Sexual minorities in faith-based higher education: a national survey of attitudes, milestones, identity, and religiosity.
Stratton, Stephen P. ; Dean, Janet B. ; Yarhouse, Mark A. 等
Studies on faith-based campuses are beginning to offer a glimpse
into the real experience of sexual minority students in these unique
settings. This study adds to this growing body of information by
surveying 247 undergraduates, who describe themselves as sexual
minorities at 19 Christian schools across the United States. They
responded to questions related to attitudes regarding sexuality, sexual
identity, religiosity, and sexual milestone events. The results from
this sample suggest those who attend higher education at faith-based
institutions are a distinctive group within Western culture when it
comes to the development of religious/spiritual identity and sexual
identity. Although diversity with regard to same-sex and opposite-sex
attraction is present among those surveyed, common themes exist for this
unique sample of undergraduates. Implications for mainstream culture and
Christian educational institutions are discussed.
The discussion of sexual minorities in faith-based higher education
has become noteworthy in Western culture. In The New York Times, Eckholm
(2011) described "battles for acceptance by gay and lesbian
students" (para. 1) at Bible colleges and evangelical Christian
universities in the United States (US). Based on journalistic interviews
at a variety of Christian institutions with students who self-reported
as gay or lesbian, the author noted the clash between students and
institutional administrators who were defending longstanding religious
prohibitions. The article recorded the painful struggles for these
interviewed students as they were striving to mature in their sexual
identities in settings that were characterized as intolerant of their
developmental process. Without questioning the need to listen to the
student voices from this often "invisible" demographic group
(Rankin, 2003), one is left to wonder if Eckholm's narrative
accurately describes the majority perspective of sexual minorities at
faith-based institutions of higher learning. Is this the principal
experience of sexual minorities in religious higher education?
Unfortunately, there has been little formal research to understand the
aggregate experience of this culturally important group.
In 2009, Yarhouse, Stratton, Dean, and Brooke conducted a survey of
104 undergraduate sexual minority students at three Council of Christian
College and University (CCCU) member schools. The purpose of the study
was to develop a safe and confidential way for students to tell stories
of their experience of same sex attraction in a Christian college and
university. The authors also sought to avoid convenience sampling that
has been so common of research in this area. As they gathered data from
this select group of undergraduate students it became clear, in part,
that the results corroborated previous findings from secular campuses
(c. g., Rankin, 2003). Specifically, they affirmed the presence of a
"negative" climate for those who experience same sex
attraction (SSA), whether or not they attend religious or secular
schools. Of greater interest but in contrast to the previously mentioned
New York Times article (Eckholm, 2011) was the finding that the majority
of surveyed CCCU students did not perceive the negative climate at these
Christian institutions to be strongly associated with administrators,
faculty, or staff. They overwhelmingly noted that the negative campus
culture experienced by sexual minority students was primarily connected
to fellow students in non-curricular settings using derogatory
references and stereotyping speech. Institutional faith-based policies
and procedures were noted but did not rise to the importance of the
relational dynamics of the campus.
Herek, Gillis, and Cogan (2009) asserted the importance of this
distinction in differentiating "heterosexism," related to
institutional practice, and "sexual stigma; associated with
individual life in communal settings. Although faith-based institutions
have features of heterosexism, defined as an "ideology embodied in
institutional practices that work to the disadvantage of sexual minority
groups" (Herek et al., 2009, p. 33), the Yarhouse et al. (2009)
sample of Christian college and university students appeared more
concerned with issues related to sexual stigma that operate at the
individual and relational levels.
The anecdotal reports from Eckholm (2011) combined with the
surveyed data from Yarhouse et al. (2009) suggest that students who
experience SSA and also attend faith-based institutions are not a
homogeneous group. It seems highly probable that some sexual minority
students elect not to enter religious higher education, thus reducing
variability on faith-based campuses. Those who do enroll in faith-based
institutions, however, are far from monolithic. Motivations for
attendingfaith-based institutions among sexual minorities seem to vary,
although research is yet to confirm this inference. It seems reasonable
to assume that sexual minorities on faith-based campuses highly value
the religious/spiritual in their identity development and may hold these
values more centrally than those who attend other institutions, but even
for this point of commonality, diversity can still be found. Sexual
minorities on Christian campuses are a unique blend of persons for whom
sexuality and religiosity/spirituality are two very prominent
interacting and multi-level variables.
A closer look at sexual minorities on Christian campuses suggests
an identity development continuum with "sexual core values"
anchoring one extreme and "religious/spiritual core values"
anchoring the other. On the side of sexual values, the centrality of
sexual development is affirmed as the predominant and governing variable
for identity formation. On the side of religious/spiritual values, the
centrality of religion and/or spirituality is affirmed as the most
important feature of identity formation. Both are unquestionably
essential aspects of identity formation in Western culture, but it is
likely that these students feel torn as they try to negotiate this
developmental path (Waldner-Haugrad & Magruder, 1996). These are but
two of a myriad of powerful cultural voices that seek to influence
student formation, but in faith-based institutions they are arguably the
primary foci for sexual minority development.
When cultural voices lobby from the extremes, students can feel
"forced to choose between being accepted by an LGBT community that
is hostile to religious involvement or remaining alienated as a member
of the religious community" (Dobmeier, as cited in Shallcross,
2011, p. 32). One is left to wonder if these values are actually as
adversarial as they are at times portrayed. The resulting polarization
experienced by students is unfortunate since in the middle of the
continuum may be found positions that achieve a personal identity with
some degree of compromise between or integration of these two variables.
Konik and Stewart (2004) found that religious identity development might
even be encouraged by formation of an achieved sexual identity status in
some undergraduate and graduate students. Is it also possible that
religious and/or spiritual identity development could encourage sexual
identity status as well? That is yet to be determined in the
professional literature.
The Yarhouse et al. (2009) study of three CCCU schools reported
that the majority of their non-representative sample sought to establish
an identity with their conservative religious beliefs and spiritual
experience as an essential feature of their identity formation. Even
though they did not discount the influence of their sexual experiences,
most viewed the faith-based academic community as a wanted step in their
identity formation for that time in their life. Despite the finding that
the negative climate often promoted a life of selective disclosure
(e.g., Herek et al., 2009), at least with regard to their sexual
development, they wanted the opportunity to grow their faith in the
context of religious higher education.
More research is needed to know the longer-term ramification of
this choice in religious academic communities, particularly in light of
Rostosky, Danner, and Riggle (2008) who found that sexual minorities
were less likely than heterosexuals to report a current religious
affiliation as they moved from adolescence to young adulthood. Is it
expected that those sexual minorities who attend faith-based
institutions will show the same kind of decline in religious affiliation
because of the effect of the negative cultural climate and the
protective invisibility? Or, might the impact be different for those who
intentionally choose religious colleges and universities for one reason
or another? The paucity of research on sexual minorities at religious
institutions does not permit a clear answer at this time, but it seems
likely that these students are a unique subgroup in the population of
sexual minorities.
One distinctive of this group involves "milestone events: and
it appears to warrant further study. As individuals advance through
various stages in sexual identity formation, milestone behaviors can
signal the movement from one stage to another, suggesting identity
development. Milestone events have proven useful in secular (Dube &
Savin-Williams, 1999) and religious (Yarhouse & Tan, 2004) research
among sexual minorities. Often, milestone events include the following:
(1) experience of SSA, (2) engagement in same-sex behavior, (3) labeling
of oneself, (4) disclosure of identity to others, and (5) relationship
with another member of the same sex. This framework however is not
intended as a proscriptive stage model that is uniform and
deterministic. Milestones are simply one way to compare sexual
development in groups across time. Yarhouse and Tan (2004) found
differences in their study comparing Christian sexual minorities who
identified as gay compared to those who dis-identified with a gay
identity. Christians who dis-identified with a gay identity often chose
not to engage in same-sex behavior. Furthermore, they were less likely
than those who currently identified as gay to label themselves as gay.
Yarhouse et al. (2009) reported on milestone events for their
surveyed sample of undergraduates at three faith-based institutions.
They found that 70% of respondents reported first awareness of SSA at an
average age of 12.9 (SD = 4.1 years). Confusion about same-sex feelings
was reported by 71% of participants at an average age of 14.3 (SD = 3.5
years). Same-sex behavior to orgasm was reported by 30% of those
surveyed at an average age of 16.4 (SD = 3.4). Concerning sexual
identity labeling, 14% of the sample assumed a label of lesbian, gay, or
bisexual, and for those who did so, this occurred at an average age of
17.9 (SD = 3.9). Participants were also asked about their first same-sex
relationship, and 20% reported a first same-sex relationship at an
average age of 18.2 (SD = 3.3 years). It is within these later two
categories that the differences arc the largest with smaller percentages
assuming a label and engaging in first same sex relationships (Yarhouse
& Tan, 2004). Indeed, Yarhouse and Tan (2004) found that among
Christian sexual minorities the average age for those who settled on a
"gay" identity label was around 26 years of age. The average
age for those whose sexual identity was formed around dis-identification
with a "gay" identity was around 34 years of age.
Those who experience same-sex attraction and attend faith-based
colleges and universities appear to be a distinct subgroup among sexual
minorities. On the basis of the preliminary evidence noted above, there
is a need to increase understanding of the experiences of this unique
sample. Although many sexual minorities identify a religious background
or hold a high regard for personal spirituality (Ritter & Terndrup,
2002), they are likely not the same as those who choose to attend a
faith-based college or university. The current study is designed to make
further inquiries regarding attitudes and milestone events related to
this subgroup of sexual minorities. The data gathered was part of a
larger survey study (Lastoria, 2011) examining religiosity and sexuality
of Christian college students at faith-based institutions. A selected
set of questions was added to the general survey pertaining to those who
experience same sex attraction. The Association for Christians in
Student Development funded the survey to inform its membership about
these important aspects of culture in the undergraduate experience at
faith-based institutions.
