens (2004) who
postulates that positive, supportive incidents, such as finding acceptance from peers,
increases comfort in the integration of gay identity within the college environment.
Rejection, isolation, and invisibility decreases as perceived support networks, self-
assurance, and confidence increases (Stevens, 2004). The respondents in this study,
similar to those of Rhoads’, emphasize that these social networks were paramount in
establishing and maintaining a positive sense of self (Rhoads, 1997).
The theme of Having a Significant Relationship with Another Person reflects
consistent responses by participants that were of equal value on both the positivity and
eventual effect scales (5.67). Several of these responses were not romantic in nature and
therefore could have also been placed in the role model category. The role model
category was reserved for people whom they looked up to as opposed to people with
whom they had more intimate connection and relationship. Generally speaking, the role
model category had higher positive and eventual effect values. Significant relationships

76
are more intimate and require some navigation through both positive and negative
experiences. Role models, on the other hand, are often revered and set apart. This would
account for the difference in eventual effect values.
Lack of role models as well as the pervasiveness of homophobia and heterosexism
has significantly influenced the identity development among LGBT college students
(Plummer, 1989). This has been reaffirmed by Stevens’ (2004) research on gay student
identity citing the lack of visible LGB faculty or staff role models on campus. When
faculty members exist and are visible, they are overwhelmed at the student need for
guidance, support, and advice (Stevens, 2004).
There has been an increase in promising practices at colleges and universities all
over the United States indicating that student affairs offices are beginning to see its
importance. Career counselors have created a “mentoring web” at the University of
Maryland to provide guidance and role models to LGBT students. At the University of
Massachusetts-Amherst residence halls are offering interest housing for LGBT-identified
students (Van Puymbroeck, 2001), and at over 100 different institutions, LGBTQ
resource centers exist to provide this kind of support (Renn & Bilodeau, 2005).
This kind of support promotes psychological well-being. Research maintains that
there is a significant relationship between identity support and increased self-esteem and
life satisfaction. Likewise, devaluation of identity will lead to a decrease in these areas
and include depression (Beal et al., 2005).
Non-College-Based Relationships

There are four areas covered under this category: Experiencing a Sexual
Awakening, Having an Experience that Resulted in Greater Self-Awareness,

77
Experiencing a Tragic Event, and Being Involved in a Conflictual Situation that
Solidified my View of Myself. Experiencing a Sexual Awakening was described in seven
of the incidents. The positivity and eventual effect values were 5.20 and 5.60
respectively. The standard deviation for positivity value is 1.64 indicating disparity in
the responses. These incidents involved people who have had some kind of sexual
feeling or experience which led to a new consciousness or awakening.
Most of the research regarding gay intimacy speaks of long-term romantic
relationships and does not typically focus on sexual behavior (Fassinger & Miller, 1996)
unless it is about sexual addiction or sexual behavior as it relates to the acquiring of
sexually transmitted infections. Romance or intimacy is reviewed in terms of its position
in sexual identity models (D’Augelli, 1994) whereas sexual behavior is typically seen as
the catalyst for the coming out process as part of the “Exploration” stage (Coleman,
1982; Fassinger, 1996).
For some gay men, this can be too confining. Many gay men will speak of having
long-term committed relationships while having extra relationships on the side. Such a
scenario does not fit within current models or paradigms and would be viewed as “less
evolved” in the stages defining the sexual identity process. Understanding the need for
an open relationship does not have to negate the intimacy experienced in primary
relationships. This is more consistent with Fassinger (1996) whose model counters the
simplicity of her predecessors. We need a model that looks outside of the usual paradigm
of developmental progression and incorporates a process that is more fluid.

78
The theme of Having an Experience that Resulted in Greater Self-Awareness had
a low positive and eventual effect score. It also had the highest standard deviation
indicating there was a wide range of scored responses. There were 13 incidents that
made up this category which spoke of various issues: prejudice, relationships, lifestyle,
religion, speaking up, choosing friends, leaving school, and choice of majors. Even
though each of these led to greater self-awareness, some were portrayed as negative
experiences and some as positive. This is also one category where some respondents
claimed that the eventual effect on sense of self was less than the original positivity
feeling when first experienced.
Students in the earlier and later stages of sexual identity formation display greater
mastery of psychosocial development (Developing Autonomy and Developing Purpose)
than those in the middle stages. The lesbian and gay students seem to retreat in
psychosocial development around the middle stages of sexual identity development as
defined by Cass (1979), despite class level. The positivity and eventual effect ratings
support Levine and Bahr’s conclusion regarding a developmental lag. As sexual identity
formation advances, previously resolved student development tasks may require
reevaluation, creating the developmental lag. In addition, psychosocial tasks may be
suspended until the sexual identity issue is further explored (Tomlinson & Fassinger,
2003).
There were four incidents where students described going in one direction and
then changing to another: changing majors, cancelling an engagement, traveling
overseas, and leaving school for financial reasons. It is not clear whether any of these

79
decisions were tied to sexual identity formation or if they resulted in a “lag” time and
retreat from certain psychosocial tasks. What is known is that sexual identity in college
is intricately woven throughout a student’s life. The inability to be out, for example,
means that everything is hidden and done in secret. It will impact a student’s ability to
study, work, and play sports, bringing with it a myriad of psychological and psychosocial
issues.
In the category entitled Experiencing a Tragic Event, five respondents wrote
about tragedies that happened to others as well as themselves. While there is much
written about adversity toward LGBTQ college students, there is very little written
regarding how they handle general difficulties in their lives and how that impacts their
identity. Experiencing a Tragic Event is not specific to LGBTQ students but is a part of
student life in general. Marszalek et al. (2002) used Cass’ Homosexual Identity
Formation Model (HIF) and the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) to measure
psychological distress. They found that participants in the upper stages of Cass’ HIF
Model were less likely to have psychological distress than those in the lower stages,
especially on the depression and psychoticism subscales of the BSI (Marszalek et al.,
2002). This supports similar findings by other researchers (Brady & Busse, 1994;
Miranda & Storms, 1989) and reinforces all the more why colleges and universities
should have programs and services that help students move through sexual identity
stages.
This category had a low positivity value (3.25) but a somewhat high eventual
effect (5.25). Of the five respondents in this category, four were male. This low

80
positivity score is consistent with the study of Marszalek et al. (2002) showing gay male
participants have higher levels of psychological distress than both male norms and
lesbian groups. Having higher psychological stress regarding other male groups is
understandable considering the heterosexist society in which we live. It is more
interesting that gay men scored higher than lesbians in terms psychological stress. This
may be because gay men experience more societal homophobia than lesbians, less social
acceptability regarding emotional or physical intimacy than for women, and more
internalized homophobia (Marszalek et al., 2002).
One final theme in this category is Being Involved in a Conflictual Situation that
Solidified my View of Myself. These conflicts were with people with whom each shared a
personal and somewhat in-depth relationship. The conflicts involved differences of
opinion about what was important or what one needed. In each case the respondent
learned a lesson about himself or herself. This category had the highest standard
deviation (2.83) regarding positivity value indicating that there were wide differences
regarding the rating of this experience. However, most agreed it had a high eventual
effect (6.5).
Various relationships exist among sexual orientation and other identity
dimensions. Some of these relationships include unresolved conflicts,
compartmentalization, and partial integration. Those who explored these associations
only did so if they had a sense of empowerment about their sexual orientation (Abes &
Jones, 2004; Stevens, 2004).

81
Curricular and Extra-Curricular Activities
Four themes have been identified under the key factors of Curricular and Extra-
Curricular Activities. These themes include: Experiencing a Class that Changed my
Worldview, Experiencing Homophobia, Experiencing Bi-Phobia, and Feeling Judged
or Labeled by Others. The category of Experiencing a Class that Changed my
Worldview had both high positivity and eventual effect values. This validates the
impact classroom instruction and structure has on college students. These classes were
typically challenging in a way that expanded the student’s worldview and fostered
greater self-acceptance and awareness. Courses covered various topics from sexuality
to women’s studies. Several students stated developing greater awareness also involved
recognizing the limitations and extremism in embracing a new worldview.
It is apparent that in classroom settings demeaning comments about LGBT
students prove to be harmful. A clear example of this is reported in the incidents
regarding bi-phobic remarks from professors toward students. When supportive
remarks on gay issues were made or when instructors self-identified as gay or lesbian,
students found it to be more helpful (Evans & Herriott, 2004).
In 1993, D’Augelli documented that LGBT persons were invisible in college
curricula across various domains. That has changed on many college campuses with
the emergence of sexuality and identity themed courses. Although this may give
LGBTQ students a place to explore and integrate their identities, it does not mean that
all classes allow for such exploration or that all instructors are able, trained or prepared
to deal with the complexities of the LGBTQ population. Although gay students believe

82
it is the professor’s responsibility to address homophobic or anti-gay behavior and
foster a nurturing environment (Stevens, 2004), this too frequently does not occur. It is
then left upon the shoulders of LGBTQ students to teach professors how to be
advocates or to find and create acceptance where they can.
The theme of Experiencing Homophobia had the second largest number of
responses as well as the second to the lowest positivity value (2.2) and lowest eventual
effect (4.0). This is understandable considering the extent of violence and hatred targeted
at the LGBTQ population. LGBTQ students have had to deal with harassment and
assault, hateful speech, unsupportive professors and peers, not to mention judgmental
religious groups that claim their life is a choice and not an orientation. This kind of
experience was common place for respondents. Therefore, decisions about when and
where to come out, along with whom, pervade the coming out process whether there is
perceived or real homophobia present (Rhoads, 1994, 1997; Stevens, 2004). The
increased visibility combined with possible hostile, homophobic environments creates a
potentially lethal combination with which school personnel must deal.
Although Experiencing Bi-Phobia was on the negative end of the continuum in
terms of positivity ranking (3.25), it was one of three that moved to the positive end of
the continuum in terms of overall eventual effect (5.25). While the theme of
Experiencing Bi-Phobia would seem to be in alignment with homophobia, in many ways
it is not. As long as bisexuals are outwardly expressing their bisexuality in same-gender
relationships, they will experience the same kind of discrimination and hostility as do
gays and lesbians. The more interesting element is not that bi-phobia exists among

83
heterosexuals, but that it is all too pervasive within the LGBTQ community. In cases
where members from the LGBTQ community are in positions that could offer support
and acceptance (e.g., instructors, campus organizational leaders, Resident Assistants),
they don’t always do so.
In fact, every bi-phobic incident represented by respondents in this study came
from members within the LGBTQ community. These comments came from professors,
campus organizational leaders, co-workers and friends. Statements were made that
somehow bisexuals could not make up their mind and therefore were not really “gay” or
“lesbian” as though they failed to meet the criteria for membership. Each example is
reflective of fear and indicative of the healing that must occur in the community as a
whole. In truth, isn’t it indicative of insecurity regarding the ability to love and please a
partner without him or her leaving for the opposite sex? The fact that the overall eventual
effect was two points higher than the positive rating reflects the ability on the part of
bisexuals to see past the judgment and find good, even when it is their own community
that is being short sighted.
Feeling Judged or Labeled by Others was a theme that consisted of six incidents.
This category had the lowest positivity value (2.0) and the second lowest eventual effect
on self (4.33). Judgments or labels occurred through various mediums (class, work,
health center) and regarding different topics (race, gender identification, dress and
politics). It is understandable that these students would rate these experiences as low in
that they were categorized in ways that were limiting, negative and dismissive.

