THE IMPACT OF INTERNALIZED HOMOPHOBIA, IDENTITY FORMATION,
AND DISCLOSURE ON WORK RELATED ATTITUDES
Pedro Dueñas
B.A., California State University, Sacramento 2008
THESIS
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
PSYCHOLOGY
(Industrial/Organizational Psychology)
at
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
SPRING
2011
THE IMPACT OF INTERNALIZED HOMOPHOBIA, IDENTITY FORMATION,
AND DISCLOSURE ON WORK RELATED ATTITUDES
A Thesis
by
Pedro Dueñas
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Rachael August, Ph.D.
__________________________________, Second Reader
Oriel Strickland, Ph.D.
__________________________________, Third Reader
Lisa Bohon, Ph.D.
____________________________
Date
ii
Student: Pedro Dueñas
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University
format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to
be awarded for the thesis.
__________________________, Graduate Coordinator
Jianjian Qin, Ph.D.
Department of Psychology
iii
___________________
Date
Abstract
of
THE IMPACT OF INTERNALIZED HOMOPHOBIA, IDENTITY FORMATION,
AND DISCLOSURE ON WORK RELATED ATTITUDES
by
Pedro Dueñas
One purpose of this study was to make a connection between sexual identity formation,
internalized homophobia and disclosure of sexual orientation in the workplace. Another
purpose was to examine the effects of disclosure on organizational commitment, turnover
intentions, job satisfaction, and work-family conflict. Participants consisted of 146
individuals, 88 males and 58 females, with ages ranging from 18 to 73 years old.
Participants were recruited through support groups in the Sacramento, CA area.
Regression analyses supported that individuals who scored into later stages of sexual
identity formation and who displayed lower levels of internalized homophobia were more
likely to be “out” at work. Individuals who displayed lower levels of internalized
homophobia were more likely to score into later stages of sexual identity formation.
Organizations can benefit from the diversity of sexual minority employees by attempting
to create an environment that encourages disclosure of sexual orientation.
_______________________, Committee Chair
Rachael August, Ph.D.
_______________________
Date
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my gratitude for the time and effort Dr. Strickland and Dr. Bohon
put into reviewing my thesis. I would also like to give a very special thank you to Dr.
August for playing an integral part in the completion of this thesis. Thank you Dr.
August for your guidance and support throughout this process.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................... v
List of Tables ............................................................................................................. vii
List of Figures ........................................................................................................... viii
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1
2. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY ....................................................................... 5
Relationship Between Internalized Homophobia and Identity Formation ....... 5
The Sexual Identity Formation Process ........................................................... 5
Internalized Homophobia ............................................................................... 18
3. DISCLOSURE IN THE WORKPLACE .............................................................. 21
4. METHODS ........................................................................................................... 25
Participants ...................................................................................................... 25
Materials ......................................................................................................... 26
Procedures ....................................................................................................... 30
5. RESULTS ............................................................................................................. 32
Preliminary Analyses ...................................................................................... 32
Hierarchal Regression Analyses ..................................................................... 34
6. DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................... 52
Limitations ...................................................................................................... 54
Future Research .............................................................................................. 57
Overall Summary ............................................................................................ 60
References ................................................................................................................... 62
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1.
Table 1 Means and Standard Deviations Among Study Variables ..................... 32
2.
Table 2 Correlation Coefficient Matrix of Study Variables ................................ 33
3.
Table 3 Hierarchal Multiple Regression .............................................................. 36
4.
Table 4 Hierarchal Multiple Regression .............................................................. 37
5.
Table 5 Hierarchal Multiple Regression .............................................................. 38
6.
Table 6 Hierarchal Multiple Regression .............................................................. 40
7.
Table 7 Model Summary ..................................................................................... 43
8.
Table 8 Hierarchal Multiple Regression .............................................................. 44
9.
Table 9 Hierarchal Multiple Regression .............................................................. 46
10. Table 10 Hierarchal Multiple Regression ............................................................ 48
11. Table 11 Hierarchal Multiple Regression ............................................................ 50
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1.
Figure 1 Disclosure process and its predicted outcomes ....................................... 5
viii
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Being part of a minority group in the workplace can have several implications for
employees, such as being excluded from certain groups and in some cases even
discrimination. In the majority of circumstances, minority group members possess clear
visible characteristics that connect them to a particular disadvantaged group. These
characteristics can include ethnicity, gender, obesity, or a particular physical disability.
There are also other minority groups with characteristics that may not immediately be
identifiable, such as being gay, lesbian or bisexual (GLB). This type of minority group is
also known as a sexual minority. As stated by Ragins, Singh and Cornwell (2007), a
major dilemma that many individuals in this sexual minority face is whether or not to
disclose their sexual identity to those they interact with in the workplace. Various studies
have been carried out to obtain a better understanding of the potential outcomes for
individuals who choose to either disclose their sexual orientation or make an effort to
keep it concealed from others in the workplace.
Surprisingly however, there have been few studies devoted to the factors that
contribute to this important decision to disclose or not to disclose. A study conducted by
Rostosky and Riggle (2002) attempted to make a link between an individual’s level of
internalized homophobia and how that relates to the extent to which they were “out” in
the workplace. Just as expected, the results of the study supported the idea that an
individual’s internalized homophobia had a negative relationship with the extent to which
2
they were “out” at work. Although the study conducted by Rotosky and Riggle shed
some insight on the relationship between internalized homophobia and an individual’s
decision to disclose their sexual orientation at work, the mechanism involved in this
process is yet to be explored. This proposal suggests that internalized homophobia
directly affects the extent to which individuals successfully develop their own sexual
identity. Specifically, sexual minority individuals with high internalized homophobia will
likely be on the lower spectrum in terms of their sexual identity formation: this should
result in it being less likely that they would feel comfortable enough with themselves to
disclose their sexual orientation in the workplace. In the long run, this lack of disclosure
will likely negatively affect various work outcomes.
Greater exploration of the experiences of sexual minorities in the workplace could
have several positive implications for the sexual minority community, as well as
organizations employing these individuals. In many parts of the U.S. discrimination in
the workplace based on sexual orientation is still legal. As pointed out by Fassinger
(2008), individuals who identify themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual can be legally
terminated from their job in 29 states in the U.S. simply because of their sexual
orientation. Empirical research showing the positive effects of those individuals who are
able to freely disclose their sexual orientation in the workplace, as compared to those
individuals who feel unable to do so, can help provide an argument for establishing antidiscrimination laws for sexual minorities in the workplace across the U.S. Additionally,
repeated empirical studies on this topic could encourage organizations to establish their
own set of tolerance and awareness policies for sexual minorities, which in turn could
3
encourage more individuals to “come out”. Over time, this could alleviate feelings of
psychological strain due to having to hide who they really are.
The research conducted by Fassinger (2008) describes some of the unique issues
faced by sexual minorities in the workplace. Specifically, discriminating against an
individual for being GLB can be an accepted if not encouraged occurrence in the
workplace. This is especially true for areas in the U.S. deeply rooted in religion, the
Midwest, or in southern states. Between 25% to 66% of GLB workers have reported
some sort of workplace discrimination because of their sexual minority status at some
point in their careers. Discrimination against GLB workers also exists in the form of
wage discrepancies; the most extreme cases report earnings of GLB workers being 23%
less than their heterosexual peers (Fassinger, 2008). Considering the many potential
adversities sexual minorities deal with in the workplace, it makes sense that some
individuals would want to hide their sexual minority status.
Although hiding a GLB identity would at least allow a person to avoid overt
discrimination, it may result in anxiety and stress due to having to conceal a part of who
they are in the workplace. In other words, GLB individuals who hide their sexual
minority status at work have to deal with the constant strain of being careful of what
information they share with others. These individuals must make an effort to separate
their personal life from their professional life, which as shown by past studies (Cass,
1979; Halpin & Allen, 2004) can have negative psychological consequences.
Fortunately, there have been improvements in how society as a whole feels about GLB
individual’s equality in the workplace. Fassinger (2008) reports that 85% of Americans
4
support fair treatment of GLB individuals in the workplace. This is an encouraging
statistic considering that the roots of internalized homophobia can be greatly influenced
by the environment of an individual (Rostosky & Riggle, 2002).
5
Chapter 2
BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
Relationship Between Internalized Homophobia and Identity Formation
The present study specifies the process by which disclosure of sexual orientation
in the workplace takes place, as well as the consequences of such disclosure.
Figure 1. Disclosure process and its predicted outcomes.
The subsequent review of the literature will describe the rationale behind each of the
relationships presented in the model above.
The Sexual Identity Formation Process
The sexual identity formation process that sexual minority individuals progress
through is unique and a potentially tumultuous experience, given the largely heterosexual
world in which sexual minorities live. One of the first and most influential sexual identity
6
models was developed by Cass (1979). Cass’ model rests upon two assumptions. The
first assumption is that the concept of identity is obtained through a developmental
progression and the second assumption is that steadiness or modification of one’s
behavior is influenced by interactions with one’s environment. Based on these
assumptions, along with the multiple years that Cass spent doing clinical work with
homosexual patients, a stage model was developed that specifies that individuals must
progress through six stages in order to acquire a fully integrated homosexual identity.
Each stage is comprised of several alternative routes of development, including a path
where an individual cannot move any further in identity development, known as “identity
foreclosure” (1979).