Method
Participants and Procedure
Introductory packets inviting institutions to participate in the
study were mailed in the fall of 2008 to over 100 chief student affairs
officers comprising the bulk of the Association for Christians in
Student Development (ACSD) member schools. Over 40 schools initially
showed some interest in participating in the study, and of these, 19
schools (representing 14 states) elected to participate. Five schools
were located in the Northeast (MA = 2., NY = 2, PA; 27.0% n = 638), 7 in
the Midwest (MN = 2, IA, IL, IN, OH, MI; 44.9% n = 1060), 2 in the South
(TN = 2:7.3% n = 173), 2 in the South Central (KS, OK; 7.2% n = 170),
and 3 in the West (CA, OR = 2; 13.3% n =314). While the locations of the
schools suggest a broader sampling, 71.9% of the sample attended schools
in the northeast or Midwest.
Given the sensitive nature of the research, a copy of the IRB
approval letter granted by the host college was included in the
introductory packet. All but one of the 19 schools used the letter to
expedite approval from their own IRB's. The remaining school
conducted a full independent IRB review before putting a stamp of
approval on the research proposal.
Schools provided random samples of 250 to 500 students based on the
size of the school (i.e., schools under 1000 students provided 250
student email addresses; schools over 2000 provided 500 email
addresses). Students were then solicited via email to participate in the
current study. Survey Monkey[C] was used as the survey format with the
encryption option and IP addresses separated from individual surveys to
assure complete anonymity of respondents. Students had the option of
exiting the survey at any time, and could be removed from the
"reminder" list if they chose not to participate in response
to the initial invitation. Prior to sending the invitation to
participate, an all-campus email was sent from a school official
informing the students at each campus that their school had approved the
survey, that they may be chosen at random to receive the survey, and
that participation was completely voluntary and anonymous. Following the
acknowledgment from the individual schools that students had received
the all-campus email, the invitation to participate with a link to the
survey was sent to the random samples. Surveys were sent to a total of
6,275 undergraduate students with 2,360 students responding for a 37.6%
response rate. However, only 31% (N = 1,957) of the entire undergraduate
sample completed the full 15-page survey. The remaining 403 stopped
answering at various points of the survey, completing on average half of
the items.
The overall sample looked similar to the typical population across
Christian colleges and universities. The gender distribution included
64.3 percent female respondents (n = 1483) and 35.7 percent male
respondents (n = 824). The sample was predominately single, never
married, (97.3 percent) and very evenly divided by school class within
tenths of a decimal at 25 percent in each class from first year to
senior students. The age of respondents was parallel with the class
breakdown with 92.7 percent between the ages of 18 and 22 and
approximately 20-23 percent in each year of age 1821 with 6 percent age
22. Students under 18 years of age were prohibited from entering the
survey (n = 17). Seventy-one percent of the sample reported their
parents as currently married, while the remainder of parents were
widowed, separated, or never married. Regarding sexual orientation, 96.4
percent (n = 2225) of the sample reported "heterosexual" as
their sexual identity, 0.9 percent (n = 21) bisexual, 0.8 percent
homosexual (n = 19), 0.2 percent (n = 5) transsexual, 1.6 percent (n =
37) preferred not to answer, while 59 respondents skipped the question.
Ethnicity as a demographic variable was not considered in this study.
Of those students who fully completed the survey, the 12.6 percent
(n = 247) who indicated they had at some point experienced SSA (SSA)
comprised the sample of the current study. This final sample included
142 females (57.5 percent) and 105 males (42.5 percent). Exactly 85
percent of the sample was between the ages of 18 and 21 ([n.sub.18] =
46, [n.sub.19] =70, [n.sub.20] = 49, [n.sub.21] = 45), and only 15
percent of the sample was 22 years old or older ([n.sub.22] = 14,
[n.sub.23] = 7, [n.sub.24] = 3, [n.sub.25 or older] = 13). Students were
evenly sampled across classes, with 55 freshmen (22.3 percent), 65
sophomores (26.3 percent), 62 juniors (25.1percent), and 65 seniors
(26.3). With regard to identified sexual orientation, the majority of
the sample indicated they were heterosexual (n = 198, 79.2 percent). The
majority of the students reported being single (n = 232, 93.9 percent),
while a few reported being married (n = 12, 4.9 percent) or separated (n
= 3, 1.2 percent). In addition, most students indicated they lived
on-campus (n = 203, 82.2 percent), with smaller numbers living
off-campus (n = 25, 10.1 percent) or with parents/family (n = 19, 7.7
percent). Most parents were reportedly married (68.8 percent, n = 170),
while 16.2 percent (n = 40) were divorced or separated, 8.5 percent (n =
21) were single or never married, and 4.0 percent were widowed (n = 10).
Denominational affiliation was mixed with 21.2 percent (n = 52)
"Baptist; 14.7 percent (n = 36) "non-denominational,"
10.6 percent (n = 26) "Interdenominational," 4.9 percent (n =
12) Assemblies of God, 4.1 percent (n = 10) Evangelical Free. The
category, "other," allowed write-ins and represented 15.5
percent (n = 38). "Other" answers ranged from identifiable
categories, such as atheist and agnostic to more idiosyncratic
responses, such as "peace and love" and "still figuring
it out." All other denominational affiliations (n = 21) were
reported at less than 4.0 percent.
Measures
Yarhouse Sexual Orientation Thermometers (Jones & Yarhouse,
2007; Doolin, High, Holt, Atkinson, & Yarhouse, 2011). These two
items asked participants to independently rate the degree of other-sex
attraction (OSA) and same-sex attraction (SSA) they experience. Using a
10-point Liken scale, the ratings of OSA vary from 1 = strong OSA to 10
= no OSA. The scale for same-sex attraction was reversed with 1 = no SSA
and 10= strong SSA.
Attitudes about SSA. These 11 attitudinal statements were created
for the purposes of this study to measure opinions regarding SSA, based
on perceived controversial discussions on Christian college and
university campuses. The items were created to reflect attitudes about
theological, biological, and sociological belief statements.
Approximately half of the items were written to reflect a perspective
intended to be consistent with the worldview of conservative Christian
colleges and universities. The remaining items were crafted to reflect a
perspective to some degree at variance with that worldview. Participants
indicate their degree of agreement with each attitudinal statement on a
5-point Likert scale, where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly
agree. The actual attitudinal items can be viewed in Table 6 in the
Results section.
Duke University Religiosity Index (DUREL; Koenig, Meador, &
Parkerson, 1997). This modified seven-item scale measures frequency of
church attendance (one item; organizational religiosity, OR), frequency
of three personal religious practices (three items; non-organizational
religiosity, NOR), and personally motivated spirituality (three items;
intrinsic religiosity, IR). Originally, the DUREL was a five-item
measure, but for this survey the original NOR item, noting three
separate practices in one sentence, was split into three separate items
for greater specificity. The result was a seven-item adapted DUREL,
instead of the original five-item scale.
Participants indicate the frequency of their religious practices on
the first four items using a 6-point Likert scale, ranging from 0 =
never to 5 = more than once a week. The first item was scored separately
as the organizational religiosity (OR) score, and the three sub-items
regarding personal religious practices were averaged to create the
non-organizational religiosity (NOR) score. Participants also rated
their agreement with three attitudinal statements on a 5-point Likert
scale, ranging from 1 = definitely not true to 5 = definitely true of
me. The intrinsic religiosity (IR) score was created by summing ratings
across these three items: "In my life, I experience the presence of
the Divine (i.e., God)," "My religious beliefs are what really
lie behind my whole approach to life," and "I try hard to
carry my religion over into all other dealings in life."
Participants were divided into groups based on their reported
degree of IR. Those scoring between 12 and 15 were assigned to the High
IR group (n = 181, 73.3 percent), those scoring 7 to 11 to the Moderate
IR group (n = 52, 21.1 percent), and those scoring 6 or less to the Low
IR group (n= 13, 5.3 percent).
In the current study, the four frequency items (i.e., OR and NOR)
had a Cronbach's alpha of 0.80, and the three IR items had a
Cronbach's alpha of 0.88. IR was moderately correlated to OR with a
Pearson product moment correlation coefficient of r = 0.52, n = 246, p
< .001, and to NOR, r = 0.67, n = 237, p < .001. OR and NOR were
moderately correlated, r = 0.53, n = 238, p < .00 1. The original
DUREL has good test-retest reliability (Storch, Strawser, & Storch,
2004) with good internal reliability, factor structure, and convergent
validity (Plante, Vallaeys, Sherman, & Wallston, 2002; Storch et
al., 2004). It is not assumed that separating the one NOR item into
three will make a substantial difference, but no empirical testing has
confirmed this assumption.
Results
Sexual Attraction
Current levels of sexual attraction varied among participants, who
rated their degree of OSA and SSA on the 10-point Yarhouse Sexual
Orientation Thermometers (Jones & Yarhouse, 2007; Doolin et al.,
2011). The bivariate correlation coefficient between scores on the OSA
scale and the SSA scale was .56, p [less than or equal to] .001.
The mean rating of OSA was 2.72 (SD = 2.61), where lower ratings
indicate stronger OSA. Approximately half of the sample (n = 124, 49.6
percent) reported 1 = strong OSA; whereas, 9 participants (3.6 percent)
denied experiencing any OSA. Students were grouped according to their
reported level of OSA. Those who responded 1 or 2 on the scale were
categorized as high OSA (n = 160, 64.0 percent). Those responding 3 to 7
were grouped as moderate OSA (n = 53, 21.2 percent), and those
indicating 8 to 10 were placed into the little OSA group (n = 30, 12.0
percent).
The mean rating for SSA was 4.03 (SD = 2.84), where lower scores
indicate less SSA. No SSA was indicated by 13.2 percent of students (n =
33), and strong SSA was reported by 9.6 percent of the sample (n = 24).
Participants were divided into three groups based on their self-reported
current degree of SSA. For those who responded 1 or 2 on the scale, they
were categorized as little SSA (n = 96; 38.4 percent). Those responding
with a 3 through 7 were placed in the moderate SSA group (n = 106; 42.4
percent), and those responding with an 8 through 10, were categorized as
high SSA (n = 41; 16.4 percent).