84
Four of the six incidents under the JUDGMENT theme were directly related to
being LGBTQ. Some of the most heartbreaking episodes were written by those who are
gender queer. Not only does society not know how to handle the gender queer
community, neither does the LGBTQ population in general.
As LGBTQ students become more visible on campuses, they also become bigger
targets. While some experience acceptance after coming out, that very act often subjects
them to direct homophobic attacks. Rhoads affirms that this is often a common
experience when he wrote, “The improved sense of self, self-confidence, and ‘state of
honesty’ [are] counterbalanced with the pervasive heterosexism and homophobia in
residence halls and classrooms” (Rhoads, 1995, p. 70).
Campus Organizations and Events
Two themes are prominent under this key factor: Participating in Campus
Organizations and Being Involved with Leadership. Although Participating in Campus
Organizations was the second highest positivity rating, it is also the only theme that
scored lower in terms of eventual effect. These scores by respondents lends validity to
D’Augelli’s (1991, 1993), Rhoads’s (1997a, 1997b), and Stevens’ (2004) studies
confirming the pivotal role LGBT Centers play in supporting identity integration and the
development of social networks. Since the death of Matthew Shepard in 1998, over 60
new LGBTQ staffed centers have been created on college and university campuses all
over the United States. Campus environments can be open, hostile or null toward gay
and lesbian students. Those that are overtly or covertly hostile promote homophobia and
heterosexism. Campuses that have null environments, while they are not overtly

85
homophobic, lack support and services. They represent a status quo of behavior that
reinforces societal stigma attached to sexual orientations (Fassinger, 1991).
The theme of Being Involved with Leadership had the fewest incidents. Although
there is a wide disparity between responses on the positivity scale, the eventual effect
(6.67) ranked second highest and was more often experienced by juniors than by seniors.
While there is abundant literature on leadership development, there is little on identity-
based leadership (Arminio et al., 2000; Liang et al., 2002; Porter’s, 1998; Sutton &
Terrell’s, 1997; Yamasaki, 1995) and even less on lesbian and gay identity leadership
(D’Augelli, 1991; Kezar & Moriarty, 2000; Renn, 2000b; Rhoads, 1994, 1998). Yet,
each researcher affirms what these students experienced which is that “being involved in
leadership activities related to some facet of identity (gender, ethnicity, sexual
orientation) promotes positive development of leadership or activism and personal
identity” (Renn & Bilodeau, 2005a, p. 344).
Phase II
Conceptual Categories of Identity Defining Experiences
The second question the study asked was, “What categories of college-related
impacts will LGBTQ college students report as having been particularly important to the
development of their sense of self?” The study used MDS and hierarchical cluster
analysis (HCA) to obtain this information through data analysis of the Phase II Paired
Comparison Questionnaire.
Using the Euclidean Distance Model, MDS resulted in a two dimensional plane
configuration upon which 14 categories of experience are situated, as shown in Figure 1

86
in Chapter 3. Multidimensional Scaling methodology positions the categories whereby
the distance between points on the plane represents the degree of similarity with each
other. This map symbolizes how participants organize the framework of categories.
In terms of Dimension 1, the category of Having an Experience that Resulted in
Greater Self-Awareness is at one end of the continuum while Experiencing Bi-Phobia or
Homophobia appears at the other end. Dimension 1 was labeled Responding to External
versus Internal Processes.
The external and internal processes on Dimension 1 are components of what
Marcia would call identity diffusion and identity achievement. Identity diffusion has to
do with not knowing what to do with one’s life and not being able to come to any
conclusions. This can be seen in the categories of Having an Experience that Resulted in
Greater Self-Awareness and Feeling Judged or Labeled by Others. Identity achievement
means that after exploration of realistic options, choices are made and there is a
commitment to pursuing them (Dembo, 2004). This can be seen in the categories of
Experiencing Acceptance after Coming Out, Experiencing a Sexual Awakening, Being
Involved with Leadership, Experiencing Homophobia and Experiencing Bi-Phobia.
Dimension 1 is representative of Chickering and Reisser’s (1993) vectors two
through six, where experiences of greater awareness can lead to autonomy and more
interdependence, where development of a social identity can lead to an ease in one’s
sexual identity and living life with a sense of purpose (Chickering & Reisser, 1993). This
is seen in the categories of Having an Experience that Resulted in Greater Self-
Awareness, Having a Significant Relationship, Participating in Campus Organizations,

87
Experiencing Acceptance after Coming Out, Experiencing a Sexual Awakening, and
Being Involved with Leadership.
With regards to Dimension 2, participants placed the category of Experiencing
Acceptance after Coming Out on one end of the dimension and Experiencing the Support
of Others at the other end. Experiencing Positive Role Models was close to Experiencing
the Support of Others. Examination of these categories along this dimension indicated a
division between internal acceptance and outward support. This dimension was labeled
Finding Support through Others versus Acceptance of Self. This dimension represents a
movement from internally accepting who one is to more of a gradual outward expression
through campus organizations, leadership and the seeking out of positive role models.
According to Troiden’s (1989) Identity Assumption stage, individuals can have a
self-identity and a presented identity. A presented identity is when one is ready to tell
others and self-identify as gay or lesbian. Individuals will experiment sexually, associate
with other gays and lesbians, and begin to explore the subculture. This can be seen in the
categories of Experiencing the Support of Others and Experiencing a Sexual Awakening.
The emphasis during this time is on tolerance and acceptance. It becomes a time of
learning to manage stigma, neutralize guilt, legitimize desires, and explore various roles
and norms of conduct. While attempting to blend the self-identity and presented identity
together, individuals may try to live “double lives” or pass as heterosexual. They also
may make an effort to refer to their identity in gender atypical ways or may avoid same-
sex activities all together. It is the contact with other LGBTQ people that enables
individuals to manage stigma in effective ways (Blumenfeld, 1992; Troiden, 1989).

88
When the internal and external dimensions are integrated, LGBTQ people arrive
at a stage called commitment. They internally accept their identity as a state of being and
externally they are out and open and able to enter into same-gender relationships while
managing stigma through a variety of strategies (Blumenfeld, 1992; Troiden, 1989). This
can be seen in the categories of Being Involved with Leadership, Having a Significant
Relationship, Participating in Campus Organizations, and Experiencing Acceptance after
Coming Out.
Cluster Analysis and the LGBTQ Conceptual Map
A hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) on the dimensional plane was formed
through MDS and resulted in the concept map that answers the last research question:
What conceptual map do LGBTQ college students use to organize their understanding of
these categories of experiences? This concept map was portrayed as Figure 3 in the
previous chapter. Using Ward’s Linkage Model, a dendrogram was created as displayed
in Figure 2. This dendrogram was analyzed to find meaningful clusters. Three clusters
of categories were recognized as shown in. The rationale for each cluster is described
below.

89
Table 5. Clusters of Categories

CLUSTERS INCLUDED CATEGORIES

Life-Changing Incidents

HOMOPHOBIA
BI-PHOBIA
LEADERSHIP
SEX AWAKEN
TRAGEDY
CLASS

Interactive Intimacy

CAMPUS ORGS
SIGNIF REL
CONFLICT

Affirmation of Self

ROLE MODELS
SUPPORT
JUDGMENT
SELF-AWARE
ACCEPTANCE

The first cluster, named Life-Changing Incidents, contains six categories:
Experiencing Homophobia, Experiencing Bi-Phobia, Being Involved with Leadership,
Experiencing a Sexual Awakening, Experiencing a Tragic Event, and Experiencing a
Class that Changed my Worldview. These six categories reflect life-changing incidents
that helped to integrate and solidify both public and private identities (Blumenfeld, 1992;
Coleman, 1982). Experiencing a Class that Changed my Worldview and Experiencing a
Sexual Awakening supported students in their identity development because the
experiences gave them knowledge about LGBTQ issues, relations, and culture as well as
a context for exploration and expression of that knowledge. It also challenged their
identities by forcing them to articulate how they viewed the world differently. Likewise,

90
Being Involved with Leadership gave them ways to solidify their identity in public venues
while having to deal with the constant homophobia and bi-phobia that often comes with
such a visible stance. Experiencing a Tragic Event required that students develop
resiliency through taking care of family, surviving the suicide of a partner and being
sexually assaulted. Each of these incidents was life-changing and impactful.
Cluster 2 is titled Interactive Intimacy, and it includes the categories of
Participating in Campus Organizations, Having a Significant Relationship, and Being
Involved in a Conflictual Situation that Solidified my View of Myself. Each of these
categories involves a social interaction of a more personal nature that required a greater
commitment to one’s identity. Participants in each of these categories described
interpersonal connections that involved depths in relationship which gave strength,
guidance and support. Interactive Intimacies is a phrase used by D’Augelli (1994) to
refer to the kinds of intimacies found with parents and partners. While this cluster is not
limited to parents and partners, it is the reflective of the kind of depth and interaction
described in these three categories.
It is understandable that Participating in Campus Organizations and Having a
Significant Relationship would be so closely clustered. Many of the most pertinent and
significant relationships described by respondents happened through interaction in and
among campus organizations. That intricately ties these two categories together and
reflects their importance for LGBTQ college students in the development of identity.
Cluster 3 is comprised of five categories: Experiencing Positive Role Models,
Experiencing the Support of Others, Feeling Judged or Labeled by Others, Having an

91
Experience that Resulted in Greater Self-Awareness, and Experiencing Acceptance after
Coming Out. This cluster is titled Affirmation of Self. Even though self awareness is not
always tied to sexual identity formation, as has been stated earlier, sexual identity is
intricately woven through all life experiences. A student may simply become more self-
aware in general, but this awareness further strengthens overall identity and sexual
identity in particular.
These categories represent those who undergo greater awareness, begin to see
themselves as different from society as a whole and separate as a group unto themselves,
who speak up as part of that group, and seek acceptance from that group through support
and role models. All of these represent various affirmations of self. As students
experience the judgment of the world around them, they become more self-aware and
develop a greater inner strength. They see themselves as different from the world and
develop a more positive view of themselves. They seek out support which further affirms
and strengthens who they are individually. They also see themselves as part of a larger
group. They seek out role models to understand themselves better and to know how to be
in the world. They undergo self-acceptance as part of the LGBTQ population.
The two categories in closest proximity in Cluster 3 are Experiencing Positive
Role Models and Experiencing the Support of Others. As was stated earlier, those who
were part of Experiencing the Support of Others were not romantic in nature and
therefore could have also been placed in the role model category. The role model
category was reserved for people whom they looked up to as opposed to people with

92
whom they had more intimate connection and relationship. This accounts for why these
two categories are in close proximity in the conceptual map of students.
Limitations of Study
Two limitations of the study will be highlighted. The first has to do with
participant selection and the second with the validity of findings.
Participant Selection
An understood limitation of the study has to do with participant selection. Several
limitations appeared with regard to using the national university LGBT center online list-
serve Web sites. Although this allowed for participation from all over the United States,
it necessitated that participants have access to computers. Therefore, it was not
representative or reflective of the entire population. In addition, those of low socio-
economic status and who are more closeted may have been denied access. It also
required that students be at universities that had LGBTQ resource centers. Therefore,
participants had access to more resources than those at colleges or universities without
centers.
Another limitation has to do with generalization of the findings. My particular
study focused on LGBTQ students. There was not enough representation from the
Transgender or Queer population, and it was clear that while each sub-group shared some
commonalities, they differed in many others. Furthermore, most of the respondents were
white which represents one particular perspective. It, therefore, cannot be assumed that
the findings from this study represent all aspects of LGBTQ identity, or display the
nuances and complexities of gender, or embody the intricacies of racial and ethnic

93
identity. Of the sample of respondents, only very cautious generalizations should be
made from one sub-group to another. Generalizability is limited to the demographics of
the particular sub-groups because the categories could differ across respondent
populations, ethnicity, gender, setting, and any presenting issue. If replicating this study,
individual focus would be given to each sub-group and more critical incidents ascertained
from people of color.
There are additional limitations surrounding the paired comparison questionnaire
as well. Although students were told that it would take about 15 minutes, several
students communicated that it took over 45 minutes. Some gave up because it took too
long. Several students who did finish the paired comparison questionnaire did not fill out
the positivity or eventual effect rating scales. Because students indicated time was a
factor, it brings into question whether some hurried through the survey to complete it
faster.
This raises several questions regarding Phase II participants. Were they more
tenacious and persistent, and if so, did that skew their responses? Likewise, since some
proxies were used in Phase II, were their responses significantly different than would
have been those who participated in Phase I?
Validity of Findings
Two issues of validity will be discussed in particular: design of the instruments
and interpretation of data. With regards to instrument design, the use of a survey method,
such as the CYEQ and Paired Comparison Questionnaire (PCQ), is frequently criticized
for not providing the necessary depth to understand complex constructs as is the case

94
with college identity development. It is possible that the CYEQ or PCQ posed survey
questions in a way that undermined the validity of the responses; however, the open-
ended response format of the CYEQ better preserves content validity (Desimone & Le
Flock, 2004).
The more serious question of validity has to do with the interpretation of data.
Validity exists only to the extent that the respondent “has a similar understanding of the
questions as the survey designers; and that the questions do not omit or misinterpret
major ideas, or miss important aspects of the phenomena being examined” (Desimone &
Le Flock, 2004, p. 4). Borgatti (1997) also asserts that respondents may not have the
same views as the designers who developed the paired comparisons. They may react to
attributes differently or come from dissimilar perspectives. Additionally, if the same set
of attributes were used, they may assign different scores to each attribute than the
designers. Borgatti gives an example with the attribute of "attractiveness". The designers’
view of what an attractive dog, person, fruit or other item may be very different from the
respondents' (Borgatti, 1997).
Likewise, the proxy’s view of the paired comparisons may be different than those
who shared the critical incidents in Phase I. Therefore, the use of respondent proxies in
Phase II draws the validity and generalizability of the results into question. While the use
of proxies is often necessary, as was the case here, it is recommended that they be used
with caution. If separate MDS and cluster analyses on Phase I and proxy participant
responses were conducted, it could help clarify whether the results were similar between
the two groups and could be used. In this case, however, further analysis could not be

95
done. The total number of Phase II participants was limited to 15 and MVCM is not
considered valid with sample sizes of less than ten (Bedi & Alexander, 2004).
A potential solution to the issue of truly representing the respondents’
perspectives in the category development of the PCQ would be to incorporate a phase
whereby respondents helped develop and evaluate these categories. This would help
ensure that all voices and perspectives were heard and that unnecessary categories were
eliminated.
The final validity issue I will discuss is the use of a two dimensional versus three
dimensional solution in the Euclidean Distance Model. For solution stability, a .30
threshold should be met. In this study, a two dimensional solution produced a stress
value of .308 which is on the cusp of stability. Bedi and Alexander (2004) state, if cluster
analysis is combined with multi-dimensional scaling, then a two dimensional model can
be used. Another view suggests that in certain contexts automatic use of two-
dimensional configurations might make sense. For instance, Kruskal and Wish (1978)
state that the automatic use of two-dimensional configurations makes sense because it is
easier to work with two-dimensional configurations. They state, “When an MDS
configuration is desired primarily as the foundation on which to display clustering results,
then a two-dimensional configuration is far more useful than one involving 3 or more
dimensions” (Kruskal & Wish, 1978, p. 58).
Future Research
Three potential areas for future research can help in understanding the
experiences of LGBTQ college students: (a) compare and contrast the experiences of

