The Journal of Sex Research

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjsr20

Sexual Orientation Beliefs and Identity

Development: A Person-Centered Analysis among
Sexual Minorities

David Tierney, Elliot S. Spengler, Elena Schuch & Patrick R. Grzanka

To cite this article: David Tierney, Elliot S. Spengler, Elena Schuch & Patrick R. Grzanka
(2021) Sexual Orientation Beliefs and Identity Development: A Person-Centered
Analysis among Sexual Minorities, The Journal of Sex Research, 58:5, 625-637, DOI:
10.1080/00224499.2021.1878344

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2021.1878344

Published online: 09 Feb 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 878

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 6 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hjsr20
THE JOURNAL OF SEX RESEARCH
2021, VOL. 58, NO. 5, 625–637
https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2021.1878344

Sexual Orientation Beliefs and Identity Development: A Person-Centered Analysis

among Sexual Minorities
David Tierney , Elliot S. Spengler , Elena Schuch, and Patrick R. Grzanka
Department of Psychology, University of Tennessee

ABSTRACT
We conducted person-centered analysis of sexual orientation beliefs among sexual minorities to explore
potential relationships between these beliefs and sexual orientation, developmental milestones, race and
ethnicity, and attitudes about sexual orientation. We recruited participants (N = 416) via Amazon
Mechanical Turk who completed measures of beliefs about sexual orientation and attitudes about their
own sexuality, as well as assessments of mental health and age of sexual identity development milestones.
We conducted a latent profile analysis and found three distinct sexual orientation belief profiles, similar to
those previously observed in predominantly straight samples. We found that sexual orientation and race-
ethnicity predicted belief profile membership, with the latter exhibiting the most substantial effect. Of the
four identity developmental milestones tested, only the age of first same-sex attraction predicted belief
profile membership. Across profiles, members differed significantly in their mean endorsement of both
positive and negative attitudes regarding sexual orientation and psychological distress. Thus, the current
research suggests that sexual orientation beliefs are powerful constructs in the lives of sexual minorities,
with relationships to sexual orientation, other social identities, and mental health.

Introduction attitudes have illuminated key connections between essential­

Historically, beliefs about sexual orientation were classified
into three philosophical schools of thought: essentialist, social
constructionist, and interactionist approaches (DeLamater &
Hyde, 1998). Popular discourses, most notably the “born this
way” explanation of sexual identity (e.g., Lady Gaga, 2011), fall
within the philosophy of modern essentialism, which consists
of biological, evolutionary, and other scientific explanations of
individual group differences. In contrast, social constructionist
approaches hold that linguistic, social, cultural, and political
processes determine experience and identity of sexual orienta­
tion, with queer theorists falling almost entirely within this
framework (Butler, 1990; DeLamater & Hyde, 1998). Finally,
interactionist schools hold that sexual orientation is both
essential and socially constructed (DeLamater & Hyde, 1998).
It is important to note that beliefs (i.e., the cognitive represen­
tations and “primary convictions about events, causes, agency,
and objects” that people use to organize their understanding of
reality; Connors & Halligan, 2015, p. 2) about sexual orienta­
tion are related to, yet distinct from, attitudes (i.e., evaluative
representations of a given construct; Haddock & Maio, 2004)
regarding sexual orientation. In other words, beliefs about
sexual orientation refer to what one thinks sexual orientation
is (e.g., where sexual orientation comes from, if it can change,
etc.), while attitudes about sexual orientation refer to indivi­
duals’ negative, positive, or other ambivalent evaluations of
various sexual orientations. Thus, the study of these beliefs
remains separate yet intimately connected to the study of
attitudes toward sexual minorities. Decades of social scientific
inquiry into the intertwined nature of these beliefs and
ism and heterosexuals’ sexual prejudice (Haslam & Levy, 2006;
Hegarty & Pratto, 2001), but important questions remain about
how these beliefs function in the lives of sexual minorities
themselves. The current study investigates how these beliefs
are related to sexual identity development, other social iden­
tities such as race, and attitudes about sexual orientation
among sexual minority groups.
Sexual Orientation Beliefs and Attitudes
A significant body of empirical research suggests that straight-
identifying people’s beliefs regarding sexual orientation influence
their attitudes toward sexual minorities. Many researchers report
that straight people who believe in the naturalness of sexual
orientation are less likely to hold prejudicial attitudes toward
sexual minorities (Aguero et al., 1984; Ernulf et al., 1989; Haider-
Markel & Joslyn, 2008; Haslam et al., 2002; Hegarty, 2002;
Hegarty & Pratto, 2001; Horn & Heinze, 2011; Mitchell &
Dezarn, 2014; Overby, 2014; Sakalli, 2002; Whitley, 1990).
However, other studies suggest that the impact of essentialist
beliefs about sexual orientation is best understood beyond beliefs
of naturalness. Extending Hegarty’s (Hegarty & Pratto, 2001)
critical work on psychological essentialism, Grzanka, Arseneau
and colleagues synergized strands of queer theory (e.g., Butler,
1990) and critical social psychology (e.g., Hegarty, 2002) to
assess various beliefs about sexuality beyond its perceived
innateness (Arseneau et al., 2013). In an early study with the
Sexual Orientation Beliefs Scale, Arseneau et al. (2013) found
four factors underlying sexual orientation beliefs, including

CONTACT Patrick R. Grzanka patrick.grzanka@utk.edu Department of Psychology, University of Tennessee, 1404 Circle Drive, Knoxville, TN 37996.
© 2021 The Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality
626 D. TIERNEY ET AL.
naturalness/immutability (i.e., beliefs that sexual orientation is
innate or biological), discreteness (i.e., beliefs that there are clear
distinctions between gay and straight identities), entitativity/
homogeneity (i.e., believing members of a sexual minority
group all have similar characteristics), and personal and social
importance/informativeness (i.e., believing that sexual orienta­
tion is a means of understanding someone). Subsequent studies
found the simultaneous endorsement of the other belief types –
particularly regarding discreteness and informativeness – pre­
dicted heterosexism better than the examination of naturalness
beliefs alone (Agadullina et al., 2018; Fry et al., 2020; Grzanka
et al., 2016). These findings are consistent with previous findings
that discreteness beliefs predict prejudice (Haslam & Levy, 2006;
Hubbard & de Visser, 2015) and that essentialist beliefs more
broadly predict greater stereotyping (Bastian & Haslam, 2006).
Given that these findings suggest that essentialist beliefs about
sexual orientation may actually underlie prejudice, they likewise
provide empirical evidence that the rhetoric of immutability can
enact systems of oppression, including monosexism, cissexism,
and White supremacy (Cole et al., 2012; Diamond & Rosky,
2016).
Overall, the research suggests a significant relationship
between sexual orientation beliefs regarding sexual orientation
and prejudice among straight populations, yet very little
research has explicitly examined sexual orientation beliefs
and attitudes regarding sexual minority status among sexual
minorities. The Sexual Orientation Beliefs Scale (SOBS) was
designed in collaboration with sexual minority groups as
a means of assessing these beliefs and was initially validated
with these populations (Arseneau et al., 2013). However, sub­
sequent studies using this measure to explore the relationship
between sexual orientation beliefs and attitudes predominantly
worked with straight samples (Agadullina et al., 2018; Fry et al.,
2020; Grzanka et al., 2016, 2020). To date, only two studies
have used this measurement tool exclusively with sexual min­
ority groups to explore how these beliefs impact attitudes
regarding sexual identity (Morandini et al., 2017, 2015).
These results were mixed as naturalness beliefs predicted
lower levels of internalized homonegativity in sexual minority
women (Morandini et al., 2017), but not in gay and bisexual
men (Morandini et al., 2015). As observed in straight popula­
tions, discreteness beliefs were found to be associated with
internalized stigma across both groups (Morandini et al.,
2017, 2015). Entitativity beliefs were associated with increased
identity uncertainty and decreased homonegativity in gay and
bisexual men (Morandini et al., 2015) but not measured in
subsequent samples with sexual minority women (Morandini
et al., 2017). None of these studies measured all four types of
sexual orientation beliefs nor how they co-occurred within
participants in these sexual minority groups. These mixed
findings and this relative dearth of research is surprising
given that sexual orientation beliefs are associated with atti­
tudes about sexual orientation, which have serious implications
for mental health including depressive symptoms (Rosser et al.,
2008), suicidal ideation (D’Augelli et al., 2001), and attempts to
seek “conversion therapy” (Tozer & Hayes, 2004). In short,
these beliefs could have health implications for sexual minority
groups.
Sexual Orientation Beliefs and Identity
While little research has explicitly explored the role of sexual
orientation beliefs in sexual minorities, sexual minority iden­
tity development models have always positioned beliefs and
attitudes about sexual orientation as interconnected and situ­
ated within developmental (Cass, 1979; Troiden, 1989) and
sociopolitical contexts (D’Augelli, 1994). This research grew
into quantitative analysis that focuses on the age of develop­
mental milestones over the course of the lifespan, including the
examination of age of (a) first same-sex attraction, (b) first
identification as a sexual minority, (c) first sexual activity
with a member of the same sex, and (d) first self-disclosure of
self-identification as a sexual minority to others (Floyd & Stein,
2002). Several studies suggest the order of these milestones is
relatively consistent: participants first experience same-sex
attraction prior to all other milestones, subsequently self-
identify as a sexual minority, and then either engage in first
sexual activity with a member of the same sex or disclose their
sexual minority status to others (Calzo et al., 2011; Floyd &
Stein, 2002; Rendina et al., 2019). However, other recent work
shows that the order of these milestones may be subject to
cohort effects whereby older sexual minorities are more likely
to engage in sexual behavior with members of the same sex
before identifying as a sexual minority (Bishop et al., 2020).
While this may seem to move toward a bio-behavioral
approach, research consistently shows these markers are reflec­
tive of identity-centered processes and contextual factors alike
(Bishop et al., 2020; Calzo et al., 2011; Floyd & Stein, 2002;
Katz-Wise et al., 2017; Kaestle, 2019; Martos et al., 2015;
Rosario et al., 2011), as well as social identities such as race,
ethnicity, and sexual orientation (Bishop et al., 2020; Grov
et al., 2018; Rosario et al., 2004). Likewise, studies consistently
show that these milestones are associated with negative atti­
tudes such as internalized homonegativity (Legate et al., 2012;
Rendina et al., 2019; Savin-Williams & Cohen, 2015), positive
attitudes regarding sexual orientation and identity formation
(Rosario et al., 2011), and psychosocial outcomes (Friedman
et al., 2008; Rosario et al., 2012). Thus, there is a series of
empirical findings suggesting that identity development is
related to social identity, psychosocial context, attitudes
regarding sexual minority status, and mental health outcomes.
However, no research has quantitatively explored how identity
developmental milestones are related to beliefs about sexual
orientation.
A collection of findings suggests that social identities such as
race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation are connected to sexual
orientation beliefs. In her foundational research, Diamond
(2008) suggested that experiences of sexual fluidity, including
changing sexual identity, may influence how sexual minority
women understand sexual orientation. Galupo et al. (2016)
found that beliefs about sexual orientation are embedded
within social identity and may be sites of resistance to systems
of oppression; this is in line with other research that suggests
sexual minority people of color and bisexual people may rely
on essentialist beliefs to combat the erasure of their sexual
orientation (Alimahomed, 2010; Gonzalez et al., 2017; Logie
& Rwigema, 2014). Morandini et al. (2017) found that experi­
encing non-prototypical sexual attraction for one’s identity