Sexual Milestone Events
Milestones and degree of SSA. Participants were asked to report the
age at which they experienced, if they did so, several milestones of
sexual development (e.g., Yarhouse et al., 2009; Dube &
Savin-Williams, 1999). Ages of these milestones were compared across
level of SSA using a series of one-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs)
with Type III Sum of Squares to compensate for unequal cell sizes. There
were significant age differences in the occurrence of six of the nine
milestone events across the groups, p [less than or equal to] .05.
Bonferroni post-hoc analyses showed that those in the moderate SSA group
reported being significantly older than those in the high SSA when they
first became aware of SS feelings, p [less than or equal to] .05. They
also reported being significantly older than those in the little SSA
group when they were first fondled by someone of the SS and when they
had their first SS relationship, p [less than or equal to].05. Mean ages
and standard deviations are in Table 1.
TABLE 1
Mean Ages and Standard Deviations for Sexual Milestones by Level of SSA
Level of SSA
Sexual Overall Little Moderate
Milestone M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
Awareness of SS 13.26 (3.90) 13.39 (4.00) 13.91 (3.46)
Feelings (b) n = 205 (a) (b)
n = 67 n = 98
Confusion about 13.60 (3.89) 13.26 (4.26) 14.42 (3.21)
SS feelings n = 83
Romantically kissed 14.92 (4.05) 13.35 (4.46) 15.18 (4.01)
by someone of SS (b) n = 78 n=17 n = 33
Fine been fondled 14.04 (4.66) 12.13 (4.82) 15.03 (3.71)
by someone of SS (b) n = 97 (a) (b)
n = 31 n = 35
First tondled 14.22 (4.18) 12.50 (4.26) 15.16 (3.13)
someone of SS (b) n = 88 (a) (b)
n = 28 n = 32
SS sexual behavior 16.27 (3.33) 14.40 (3.78) 16.44 (3.22)
(orgasm) (c) n = 64 (a) n = 25
n = 15
Initial attribution 16.28 (2.57) 14.60 (2.70) 16.95 (2.20)
"I'm gay/lesbian/ n=58 n = 5 n= 19
Bisexual (d)
Took on the label 16.89 (2.06) 15.00 15.00(2.16)
Of "gay" (b) n = 28 n = 1 n = 4
First SS relationship 15.98 (3.33) 12.83 (3.55) 16.77 (2.71)
(b) n = 44 * (b)
n=6 n=13
Sexual High F Partial
Milestone M (SD) (df) P [[eta].sup.2]
Awareness of SS 11.48 (4.29) (a), 5.85 .003 .055
feelings (b) (b) **
n = 40 (2.202)
Confusion about 12.32 (4.19)
SS feelings
Romantically kissed 15.57 (3.74) 1.73 .184 .044
by someone of SS (b) n = 28 (2.75)
Fine been fondled 14.84 (5.03) 4.09 .020 .080
by someone of SS (b) n = 31 (2.94) *
First tondled some- 14.86 (4.74) 3.71 .029 .080
one of SS (b) n = 28 (2.85) *
SS sexual behavior 17.25 (2.56)
(orgasm) (c) n = 24 (2.60) *
Initial attribution 16.15 (2.69)
"I'm gay/lesbian/ n = 34
Bisexual (d)
Took on the label 17.30 (1.89) 2.94 .072 .190
Of "gay" (b) n = 23 (2.25)
First SS relationship 16.32 (3.26) 3.55 .038 .148
(b) n = 25 (2.41) *
(a.) Groups with same subscript are significantly different from each
other, p [less than or equal to] .05.
(b.) Meets assumptions of ANOVA.
(c.) Meets normality assumption of ANOVA, but not homogeneity of
variance. Interpret with caution.
(d.) Docs not meet normality assumption, but does have homogeneity
of variance. ANOVA was not conducted.
**p [less than or equal to] .0.01, *p [less than or equal to] .0.5.
When divided into little, moderate, and high "levels of
SSA," fewer students endorsed the final three milestone events
relative to the other items. Fifty-eight students reported the age at
which they made an initial attribution, 28 students reported their ages
when they assumed a "label," and 44 students reported age at
first SS relationship. All three of the milestones events had cell sizes
in the "little" level of SSA that were less than 10. The
"moderate" level was also less than 10 for the
"assumption of a label" milestone event. Cell size is an
important marker for use of ANOVAs, and small Ns are important to note
in Table 1. This result is particularly important for the milestone
concerning initial attribution, which not only had small cell sizes but
also did not meet the ANOVA assumption regarding normality of
distribution. This item is reported in Table 1 but without ANOVA
analysis. The other two events (age at assumption of label and age of
first SS relationship) did meet all assumptions for ANOVAs, despite
small cell Ns, and are retained in Table 1 with statistical analysis.
The highest percentages of students who answered these final milestone
events were consistently in the "high" levels of SSA.
Milestones and degree of OSA. Similar to the previous analysis for
SSA, the ages of participants at these milestones were compared across
level of OSA using a series of ANOVAs. In contrast to group differences
found with SSA, there was only one significant age difference in the
occurrence of milestone events across the groups, p [less than or equal
to] .05. Bonferroni post-hoc analyses showed that those in the little
OSA group reported being significantly younger than those in the high
OSA when they first became aware of SS feelings. Those with little OSA
(M = 12.48, SD = 3.95) reported awareness of feelings of SSA earlier
than did those with high OAS (M= 14.77, SD= 4.13), p = .014. Mean ages
and standard deviations are in Table 2. The milestone event regarding
age at "assumption of a label" again had small cell sizes (N
< 10), but it met ANOVA assumptions for normality and homogeneity.
This item is retained in Table 2 with statistical analysis.
TABLE 2
Mean Ages and Standard Deviations for Sexual Milestones
by Level of OSA
Level of OSA
Overall Little Moderate High F
Sexual M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) (df) p
Milestone
Awareness of 13.26 11.48 12.98 13.77 4.37 .014
SS Feelings (c) (3.90) (3.95) (2.75) (4.13) (2,202) *
(a) (a)
n = 205 n = 29 n = 47 n = 129
Confusion 13.60 12.29 13.59 13.94 2.04 .133
about (3.89) (4.26) (3.05) (4.05) (2,176)
SS feelings n = 179 n = 58 n = 83 n = 38
(b)
Romantically 14.92 15.59 15.57 14.49 0.67 .514
kissed (4.05) (4.15) (2.95) (4.31) (2,75)
by someone of n = 78 n = 17 n = 14 n =47
SS (b)
First been 14.04 13.71 15.33 13.84 0.68 .508
fondled (4.66) (5.33) (3.48) (4.69) (2,96)
by someone of n = 97 n = 21 n =15 n = 61
SS (b)
First fondled 14.22 14.37 15.46 13.88 0.77 .466
someone (4.18) (5.00) (2.85) (4.15) (2,85)
or SS (c) n = 88 n = 19 n = 13 n = 56
SS sexual 16.27 16.25 17.23 15.91 0.74 .483
behavior (3.33) (3.36) (2.83) (3.49) (2.61)
(orgasm ) (b) n = 64 n = 16 n = 13 n = 35
Initial 16.28 16.13 17.09 16.04 0.68 .511
attribution (2.57) (2.51) (2.43) (2.73) (2,55)
"I'm gay/ n = 58 n = 23 n = 11 n = 24
lesbian/
bisexual" (b)
Took on the 16.89 17.39 17.25 15. 17 3.11 .062
label (2.06) (1.75) (2.50) (2.04) (2,25)
of "gay " (b) n = 28 n = 18 n = 4 n = 6
First SS 15.98 16.71 16.45 15.16 1.03 .365
relationship (3.33) (2.34) (2.02) (4.36) (2,41)
(c) n = 44 n = 14 n = 11 n = 19
Partial
Sexual [[eta].sup.2]
Milestone
Awareness of .041
SS Feelings (c)
Confusion .023
about
SS feelings
(b)
Romantically .018
kissed
by someone of
SS (b)
First been .014
fondled
by someone of
SS (b)
First fondled .018
someone
or SS (c)
SS sexual .024
behavior
(orgasm ) (b)
Initial .024
attribution
"I'm gay/
lesbian/
bisexual" (b)
Took on the .199
label
of "gay " (b)
First SS .048
relationship
(c)
(a.) Groups with same subscript are significantly different from each
other, p [less than or equal to] .05.
(b.) Meets assumptions of ANOVA.
(c.) Meets normality assumption of ANOVA, but not homogeneity
of variance. Interpret with caution.
** p [less than or equal to] .001, * p [less than or equal to] .05.
Private and public sexual identity. With regard to the milestone
events of attributions and self-labeling, participants were asked to
indicate their private sexual identity and their public sexual identity.
Most students reported having both public and private identities as
heterosexual (n = 171,71.5 percent). Because the number of students
reporting identities of bisexual, homosexual, transsexual, or
questioning was small, these students were grouped into one category of
'other: Most students claimed a public identity of heterosexual (n
= 224, 93.7 percent) even though some of them do not privately
understand themselves as such (n = 66, 27.6 percent). Very few
publically identified as 'other' when they privately
identified as heterosexual (n = 2, 0.8 percent) or other than
heterosexual (n = 13, 5.4 percent). A chi-square analysis found a public
identity of heterosexuality, was reported more often than was expected
when compared to a public identity of other, [X.sup.2] (1) = 27.92, p
< .001. Eleven students (4.6 percent) did not respond to these
questions. See Table 3 for frequencies and percentages.
TABLE 3
Frequencies and Percentages for Private and Public Identities
Public Sexual Identity
Heterosexual Other Total
Public Sexual n (%) n (%) n (%)
Identity
Heterosexual Other n (%) 171 (71.5) 53 224
(22.2) (93.7)
Other n (%) 2 (0.8) 13 15 (6.3
(5.4)
Total n (%) 173 (72.4) 66 239
(27.6) (100)
(a.) Other includes the identities of bisexual, gay/lesbian,
and questioning.
Public and private identity by degree of SSA. Chi-square analyses
were employed to explore differences in reported identity by degree of
SSA. Private sexual identity did significantly vary across level of SSA,
[X.sup.2] (2) = 84.98, p < .001. In general, those with little SSA
were more likely to privately identify as heterosexual than expected;
whereas, those with high SSA were less likely to do so. With regard to
public identity, significant differences also were found across level of
SSA, [X.sup.2] (2) = 47.98, p < .001. The majority of the sample
publically identified as heterosexual (n = 223, 93.7 percent). However,
those with high SSA were more likely than expected to publically
identify as other than heterosexual (n = 12). Only 3 people with
moderate SSA reported a public identity of other than heterosexual.
Table 4 gives frequency counts and percentages for private and public
identities across level of SSA.
TABLE 4
Frequencies and Percentages for Private and Public
Identities across Level of SSA
Level of SSA
Little Moderate High Total
n( %) n (%) n (%) n (%)
Private
Identity
Heterosexual n (%) 90 (a) 74 (31.1) 7 (b) 171
(37.8) (2.9) (71.8)
Other n (%) 4 (b) 30 (6.7) 33 (a) 67
(0.0) (4.2) (10.9)
Public
Identity
Heterosexual n (%) 95 (a) 101 (a) 27 (b) 223
(39.9) (42.3) (11.3) (93.7)
Other n (%) 0 (b) 3 (b) 12 (a) 15 (6.3)
(0.0) (1.3) (5.0)
Total 95 104 (43.6) 39 239
(39.9) (16.3) (100)
(a.) Cell has more than expected observed frequencies, p < .05.
(b.) Cell has less than expected observed frequencies, p < .05.
Public and private identity by degree of OSA. Chi-square analyses
also were employed to explore differences in reported identity by degree
of OSA. Private sexual identity did significantly vary across level of
OSA, [X.sup.2] (2) = 50.45, p < .001.1n particular, those with high
OSA were more likely to privately identify as heterosexual (n = 131)
than expected and less likely to privately identify as other than
heterosexual (n = 27).
Those with little OSA were less likely to report having a private
sexual identity of being heterosexual (n = 5) and more likely to report
a private identity of other than heterosexual (n = 23) than expected.
With regard to public identity, significant differences were found
across level of OSA, [X.sup.2] (2) = 28.72, p < .00 1. The majority
of the sample identified as heterosexual (n = 223, 93.7 percent). Those
with high OSA were less likely than expected to publically identify as
other than heterosexual (n = 15), while those with little OSA were more
likely to publically identify as other than heterosexual (n = 8). Table
5 gives frequency counts and percentages for private and public
identities across level of SSA.
TABLE 5
Frequencies and Percentages for Private and Public
Identities across Level of OSA
Level of OSA
Little Moderate High Total
n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%)
Private Identity
Heterosexual n (%) 5 (b) 35 (b) 131 (a) 171
(2.1) (14.6) (54.8) (71.8)
Other n (%) 23 (a) 17 (a) 27 (b) 67
(9.7) (3.0) (11.3) (28.2)
Public Identity
Heterosexual n (%) 19 (b) 50 (21.0) 154 (a) 223
(8.0) (64.7) (93.7)
Other n (%) 8 (a) 3 (1.3) 4 (b) 15 (6.3)
(3.3) (1.7)
Total 27 53 (22.2) 158 238
(11.3) (66.1) (100)
(a.) Cell has more than expected observed frequencies, p < .05.
(b.) Cell has less than expected observed frequencies, p < .05.
Attitudes about Same-Sex Attraction
SSA attitudes and degree of SSA. On a five-point Likert scale, the
attitudinal positions toward SSA of the three SSA groups were compared
using a series of one-way ANOVAs (Table 6). Higher mean scores indicate
greater agreement with the attitudinal statement, while lower scores
indicate greater disagreement. Significant mean differences were found
among the groups for 8 of the 11 attitudinal statements, p [lee than or
equal to] .05. Bonferroni post-hoc analyses show that the little SSA
group reported more traditionally conservative values about SSA than did
the high SSA group across these eight attitudes, p [less than or equal
to] .05 The moderate SSA group also reported more traditionally
conservative values than did the high SSA group across seven of the
attitudinal statements. See Table 6 for means and standard deviations.
Although differences were noted between SSA groups across the
attitudinal items, the actual mean difference between high and low
groups is approximately one point on a five-point scale (M= .99, SD =
.58). Except for four items ("Being attracted to same gender is
morally acceptable:" "Monogamous SS sexual relationships can
be blessed;" "Experience plays a greater role than does
biology;" and "Persons can be born with a SS
predisposition."), the high SSA group was on the same
"side" of the Likert scale as the low SSA group.
TABLE 6
Means and Standard Deviations for SSA Attitudes by Level of SSA
Level of SSA
Little Moderate High
(n = 88) (n = 99) (n = 39) F
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) (df)
Being attracted 2.82 2.26 2.97 3.64 (1.61) 15.72
to same gender is (1.43) (1.21) (1.32) (a) (2,223)
morally (a) (a)
acceptable. (c)
Persons can 2.68 2.91 2.75 2.17 (1.26) 4.85
choose to whom (1.29) (1.24) (1.27) (a), (b) (2,223)
they're (a) (b)
attracted. (d)
Sexual behavior 2.10 1.56 2.12 3.30 (1.66) 26.47
between SS is (1.36) (0.92) (1.27) (2,223)
morally
acceptable. (c)
Monogamous SS 2.19 1.64 2.10 3.45 (1.61) 26.51
sexual (1.43) (1.07) (1.29) (a) (2,215)
relationships can (a) (a)
be blessed. (c)
SS 1.97 1.52 2.14 2.57 (1.37) 15.08
experimentation (1.13) (0.81 ) (1.14) (b) (2,224)
among teens is (a), (a)
morally (b)
acceptable. (c)
Persons can be 3.12 2,51 3.24 3.97 (1.35) 16.09
born with a SS (1.43) (1.37) (1.33) (a) (2,207)
predisposition. (a) (a)
(d)
Experience plays 3.51 3.60 3.60 3.28 (1.38) 1.12
a greater role (1.22) (1.28) (1.06) (2,196)
than does
biology. (c)
Persons with SS 3.51 3.91 3.51 2.74 (1.45) 11.90
attractions can (1.30) (1.17) (1.19) (a), (b) (2,216)
change this (a) (b)
aspect of their
lives. (c)
Persons wish SS 4.08 4.10 4.20 3.73 (1.38) 3.02
attractions can (1.05) (1.05) (0.87) (a) (2,224)
live a sexually (a)
chaste life. (c)
Persons who have 1.72 1.85 1.64 1.72 (1.17) 0.99
SS attraction are (0.97) (0.96) (0.91) (2,211)
viewed positively
on campus. (d)
Persons who have 2.45 2.74 2.38 2.05(1.41) 3.61
SS attraction (1.38) (1.36) (1.35) (a) (2,208)
receive support (a)
on campus. (d)
Partial
p [[eta].sup.2]
Being attracted .000 ** .124
to same gender is
morally
acceptable. (c)
Persons can .015 * .042
choose to whom
they're
attracted. (d)
Sexual behavior .000 ** .192
between SS is
morally
acceptable. (c)
Monogamous SS .000** 1.98
sexual
relationships can
be blessed. (c)
SS .000 ** .119
experimentation
among teens is
morally
acceptable. (c)
Persons can be .000 ** .135
born with a SS
predisposition.
(d)
Experience plays .328 .011
a greater role
than does
biology. (c)
Persons with SS .000 ** .099
attractions can
change this
aspect of their
lives. (c)
Persons wish SS .051 .026
attractions can
live a sexually
chaste life. (c)
Persons who have .374 .009
SS attraction are
viewed positively
on campus. (d)
Persons who have .029 * .034
SS attraction
receive support
on campus. (d)
(a.), (b.) Groups with same subscript are significantly different
from each other, p [less than or equal to] .05.
(c.) Meets normality assumption of ANOVA, but not homogeneity of
variance. Interpret with caution.
(d.) Meets assumptions of ANOVA.
** p [less than or equal to] .001. * p [less than or equal to] .05.
SSA attitudes and degree of OSA. Similar to the previous analysis,
the attitudinal positions toward SSA of the three OSA groups were
compared using a series of one-way ANOVAs. Significant mean differences
were found among the groups for 8 of the 11 attitudinal statements, p
[less than or equal to] .05. Bonferroni post-hoc analyses show that the
little OSA group reported less traditionally conservative values about
SSA than did the high OSA group across these eight attitudes, p [less
than or equal to] .04. The little OSA group also reported less
traditionally conservative values than did the moderate OSA group across
six of the attitudinal statements. See Table 7 for means and standard
deviations. Like above, although differences were noted between SSA
groups across the attitudinal items, the actual mean difference between
high and low groups is less than one point on a five-point scale (M =
.83, SD = .42).
TABLE 7
Means and Standard Deviations for SSA Attitudes by Level of OSA
Level of OSA
Little Moderate High
(n = (n = 51) (n = F
27) 148)
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) (df) P
Being attracted 2.82 3.63 2.65 2.72 5.37 .005
to same gender is (1.43) (1.52) (1.32) (1.39) (2,223) **
morally (a), (a) (b)
acceptable. (d) (b)
Person can choose 2.68 1.87 2.53 2.93 9.92 .000
to whom they're (1.29) (1.14) (1.16) (1.28) (2,223) **
attracted. (c) (a) (a)
Sexual behavior 2.10 3.22 2.04 1.91 11.95 .000
between SS is (1.36) (1.63) (1.32) (1.21) (2,223) **
morally (a), (a) (b)
acceptable. (c) (b)
Monogamous SS 2.19 3.44 1.79 2.04 14.99 .000
sexual (1.43) (1.60) (1.17) (1.33) (2,223) **
relationships can (a), (a) (b)
be blessed. (c) (b)
SS 1.97 2.58 1.86 1.89 4.47 .012
experimentation (1.13) (1.30) (1.09) (1.08) (2,224) *
among teens is (a), (a) (b)
morally (b)
acceptable. (d)
Persons can be 3.12 4.07 2.95 2.93 8.53 .000
born with a SS (1.43) (1.20) (1.43) (1.42) (2,207) ***
predisposition. (a), (a) (b)
(c) (b)
Experience plays 3.51 2.96 3.57 3.64 3.57 .030
a greater role (1.22) (1.34) (1.27) (1.15) (2,196) *
than does (a) (a)
biology. (d)
Persons with SS 3.51 2.50 3.73 3.64 10.16 .000
attractions can (1.30) (1.36) (1.13) (1.26) (2,216) **
change this (a), (a) (b)
aspect of their (b)
lives. (d)
Persons with SS 4.08 3.87 4.04 4.14 0.87 .419
attractions can (1.05) (1.41) (1.15) (0.92) (2,224)
live a sexually
chaste life. (c)
Persons who have 1.72 1.61 1.77 1.75 0.27 .761
SS attraction are (0.97) (0.99) (0.98) (0.98) (2,211)
viewed positively
on campus. (d)
Persons who have 2.45 2.07 2.40 2.57 1.56 .213
SS attraction (1.38) (1.36) (1.47) (1.35) (2,208)
receive support
on campus. (d)
Partial
if
Being attracted .046
to same gender is
morally
acceptable. (d)
Person can choose .082
to whom they're
attracted. (c)
Sexual behavior .097
between SS is
morally
acceptable. (c)
Monogamous SS .122
sexual
relationships can
be blessed. (c)
SS .038
experimentation
among teens is
morally
acceptable. (d)
Persons can be .076
born with a SS
predisposition.
(c)
Experience plays .035
a greater role
than does
biology. (d)
Persons with SS .086
attractions can
change this
aspect of their
lives. (d)
Persons with SS .008
attractions can
live a sexually
chaste life. (c)
Persons who have .003
SS attraction are
viewed positively
on campus. (d)
Persons who have .015
SS attraction
receive support
on campus. (d)
(a.), (b.) Groups with same subscript are significantly different from
each other, p [less than or equal to] .05.
(c.) Meets normality assumption of ANOVA, but not homogeneity of
variance. Interpret with caution.
(d.) Meets assumptions of ANOVA.
** p [less than or equal to] .001. * p [less than or equal to] .05.
Religiosity and SSA. Participants who self-identified as
experiencing different levels of SSA also reported differences in their
degree of religiosity--OR, F(2,240) = 5.74, p = .004, NOR, F(2, 231) =
4.29, p = .015, and IR, F(2, 239) = 12.71, p < .001. Those with
little SSA reported greater OR, NOR, and IR than did those with moderate
SSA. In comparison to those with high SSA, the little SSA group reported
only greater IR with no differences in OR or NOR. There were no
significant differences between those reporting moderate SSA and high
SSA. In contrast to the group differences in religiosity across levels
of SSA, no such differences were found across levels of OSA--OR, F(2,
240) = 1.28, p = .280, NOR, F(2, 231) = 0.94, p = .391, and IR, F(2,
239) = 2.50, p < .084. Table 8 shows the means and standard
deviations.
TABLE 8
Means and Standard Deviations for Religiosity by Levels
of SSA and OSA
Level of SSA
Little Moderate High
(n = (n = 106) (n = F Partial
96) 40)
Total M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) (df) p [[eta].sup.2]
OR 4.02 4.34 3.81 3.83 5.74 .004 .046
(c) (1.21) (0.93) (1.30) (1.41) (2,240) *
(a) (a)
NOR 2.767 3.08 2.57 2.58 429 .015 .036
(c) (1.32) (1.16) (1.30) (1.58) (2,231) *
(a) (a)
IR 12.54 13.59 12.10 11.15 12.71 .000 .096
(c) (2.97) (2.03) (3.06) (3.72) (2,239) **
(a), (a) (b)
(b)
Level of OSA
Little Moderate High
(n = (n = 53) (n = F Partial
30) 159)
Total M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) (df) p [[eta].sup.2]
OR 4.02 3.70 4.11 4.06 1.28 .280 .011
(d) (1.21) (1.37) (1.20) (1.18) (2,240)
NOR 2.77 2.49 2.71 2.85 0.94 .391 .008
(d) (1.32) (1.57) (1.37) (1.26) (2,231)
IR 12.54 11.50 12.38 12.79 2.50 .084 .020
(c) (2.97) (3.80) (3.24) (2.65) (2,239)
(a.), (b.) Groups with same subscript are significantly different
from each other, p [less than or equal to] .01.
(c.) Meets normality assumption of ANOVA, but not homogeneity
of variance. Interpret with caution.
(d.) Meets assumptions of ANOVA.
OR = Organizational religiosity: NOR = Non-organizational religiosity;
IR = Intrinsic religiosity
** p [less than or equal to] .001. * p [less than or equal to] .01.
SS attitudes, religiosity, and SSA. Bivariate Pearson product
moment correlation coefficients among SSA attitudes, religiosity, and
degree of sexual attraction are shown in Table 9. SSA is significantly
related to OSA, all types of religiosity (OR, NOR, IR), and 7 of the 11
attitudinal statements. OSA is correlated significantly to SSA, IR, and
8 of the 10 attitudes. OR was correlated with 8 of the II attitudinal
statements, NOR was correlated to 9 of the 11, and IR to 10 of the 11
statements. The attitudes that were not related to all three forms of
religiosity included: "Persons can choose to whom they're
attracted; "Persons with SS attractions can live a sexually chaste
life," and "Persons who have SS attraction are viewed
positively on campus." The pattern of correlations among the
attitudinal statements supported that the attitudinal statements were
written in two directions--some that fit a more traditionally
conservative position and some that are less traditionally conservative.
That is, as designed, there seemed to be two groups of items. One group
of about half of the items were positively correlated with each other,
but negatively correlated with the other half. The other group showed
the opposite pattern. Because of this, five of the items were reversed
scored so that lower ratings across all items indicated a more
traditional perspective. After this reversal, the Cronbach's alpha
for all of the items together was .80. Responses across the 11
attitudinal statements, therefore, were totaled to create an overall
attitudinal score, which is used in the following analysis.
Table 9
Correlations among SSA Attitudes, Religiosity, and Sexual Attraction
Level Level OR NOR IR A1--being A2--Persons
of SSA of OSA attracted to can choose
same gender to whom
is morally they're
acceptable. attracted.
(R).
SSA 1.00 .56 ** -.16 -.15 -.28 .37 ** -.18 **
* * **
OSA 1.00 -.05 -.07 -.14 .21 ** -.26 **
*
OR 1.00 .53 .52 -.32 ** .04
** **
NOR 1.00 .69 -.33 ** .10
**
IR 1.00 -4.1 ** .06
A1 1.00 -.21 **
A2 1.00
A3
A4
A5
A6
A7
A8
A9
A10
A11
A3--Sexual A4--Monogamous A5--SS A6--persons can
behavior SS sexual experimentation be born with a
between SS relationships among teens is SS
is morally can be morally predisposition.
acceptable. blessed. acceptable.
SSA .44 ** 48 ** .34 * .36 **
OSA .31 ** 30 ** .19 ** .29 **
OR -.49 ** -.41 ** -.42 ** -.26 **
NOR -.47 ** -.38 ** -.50 ** -.26 **
IR -5.4 ** -5.2 ** -.55 ** -.35 **
A1 .66 ** .67 ** .52 ** .55 **
A2 -.12 -.18 ** -.04 -.30 **
A3 1.00 .83 ** .72 ** .53 **
A4 1.00 .71 ** .53 **
A5 1.00 .42 **
A6 1.00
A7
A8
A9
A10
A11
A7--Experience A8--Persons A9--Persons A10--Persons
plays a greater with SS with SS who have SS
role chan does attractions attractions attraction
biology. (R) can change can live a are viewed
aspect of sexually positively
their life. chase life. can campus.
(R) (R)
SSA -.11 -.32 ** -.10 -.06
OSA -1.7 * -.21 ** -.05 -.02
OR .27 ** .29 ** .11 .10
NOR .25 ** .32 ** .11 .24 **
IR .23 ** .37 ** .14 * .14 *
A1 -.27 ** -.46 ** .04 -.05
A2 .43 ** .49 ** .08 .27 **
A3 -.39 ** -.50 ** -.11 0.2
A4 -.39 ** -.51 ** -.09 .01
A5 -2.1 ** -3.7 ** -.15 * -.06
A6 -.45 ** -.47 ** .14 -.07
A7 1.00 .53 ** .10 .14
A8 1.00 .15 * .23 **
A9 1.00 .06
A10 1.00
A11
A11--persons
who have SS
attraction
receive
support on
campus. (R)
SSA -.17
OSA -.09
OR .18 **
NOR .27 **
IR .21 **
A1 -.17 *
A2 .27 **
A3 -.17 *
A4 -.16*
A5 -.19 **
A6 -.14
A7 .14
A8 .26 **
A9 .21 **
A10 .69 **
A11 1.00
Comparisons to the Larger Sample
Using this overall attitude score, where higher scores indicate a
more accepting attitude toward SSA, any differences in the attitudes
between this subpopulation of students at Christian colleges and
universities who have experienced SSA (n = 250) and those of their peers
who have not experienced SSA (n = 1793) were explored using a 2x2 ANOVA.
There was a main effect for level of SSA, F (3, 2031) = 21.19, p <
.001. Those who had never experienced SSA (M = 24.39, SD = 5.54)
reported more traditional attitudes about SSA than did those
experiencing moderate SSA (M = 28.23, SD = 6.66), p < .001, or high
SSA (M = 34.78, SD = 8.70), p < .001, but were similar in attitudes
to those with low SSA (M = 25.36, SD = 5.81). Those experiencing low SSA
described more traditional attitudes than did those with moderate SSA, p
< .001, or high SSA, p < .001. Those experiencing high SSA
reported more accepting and less traditional values regarding SSA than
did any of the other groups, p < .001. In addition, there was a main
effect for level of IR, F(2, 2031) = 39.14, p < .001. Those with high
IR (M = 23.99, SD = 5.34) reported more traditional attitudes about SSA
than did those with low IR (M = 33.55, SD = 6.89), p < .001, or
moderate IR (M = 28.46, SD = 6.50), p < .001. Those with low IR also
were less traditional in their views than those with moderate IR, p <
.001. There also was no overall interaction effect between level of SSA
and intrinsic religiosity, F (6, 2031) = 0.89, p = NS, suggesting that
attitudes regarding SSA were not influenced by the interplay of
religiosity and the experience of SSA (See Figure 1).
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
In order to further explore the differences in specific attitudes
between those who have and those who have not experienced SSA, a series
of independent sample t-tests was run. Across 7 of the 11 attitudinal
statements, those who had experienced some SSA reported less traditional
values regarding SSA than did those who had never experienced SSA. Table
10 shows means and standard deviations.
TABLE 10
Means and Standard Deviations for SSA Attitudes
by Experience of SSA
Experience of SSA
No M Yes M t (df) P Cohen's
(SD) (SD) d
Being attracted 1.82 2.82 -10.21 .000 0.78
to same gender is (1.11) (1.43) (270.2) **
morally n= n=232
acceptable. (a) 1714
Persons can 2.97 2.68 3.20 .001 0.22
choose to whom (1.31) (1.29) (1836) **
they're n= n=233
attracted. 1605
Sexual behavior 1.46 2.10 -6.93 .000 0.55
between SS is (0.90) (1.36) (258.9) **
morally n= n=232
acceptable. (a) 1737
Monogamous SS 1.55 2.19 -6.50 .000 0.53
sexual (0.95) (1.43) (251.5) **
relationships can n= n=225
be blessed. (a) 1654
SS 1.42 1.97 -7.28 .000 0.57
experimentation (0.78) (1.13) (263.6) **
among teens is n= n=234
morally 1735
acceptable. (a)
Persons can be 2.33 3.12 -7.60 .000 0.57
born with a SS (1.33) (1.43) (270.9) **
predisposition. n= n=217
(a) 1541
Experience plays 3.63 3.51 1.39 .164 0.10
a greater role (1.17) (1.22) (1680)
than does n= n=205
biology. 1477
Persons with SS 3.87 3.51 3.93 .000 0.30
attractions can (1.10) (1.30) (274.2) **
change this n= n=226
aspect of their 1532
lives. (a)
Persons with SS 3.94 4.08 -1.80 .073 0.13
attractions can (1.10) (1.05) (1763)
live a sexually n= n=234
chaste life. 1531
Persons who have 1.83 1.72 1.55 .122 0.12
SS attraction are (0.84) (0.97) (267.2)
viewed positively n= n=219
on campus. (a) 1518
Persons who have 2.42 2.45 -3.04 .761 0.22
SS attraction (1.24) (1.38) (273.7)
received support
on campus. (a)
(a.) Equal variances are not assumed.
**p [less than or equal to] .001.
Refinement of the Sample
The above analyses used the 247 participants who indicated that
they had experienced SSA. However, only 210 reported some degree of SSA
at the present time. (Thirty-six undergraduates stated that they had
experienced SSA in the past, but at the time of the survey they reported
no SSA.) For this group of 210 students, the mean rating of OSA on the
Yarhouse thermometer was 2.95 (SD = 2.72), and their mean degree of SSA
was 4.51 (SD = 2.77). The bivari ate correlation between SSA and OSA was
.56, p [less than or equal to] 001. Because this group may be different
than the larger sample, analyses were rerun with the smaller sample. The
smaller sample of participants indicating current SSA was divided into
three groups based on their self-reported current degree of SSA. For
those who responded 2 on the scale, they were categorized as little SSA
(n = 63; 30 percent). Those responding with a 3 through 7 were placed in
the moderate SSA group (n = 106; 50.5 percent), and those responding
with an 8 through 10, were categorized as high SSA (n = 41; 19.5
percent).
Overall, the results did not change substantially from the results
above for attitude, identity, and religiosity. The analyses were nearly
identical with the exception of average age at sexual milestone events.
For these milestone events, only two of the six significant differences
in age among the three levels of SSA remained. In particular, those with
high levels of SSA (M = 12.48, SD = 4.29) were first aware of SSA
feelings much earlier than those with either little (Af = 14.38, SD =
3.93) or moderate SSA (M= 14.91, SD = 3.46), F(2, 187) = 6.28,p = .002.
Similarly, they (M= 13.32, SD = 4.19) also were confused about SSA
feelings much earlier than their peers with little (M = 15.07, SD =
4.25) or moderate SSA (M= 15.42, SD = 3.21), F(2, 161) = 4.24,p = .016.
Discussion
There are five primary points of focus in the present study: sexual
attraction, religiosity, milestone events, identity, and attitudes. In
all of these areas, level of same sex attraction (SSA) and, to a lesser
degree, level of other sex attraction (OSA) were influential in
understanding the experience of sexual minorities at faith based
institutions. Level of religiosity was also found to be a discriminating
variable in the experience of this subgroup of sexual minorities. The
following discussion is organized around these five topics.
Sexual Attraction
This sample reported varying degrees of sexual attraction to the
same- and opposite-sex. This is consistent with what is represented in
early literature stemming from Kinsey's (1948) original observation
that there is a continuum of sexual attraction rather than a simple
dichotomy in which everyone is either exclusively attracted to the
same-sex or the opposite-sex. Advancing beyond Kinsey's linear and
zero-sum scale of sexual attraction, Moe, Reicherzer, and Dupuy (2011)
suggest that multiple scales are needed to represent sexual and
relational identification adequately. In keeping with this idea, two
continuums were used in this study to define and measure SSA and OSA as
independently operating variables.
This sample of sexual minority students at Christian colleges
evidenced the expected heterogeneity with representation at all levels
of sexual attraction. Students who completed the survey self-reported
that they perceived themselves across low, medium, and high levels of
SSA, while also recognizing corresponding low, medium, and high levels
of OSA. More recent studies of sexual minorities have also demonstrated
the coexistence of both same- and opposite-sex attraction, particularly
among women (Diamond, 2005; 2008) but in some cases also among men
(Jones & Yarhouse, 2007). One definition of sexual minorities
offered by Diamond (2008) is: "... individuals who have any
experience with same sex sexuality, at the level of orientation, desire,
behavior, or identity ..." (p. 14). This research advances this
perspective, referring to sexual minorities as those who experience SSA
(without reference to whether they also experience attraction to the
opposite-sex) regardless of sexual behavior or label.
If these participants are representative of what one might find on
Christian college campuses, it informs expectations for the diverse
nature of experiences of sexual minorities in faith-based institutions.
Survey results provide evidence that persons who experience same sex
attraction in this context are not a monolithic group. Multiple
perspectives on sexuality and religion in this sample are present in
spite of the predominantly traditional view in both areas. There is a
range of attitudes, beliefs, and experiences associated with degrees of
attraction that should be understood when discussing sexual minorities
on Christian college campuses.
Religiosity
This sexual minority sample would likely be considered highly
religious compared to the general population. At the same time, we see
diversity in terms of religiosity, and the diversity does appear related
to the degree of reported SSA. Those in the larger sample with no SSA
and those with little SSA in the sexual minority sample were higher on
intrinsic religiosity, and the more SSA a person reported, the more
likely to score lower on intrinsic religiosity. Yet the range of scores
from lowest to highest suggests that there is probably less variability
among these students than exists in the general population. Intrinsic
religiosity was also related to attitudes and will be considered in
relation to this variable below.
The authors have not seen religiosity and SSA questions parsed out
in this way in the literature. However, Yarhouse and Tan (2003) reported
on a sample of gay Christians and Christians who experienced SSA but did
not identify as gay. Both groups scored high on religious commitment and
on intrinsic religiosity, suggesting a "ceiling effect" when
asking religious samples about commitment and motivation. Those who did
not identify as gay scored higher as a group on religious commitment and
intrinsic religiosity and were more alike in how they responded to
various items on these measures. Yarhouse and Tan, reflecting on the
items in Hoge's (1972) measure of intrinsic religiosity, considered
that there may be a tendency among those who dis-identify with a gay
identity to respond "more readily with the concepts proposed by
Hoge, which tends to reflect a more traditional religious perspective
than what may be endorsed by" those who identify as gay (p. 125).
This seems to fit with our present sample's differences on
attitudes and how attitudes correlate with amount of attraction, as we
discuss below. In any case, it should be noted that Yarhouse and Tan did
not report on degree of SSA and how that correlated with
religiosity--rather, they reported on the difference between identifying
as gay or dis-identifying with a gay identity.
In the introduction of this article, an identity development
continuum was described with sexual core values anchoring one side and
religious/spiritual core values on the other side. In the middle was the
area of the continuum that represented a compromise or integration
instead of the primacy of either extreme over the other. This graphic
was proposed as way of viewing the interaction of these aspects of human
identity development. In light of this survey data, it appears that
sexual beliefs and religious/spiritual beliefs did not interact for this
sample. In reflection, it appears that a better graphic illustration
might not be one continuum but two--one for high and low sexual valuing
and one for high and low religious/spiritual valuing. Preliminary
conclusions from this Christian undergraduate sample suggest that sexual
identity development may not hinder or promote religious/spiritual
identity development. Neither can we say that religious/spiritual
development will increase or decrease sexual identity development. These
are complex but apparently separate constructs whose relationship needs
greater exploration.
Milestone Events
The milestone events reported in the current sample are comparable
in many ways to the previous Yarhouse et at. (2009) sample of Christian
sexual minority college students. What was noted at that time was that
while much of the sample experienced some of the milestone events (i.e.,
confusion about same-sex feelings), a much smaller percentage of
participants reported same-sex behavior to orgasm, an initial
attribution that they were gay, or the taking on of a gay identity
label. This sample had similar results insofar as more participants
acknowledged awareness of same-sex feelings and confusion about same-sex
feelings, while fewer reported milestone events, such as same-sex
behavior to orgasm, initial attribution as being gay, or taking on a gay
identity label. These latter behaviors, often associated with formation
of an affirming GLBT identity, appeared to be delayed in this sample.
Mainstream GLBT research on milestone events has not tended to
focus on differences in milestone events based upon degree of attraction
to the same sex but on ocher variables, such as gender (e.g.,
Savin-Williams & Diamond, 2000). In Yarhouse et al., (2009),
however, those who reported more SSA were more likely to make an initial
attribution that the attractions signaled a gay identity than those who
currently reported no or little SSA. Also, those who reported taking on
a gay identity label were more likely to have more SSA, while those with
no or only some SSA were less likely to have taken on a gay identity.
The present study did not show those same differences by amount of SSA
on this question about taking on a gay identity when asked in the
context of milestone events, although we did see differences on
public/private identity by amount of attraction to the same sex.
Public/Private Identity
One of the important milestone events for sexual identity synthesis
in mainstream gay community is taking on the label of "gay" as
an indicator of self-identity. We will discuss gay identity below, but
it is noteworthy that most (78.8%) of our sample reported a heterosexual
orientation, with fewer saying they were either bisexual (7.8%) or
homosexual (6.5%). An additional 6.1% preferred not to answer the
question about orientation.
It was rare for participants in this study to publicly identify as
anything other than heterosexual. This may be associated with the
influence of the campus culture, religious conviction, or personal
choice, but it may also reflect a distinctive of those seeking to
develop an identity that engages both the religious and the sexual. In
this sample, some did privately identify as gay/lesbian (3.8%), bisexual
(9.7%), or questioning (8.9%). The self-reported degree of SSA was
significantly related to the likelihood of someone reporting a private
gay/lesbian/bisexual identity. Those with little or moderate SSA were
more likely to report a private identity as heterosexual, whereas those
with high SSA were more likely to privately identify as
gay/lesbian/bisexual. A small number of participants publicly identified
as gay/lesbian/bisexual/questioning; these participants were also more
likely to have high SSA.
These findings, if representative among students who experience
same sex attraction at faith-based institutions, appear unique in GLBT
research. Specifically, the uniqueness appears in this sample's
tendency to not engage in same-sex behavior or same-sex relationships.
Further, they rend not to make meaning of their same-sex sexuality as
indicating a gay identity. It is tempting to view this finding as an
artifact of heterosexism or sexual stigma in a repressive environment,
whether chosen or not. In that regard, it is possible that some students
in this setting could have avoided survey questions about SSA by denial.
Others might have been tempted to "downplay" the significance
of their SSA to experience a sense of fit. Still others might have
fallen in line with perceived expectations and "played up" the
level of OSA. However, the similarities in attitude, beliefs, and
experiences to Yarhouse et al, 2009 may also suggest that this subgroup
engages identity formation in a way that contrasts with mainstream
culture. If true, these students do not tend to attribute their SSAs to
a gay identity, nor do they tend to engage in same-sex behavior. If
there are members of this subgroup that are developing in a unique
trajectory, extrapolation from other sexual minority samples beyond
those in religious higher education may be misleading--even for those
who are in the high range of SSA. Although significantly different from
the moderate and lower scorers on SSA, the small magnitude of that
difference between higher and lower degrees of SSA makes one wonder
about meaningfulness of this distinction for this faith-based sample.
Attitudes
Participants with either little or moderate amounts of SSA were
more traditionally conservative in their values around sexuality and
same-sex behavior than those participants who reported high SSA. When
compared to the larger sample of Christian college students, we see a
picture of a fairly traditionally conservative sample with the exception
of those who have high SSA or who are low on intrinsic religiosity.
Having little or moderate SSA is quite comparable with those who have no
SSA when it comes to attitude scores that reflect a traditionally
conservative sexual ethic. Differences based on being intrinsically
religious were more likely. Those who were high on intrinsic religiosity
were more likely to be traditionally conservative in their attitudes
than chose who are low or moderate in intrinsic religiosity.
The most striking feature about responses to the attitudinal items
is the traditionally conservative perspectives across level of SSA and
OSA. Although statistical differences exist based on high, medium, and
low status, as noted above, the average range is less than 1 point on a
5-point scale for these groups. Our sample is in some ways more alike
than different, even with varying degrees of attraction to the same sex
and opposite sex. Participants were in agreement that campuses hold a
negative view of those who experience SSA, and they saw few resources to
support those who experience SSA. They also tended to see chastity as
attainable. Those with little SSA seemed to be more consistent in their
responses to questions that reflect a traditional Christian sexual
ethic, where as we see greater variance among those high in SSA on items
such as, "Monogamous same-sex sexual relationships can be
blessed."
Limitations
Caution must be used when considering these findings for three
reasons. First, the response rate of useable surveys from which the same
sex attraction subsample was taken was 31%. While this is within an
acceptable range for surveys of this nature, it is low. Simple
perseverance may have been a factor as students were told the survey
would take about 13-15 minutes to complete. Of the 37.6% initially
beginning the survey (n = 2360/6275), 31% (n = 1960) were left by the
time they reached the section on same sex attraction. It is difficult to
understand the magnitude or direction of bias, if any, caused by
non-response in this case. Second, while eliciting data from 14 states
nationwide defines the sample as broad in scope, the majority of the
students in the sample were from schools in the Northeast and Midwest
(71.9% of the total sample). This influence may limit generalizing of
the results, as well as the transferability of these findings to a
particular Christian college or university. Thirdly, these results are
based on self-report data regarding sensitive topics where social
desirability may be an influence. Although steps were taken to insure
not only confidentiality but also the perception of privacy, the survey
was given in the midst of an institutional environment with clear
expectations for "acceptable" sexual and religious behaviors.
Future research must continue to wrestle with the sampling issues for
this unique student environment where religion and sexuality intersect.
Further investigations into this area will want to broaden the way
religion is assessed and conceptualized. Growing evidence (Koenig, 2009;
Powell, Shahabi, & Thoresen, 2003) depicts a significant richness
and complexity that resists reductionism into the extremes that religion
is either all good or all bad. Religion can facilitate adaptive coping
in stressful situations, and it can hinder healthy functioning as well
(Pargament, 1997). It is a multileveled variable that taps emotional,
cognitive, behavioral, interpersonal, and even physiological areas (Hill
& Pargament, 2003). Trying to capture some of the different nuances
of how religion is used by students, this survey used a multifaceted
measure of religiosity that assessed church attendance, personal
practices, and personal spirituality. Yet in spite of the rigorous
psychometric qualities of the DUREL, future studies will benefit from
even greater theoretical and functional depth in measuring this complex
variable. Other studies on sexual minorities in faith-based settings
will be helped by seeing religion as a dynamic, not static, variable
that can change across time, just as it is assumed sexual identity does.
Finally, two procedural issues should be noted. First, the word,
"transsexual: was mistakenly used in the survey instead of the
term, "transgendered." This unfortunate error made
consideration of this expected category impossible. It is conceivable
that sexual minorities who identify themselves in this manner might not
have found a descriptive category for their identity status. Second, the
11 attitude/belief items were not piloted prior to their use in the
survey. Other than the final two items about perceptions of campus
climate, the nine remaining questions were based on the experience of
the authors on faith-based campuses and were designed to read both
traditionally and non-traditionally. It is possible that the
interpretation of the items might be other than the intended meaning of
the authors.
Implications for Christian Colleges/Universities
There are several potential implications from this study. The first
has to do with how Christian college campuses are viewed by the broader
culture. The current depiction of sexual minorities on Christian college
campuses is that these individuals are either in denial, or terribly
repressed, resulting in an arrested or delayed identity development,
attributed to in large measure the negative environment in which they
find themselves. This portrayal is perhaps most noted in how some GLBT
activist organizations portray sexual minorities (see
http://www.soulforce.org/programs/equality-ride/). Yet based on the data
on attitudes, this sample is largely conservative, suggesting a sense of
fit between their own personal beliefs and values and the teachings and
behavioral expectations at many Christian colleges.
The findings in this study are equally important for Christian
colleges, insofar as they may have a misperception of sexual
minorities--perhaps only knowing or responding to more outspoken
individuals who may have a more salient GLBT identity. This portrayal
may grow from interactions with current students and alumni
organizations that may emphasize more of an advocacy position regarding
GLBT issues and institutional policies. But responding solely to this
group of students or alumni as though they represented all or even most
sexual minorities at a faith-based institution may not be sufficient to
address the needs of a broader and more diverse group of sexual
minorities on campus. At least, this survey suggests this approach to
sexual minority issues is too narrow. The academic and communal needs of
those seeking identity development in sexual and religious/spiritual
areas require a broader vision and intentional planning.
One distinctive that has been made in the literature is between
"assertive advocates" and "sincere strugglers"
(Yarhouse, 2010, p. 150). Assertive advocates are Christian sexual
minorities who advocate for change in doctrines about sexuality and
sexual behaviors. Sincere strugglers are those who agree with
traditional Christian doctrines regarding sexual behavior, but they
struggle with how to actualize these standards in practical ways. Even
this distinction may be too simplistic, however, when the results of
this survey show this range of experiences among those Christian college
students who experience SSA. Some report experiencing modest amounts of
SSA, while other report more feelings of attraction. In terms of
identity, relatively few identify themselves as gay, lesbian or
bisexual, either privately or publicly, although more identify
themselves in that way privately. It seems clear that "sexual
stigma" (Herek, Gillis, & Cogan, 2009) is a factor at
faith-based institutions, but this does not appear to be the only reason
for the public and private findings. The privacy of sexual minorities on
Christian college campuses appears to be more complicated and
multi-causal. More research is definitely needed to explore this area.
Christian colleges/universities have few road maps for how to move
forward in this area. The most vocal groups place pressure on such
institutions to resolve conflicts by changing policies that reflect
values quite at odds with those of the institutions, not to mention most
of the sexual minorities in this study. Following mainstream GLBT
roadmaps for addressing sexual identity concerns on campus will likely
not be as helpful as creatively identifying shared concerns about
topics, such as campus climate, and translating these concerns into
interventions that are congruent with faith-based institutional
policies. It seems relevant that, at least at this point in the
developmental process of these students, they are seeking an opportunity
to engage formation of both the religious/spiritual and the sexual.
