Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 20

This article was downloaded by: [Florida Atlantic University] On: 01 February 2012, At: 21:36 Publisher: Routledge

Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Gay & Lesbian Psychotherapy


Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wzgp20

Being Out
Dr. Lynne Carroll PhD & Dr. Paula J. Gilroy PhD
a a b

Counselor Education Program, University of North Florida, USA


b

Counseling Center, University of Northern Iowa, USA Available online: 20 Nov 2008

To cite this article: Dr. Lynne Carroll PhD & Dr. Paula J. Gilroy PhD (2001): Being Out, Journal of Gay & Lesbian Psychotherapy, 4:1, 69-86 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J236v04n01_04

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages

whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 21:36 01 February 2012

Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 21:36 01 February 2012

Being Out: The Behavioral Language of Self-Disclosure


Lynne Carroll, PhD Paula J. Gilroy, PhD

ABSTRACT. Prior research on self-disclosure of sexual orientation has focused almost exclusively on the assessment of direct verbal self-declaration by gay men, lesbians and bisexual persons. The Behavioral Self-Disclosure Questionnaire (BDQ) was developed to assess behavioral language in the being out process. One hundred seventy-seven participants completed the BDQ, the Sexual Orientation Disclosure Scale (SODS; Shachar and Gilbert, 1983), and a modification of the SODS, entitled the Acceptance of Sexual Orientation Disclosure Scale (ASODS). Results indicated that the BDQ was comprised of six factors and the overall scale had excellent internal consistency. Pearson Product-Moment Correlations showed a significant and positive correlation between the BDQ and verbal disclosure as assessed by the SODS. [Article copies available for a fee from
The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-342-9678. E-mail address: <getinfo@haworthpressinc.com> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com>]

KEYWORDS. Coming out, self-disclosure, homosexuality, homophobia, psychotherapy

Coming out has been defined as a continual, non-linear, multidimensional, process which includes self-labeling, self-acceptance, and
Dr. Carroll is Assistant Professor, Counselor Education Program, University of North Florida. Dr. Gilroy is Counseling Psychologist, Counseling Center, University of Northern Iowa. The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Jennifer Murra. This research was presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Psychotherapy, Vol. 4(1) 2000 E 2000 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. 69

70

JOURNAL OF GAY & LESBIAN PSYCHOTHERAPY

self-disclosure of sexual orientation (Morris, 1997; Troiden, 1989). Numerous studies (e.g., Dupras, 1994; Miranda and Storms, 1989; Murphy, 1989; Schmitt and Kurdek, 1987) have explored the demographic and circumstantial variables related specifically to the self-disclosure component of coming out. This research is not without conceptual and methodological flaws, including: (a) a failure to distinguish between the complex processes of coming out versus being out, (b) a fixation upon the use of verbal statements or utterances in the self-disclosure process, (c) a failure to acknowledge potential differences attenuated by the gender in the self-disclosure process, and (d) the tendency to pathologize non-self-disclosure. In this article we review the literature on gay and lesbian self-disclosure and present the results of our efforts to develop an objective measure of behavioral language in the self-disclosure process. Harry (1993) distinguished between coming out, referring to the process of identity formation, and being out, involving the presentation of the self to others as a homosexual (p. 26). Harry viewed the latter as a continual process which involves not only assessing risks inherent in particular situations, but also, assessing the significance of the audience to whom one is contemplating self-disclosure. Writing on the topic of stigma disclosure, Dindia (1998) proposed that self-disclosure of risky information like ones sexual orientation is governed by dialectical communication strategies including concealment, selective disclosure, and staging information. Harry and Dindia emphasized the on-going and complex nature of the self-disclosure process. Most studies on the topic of gay and lesbian disclosure (Anderson and Mavis, 1996; Franke and Leary, 1991; Jordan and Deluty, 1998; Kahn, 1991; Schmitt and Kurdek, 1987: Vincke and Bolton, 1994, etc.) rely upon Likert-type rating scales, which require respondents to rate the extent of their verbal disclosure to non-gay, others. The underlying assumption here is that only direct declarative statements of ones sexual orientation matter. In contrast, Healy (1993) observed in her qualitative study that lesbians often disclosed through means of what she termed behavioral language, a phenomenon previously noted by Ponse (1978). Behavioral language was defined by Healy (1993) as actions which either validate or conceal lesbian identity (p. 253). Healy noted that frequently explicit verbal self-disclosures made by the lesbians in her sample were met with denial. These women were often silent in terms of discussing their sexual orientation

Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 21:36 01 February 2012

Lynne Carroll and Paula J. Gilroy

71

with others, while engaging in such behaviors as bringing their partners to high school or family reunions. In a similar vein, Khayatt (1997) questioned the use of the declarative statement as the only means of coming out. She cited numerous examples of gay persons who use form of dress and hairstyle as statements of their sexual orientation. In a similar fashion, Dindia and Tieu (1996) noted indirect forms of disclosure such as wearing freedom rings, tee-shirts and caps with gay symbols in their sample of gay men and lesbians. While Healy (1993) and others have accentuated the complex nature of the self-disclosure process, research has often neglected to address possible gender differences in this process. Gonsiorek (1995) observed differential patterns in the coming out process for gay men versus lesbians. The disclosure pattern for men was more apt to be characterized by abruptness, contrasted with a more fluid and ambiguous pattern in lesbians. Also, gay men were prone to sexualizing distress during the coming out process, whereas lesbians were more likely to respond with self-reflection and self-absorption. These overall patterns seemed consistent with traditional gender roles in our culture and reinforced the notion that gender role socialization predicts more similarity between straight men and gay men and straight women and lesbians than between gay men and lesbians (Bohan, 1996). In their study of lesbian self-disclosure, Anderson and Mavis (1996) found that lesbians relied more upon emotional and arousal cues in determining their coming out efficacy than on past performance. In our study of lesbian and gay male self-disclosure and social acceptance, we found that gay men in our sample reported significantly greater levels of social acceptance following self-disclosure than did lesbians (Carroll, Gilroy, Stovall, and Turner, 1997). This finding was perplexing in light of the common view that lesbians are subject to less negative social stigma than gay males (Spaulding, 1993). Bohan (1996), Cain (1991), Eldridge and Gilbert (1990) and Healy (1993) noted a pervasive bias among researchers and practitioners that self-disclosure is a necessary prerequisite for psychological wellness. Sophie (1987), for example, argued that secrecy is tantamount to an affirmation of internalized homophobia (p. 70). In their summary of research, Garnets and Kimmel (1993) concluded that coming out is correlated with mental health in specific populations. For example, self-disclosing gay men reported more positive self-concepts than non-disclosing gay men (Schmitt & Kurdek, 1987). Self-disclosing

Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 21:36 01 February 2012

72

JOURNAL OF GAY & LESBIAN PSYCHOTHERAPY

lesbians reported more personal integrity (Rand, Graham, and Rawlings, 1982), greater identity integration (Murphy, 1989), less anxiety, more positive affectivity, and greater self-esteem (Jordan and Deluty, 1998). Miranda and Storms (1989) found that self-disclosure was positively correlated with ego strength and negatively correlated with neurotic anxiety in their sample of lesbians and gay males. Alternately, devaluation of sexual orientation by gay men was correlated with lower self-esteem, greater depressive symptoms (Alexander, 1987), higher sexual anxiety, sexual depression, fear of sexuality, concern about sexual image (Dupras, 1994) and lower sexual functioning (Devlin and Cowan, 1985). In contrast, Cain (1991), Eldridge and Gilbert (1990) and Healy (1993) argued against the assumption that self-disclosure is evidence of a healthy gay and lesbian identity. In their study of 275 lesbian couples, Eldridge et al. (1990) reported a nonsignificant correlation between level of disclosure and psychological well-being. They found that more than three-quarters of their sample were not self-disclosing about their lesbianism and their primary relationships, and reported high levels of self-esteem. Cain (1991) argued that coming out is a complex and non-linear process determined by an interaction of internal and external factors. Spaulding (1993) asserted that the coming out phenomenon must be studied in particular historical and social contexts in ways that attend to the influences of race, ethnicity, sex, age, geographic location and other factors (p. 236). For example, Franke and Leary (1991) explored the factor of social acceptance in the coming out process and found this to be the best predictor of openness. Franke et al., concluded that ones willingness to come out to others is largely a matter of the degree to which one is concerned about what others reactions are perceived to be (p. 268). Vincke and Bolton (1994) also found that low social support because one is gay is related first to depression and then to low levels of gay self-acceptance. Wells and Kline (1987) found that lesbians tend to come out more when they expect a more positive reaction from others. Jordan and Deluty (1998) also found that social reaction to disclosure had a mediating effect upon the relationship between degree of disclosure and level of social support participants reported. These observations were intriguing and raised provocative questions with regard to the distinction between behavioral and more direct

Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 21:36 01 February 2012

Lynne Carroll and Paula J. Gilroy

73

Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 21:36 01 February 2012

verbal forms of self-disclosure. The present study attempted to explore the continuum of behavioral ways in which gay, lesbian and bisexual persons self-disclose. In effect, this continuum represents gradations of risks that gay men, lesbians, and bisexual persons contemplate taking, often on a daily basis. This risk assessment involves consideration not only of the degree of acceptance gay and bisexual persons anticipate receiving following an action or behavior, but the degree to which they perceive an action as suggestive of their orientation. The purpose of this study was to: (a) develop an objective measure of behavioral self-disclosure, (b) examine the psychometric properties of this measure through factor analysis and reliability analyses of items, (c) examine the relationship between verbal and behavioral forms of self-disclosure and acceptance of such self-disclosure, and (d) explore possible gender differences in self-disclosure patterns. METHOD Participants Participants were recruited from an urban city in the southeastern region of the United States. The snowball or chain sampling procedure (Patton, 1987) was employed, where participant contacts are made through social and political organizations. Each participant was given a packet containing a cover letter describing the study, three surveys and a demographic data sheet. A self-designed measure, entitled the Behavioral Self-Disclosure Questionnaire (BDQ), was developed by the authors to assess the use of behavioral language in the being out process. In order to tap verbal declarative language and acceptance of such language, participants were asked to complete the Sexual Orientation Disclosure Scale (SODS; Shachar and Gilbert, 1983) and the Acceptance of Sexual Orientation Disclosure Scale (ASODS; Carroll, Gilroy, Stovall, and Turner, 1997), developed and utilized in our prior research (Carroll, Hoenigmann-Stovall, Turner, and Gilroy, 1999). Measures Demographic Fact Sheet. A separate page asked for age, race, highest degree, occupation, income, number of years in current relationship, number of years cohabiting with their partner, number of children, and number of children currently residing in the household.

74

JOURNAL OF GAY & LESBIAN PSYCHOTHERAPY

Sexual Orientation. Sexual orientation was assessed by directly asking participants what label (lesbian, gay, or bisexual) they preferred. Behavioral Self-Disclosure Questionnaire. The Behavioral Self-Disclosure Questionnaire was designed in order to assess behavioral and indirect ways in which gay men, lesbians are disclosing of their sexual orientation. The pool of items for the BDQ was initially developed by a focus group comprised of three gay men and three lesbians. Group members were asked to generate a list of activities or behaviors which they considered to be indirect ways that gay men and lesbians self-disclose their sexual orientation to non-gay persons. These behaviors were incorporated into 31 statements, with each followed by a 5-point Likert scale ranging from (1) never true to (5) always true. Instructions directed respondents to rate the frequency of participation in each activity. Respondents were instructed that if they were not currently in a partnership to use their most recent relationship as a point of reference when responding to certain items. The questionnaire was then pilot tested with a small group of eight gay men and lesbians and their feedback was subsequently used to further revise and refine the wording of individual items. The Suggestibility and Acceptability Indices of the BDQ. Because we were interested in knowing the degree to which gay men, lesbians and bisexual persons perceived certain behaviors as suggestive of their sexual orientation and their perceptions of the degree of acceptance they have felt in response to such behaviors, we developed additional rating forms. The dimensions of suggestibility and acceptance were assessed by asking respondents to rate the original BDQ items on 5-point Likert scales according to: (a) the degree to which they perceived particular behaviors as suggestive (1 = not at all suggestive, 5 = extremely suggestive) of their sexual orientation, and (b) the level of acceptance ( 1 = not at all accepting, 5 = extremely accepting) they received from others in response to these behaviors. Total scores for the Frequency Index of the BDQ (BDQ-F) and the Acceptability Index of the BDQ (BDQ-A) were derived by summing the total suggestibility ratings and acceptability ratings, respectively, of each BDQ item. The Sexual Orientation Disclosure Scale. This questionnaire was originally designed by Shachar and Gilbert (1983) and subsequently modified by Jordan and Deluty (1998) to assess self-disclosure of sexual orientation. Respondents were asked to rate on a 5 point scale,

Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 21:36 01 February 2012

Lynne Carroll and Paula J. Gilroy

75

Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 21:36 01 February 2012

the level of disclosure to 26 target persons (e.g., mother, father, a lesbian friend, heterosexual male friend, etc.). Ratings were made from 1 (I have not told them about my sexual orientation and I think they do not suspect it) to 5 (I have told them about my sexual orientation in a very deep, detailed way). Participants were also asked to rate any target person as not applicable if that relationship was not relevant to her/him. The total scores were divided by the number of target persons rated by participants, giving each respondent a composite SODS score. The Acceptance of Sexual Orientation Disclosure Scale. The Acceptance of Sexual Orientation Disclosure Scale (ASODS; Carroll et al., 1997) was originally patterned after the SODS in that participants were asked to rate the level of acceptance they had experienced from specific persons as a response to their disclosure. Ratings were made from 1 (They have verbalized total opposition to my gay identity) to 5 (They have verbalized complete acceptance of my gay identity). Participants were also asked to rate any target person as not applicable if that relationship was not relevant to her/him. The total scores were divided by the number of target persons rated by participants, giving each respondent a composite ASODS score. RESULTS Characteristics of the Sample Of the 480 questionnaires distributed, 177 (37%) were returned. Eighty-six men (50.3%) and 85 (49.7%) women responded. One hundred and ten (62%) respondents indicated a preference for the label gay, 60 (34%) described themselves as lesbian, and 3 (2%) described themselves as bisexual. The mean age of the sample was 40.50 (ranging from 16 to 68 years). The majority of the sample was Caucasian (144, 81%), with 19 (11%) being African-American, 4 (2%) Asian-American, 3 (2%) Hispanic, and 2 (1%) Native-American. Forty-eight (27%) participants had completed high school, 35 (20%) completed an Associates degree, 58 (33%) had completed a Bachelors degree, 27 (15%), a Masters degree. Additionally, 61 (35%) participants reported an annual income between $20,000 and $30,000. Most of the participants in the study were involved in a monogamous relationship with a same-sex partner (109, 62%). More than one-half