(e.g., experiencing attraction to men while identifying as les­
bian) predicted discreteness and immutability beliefs in sexual
minority women, but the authors did not examine differences
in these beliefs across social identities. While these aforemen­
tioned findings seemingly suggest that identity impacts beliefs,
McCormack and Savin-Williams (2018) also found that beliefs
about sexual orientation (e.g., endorsement of queer theory)
may influence how some sexual minorities come to self-
identify, thereby suggesting a reciprocal relationship as well.
While these findings implicate relationships between social
identities and sexual orientation beliefs, work in this area has
been piecemeal. To date, no work has quantitatively explored
the relationship between sexual orientation beliefs and social
identity with an exclusively sexual minority population.
In summary, very little psychological research has explicitly
explored how sexual orientation beliefs are related to attitudes
regarding sexual orientation among sexual minority people.
The only two studies in this domain conducted with sexual
minority samples demonstrated mixed findings regarding
these beliefs and negative attitudes, and there has been virtually
no research on how sexual orientation beliefs impact positive
attitudes regarding sexual orientation. Furthermore, findings
in the field of sexual minority identity development suggest
a relationship between these beliefs and sexual identity over the
lifespan. Finally, some findings indicate that there are relation­
ships between sexual orientation beliefs and self-identified
sexual orientation.
The Current Study
Accordingly, we sought to explicitly study sexual orientation
beliefs and their implications in sexual minority groups
recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk. We used latent profile
analysis (LPA), a person-centered statistical approach that
allows observation of patterns of responses across multiple
continuous variables; LPA analytically prioritizes these pat­
terns over individual relationships between variables, hence
the term “person-centered” (Zeiders et al., 2013). In our
study, LPA helped us to foreground participants as the sites
of analysis and identify subgroups (i.e., “profiles”) of different
sexual orientation beliefs. This method was advantageous as it
allowed us to explore how these beliefs co-occur within mem­
bers of our samples (Grzanka, 2016; cf. Silva, 2019). Following
the identification of these profiles, we explored how sexual
orientation beliefs related to identity (e.g., sexual orientation;
race and ethnicity), sexual identity developmental milestones,
attitudes about sexual orientation, and psychological distress in
an exclusively sexual minority population.
The study was driven by three questions. First, what are the
sexual orientation belief profiles among sexual minorities?
While Grzanka et al. (2016, 2020), and Agadullina et al.
(2018) found three belief profiles among majority heterosexual
samples, these profiles were never examined among exclusively
sexual minority samples. Second, how do sexual orientation,
race, and age of sexual identity development milestones predict
sexual orientation belief profiles among sexual minorities?
Extant research suggests that these beliefs are influenced by
sexual orientation, developmental trajectory, and race and
ethnicity, although these have never been quantitatively and
THE JOURNAL OF SEX RESEARCH 627
explicitly tested. Finally, what are the relationships between
sexual orientation belief profiles, attitudes regarding sexual
identity, and psychological well-being among sexual minori­
ties? While previous studies have demonstrated relationships
between sexual orientation beliefs and attitudes in sexual
minorities, no prior studies have examined how the co-
occurrence of these beliefs impacts these attitudes and well-
being.
Method
Participants
We recruited participants (N = 416) through Amazon’s
Mechanical Turk (MTurk) service. To be eligible, participants
were required to (1) have a valid MTurk worker account, (2)
be at least 18 years old at the time of the first survey, (3)
identify as non-heterosexual at the time of the first survey
attempt, (4) reside within the U.S. as verified per MTurk
settings, (5) use an I.P. address that had not already com­
pleted the survey, and (6) pass a series of three attention
checks and four validity checks. The original sample consisted
of 1,000 participants who clicked on the survey. Of these
participants, 385 identified as straight and were immediately
terminated from the survey and directed to a page that again
stated they did not meet inclusion criteria. After accounting
for those participants, 615 participants went past the initial
screening question. Ninety participants were excluded
because they initially identified as straight at the time of
first completing the survey screener and had already been
previously terminated. Fifty-two participants failed at least
one attention check. Fifty participants were excluded because
they answered that they had completed a developmental mile­
stone at an older age than they currently held, which is
impossible and indicated that their responses were invalid.
Seven participants were excluded because their data could not
be located due to their failure to correctly transpose their
Question Pro ID into MTurk. In total, 199 participants were
excluded, leaving 416 participants in the final sample.
Measures
Demographics Questionnaire
We asked participants for basic demographic information.
Participants were allowed to select multiple options, and such
responses were coded as the endorsement of multiple identi­
ties. Participants were asked about their age (e.g., “What is your
age?”), race and ethnicity (e.g., “What is your race?”), gender
(e.g., “What is your gender?”), sexual orientation (e.g., “What is
your sexual orientation?”), geographic location (e.g., “What is
your current zip code?”; “How would you describe your cur­
rent zip code?”) and level of education (e.g., “What is your level
of education?”). We also asked participants about their sub­
jective socioeconomic status on a scale of 1 to 10 (e.g., “Think
of a ladder with 10 steps representing where people stand in the
United States. At step 10 are people who are the best off – those
who have the most money, the most education, and the most
respected jobs. At step 1 are the people who are worst off –
those who have the least money, least education, and the least
628 D. TIERNEY ET AL.
respected jobs or no job. Where would you place yourself on
this ladder? (indicate 1–10)”; Adler et al., 2000).
With regard to gender, participants were asked to select all
the gender identities that applied to them from the following
options, or were asked to write in their own gender identity:
246 (59.1%) participants self-identified as men, 151 (36.3%)
self-identified as women, 10 (2.4%) identified as non-binary,
and 9 (2.2%) identified as transgender. No participants chose
to identify as a gender not listed. Participants were also asked
to select all of the sexual orientation labels that applied to
them; 236 (56.7%) participants self-identified solely as “bisex­
ual,” 136 (32.7%) as “gay or lesbian/homosexual,” 12 (2.9%) as
“asexual,” 9 (2.2%) as “pansexual,” 4 (1.0%) as “demisexual,” 1
(0.2%) as “queer,” and 18 (4.3%) endorsed multiple orienta­
tion labels. Once again, no participants chose to write in any
additional sexual orientation that was not otherwise listed.
Participants were asked to check all of the following racial-
ethnic identities that applied to them: 231 participants
(55.5%) identified as “White or European American,” 109
(26.9%) identified as “Black/African American/African,” 30
(7.2%) identified as “Latino/a/x or Hispanic,” 15 (3.6%) iden­
tified as “Asian/Asian American/Asian Pacific Islander,” 7
(1.7%) identified as “Native American,” and 19 (4.6%) identi­
fied with more than one race and/or ethnicity. With regards
to subjective socioeconomic status on a scale of 1 (lower
income) to 10 (higher income) (Adler et al., 2000), the mean
response was 5.18 (SD = 2.10), with 99.3% of participants
responding. In terms of geography, 183 (44.0%) identified as
currently residing in an “urban” area, 165 (39.7%) in
a “suburban” area, 67 (16.1%) in a “rural” area, and 1 (0.2%)
in an “other” type of area. None had less than a “high school
education or equivalent,” 33 (7.9%) had a “high school degree
or equivalent,” 74 (17.8%) had “some college,” 53 (12.7%) had
“completed a 2-year college degree,” 195 (46.9%) had “com­
pleted a 4-year college degree,” and 61 (14.7%) had “com­
pleted at least some post-graduate education.”
Sexual Orientation Beliefs Scale (SOBS)
We used the Sexual Orientation Beliefs Scale (SOBS) Form 1,
which was found to be reliable for sexual minority groups
(Arseneau et al., 2013). The scale consists of 35 items on
a Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to
strongly agree (5) measuring four domains of beliefs about
sexual orientation comprising (a) naturalness (e.g., Sexual
orientation is innate) (b) discreteness (e.g., Sexual orientation
is a category with clear boundaries: a person is either gay/
lesbian, bisexual, or heterosexual”), (c) entitativity (e.g.,
“Individuals with the same sexual orientation seem to be con­
nected to one another by some invisible link”), and (d) perso­
nal and social importance of identity (e.g., “It is possible to
know about many aspects of a person once you know her or his
sexual orientation”). Grzanka et al. (2016) documented evi­
dence of construct validity via hypothesized relationships with
related constructs, including homonegativity.
Naturalness. The Naturalness subscale measures the degree to
which a participant believes sexual orientation to be a natural
category – i.e., innate, immutable, stable across cultures, and
fixed at an early age. The subscale contains 12 items and
demonstrated the lowest but acceptable internal consistency
(α = .69) of all the subscales.
Discreteness. The Discreteness subscale measures the degree to
which a participant believes sexual orientations have distinct and
clear boundaries existing between groups. The 6-item scale
demonstrated acceptable internal consistency in the current
study (α = .72).
Entitativity. The Entitativity subscale measures beliefs that
sexual orientation is informative about an individual, uniform,
and shares a quality across people of a given sexual orientation.
The subscale contains 10 items and demonstrated optimal
internal consistency (α = .92).
Personal and Social Importance. The Personal and Social
Importance subscale measures the relative salience and impor­
tance of participants’ sexual minority identity to participants’
overall identity. The subscale contains 7 items and demon­
strated acceptable internal consistency (α = .75) in our sample.
Retrospective Recall of Sexual Identity Developmental
Milestones
We asked participants to recall their age at the time of four
sexual identity developmental milestones. Similar to Calzo
et al. (2011), we asked the age (a) at which participants experi­
enced their first same-sex attraction, (b) had their first sexual
experience with a member of the same sex, (c) first identified as
non-heterosexual, and (d) at which they first came out to
others. These items were also used as a validity check in con­
junction with participants’ demographic information.
Participants who recalled milestones as occurring later than
their currently identified age had their responses deemed inva­
lid, through a process described below.
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Identity Scale (LGBIS)
The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Identity Scale (LGBIS) is a 27-item
measure with eight distinct subscales: acceptance concerns, con­
cealment motivation, identity uncertainty, internalized homone­
gativity, difficult process, identity superiority, identity centrality,
and identity affirmation (Mohr & Kendra, 2011). As this instru­
ment is only validated among people who identify as lesbian, gay,
and bisexual, it was only administered to participants who iden­
tified as holding at least one of these identities. In total this
instrument was administered to 389 participants.
Acceptance Concerns. The Acceptance Concerns subscale mea­
sures a person’s concern with stigmatization due to their sexual
orientation (Mohr & Kendra, 2011). The scale contains three
items and demonstrated acceptable internal consistency (α = .75).
Concealment Motivation. The Concealment Motivation sub­
scale contains three items and measures concern and motiva­
tion to protect one’s privacy with regards to sexual minority
status (Mohr & Kendra, 2011). The subscale demonstrated
good internal consistency (α = .81).
Identity Uncertainty. The Identity Uncertainty subscale mea­
sures the degree to which one is uncertain about one’s sexual