Christian colleges and universities can be an environment where these
developmental goals can occur.
Policies that reflect traditional Christian sexual ethics will be
judged most helpful when they are not implicitly used in ways that
hinder the emotional and spiritual development of those students who
experience SSA and are interested in resources for living faithfully
before God. It is the experience of the authors that explicitly damaging
policies are not common at Christian colleges and universities. In fact,
Yarhouse et al. (2009) noted that students at three Christian colleges
did not associate derogatory or stereotyping practices with
administration, faculty, or staff. It is however possible for
doctrinally affirming policies to inhibit an educational environment
from acknowledging the sexual as well as the religious/spiritual
diversity on its campus, thus hindering potentially formative identity
discussions and reflective learning.
It is the opinion of the authors that Christian colleges and
universities can maintain their doctrinal stances regarding sexual
behavior while still creating space in the campus community for many
facets of development. For example, previous research (Yarhouse et al.
2009) has reported that the residence halls on Christian campuses are
the most difficult spaces for those who are seeking to develop both
sexual and religious/spiritual identities. To be a minority in the
sexual development process can be overtly and covertly complicated among
majority peers who in their own identity (sexual or religious/spiritual)
immaturity can be reactive to variations from the perceived norm.
Faith-based institutions can explicitly promote educational space where
doctrinal beliefs are honored while alternative developmental
trajectories are also recognized and possibly even given voice. This
unique blend of support and challenge in residence life is but one
example of how religious doctrine and institutional policy must be
joined with civil communication and "seamless" education
(American College Personnel Association, 1994) to create healthy
developmental space.
Conclusion
This research study adds to a growing body of knowledge related to
students who experience same-sex attraction and pursue higher education
in faith-based institutions. Assumptions have been made in the past
about the characteristics of these students, but a clearer, more
accountable picture is now forming of a unique subgroup in GLBT
literature. These students appear to be developing persons who are
seeking an environment where they can be formed with reference to their
sexual identity as well as their religious and spiritual identity. This
sample is largely conservative in comparison with the general culture,
but it is not monolithic when it comes to attitude about and degree of
SSA and OSA. This diverse group hopes for a Christian college or
university where they can engage identity-based concerns--a general
characteristic of this developmental period. Some appear to want a more
open process, while others appear to want a more private experience. In
either case, the majority of students in this sample are not advocating
for doctrinal or policy change at faith-based institutions, but they do
appear to need a place to make sense of a traditional Christian sexual
ethic for their own lived experience.
The current study is a snapshot of a group of students at various
faith-based institutions. The next step in the systematic investigation
of this unique subgroup is the cultivation of a longitudinal
perspective. This "bigger picture" should allow students to
share their evolving experience with sexual and religious/spiritual
identity through the college years and beyond.
References
American College Personnel Association (1994). The student learning
imperative: Implications fir student affairs. Washington, D.C.: Author.
Eckholm, E. (2011, April 18). Even on religious campuses, students
fight for gay identity. New York Times. Retrieved May 27, 2011, from
http://www.nytimcs.com/2011/04/19/us/19gays.html
Diamond, L. M. (2005). What we got wrong about sexual identity
development: Unexpected findings from a longitudinal study of young
women. In A. Omoto and H. Kurtzman (Eds.), Sexual orientation and mental
health: Examining identity and development in lesbian, gay, and bisexual
people (pp. 73-94). Washington. D.C.: American Psychological
Association.
Diamond, L. M. (2008). Sexual fluidity: Understanding women's
love and desire. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press.
Doolin, H., High, K., Holt, R., Atkinson. A., &. Yarhouse, M.A.
(2011, April). Comparing visual analogue and ordinal scales measuring
sexual attraction in mixed-orientation couples. Poster presented at the
Virginia Psychological Association Conference, April 13-15, 2011.
Dube, E. M., & Savin-Williams, R. C. (1999). Sexual identity
development among ethnic sexual-minority male youths. Developmental
Psychology, 35, 1389-1399.
Herek, G. M., Gillis, J. R., & Cogan, J. C. (2009),
internalized stigma among sexual minority adults: Insights from a social
psychological perspective. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56(1),
32-43.
Hill, P. C., & Pargament, K. I. (2003). Advances in the
conceptualization and measurement of religion and spirituality:
Implications for physical and mental health research. American
Psychologist, 58 (1), 64-74.
Hoge, D. R. (1972). Validated intrinsic religious motivation scale.
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 11, 369-376.
Jones, S. L., & Yarhouse. M. A. (2007). Ex-gays? A longitudinal
study of religiously mediated change in sexual orientation. Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W., & Martin, C. (1948), Sexual
behaviorin the human male. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.
Koenig, H. G. (2009). Research on religion, spirituality, and
mental health: A review The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 54 (5),
283-291
Koenig, H. G., Meador. K. G., & Parkerson, G. (1997). Religion
index for psychiatric research. American Journal of Psychiatry, 154,
885-886.
Konik, J., & Stewart, A. (2004). Sexual identity development in
the context of compulsory heterosexuality. Journal of Personality, 72,
815-844.
Lastoria. M. (Ed.) (2011). Sexuality, religiosity, behaviors,
attitudes: A look at religiosity, sexual attitudes and sexual behaviors
of Christian college students: A survey study. Houghton, NY: Association
for Christians in Student Development.
Moe, J. L., Reicherzer, S., & Dupuy, P. J. (2011). Models of
sexual and relational orientation: A critical review and synthesis.
Journal of Counseling and Development, 89 (2), 227-233.
Pargament, K. I. (1997). The psychology of religion and coping. New
York: Guilford.
Plante, T. G., Vallaeys. C. L., Sherman, A. C., & Wallston, K.
A. (2002). The development of a brief version of the Santa Clara
Strength of Religious Faith Questionnaire. Pastoral Psychology, 50,
359-368.
Powell, L. H., Shahabi, L., & Thoresen, C. E. (2003). Religion
and spirituality: Linkages to physical health. American Psychologist, 58
(1), 36-52.
Rankin, S. R. (2003). Campus climate for gay, lesbian, bisexual,
and transgender people: A national perspective. New York: The National
Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute.
Ritter, K. Y. & Terndrup, A. I. (2002). Handbook of affirmative
psychotherapy with lesbians and gay men. New York: The Guilford Press.
Rostosky, S. S., Danner, E, & Riggle, E. D. B. (2008).
Religiosity and alcohol use in sexual minorities and heterosexual youth
and young adults. Journal Youth and Adolescence, 37, 552-563.
Savin-Williams. R. C., & Diamond, L. M. (2000). Sexual identity
trajectories among sexual-minority youths: Gender comparisons. Archives
of Sexual Behavior, 29, 607-627.
Shallcross, L. (2011). Come and be who you are. Counseling Today:
An American Counseling Association Publication, 53 (11), 24-32.
Scorch, E. A., Strawser, M. S., & Storch, J. B. (2004).
Two-week test-retest reliability of the Duke Religion Index.
'Psychological Reports, 94, 993-994.
Scorch, E. A., Roberti, J.W., Heidgerken, A. D., Scorch, J. B.,
Lewin. A. B., Killiany, E. M., Baumeister, A. L., Bravata, E. A., &
Gefiken, G. R. (2004). The Duke Religion Index: A Psychometric
investigation. Pastoral Psychology, 53, 175-182.
Waldner-Haugrud, L. K., & Magruder, B. (1996). Homosexual
identity expression among lesbian and gay adolescents. Youth &
Society, 27, 313-333.
Yarhousc, M. A. (2010). Homosexuality and the Christian: A guide
for parents, pastors, and friends. Minneapolis: Bethany House
Publishers.
Yartiouse, M. A., Stratton, S. P., Dean, J. B., & Brooke, H. L.
(2009). Listening to sexual minorities on Christian college campuses.
Journal of Psychology and neology, 37(2). 96-113.
Yarhouse, M. A. & Tan, E. S. N. (2004). Sexual identity
symbols: Attributions, meaning-making, and the search for congruence.
Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Stephen P. Stratton
Asbury Theological Seminary
Janet B. Dean
Asbury University
Mark A. Yarhouse
Regent University
Michael D. Lastoria
Houghton College
Author Information
STRATTON, STEPHEN P. Ph.D. Address: Department of Counseling and
Pastoral Care, Asbury Theological Seminary, 204 N. Lexington Avenue,
Wilmore, KY 40390. Tick: Professor of Counseling and Pastoral Care.
Degrees: Ph.D. (Counseling Psychology) Auburn University.
Specializations: contemplative practices, adult attachment processes,
sexual identity development, and forgiveness.
DEAN, JANET B. Ph.D. Address: Asbury University, Onc Macklem Dr.,
Wilmore, Ky 40390. Tule: Assistant Professor and Lieensed Psychologist.
Degrees: Ph.D. (Clincial Psychology) The Ohio State University; M.A.
(Counseling); MDiv Asbury Theological Seminary; M.A. Specialization:
sexual identity, meditational practices, forgiveness, counselor
education.
YARHOUSE, MARK A. PsyD. Address: Doctoral Program in Clinical
Psychology, Regent University, 1000 Regent University Drive, Virginia
Beach, VA 23464. Title: Hughes Endowed Chair & Professor of
Psychology. Degrees: PsyD. (Clinical Psychology) Wheaton College; M.A.
(Theological Studies & Clinical Psychology) Wheaton College; B.A.
(Philosophy & Art) Calvin College. Specializations: human sexuality,
sexual identity, sexual addiction, marriage and family therapy, and
professional ethics.
LASTORIA, MICHAEL D. Ed.D. Address: Houghton College, One Willard
Avenue, Houghton, NY 14744. Title: Director of Counsding Services,
Professor of Family Studies. Degress: Ed.D., Loyola University; MFT
Certificate, University of Rochester School of Medicine.
Specializations: college and university counseling, family systems, and
human sexuality.