The theory of interpersonal congruency is also closely tied to Cass’ (1979) model
of homosexual identity formation. This theory assumes that stability and modifications in
an individual’s behavior are contingent upon the agreement or disagreement that exists in
an individual’s interpersonal environment. Cass hypothesized that movement from one
stage to another is influenced by this agreement/disagreement that exists in an
individual’s environment, which is due to the fact the individual is assigning a
homosexual connotation to their feelings, thoughts, or behavior. Congruency occurs
when an individual’s public and private self are in sync. Individuals experience growth in
the model when they attempt to work out the inconsistencies (incongruency) between the
perceptions of one’s self and the people with whom one interacts. For instance, a
simplified example could be that Bob would move forward in the model if the
7
perceptions of how Bob views himself closely matched the perceptions of how Bob’s
coworkers view Bob.
Cass suggested that before an individual can give meaning to homosexuality, he
or she develops an image of being heterosexual. Moreover, in most circumstances, the
individual has been socialized into a society that is anti-homosexual or at the very least,
maintains a heterosexist perspective. Consequently, heterosexuality is often presented to
the individual as the only suitable outlet of sexual representation. Cass believes that an
individual’s initial perception of his or her sexual orientation is strongly influenced by the
social foundation of the society in which he or she lives. Consequently, homosexuality is
more often than not given modest affirmative value and is perceived as a stigmatized
category (1979). These poor images of homosexuality in one’s culture could easily
manifest into feelings of internalized homophobia, and therefore result in an increased
difficulty of progressing through the stages of sexual identity formation.
The first stage of Cass’ (1979) model of identity formation is called Identity
Confusion. It begins when an individual has the realization that his or her feelings,
thoughts, or behaviors may be labeled as homosexual. This introduces incongruency to a
situation that was previously stable; that is the person begins to doubt who he or she is
and who he or she thought they once were. The person consequently develops a
perception that is now in contradiction to the perception of being heterosexual and the
perception of how other people view the individual as heterosexual. The individual
begins to question who he or she is as a person, and in an attempt to relieve this
confusion, utilizes one of three approaches. The first approach is when the individual
8
perceives this possible homosexual behavior to be both accurate and acceptable. In order
to alleviate the confusion, the individual begins to educate him or herself about
homosexuality. The second approach is used by individuals who perceive the possible
homosexual behavior as accurate but unwanted. Individuals who use this approach may
attempt to become quickly detached from anything associated with homosexuality. If the
detachment works, identity foreclosure occurs and progression through the sexual
identity model ceases. If detachment is unsuccessful, the person may unwillingly accept
the possibility that he or she is homosexual and can result in a negative view to the point
of self-loathing. The third approach occurs when people view their possible homosexual
behavior as both inaccurate and unwanted. This typically results in a complete denial of
being homosexual and identity foreclosure takes place (1979).
The second stage of Cass’ (1979) sexual identity formation model is known as
Identity Comparison. If identity foreclosure did not take place in stage one, in stage two
the individual has accepted the fact that he or she is not heterosexual and may possibly be
homosexual. The objective of stage two is to be able to cope with the alienation of not
perceiving oneself as heterosexual. This causes the individual to feel that he or she does
not belong in society in addition to other subgroups of family and peers. As with stage
one, several approaches may be used to cope with such feelings of alienation. Some
individuals decide to continue passing as heterosexual in order to slowly come to terms
with the fact that they are homosexual. Other individuals may begin to perceive
themselves as bisexual. In extreme cases, an individual may decide to force him or
9
herself to be asexual, rejecting both heterosexuality and homosexuality, resulting in
identity foreclosure (1979).
Those individuals, who did not end up in identity foreclosure in the second
stage, move onto to stage three, Identity Tolerance. Now that an individual has gotten
past the stages of turmoil and confusion, he or she may start to devote energy towards
social, emotional and sexual needs. This stage is also when individuals begin to seek out
other homosexuals and the gay subculture. This allows the individual to alleviate some of
the feelings of alienation encountered in the previous stage. This new contact with
homosexuals begins to increase an individuals alienation towards heterosexuals, resulting
in picking and choosing which heterosexuals to interact with. The extent to which an
individual’s homosexual contacts are perceived to be positive or negative is an important
factor. Positive contacts can result in the individual perceiving his or her own behavior
and identity in a positive manner, in addition to positively perceiving others who are
homosexual. Negative contacts can result in a devaluation of the gay subculture and
possibly a self-hating individual. These negative contacts may cause an individual to
reduce interaction with other homosexuals or even a complete inhibition of all
homosexual behavior, which would result in identity foreclosure. By the end of stage
three, if identity formation has not already taken place, an individual can view himself or
herself as homosexual (Cass 1979).
The fourth stage in Cass’ (1979) model of sexual identity formation is known as
Identity Acceptance. In this stage, an individual moves from a mere tolerance of being
homosexual to an actual acceptance of it. Contact with other homosexual individuals
10
increases, a preference develops for particular social contexts within the gay subculture,
and friendships within this culture are formed. At this point, there still exists
incongruency between how others view an individual at this stage and how the individual
views him or herself. The individual can cope with this incongruency by continuing to
pass as heterosexual to other heterosexual individuals he or she interacts with. The
individual can reduce interaction with heterosexuals who contribute to this growing
incongruency. The individual can also choose to disclose his or her sexual orientation to
only certain heterosexuals. If incongruency can be kept at a tolerable level by passing as a
heterosexual, identity foreclosure takes place. When the individual comes to terms with
the fact that passing as a heterosexual is unacceptable, and/or decides to cut off contact
with people who increase incongruency, he or she is ready to move on to stage five
(1979).
Stage five is known as Identity Pride. In this stage, the individual realizes the
differences that exist between his/her newfound total acceptance of being homosexual
and the rejection society expresses towards homosexuality. Individuals at this stage begin
to form a strong sense of pride for belonging to the gay subculture, some to the point of
taking on a “us versus them” mentality. Some individuals begin to devalue anything
strongly associated with heterosexuality, such as the concept of marriage or sex roles.
Feelings of pride and anger can manifest into activism roles for the advancement of
homosexual political interests. By this point, an individual is much less concerned with
how heterosexuals perceive him/her, making disclosure a much easier process. Disclosure
has two positive outcomes for individuals, in terms of general well being. It increases
11
situations where one’s sexual identity is known, thereby providing support for his/her
view of oneself as a homosexual, and it helps the individual’s public and private identity
start to merge as one (Cass, 1979).
The last stage is known as Identity Synthesis. By this point, the individual’s view
of perceiving heterosexuals and anything associated with heterosexuality in a negative
light starts to diminish. Individuals begin to understand that there are many heterosexual
people who accept his/her sexual identity. Increased contact with supportive
heterosexuals causes the individual to see heterosexuals in an increasingly positive
manner and detachment from heterosexuals who are unsupportive becomes more
frequent. Feelings of pride and anger that were present in stage five are still present, but
not in such intense levels. At this final stage, individuals realize that their homosexual
identity is not all encompassing, just an important aspect of one’s self (Cass, 1979).
The validity of the six-stage model has been assessed (Cass, 1984). Descriptions
were created to serve as profiles for each stage and the six-stage model was utilized to
predict how individuals in each stage would respond to each item. The Stage Allocation
Measure was developed to assign participants to one of the six stages. Each stage has a
corresponding profile that is composed of one-paragraph descriptions which outline the
ideal way an individual would be characterized at that particular segment of
development, additionally a profile for “pre-Stage 1” was added, resulting in a total of
seven profiles. Participants were told to select one of the seven profiles that best fit the
manner in which they viewed themselves at that particular point in time. Cass (1984)
hypothesized that individuals belonging to a certain stage would score highest in their
12
corresponding stage when compared to other stages. To actually test the hypothesis, the
responses from the Stage Allocation Measure were compared to the responses given by
the same individuals on the Homosexual Identity Questionnaire. Particular items on the
Homosexual Identity Questionnaire had been matched up as conceptually similar to, or
representing, each of the Stage Allocation Measure profiles (1984).
The study was comprised of 166 participants who completed both the Stage
Allocation Measure and the Homosexual Identity Questionnaire. The hypothesis that
individuals belonging to a certain stage would score highest in their corresponding stage
when compared to other stages was strongly supported only for stages one, five and six.
The results for stage two and stage four were almost significant at the .05 level, and the
results for stage three were not supported. For the second hypothesis (individuals
belonging to a particular stage would obtain highest scores to their corresponding stage
when compared in subjects at other stages) a similar computation was carried and out and
there was strong support for each of the six stages. Results demonstrated that distinctions
could not be made between stages one and two, and between stages five and six. This
suggests that perhaps Cass’ six-stage model could be better represented by a four-stage
model (Cass 1984).
Although Cass’ model of homosexual identity formation has been widely cited as
a reference to gain a clearer understanding of how this identity process functions, many
researchers have chosen to use the model as a foundation in order to create their own
model. One such study was conducted by Brady and Busse (1994). Brady and Busse state
that the various limitations of the Homosexual Identity Questionnaire (HIQ) developed
13
from Cass’ Homosexual Identity Formation (HIF) model (1979) suggested a need to
create an alternative measure, which they called the Gay Identity Questionnaire (GIQ).
These limitations included the length of the HIQ, which consisted of a total of 210 items,
the fact that the questionnaire included both multiple choice and checklist items, and the
requirement of having six total scoring solutions to identify the stage of identity
formation (1994).