96
each sub-group (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Questioning or Queer) to one
another, (b) examine the impact multiple identities has on sense of self, and (c) explore
specifically the sources of impact for each component of a sexual identity model.
One area to be explored for future research is to map the impact of identity
development on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Questioning or Queer groups
separately. Concept maps can be created for each group and then compared to see if
there are any similarities or differences, highlighting particular nuances. Will lesbians
map differently than gay men? Will lesbians and gays map differently than transgender?
This seems likely since gays and lesbians are dealing with sexual identities and
transgenders are dealing predominantly with gender identity and sometimes sexual
identity. Research also seems to support the notion of difference between these groups,
as verified by theorists such as Carol Gilligan, Ruth Fassinger, Richard Stevens, Jean
Phinney and William Cross.
A second area of exploration is to examine the issue of multiple identities and
how this impacts sense of self. Will the experiences of Latina Lesbians map differently
than White? The two other doctoral students, who acted in the role of raters, created
concept maps for gay men and gay, black men respectively. While their studies were
very similar to one another, there were differences for the gay, black men in the realm of
discrimination, masculinity, and unfriendliness. This indicates that there are indeed
different impacts and mapping of experiences for those who have multiple identities
which may be related to issues of racism and masculinity. An interesting point that came
up in the literature review was that many people who have multiple identities experience

97
a “lag” in their development, meaning that they may be progressing at the same rate as
their peers in terms of developmental stages, but as they take time out to explore another
identity or dimension of an identity, those stages take longer to traverse. This would be
another interesting facet of exploration regarding multiple identity development.
The final area for future research would be to explore specifically the sources of
impact for each component of a sexual identity model. If we took Cass’ model, for
example, research can be done on the various stages of the coming out process
(Confusion, Comparison, Tolerance, Acceptance, Pride, and Synthesis) and the sources
of impact for each of those. This may give a better understanding as to what solidifies
someone in a certain stage and what helps them to move from one stage to the other.
Implications

There are four primary implications that inform recommendations for
practitioners in institutions of higher education: (a) developing an extensive support
system of resources, mentoring, and leadership opportunities, (b) providing sensitivity
and awareness training on campus for instructors, other school personnel, as well as
LGBTQ leaders, (c) offering courses that explore LGBTQ issues and incorporate this
wealth of knowledge into other areas of study, (d) encouraging leaders to work within
and challenge current systems and structures in order to bring about change.
Support Systems
Many of the categories that had a high positivity value and eventual effect (Being
Involved with Leadership, Experiencing a Sexual Awakening, Experiencing a Class that
Changed my Worldview, Participating in Campus Organizations, Experiencing Positive

98
Role Models, Experiencing the Support of Others, and Having an Experience that
Resulted in Greater Self-Awareness) involved some kind of support system or social
network. Even for incidents where students experienced something negative, the support
systems around them were frequently relied upon to help them through (Experiencing
Homophobia, Experiencing Bi-Phobia, Experiencing a Tragic Event, Being Involved in a
Conflictual Situation that Solidified my View of Myself, Feeling Judged or Labeled by
Others, and Having an Experience that Resulted in Greater Self-Awareness). One thing
that practitioners can do is help develop, maintain and support these systems and social
networks. Some of these may include the following: establishment and development of
an active and vibrant LGBTQ resource center on campus; creation of a mentoring web
made up of faculty, staff and campus leaders; creation and facilitation of campus
organizations that support sexual identity development and the coming out process;
creation and enhancement of leadership opportunities for students; provision of housing
where LGBTQ students can self-select to live in residence halls together; provision of
free or low cost counseling centers to help LGBTQ students through the coming out
process; and encouragement of increased involvement between open and affirming faith
communities and LGBTQ students who struggle with personal judgment and issues of
faith. These support systems should be a woven tapestry of support to catch those who
struggle with self-esteem and self-worth or are victims of harassment or violence.
Training
It is apparent that training needs to occur on campuses all across America. Not
only do instructors need to know how to address the issues and complexities of the

99
LGBTQ populations, so do all school personnel and staff. This is apparent when the
medical personnel on campus do not show respect, when improper pronouns are used,
when there is failure to understand the intricacies of transitioning, or when a professor
allows hateful remarks to be spewed in a classroom.
The 2007 National School Climate Survey showed that the presence of supportive
staff contributed to a range of positive indicators for LGBTQ students: increased school
attendance, greater academic achievement, higher educational aspirations and a greater
sense of belonging to their school community. Students from schools with a safe school
policy which included protections based on sexual orientation and/or gender
identity/expression experienced fewer homophobic remarks, lower levels of
victimization, increased staff intervention when hearing homophobic remarks, and
increased reporting of incidents of harassment and assault to school staff.
Despite the positive benefits of these interventions, only about a third of students
(36.3%) reported having a Gay-Straight Alliance at school. A little over a third of
students could only identify six or more supportive educators on campus and only a fifth
(18.7%) attended a school that had a comprehensive safe school policy. 11 states and the
District of Columbia have comprehensive safe school laws which protect students from
bullying and harassment based on sexual orientation, and only seven states and DC
protect students on the basis of gender identity/expression. The report found that having a
generic law that did not include specific categories was essentially as effective as having
no law at all. Since the first National School Climate Survey in 1999, there has been little
improvement in the overall school climate for LGBT students which is disturbing in that

100
improving school climate facilitates student safety and relates to positive educational
outcomes. Although the results of this report illustrate the grim experience in school for
many LGBT students, it also highlights the important role that educators and institutional
supports can play in remedying the situation (GLSEN, 2007).
There is a program which was developed a few years ago for college campuses
entitled Safe Zone which teaches school personnel how to create a safe zone for LGBTQ
students. This has been used on college campuses all across the United States and is a
possibility for those looking to address these issues. The sensitivity training must also
occur within the LGBTQ community as well, however. When a professor, who is a part
of that community, displays ignorance about bisexuals and promulgates judgments, it is
painfully undermining and divisive to the health and well-being of the entire community.
As the teachings of Jesus, Gandhi, and King promote, if it is done unto one, it is done
unto all. In order to experience healing within the LGBTQ community then each
individual must be willing to be the change she or he wishes to see in the world.
Courses
It is true that with knowledge comes power. As campuses began to embrace
programs for gender and ethnic studies, women and people of color experienced
empowerment and found a voice that may not have had the opportunity to be expressed
otherwise. Some campuses have added LGBTQ studies to the course offerings. This
communicates to LGBTQ people that they are valid and important and gives them the
opportunity to understand themselves and their history more fully so as to promote
greater synthesis, as Cass would put it. If this body of knowledge is also incorporated

101
into other coursework, such as education and history, it also affirms and acknowledges
that this group of people exists and has a unique set of needs, as well as history. In
masters or doctoral programs throughout the United States, students are required to take
diversity courses, yet rarely does that diversity ever include the issues and perspectives of
LGBTQ students. For some it may be intentional; for others it may be unimportant or
simply a lack of awareness. As with all other underserved populations which have
experienced discrimination and harassment, there comes a time when they stop defending
and explaining, when they are present and stand in their authenticity and simply own
what is rightfully theirs. In this case it would require most LGBTQ people to find their
voice, raise the issues themselves and learn to be their own advocates. It would require
that they show up and continue to show up, whether they are seen by all or not. Such
action would come from an internal locus of control. It would come from an
understanding of empowerment. Others do not have to give permission and say, “You
are welcome here. You have arrived.” The question persists: How long will it take for
those who represent the issues and perspectives of LGBTQ students to be invited to sit at
the table and not be relegated to the back of the bus? If the 2008 protests surrounding the
passage of Proposition 8 are any indication, then they won’t wait for an invitation. They
will simply sit down and speak.
Systems and Structures
Just as one must be individually empowered to impact change, there must also be
systemic and structural transformation within colleges and universities. This requires
those in leadership-whether professor, staff, student leader, board member, or alumni-

102
who are LGBTQ and allies, to work within the current systems. It will be this group who
raises the questions, continues the dialog, rewrites policy, and implements change. It will
be this group that develops the curricula, produces support groups, creates policies of
inclusion, advocates for intersex bathrooms, and evaluates hiring practices. This is the
group that will make change from within and from the top down. They will do this from
their natural arenas, where they are known and respected. For things to stay the same, to
remain the status quo, what must happen is for this group to feign ignorance, remain
silent, and do nothing.

103

REFERENCES

Abes, E. S., & Jones, S. R. (2004). Meaning-making capacity and the dynamics of lesbian
college students’ multiple dimensions of identity. Journal of College Student
Development, 45(6), 612–632.

Astin, A.W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education.
Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 297-308.

Astin, A. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Astin, A. W. (1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education.
Journal of College Student Development, 40, 518-529. (Original work published
1984).

Bedi, R. (2006). Concept Mapping the Client’s Perspective on Counseling Alliance
Formation, Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol. 53, No. 1, 26–35.

Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women's
ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. United States: Basic
Books.

Bieschke, K.J., Eberz, A.B., & Wilson, D. (2000). Empirical investigations of lesbian,
gay, and bisexual college students. In V.A. Wall & N.J. Evans (Eds.), Toward
acceptance: Sexual orientation issues on campus (pp. 29-60). Lanham, MD:
University Press of America.

Borgatti, S. P. (1997). Multidimensional Scaling,
http://www.analytictech.com/boragtti.mds.htm, 1997.

Borgen, F. H., & Barnett, D. C. (1987). Applying cluster analysis in counseling
psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34, 456-468.

Burroughs, W. (2002). Wikipedia: Text of the GNU Free Documentation License,
Version 1.2, Boston).

Cain, R. (1991). Stigma Management and Identity Formation. Social Work, 36(1), 67-
73.

Campbell, R., & Salem, D.A. (1999). Concept mapping as a feminist research method:
Examining the community response to rape. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23,
67-91.

104
Cass, V. C. (1979). Homosexual identity formation: A theoretical model. Journal of
Homosexuality, 4, 219-235.

Chickering, A., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity (2
nd
ed.). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Coleman, E. (1982). Developmental stages in the coming out process. In J. C. Gonsiorek
(Ed.), A guide to psychotherapy with gay and lesbian clients. New York:
Harrington Park Press.

Creswell, J. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches, (2
nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

D'Augelli, A. R. (1991b). Teaching lesbian and gay development: A pedagogy of the
oppressed. In W. G. Tierney (Ed.), Culture and ideology in higher education:
Advancing a critical agenda (pp. 213-233). New York: Praeger.

D’Augelli, A. R. (1994). Identity development and sexual orientation: Toward a model of
lesbian, gay, and bisexual identity development. In E. J. Trickett, R. Watts, & D.
Birman, (Eds.), Human diversity: Perspectives on people in context (pp. 312-
333). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Dembo, M. (2004). Motivation and Learning Strategies For College Success, (2
nd
ed.).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

D’Emilio, J. (1992). Making trouble: Essays on gay history, politics, and the university.

Dilley, P. (2002). Carnality unbecoming a student: How postsecondary practices and
policies of the twentieth century controlled gay students. The Review of Higher
Education, 25, 4009–432.

Dilley, P. (2005). Which Way Out? A Typology of Non-Heterosexual Male Collegiate
Identities. The Journal of Higher Education, 76(1), 56-87.

Elizure, Y. & Mintzer, A. (2001). A Framework for the Formation of Gay Male Identity:
Processes associated with adult attachment style and support from family and
friends. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 30(2), 143-167.

Erikson, E. H. (1980). Identity and the life cycle. New York: Norton (Original work
published 1959).

105
Evans, N. J., & Broido, E. M. (1999). Coming out in college residence halls:
Negotiation, meaning-making, challenges, supports. Journal of College Student
Development, 40, 658-668.

Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., & Guido-Dibrito, F. (1998). Student development in college:
Theory, research, and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Fassinger, R. E. (1996). Notes from the margins: Integrating lesbian experience into the
vocational psychology of women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 48, 160-175.

Fassinger, R. E. (1997). Gay Identity Questionnaire. Unpublished instrument. University
of Maryland, College Park.

Fivars, G. & Fitzpatrick, R. (2001). The Critical Incident Technique Bibliography,
http://www.apa.org/psycinfo/special/cit-intro.pdf (12.08.2004).

Flanagan, J. C. (1954) .The Critical Incident Technique. Psychological Bulletin, 5(4),
327-358.

Flowers, L. A., & Pascarella, E. T. (1999a). Cognitive effects of college racial
composition on African American students after 3 years of college. Journal of
College Student Development, 40, 669-676.

Flowers, L. A., & Pascarella, E. T. (1999b). Does college racial composition influence
the openness to diversity of African American students? Journal of College
Student Development, 40, 405-417.

Flowers, L. (2002b). Developing purpose in college: Difference between freshmen and
seniors. College Student Journal, 36, 478-484.

Gilligan, C. (1993). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1982).

Goodyear, R. K., Tracey, T. J. G., Claiborn, C. D., Lichtenberg, J. W., & Wampold, B. E.
(2005). Idiographic concept mapping in counseling psychology research:
Conceptual overview, methodology, and an illustration. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 52, 236–242.