76

JOURNAL OF GAY & LESBIAN PSYCHOTHERAPY

(102, 58%) reported that they were currently living with a partner. Slightly more than a quarter (39, 28%) of respondents reported that they had children; 18 (10%) reported that their children currently resided with them. Factor Analysis of the BDQ. The dimensions underlying the 31 items of the BDQ were investigated using a principal components factor analysis using varimax rotation. The scree plot suggested that six factors should be retained, accounting for 63% of the total variance. Six factors met the Kaiser Guttman retention criteria of eigenvalues greater than 1.0. In this research, an item was determined to load on a factor if its factor loading was .50 or greater. The six factors were labeled: Factor 1, Out to Family and Friends (F/F) (9 items); Factor 2, Out at Work and in the General Public (W/P) (7 items); Factor 3, Out through Suggestive Conversation/Books/Art (S/A) (6 items); Factor 4, Out in the Gay Community (GC) (4 items); Factor 5, Out through Gay Symbols (GS) (3 items); and Factor 6, Out Financially (OF) (2 items). Table 1 contains a list of the individual items and their respective factor loadings. A subsequent correlational analysis of the six subscales of the BDQ indicated that all subscales were highly intercorrelated. All of the 15 correlations between subscales were significant (p < .05), with all significant correlations in a positive direction. Reliability. Before data analyses were conducted for the study, the degree of reliability for each of the following measures was calculated: (a) the total BDQ and its six factorial derived subscales, (b) the BDQ-S and the six factorially derived subscales, (c) the BDQ-A and the six factorially derived subscales, (d) the SODS, and (e) the ASODS. The Cronbach-alpha reliability coefficients obtained for these measures as well as their means and standard deviations are contained in Table 2. The Cronbach-alpha reliability coefficients obtained for the SODS and the ASODS were .80 and .87, respectively. Correlates of the BDQ Table 3 contains correlations between the total BDQ, the BDQ-S, the BDQ-A, the SODS and the ASODS. As anticipated, the BDQ ratings were moderately and significantly correlated with the SODS (r = .56, p < .01). The ratings on the total BDQ were highly correlated with the ratings on the BDQ-A, (r = .65, p < .01), and significantly, but moderately correlated with the BDQ-S, (r = .26, p < .01). The relationship between the total BDQ-A and the BDQ-S was significant (r = .61, p < .01).

Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 21:36 01 February 2012

Lynne Carroll and Paula J. Gilroy

77

TABLE 1. Factor Loadings of the Behavioral Self-Disclosure Questionnaire Items

Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 21:36 01 February 2012

Items Out with Family/Friends When my partner and I stay overnight in the homes of family members we sleep in the same bed. My partner and I sleep in the same bed when family members come to my home for a visit. My partner and I sleep in the same bed when non-gay friends come to visit. When my partner and I stay overnight at the homes of non-gay friends we sleep in the same bed. My home contains photographs of my partner which are on display when my non-gay friends come to visit. My partner and I send jointly signed greeting cards and/or gifts to family members. I bring my partner to my familys house during a holiday celebration. I bring my partner to social function(s) where family members are present. My home contains photographs of my partner and I which are not removed when family members come to visit. Out in General Public and at Work I refer to my partner by name when other non-gay people are talking about their respective spouses or boyfriends/girlfriends. I mention living with a same-sex person when talking with other non-gay people. When out in public my partner and I touch one another. I take my partner to a social function at work. I display photographs of my partner at work. I mention my partners name to my supervisor at work. I mention my partners name to my co-workers at work. Out Through Suggestive Conversation/Arts/Books When in conversations with non-gay friends about romantic relationships, I include the correct pronoun to indicate the same-sex nature of the relationship. In conversations with non-gay people I use the term partner or significant other. In conversations with non-gay people about political issues I defend gay rights. My home contains gay-themed art work. My home contains books on gay, lesbian and bisexual issues which are visible and arent removed when visitors come. My home contains novels written for and by gay/lesbian authors which are visible and arent removed when visitors come.