Developing the GIQ involved composing a total of 100 items to represent the
constructs of the HIF model. Those items were subsequently reviewed by four
independent raters who had extensively studied the HIF. Based on this review, 63 items
were chosen to be part of the pilot measure; all of these items had been agreed upon by at
least 75% of the raters as being an appropriate representation of a particular stage within
the HIF model. The third step involved using 25 participants belonging to gay social
groups to conduct pilot tests in order to gather more information on the reliability of each
individual item. The participants were then identified as belonging to one of the six
stages of the HIF model. The internal consistency of the items representing a particular
stage was also assessed based upon the responses given by the participants and items
were deleted as was appropriate. The GIQ was consequently reduced to 45 items. The
final pilot measure consisted of 42 items that were intended to assign participants to a
particular stage within the HIF model, and three items designed to ensure that the
participants engaged in homosexual thoughts, feelings or behaviors. This final pilot
measure was given to 18 students belonging to support groups in order to further assess
14
the internal consistency of the items. Based on the results of this final pilot study, some
minor changes to the verbiage of the items were made.
A total of 225 males served as participants for validating the final version of the
GIQ. Various sites were used for selection purposes with the intent to recruit a
representative sample of participants at each stage of the HIF model. In addition to the
GIQ, participants also completed a questionnaire designed to gather demographic as well
as psychosocial data. Stage allocation was determined by the highest score that the
participant obtained in correspondence to questions belonging to each stage, if a
participant obtained the same number of points for two stages, they were assigned dual
stage allocation. The results showed no significant relationship between the GIQ stages
and various demographic variables (age, religiosity, income, political values, and
education), adding to the validity of the measure since there were no confounds found for
these variables (Brady & Busse, 1994).
Based on the results, it was determined that there was an insufficient number of
participants who could be allocated to stage one and two (Identity Confusion and Identity
Comparison), which is a common limitation with these types of studies (Cass, 1984;
Halpin & Allen 2004). Brady and Busse (1994) believe that a reason for this is that
individuals in these stages may not view themselves as being gay yet, and/or may have
strong feelings against their homosexual feelings, preventing them from wanting to
participate in these types of studies. Also based on the results, Brady and Busse believe
that the six stage HIF model might be better represented by only two stages, one stage
that combines stages 1,2, and 3 and one stage that combines stages 4, 5, and 6 of the HIF
15
model. A validity study conducted by Johns and Probst (2004) also proposed a two-stage
model. The main difference between these two stages is whether an individual has
resolved a rational self-identity as a homosexual, in other words, this resolution would be
marked by an individual having a clear understanding of being homosexual and having
obtained a sense of where he or she belong as a homosexual.
Another study that evaluated the HIF model developed by Cass (1979) was
conducted by Halpin and Allen (2004). In addition to assessing the HIF model, Halpin
and Allen were interested in how an individual’s gay identity formation is related to
various psychosocial constructs. The authors state that although the previous study
conducted by Brady and Busse (1994) also assessed the relationship of Cass’ (1979) HIF
model to various psychosocial constructs, it was done by merely utilizing one item for
each construct, consequently a more thorough evaluation of this relationship was needed.
Halpin and Allen hypothesized that individuals who were in the earlier stages of
homosexual identity formation would be more likely to have greater feelings of
loneliness, have lower levels of self-esteem, happiness, and satisfaction with life. A total
of 425 men were used to test this hypothesis, subjects were recruited through bulletin
board advertisements on numerous websites containing gay content. The intent of
recruiting participants through the Internet was to alleviate issues in previous studies
(Brady & Busse, 1994) of not being able to recruit members who belonged to early stages
in HIF.
Halpin and Allen (2004) determined what stage in Cass’ (1979) Homosexual
Identity Formation (HIF) model each participant belonged to by having them complete
16
Brady and Busse’s (1994) Gay Identity Questionnaire (GIQ). Participants also completed
a measure for each of the psychosocial well-being constructs. These psychosocial
constructs included depression, satisfaction with life, loneliness and self-esteem. Results
showed no significant relationships between age and nationality and the psychosocial
dependent variables. However, participants’ stage within the HIF was significantly
related to all of the dependent variables. Specifically, those individuals who were in the
earlier stages of HIF were more likely to obtain low scores on depression and loneliness
and high scores in satisfaction with life and self-esteem. Individuals who were in the
middle stages of HIF were more likely to obtain high scores on depression and loneliness
and low scores in satisfaction with life and self-esteem. Individuals in the later stages of
HIF were similar to those in the early stages in the sense that they were more likely to
obtain low scores on depression and loneliness and high scores in satisfaction with life
and self-esteem. Despite the author’s efforts, the number of participants who scored into
the first two stages was far less than the other stages, though their data were still
sufficient for analyzing the results.
Although initially unexpected, Halpin and Allen (2004) provided a plausible
explanation for the U-shaped results with regard to the scores on the dependent variables.
It is believed that individuals who are in the initial stages of the HIF model are perhaps in
an “ignorance is bliss” mind frame and this acts as a protective barrier causing them to
score low on the psychosocial constructs such as depression and loneliness. It is also
possible that these individuals are still in the closet; therefore their concealment has
prevented them from dealing with issues of disclosing to others, which would result in an
17
avoidance of possible hostile situations, and avoiding stress. The authors suggest that the
middle stages can be the most turbulent for individuals dealing with disclosing their
sexual orientation, perhaps encountering hostility from family/friends/peers, experiencing
feelings of stigmatization, and perhaps reaching out to other gay individuals has not
occurred yet. Consequently, this could be the reason for which these individuals scored
the lowest in the constructs of satisfaction with life and self-esteem.
Individuals who were allocated to the last two stages scored high in the
psychosocial variables. In other words, they had a strong sense of self-esteem, scored
high in satisfaction with life, and experienced less feelings of loneliness. It is believed
that this is because these individuals are more likely to have a stable concept of their
sexual identity, and have supportive social relationships (Halpin & Allen, 2004). This
coincides with Cass’ (1979) concept that individuals in these stages have obtained
congruency between their public and private self (2004). Although there may be some
minor discrepancies between researchers in terms of the overall structure of homosexual
identity formation, one point of agreement is that individuals who reach that last few
stages of the model feel comfortable enough to disclose their orientation to the people
with whom they interact. Therefore, it is anticipated in this study that:
H1: There will be a positive relationship between an individual’s level of sexual
identity formation and the extent to which he or she is open about their sexual
orientation in the work place.
18
Internalized Homophobia
Internalized homophobia has been defined by Rostosky and Riggle (2002) as
negative feelings experienced by GLB individuals, at times to the point of self-loathing,
derived from growing up in a heterosexist environment that does not value, and in fact
denigrates individuals who do not fall in the heterosexual category. The process of
disclosing one’s sexual orientation would be obviously less threatening in an
environment that does not constrict sexual identities to narrow definitions and
environments that do not assume heterosexuality. Results from Rotosky and Riggle’s
study indicate that individuals who had lower levels of internalized homophobia were
more likely to be open about their sexual orientation in the workplace. Individuals who
are not heterosexual thus potentially face unique challenges in their sexual identity
formation (2002).
Kahn (1991), states that internalized homophobia negatively affects the coming
out process for individuals who are sexual minorities because it lowers their selfacceptance and negatively influences their ability to disclose their sexual orientation not
only to heterosexuals but also to other sexual minority individuals. In her study, Kahn
was interested in what factors influence a lesbian’s decision to disclose her sexual
orientation. The factors that Kahn was interested in were a woman’s differentiation from
her family, sex-role attitudes and levels of internalized homophobia. A total of 81
lesbians were used for the study, and each individual anonymously filled out a series of
questionnaires. A multiple regression analysis was used for the data, and the results
showed that lesbians who had lower levels of internalized homophobia were more likely
19
to have a personality high in feminist ideology. Lesbians who had higher levels of
feminist ideology in turn, were more likely to be both open about their sexual orientation
and scored at higher levels in terms of sexual identity formation (1991).
Given the findings of both Kahn (1991) and Rostosky and Riggle (2002), it is
anticipated in this study that:
H2: There will be a negative relationship between internalized homophobia and
sexual orientation disclosure in the workplace.
A study by Rowen and Malcom (2002) also explored internalized homophobia.
The focal point of this study was to have a better understanding of how internalized
homophobia affected homosexual identity formation, in addition to other factors, in a
group of gay men. A total of 86 self-identified gay men were used for the study,
participants had the option of either filling out a series of questionnaires through a faceto-face interview or over a phone conversation. The results from the study showed that
individuals who reported high levels of internalized homophobia had difficulty forming a
positive homosexual identity. Thus the data supported the concept that in order for an
individual to reach full potential in terms of homosexual identity formation, overcoming
feelings of internalized homophobia is crucial.
Wright and Perry (2006) conducted a study exploring the connection between
internalized homophobia and identity formation. A focal point of this study was to
examine the hypothesis that sexual identity distress (synonymous with the concept of
internalized homophobia) is most evident in the early stages of sexual identity formation
and consequently diminishes as individuals disclose their sexual orientation to the people
20
in their support network. The study consisted of 156 participants who completed intake
interviews, and a regression analysis was used to analyze the data. Results supported the
authors’ hypothesis that the less sexual identity stress an individual feels, the more open
he or she is about sexual orientation (2006). As sexual identity stress is a similar concept
to internalized homophobia, one might expect to see a similar pattern of participants who
show higher levels of sexual identity formation along with reduced internalized
homophobia.