identity (Mohr & Kendra, 2011). The subscale contains four
items and demonstrated excellent internal consistency
(α = .91).
Internalized Homonegativity. The Internalized Homonegativity
subscale measures the degree to which one rejects one’s own
LGB identity (Mohr & Kendra, 2011). The subscale contains
three items and demonstrated excellent internal reliability in
this study (α = .91).
Difficult Process. The Difficult Process subscale measures the
degree to which a person perceives their development as an
LGB individual as difficult (Mohr & Kendra, 2011). The sub­
scale contains three items and demonstrated poor internal
reliability (α = .56).
Identity Superiority. The Identity Superiority subscale mea­
sures views favoring LGB people over heterosexual people. The
subscale contains three items and demonstrated good internal
reliability (α = .89).
Identity Centrality. The Identity Centrality subscale measures
an individual’s view that their LGB identity is central to their
overall identity (Mohr & Kendra, 2011). The subscale contains
five items and demonstrated acceptable internal reliability
(α = .75).
Identity Affirmation. The Identity Affirmation subscale mea­
sures the degree to which participants affirm their own LGB
identity (Mohr & Kendra, 2011). The subscale contains three
items and showed good internal consistency (α = .82).
Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (KPDS)
The KPDS is a 10-item questionnaire designed to measure
a person’s global level of psychological distress as manifested
through anxiety and depressive symptoms over the last 30 days
(Kessler et al., 2002). Items consist of a 5-point Likert-type
scale ranging from 1 (none of the time) to 5 (all of the time).
This scale demonstrated excellent internal consistency in our
study (α = .95).
Attention Checks
Embedded within the other measures were three validity check
questions. These questions were simply to check if participants
were indeed reading the material (e.g., “select agree here”).
Procedure
The University of Tennessee, Knoxville Institutional Review
Board (IRB) approved all materials and procedures used in the
current study. We relied upon and adhered to the American
Psychological Association’s (2012) ethical guidelines for
research involving human participants. All participants were
recruited through MTurk in October and November of 2019.
Participants were informed in the description of the study
provided directly via MTurk that they must identify as
a sexual minority to participate in the study and be at least
18 years old. Participants interested in completing the study
THE JOURNAL OF SEX RESEARCH 629
could then click a link to visit Qualtrics, where the measures
were housed. The first page of the Qualtrics survey was the
informed consent form approved by the IRB, again stating that
individuals must be 18 and identify as a sexual minority to
participate. Similarly, participants were told in the informed
consent that compensation depended on passing a series of
validity checks, ensuring the truthfulness of their answers.
Participants who consented to participate were then immedi­
ately directed to the demographic questionnaire page. If parti­
cipants met basic inclusion criteria (i.e., age > 17, identified as
something other than straight) at this point, they were then
presented with the rest of the survey measures in a randomized
order. Only participants who identified as gay, lesbian, or
bisexual for at least one of their sexual orientations were
given the LGBIS to complete since this measure has not been
validated with other sexual minority groups. Following the
completion of the study, participants were provided with
their unique Response ID provided by Qualtrics and instructed
to enter this into the MTurk Portal if they desired to receive
compensation. Participants who failed to pass validity checks
(e.g., reported they had first identified as a sexual minority at
an age later than they currently identified), attention checks
(e.g., “select agree here”), or who were previously screened out
for identifying as straight or under the age of 18, were removed
from the data set and were not compensated. Participants who
successfully completed the survey received 4.00 USD each for
their participation.
Data Analysis
Preliminary analyses in SPSS 26 found that the data were
normally distributed (no items skewed > ± 1.5) and did not
exhibit significant kurtosis (no items ± 1.5; Westfall &
Henning, 2013). Less than 1% of all responses were missing
for any given variable and we conducted expectance maximi­
zation per best practices (Schlomer et al., 2010). Following this
examination of the data, we calculated the means of the SOBS,
LGBIS, and KPDS. We dichotomized the categorical predictor
variables (e.g., social identities) in SPSS before transferring the
data to Mplus Version 8 (Collins & Lanza, 2010; Muthén &
Muthén, 1998–2017). Race and ethnicity were dichotomized
into (a) White Non-Hispanic and Non-Latino/a/x participants
and (b) people of color, which included participants who
identified as Latino/a/x and Hispanic. Sexual orientation was
dichotomized into monosexual participants, who identified
solely as gay and lesbian, and non-monosexual participants,
with this latter category including participants who identified
as queer, bisexual, ace, pan, demi, and/or identified with multi­
ple sexual orientations.
Results
Multiple Sexual Orientation Belief Profiles
Following the preparation of the data, we exported the data in
Mplus to conduct LPA. LPA is a step-wise process, with each
successive step representing a solution of adding a profile (k+1)
and probabilistically comparing the likelihood of the current
630 D. TIERNEY ET AL.
step to the previous step. We relied upon the Bayesian
Information Criteria (BIC), the Adjusted Bayesian
Information Criteria (ABIC), and the Lo-Mendell-Ruben
Likelihood Ratio Test (LRT) to determine the number of pro­
files. Lower values on the BIC and ABIC indicate a better
solution, while higher values on the LRT are indicative of
higher probabilities that the solution is a better fit than
a model with one less profile (k-1). Consistent with recom­
mendations, we first conducted the LPA to determine the
number of profiles without predictor and outcome variables
(Lanza et al., 2013). The results of the LRT, BIC, and ABIC for
1 through 5 profile solutions are provided in Table 1. The LRT
suggested that both a two- and three-profile solution were
statistically plausible, although it suggested that a two-profile
solution was more likely. According to the LRT, four-profile
solutions and above were unlikely (p > .05). The ABIC and BIC
levels suggested that solutions with more than two profiles
better fit the data up to a five-profile. Given the improbability
of a four or five-profile solution per the LRT, we removed these
from further consideration and more closely examined the
two- and three-profile solutions. It was clear that the LRT
suggested a two-profile solution but left open a significant
possibility of a three-profile solution. The BIC and ABIC
clearly suggested a three-profile solution as these values were
significantly lower in the three-profile solution as opposed to
the two-profile solution. We examined both profiles as solu­
tions and found that the three-profile solution offered
a theoretically meaningful and distinct solution when com­
pared with the two-profile solution (see Figures 1 and 2).
Table 1. Profile fit statistics for 1- through 5- profile solutions for latent profile
analysis (LPA).
Profile BIC ABIC Lo-Mendell-Rubin (LRT)
1 3782.595 3757.209
2 3301.63 3260.378 494.712
3 3217.623 3160.504 110.496
4 3173.176 3100.191
5 3149.67 3060.816
BIC = Bayesian Information Criterion; ABIC = Adjust Bayesian information criter­
ion; LRT = Likelihood Ratio Test.
Two-Proile Solution of Sexual Orientation
Belief Proiles
4
3.5
3
Subscale Mean Scores
2.5
2 logistic regression, whereby the predictor variables are treated as
1.5
1
0.5
0
Discreteness Entitativity Naturalness Importance
Sexual Orientation Beliefs Subscale
Figure 1. Latent mean sexual orientation beliefs subscale scores for a two-profile
solution.
Three-Proile Solution of Sexual
Orientation Belief Proiles
4.5
4
3.5
Subscale Mean Scores
Naturalness-Only (n =
3
107)
2.5
Multidimensional
2
Essentialism (n=148)
1.5
High Discreteness,
1
Entitativity, Importance
0.5 (High DEI) (n= 161)
0
Discreteness Entitativity Naturalness Importance
Sexual Orientation Beliefs Subscale
Figure 2. Latent mean sexual orientation beliefs subscale scores for a three-profile
solution.
Comparison of means determined that the three profiles were
significantly different from each other with regards to natural­
ness, F(2, 413) = 8.19, p< .001, discreteness, F(2, 413) = 80.64,
p< .0001, importance, F(2, 413) = 83.85,p< .0001, and entita­
tivity, F(2, 413) = 85.840, p< .0001. Consequently, we decided
upon a three-profile solution.
This three-profile solution replicated the profiles previously
reported with predominantly straight samples (e.g., Grzanka
et al., 2016, 2020). In keeping with these findings, we named
the profiles in this case (1) Naturalness-only (NO) belief profile,
(2) Multidimensional essentialism (ME) belief profile, and (3)
High discreteness, entitativity, and, importance (high DEI)
beliefs profile (see Figure 2). Post-hoc Tukey tests demon­
strated that there was no significant difference in the natural­
ness-only scores between the multidimensional essentialism
LRT
pvalue and high DEI profiles (p = . 96), but significant differences
– – were found between all other profiles on all other subscales.
0.000 The only alteration in naming with our profiles occurred with
.0139 the high DEI profile, which mirrored the high DHI profile (i.e.,
72.205 0.1733
51.937 .4477 discreteness, homogeneity, and informativeness, which are
three subscales in SOBS-Form 2) found by Grzanka et al.
(2016). As we used the SOBS-Form 1, which is validated for
use with sexual minority-only samples, two of these subscales
differed by three items.
Predictor Variables
After determining the number of profiles, we proceeded to
test variables that may predict profile membership (i.e., predictor
variables) using the 3-Step Method (Asparouhov & Muthén,
2014a). The 3-step method effectively functions as a multinomial
Pro ile 1 (n=217)
Pro ile 2 (n=199)
the independent variables, and the referent class or profile is
treated as the dependent variable, such that the predictor vari­
ables are regressed onto each profile using one of the other
profiles as a control group. In this case, race, sexual orientation,
and developmental milestones were regressed onto each profile.
Race and sexual orientation were dichotomized and dummy-
coded (i.e., White versus nonwhite, and monosexual versus non-
monosexual). Mplus output provided the log of the odds of
given class membership and a significance test value. These log
 THE JOURNAL OF SEX RESEARCH 631