Graham, S., & Cockriel, I. (1997). A factor structure for social and personal development
outcomes in college. The NASPA Journal, 34, 199-216.

Hays, W. L. (1994). Statistics (5th Ed.). Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College
Publications.

106
Hood, A. B. (1997). The Iowa student development inventories (2nd Ed.). Iowa City:
HITECH Press.

Hood, A. B., & Zerwas, S. C. (1997). The Iowa vocational purpose inventory. In A.
Hood (Ed.), The Iowa student development inventories (2nd Ed.) (pp. 93-108).
Iowa City: HITECH Press.

House, C. J. C. (2004). Integrating barriers to Caucasian lesbians’ career development
and Super’s life-span, life-space approach. Career Development Quarterly, 52,
246-255.

Human Rights Watch. 2001. Hatred in the Hallways. Violence and Discrimination
against Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Students in US Schools.
Accessed at: http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/uslgbt/toc.htm.

Jackson, K. & Trochim, W. M. (2002). Concept Mapping as an Alternative Approach for
the Analysis of Open-Ended Survey Responses. Organizational Research
Methods, Vol. 5, No. 4, 307-336.

Jones, S. (1997). Voices of identity and difference: A qualitative exploration of the
multiple dimensions of identity development in women college students. Journal
of College Student Development, 38(4), 376-386.

Jones, S. R., & McEwen, M. K. (2000). A conceptual model of multiple dimensions of
identity. Journal of College Student Development, 41(4), 405–414.

Kezar, A., & Moriarty, D. (2000). Expanding our understanding of student leadership
development: A study exploring gender and ethnic identity. Journal of College
Development, 41(1), 55-69.

Komives, S.R., Lucas, N., & McMahon, T.R. (1998). Exploring leadership: For college
students who want to make a difference. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kruskal, J. B., & Wish, M. (1978). Multidimensional scaling. Sage University paper
series on quantitative applications in the social sciences, 07–011. Beverly Hills:
Sage.

Kuh, G.D., Hu, S., & Vesper, N. (2000). They shall be known by what they do: An
activities-based typology of college students. Journal of College Student
Development, 41(2), 228-244.

Lamsma, M., Michels, L, Pepper, M., Reyes, R.F., Stojak, L., & Tredennick, L. (2008).
Campus Climate & Assessment: Going Beyond the Survey Program Phase I

107
Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Maier, E. A. (1998). Do psychosocial development theories do justice to the traditional
college women of today? Initiatives, 58(4), 19-35.

Marcia, J. E. (1967). Ego identity status: Relationship to change in self-esteem,
“general maladjustment,” and authoritarianism. Journal of Personality, 35, 118-
133.

Marcia, J. E., & Friedman, M. L. (1970). Ego identity status in college women. Journal
of Personality, 38, 249-263.

McEwen, M. K. (1996). New perspectives on identity development. In S. R. Komives &
D. B. Woodard Jr. (Eds.), Student services: A handbook for the profession (3rd
ed., pp. 188-217). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Miller, N. (1995). Out of the past: Gay and lesbian history from 1869 to the present.
New York: Random House.

Miville, M., Koonce, D., Darlington, P. & Whitlock, B. (2000). Exploring the
relationships between racial/cultural identity and ego identity among
African-Americans and Mexican-Americans. Journal of Multicultural
Counseling and Development, 28, 208-224.

Morgan, E. (1982). Toward a reformulation of the Eriksonian model of female identity
development. Adolescence, 17(65), 199-211.

Morrison, A., Ross, G. & Chalmers, M. (2003). Fast multidimensional scaling through
sampling, springs and interpolation. Information Visualization, 2(1), 68-77.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2001). Credits and attainment: Returns to
postsecondary education ten years after high school. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education.

The National School Climate Survey. (2007). Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education
Network.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and
insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Pascarella, E. T. (2001). Using student self-reported gains to estimate college impact: A
cautionary tale. Journal of College Student Development, 42, 488-492.

108
Pascarella E.T., & Terenzini P.T. (2005) How college affects students (Vol 2): A third
decade of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Peacock, J. R. (2000). Gay male adult development: Some stage issues of an older
cohort. Journal of Homosexuality, 40(2), 13-29.

Pope, R. (2000). The relationship between psychosocial development and racial
identity of college students of color. Journal of College Student Development,
41(3), 302-312.

Reisser, L. (1995). Revisiting the seven vectors. Journal of College Student
Development, 36, 505-511.

Renn, K. A. (2000b). Teaching lesbian, gay, and bisexual college students. College
Teaching, 48 (4), 129-135.

Renn, K. A. (2003). Understanding the identities of mixed race college students through
a developmental ecology lens. Journal of College Student Development, 44, 383-
403.

Renn, K.A., & Bilodeau, B. (2002). Queer student leaders: A case study of leadership
development and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender student involvement.
Presented at the 27
th
meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher
Education, Sacramento, CA.

Renn, K. A., & Bilodeau, B. L. (2005a). Leadership identity development among lesbian,
gay, bisexual, and transgender student leaders. NASPA Journal, 42(3), 342-367.

Renn, K. A., & Bilodeau, B. L. (2005b). Queer student leaders: An exploratory case
study of identity development and LGBTQ student involvement at a Midwestern
research university. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Issues in Education, 2(4), 49–71.

Rhoads, R. A. (1994). Coming out in college: The struggle for a queer identity.
Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Rhoads, R. A. (1997). Interpreting identity politics: The educational challenge of
contemporary student activism. Journal of College Student Development, 38,
508–519.

Rhoads, R.A. (1998). Freedom’s web: Student activism in an age of cultural diversity.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press.

109
Ryan, C., Huebner, D., Diaz, R.M., & Sanchez, J. (2009). Family Rejection as a
Predictor of Negative Health Outcomes in White and Latino Lesbian, Gay, and
Bisexual Young Adults. American Journal of Pediatrics, 123, 346-352.

Sanford, N. (1962). The American college: A psychological and social interpretation of
the higher learning. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Sax, L. J., Astin, A. W., Korn, W. S., & Mahoney, K. M. (2000). The American
freshman: National norms for fall 2000. University of California, Los Angeles:
Cooperative Institutional Research Program.

Stevens, R. A., Jr. (2004). Understanding gay identity development within the college
environment. Journal of College Student Development, 45, 185–206.

Thomas, R., & Chickering, A. W. (1984). Education and identity revisited. Journal of
College Student Development, 25, 392-399.

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. Washington DC: Association for the
Study of Higher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED479151).

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. (1989a). An introduction to concept mapping for planning and
evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning, 12, 1–16.

Trochim, W. M. K, Cook, J. A., & Setze, R. J. (1994). Using concept mapping to
develop a conceptual framework of staff’s views of a supported employment
program for individuals with severe mental illness. Journal of Consulting &
Clinical Psychology, 62, 766-775.

Troiden, R. R. (1989). The formation of homosexual identities. Journal of
Homosexuality, 17, 43-74.

110
Vandiver, B. J., Fhagen-Smith, P. E., Cokley, K. O., Cross, W. E., Jr., & Worrell, F.
(2001). Cross’s nigrescence model: From theory to scale to theory. Journal of
Multicultural Counseling and Development, 29, 174–200.

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.

White, D. B., & Hood, A. B. (1989). An assessment of the validity of Chickering's theory
of student development. Journal of College Student Development, 30, 354-361.

Young, Susan. (1995). Adapted from: Cass, V. Homosexual Identity Development,
1979.

111
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,
EdD Program, at the University of Southern California. 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.

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. 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 students in the targeted subgroups
perceive to have affected their sense of who they are (i.e., their personal identity). We
also are interested to learn the manner in which students organize these categories of
experiences in their thinking. That is, the “cognitive map” they impose on them.

112

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 reflect on your experience as a college
student and identify one incident or experience that has affected your sense of who you
are. The 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 questionnaire
also asks for basic demographic information. The questionnaire should take you
approximately one-half hour to complete.

If you would like to participate in Phase Two of this study, you can click on the
continuation option.

If selected to continue to Phase Two and wish to participate, you will be asked 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). Similar to CYEQ, this paired comparison
questionnaire is (called the College Years Experience Concept Similarity Rating Scale;
CSRS) will be posted on a web-based survey, depending on your preference. 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. It also is possible
that in recounting an incident that was especially important to you, you may find yourself
experiencing uncomfortable memories.

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 to the higher education community.
Specifically, it could be important to higher education professionals who work to ensure
that the college environment maximizes the opportunities to foster optimal student
development.

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

CONFIDENTIALITY

113
No information that is obtained in connection with this study can be identified with you.
Contact information that is supplied by Phase One participants will be stored with a
password on the online survey site.

The data from this study will also be stored in a password protected computer and/or
survey site. 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 circumstances 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 Hall, Room 306, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1695,
(213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.

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

Kimberlee Woods Rod Goodyear, Ph. D.
781 Roswell Ave. Rossier School of Education
Long Beach, CA 90804 USC, WPH 1100A
(562) 208-2248 Los Angeles, CA 90089-0031
RaeAdair@yahoo.com (213) 740-3267
goodyea@usc.edu
Vincent Vigil
3601 Trousdale Parkway, Student Union 202B Christopher Eaton
Los Angeles, CA 90089-0890 952 Maltman Avenue # 207
(213) 740-7619 Los Angeles, CA 90026
vincenev@usc.edu 323-610-5736
david.eaton@usc.edu

114
APPENDIX B

COLLEGE YEARS EXPERIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE (CYEQ)

Developing a sense of who we are occurs across time and in many situations. But college
often is unique in the ways it can affect that sense of self. Moreover, there often are
particular incidents or experiences that stand out as having been particularly influential.

Think back over your experience as a college student and identify one incident or
experience that had particular influence on your sense of who you are. This could have
been either positive or negative.

Please describe that 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, describe
them and their relationship to you, and
(c) what do you think was important about this experience or incident, and why?
(d) what you believe the long-term effect to have been on your sense of who you are?

At what point in your college experience did this incident or experience occur (please check
one)?
Freshman year ___

Junior year ___ Other (please specify) _______________________
Sophomore year ___

Senior year ___
Please respond to the questions below by circling the number that best represents your answer.

Very Negative

Very Positive
Degree to which you experienced this incident or
experience as positive

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
The eventual effect this incident or experience had on
your sense of yourself

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

115
Demographic Information
Age: _________ Gender: _________________ Ethnicity: __________________
Standing in School: Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior
Name of College or University: ______________________________________
Appendix B: Paired Comparison Questionnaire Sample

Thank you for participating in Phase One of this two-phase study by completing the
College Years Experience Questionnaire.

During the second phase of the study, a group of participants will be asked to complete a
second questionnaire, the College Years Experience Concept Similarity Rating Scale
(CSRS). This questionnaire will be posted on line and participants will be provided the
web address where they can login and complete the survey via email. It should take
about one-half hour to complete the CSRS and responses will be anonymous.

If you are interested in participating in Phase Two of this study, please provide your
email address below.

Email address: __________________________________________

116
APPENDIX C

PAIRED COMPARISON QUESTIONNAIRE

PHASE II QUESTIONNAIRE
Hello and welcome to Phase II of my research! I am Kimberlee Woods, a doctoral
candidate at the University of Southern California in the Rossier School of Education.

You were one of the students nationally who kindly participated in Phase I of my study in
which you were asked to describe an experience that had an impact on your sense of self
during your college years. Thank you for indicating that you would like to be invited
back to participate in Phase II of the study. A research team examined your response,
along with many others, and classified them into the fourteen categories described below.

I would deeply appreciate your participation in entirely completing one last, relatively
quick task. Keep in mind that for your convenience, you may return to the survey to
complete it in multiple sessions to accommodate your busy schedule.

Please know that anonymity continues to be assured and that your contribution will
enable me to conduct one of the very few quantitative analyses of qualitative data
regarding LGBTQ identity development in college in existing literature, utilizing a
concept mapping methodology. The implications of this study for universities could reap
benefits for students just like you in the future!

This study has been reviewed and approved by the University Park Institutional Review
Board at the University of Southern California. If you wish to view a copy of the stamped
approved version, please contact the principle investigator of this study, Kimberlee
Woods, at woodsk@usc.edu.
USC IRB #: UP-06-00355

SOME INFORMATION ABOUT YOU
What is your standing in school?
_________ _________ _________ _________ ________
Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate

What is your age? ____________

What is your ethnicity? ____________

What is your gender? ____________

What is your sexual orientation (i.e., gay, lesbian, bisexual, etc.)? Type in your response.
____________

117
Have you filled out this survey at some other point in the past 60 days? ________

CATEGORY DESCRIPTIONS
This task is a rating task and in order to complete it requires that you have some
understanding of what the categories mean. Please review the following descriptions in
order to better understand each of the categories. (Please scroll down to view all 14
categories.)
Category 1: Experiencing the Support of Others: Experiencing support through
friends, campus organizations, service centers, etc.
Example:
“Ever since my sophomore year, I have lived with other queer and queer-friendly people.
It has meant so much to me to be able to come home to people I'm totally comfortable
with, who know me and love me, and who I can relate with. My roommates have really
become my family.”
Category 2: Experiencing Acceptance after Coming Out.
Example:
“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."
Category 3: Experiencing a Sexual Awakening.
Example:
"I hooked up with a friend and had really satisfying sex. This experience was important
for me because I genuinely felt a connection with my partner and felt free to be sexually
uninhibited. 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.”
Category 4: Having an Experience that Resulted in Greater Self-Awareness.
Example:
“I couldn't pay my tuition and 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.”