Taken together, these studies suggest:
H3: There will be a negative relationship between an individual’s level of
internalized homophobia and his or her level of sexual identity formation.
Given the findings by Halpin and Allen (2004), it is clear that there is an
empirical connection between sexual identity formation and disclosure of sexual
orientation. Furthermore, given the findings by Rostosky and Riggle (2002) it is clear that
internalized homophobia also impacts disclosure of sexual orientation in the workplace.
Wright and Perry’s (2006) study gives reason to believe that internalized homophobia
and sexual identity formation are negatively related. One goal in the present study is to tie
these separate findings together by proposing a mediating role for sexual identity
formation, such that:
H4: Sexual identity formation will act as a mediator between internalized
homophobia and sexual orientation disclosure in the workplace.
21
Chapter 3
DISCLOSURE IN THE WORKPLACE
Consequences of Being “Out” at Work
The extent to which an individual, who belongs to a sexual minority, is able to
disclose his or her sexual orientation in the workplace has multiple consequences in terms
of work outcomes. One of the first studies to examine the effects for sexual minority
individuals who “come out” at work was conducted by Day and Schoenrade (1997).
Their study consisted of 900 individuals, the majority of which were obtained through a
mailing list of a Kansas based advocacy group. All of the participants were employed at
least part-time. The purpose of this study was to examine if those individuals who make
an effort to conceal their sexual identity at work experience less positive work attitudes
than those individuals who are open about their sexual identity (both heterosexual and
openly homosexual individuals). Work attitudes revolved around commitment to the
organization, job satisfaction, job stress, role ambiguity, and role conflict. These
constructs were all measured with various surveys, which were mailed to the participants.
The majority of the hypotheses were supported. Those individuals who were not open
about being gay or lesbian displayed lower affective organizational commitment, lower
job satisfaction, higher role ambiguity, and higher role conflict.
Another noteworthy study focusing on the issues surrounding what influences an
individual in a sexual minority to disclose their GLB status in the workplace was
conducted by Griffith and Hebl (2002). The purpose of this study was to also examine the
22
relationship between disclosure of sexual minority status and work attitudes but with the
addition of several other concepts. These concepts were how an organization’s policies
and coworkers’ potential reaction to the disclosure would affect an individual’s
willingness to “come out” at work. One hypothesis was that the more an organization is
perceived to be supportive of gay/lesbian employees, the more likely those gay/lesbian
workers are to disclose their sexual minority status at work. Another hypothesis
suggested that gay/lesbian workers who have disclosed their sexual minority status to
coworkers would report increased levels of job satisfaction and lower levels of job
anxiety. A total of 379 self-identified gay and lesbian individuals who were currently
employed participated in the study. A series of five different instruments were used for
measuring the constructs that the researchers were concerned with. The hypothesis that
an organization that has more gay supportive policies will have relatively more “out”
employees was supported. The hypothesis that individuals who were more “out” in the
workplace would have greater job satisfaction and lower job anxiety was also supported.
Given the findings from the above two studies, the following is expected in this study:
H5: The extent to which an individual is “out” at work is expected to have a
positive relationship with organizational commitment.
H6: The extent to which an individual is “out” at work is expected to have a
positive relationship with job satisfaction.
Work-family conflict is another psychological construct that could be affected by
the extent to which a GLB individual is out at work or not. Tuten and August (2006)
conducted a study that incorporates these factors. The authors were interested in the
23
distinctive experiences surrounding lesbian women in terms of work-family conflict.
Work-family conflict occurs when the demands from work conflict with the demands at
home. Fifty-eight employed lesbian mothers who had been in long-term relationships and
contributed at least somewhat in the rearing of one or multiple children were used for the
study. One of the highlights of the results was that the greater degree to which
participants were out in the workplace was associated with lower levels of Work
Interference with Family (WIF). Tuten and August (2006) suggest that the degree of
being out acts almost as a coping strategy, which in turns spills over to foster positive
outcomes such as reduced WIF.
H7: The extent to which an individual is “out” at work is expected to have a
negative relationship with work-family conflict.
Waldo (1999) conducted a study that specifically focused on how heterosexism in
the workplace affects individuals belonging to a sexual minority. One of the major
findings of the research by Waldo (1999) supported the hypothesis that greater amount of
disclosure is related to experiencing a greater amount of direct heterosexism. The
research also supported the concepts that GLB workers who had experienced
heterosexism displayed higher levels of psychological distress (classified as depression,
anxiety, satisfaction with life and self-esteem), lower job satisfaction and as a
consequence were more likely to think about quitting (turnover intentions) (1999). Given
that the study by Waldo (1999) shows that GLB workers who had experienced direct
heterosexism in the workplace were more likely to show higher levels of turnover
intentions, one might also expect that GLB workers who are more open about their sexual
24
orientation in the workplace would have lower levels of turnover intention. This is
because these individuals are more likely to be low in terms of internalized homophobia.
Basically one could make the argument that heterosexism is related to internalized
homophobia with the difference being that instead of experiencing these negative feelings
from co-workers (heterosexism), the negative feelings are coming from within the
individual (internalized homophobia). Additionally, Day and Schoenrade (2000) state
that due to the great deal of effort put forth by GLB individuals who conceal their sexual
orientation in the workplace, their strategies lead to negative consequences, such as the
desire to leave their organization.
H8: The extent to which an individual is “out” at work is expected to have a
negative relationship with turnover intentions.
As can be seen in the literature, a rational connection can be made between an
individual’s internalized homophobia, level of sexual identity formation, disclosure of
sexual orientation in the workplace and various work outcome constructs. The purpose
of this study is to attempt to identify whether there are significant relationships between
these concepts. This study marks the first time all of these concepts have been studied
together, that is connecting the more personalized process of internalized homophobia
and sexual identity formation with work related processes and outcomes.
25
Chapter 4
METHODS
Participants
Most of the participants (88%) were recruited through various GLBT support
groups in the greater Sacramento, CA. area. Some of the GLBT support groups were
based in community colleges and universities in the area. One of the organizations, The
Sacramento Gay and Lesbian Center, serves the entire greater Sacramento area with
various support/social groups, counseling and legal services, and HIV prevention and
educational services. The remaining participants (12%) were recruited by word of mouth
to personal GLBT acquaintances known to be currently employed. This method was used
in order to increase variability in terms of age and job type. Many of the participants
(approximately 50%) were twenty-one years of age and under, typically a large
percentage of such participants are students. Two of the groups sampled were based on
college campuses, these two groups accounted for at least 34% of participants. As can be
seen by previous studies (Kahn, 1991; Cass, 1984; Brady & Busse, 1994; Day &
Schoenrade, 1997), recruitment of GLBT participants can be a difficult process, the
partial convenience sampling method was used to help ease a potential confound.
The participants consisted of 146 individuals, 88 males and 58 females. The ages
of the participants ranged from 18 to 73 years old (M= 26.73, SD= 11.53). Most of the
participants identified themselves as gay males (53%), followed by lesbians (31%),
bisexuals (14%), and transgendered (.7%). Two participants (1.4%) identified themselves
26
as heterosexual; these participants were retained as part of the sample because they
scored into the lower stages of sexual identity formation. Participants’ living situation
was also identified. Individuals living alone accounted for the majority (31%), followed
by living with parents (30%), living with roommates (29%), and living with a partner
(10%).
Job status and type for all participants was also assessed. The majority of
participants reported being currently employed and working for pay (90%), the remaining
participants were not working for pay but were full time students. The majority of
participants reported being employed in the “service” industry (36%), followed by
“office/administrative support” (14%), “sales and related” (10%), “education, legal,
community services, arts, and media” (10%), “computer, engineering, science” (6%),
“healthcare practitioners, technical” (6%), and lastly “management, business, financial”,
“farm, fishing, forestry”, “construction, extraction”, and “transportation, material
moving” all accounted for 4% or less.
Materials
Demographics
A single form for demographics was given asking participants to provide their
age, gender, sexual orientation (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, heterosexual),
living situation, estimated personal and household annual income, hour worked per week,
and type of job.
27
Internalized Homophobia
Internalized homophobia was measured with a seven-item, five-point, strongly
disagree to strongly agree scale developed by Wright and Perry (2006) which served the
purpose of identifying sexual identity distress as part of the Indiana Youth Access Project
(IYAP). Factor analytical studies conducted by the authors show that the scale is
unidimensional, (eigenvalue= 3.78) and accounts for 54.04% of the variance. In addition,
the scale has high internal, test-retest reliability and criterion validity values. Wright and
Perry (2006) calculated the scale of having an alpha reliability of .83. The current study
found this scale to have a Cronbach’s alpha value of .93. After reverse scoring some of
the items, higher scores on the scale indicate a higher level of internalized homophobia.
Examples of items include “I feel proud that I am (gay/lesbian/bisexual).” and “I wish I
weren’t attracted to the same sex”.
Sexual Identity Formation
Sexual identity formation was measured with Brady and Busse’s (1994) 45-item
Gay Identity Questionnaire (GIQ). Each item is structured in a ‘true’ or ‘false’ format:
the entire scale is composed of six subscales, one subscale for each stage of the
Homosexual Identity Formation (HIF) model as proposed by Cass (1979). Each item is
representative of a particular stage; for each item that a participant marks as “true”,
he/she acquires one point for that particular stage of HIF. For every item that is answered
as “false”, the participant does not earn any points. A participant is allocated to the stage
for which he/she scored the highest in. If the participant scored the same amount of points
in two or more stages, they are given dual stage designation.
28
Disclosure of Sexual Orientation in the Workplace
To measure the extent to which an individual is “out” in the workplace, the
following question was asked, “In general, how hard do you try and keep your sexual
orientation secret from these people at work” followed by a list of people that the
individual would potentially interact with. The list included “subordinates”, “coworkers”,
“supervisors”, and “management”. Participants responded on a scale ranging from 1 “I
try very hard to keep it secret”, 2 “I try somewhat hard to keep it secret”, 3 “I don’t try to
keep it secret”, and 4 “I actively talk about it to others at work”. Individual items are
then summed to produce a variable. This method was used by the study conducted by
Day and Schoenrade (1997), based on focus group research carried out by the authors
supporting the idea that disclosure in the workplace occurs on a continuum and varies
according to the particular social interaction in question. Some individuals are completely
open about their sexual orientation, but decide to disclose to only a select few. Construct
validity for this measure was computed by correlating the scale with the proportion of
people in his or her work group to whom the worker reported having directly told about
his/her sexual orientation, this correlation value was significant and strong, (r = .41, p<
.001). Cronbach’s alpha was reported at .97. The current study found this scale to have a
Cronbach’s alpha value of .94.
Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction was measured with the eight-item Abridged Job in General Scale
by Russell et, al. (2004). The scale was first developed by Stanton et al. (2002), and the
study marked a revision process with the purpose of reducing the length and time it took
29
to complete the measure. The final set of 8 adjectives produced an alpha coefficient value
of .87 and correlated strongly with the original scale (r= .97). The current study found
this scale to have a Cronbach’s alpha value of .77. Each item is composed of a descriptive
word or small phrase pertaining to the participant’s job and participants are asked to
respond with a “yes”, “no” or “?”. Examples of items include “good”, “undesirable”, and
“makes me content”.
Organizational Commitment
Organizational commitment was measured with a twelve-item, seven point,
strongly disagree to strongly agree scale developed by Meyer, Allen, and Smith (1993).
Authors suggested that organizational commitment is composed of a three-component
model. For the purposes of this study, only the subscales for affective and normative
organizational commitment were utilized1. Coefficient alphas for the two components of
affective and normative commitment were reported as .87 and .73 respectively. The
current study found this scale to have Cronbach’s alpha values of .87 and 80. Examples
of items include “I really feel as if this organization’s problems are my own” and “I
would feel guilty if I left my organization right now”.
Turnover Intentions
Turnover intentions was measured with a three-item, seven point, strongly
disagree to strongly agree scale developed by Landau and Hammer (1986). In a study by
Heshizer (1994), the scale was used in two different organizational settings and obtained
1
Continuance Commitment was not used because its meaning was not seen as relevant to
the formation/disclosure of sexual identity.
30
reliability values of .93 and .86 respectively. The current study found this scale to have a
Cronbach’s alpha value of .79. An example of an item includes “I am seriously thinking
about quitting my job” (Landau & Hammer, 1986).
Work-Family Conflict
Work-family conflict was measured with a five-item, five point, strongly disagree
to strongly agree scale developed by Netemeyer, Boles, and McMurrian (1996). The
alpha for this scale was reported at .94. The current study found this scale to have a
Cronbach’s alpha value of .86. Examples of items include, “The demands of my work
interfere with my home and family life.” and “Things I want to do at home do not get
done because of the demands my job puts on me”.
Procedures
A researcher visited the meetings of several GLBT support groups, gave a brief
description of the study, and all of those who chose to participate were recruited as
participants. Participants were presented with a packet containing a measure for each
variable assessed (internalized homophobia, sexual identity formation, disclosure of
sexual orientation in the workplace, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, workfamily conflict, and turnover intentions) as well as the demographic measures. A consent
form was presented at that time as well for each person to read and sign. Participants
were asked to fill out each measure to the best of their ability. Participants were reminded
that their responses would remain anonymous and confidential. To promote
confidentiality, after handing out the packets to participants, the researcher left the room
and asked participants to place their completed measures in a covered box designated by
31
the researcher. This process took place at different periods of time on site at each of the
various GLBT related groups, beginning in Summer 2010. Once all of the participants
finished filling out all of the measures, the box was collected and each participant was
given a debriefing sheet along with a verbal debriefing. Participants who were recruited
through word of mouth were given a brief description of the study and filled out the
survey in a public setting without the researcher being present.
32
Chapter 5
RESULTS
Preliminary Analyses
Descriptive statistics were calculated; Table 1 displays means and standard
deviations for all applicable variables.
Table 1
Means and Standard Deviations among Study Variables
Age
Organizational Commitment
Turnover Intentions
Work-Family Conflict
Job Satisfaction
Disclosure at Work
Internalized Homophobia
Sexual Identity Formation
*Note n = 146.
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
SD
18
73
26.73
11.53
1.50
6.75
3.93
1.14
1.00
7.00
3.88
1.60
1.00
5.00
2.95
.91
.12
3.00
1.63
.77
1.00
4.00
2.71
.98
1.00
4.86
2.34
1.05
1
6
4.38
1.41
33
Table 2 displays a correlational matrix showing relationships between all
variables of interest. Significant correlation coefficients were displayed in the expected
direction between internalized homophobia, disclosure of sexual orientation in the
Table 2
Correlational Coefficient Matrix of Study Variables
Variables
1
1. Age
2. Gender
3. Personal Income
4. Hours Week
5. Org. Comm.
6. Turnover Int.
2
3
4
___ -.24** .47** .31**
___ -.21** -.04
___ .61**
___
5
6
7
8
9
.15 -.10 -.12 .19* -.19*
.03 -.03
10
11
.06 .19*
.09 -.04 -.07 .15*
.03
.09 -.24** -.01 .27** -.16*
.06
.10
.13 -.22**
.06
.07
.07 .29** -.11
____ -.67** -.22** .72** -.45** .27** .43**
___ .21* -.72** .35** -.29** -.36**
7. W-F Conflict
8. Job Sat.
9. Int. homo.
10. Disclosure
11. Sexual ID
*Note n = 146. *p < .05, one tailed. **p < .01, one tailed.
___ -.28** .22** -.18* -.23**
____ -.50** .40** .49**
____ -.76** -.81**
____ .76**
____
34
workplace, and sexual identity formation providing initial support for hypotheses 1-4.
Additionally, significant correlation coefficients were also noted between work-outcome
variables (organizational commitment, turnover intentions, work-family conflict, and job
satisfaction) and disclosure of sexual orientation in the workplace, providing initial
support for to hypotheses 5-8.
Before running the regression analyses, normality tests were performed on all
variables involved. Internalized homophobia and sexual identity formation displayed
some negative skewness. Two attempts were made to correct for this skewness with
transformation procedures; however, subsequent normality tests showed that skewness
values had worsened for both variables as compared to original data. Since the
transformation procedure did not alleviate skewness, the original untransformed data was
used for subsequent analyses.
Hierarchal Regression Analyses
Several hierarchical linear regression analyses were then performed to test the
hypotheses more directly. Pertaining to hypotheses 1-4, a series of regression equations
were carried out to predict for the criterion variable of disclosure of sexual orientation in
workplace, the criterion variable sexual identity formation, and the mediating role of
sexual identity formation. The demographic variables of gender and age were chosen as
standard control variables.
As illustrated in Table 3, in step one, corresponding to hypothesis one, the
demographic variable of gender was just barely significantly related to disclosure of
sexual orientation in the workplace (ß = .17, p <0.05). The two demographic variables of
35
age and gender only account for 2% of the variance of being out in the workplace. Step
two demonstrated that sexual identity formation was significantly related to the criterion
variable of disclosure of sexual orientation in the workplace (ß = .77, p < 0.001),
supporting hypothesis one. This indicates that individuals who scored in the higher stages
of sexual identity formation were more likely to be “out” at work. The inclusion of sexual
identity formation as a predictor variable in step two slightly reduced the effect of gender
as a predictor variable, but gender remained significant (ß = .11, p <0.05). The R2 for
sexual identity formation was .59, indicating that it accounted for 59% of the variance of
disclosure of sexual orientation in the workplace.
36
Table 3
Hierarchal Multiple Regression
B
SE B
ß
.01
.01
.10
.34*
.17
.17*
Age
-.01
.01
-.06
Gender
.22*
.11
.11*
.54**
.04
.77**
Step 1
Age
Gender
Step 2
Sexual Identity Formation
a. Dependent Variable: Disclosure at work
b. Gender coded as 1= male, 2= female
Note: n = 146. *p < .05, two tailed. **p < .01, two tailed
For the second equation, as can be seen in Table 4, the demographic variable of
gender was again barely significantly related to disclosure of sexual orientation in the
workplace in step one (ß = .17, p <0.05). The two demographic variables of age and
gender only account for 2% of the variance of disclosure of sexual orientation in the
workplace. Step two shows a significant relationship between the predictor variable of
internalized homophobia and the criterion variable of disclosure of sexual orientation in
the workplace (ß = -.77, p < 0.001), thus supporting hypothesis two. This suggests that
37
individuals who display low levels of internalized homophobia are more likely to be
“out” at work. None of the demographic variables in step two were significantly related
to disclosure of sexual orientation in the workplace. Internalized homophobia obtained an
R2 of .58, indicating that it accounted for 58% of the variance of disclosure of sexual
orientation in the workplace.
Table 4
Hierarchal Multiple Regression
B
SE B
ß
.01
.01
.10
.34*
.17
.17*
-.01
.01
-.06
.16
.11
.08
-.72**
.05
-.77**
Step 1
Age
Gender
Step 2
Age
Gender
Internalized homophobia
a. Dependent Variable: Disclosure at work
b. Gender coded as 1= male, 2= female
Note: n = 146. *p < .05, two tailed. **p < .01, two tailed
As displayed in Table 5, the demographic variable of age significantly predicted
the criterion variable of sexual identity formation, though the two demographic variables
38
of age and gender only account for 3% of the variance of sexual identity formation. Step
two shows a significant relationship between internalized homophobia and the criterion
variable of sexual identity formation, (ß = -.80, p < 0.001), thus supporting hypothesis
three. Individuals who display low levels of internalized homophobia are more likely to
score into a higher stage of sexual identity. Internalized homophobia obtained an R2 of
.65, indicating that it accounted for 65% of the variance of sexual identity formation.
Table 5
Hierarchal Multiple Regression
B
SE B
ß
.02*
.01
.21*
.22
.24
.08
.00
.00
.04
-.05
.15
-.02
-1.07**
.07
-.80**
Step 1
Age
Gender
Step 2
Age
Gender
Internalized homophobia
a. Dependent Variable: Sexual Identity Formation
b. Gender coded as 1= male, 2= female
Note: n = 146. *p < .05, two tailed. **p < .01, two tailed
39
In order to assess the potential mediating role of sexual identity formation
between internalized homophobia and disclosure of sexual orientation in the workplace,
the extent to which the data met a series of conditions was determined. First, the
relationship between internalized homophobia and sexual identity formation was
significant, as seen Table 5, step 2 (ß = -.80, p < 0.001). Second, internalized
homophobia was significantly related to the criterion variable of disclosure of sexual
orientation in the workplace, as seen in Table 4, step 2 (ß = -.77, p < 0.001). Lastly, the
mediator variable of sexual identity formation was significantly related to the criterion
variable of disclosure of sexual orientation in the workplace, when the initial predictor
variable (internalized homophobia) was taken into account. This can be seen in Table 6,
step 2 (ß = .44, p < 0.001).
40
Table 6
Hierarchal Multiple Regression
B
SE B
ß
.01
.01
.10
.34*
.17
.17*
-.01
.00
-.08
.17
.10
.09
Internalized homophobia
-.39**
.08
-.42**
Sexual Identity Formation
-.31**
.06
.44**
Step 1
Age
Gender
Step 2
Age
Gender
a. Dependent Variable: Disclosure at work
b. Gender coded as 1= male, 2= female
Note: n = 146. *p < .05, two tailed. **p < .01, two tailed
For mediation to be possible, the effect of the initial predictor variable
(internalized homophobia) on the criterion variable (disclosure of sexual orientation in
the workplace) must be less in Table 6, step 2 (that is taking into account both
internalized homophobia and sexual identity formation) than in the Table 4, step 2. This
condition occurred, the effect of internalized homophobia in Table 6 (ß = -.42, p < 0.001)
was less than in Table 4 (ß = -.77 p < 0.001). To test for significance ß weights and
41
corresponding standard error values were plugged into an interactive online Sobel test for
mediation, which were significant (-4.67, p < 0.001). Sexual identity formation did act as
a mediator between internalized homophobia and sexual orientation disclosure in the
workplace, supporting hypothesis four.
Four more regression equations were carried out to predict for the four criterion
variables related to work-related outcomes (organizational commitment, job satisfaction,
work-family conflict, and turnover intentions) pertaining to hypotheses 5-8. Standard
demographic variables of age and gender were used as control variables. Two additional
demographic variables of personal income and hours worked per week were also used as
control variables based on the correlational matrix (Table 2) showing significant
relationships to various work-related outcome variables.
With exception of the dependent variable being predicted, the same series of steps
were performed for each of the four regression equations, utilizing the same demographic
and predictor variables. For each equation, step one involved entering the demographic
variables of age, gender, personal income, and hours worked per week. In step two, the
predictor variable of internalized homophobia was entered into the equation. For step
three, the predictor variable of sexual identity formation was entered into the equation.
Lastly for step four, the final predictor variable of disclosure of sexual orientation in the
workplace was be entered in the equation.
As can be seen in Table 8, corresponding to hypothesis five, none of the four
demographic variables were significantly related to the dependent variable of
organizational commitment. As can be see in step four, the predictor variable of
42
disclosure of sexual orientation in the workplace was significantly related to
organizational commitment (ß = -.28, p < 0.05), providing support for hypothesis five.
However, although there was a significant relationship between the two variables, it was
in the opposite direction to the predicted relationship. Since the relationship was
unexpectedly negative, the possibility that disclosure of sexual orientation acted as a
suppressor variable was consequently explored.
According to Meyers et al. (2006) suppressor variables often correlate with the
error of another predictor variable, which results in that predictive variable enhancing its
predictive power. Therefore, the suppressor variable provides an increase in R2. Another
condition that helps identify a suppressor variable is that the Pearson correlation with the
criterion variable and its beta weight have opposite signs. The previous conditions
mentioned apply in this situation. As one can see in Table 7, the adjusted R2 increased in
step 4, when disclosure of sexual orientation in the workplace was added to the equation.
Additionally as can be seen in Table 8, the beta weights for both internalized homophobia
and sexual identity formation increased and were significant in step 4, after disclosure of
sexual orientation in the workplace was added to the equation. Lastly, as one can see in
Table 2, the Pearson correlation between disclosure of sexual orientation and
organizational commitment is a positive significant relationship (r = .43), which is
different from the direction of their respective beta weight.
43
Table 7
Model Summary
R
R2
Adjusted R2
Step 1
.19a
.04
.01
Step 2
.46b
.21
.19
Step 3
.47c
.23
.19
Step 4
.50d
.25
.21
a. Predictors: hours a week, gender, age, personal income
b. Predictors: hours a week, gender, age, personal income, internalized homophobia
c. Predictors: hours a week, gender, age, personal income, internalized homophobia,
sexual identity formation stage
d. Predictors: hours a week, gender, age, personal income, internalized homophobia,
sexual identity formation, disclosure in the workplace
44
Table 8
Hierarchal Multiple Regression
B
SE B
ß
Age
.01
.01
.14
Gender
.14
.20
.06
Personal Income
-.05
.16
-.03
Hours per Week
.12
.11
.15
Age
.01
.00
.07
Gender
.01
.18
.00
Personal Income
-.12
.15
-.09
Hours per Week
.12
.10
.12
-.47**
.09
-.43**
Age
.01
.01
.06
Gender
.02
.18
.00
Personal Income
-.11
.15
-.08
Hours per Week
.13
.10
.12
Internalized Homophobia
-.31*
.14
-.29*
Sexual Identity Formation
.15
.10
.19
Age
.00
.01
.04
Gender
.08
.18
.03
Personal Income
-.11
.14
-.08
Hours per Week
.13
.10
.13
-.44**
.15
-.40**
Step 1
Step 2
Internalized Homophobia
Step 3
Step 4
Internalized Homophobia
45
Sexual Identity Formation
.25*
.11
.31*
Disclosure in Workplace
-.33*
.15
-.28*
a. Dependent Variable: Organizational Commitment
b. Gender coded as 1= male, 2= female
Note: n = 146. *p < .05, two tailed. **p < .01, two tailed
As displayed by Table 9, corresponding to hypothesis six, the demographic
variable of hours worked per week was significantly related to the dependent variable of
job satisfaction (ß = .20, p < 0.05). This suggests that those who worked more hours per
week were more likely to be satisfied with their job. As can be seen in step four, the
predictor variable of disclosure of sexual orientation in the workplace was not
significantly related to job satisfaction (ß = -.0.17, p > 0.05). These results do not support
hypothesis six.
46
Table 9
Hierarchal Multiple Regression
B
SE B
ß
Age
.01
.01
.08
Gender
.02
.13
.02
Personal Income
.16
.10
.12
Hours per Week
.13
.07
.19
.00
.01
-.01
-.07
.12
-.05
Personal Income
.07
.09
.07
Hours per Week
.14*
.06
.19*
-.34**
.05
-.47**
.00
.00
-.02
-.06
.11
-.04
Personal Income
.08
.09
.09
Hours per Week
.13*
.06
.20*
Internalized Homophobia
-.17*
.09
-.24*
Sexual Identity Formation
.15*
.06
.29*
Age
.00
.00
-.02
Gender
.06
.12
-.04
Personal Income
.08
.09
.09
Hours per Week
.14*
.06
.20*
-.18*
.09
-.24*
Step 1
Step 2
Age
Gender
Internalized Homophobia
Step 3
Age
Gender
Step 4
Internalized Homophobia
47
Sexual Identity Formation
.16*
.07
.29*
Disclosure in Workplace
-.01
.09
-.02
a. Dependent Variable: Job Satisfaction
b. Gender coded as 1= male, 2= female
Note: n = 146. *p < .05, two tailed. **p < .01, two tailed
As displayed by Table 10, corresponding to hypothesis seven, none of the four
demographic variables were significantly related to the dependent variable of workfamily conflict. As can be seen in step four, the predictor variable of disclosure of sexual
orientation in the workplace was not significantly related to work-family conflict (ß = .02, p > 0.05). These results do not support hypothesis seven.
48
Table 10
Hierarchal Multiple Regression
B
SE B
ß
-.01
.00
-.13
.11
.16
.06
Personal Income
-.01
.13
-.01
Hours per Week
.10
.09
.12
Age
.00
.01
-.10
Gender
.17
.16
.09
Personal Income
.02
.13
.02
Hours per Week
.10
.09
.12*
-.19**
.07
-.23**
Age
.00
.00
-.09
Gender
.16
.16
.09
Personal Income
.01
.13
.01
Hours per Week
.10
.09
.11
Internalized Homophobia
-.10
.12
.12
Sexual Identity Formation
.08
.09
-.13
Age
.00
.01
-.10
Gender
.16
.16
.09
Personal Income
.01
.13
.01
Hours per Week
.10
.09
.11
Internalized Homophobia
.10
.13
.11
Step 1
Age
Gender
Step 2
Internalized Homophobia
Step 3
Step 4
49
Sexual Identity Formation
-.09
.10
-.12
Disclosure in Workplace
-.02
.13
-.02
a. Dependent Variable: Work-Family Conflict
b. Gender coded as 1= male, 2= female
Note: n = 146. *p < .05, two tailed. **p < .01, two tailed
As displayed by Table 11, corresponding to hypothesis eight, none of the four
demographic variables were significantly related to the dependent variable of turnover
intentions. As can be seen in step four, the predictor variable of disclosure of sexual
orientation in the workplace was not significantly related to turnover intentions (ß = -.02,
p > 0.05). These results do not support hypothesis eight.
50
Table 11
Hierarchal Multiple Regression
B
SE B
ß
.00
.01
.01
Gender
-.26
.28
-.08
Personal Income
-.40
.22
-.20
Hours per Week
-.14
.16
-.10
.01
.01
.06
Gender
-.12
.26
-.04
Personal Income
-.33
.21
-.17
Hours per Week
-.15
.14
-.10
-.49**
.12
-.32**
.01
.01
.07
Gender
-.14
.26
-.04
Personal Income
-.35
.21
-.18
Hours per Week
-.15
.14
-.10
Internalized Homophobia
.20
.20
.14
Sexual Identity Formation
-.27
.15
-.24
.00
.01
.08
Gender
-.14
.27
-.05
Personal Income
-.35
.21
-.18
Hours per Week
-.15
.14
-.10
.22
.22
.14
Step 1
Age
Step 2
Age
Internalized Homophobia
Step 3
Age
Step 4
Age
Internalized Homophobia
51
Sexual Identity Formation
-.28
.16
-.24
Disclosure in Workplace
.02
.21
.02
a. Dependent Variable: Turnover Intentions
b. Gender coded as 1= male, 2= female
Note: n = 146. *p < .05, two tailed. **p < .01, two tailed
52
Chapter 6
DISCUSSION
The results from the first four hypotheses of this study add to the support of the
connection between a person’s internalized homophobia, sexual identity formation, and
the likelihood of disclosure of sexual orientation in the workplace. Further, these results
elaborate the nuances of those connections by demonstrating that sexual identity
formation actually acts as a mediator between the two variables in question. As one can
see from previous studies (Rowen & Malcom 2002; Wright & Perry 2006), it is clear that
the extent of internalized homophobia an individual experiences can play an important
role in how they progresses through the various stages of sexual identity formation.
Additionally, previous studies (Kahn, 1991; Rotosky & Riggle 2002) also support the
idea that internalized homophobia and sexual identity formation play an important role on
whether an individual is likely to be more open about their sexual orientation in the
workplace.
Results supported hypothesis one, the extent to which an individual has
progressed through the sexual identity process was positively related to whether he or she
was open about their sexual orientation in the workplace. Individuals who scored into the
later stages of sexual identity formation were more likely to be “out” at work.
Hypothesis two was also supported, an individual’s level of internalized homophobia was
negatively related to whether he or she was open about their sexual orientation in the
workplace. Individuals who displayed lower levels of internalized homophobia were
53
more likely to be “out” at work. Hypothesis three was supported; an individual’s level of
internalized homophobia was negatively related to the extent to which they have
progressed through the sexual identity formation process. Individuals who displayed
lower levels of internalized homophobia were more likely to score into the later stages of
sexual identity formation. Hypothesis four was supported; sexual identity formation acted
as a mediator variable between internalized homophobia and disclosure of sexual
orientation in the workplace.
As expressed by Rotosky and Riggle (2002), job discrimination can be a serious
threat to the civil rights and psychosocial welfare of sexual minorities. Most people spend
a substantial amount of time in the workplace, with this in mind, feeling like one must
hide a significant part of oneself, such as sexuality, may be detrimental and potentially
have a negative effect on various aspects related to one’s work life. Certainly the choice
about disclosure itself could have painful personal ramifications. This study attempted to
make a connection between an individual’s disclosure of sexual orientation in the
workplace and the work-related outcomes of organizational commitment, turn over
intentions, job satisfaction and work-family conflict. Unfortunately, the results for
hypotheses five through eight of the study were not able to add to the body of literature
that supports the concept that disclosure of sexual orientation in the workplace is
significantly related to those work-related outcomes. Results for hypothesis five were
interesting in the sense that it was significant in the opposite direction of what was
predicted. It was predicted that disclosure of sexual orientation in the workplace would be
positively related to organizational commitment, however, results showed that disclosure
54
of sexual orientation in the workplace was negatively related to organizational
commitment. Though it was determined to be a suppressor variable in this context, future
studies of this relationship are recommended to verify this finding across other samples
and contexts.
Results from the first two regression equations also displayed that gender played a
minor role in participants’ disclosure in the workplace. The positive relationship between
gender and disclosure in the workplace indicates that women in this sample were more
likely to be “out” in the workplace as compared to men. The minor role that gender
played in these results may be specific to the California region in which participants were
recruited; studies utilizing participants from a more widespread area may find that gender
plays a greater role in disclosure in the workplace.
Limitations
As with previous studies involving GLB participants (Halpin & Allen, 2004;
Brady & Busse, 1994; Rostosky & Riggle, 2002), this study had several limitations
regarding the sampling of participants. One of the major sampling limitations included
obtaining a representative sample of GLB participants that evenly encompassed the
different stages of sexual identity formation. Considering that individuals who belong to
the first two stages of Cass’ (1979) sexual identity model are more likely to be a “hidden”
population, the likelihood that they would be part of the groups from which participants
were obtained is minimal. This is reflected in the frequency count of participants who
scored into each sexual identity formation stage. There were only 2 (1.4%) participants
who scored into stage one of the sexual identity formation model, and only 18 (12.3%)
55
participants who scored into stage two of the sexual identity formation model. Another
limitation that is common with these types of studies is using self-report data in the form
of a questionnaire. However, given the nature of the study, it is also the most appropriate
method to collect data.
The geographical residence of where the participants were recruited from may
have also played a role in why an individual’s disclosure of sexual orientation was not
significantly related to the various work-related outcomes. It may be that sexual
minorities in this area do not feel as persecuted in the capitol city of California as they
might feel if they lived in other parts of the United States. California is one of the 21
states where it is illegal to discriminate in the workplace because of sexual orientation.
Another limitation of this study that is tied to sampling is the age and student
status of the participants. Considering the nature of the groups that were sampled, many
of the participants (68%) were younger than twenty-five. The fact that so many of the
participants were in this age group substantially increases the likelihood that they are
students. Two of the groups sampled were based on college campuses; these two groups
accounted for at least 34% of participants. Including this amount of students in the study
might have had an impact on the lack of significance found in hypotheses five through
eight. It may be that a participant who is a student is less likely to have a job where
factors such as organizational commitment, turnover intentions, job satisfaction, or workfamily conflict would play such an important role in their work-life. The lower than
expected Cronbach’s alpha reported for the measures of turnover intentions and job
56
satisfaction might also be tied to the sample. It could be that the student status and/or the
poor economy contributed to the low Cronbach’s alphas for these two scales.
One last limitation related to the sampling of participants is the lack of assessing
ethnicity of participants. In order to reinforce anonymity, encourage participation, and
because some of the groups were anticipated to be small, any question regarding an
identifiable trait was avoided.
There have been several studies demonstrating that disclosure in the workplace
plays a notable role in a sexual minority’s work-life to and have a significant relationship
to the work-related outcome variables assessed in this study. The range restriction in the
measure used to assess disclosure in the workplace could have prevented finding
significant results for hypotheses five through eight, that is disclosure in the workplace’s
relationship to organizational commitment, job satisfaction, work-family conflict, and job
satisfaction. Given the recruiting strategy, this study had the advantage of assessing
disclosure outside of the context of the workplace, thereby limiting the likelihood that
employees would be concerned about negative repercussions associated with their
responses with regard to disclosure. Yet still, the variable showed range restriction. It
may be even more difficult to accurately assess this concept in an organizational setting.
However, it is central to the work-life experience of sexual minorities; future studies may
benefit from exploring additional ways to assess the concept of disclosure.
There was also a potential limitation with Brady and Busse’s Gay Identity
Questionnaire (GIQ) that was used to assess sexual identity formation. The validity tests
conducted on the GIQ were limited to homosexual male identity formation assessment.