odds were then transformed out of their log function into odds Table 2. Mean comparison between sexual orientation belief profiles, attitudes
among gay, lesbian, and bisexual identifying participants (n= 389), and psycho­
and, subsequently, into their respective probability of predicting logical distress scale (n= 416).
profile membership per the variable in question using Profile 1: Profile 2:
a calculator; only statistically significant results are reported. Naturalness- Multidimensional Profile 3:
Only Essentialism High DEI
Race and Ethnicity Outcome Variable M (SE) M (SE) M (SE)
Acceptance Concerns 3.137a (.119) 3.689b (.097) 4.766c(.101)
People of color were significantly more likely (87.36% chance) Concealment 4.139a(.135) 4.203a(.105) 4.864c(.083)
to be in the high DEI group than the naturalness-only group, B Motivation
= 1.933 (SE = 5.158, p = < .0001) or the multidimensional Difficult Process 3.122a(.130) 3.295a(.105) 3.823c(.081)
Internalized 1.867a(.107) 2.728b(.117) 4.613c(.142)
essentialism profile (79.45% chance), B= 1.352 (SE = 3.329, Homonegativity
p < .001). Identity Uncertainty 2.034a(.106) 2.536b(.118) 4.653c(.132)
Identity Centrality 3.355a(.117) 3.77b(.082) 4.451c(.055)
Identity Affirmation 4.291a(.117) 4.259a(.092) 5.075c(.084)
Sexual Orientation Identity Superiority 1.612a(.087) 2.483b(.110) 4.614c(.120)
Monosexuality predicted membership in the naturalness-only Psychological Distress 2.11a(0.081) 2.309a (.095) 3.737c(.103)
profile over the multidimensional essentialism profile, while Means not sharing a subscript in a row indicate significant differences (p < . 01);
non-monosexuality predicted a higher likelihood of member­ Acceptance Concerns = LGBIS-Acceptance Concerns Subscale; Concealment
ship in the multidimensional essentialism profile over the Motivation = LGBIS-Concealment Motivation Subscale; Difficult Process = LGBIS-
Difficult Process Subscale; Internalized Homonegativity = LGBIS-Internalized
naturalness-only profile, B = 0.906 (SE = 2.766, p = .006). Homonegativity Subscale; Identity Uncertainty = LGBIS-Identity Uncertainty
There was a 71.22% chance a non-monosexual participant Subscale; Identity Centrality = LGBIS-Identity Centrality Subscale; Identity
would endorse the multidimensional essentialism profile over Affirmation = LGBIS- Identity Affirmation Subscale; Psychological Distress =
Kessler Psychological Distress Scale.
the naturalness-only profile. Monosexuality and non-
monosexuality did not predict membership in the high DEI
profile relative to either of the other profiles (p > .05).
results suggested that high DEI profile members endorsed
Developmental Milestones significantly higher levels of all positive attitudes, negative
The retrospectively recalled age of first identification as non- attitudes, and psychological distress than the members of the
heterosexual (M = 19.60, SD = 5.72, range: 5–48), first sexual naturalness-only profiles and the multidimensional essential­
experience with a member of the same sex (M = 19.75, ism profiles across all measures (see Table 2). Members of the
SD = 5.85, range: 3–50), first coming out to others as non- multidimensional essentialism profile endorsed higher levels of
heterosexual (M = 21.29, SD = 5.71, range: 6–43), and com­ acceptance concerns, internalized homonegativity, identity
bined means of milestone ages (M = 18.87, SD = 5.17, range: uncertainty, centrality, and superiority than members of the
3.5–41) did not predict sexual orientation belief patterns naturalness-only profile.
(p> .05). Those who recalled experiencing their first same-sex
attraction later in life (M = 16.12, SD = 6.64, range: 0–46) were
Discussion
significantly more likely to endorse beliefs consistent with the
high DEI profile than the naturalness-only profile, B = .202 This was the first study to explore sexual orientation belief
(SE = .054, p = .000) or the multidimensional essentialism profiles among an exclusively sexual minority sample. Our
profile, B = .103 (SE = .043, p = .035). People who reached results suggest that there are three distinct sexual orientation
this milestone later were also more likely to endorse the multi­ belief profiles among sexual minorities: the naturalness-only
dimensional essentialism profile as opposed to the naturalness- (NO) belief profile, the multidimensional essentialism (ME)
only profile, B = .100 (SE = .043 , p = .021). Conversely, belief profile, and the high discreteness, entitativity, and impor­
participants recalling first same-sex attraction at a younger tance (high DEI) belief profile. Previous studies have found
age were more likely to endorse the naturalness-only profile similar profiles among predominantly straight samples
relative to both other profiles. (Agadullina et al., 2018; Grzanka et al., 2016, 2020). The pre­
sent study replicated these previous results with a survey devel­
oped for use specifically with sexual minorities (i.e., the SOBS
Outcome Variables
Form 1) and with a different population from previous studies.
Finally, to explore the relationship between the belief profiles Together, our results suggest that the three sexual orientation
and attitudes about sexual orientation, we utilized the BCH belief profiles are both robust and reliable.
method to compare the mean levels of attitudinal endorsement The current study is the first to explore how social identity
across sexual orientation belief profiles (Asparouhov & and identity development predict sexual orientation belief pro­
Muthén, 2014b). Like the 3-Step method to latent profile ana­ files. Our results suggest that endorsement of these beliefs was
lysis described above, the BCH method reduces the likelihood predicted by both race and sexual orientation. Participants who
of profiles shifting (i.e., either the shape of the profile or the identified as people of color were over 75% more likely to
number of profile members) through the addition of error respond in a way consistent with the high DEI profile than to
from the introduction of distal variables into the model. The respond in a way that was consistent with either of the other
BCH conducts a Wald’s Chi-Square Test to compare the means profiles. There was an 87.36% chance of a White person
of these outcomes between the profiles while providing the responding in a way consistent with the naturalness-only pro­
latent means for each distal outcome per a given profile. The file as opposed to the high DEI profile. With regards to sexual
632 D. TIERNEY ET AL.
orientation, there was a 71.22% chance that participants who
identified solely as gay or lesbian would respond in a manner
consistent with the naturalness-only profile instead of the
multidimensional essentialism profile. Thus, the naturalness-
only profile can be summarized as disproportionately com­
posed of White people relative to the high DEI profile.
Moreover, naturalness-only profile members were significantly
more likely to identify as gay and lesbian (i.e., monosexual)
than members of the multidimensional essentialism profile. In
brief, these findings are significant in that they do suggest that
beliefs about sexual orientation are racialized and related to
sexual orientation. Building upon existing literature suggesting
beliefs may impact how sexual minorities choose to identify
(McCormack & Savin-Williams, 2018), these results suggest
that the navigation of these identities and beliefs is also rooted
deeply within social systems.
To understand these findings, we rely on Black feminist
sociologists Dill and Kohlman’s (2012) framework of “strong
intersectionality,” which challenges us to examine the ways in
which systems of power, privilege, and oppression interweave
to shape experience (Crenshaw, 1991; Moradi & Grzanka,
2017). Sexual minority people of color and non-monosexual
people, particularly bisexual people, are both groups whose
identities are systematically deemed invisible and are more
likely to experience erasure (American Psychological
Association, 2012; Dworkin, 2001). Consistent with these
experiences, participants of color and non-monosexual parti­
cipants were more likely to have response patterns with
higher levels of essentialist beliefs across three of the four
belief domains (i.e., discreteness, entitativity, and impor­
tance). These results can be understood through the lens of
power in that systemic erasure of these groups functionally
essentializes qualities of these identities (Foucault, 1990). In
other words, when facing invisibility, essentialist beliefs may
serve the unique function of validating the identities of sexual
minorities of color and non-monosexual people. Ryazanov
and Christenfeld (2018) described how essentialist beliefs
may also hold strategic value within minority populations
as a means of fostering positive identity development.
Qualitative research supports this interpretation. For exam­
ple, Gonzalez et al. (2017) found that bisexual people char­
acterize their sexuality as enduring and distinctly definable in
attempts to combat erasure. Research also shows that sexual
minority people of color turn experiences of erasure into
empowerment via the creation and construction of their
own identities (Alimahomed, 2010; Logie & Rwigema,
2014). Thus, we can view participants’ endorsement of the
multidimensional essentialism profile and the high DEI pro­
file as potentially reflective of resistance to systems of power
that erase the existence of these groups. Consequently, the
results suggest essentialist beliefs about sexual orientation
may hold strategic value for sexual minority people of color
and non-monosexual people.
Per the current study, a participant recalling first same-sex
attraction later in life predicted sexual orientation beliefs that
were consistent with the high DEI and multidimensional
essentialism profiles relative to the naturalness-only profile.
These effects were most substantial for the high DEI profile, as
the older participants were when they experienced their first
same-sex attraction, the more likely they were to endorse
beliefs consistent with the high DEI profile relative to both
other profiles. Accordingly, identity development processes
throughout the lifespan may predict the types of beliefs sexual
minority people have about sexual orientation. Interestingly,
the results suggest that people who reach this milestone later
in life are also more likely to simultaneously endorse beliefs in
the discreteness, entitativity, and personal and social impor­
tance of sexual orientation, potentially as a means of under­
standing their identity. The naturalness-only profile members
reported first same-sex attraction younger in life as well as
higher levels of psychological distress. Notably, the other
developmental milestones were not significantly related to
sexual orientation beliefs. Previous work consistently demon­
strates that the age of first same-sex attraction is the first
milestone achieved across sexual minority groups (Bishop
et al., 2020; Calzo et al., 2011; Floyd & Stein, 2002; Rendina
et al., 2019). It is possible that the age of this early experience
of sexual identity becomes foundational for how sexual min­
ority groups understand sexual identity broadly as they age.
Experiences of the other milestones, which typically occur
later, may be less informative to subsequent beliefs regarding
sexual orientation; this may explain why these other mile­
stones were not found to significantly predict sexual orienta­
tion beliefs. Conversely, it is also possible that sexual
minorities’ sexual orientation beliefs influence how they ret­
rospectively recall their own identity development. Given that
these identity development trajectories are broad, diverse, and
change over time (Bishop et al., 2020; Kaestle, 2019), and that
causation cannot be determined using cross-sectional data,
future longitudinal work is needed to explore the relation­
ships between these sexual orientation beliefs, identity, and
other variables over time. Nonetheless, to the knowledge of
the authors, this represents a novel finding to the literature,
demonstrating that at least one identity developmental mile­
stone is related to how sexual minority groups understand
sexual orientation more broadly.
Outcome Variables
The current study’s most novel contribution may be in demon­
strating the multitude of relationships between sexual orienta­
tion beliefs (i.e., the ontological cognitive representations),
with attitudes (i.e., global representations encompassing affec­
tive, cognitive and behavioral domains) about sexual orienta­
tion and psychological distress. Previous work (with a variable-
centered statistical approach) demonstrated that sexual orien­
tation beliefs predict internalized homonegativity and identity
uncertainty attitudes, albeit inconsistently (Morandini et al.,
2017, 2015). Ours is the first study to demonstrate that sexual
orientation belief profiles can predict all eight sexual orienta­
tion attitudes measured within the widely used Lesbian, Gay,
Bisexual, Identity Scale among sexual minorities (LGBIS; Mohr
& Kendra, 2011). Furthermore, while previous studies have
proposed a link between these attitudes and psychological
distress, our data exhibit a significant association between
sexual orientation belief profiles themselves and psychological