Factor Loadings

.76 .77 .69 .60 .70 .57 .70 .64 .68

.65 .53 .57 .65 .62 .72 .76

.67 .53 .64 .55 .74 .76

78

JOURNAL OF GAY & LESBIAN PSYCHOTHERAPY TABLE 1 (continued)

Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 21:36 01 February 2012

Items Out in the Gay Community I attend national events which promote gay/lesbian/bisexual rights. I attend gay/lesbian/bisexual events in my community. I vacation at gay-friendly resort areas. I subscribe to gay publications. Out Through Gay Symbols I wear articles of clothing with gay and lesbian symbols/slogans. I display a bumper sticker on my car which contains gay/lesbian symbols or slogans. I wear jewelry which has gay/lesbian symbols or slogans. Out Financially My partner and I have a joint checking account with our names on both sets of checks. My partner and I purchased a home together and both our names are on the deed.

Factor Loadings

.63 .64 .76 .61

.57 .64 .74

.75 .78

Table 4 contains the intercorrelations among the six factorially derived subscales of the BDQ, the BDQ-S, the BDQ-A, the SODS and the ASODS. All of the factorially derived subscales of the BDQ were positively related to verbal disclosure, as assessed by the SODS. The ratings on the ASODS were negatively related to the F/F, W/P, S/A subscales, and the total BDQ. The two strongest correlations among the BDQ subscales and the Suggestibility and Acceptability Indices were between the F/F subscale and the Acceptability Index of the F/F subscale (r = .77, p < .01) and between the W/P subscale and the Acceptability Index of the W/P subscale (r = .72, p < .01). We also performed a series of correlations between the demographic variables of children, duration of relationship, and length of time living together. Age was significantly correlated (r = .27, p < .01) with the OF subscale only. For those respondents who indicated current involvement in a relationship, the duration of the relationship was significantly correlated with the F/F (r = .22, p < .05), W/P (r = .22, p < .05), and the OF (r = .27, p < .05) subscales. Number of children was negatively correlated with the GC subscale (r = *.24, p < .01) and years of

Lynne Carroll and Paula J. Gilroy

79

TABLE 2. Descriptive Statistics for the BDQ and the Suggestibility and Acceptability Indices of the BDQ

Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 21:36 01 February 2012

Subscale Total BDQ F/F W/P S/A GC GS O/F Total BDQ-S F/F-S W/P-S S/A-S GC-S GS-S OF-S Total BDQ-A F/F-A W/P-A S/A-A GC-A GS-A O/F-A

Items 31 9 7 6 4 3 2 31 9 7 6 4 3 2 31 9 7 6 4 3 2

M 100.29 32.91 20.55 20.82 13.32 7.88 4.81 106.31 30.75 23.62 21.50 14.36 10.13 5.98 90.48 29.10 19.68 18.28 12.43 8.03 5.77

SD 29.57 12.24 8.56 6.80 3.87 3.40 3.36 37.44 13.17 9.36 7.45 4.99 3.77 3.23 30.21 11.66 7.75 6.41 4.28 2.88 3.00

Range 31-155 9-45 7-35 6-30 4-20 3-15 2-10 31-155 9-45 7-35 6-30 4-20 3-15 2-10 31-155 9-45 7-35 6-30 4-20 3-15 2-10

alpha .94 .92 .87 .84 .71 .66 .69 .97 .95 .91 .90 .85 .79 .78 .96 .93 .88 .87 .71 .75 .96

Note. N = 177. BDQ = Behavioral Self-Disclosure Questionnaire; F/F = Out with Family/Friends; W/P = Out in the General Public and at Work; S/A = Out Through Suggestive Conversation/Arts/Books; GC = Out in the Gay Community; GS = Out Through Gay Symbols; OF = Out Financially; BDQ-S = Suggestibility Index of the BDQ; BDQ-A = Acceptability Index of the BDQ.

cohabitation with a partner was correlated with the OF subscale (r = .39, p < .01). Gender Related Differences on the BDQ, SODS and ASODS. In order to explore possible gender differences in terms of behavioral and verbal disclosure, a series of one-way analyses of variance (ANOVA) were performed on the BDQ and the six subscales, Acceptance and Suggestibility Indices of the BDQ and its six subscales, the SODS, and the ASODS. All analyses were nonsignificant, with two exceptions.

80

JOURNAL OF GAY & LESBIAN PSYCHOTHERAPY TABLE 3. Correlations Between Measures of Self-Disclosure

Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 21:36 01 February 2012

Variable 1 1. BDQ 2. BDQ-S 3. BDQ-A 4. SODS 5. ASODS 2 .26** 3 .65** .61** 4 .56** .09 .36** 5 *.22** *.01 *.19* *.35**

Note. BDQ = Behavioral Self-Disclosure Questionnaire; BDQ-S = Suggestibility Index of the Behavioral Self-Disclosure Questionnaire; BDQ-A = Acceptability Index of the Behavioral Self-Disclosure Questionnaire; SODS = The Sexual Orientation Self-Disclosure Scale; ASODS = The Acceptance of Sexual Orientation Self-Disclosure Scale. *p < .05. **p < .01.