118
Category 5: Experiencing Positive Role Models.
Examples:
"The biggest change in my sense of who I am came with the acceptance of my
homosexuality. This was influenced particularly by two people. The first was a teacher,
the second was a classmate. Both were gay, and seemed 'normal' to me, much like
myself. One of my biggest problems with accepting my homosexuality had been my false
perception that most gays lived up to the negative stereotypes about them."
Category 6: Having a Significant Relationship with Another Person.
Example:
“A friend of mine had a house party and she had invited a gay friend of hers. He was
older and we were just chatting and he's now one of my best friends. He took me under
his wing and helped me out of my shell.”
Category 7: Experiencing Bi-phobia.
Example:
“I went to a support group for queer women. One woman went off on a rant about
bisexuals, and then paused mid-rant to ask, "are there any bisexuals here?" I knew that if
I didn't raise my hand I would never be able to feel safe in the group again or to respect
myself.”
Category 8: Experiencing Homophobia.
Example:
“When I lived in the dorms on our campus, I was harrassed quite a bit. One particular
incident involved someone taking my name plate off my door, ripping it up into pieces in
our bathroom, and burning a swastika on the ceiling above it. That person was never
caught. I felt very unsafe and the incident was reported to the police and campus security
and I had to move to a new dorm.”
Category 9: Being Involved in a Conflictual Situation that Solidified my View of
Myself.
Example:
“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

119
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.”
Category 10: Participating in Campus Organizations.
Example:
“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. ”
Category 11: Being Involved with Leadership.
Example:
“I was recognized by a number of people for my leadership skills within the University
community. Administrators, peers, and people I don't even know directly all took time to
acknowledge my work at the university.”
Category 12: Experiencing a Class that Changed my Worldview.
Example:
“I took a class called "Conceptions of Self." 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.”
Category 13: Experiencing a Tragic Event.
Example:
“In my freshman year, my ex boyfriend tried commiting 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."
Category 14: Feeling Judged or Labeled by Others.
Example:
“I went to the health center to ask about the possibility of sterilization surgery and the
doctor was very hesitant about even talking about it. She finally sighed and gave me the

120
"Are you trans?" interview and I answered no. She then labeled me as "gender neutral"
and sent me off to watch videos about safe sex for heterosexual couples.”
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE TASK
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 “Feeling judged or labeled by others
and “Experiencing positive role models.” 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!

Questionnaire

1. Experiencing bi-phobia AND Feeling judged or labeled by others
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

2. Experiencing bi-phobia AND Being involved with leadership
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

3. Experiencing acceptance after coming out AND Feeling judged or labeled by others
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

121
4. Experiencing the support of others AND Having an experience that resulted in greater
self-awareness
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

5. Having a significant relationship with another person AND Experiencing homophobia
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

6. Experiencing acceptance after coming out AND Having an experience that resulted in
greater self-awareness
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

7. Experiencing the support of others AND Experiencing positive role models
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

8. Experiencing bi-phobia AND Experiencing homophobia
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

9. Having a significant relationship with another person AND Feeling judged or labeled
by others
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

10. Experiencing a sexual awakening AND Participating in campus organizations
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

11. Being involved with leadership AND Experiencing a class that changed my
worldview
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

122
12. Experiencing acceptance after coming out AND Experiencing a sexual awakening
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

13. Experiencing bi-phobia AND Being involved in a conflictual situation that solidified
my view of myself
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

14. Experiencing homophobia AND Participating in campus organizations
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

15. Experiencing the support of others AND Experiencing homophobia
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

16. Experiencing a sexual awakening AND Experiencing homophobia
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

17. Having an experience that resulted in greater self-awareness AND Experiencing a
class that changed my worldview
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

18. Experiencing acceptance after coming out AND Experiencing bi-phobia
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

19. Experiencing a sexual awakening AND Experiencing bi-phobia
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

123
20. Experiencing the support of others AND Participating in campus organizations
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

21. Experiencing bi-phobia AND Participating in campus organizations
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

22. Experiencing a sexual awakening AND Having an experience that resulted in greater
self-awareness
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

23. Experiencing the support of others AND Experiencing a tragic event
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

24. Experiencing a sexual awakening AND Experiencing a class that changed my
worldview
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

25. Having a significant relationship with another person AND Experiencing bi-phobia
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

26. Being involved with leadership AND Feeling judged or labeled by others
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

27. Experiencing positive role models AND Experiencing homophobia
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

124
28. Having an experience that resulted in greater self-awareness AND Being involved in
a conflictual situation that solidified my view of myself
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

29. Having an experience that resulted in greater self-awareness AND Feeling judged or
labeled by others
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

30. Having an experience that resulted in greater self-awareness AND Experiencing a
tragic event
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

31. Experiencing the support of others AND Experiencing a sexual awakening
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

32. Being involved with leadership AND Experiencing a tragic event
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

33. Participating in campus organizations AND Experiencing a class that changed my
worldview
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

34. Experiencing positive role models AND Experiencing bi-phobia
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

35. Experiencing positive role models AND Having a significant relationship with
another person
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

125
36. Experiencing the support of others AND Having a significant relationship with
another person
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

37. Having a significant relationship with another person AND Experiencing a class that
changed my worldview
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

38. Experiencing positive role models AND Being involved with leadership
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

39. Having a significant relationship with another person AND Being involved with
leadership
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

40. Experiencing homophobia AND Being involved in a conflictual situation that
solidified my view of myself
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

41. Having an experience that resulted in greater self-awareness AND Participating in
campus organizations
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

42. Having an experience that resulted in greater self-awareness AND Being involved
with leadership
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

126
43. Experiencing a tragic event AND Feeling judged or labeled by others
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

44. Experiencing a sexual awakening AND Having a significant relationship with another
person
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

45. Experiencing positive role models AND Participating in campus organizations
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

46. Having a significant relationship with another person AND Experiencing a tragic
event.
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

47. Experiencing the support of others AND Feeling judged or labeled by others.
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

48. Experiencing positive role models AND Being involved in a conflictual situation that
solidified my view of myself
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

49. Being involved in a conflictual situation that solidified my view of myself AND
Feeling judged or labeled by others
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

50. Experiencing acceptance after coming out AND Experiencing positive role models
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

127
51. Having a significant relationship with another person AND Participating in campus
organizations
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

52. Having an experience that resulted in greater self-awareness AND Having a
significant relationship with another person
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

53. Experiencing acceptance after coming out AND Being involved in a conflictual
situation that solidified my view of myself
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

54. Having a significant relationship with another person AND Being involved in a
conflictual situation that solidified my view of myself
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

55. Having an experience that resulted in greater self-awareness AND Experiencing
homophobia
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

56. Experiencing bi-phobia AND Experiencing a class that changed my worldview
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

57. Participating in campus organizations AND Being involved with leadership
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

128
58. Having an experience that resulted in greater self-awareness AND Experiencing bi-
phobia
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

59. Experiencing acceptance after coming out AND Experiencing a class that changed
my worldview
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

60. Experiencing positive role models AND Feeling judged or labeled by others
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

61. Experiencing the support of others AND Experiencing a class that changed my
worldview
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

62. Experiencing homophobia AND Being involved with leadership
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

63. Being involved in a conflictual situation that solidified my view of myself AND
Participating in campus organizations
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

64. Experiencing a sexual awakening AND Feeling judged or labeled by others
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

65. Participating in campus organizations AND Feeling judged or labeled by others
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

129
66. Experiencing a sexual awakening AND Being involved with leadership
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

67. Experiencing acceptance after coming out AND Being involved with leadership
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

68. Experiencing a sexual awakening AND Experiencing positive role models
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

69. Experiencing bi-phobia AND Experiencing a tragic event
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

70. Experiencing positive role models AND Experiencing a class that changed my
worldview
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

71. Experiencing homophobia AND Experiencing a class that changed my worldview
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

72. Experiencing a class that changed my worldview AND Experiencing a tragic event
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

73. Experiencing homophobia AND Experiencing a tragic event
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

130
74. Experiencing acceptance after coming out AND Experiencing a tragic event
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

75. Participating in campus organizations AND Experiencing a tragic event
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

76. Experiencing a class that changed my worldview AND Feeling judged or labeled by
others
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

77. Experiencing homophobia AND Feeling judged or labeled by others
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

78. Being involved in a conflictual situation that solidified my view of myself AND
Experiencing a tragic event.
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

79. Experiencing a sexual awakening AND Experiencing a tragic event
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

80. Experiencing the support of others AND Experiencing bi-phobia
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

81. Having an experience that resulted in greater self-awareness AND Experiencing
positive role models
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

131
82. Experiencing acceptance after coming out AND Participating in campus
organizations
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

83. Experiencing positive role models AND Experiencing a tragic event
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

84. Experiencing the support of others AND Being involved in a conflictual situation that
solidified my view of myself
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

85. Experiencing acceptance after coming out AND Experiencing homophobia
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

86. Experiencing acceptance after coming out AND Having a significant relationship
with another person
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

87. Experiencing the support of others AND Experiencing acceptance after coming out
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

88. Being involved in a conflictual situation that solidified my view of myself AND
Experiencing a class that changed my worldview
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

89. Experiencing a sexual awakening AND Being involved in a conflictual situation that
solidified my view of myself
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

132

90. Being involved in a conflictual situation that solidified my view of myself AND
Being involved with leadership
Not At All Alike Very Much Alike
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________
1 2 3 4 5

91. Experiencing the support of others AND Being involved with leadership
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.

133
APPENDIX D

CYEQ STUDENT RESPONSES

Experiencing the Support of Others (SUPPORT):
1. my first semester living on the rainbow floor really solidified how i felt about my
identity. b. Being emersed in a community of lgbt identified people and allies was
a big step for me. It was mostly my developing relationship with my RA, Alpha,
that really helped me become completely comfortable with identifying myself as a
lesbian. He was out and confident on campus so I was no longer hesitant to be. I
was giving the same feeling from a lot of people on the floor. c. being around
people who were comfortable with their sexuality, made me really embrace my
own. d. I have a much more stable sense of who I am in terms of what I want and
who i am attracted to.
(Experiencing Community Support; acceptance through social groups)
2. One of the most influential experiences I have had on my campus is finding our
GLBT Services office. I was very unsure in my feelings of self and felt very
alone, but when I discovered the center, I felt like I belonged somewhere and was
proud to know there was other people like me on our campus. It gave me a voice
and a vechicle to educate our campus. I discovered my identity by using research
from the office to find where I fit in in the LGBTQ community. Being on campus
felt easier after that point.
3. 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.
4. It's not one specific incident, but rather an ongoing experience. Ever since my
sophomore year, I have lived with other queer and queer-friendly people. It has
meant so much to me to be able to come home to people I'm totally comfortable
with, who know me and love me, and who I can relate with. My roommates
(including men and women, gay and bi, trans and not) have really become my
family. They have shown me how to be a true friend, and how important it is for
queer people to take care of each other and stand up for each other. Having that
safe space always available to me has also helped me really become comfortable
"being myself" around other people, in all settings.
5. When I was a freshman, I joined a lesbian organization. It was the first time I was
around people that had non-conventional gender expression. After this, I realized
there were other people like me and that it was okay to express whatever gender I
felt internally.
6. I met a bunch of new friends who were all gay as well. I came from a small town
so just having people like me around, and no one treating them badly, really made

134
me feel more confident. This really made me feel more strong and helped build
my self esteem. There is definitely long lasting effects.
7. 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.

Experiencing Acceptance When I Came Out (ACCEPTANCE):

8. I came out to my best friend, Paul. We were both freshmen and had just met the
week before. I'd been out at home for a few months, but I hadn't told anyone at
college yet. Paul and I had been hanging out together a lot and I felt very close to
him, and I could tell he felt the same. But I couldn't tell if he might be
romantically interested in me (I am a girl), which had been a problem in the past
with close guy friends. So as to avoid future drama, I decided to tell him. So I sat
him down and said that I had something important to tell him. He said that he had
something important, too. And I thought, 'Oh no. What if it's going to be that he
likes me?' We decided to count to three and say it together. On three, we both
said, 'I'm gay.' We've been best friends (and later roommates) ever since.
9. 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
10. When I was a sophomore, I came out as questioning and being interested in
women to one of my female friends who was in my chemistry study group and
who I knew was a lesbian. She was very excited about this and was eager to
introduce me to other LGBTQ people and resources on campus. The following
spring, I went to the Queer Women's Group at Tufts for the first time and met
many women who became my core group of friends. I had my first kiss with a
woman and became to identify not as bisexual or questioning but as a lesbian, and
I became involved in the LGBTQ community on campus. Now I have a girlfriend
of 1.5 years and am the leader of Queer Women's Group and am also a Queer
Peer. Coming out to this friend and having her "show me the ropes" really helped
me gain a sense of who I was in terms of my sexuality.
11. I was a sophomore on the softball team who was not really out because I didn't
want to ruin team chemistry and I wasn't sure how the team would take it. But a
senior captain came out and was really open about her sexuality and the team was
fine about it. Having her be out really helped me be out as I saw it was fine and
there was not much to worry about. Since then, I have been a lot closer to my
teammates as I can be myself and I am not worried about hiding a part of me. My

135
experience on the softball team has led me to be more out in general and my level
of comfort with being gay is a lot higher.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. My first year I attended Heidelberg College in Tiffin, Ohio. I was nervous about
coming out to my then roommate because of the type of reaction that I might get
from her. Surprisingly, she was totally cool with the whole thing and warmly
accepted my girlfriend as well as the whole girls floor. This is important to me in
the area of my sense of self because it showed me that not all people are bigots
and homophobic. This gave me a boost of confidence.
17. This past winter I participated on a group trip during which time I found myself
extremely attracted to someone of the same gender, at which point I could no
longer deny the truth to myself - that I am bisexual. Following my return home, I
came out to my father as a bisexual, because I felt that it was important for me not
to conceal this as I had initially done with my Judaism, because now I can see
very clearly that an attraction to women and men has been something that has
shaped me from a very young age. The thought of living a non-traditional life
style still scares me to a certain extent, but I am much more comfortable with who
I am now and feel that I have a more genuine desire to embrace it without being
ashamed.
18. 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)

136
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
19. a) When I came out to all my friends and both my parents, as well as my family.
b) my friends and family were involved in it. c) This experience was incredibly
important to me, because I felt like it allowed me to finally be honest about my
feelings, desires, etc. d) When I came out everyone in my family was accepting,
although some people didn't believe me (some still don't when I tell them, because
I'm not "butch") and all of my friends were outwardly accepting, although I
stopped talking to one who wasn't and stopped talking to another because she
seemed to be uncomfortable about it. It allowed me to be open about who I like,
who I'm in a relationship with and our experiences and hopes for the future. It was
overall, a very positive experience. I am much happier now because I can be
honest about things, although I also now have to deal with a lot of peoples'
ignorance about homosexuality and such.
20. 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.

Experiencing a Sexual Awakening (SEX AWAKEN):

21. my first sexual experience was an accidental threesome. b. 2 of my friends that
were once in a relationship but were no longer dating, but were still in an overly
complex lesbian ex-girlfriend situation. c. I rushed into sex because I thought I
was past due, but it just created ALOT of drama. it was an important mark of bad
judgment, but it happened and it's over. d. i'll always regret how the experience
happened, but i won't regret what i learned from it and the friendship that I gained
out of the catastrophe as a whole.
22. i met a girl in AWARE, my college's gay straight alliance. the girls who i have
liked in the past have always been straight, so i always brushed my feelings off,
knowing it was a waste of time. this girl that i liked was a lesbian, so i realized
that I actually had a chance. it really reinforced the fast that i was bisexual. Many
people tell me that im not REALLY bisexual because ive had a boyfriend but
never have had a girlfriend, and i think this is really unfair. i felt that liking this
girl who i did truly want to go out with made me feel like my identity was
validated.
23. (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

137
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.
24. First bi poly relationship which was in college
25. 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.
26. The first time I kissed another girl was at the very end of my freshman year. I had
just broken up with my boyfriend of several years and was really enjoying
spending time with my friends and teammates without the obligation of a
relationship. A couple of my teammates and I had been drinking and decided to
see what it would be like to kiss another girl. It was very innocent and I didn't
think much of it at the time but the next day I remember thinking how that "wasn't
so bad..and actually kind of fun." One of my teammates shared that she felt the
same way. Over the next few weeks we went out a lot and she and I would always
find a point in the night where we would "try it again." This went on for a few
months and I began to question whether I possibly bisexual. This was an
important incident in my life because it was the first time I ever gave any real and
indepth thought to my sexuality. I always had boyfriends, guys always liked
me...I just assumed I was straight. About a year later I came out as a lesbian. I will
always consider that night to be the first glimpse of a deeper and truer
understanding of who I really am.
27.This event has no real impact on my being a college student, but a lot of the
atmosphere at my university and things I had learned about the LGBTQ
community helped me to recognize things I were feeling. Namely, I began to have
feelings for one of my female best friends who identifies as a lesbian. I realized I
actually wanted a relationship with her, and although things didn't work out, it
helped me to realize that I didn't only see her in a romantic way, but that I was
attracted to women in general. This incident helped me to come out as a bisexual -
- not to family so much -- but to friends and my peers. I have better understanding
of a part of myself and feel moved to help others in similiar situations.

Having an Experience that Resulted in Greater Self-Awareness (SELF-AWARE):

28. A new male friend of mine called me out on my prejudices towards men. I had
always had a very sexual experience with men, having a hard time having any
type of companion relationship with them because in the end it was seen as a pass
to hook up and not as a move to get to know someone better. He told me it was

138
not fair to apply my prejudice on all men, and while there were a lot of men that
were opportunistic, there are some who want something other than sex. This
challenged my personal perception of both men and me, and I had always thought
of myself as an open minded person, and here I was being judgmental. I now am
more careful to not see men as solely sexual beings, and myself as more than a
sexual object.
29. When I broke up with my first girlfriend at the end of the semester. It allowed me
to understand my limitations in a relationship and also determined what I seek in
future relationships.
30. The most significant experience I have had in my college career, an experience
that greatly influences my sense of self, was my decision to switch my major. I
came to IU as a music education major and had been preparing myself as a
musician and an educator for 10 years. I spent two years in music school and
decided that I could not function in that environment and do what I needed to
anymore. I decided to change my major to another education related field, and
leaving music had a huge affect on me. I had to change my entire sense of
identity. I was no longer a musician, a band geek, a trombone player. I could not
longer identify myself in a way that had become critical to my sense of self. The
long term effect (after two years) is that I still feel the pain from that transition,
but I now see myself differently and look at life differently. I no longer place a lot
of emphasis on goals or the future. I am content to work at my own pace, doing
whatever I want, and I am very hesitant to broadcast what I do. I am hesitant to
commit myself so fully to any other pursuit. I also am hesitant to be around
groups of people that I might previously have been associated with- that is I avoid
musicians, people interested in band, and other educators who might judge the
way I have gone into my field.
31. 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.
32. 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

139
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,a nd
continuing my education.
33. I went to the local gay bar for the first time. It kind of scared me, the overuse of
sex and the types of clientelle it had. How was it important? It made me re-
evaluate being gay and made me kind of develop a certain fear of a 'lifestyle' that
I could be doomed to. Fortunately it has had not too many deterimental long term
effects, but it has made me more apprehensive about growing up gay.
34. I can't pin piont exactly when this occured, but it was pointed out to me my
freshmen year that "if you are useful, you will be used." Over time I would learn
how very true this statement is, and it doesn't only apply to your occupation and
earning a living, but any relationship. If you aren't giving something worth having
then you will be given nothing. This can be seen in an everyday conversation with
a stranger, that's why being funny is a large social advantage, if you can make
someone laugh then you are giving them something useful, and in most cases they
will give you their undivided attention in return. If you give without being given
anytyhing in return, you are often refered to as a saint once people become aware
of it.
35. 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.
36. A lot of the classes for my major are mixed grad/undergrad. I had a really tough
prof for one of them, and was really stressed out because he kept assigning us
questions from masters exams without having done them himself first (and didn't
tell us that until after we turned them in). About a month in, I heard the graduate
students complaining among themselves about how hard the problems were,
which made me feel a lot better about having trouble myself.
37. I took 4 years off of school and just returned this year after completing an
AmeriCorps program. Taking the time off was the most beneficial thing I could
have done in my college learning. I have returned a much more committed and
focused student. I had the opportunity to work with people throughout the
country, learn more about myself and others. I am now doing great at school and
I'm looking at pursuing a Phd.
38. I got engaged to a fellow student my first-year. He and I met as soon as I got to
school, but he was two years ahead of me. The summer after my first year, we
broke up, because I realized that I had grown and changed a lot, but that he did
not appreciate or encourage these [in my mind, positive] changes. It put me into a
fairly serious depression for a few months, but ultimately taught me that I need to
stand up for who I am and expect others to respect my identity.
39. I took a gay and lesbian theatre independent study through the theatre department.
The professor and i would meet weekly and discuss plays about gender and
sexuality. Through these discussions my perceptions of myself and society

140
changed. It broadened my mind of what identity could be, and why we shouldn't
assume the identity of what we are expected identify as.
40. During college I began to explore Judaism and found that I identify with the
values present in this religion moreso than those in the Christian one in which I
had been raised. When I came to college, I began to work with our campus rabbi,
who oversaw my formal conversion to Judaism this past year (2006). This has
strongly affected my identity in terms of how others view me and how I view
myself, because I place Judaism very highly in terms of how I define myself and
relate to the world around me.

Experiencing Positive Role Models (ROLE MODELS):

41. hearing kate bornstein speak, and perform the following day, about how a person
doesn't have to be one gender or another. i had always known that, but something
about hearing it from kate bornstein(!!) just made it hit harder, i guess.
42. An acquaintance transitioned from female to male. This person was not like the
crazy "Jerry Springer" types. He was extremely bright and a college student just
like me. This was the first time I realized that trans people weren't all crazy, chair-
throwing drama kings/queens. This gave me more confidence long-term about my
decision to transition.
43. I have been an executive member of the UWSP Gay-Straight Alliance for several
years. My junior year the organization brought Kate Bornstein to speak on
campus. Kate has been very influential to my understanding of gender identity
and expression, and I have read several of her books. One could say she has been
one of my mentors in the queer community. Getting the chance to not only meet
her, but to sit down to have a meal and speak to her personally and one-on-one
was monumental. She asked me about my views on gender. Me? Kate Bornstein
is asking ME about gender? I almost fainted. But instead, I laid out my opinions
and how I view my own gender and how my gender relates to the world around
me. She was completely engrossed in what I was saying, and at one point she
said, "I'd never thought of it that way." That I could have innovative ideas about
gender and being queer hadn't really occured to me before. I assumed that
anything I could say on the subject would have been old news to Kate. This has
given me a sense of self and individuality in the queer community, which was
something I was sorely missing. This also gave me confidence to speak up about
my ideas and the problems I have within my community.
44. 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 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

141
encouragement, advice, and support from the Student Life Staff at Jacksonville
University my sophomore year, I would not be the person I am today.
45. The biggest change in my sense of who I am came with the acceptance of my
homosexuality. This was influenced particularly by two people. The first was a
crush, the second was a classmate. Both were gay, and seemed 'normal' to me,
much like myself. One of my biggest problems with accepting my homosexuality
had been my false perception that most gays lived up to the negative stereotypes
about them.

Having a Signif Relationship with Another Person (SIGNIF REL):

46. Dating my ex girlfriend was a positive experience. She was very opinionated,
straight forward, and confrontational...everything I'm not. She helped me to stand
up for myself a little more. She helped me to see that being open and honest with
people is such a good thing.
47. Well, basically, I fell in love with my (female) roommate. I feel like my entire life
has changed; that a whole different side of me that I was denying suddenly came
out when I realized how I felt about her. I feel like I am now a more genuine
person.
48. 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.
49. A crucial experience in my college development has been the founding of a
community service organization on campus specifically for black women. This
organization helped establish two relationships in particular with two black
females who continue to be an inspiration and influence in my life. The
organization allows for black women to come together and speak solely and
specifically about ourselves in relation to everything and everyone else. What is
important about this experience for me has been identifying myself in the larger
community by learning and growing specifically with other black females because
we always seem to be a neglected group. The long term effect of this organization
will only be determined with time, but presently has widened my eyes to all forms
of discrimination and injustices that I hope to be a part of curing in the future.
50. a) My fall semester of my sophomore year, I felt apart. As I struggled to reclaim
(or even uncover) my identity following a difficult summer, I withdrew from
others out of fear and shame that they would reject whatever identity I was
struggling to find. Several key individuals refused to let me pull back from them.
b) This primarily includes one woman who is now my best friend. She is the most
accepting, considerate, thoughtful, and profoundly loving person that I know. c)
Her consistent presence through a time when I know I was not easy to be around
helped me define what it was that I wanted for myself, and that was a more
fulfilled life that she was modeling. d) Because of my experience with her then
and even until now, I recognize my worth and value. She was the one who taught

142
me to dance, to hug, to let go...she dared me into being. There is no kind of
gratitude that can return what she gave me: myself.
51. 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 completely cliche way (I'm not really all
that outgoing, etc.) and helped me out of my shell.
52. a) When I fell in love with my girlfriend. b) My girlfriend was involved and I
guess my friends were too. c) This was important because it made me realize that
I wasn't destined to be alone and searching for someone who could love me back
forever. d) I believe this experience has made me confident in myself and made
me realize I really am capable of being loved and finding love.