distress. The profiles, of course, account for how individuals
hold multiple beliefs simultaneously.
With regard to endorsement of negative sexual orientation
attitudes, these attitudes followed a nearly step-wise function
across sexual orientation belief profiles. The naturalness-only
profile members endorsed the lowest levels of internalized
homonegativity and identity uncertainty. The high DEI profile
members endorsed the highest levels of negative attitudes of
each of these profiles. The multidimensional essentialism pro­
file members endorsed higher levels of these than the natural­
ness-only profile but endorsed significantly lower levels of
these attitudes than the high DEI profile members. It is through
this step-wise nature that the current study can be seen as one
of a growing number to suggest that naturalness beliefs regard­
ing sexual orientation are not the sexual orientation beliefs that
primarily determine negative attitudes about sexual orientation
in sexual minorities (Morandini et al., 2017, 2015). The multi­
dimensional essentialism and the high DEI profile members
did not endorse significantly different levels of naturalness
beliefs, yet their profiles were differentially predictive of inter­
nalized homonegativity and identity uncertainty. While the
naturalness-only profile members endorsed the lowest levels
of internalized homonegativity and identity uncertainty in our
data, members of this profile also had significantly lower levels
of essentialist beliefs across the other three subscales. Taken
together, this suggests that the impact of naturalness sexual
orientation beliefs on negative attitudes regarding sexual orien­
tation is small and potentially better accounted for by other co-
occurring essentialist beliefs (see also Grzanka et al., 2016,
2020).
The positive attitudes regarding sexual orientation appear
to, in part, follow the same step-wise function. Members of
the high DEI profile endorsed higher levels of identity super­
iority and centrality than the multidimensional essentialism
profile, which endorsed higher levels of the attitudes than the
naturalness-only profile. With respect to identity affirmation,
the multidimensional essentialism and naturalness-only pro­
files did not significantly differ from each other. Still, both the
naturalness-only and multidimensional essentialism profile
members endorsed a lower mean level of these attitudes
than the high DEI profile. These results might suggest that
there are well-being benefits conferred with regards to the
high DEI and multidimensional essentialism profiles. One
possible explanation for this is that essentialist beliefs may
undergird the development of attitudes regardless of valence.
Another possibility is that these attitudes may reflect the
process of stronger group identification following greater
experiences of exclusion and prejudice in community samples
(Cramer et al., 2017), and these beliefs may be associated with
this process. More broadly, given that previous research has
demonstrated that positive attitudes regarding sexual orienta­
tion are associated with developmental milestones among
sexual minorities (Rosario et al., 2006), these results point to
the possibility that beliefs about sexual orientation may be
acting as a lurking variable.
Members of the high DEI profile endorsed significantly
greater psychological distress than members of either of the
other profiles. This was somewhat surprising given that the
THE JOURNAL OF SEX RESEARCH 633
high DEI profile indicated the highest level of positive atti­
tudes, as well. These findings are not completely unfounded,
as previous research has demonstrated a positive association
between these attitudes and psychological distress (Cramer
et al., 2017). Members of this profile also endorsed the
highest levels of internalized homonegativity, which is asso­
ciated with psychological distress (Rosser et al., 2008). These
findings are the first of their kind in demonstrating that
beliefs about sexual orientation, not just attitudes regarding
it, may be related to psychological distress. These results
may suggest that the potentially negative impact of sexual
orientation beliefs occurs when discreteness, entitativity, and
importance beliefs about sexual orientation are simulta­
neously endorsed at high levels (e.g., mean scores above
the midpoint).
It is also possible this relationship is more complicated, and
may be reflective of sexual minorities working to navigate
systems of power. The high DEI group is disproportionately
composed of sexual minority people of color, who often face
invalidation of their identities in ways that White sexual min­
ority people do not (Ghabrial, 2017; Ramirez-Valles, 2007).
This erasure can be understood as what Burke (1991) called
identity interruptions, which are moments wherein a minority
receives interpersonal feedback that is incompatible with their
concept of the self. Our results suggest that in the face of
identity interruptions, sexual minorities – particularly sexual
minority people of color – may strategically utilize higher levels
of co-occurring discreteness, entitativity, and importance
beliefs as a means of facilitating a sense of group identity.
These results may also be consistent with the rejection-
identification model, which holds experiences of prejudice
and minority stress are associated with negative impacts on
psychological well-being, and that this subsequent stronger
identification with a minority group can act as a protective
buffer (Branscombe et al., 1999). While offering potential ben­
efit in the face of discrimination, these essentialist beliefs may
reduce flexibility (Ryazanov & Christenfeld, 2018), which may
make it more difficult for sexual minority people of color in
particular to cope with discrimination (Bhambhani et al., 2020;
Brewster et al., 2013; Singh & O’Brien, 2020).
Implications
The current study has a number of implications. From the
perspective of advocacy, these results suggest that activists
and advocates should not center any particular set of beliefs
regarding sexual orientation as a means of achieving equality
(Epstein, 1987). Our findings suggest that these beliefs are
multi-functional and come with both costs and benefits
depending upon the social position of those who hold them.
Clinically, this work suggests that practitioners move away
from deterministic views of sexual orientation beliefs and
their impact on attitudes about sexual orientation among sex­
ual minorities. When working with sexual minority clients,
clinicians should be mindful of how certain beliefs that may
seemingly underlie internalized stigma may also facilitate
stronger in-group identification. Future research that explicitly
centers sexual minority people of color and bisexual people’s
634 D. TIERNEY ET AL.
beliefs regarding sexual orientation is necessary to better elu­
cidate these relationships.
Limitations
Our methods necessitated the dichotomization of race and
sexual orientation as a consequence of the 3-Step method’s
analytic constraints. Due to this dichotomization, we lost sub­
stantial amounts of variance that would allow for potentially
more nuanced understanding within our data and led us to
make generalizations and assumptions within our analytic
process that we ourselves do not hold as researchers. For
example, while we analyzed the experiences of people of
color, certain racial and ethnic identities were not well repre­
sented within our sample, and, therefore, these data may not be
generalizable across racial and ethnic minority groups in the
U.S. Still, the robustness of the current findings suggests that
these questions would benefit from future examination utiliz­
ing other methods that could account for these differences.
Our study would also benefit from additional attitudinal
measures that are more inclusive of sexual minorities who do
not identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual, as well as investigation
of potential confounding variables associated with the LGBIS.
Because the LGBIS is not normed for use with respondents
who do not identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual, we did not
assess their attitudes about sexual orientation. This is
a significant limitation of the study because our results exclude
the perspectives of those whose sexual orientation identity does
not correspond with at least one of these three labels. This is
particularly consequential given that research shows that these
sexual identity labels are increasingly common (Galupo et al.,
2016; Watson, 2019). Additional instrumentation could help to
elucidate if our findings generalize to these groups. We also
found that the identity superiority attitude subscale had
a positive relationship with psychological distress. While this
mirrors previous findings from Cramer et al. (2017) that sug­
gest the scale likely captures in-group identification, additional
measures intended to directly capture in-group identification
are necessary to verify these findings. Furthermore, as this was
exploratory, we did not directly measure experiences of erasure
or minority stress, two constructs that we now hypothesize
could explain some of our results. We believe that given the
strength and overall consistency within these findings, this line
of research warrants further study.
Finally, there are possible issues regarding our data collec­
tion. One potential weakness of the current method was our
reliance upon distributed data collection, and that we had to
remove a significant number of participants as a result of
inadequate quality responses. While relying upon distributed
data collection comes with several drawbacks, it also comes
with a number of advantages. MTurk allows for a more repre­
sentative sample of the current U.S. population than relying
upon sampling through a college campus and other Internet
sampling methods and provides quality data (Buhrmester et al.,
2016). Furthermore, previous work has shown that MTurk
provides a means for collecting representative samples when
working with sexual minority populations (Choi et al., 2017;
Israel et al., 2019). Given the advantages of this platform of data
collection with regards to representation and demonstrated
reliability, we believe that our screening procedures alongside
this platform provided quality data that might not otherwise be
possible through other methods. However, our reliance upon
cross-sectional data makes it impossible to determine causality.
Future work should incorporate longitudinal measures as
a means of determining how these relationships occur over
time, particularly because the present findings suggest that
sexual orientation beliefs may be better understood in devel­
opmental relief than in temporal isolation.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank Katharine H. Zeiders, Joe Miles, and Kirsten
Gonzalez for their feedback and consultation on an earlier draft.
Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This work was supported by a 2019 Dissertation Research Grant from the
American Psychological Association and a Student/Faculty Research
Award from The Graduate School, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
ORCID
David Tierney http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2942-2405
Elliot S. Spengler http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6039-4019
Patrick R. Grzanka http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7364-9965
References
Adler, N. E., Epel, E., Castellazzo, G., & Ickovics, J. (2000). Relationship of
subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiolo­
gical functioning: Preliminary data in healthy white women. Health
Psychology, 19, 586–592. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278–6133.19.6.586
Agadullina, E. R., Lovakov, A. V., & Malysheva, N. G. (2018). Essentialist
beliefs and social distance towards gay men and lesbian women:
A latent profile analysis. Psychology & Sexuality, 9(4), 288–304.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2018.148876442-55
Aguero, J. E., Bloch, L., & Byrne, D. (1984). The relationships among
sexual beliefs, attitudes, experience, and homophobia. Journal of
Homosexuality, 10(1–2), 95–107. https://doi.org/10.1300/j082v10n01_
07
Alimahomed, S. (2010). Thinking outside the rainbow: Women of color
redefining queer politics and identity. Social Identities, 16(2), 151–168.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13504631003688849
American Psychological Association. (2012). Guidelines for psychological
practice with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients. American Psychologist,
67(1), 10–42. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024659
Arseneau, J. R., Grzanka, P. R., Miles, J. R., & Fassinger, R. E. (2013).
Development and initial validation of the Sexual Orientation Beliefs
Scale (SOBS). Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60(3), 407–420. https://
doi.org/10.1037/a0032799
Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2014a). Auxiliary variables in mixture
modeling: Three-step approaches using Mplus. Structural Equation
Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21(3), 329–341. https://doi.org/
10.1080/10705511.2014.915181
Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2014b). Auxiliary variables in mixture
modeling: Using the BCH method in Mplus to estimate a distal out­
come model and an arbitrary secondary model. Mplus Web Notes,
21(2), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.915181

Bastian, B., & Haslam, N. (2006). Psychological essentialism and stereo­
type endorsement. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(2),
228–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.03.003
Bhambhani, Y., Flynn, M. K., Kellum, K. K., & Wilson, K. G. (2020). The
role of psychological flexibility as a mediator between experienced
sexual racism and psychological distress among men of color who
have sex with men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 49(2), 711–720.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1269-5
Bishop, M. D., Fish, J. N., Hammack, P. L., & Russell, S. T. (2020). Sexual
identity development milestones in three generations of sexual minor­
ity people: A national probability sample. Developmental Psychology,
56(11), 2177–2193. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001105
Branscombe, N. R., Schmitt, M. T., & Harvey, R. D. (1999). Perceiving
pervasive discrimination among African Americans: Implications for
group identification and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 77(1), 135–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.1.135
Brewster, M. E., Moradi, B., DeBlaere, C., & Velez, B. L. (2013). Navigating the
borderlands: The roles of minority stressors, bicultural self-efficacy, and
cognitive flexibility in the mental health of bisexual individuals. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 60(4), 543–556. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033224
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2016). Amazon’s Mechanical
Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality data? In
A. E. Kazdin (Ed.), Methodological issues and strategies in clinical
research (pp. 133–139). American Psychological Association. https://
doi.org/10.1037/14805-009
Burke, P. (1991). Identity processes and social stress. American
Sociological Review, 56(6), 836–849. https://doi.org/10.2307/2096259
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble. Routledge.
Calzo, J. P., Antonucci, T. C., Mays, V. M., & Cochran, S. D. (2011).
Retrospective recall of sexual orientation identity development among
gay, lesbian, and bisexual adults. Developmental Psychology, 47(6),
1658–1673. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025508
Cass, V. C. (1979). Homosexual identity formation: A theoretical model.
Journal of Homosexuality, 4(3), 219–235. https://doi.org/10.1300/
j082v04n03_01
Choi, A. Y., Merrill, C. R. S., & Israel, T. (2017). Factor structure of the
Internalized Homonegativity Inventory (IHNI). Psychology of Sexual
Orientation and Gender Diversity, 4(4), 491–498. https://doi.org/10.
1037/sgd0000245
Cole, E. R., Avery, L. R., Dodson, C., & Goodman, K. D. (2012). Against
nature: How arguments about the naturalness of marriage privilege
heterosexuality. Journal of Social Issues, 68(1), 46–62. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1540-4560.2012.01735.x
Collins, L. M., & Lanza, S. T. (2010). Latent class and latent transition
analysis for the social, behavioral, and health sciences. Wiley.
Connors, M. H., & Halligan, P. W. (2015). A cognitive account of belief: A
tentative roadmap. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(1588), 1–14. https://doi.
org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01588
Cramer, R. J., Burks, A. C., Golom, F. D., Stroud, C. H., & Graham, J. L.
(2017). The Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Identity Scale: Factor analytic
evidence and associations with health and well-being. Measurement
and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 50(1–2), 71–88.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0748175616664014
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity
politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review,
43(6), 1241–1299. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039
D’Augelli, A. R. (1994). Identity development and sexual orientation:
Toward a model of lesbian, gay, and bisexual development. In
E. J. Trickett, R. J. Watts, & D. Birman (Eds.), The Jossey-Bass social
and behavioral science series. Human diversity: Perspectives on people in
context (pp. 312–333). Jossey-Bass/Wiley.
D’Augelli, A. R., Grossman, A. H., Hershberger, S. L., & O’Connell, T. S.
(2001). Aspects of mental health among older lesbian, gay, and bisexual
adults. Aging & Mental Health, 5(2), 149–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13607860120038366
DeLamater, J. D., & Hyde, J. S. (1998). Essentialism vs. social construc­
tionism in the study of human sexuality. Journal of Sex Research, 35(1),
10–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499809551913
Diamond, L. M. (2008). Sexual fluidity. Harvard University Press.
THE JOURNAL OF SEX RESEARCH 635
Diamond, L. M., & Rosky, C. J. (2016). Scrutinizing immutability: Research
on sexual orientation and US legal advocacy for sexual minorities. Journal
of Sex Research, 53(4–5), 363–391. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2016.
1139665
Dill, B. T., & Kohlman, M. H. (2012). Intersectionality: A transformative
paradigm in feminist theory and social justice. In S. N. Hesse-Biber
(Ed.), The handbook of feminist research: Theory and praxis (2nd ed.,
pp. 154–174). Sage Publications.
Dworkin, S. H. (2001). Treating the bisexual client. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 57(5), 671–680. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.1036
Epstein, S. (1987). Gay politics, ethnic identity: The limits of social
constructionism. Socialist Review, 93(3), 9–54.
Ernulf, K. E., Innala, S. M., & Whitam, F. (1989). Biological explana­
tion, psychological explanation, and tolerance of homosexuals: A
cross-national analysis of beliefs and attitudes. Psychological
Reports, 65(3), 1003–1010. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1989.65.3.
1003
Floyd, F. J., & Stein, T. S. (2002). Sexual orientation identity formation
among gay, lesbian, and bisexual youths: Multiple patterns of milestone
experiences. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 12(2), 167–191.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1532-7795.00030
Foucault, M. (1990). The history of sexuality: Vol. 1. An introduction.
Vintage.
Friedman, M. S., Marshal, M. P., Stall, R., Cheong, J. W., & Wright, E. R.
(2008). Gay-related development, early abuse and mental health out­
comes among gay males. AIDS and Behavior, 12(6), 891–902. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10461-007-9319-3
Fry, K. M., Grzanka, P. R., Miles, J. R., & DeVore, E. N. (2020). Is
essentialism essential? Reducing homonegative prejudice by targeting
diverse sexual orientation beliefs. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 49(5),
1725–1739. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01706-x
Gaga, L. (2011). Born this way. On Born This Way [CD]. Interscope
Records.
Galupo, M. P., Henise, S. B., & Mercer, N. L. (2016). “The labels don’t
work very well”: Transgender individuals’ conceptualizations of sexual
orientation and sexual identity. International Journal of
Transgenderism, 17(2), 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/15532739.
2016.1189373
Ghabrial, M. A. (2017). “Trying to figure out where we belong”. Narratives
of racialized sexual minorities on community, identity, discrimination,
and health. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 14(1), 42–55. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s13178-016-0229-x
Gonzalez, K. A., Ramirez, J. L., & Galupo, M. P. (2017). “I was and still
am”: Narratives of bisexual marking in the #StillBisexual campaign.
Sexuality & Culture, 21(2), 493–515. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-
016-9401-y
Grov, C., Rendina, H. J., & Parsons, J. T. (2018). Birth cohort differences in
sexual identity development milestones among HIV-negative gay and
bisexual men in the United States. Journal of Sex Research, 55(8),
984–994. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2017.1375451
Grzanka, P. R. (2016). Queer survey research and the ontological dimen­
sions of heterosexism. WSQ: Women’s Studies Quarterly, 44(3),
131–149. https://doi.org/10.1353/wsq.2016.0039
Grzanka, P. R., Zeiders, K. H., & Miles, J. R. (2016). Beyond “born this
way”? Reconsidering sexual orientation beliefs and attitudes. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 63(1), 67–75. https://doi.org/10.1037/
cou0000124
Grzanka, P. R., Zeiders, K. H., Spengler, E. S., Hoyt, L. T., & Toomey, R. B.
(2020). Do beliefs about sexual orientation predict voting behavior?
Results from the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Psychology of Sexual
Orientation and Gender Diversity, 7(3), 241–252. https://doi.org/10.
1037/sgd0000434
Haddock, G., & Maio, G. R. (2004). Introduction and overview. In
G. Haddock & G. R. Maio (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on the
psychology of attitudes (pp. 36–43). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Haider-Markel, D. P., & Joslyn, M. R. (2008). Beliefs about the origins of
homosexuality and support for gay rights: An empirical test of attribu­
tion theory. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(2), 291–310. https://doi.org/
10.1093/poq/nfn015
636 D. TIERNEY ET AL.
Haslam, N., & Levy, S. R. (2006). Essentialist beliefs about homosexuality:
Structure and implications for prejudice. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 32(4), 471–485. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0146167205276516
Haslam, N., Rothschild, L., & Ernst, D. (2002). Are essentialist beliefs
associated with prejudice? British Journal of Social Psychology, 41(1),
87–100. https://doi.org/10.1037/e633872013-267
Hegarty, P. (2002). “It’s not a choice, it’s the way we’re built”: Symbolic
beliefs about sexual orientation in the U.S. and Britain. Journal of
Community and Applied Social Psychology, 12(3), 153–166. https://
doi.org/10.1002/casp.669
Hegarty, P., & Pratto, F. (2001). Sexual orientation beliefs: Their relationship
to anti-gay attitudes and biological determinist attitudes. Journal of
Homosexuality, 41(1), 121–135. https://doi.org/10.1300/j082v41n01_04
Horn, S. S., & Heinze, J. (2011). “She can’t help it, she was born that way”:
Adolescents’ beliefs about the origins of homosexuality and sexual
prejudice. Annals of Psychology, 27(3), 688–697. https://doi.org/10.
1037/e633982013-908
Hubbard, K., & de Visser, R. O. (2015). Not just bi the bi: The relationship
between essentialist beliefs and attitudes about bisexuality. Psychology &
Sexuality, 6(3), 258–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2014.987682
Israel, T., Choi, A. Y., Goodman, J. A., Matsuno, E., Lin, Y.-J., Kary, K. G.,
& Merrill, C. R. S. (2019). Reducing internalized binegativity:
Development and efficacy of an online intervention. Psychology of
Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 6(2), 149–159. https://doi.
org/10.1037/sgd0000314
Kaestle, C. E. (2019). Sexual orientation trajectories based on sexual
attractions, partners, and identity: A longitudinal investigation from
adolescence through young adulthood using a U.S. representative sam­
ple. Journal of Sex Research, 56(7), 811–826. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00224499.2019
Katz-Wise, S. L., Rosario, M., Calzo, J. P., Scherer, E. A., Sarda, E. A., &
Austin, S. B. (2017). Endorsement and timing of sexual orientation
developmental milestones among sexual minority young adults in the
Growing Up Today Study. Journal of Sex Research, 54(2), 172–185.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2016.1170757
Kessler, R. A. G., Colpe, L., Hiripi, E., Mroczek, D., Normand, S., &
Zaslavsky, A. (2002). Short screening scales to monitor population
prevalences and trends in non-specific psychological distress.
Psychological Medicine, 32(6), 959–976. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0033291702006074
Lanza, S. T., Tan, X., & Bray, B. C. (2013). Latent class analysis with distal
outcomes: A flexible model-based approach. Structural Equation
Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 20(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.
1080/10705511.2013.742377
Legate, N., Ryan, R. M., & Weinstein, N. (2012). Is coming out always
a “good thing”? Exploring the relations of autonomy support, outness,
and wellness for lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals. Social
Psychological and Personality Science, 3(2), 145–152. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1948550611411929
Logie, C. H., & Rwigema, M. J. (2014). “The normative idea of queer is
a white person”: Understanding perceptions of white privilege among
lesbian, bisexual, and queer women of color in Toronto, Canada.
Journal of Lesbian Studies, 18(2), 174–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10894160.2014.849165
Martos, A. J., Nezhad, S., & Meyer, I. H. (2015). Variations in sexual
identity milestones among lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. Sexuality
Research and Social Policy, 12, 24–33. https://doi.org/10.1007%
2Fs13178-014-0167–4
McCormack, M., & Savin-Williams, R. (2018). Young men’s rationales for
non-exclusive gay sexualities. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 20(8),
929–944. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2017.1398349
Mitchell, R. W., & Dezarn, L. (2014). Does knowing why someone is gay
influence tolerance? Genetic, environmental, choice and ‘reparative’
explanations. Sexuality & Culture, 18, 994–1009. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s12119-014-9233–6
Mohr, J. J., & Kendra, M. S. (2011). Revision and extension of
a multidimensional measure of sexual minority identity: The Lesbian,
Gay, and Bisexual Identity Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
58(2), 234–245. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022858
Moradi, B., & Grzanka, P. R. (2017). Using intersectionality responsibly:
Toward critical epistemology, structural analysis, and social justice
activism. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 64(5), 500–513. https://
doi.org/10.1037/cou0000203
Morandini, J. S., Blaszczynski, A., Costa, D. S., Godwin, A., & Dar-
Nimrod, I. (2017). Born this way: Sexual orientation beliefs and
their correlates in lesbian and bisexual women. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 64(5), 560–573. https://doi.org/10.1037/
cou0000209
Morandini, J. S., Blaszczynski, A., Ross, M. W., Costa, D. S. J., & Dar-
Nimrod, I. (2015). Essentialist beliefs, sexual identity uncertainty, inter­
nalized homonegativity and psychological wellbeing in gay men. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 62(3), 413–424. https://doi.org/10.1037/
cou0000072
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2017). Mixture modeling with
cross-sectional data. In Mplus user’s guide (8th ed., pp. 165–220). Los
Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
Overby, L. M. (2014). Etiology and attitudes: Beliefs about the origins of
homosexuality and their implications for public policy. Journal of
Homosexuality, 61(4), 568–587. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.
2013.806175
Ramirez, J. L., Gonzalez, K. A., & Galupo, M. P. (2018). “Invisible during
my own crisis”: Responses of LGBT people of color to the Orlando
shooting. Journal of Homosexuality, 65(5), 579–599. https://doi.org/10.
1080/00918369.2017.1328217
Ramirez-Valles, J. (2007). “I don’t fit anywhere”: How race and sexuality
shape Latino gay and bisexual men’s health. In I. H. Meyer &
M. E. Northridge (Eds.), The health of sexual minorities (pp. 301–319).
New York, NY: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-31334-4_12
Rendina, H. J., Carter, J. A., Wahl, L., Millar, B. M., & Parsons, J. T. (2019).
Trajectories of sexual identity development and psychological
well-being for highly sexually active gay and bisexual men: A latent
growth curve analysis. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender
Diversity, 6(1), 64–74. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000308
Rosario, M., Schrimshaw, E. W., & Hunter, J. (2004). Ethnic/racial differ­
ences in the coming-out process of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths:
A comparison of sexual identity development over time. Cultural
Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 10(3), 215–228. https://doi.
org/10.1037/1099-9809.10.3.215
Rosario, M., Schrimshaw, E. W., & Hunter, J. (2011). Different patterns of
sexual identity development over time: Implications for the psycholo­
gical adjustment of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths. Journal of Sex
Research, 48(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490903331067
Rosario, M., Schrimshaw, E. W., & Hunter, J. (2012). Risk factors for
homelessness among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths:
A developmental milestone approach. Children and Youth Services
Review, 34(1), 186–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.09.016
Rosario, M., Schrimshaw, E. W., Hunter, J., & Braun, L. (2006). Sexual identity
development among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths: Consistency and
change over time. Journal of Sex Research, 43(1), 46–58. https://doi.org/10.
1080/00224490609552298
Rosser, B. S., Bockting, W. O., Ross, M. W., Miner, M. H., & Coleman, E.
(2008). The relationship between homosexuality, internalized
homo-negativity, and mental health in men who have sex with men.
Journal of Homosexuality, 55(2), 185–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00918360802129394
Ryazanov, A. A., & Christenfeld, N. J. S. (2018). The strategic value of
essentialism. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 12(1), e12370.
https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12370
Sakalli, N. (2002). Application of the attribution-value model of prejudice
to homosexuality. Journal of Social Psychology, 142(2), 264–271. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00224540209603899
Savin-Williams, R. C., & Cohen, K. M. (2015). Developmental trajectories
and milestones of lesbian, gay, and bisexual young people.
International Review of Psychiatry, 27(5), 357–366. https://doi.org/10.
3109/09540261.2015.1093465

Schlomer, G. L., Bauman, S., & Card, N. A. (2010). Best practices for
missing data management in counseling psychology. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 57(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1037/a001808
Silva, T. (2019). “Daddies,” “cougars,” and their partners past midlife:
Gender attitudes and relationship and sexual well-being among older
adults in age-heterogenous partnerships. Socius: Sociological Research
for a Dynamic World, 5(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177%
2F2378023119869452
Singh, R. S., & O’Brien, W. H. (2020). The impact of work stress on sexual
minority employees: Could psychological flexibility be a helpful solution?
Stress and Health, 36(1), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2913
Tozer, E. E., & Hayes, J. A. (2004). Why do individuals seek conversion
therapy?: The role of religiosity, internalized homonegativity, and
identity development. The Counseling Psychologist, 32(5), 716–740.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000004267563
THE JOURNAL OF SEX RESEARCH 637
Troiden, D. R. R. (1989). The formation of homosexual identities. Journal of
Homosexuality, 17(1–2), 43–74. https://doi.org/10.1300/j082v17n01_02
Watson, L. B. (2019). Gender identity and expression in LGBTQ+ commu­
nities: Implications for the practice of psychology. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 43(3), 298–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684319846498
Westfall, P., & Henning, K. S. (2013). Understanding advanced statistical
methods. CRC Press.
Whitley, B. E., Jr. (1990). The relationship of heterosexuals’ attributions
for the causes of homosexuality to attitudes toward lesbians and gay
men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16(2), 369–377. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0146167290162016
Zeiders, K. H., Roosa, M. W., Knight, G. P., & Gonzales, N. A. (2013).
Mexican American adolescents’ profiles of risk and mental health:
A person-centered longitudinal approach. Journal of Adolescence,
36(3), 603–612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2013.03