57
As expressed by Horowitz and Newcomb (2001), there is not a sexual identity formation
measure that incorporates other sexual minorities (bisexual, transgendered). Although
there was only one transgendered participant in this study, there were 20 bisexual
participants who may not have ideally fit in the GIQ model. As noted by Cass (1979), one
must also keep in mind that when an individual is initially embarking on the sexual
identity formation process, some individuals ease into the idea of being homosexual by
thinking of himself or herself as bisexual. This makes it difficult to know how many
actual bisexual participants were involved in the study. With this in mind, having a
measure that is able to distinguish between homosexual and bisexual identity formation
might alleviate some of these issues.
Future Research
There are many aspects of this study that can be potentially expanded or improved
upon. One of these aspects includes a more thorough and comprehensive sampling
method. With more resources, future studies could be able to obtain a more representative
sample of age, sexual orientation, sexual identity formation, and job type without having
to include a large number of students. As with a previous study (Halpin & Allen 2004),
using the Internet to recruit sexual minority participants could be a viable option to
include more participants who belong to the first two stages of sexual identity formation.
The Internet would be useful option considering the anonymity that comes with not
having to fill out a questionnaire in the presence of others, in addition to recruiting those
sexual minority individuals who do not feel comfortable enough to affiliate with people
in the GLB community. Other potential areas to recruit individuals who belong to the
58
first couple stages of sexual identity formation could be clinical settings where these
individuals may be receiving therapy to cope with their new found sexual identity.
Other potential ways to expand upon this research could be to conduct a
longitudinal type study where the work-related outcomes of sexual minority individuals
are assessed before, during, and after disclosure of sexual orientation has taken place. As
was shown in a study by Heubner and Davis (2005), it is possible that some individuals
may have negative effects upon disclosing their sexual orientation in the workplace that
were not present prior to disclosure, at least during the initial disclosure process.
However, the practicality of a longitudinal study could prove to be difficult given the
amount confidentiality needed for sexual minorities.
Another potentially interesting aspect regarding sexual minorities in the
workplace to explore in future studies could be comparing individuals who “outed”
themselves to those individuals who were “outed” by others and see if this had any affect
on the work-related attitudes (organizational commitment, turnover intentions, job
satisfaction, and work-family conflict) that were explored in this study. Aside from the
work-related attitudes that were used for this study, other variables such as whether the
organization/employer where an individual is employed has an anti-discrimination policy
in place may also have an impact on various aspects of sexual minorities.
This study used a relatively large sample which was considered advantageous, as
it allowed for at least somewhat more normally distributed variables in regards to sexual
identity formation, which traditionally have been difficult to achieve in terms of
achieving normality (Brady & Busse, 1994; Halpin & Allen, 2004 ). However, large
59
samples can also result in a Type I error, artificially inflating claims of significance.
Future research might include sample sizes closer to those one would normally expect in
a multiple regression design such as this one, to see if the outcomes are parallel, so long
as the variables retain similar of better values of normality.
Research regarding sexual minorities in the workplace is a relatively new area of
study, with this into consideration, mostly all of these studies have been conducted in the
United States. Future studies on sexual minorities incorporating a cross-cultural
component could shed some light on whether the obstacles, including both disclosure
and work related attitudes, sexual minorities face in the workplace are similar or different
among various cultures. As with a study conducted by Lyons, Brenner, and Fassinger
(2005), utilizing a cross cultural sample assessing possible similarities and differences
among individuals of various ethnicities could be an interesting addition to the literature
on sexual minorities in the workplace. Another option could be to conduct a study on
sexual minorities in the workplace in multiple countries and asses similarities/differences
among those cultures, such as Latin American, European, and Asian to name a few.
As compared to other topics related to work environment, it is clear that many
more studies are needed that explore the unique challenges that sexual minorities face in
the workplace. Not only will future research help gain a better understanding on this topic
but as expressed by Fassinger (2008), the more studies that display sexual minorities in a
positive light, in terms of their own psychological well being and the benefits for their
respective organization and fellow coworkers, the more likely these studies will help
promote positive changes in the form of new laws and regulations that protect sexual
60
minorities from discrimination in the workplace on a national level, not just on a state by
state basis.
Overall Summary
Overall, previous studies have supported the idea that sexual minorities in the
workplace should be open about their sexual orientation in the workplace. This disclosure
may have several positive implications not just for the individual but also for other people
in the organization. For example, Rowen and Malcolm (2002) and Halpin and Allen
(2004) believe that coexisting in a societal environment that is accepting of all sexualities
is one of the most psychologically beneficial ways to help sexual minorities. Rowen and
Malcom (2002) also state that one way to ease negative societal attitudes about
homosexuality perceived by sexual minorities, especially in the workplace, can be to
have positive role-models who are open about their sexual minority status. This could
relieve some of the negative conceptions that someone who belongs to a sexual minority
might feel about himself or herself. Individuals who are in the early stages of establishing
a homosexual identity are often more worried about an anticipated societal rejection
rather than actual societal rejection. Having a colleague/supervisor/manager who is open
about their sexual orientation in the workplace and has gotten past any psychological
distress that can potentially come with being a sexual minority, may help an individual
who is dealing with their own internalized sexuality issues.
The diversity that sexuality minorities can add to an organization may also be
beneficial. Fassinger (2008) states that previous research has supported the idea that
having a diverse workforce can aid in tasks requiring innovation and exploration of new
61
opportunities and ideas, in addition to there being measureable performance benefits in
the workplace when work groups can learn from the different experiences of different
groups of individuals.
62
REFERENCES
Brady, S. & Busse W. (1994). The gay identity questionnaire: A brief measure of
homosexual identity formation. Journal of Homosexuality, 26 (4), 1-22.
Baron, R. & Kenny, D. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
Cass, V. C. (1979). Homosexual identity formation: A theoretical model. Journal of
Homosexuality, 4 (3), 219-235.
Cass, V. C. (1984). Homosexual identity formation: Testing a theoretical model. The
Journal of Sex research, 20 (2), 143-167.
Day, N. E. & Schoenrade P. (1997). Staying in the closet versus coming out:
Relationships between communication about sexual orientation and work
attitudes. Personnel Psychology, 50, 147-163.
Day, N. E. & Schoenrade P. (2000). The relationship among reported disclosure of
sexual orientation, anti-discrimination policies, top management support and work
attitudes of gay and lesbian employees. Personnel Review, 29 (3), 346-363.
Fassinger, R. E. (2008). Workplace diversity and public policy challenges and
opportunities for psychology. American Psychologist, 46 (4), 252-268
Griffith, K. H. & Hebl M. R. (2002). The disclosure dilemma for gay men and lesbians:
“Coming out” at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 (6), 1191-1199.
Halpin, S. A. & Allen M. W. (2004). Changes in psychosocial well-being during stages
of gay identity development. Journal of homosexuality, 47 (2), 109-126.
63
Heshizer, B. (1994). The impact of flexible benefits plans on job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, and turnover intentions. Benefits Quarterly, 84-91.
Horowitz, J. L. & Newcomb M. D. (2001). A multidimensional approach to homosexual
identity. Journal of homosexuality, 42 (2), 2001.
Huebner, D. M. & Davis M. C. (2005). Gay and bisexual men who disclose their sexual
orientation in the workplace have higher workday levels of salivary cortisol and
negative affect. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 30(3), 260-267.
Johns, D. J. & Probst, T. M. (2004). Sexual minority identity formation in an adult
population. Journal of Homosexuality, 46 (3), 81-92.
Kahn, M. J. (1991). Factors affecting the coming out process for lesbians. Journal of
homosexuality, 21 (3), 47-70.
Landau, J. & Hammer, T. H. (1986). Clerical employees’ perceptions of
intraorganizational career opportunities. Academy of Management Journal, 29,
(2), 385-404.
Lyons, H. Z., Brenner, B. R., & Fassinger R. E. (2005). A multicultural test of the
theory of work adjustment. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 537-548.
Meyer, J., Allen, N., & Smith, C. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations:
Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 78(4)
Meyers, L. S., Gamst G. & Guarino A. J. (2006). Applied multivariate research: Design
and interpretation. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S. & McMurrian, R. (1996). Development and validation of
64
work-family conflict and family-work conflict scales. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 81, (4), 400-410.
Ragins, B. R., Singh, R. & Cornwell J. M. (2007). Making the invisible visible: Fear and
disclosure of sexual orientation at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92 (4),
1103-1118.
Rostosky, S. S., & Riggle E.D.B. (2002). “Out” at work: The relation of actor and
partner workplace policy and internalized homophobia to disclosure status.
Journal of Counseling Psychology. 49 (4), 411-419.
Rowen, C. J. & Malcom, J. P. (2002). Correlates of internalized homophobia and
homosexual identity formation in a sample of gay men. Journal of
homosexuality, 43 (2), 2002.
Russell, S., Spitzmüller, C., Lin, L., Stanton, J., Smith, P., & Ironson, G. (2004). Shorter
can also be better: The Abridged Job in General Scale. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 64 (5), 878-893.
Tuten, T. L. & August, R. A. (2006). Work-family conflict: a study of lesbian mothers.
Women in Management Review, 21 (7), 578-596.
Waldo, C. R. (1999). Working in a majority context: A structural model of heterosexism
as minority stress in the workplace. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 46 (2),
218-232.
Wright, E. R. & Perry, B. L. (2006). Sexual identity distress, social support, and the
health of gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth. Current Issues in Lesbian, Gay,
Bisexual and Transgender Health, 51 (1) 81-110.