Experiencing Bi-phobia (BI-PHOBIA):

53. (a) After having come out as queer (never really specifically bi or lesbian, but as
more interested in girls than boys, so my orientation always had a distinct lesbian
sensibility and it still does), I developed an interest in a male friend of mine and
realized I had no good reason not to date him, so I did. We dated for a year and
had as successful a relationship as I have ever had. (b) My male friend Mike, who
I'd been friends with for 6 months was involved in this relationship with me. He
was my boyfriend for about one year. Although he was mostly straight, he was
definitely a little queer, which I believe had a lot to do with why I was initially
attracted to him. (c) This experience was important to me because it forced me to
address my bisexuality in a way that I had previously not had to deal with.
Because of experiences in high school and very early college, I always knew I had
the potential to date men, which is why I avoided identifying publicly as lesbian.
But I always FELT like a lesbian because I was (and still am) so very rarely
attracted to men. But being with Mike helped me understand that this is still a
form of bisexuality (I knew this logically but somehow couldn’t internalize it until
I dated a boy long-term), and by avoiding using the term “bisexual,” I was
allowing myself to perpetuate my own internalized biphobia, which in turn
perpetuated the biphobia of others (a serious problem which is RAMPANT in the
lesbian community). So long story short, having a real relationship with a boy
helped me understand myself and my own orientation more, and it has helped me
realize the very real difficulties that exist for people whose orientations lie
anywhere in the wide expanse BETWEEN gay and straight. (d) As previously
stated, this experience has helped me become more comfortable both with
bisexuality in general and my own bisexuality. My own orientation is thus: I am
far more likely to experience feelings and desires for women on a daily basis--I
am rarely attracted to men, but when I am, it's not any less intense than when I'm
attracted to a woman. I had always known that in high school I had had very real
feelings for certain men and also satisfying sexual experiences with them, so by
my logic (and ethics) there was no reason I should assume that I couldn’t form a

143
relationship with a man in the future, so I avoided coming out as a lesbian. After
all, we’ve all seen people put all their eggs in one basket orientation-wise, and
then have to eat their words later—and though I don’t look down on them for it, I
really didn’t want that to have to be me. But my desire for men was so infrequent
that it was simply never a pressing concern in my daily life as a queer girl, except
when I wanted to refer in conversation to some relationship I’d had with a man,
because then it reminded me (and whoever I was having the conversation with) of
the fact that I could be and had been attracted to the opposite sex...there was this
urge that I had to fight, to downplay my past with men to keep from alienating
myself as different (even though downplaying any equally valid relationship
based on gender goes against my ethics as a queer). Still, this knowledge kept me
from ever truly identifying as lesbian, because doing so would both falsely
invalidate some of the real relationships I've had in the past and I, like most
people, need to refer to all my past relationships in order to relate to new ones.
Also, falsely invalidating any real relationship for the sake of gaining societal
appeal (say, to the lesbian community) goes severely against my ethics.
Identifying as lesbian would also lock me into a mode of behavior which is
unlikely to always suit me as the person I am. However, I wasn't comfortable
identifying as bisexual either, because “bisexual” implies that you're interested in
both sexes equally (which is not true for me, and I didn’t want to give the wrong
impression to men), not to mention the great misunderstandings the straight and
gay worlds have of bisexuality as well (I'm not a cheater, I’m not promiscuous,
and I'm NOT into threesomes…barf!). One of the biggest reasons, however, was
because there is SO much prejudice against bisexuals in the lesbian community,
and I didn't want to be hated for something I couldn't control, especially not by
the group of people who I feel my primary connection to and who constitutes the
body of people I am looking to date (I never look to date men; with men it has to
be something like…if it happens it happens). But when I discovered that I was
actually attracted to Mike, I realized that denying my feelings for him would be
just like queers who stay in the closet and turn down opportunities for real
relationships with people of the same sex...it's tragic, and I didn't want to be the
reverse example, since I am out and proud and it goes against everything I believe
in to turn down someone that could really mean something to you just because
your world will be turned upside down because people will think negative things
in terms of your orientation. So throughout the year of dating him I had to become
more comfortable with being bisexual, because I stayed active in the queer
community, and with a boyfriend, it was clear for the first time that I was bisexual
to me and to others, and gradually I came to accept and understand that and feel
comfortable enough to talk about it to other people. It was a good relationship,
and I grew as a person both because of this learning process and because of the
relationship itself, and I am so glad to have learned what I did from it. Now I
understand what bisexuality really is—that it's ANYWHERE between gay and
straight, and that it might be closer to one side or the other, and that really it’s
different for everyone—and that sexuality doesn't really need to be measured or

144
defined, and neither do I. I shouldn’t have to feel guilty for anyone I’m interested
in because of their gender, and any queer who doesn’t understand that needs to
relearn the very basics of what they learned when they figured out they were
queer in the first place. I feel more confident and stronger as a person, and I feel
lucky to have experienced enough that I feel able to share what I've learned, to
educate people about what bisexuality actually is…because if it took me this long
to really learn it, then there’s a definitely lot of room for improvement.
54. (a) My lesbian teacher spoke very negatively to me about bisexual women after
class (the class was listed as an LGBT studies class). She said things (and I
paraphrase) like "why would anybody ever marry a bisexual," "why would any
bisexual ever date a woman when they can get social acceptance by being with a
man," "why would anyone want to be with a woman who was going to leave you
for a man," "why would anyone want to be with someone who is confused?" For
that last question, when I countered with, "who says bisexuals are confused?" she
said, "Well they do!" Apparently to her, "bisexual" is simply synonymous with
"confused." (b) The other person involved in this incident was my teacher, Jane.
She is a 50- or 60-something lesbian who was teaching my class, which was
called Asian American Sexualities. That class was listed both under Asian
American Studies and LGBT Studies. (c) This incident taught me that biphobia
and terrible prejudice exists in force and is largely condoned within the lesbian
community, especially the older lesbian community (although I've had other
experiences which how shown me that there's still a strong stigma in my own
generation as well). It also taught me that you can't always trust even the people
who are supposed to be teaching you about tolerance and acceptance to actually
know anything about those things. (d) Despite the fact that this experience was so
negative, it was extremely educational. It made me realize in a very real way that
ignorance can be found even in the most surprising and disappointing places.
However, I see this as a positive realization, because if you are ready to receive
hatred and ignorance, it's not as harsh a betrayal when you realize that it's there--
and you are better prepared to argue your case in favor of education and
acceptance. This doesn't mean that I expect everyone to be as hateful as Jane
was...but it does mean that if someone does give me opinions which are based on
hate and/or ignorance, I will have intelligent arguments to help educate that
person as well as whoever might be hearing the conversation. If it doesn't stick in
their mind--then at least the people who were listening at that moment won't just
have her side of the story to mull over. Also, I'm proud of how I responded to
Jan's comments that day; I feel that I did a good job countering all her arguments
(which were entirely based on stereotypes and myths), and hopefully I gave her
something to think about.
55. I started a new job this year in which two of the women whom I work with
identify as lesbians. I didnt come out to them due to the fact that i was dating a
man and because the women coworkers had made some comments about how
"straight i was." I think this was a very significant experience because I am very
open about who I date or have sex with. However, this incident has made me not

145
want to share certain information because it feels like I am not 'gay enough' for
some people in the gay comunity due to the fact that I date men. It got to the point
where I questioned who i was and i think i will continue to do so for a while.
56. I joined and within one semester became an member of LGBF (lesbians, gays,
bisexuals, and friends). It was nice to have friends that I didn't have to act
different in front of (or watch my he/she) with. There were several people in the
club that made me happy I joined, Krysten, Ramon, Moorea... and others. It made
me realize that you have to be who you are regardless of what others say about
you because you will always find support when you need it. It was a positive
experiance for the first 2 1/2 years; I look back with many fond memories.... but
after an administration change in the club I no longer felt welcomed (they felt that
bisexuals were wrong and should be "punnished because you can't f*cking choose
a side")... That led to my disasociation with them... but the first 2 and 1/2 years
helped.
57. I went to a support group for queer women. One woman went off on a rant about
bisexuals, and then paused mid-rant to ask, "are there any bisexuals here?" I knew
that if I didn't raise my hand I would never be able to feel safe in the group again
or to respect myself. So I did, and she stopped her rant. It bothered me that no one
else challenged her behaviour, even the supposedly 'supportive' lesbians who
comforted me afterwards. From that point on I've made a point of challenging
offensive behaviour even if it's not directed at me.
58. My sophomore year, I was interested in a girl that I met in Queer Student Union.
We starting spending a lot of time together. When I told her her about my feelings
for her, she told me that she felt the same way but did not want to be in a
relationship with me because I am bisexual. She was a lesbian and thought that it
was disgusting that I had kissed men before. I was very angry and hurt that she
did not want to be with me because of my sexuality.
59. A negative experience has been the continual labeling and questioning of my
sexuality in the LGBT community. Even within the LGBT community there is
hierarchies and assumptions, "bisexual" individuals, like myself are constantly
made aware of being of different communities gay and straight at all instances.

Experiencing Homophobia (HOMOPHOBIA):

60. When I was a freshman, my roommate was a very conservative Southern Baptist
from North Carolina. I told her I was gay almost right off, but I never brought
friends or partners around, and I was very tolerant of her holding Bible study in
our room and having her boyfriend over a lot. After about a month, though, she
moved across the hall, telling me that she 'liked that side of the hall better.' Her
next roommate later confirmed that she had in fact moved out because she was
uncomfortable with having a gay roommate. I felt pretty shit for awhile, but I
talked with my RA and she reminded me that I hadn't particularly liked my
roommate anyway. And at least after she left, I could bring people over and relax.

146
I actually felt much more comfortable in my room after that, and my new
roommate was cool with my sexuality and didn't seem to mind my friends.
61. We were collecting signature of individuals who supported gay marriage as part
of a post carding campaign for Mass Equality, an organization based in Boston
that fights for equal marriage rights of GLBTQ people. These other people were
fellow AWARE members, my college's gay-straight alliance. We were not
harassing anyone; we simply set up a table and asked people who walked by if
they would like to sign someone that states that they support gay marriage. we got
many positive and negative responses, but that was fine because we weren't there
to push our opinion on others. However there was one guy who responded to our
request by yelling 'no, i'm not gay!' and walked away. it made me realize that
although my age group is the most accepting of the GLBTQ life style, there are
still people my age who are ignorant and are afraid to even look at the issues
because of homophobia. it was shocking that someone would be so closed-minded
about this. it made me realize that people my age still make assumptions, unfair
ones, about thsoe who support gay marriage.
62. When I lived in the dorms on our campus, I was harrassed quite a bit. One
particular incident involved someone taking my name plate off my door, ripping it
up into pieces in our bathroom, and burning a swastika on the ceiling above it.
That person was never caught. I felt very unsafe and the incident was reported to
the police and campus security and I had to move to a new dorm.
63. When I was a freshman, I was walking along the sidewalk towards "downtown"
College Park, holding my girlfriends hand and also accompanied by a bi-
identified female friend. A group of guys playing football in the field we were
passing by called us dykes and said other lewd things. My two friends were pretty
pissed but I dragged them along, not wanting to get involved in physical violence,
especially because there were a bunch of them. One of my friends hollered some
retorts but I just kept walking. It was hard. I still wonder if I should have said or
done something. It didn't change my sense of myself, but it definitely reinforced
my feeling of having to fight to be that self.
64. a) a white straight male approached my girlfriend and i in a campus coffee shop to
talk about a book he was writing 'about gay people' and after never stating his
goal and confusing us with pseudo-intellectual rhetoric and seemingly unfounded
statistics proceeded to illuminate for us why being was inherantly dangerous
(physically and mentally) and that people can be steered toward not being gay if
brought up properly etc. b)my girlfriend c)He assumed that it was his right to
appraoch two 'lesbians' as he called us and impose his agenda onto people he did
not know and who didn't really want to give him the time of day. He made
assumptions about who we were, yet al.lowed none to be made about him, and his
his actual point behind a surface friendliness and 'understanding', only to then
make us feel like crap. d)Just one of those things that wakes you up to what will
probably happen rather often outside of a college environment
65. 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.

147
66. I was in a class where one of the students said that "gay marriage" would destroy
heterosexual relationships. I challenged him about it, asking how my dating or
marrying a woman rather than a man would affect how much he loves his wife. I
asked him if he would want to spend less time with her, would love his child less,
or would question his sexuality in ways he hadn't before. I'd made it a point of
coming out in every class since I started at school, but that was the first time I'd
encountered anything homophobic in a university classroom. The teacher didn't
intervene either way, and the discussion was on topic in that we were discussing
relgion and sexuality. It made me realize that I could argue one on one with
someone who disagreed with me and not lose. It made me feel powerful.
67. 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.
68. A close friend of mine told me he would not let his children hang out with my
children because he would not want his children to believe that homosexuailty is
okay. I knew he was conservative and we had often discussed homosexuality in
the past. But this statement struck me as one of the cruelest thing a friend could
say to another friend. It created a sense in me that no matter how 'normal' I am, I
would still be seen as an 'other,' even to my friends.
69. During my Sophmore 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 effiminate 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 potiential to be a victim.
(Dealing with hate crimes; feeling safe in the world)
70. Recently I witnessed a fight between two groups of young men, one that may or
may not have been made up of gay men and one group that were antagonistic
toward homosexuals. I stood listening to people screaming the words 'faggot',
'homo' and 'sucking cock' outside my window, until the group of gay? boys left.
It's the first I've actually experienced anything negative toward the LGBT
community here, which is why it stands out, and overall it just brings me back to
the reality of the world, which is not always the same as the relatively safer
environment of a liberal college campus.
71. 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.

148
Having a Conflictual Situation that Solidified my View of Myself (CONFLICT):

72. 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.
73. My roommate and I got into a fight my sophomore year. We were very close or so
I thought until I tried to get to know her better and found her unwilling to be as
intimate with her as I had wanted to be. This caused a rift between us and really
made me step back and reevaluate myself and how I deal with others . I think it
helped me because It forced me to try with a friendship instead of giving up on it,
as before I would have just cut ties with this person. I found it also helped me
with confrontation and constructive disagreements as well as speaking more
concisely without being hurtful. It really made me love people a lot more and
helped me come full circle in the quest to love myself as I accepted that I had
personality flaws that made me uniquely who I am.
74. 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
expereince working with someone who was not open to different ideas, different
people, or different philosphies.
75. 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". 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.

Participating in Campus Organizations (CAMPUS ORGS):

76. In February of my freshman year I had an opportunity to attend an LGBT
collegiate conference. I had been involved with out campus organization already
for one semester, and out as bisexual for a year, but this was the first time I had a
real sense of a large queer community, a bisexual community in particular; a
sense that I was not alone in my identity. My fellow students from here that went
were acquaintances, good enough friends, but I was not close to them. At the

149
conference I made a point to get to every session I could on identity and
bisexuality, just to hear others' voices and experiences. It was important to me
then, early on, to hear those voices and see those faces and be able to really
openly talk about what I thought of my sexual identity, which I had not really
done before. That this opportunity was early in my college career I think was very
important, and it helped me feel comfortable using the word bisexual, which up
until that point I was still not. The conference helped foster in me a sense of the
community, of the support that exists, and it made involvement and activism very
important to me, because I wanted then, and now, to make sure that everyone
feels they have that sort of community, that no one ever has to feel despair at
being alone, no one should ever have to attempt taking their own life like I did
because they feel alone. Everyone's experiences are different, but we can come
together and share and build that community. Since my freshman year, I've spent
two of the following years as an executive officer of our queer organization trying
to build that community at my university, and we've begun trying to extend that
community to our high schools, which can be a dangerous place and time for
many queer identified youth.
77. This is not a single event, but rather a series of events; or, specifically a repetition
of a single type. Heh. Our organization runs an educational panel program on
campus, sending LGBT and ally community members into classrooms and
boardrooms to present and discuss issues of identity and sexuality, as well as
opening the campus to discussion. I have since become too busy academically,
but my sophomore year I participated in a large number of these panels. It was
good in a number of ways. It was very positive to be able to share my voice once
again not only with fellow queer identified people, but also to share my thoughts
with other people who might not have been exposed to much outside their own
backgrounds (we do live in a small, cornfield town in Ohio). I think empowering
and educating not only our own queer community, but other people as well is
incredibly important to making change happen and opening minds to more human
diversity. Panels and my participating in them were a wonderful experience in
working to improve our campus environment and community and public
education. Our organization continues to bring dozens of these presentations to
classes and meetings and we're a commonly heard name around campus.
78. (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

150
university like Tufts. (d) It gave me a group of friends who could appreciate my
sense of humor.
79. Becoming actively involved in the Queer Student Union (QSU) when I first
arrived at Towson University as a freshman greatly impacted my sense of self.
That was the first time I had met so many people who were in my age group and
identified openly as queer. I also met many queer Asians and Filipinos. It was fun
and exciting to me and also gave me emotional support. I became more proud of
being bisexual and Filipina.
80. 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.

Being Involved with Leadership (LEADERSHIP):

81. 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.
82. I was recognized by a number of people for my leadership skills within the
University community. Administrators, peers, and people I don't even know
directly all took time to acknowledge my work at UVA. In the work that I do, I
often forget how strong I am and how much of a positive impact I actually do
have on my community. Being recognized reminded me of my strengths and
continues to inspire my work so as not to let down those people that are aware of
what I am doing.
83. a) Also in the fall of my sophomore year - and one of the catalysts for my
depression - I took an intense leadership seminar through a selective program.

151
Every week I dreaded the course because of how it forced me to look at the way I
thought of myself and examine where i stood on crucial issues. Group work,
hypotheticals, lengthy discussions about the world's greatest questions...these tore
me apart. Part of the seminar included each person spending twenty minutes
speaking about themselves, which I felt was instigating artificial friendships and a
facade of closeness. b) My classmates, I felt, were distant and on another plane.
At the time I didn't believe that they felt anything toward me, and that I did not
feel anything toward them. Instead, I was only projecting my own fear and sense
of isolation. c) Although it was devastingly painful experience, I needed this class
to get to a better place within myself. d) I wouldn't want to do it again, but I love
the people from my class and still spend time with most of them. I don't know the
answers to the world's greatest questions, but I do know how I want to be present
with the people I am with.

Experiencing a Class that Changed my Worldview (CLASS):

84. At Syracuse we have a class labeled QSX 112, where we discuss Bodies,
Genders, Sexualities and Identities. In this class, under the guidence of Minnie
Bruce Pratt, I became aware of the false and unbalanced dichotomy of masculine
and feminine. This made me begin to question everything that we take for
granted, that I take for granted; the social constructs that I can choose or not
choose to accept as long as I am aware of them. These social constructs are
frustratingly destructive and beneficial. They serve a purpose and cause great
harm simultaneously.
85. (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 gay man as not
just a sexual orientation, but a significant influence in shaping my identity
86. IN an acting class that i was in we learned about how we must sell ourselves if we
wanted to be considered as serious actors. The professor told us that people would
expect women to have long hair. It was at this moment that I decided I didn't want
to be an actor because I didn't want to have to compromise who I was.
87. 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 coureses that focus on issues of sexuality and gender.
It's like I cannot emmerse myself enough in activities and courses concerning
sexuality and gender issues.

152
88. Taking my first Women's Studies class opened up my eyes in ways that I never
would have imagined. I was an incredibly conservative before enrolling in
college, and now I have a completely different view of both the world and
politics. Taking this class introduced me to professors, classmates, and others that
made me more interested in feminism and learning about gender norms. I am now
a women's studies double major.
89. I took a class in which I had to go to freshman classes and talk about my
experiences as an LGBT person on campus. Having to articulate my identity over
and over allowed me to synthesize a lot of complex aspects of my identity for
myself. The other people in my class and my professor were extremely important
in this process because hearing their stories clarified my own experiences. I think
the long term effect of this is that I am much more comfortable explaining the
complexities of my identity and identity in general to a relatively uninformed
audience.

Experiencing a Tragic Event (TRAGEDY):

90. The incident that had the biggest impact on my life was my freshman year when
my ex boyfriend tried commiting 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.
91. 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.
92. In the first month I was at school, I was drugged at a party. The combination of
drugs put into my drink nearly killed me. I never found out who did it, but the
people I had the most contact with was public safety. Because it happened off
campus, they took little interest in investigating it. All other Unviersity staff was
great though. This experience left a lasting impact because I came to value my life
more and place a huge emphasis on trust. It did make me highly cautious and I
realize I'm a very judgmental person as a result and quite a control freak. In the
long-term, I learned a lot about myself and what is most important to me. I also
learned to not be so naive and there are a lot of injustices in the world.
93. 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.
94. 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

153
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.

Feeling Judged or Labeled by Others (JUDGMENT):

95. 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
our society treats marginal groups should stop whining and just get over it. It has
been fascinating watching people who hold these beliefs.
96. I went to the health center to ask about the possibility of sterilization surgery and
the doctor was very hesitant about even talking about it. She finally sighed and
gave me the "Are you trans?" interview and I answered no. She then labelled me
as "gender neutral" and sent me off to watch videos about safe sex for
heterosexual couples. I felt this was a very important day in my life because I
realized how quick people are to label me, my sexual orientation, and my gender
status. I like to live without definite labels and more of a floating status, so this
accusuation just hurt since it was so cold and abrupt. This doctor doesn't know
me. She can't possibly know how I view myself and my body, but she labelled it
all. It makes me nervous to talk about any of these topics to people other than my
partner.
97. I am a light skinned woman. My first year at USM, my second year out of high
school, I was meeting with a group of mostly LGBT students having a casual
conversation about politics and college and the queer community and the like.
The conversation eventually turned to race and many people started talking about
how unfortunate it is that 'we' (being LGBT students on campus) don't have more
participation from LGBT students of color. I remeber being afraid inside at that
moment, not that my peers wouldn't accept me if they learned of my ethnicity, but
that they would think of me as some sort of middle class 'white' girl trying to
hijack minority experiance. I thought about being bisexual and how I am not
afraid to identify publicly as such and I realized that it is silly to be afraid to be
'publicly hispanic' in the same way. I came 'out' as latina to my friends that day
and decided to live loudly as bisexual and hispanic all the time. Regardless of
how I 'read' to other people.
98. My job on campus has a business casual dress code, and since I work every
weekday and don't have time to change, I'm pretty much always in work clothes.
One of the people around school I sort of knew but didn't really hang out with
heard me swear and reacted with exaggerated surprise because she thought I was
very conservative. It gave me a bit of a complex for almost a year. I didn't change
my behavior at work, but I was very careful to dress more more alternatively

154
when I was off work, I died my hair, and then buzzed it pretty severely. I always
knew who I was, but it was very important to me that other people didn't misjudge
me because of my appearance.
99. This year I chose to move back into the dorms on campus. The building I live in
has only single rooms, but the floors are still gendered (two for 'boys' and two for
'girls'). The bathrooms are also gendered, unfortunately. I identify as genderqueer
or gender varient, I am female-bodied, and I present as male. So public bathrooms
pose a huge issue for me. After getting really awful looks for some of the girls on
my floor when they saw me in the female bathroom (while presenting male), I
decided I would be much more comfortable in the male bathroom, especially
since I knew more people on the male floor, so I felt safer. After a week of using
the male bathroom, I felt confident that the guys either thought I was male or
didn't care one way or the other. Even the RA didn't say anything. It was an
amazing feeling to have some sense of being in the "right" bathroom. One day,
however, I walked out of the male bathroom and my female RA was standing
outside the door. She called me by my female name (which I haven't used in a
really long time), and told me I have to use the girls' bathroom like the rest of
them. It was devastating. I felt like my RA didn't respect me and that although the
campus is gay-friendly, there is nothing but ignorance and intolerance toward the
queer and trans community. I now use the female bathroom because I can get
serious fines getting caught in the "wrong" bathroom. I feel uncomfortable and
unwelcome in my own living situation. It made me feel like it would just be easier
to closet myself again until I got out of the dorms. Very little makes me feel that
way.
100. I work at a small animal hospital with a staff of ~12 people. We are all close
with one another and spend a lot of time together. The owner and one associate
are very conservative and their opinions must be respected. However, they make
the rest of us feel uncomfortable as they voice their feelings on social and political
issues, while stifling different opinions. I have worked there from my 2nd year on,
but noticed how this affected me in my 3rd year.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Despite the growing visibility of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning or Queer (LGBTQ) undergraduates in colleges and universities throughout the United States, the effect of college experiences on the development of identity for this subgroup of students has been little studied. In a two-phase mixed methods study, 100 LGBTQ undergraduates completed critical incident reports describing the experiences they perceived to be most influential on their developing sense of self. From these incidents, raters identified categories of experience that reflected issues integral to sexual and student identity. The most prominent categories identified were Experiencing Acceptance after Coming Out and Experiencing the Support of Others which were on the positive end of the positive rating scale and Experiencing Homophobia, Experiencing Biphobia and Feeling Judged or Labeled by Others which appeared on the negative end of the same rating scale. The categories were assigned similarity ratings by study participants and were analyzed using multidimensional scaling (MDS). A two dimensional scale was used with Dimension 1 labeled as External versus Internal Processes and Dimension 2 as Finding Support through Others versus Acceptance of Self. The concept map which resulted graphically displays how LGBTQ undergraduates conceptually organize their understanding of the impact of college on their identity development. The concept map was analyzed using hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA).Three clusters were created which illustrate unity among the categories within that particular structure. These three clusters are: Life-Changing Incidents, Interactive Intimacy, and Affirmation of Self. Suggestions for further research and implications for college faculty, staff, and administration are articulated. Implications for the study include suggestions regarding development and use of support systems, potential faculty and staff trainings, course possibilities, and the need for f

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

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

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

PDF

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

PDF

Beyond the binary: a phenomenological study of the campus experiences and social identities of bisexual, pansexual, fluid, and queer students at a public university

PDF

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

PDF

Study abroad and the ethnoracial identity development of Latinx students

PDF

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

PDF

Correspondence between level of racial identity of African-American therapists and of a vignette-depicted African-American client and assessed client problem severity

PDF

Creating community online: the effects of online social networking communities on college students' experiences

PDF

STEM identity development: examining the experiences of transfer students

PDF

A phenomenological study of the impact of English language learner support services on students’ identity development

PDF

Self-perceptions of student identity in community college students with disabilities

PDF

Educators, experiences, and environment: exploring Doctor of Physical Therapy student perceived influences on professional identity formation

Asset Metadata

Creator Woods, Kimberlee A. (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Psychology)

Publication Date 03/26/2009

Defense Date 01/16/2009

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

Tag bisexual,Gay,identity development,lesbian,LGBTQ,OAI-PMH Harvest,student development

Place Name USA (countries)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

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

Creator Email kimw@centerlb.org,RaeAdair@yahoo.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2035

Unique identifier UC1228784

Identifier etd-Woods-2632 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-215126 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2035 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Woods-2632.pdf

Dmrecord 215126

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Woods, Kimberlee A.

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