Symposia
LGBQT+
Brian Feinstein, Ph.D. (he/him/his)
Associate Professor
Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science
N. Chicago, Illinois
Gregory Swann, M.A.
Data Analyst
Northwestern Institute for Sexual and Gender Minority Health and Wellbeing
Chicago, Illinois
Lisa Godfrey, M.A.
Graduate Student
University of Cincinnati
Cincinnati, Ohio
Shariell Crosby, PhD
Graduate Student
DePaul University
Chicago, Illinois
Christina Dyar, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
The Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio
Michael Newcomb, Ph.D. (he/him/his)
Associate Professor
Northwestern University
Chicago, Illinois
Sarah Whitton, Ph.D.
Professor
University of Cincinnati
Cincinnati, Ohio
Background: Building on traditional stage models of sexual minority identity development (Cass, 1979), researchers have identified “milestones,” or events that are meaningful for the development of one’s sexual identity (e.g., initial awareness of same-gender attraction, first same-gender sexual experience; Floyd & Stein, 2002). However, scholars have criticized these models for inadequately accounting for the experiences of women, especially bisexual women (Everett et al., 2016). The goals of the current study were to 1) explore patterns of sexual orientation development among young sexual minority women (YSMW) based on whether they had met different milestones and, if so, at what ages, and 2) examine whether patterns were associated with outness, victimization, depression, and binge drinking.
Methods: We used baseline data from 402 YSMW who participated in a longitudinal study. Participants responded to 8 questions about whether they had met different milestones and, if so, at what age. Latent class analysis was used to identify sexual orientation development groups, which were then compared on outness, victimization, depression, and binge drinking.
Results: A 6-class solution was identified: 1) lesbian/gay (LG), early attractions (6.5%); 2) LG, late attractions (22.6%); 3) bisexual, early attractions, sexually experienced (6.2%); 4) bisexual, early attractions, sexually inexperienced (20.1%); 5) bisexual, late attractions, sexually experienced (8.0%); and 6) bisexual, late attractions, sexually inexperienced (36.6%). Participants in the “bisexual, late attractions, sexually inexperienced” class reported lower outness than those in the “LG” classes. Participants in the “bisexual, early attractions, sexually experienced” class reported more victimization than those in all other classes and more depression than those in the “bisexual, late attractions, sexually inexperienced” class. Finally, participants in the “bisexual, late attractions, sexually experienced” class reported more binge drinking than those in the “bisexual, early attractions, sexually inexperienced” class.
Conclusions: Findings suggest that common ways of operationalizing sexual orientation may not capture meaningful differences based on the ages at which YSMW meet different milestones and their levels of sexual experience. By attending to this heterogeneity, we may be able to identify those who are at greatest risk for negative psychosocial outcomes and direct prevention and intervention resources accordingly.