Men (M = 3.95, SD = .74) were more verbally disclosing on the SODS, F(1, 167) = 3.73, p < .05, than women (M = 3.73, SD = .69). Women (M = 1.77, SD = .58) reported significantly greater acceptance on the ASODS, F(1, 148) = 3.78, p < .05, following verbal disclosure than did men (M = 1.58, SD = .58).

DISCUSSION As detailed throughout, the empirical and theoretical literature on coming out contains conceptual and methodological problems. Clearly, the process of coming out is a multidimensional and complex one. Coming out is not a dichotomous experience in which one is either in or out of the closet (Herdt, 1992; Smith, 1997). According to Smith, such a conceptualization of coming out necessitates taking little notice of what takes place between the two extremes and its psychological complexity (p. 288). Harrys (1993) distinction between coming out and being out constitutes a significant step towards recognizing this complexity. While Harry and others accentuated the often indirect and behavioral nature of this being out process, no prior objective attempts had been made to operationalize and assess behavioral language. The present study developed an objective measure which extended the definition of being out to the nonverbal and behavioral

Lynne Carroll and Paula J. Gilroy

81

TABLE 4. Correlations Between the BDQ, BDQ-S, BDQ-A Subscales, SODS, and ASODS

Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 21:36 01 February 2012

Scale F/F-S F/F-A W/P-S W/P-A S/A-S S/A-A GC-S GC-A GS-S GS-A OF-S OF-A SODS ASODS

F/F .43** .77** .26** .58** .13 .45** .11 .26** .11 .36** .32** .50** .45** *.22**

W/P .31** .56** .24** .72** .11 .44** .11 .32** .07 .35** .19** .38** .49** *.21**

S/A .23** .42** .07 .41** .13 .53** .03 .30** *.03 .35** .05 .27** .51** *.20*

GC .16* .21** .05 .19* .08 .27** .10 .34** .00 .26** .07 .17* .34** *.12

GS .17* .24** .04 .22** .05 .20** *.00 .12 *.02 .39** .01 .07 .17* *.09

O/F .19* .39** .09 .29** *.00 .17* .05 .07 *.03 .18* .35** .49** .55** *.23**

Note. N = 177. *p < .05 **p < .01

domains. Based upon our analyses, the BDQ had high internal consistency and as such, holds potential for further research. Harry (1993) defined being out as a continual process involving the assessment of risk inherent in making self-disclosures in particular situations. This risk assessment encompasses consideration of the degree to which an action is perceived to be suggestive of homosexuality as well as the degree of acceptance gay persons anticipate receiving following an action or behavior. In our study, we asked participants to rate both the suggestibility of certain behaviors as well as their perceptions of the acceptance they have received by non-gay persons for such behaviors. The two most suggestive items were: (a) I attend national events which promote gay/lesbian/bisexual rights/awareness, (M = 4.12, SD = 1.25) and (b) My partner and I sleep in the same bed when family members come to my home for a visit (M = 4.07, SD = 1.25). The two least suggestive items were: (a) My partner and I have a joint checking account (M = 3.48, SD = 1.35)

82

JOURNAL OF GAY & LESBIAN PSYCHOTHERAPY

and (b) I wear jewelry which contains gay symbols (M = 3.55, SD = 1.17). The two items which were rated as most accepted by non-gay persons were: (a) My home contains photographs of my partner none of which are removed when non-gay friends come to visit (M = 3.86, SD = 1.05) and (b) My partner and I sleep in the same bed when my/our non-gay friends come to visit (M = 3.85, SD = 1.09). The two items which received the lowest ratings, and therefore, were perceived as least accepted, were: (a) When out in public my partner and I touch one another (M = 2.57, SD = 1.00) and (b) I display photographs of my partner at work (M = 2.78, SD = 1.30). In effect, the actions described in each of these statements represent points along a continuum of risk. For example, when a gay man makes the decision to attend a national march for gay pride, he may need to be cognizant that doing so, effectively, may label him as a homosexual in the eyes of non-gay persons and if he chooses to display photographs of his partner at work, he may have to face rejection by his non-gay co-workers. Interestingly, results of our study suggested that acceptability was more strongly associated with the frequency of use of behavioral self-disclosure than the suggestibility of the behavior. As anticipated, our analysis indicated that the verbal and behavioral language used in the being out process are highly correlated. Significant positive correlations were found between the BDQ, its six subscales, and the SODS. The present analysis also yielded significant correlations between relationship duration and the subscales which assess frequency of behavioral language with family and friends, at work, and in financial arrangements. Perhaps this is not surprising, given the longer one is coupled with a partner, the harder it is to avoid engaging in certain behaviors, like attending family gatherings with ones partner. Of particular interest was the possibility raised in prior research (Carroll et al., 1997), that lesbians and gay men differ in terms of the degree of social acceptance they received from other non-gay people following self-disclosure. In our present analysis we found that lesbians perceived greater acceptance following verbal disclosure than did gay men. Several cautions must be made in terms of analyzing these results. The first has to do with the relatively low return rate, the nature of the sampling procedures, and the continued problems which result from relying upon volunteer participants who are relatively open about their sexual orientation. Such persons are not fully representative of the

Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 21:36 01 February 2012

Lynne Carroll and Paula J. Gilroy

83

entire spectrum of homosexuals, some of which are not likely to engage in verbal or behavioral self-disclosure. Additional cautions concern the nature of the items contained on the BDQ itself. The preponderance of items describe self-disclosure activities which involve interactions with romantic partners. Although single persons who participated in our study were instructed to use their most recent relationship as a point of reference when responding to the BDQ, this type of retrospective reporting may be problematic (Pearson, Ross, and Dawes, 1991). Future modifications of the BDQ might consider the inclusion of additional items, some of which are not relationally oriented. The BDQ might also incorporate the use of a weighted scoring system in place of the current one. Such a system would permit greater distinctions between ambiguous and therefore less suggestive behaviors, such as wearing jewelry with gay symbols, and more suggestive behaviors such as sleeping in the same bed with ones partner when family members come to ones home for a visit. The needs and directions for future research on the topic of being out are plentiful. For example, it would be interesting to explore the use of behavioral language, and its correlates, with such variables as homosexual identity development as assessed by Casss Stage Allocation Measure (SAM; Cass, 1984). Future research might compare the perceptions that gay men, lesbians, and heterosexuals possess regarding the suggestibility and acceptability of certain indirect or behavioral forms of self-disclosure. For example, do heterosexual men and women agree with our sample that attending a national march for gay pride provides strong evidence to suspect another person is gay or lesbian? Or, does displaying photographs of ones same-sex partner at work meet with a similar rating of disapproval among heterosexual samples as was anticipated in our sample? Research might also explore the possibility among gay men and lesbians that different forms of behavioral and verbal self-disclosures constitute different stages in a developmental sequence of being out. The final stage in this progression would entail the use of explicit verbal self-declarative language. The implications of this research for those who counsel gay men, lesbians, and bisexual persons are numerous. Therapists need to clearly grasp the distinction between coming out and being out and to recognize the complexities of being out for gay men and lesbian clients. While coming out may be a vital link in terms of facilitating psychological adjustment and mental health in gay and lesbian clients (i.e., Garnets and Kimmel, 1993; Jordan and Deluty, 1998; Sophie,

Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 21:36 01 February 2012

84

JOURNAL OF GAY & LESBIAN PSYCHOTHERAPY

1987) being out may not necessarily be conducive to positive mental health. For example, in an age of increasing hate crimes against gay men and lesbians (Berrill, 1990) the risks of being out may be life threatening. In essence, perhaps therapists need to rethink the proverbial question: Have you told your family about your sexual orientation? Instead, one may need to consider inquiring: In what ways might you be indirectly revealing your sexual orientation to your family members through your actions or behaviors? Therapists who are aware of the many ways of communication about ones sexual orientation can facilitate clients understanding of messages they may be sending to others without their awareness. For example, if a client is insistent upon not revealing her lesbianism to her co-workers, yet, her workplace contains photographs of her life partner, the therapist might explore this discrepancy with the client. It is often the case that clients engage in certain behaviors which may be suggestive to others of ones sexual orientation, even though they are not psychologically prepared to handle the consequences. Our research also suggested that certain behaviors are clearly less suggestive of sexual orientation than others. Therapists may wish to present some of these behaviors to clients as a place for them to start owning their sexual orientation in a safe way. This may also have the effect of increasing the clients sense of control and sense of relief in learning that there are many ways for expressing their sexual orientation while simultaneously feeling more genuine in their interactions with others. We believe the BDQ holds much potential for use as a therapeutic tool and a means of opening up much needed dialogue between therapists and clients about an issue which has traditionally been oversimplified. In short, as therapists we need to learn the behavioral language of our gay men, lesbian, and bisexual clients. That is, we need recognize and discuss within the context of therapy, the often oblique language that many gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals use in their communication with non-gay persons. REFERENCES
Alexander, R. A. (1987), The relationship between internalized homophobia and depression and low self-esteem in gay men. Dissertation Abstracts International, 47:3977. Anderson, M. K. & Mavis, B. E. (1996), Sources of coming out self-efficacy for lesbians. Journal of Homosexuality, 32:37-52. Berrill, K. T. (1990), Anti-gay violence and victimization in the United States. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5:401-413.

Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 21:36 01 February 2012

Lynne Carroll and Paula J. Gilroy

85

Bohan, J. S. (1996), Psychology and Sexual Orientation. New York: Routledge. Cain, R. (1991), Stigma management and gay identity development. Social Work, 36:67-73. Carroll, L., Gilroy, P., Stovall, N., & Turner, J. (1997), Lesbian and Gay Male Self-Disclosure, Social Acceptance, and Ego Development. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Chicago, IL. Carroll, L., Hoenigmann-Stovall, N., Turner, J., & Gilroy, P. (1999), A comparative study of interpersonal relatedness, merger, and ego development in lesbian, gay male and heterosexual couples. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 9:51-67. Cass, V. C. (1984), Homosexual identity formation: Testing a theoretical model. Journal of Sex Research, 20:143-167. Devlin, P. S. & Cowan, G. A. (1985), Homophobia, perceived fathering and male intimate relationships. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49:467-473. Dindia, K. (1998), Going into and coming out of the closet: The dialectics of stigma disclosure. In Dialectical Approaches to Studying Personal Relationships, ed. B. M. Montgomery & L. A. Baxter. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 83-108. Dindia, K., & Tieu, T. (1996), Self-Disclosure of Homosexuality: The Dialectics of Coming Out. Paper presented at the meeting of the Speech Communication Association, San Diego, CA. Dupras, A. (1994), Internalized homophobia and psychosexual adjustment among gay men. Psychological Reports, 75:23-28. Eldridge, N. S., & Gilbert, L. A. (1990), Correlates of relationship satisfaction in lesbian couples. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 14:43-62. Franke, R. & Leary, M. (1991), Disclosure of sexual orientation by lesbians and gay men: A comparison of private and public processes. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 10:262-269. Garnets, L., & Kimmel, D. C. (1993), Lesbian and gay male dimensions in the psychological study of human diversity. In Psychological Perspectives on Lesbian and Gay Male Experiences, ed, L. Garnets & D. C. Kimmel. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 1-51. Gonsiorek, J. C. (1995), Gay male identities: Concepts and issues. In Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Identities over the Lifespan, ed. A. R. DAugelli & C. J. Patterson. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 24-47. Harry, J. (1993), Being out: A general model. Journal of Homosexuality, 26:25-39. Healy, T. (1993), A struggle language: Patterns of self-disclosure in lesbian couples. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 63:247-264. Herdt, G. (1992), Coming out as a rite of passage: A Chicago study. In Gay Culture in America, ed, G. Herdt. Boston, MA: Beacon Press, pp. 29-67. Jordan, K. M. & Deluty, R. H. (1998), Coming out for lesbian women: Its relation to anxiety, positive affectivity, self-esteem, and social support. Journal of Homosexuality, 35:41-62. Kahn, M. J. (1991), Factors affecting the coming out process for lesbians. Journal of Homosexuality, 21:47-70.

Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 21:36 01 February 2012

86

JOURNAL OF GAY & LESBIAN PSYCHOTHERAPY

Khayatt, D. (1997), Sex and the teacher: Should we come out in class? Harvard Educational Review, 67:126-143. Miranda, J. & Storms, M. (1989), Psychological adjustment of lesbians and gay men. Journal of Counseling and Development, 68:41-45. Morris, J. F. (1997), Lesbian coming out as a multidimensional process. Journal of Homosexuality, 33:1-22. Murphy, B. (1989), Lesbian couples and their parents: The effects of perceived parental attitudes on the couple. Journal of Counseling and Development, 6:46-51. Patton, M. O. (1987), How to Use Qualitative Methods in Evaluation. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Pearson, R. W., Ross, M., & Dawes, R. M. (1991), Personal recall and the limits of retrospective questions in surveys. In Questions About Questions: Inquiries into the Cognitive Bases of Surveys. ed, J. M. Tanur. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Ponse, B. (1978), Identities in the Lesbian World: The Social Construction of Self. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Rand, C. D., Graham, L., & Rawlings, E. (1982), Psychological health and factors the court seeks to control in lesbian mother custody trials. Journal of Homosexuality, 8:27-39. Schmitt, J. P. & Kurdek, L. A. (1987), Personality correlates of positive identity and relationship involvement in gay men. Journal of Homosexuality, 13:101-109. Shachar, S. A. & Gilbert, L. A. (1983), Working lesbians: Role conflicts and coping strategies. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 7:244-256. Smith, A. (1997), Cultural diversity and the coming out process: Implications for clinical practice. In Ethnic and Cultural Diversity Among Lesbians and Gay Men, ed, B. Greene. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 279-300. Sophie, J. (1987), Internalized homophobia and lesbian identity. Journal of Homosexuality, 12:39-51. Spaulding, E. C. (1993), Unconsciousness raising: Hidden dimensions of heterosexism in theory and practice with lesbians. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 63:231-245. Troiden, R. R. (1989), The formation of homosexual identities. Journal of Homosexuality, 17:43-73. Vincke, J., & Bolton, R. (1994), Social support, depression, and self-acceptance among gay men. Human Relations, 47:191-197. Wells, J. W., & Kline, W. B. (1987), Self-disclosure of homosexual orientation. Journal of Social Psychology, 127:191-197.

Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 21:36 01 February 2012

RECEIVED: March 1999 REVISED: May 1999 ACCEPTED: June 1999

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi