Sex Res Soc Policy (2010) 7:176–200
DOI 10.1007/s13178-010-0017-y
Demographic, Psychological, and Social Characteristics
of Self-Identified Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Adults
in a US Probability Sample
Gregory M. Herek & Aaron T. Norton &
Thomas J. Allen & Charles L. Sims
Published online: 3 March 2010
# The Author(s) 2010. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com
Abstract Using data from a US national probability sample
of self-identified lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults (N=662),
this article reports population parameter estimates for a
variety of demographic, psychological, and social variables.
Special emphasis is given to information with relevance to
public policy and law. Compared with the US adult
population, respondents were younger, more highly educated,
and less likely to be non-Hispanic White, but differences
were observed between gender and sexual orientation groups
on all of these variables. Overall, respondents tended to be
politically liberal, not highly religious, and supportive of
marriage equality for same-sex couples. Women were more
likely than men to be in a committed relationship. Virtually
all coupled gay men and lesbians had a same-sex partner,
whereas the vast majority of coupled bisexuals were in a
heterosexual relationship. Compared with bisexuals, gay men
and lesbians reported stronger commitment to a sexualminority identity, greater community identification and
involvement, and more extensive disclosure of their sexual
orientation to others. Most respondents reported experiencing
little or no choice about their sexual orientation. The
importance of distinguishing among lesbians, gay men,
bisexual women, and bisexual men in behavioral and social
research is discussed.
G. M. Herek (*) : A. T. Norton : T. J. Allen : C. L. Sims
Psychology Department, University of California,
One Shields Avenue,
Davis, CA 95616-8686, USA
e-mail: gmherek@ucdavis.edu
A. T. Norton
e-mail: atnorton@ucdavis.edu
T. J. Allen
e-mail: tjallen@ucdavis.edu
Keywords Lesbians . Gay men . Bisexuals . Public policy .
Sampling . Survey research . Committed relationships .
Politics and religion . Identity, community, and disclosure
“Empirical studies using nonrepresentative samples of
gay men and lesbians show that the vast majority of
participants have been involved in a committed
relationship at some point in their lives [and] that
large proportions are currently involved in such a
relationship....” (American Psychological Association
2007, pp. 14–15)
“...[D]ata are not available to indicate the exact
number of lesbian and gay parents in the United
States....” (American Psychological Association 2007,
p. 25)
“Most or many gay men and lesbians experience little
or no choice about their sexual orientation.” (American
Psychological Association 2003, p. 8)
These three passages, all excerpted from amicus briefs
submitted jointly by the American Psychological Association (APA) and other professional organizations in court
cases involving gay rights, illustrate some of the ways in
which descriptive data about the lesbian, gay, and bisexual
population are relevant to policy debates. In each instance,
the APA and its co-amici summarized current knowledge
about an aspect of the US gay, lesbian, and bisexual
population that was relevant to a question being considered
by the court—respectively, how many gay men and
lesbians are involved in a committed relationship, how
many are parents, and how many experience their sexual
orientation as a choice. Yet, in each instance, the briefs
could not provide definitive population estimates because
relevant data were not available from nationally represen-
Sex Res Soc Policy (2010) 7:176–200
tative samples of self-identified gay, lesbian, and bisexual
adults.
The need for data describing the gay, lesbian, and
bisexual population is not limited to legal proceedings. As
Black et al. (2000) have noted, such data are relevant to a
wide variety of policy debates in the USA, including those
about initiatives designed to prohibit discrimination based
on sexual orientation, public policy concerning the provision of benefits to same-sex couples, military policy
concerning service by openly gay personnel, and lesbian
and gay parental rights. They observed that “informed
policy analysis about these issues requires accurate demographic information about the lesbian and gay population”
(Black et al. 2000, p. 139).
Population data describing lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals also have important scientific implications insofar as they
can inform researchers who study the gay, lesbian, and
bisexual population. Examination of demographic, social, and
psychological patterns in the population, for example, can
highlight gaps in current scientific knowledge and suggest
hypotheses for empirical testing. Reliable estimates of the
extent to which various characteristics and experiences are
present in the sexual-minority population can also assist
researchers in interpreting data from nonprobability samples
and assessing their likely generalizability.
To date, however, most social science knowledge about
people who identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual has been
based on data from nonprobability samples. These samples
have been recruited through such venues as clubs, cafes,
and commercial establishments catering to gay men,
lesbians, and bisexuals; neighborhood and community
events; community-based organizations; local and national
publications; e-mail lists and web-based communities; and
friendship networks (e.g., Bell and Weinberg 1978; Bradford
et al. 1994; Herek et al. 1999; Martin and Dean 1990;
Riggle et al. 2005; Rothblum et al. 2004; Rothblum and
Factor 2001). Researchers have also used public records to
recruit specific groups, such as same-sex couples who have
married or legally registered their partnership in states
where they are allowed to do so (Balsam et al. 2008;
Rothblum et al. 2008). Although the data collected from
such samples are sources of important information, the
extent to which their participants represent the larger
population is unknown (Harry 1986; Meyer and Colten
1999; Sell and Petrulio 1996).
It has often been assumed that traditional probability
sampling methods—which permit assessment of sampling
error and whose results can be generalized beyond a
specific sample—are not feasible with lesbians, gay men,
and bisexuals because nonheterosexuals constitute only a
small proportion of the population and because sexual
stigma deters some individuals from disclosing their
homosexual or bisexual orientation to researchers. Con-
177
cerns about the limitations of findings from convenience
samples, however, have fostered the development of
innovative strategies for obtaining probability samples of
gay, lesbian, and bisexual people (Cochran and Mays 2006;
Meyer and Wilson 2009). For example, researchers have
used various methods to identify nonheterosexuals in large
national probability samples (Badgett 1995; Cochran and
Mays 2006; Edelman 1993; Harry 1990; Laumann et al.
1994) and have applied probability sampling methods to
specific settings or venues where sexual-minority individuals are known to be concentrated (Blair 1999; Diaz et al.
2004; Diaz et al. 1996; Stall and Wiley 1988).
When examining this body of research, it is important to
note that sexual orientation is a multifaceted construct that
encompasses sexual attraction, sexual behavior, personal
identity, romantic relationships, and community membership
(Herek 2000; Sell 2007). Most social and behavioral research
has operationally defined sexual orientation in terms of
attraction, behavior, or identity, or some combination of
these constructs. Which of these definitions is most
appropriate for a particular study depends on the research
goals (Sell and Silenzio 2006). For example, studies of
sexually transmitted diseases among men who have sex with
men might optimally focus on sexual behavior, whereas
research on experiences stemming from one’s status as an
openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual individual would, ideally,
operationalize sexual orientation in terms of identity.
However, even in studies for which sexual orientation
identity is the relevant variable, researchers employing
existing data sets based on large probability samples have
often had to operationalize sexual orientation in terms of
sexual behavior simply because most surveys have not
collected data about identity. In many studies of economic
discrimination that use national survey data sets, for
example, the results have been characterized in terms of
disparities between heterosexual workers and their gay or
lesbian counterparts (e.g., Badgett 1995; Berg and Lien
2002; Blandford 2003). Although the terms “heterosexual,”
“gay,” and “lesbian” suggest a focus on identity, limitations
of the available data dictated that the operational definitions
of sexual orientation be based on self-reported sexual
behavior, from which the researchers inferred respondents’
sexual orientation identity.
Although unavoidable, such use of sexual behavior as a
proxy for identity and community membership is limiting
for several reasons (see Herek et al. 2007). For example, it
inevitably excludes gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals
who were not sexually active during the specified time
period (e.g., Carpenter 2005). Moreover, the population of
individuals who have experienced same-sex attractions or
engaged in same-sex sexual behavior includes many people
who do not identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual (e.g.,
Cochran and Mays 2006; Laumann et al. 1994). Insofar as
178
much of the stigma directed at gay, lesbian, and bisexual
people finds behavioral expression when others become
aware of their sexual orientation identity (e.g., Herek
2009b), the experiences of self-identified gay, lesbian, and
bisexual people are likely to differ in important respects
from, say, self-identified heterosexuals with incidental
same-sex attractions or sexual behavior.
Some studies with probability samples have operationalized sexual orientation in terms of identity, but they have
been limited by small sample sizes.1 For example, the
National Health and Social Life Survey collected data about
respondents’ sexual behavior, attractions, and sexual orientation identity. However, the sample ultimately included
only 24 women who identified as lesbian or bisexual and
only 39 men who identified as gay or bisexual (Laumann
et al. 1994). Similarly, the National Survey of Midlife
Development in the United States asked respondents to
label their sexual orientation as heterosexual, homosexual,
or bisexual. Of the approximately 3,000 respondents in this
national probability sample, only 41 identified as homosexual and only 32 as bisexual (Mays and Cochran 2001).
Such small numbers clearly preclude extensive analysis of
self-identified lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals.
Other studies using probability samples have obtained
larger numbers of self-identified lesbian, gay, and bisexual
respondents, but the samples have been restricted to
specific US states (Carpenter 2005) or cities (Blair 1999;
Sell et al. 2007) or to gay neighborhoods or venues in
specific cities (Diaz et al. 1996; Stall and Wiley 1988).
These studies have yielded invaluable data, but their
findings may not be generalizable beyond those settings.
Another important limitation is that the data from
probability samples have generally not permitted separate
analyses of self-identified lesbians, gay men, bisexual
women, and bisexual men. As noted previously, some studies
that directly assessed sexual orientation identity have yielded
samples that were simply too small to permit separate
analyses of subgroups (e.g., Laumann et al. 1994; Mays and
Cochran 2001). In other studies, the sexual orientation
question was not framed in a manner that permitted
differentiation between bisexual and homosexual respondents. For example, exit polls conducted in conjunction with
national elections have asked respondents to indicate
1
The problem of small sample size is not restricted to studies that
have focused on sexual orientation identity. For example, an analysis
of data from male respondents in the third National Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey Studies (N=3,648) yielded a weighted
total of 79 men who reported any same-sex sexual behavior during
their lifetime (Cochran and Mays 2000). A 1985 ABC News–
Washington Post poll recruited a national probability sample of men
and included a question about sexual attraction. Of the 663
respondents, 16 reported that they were attracted to members of their
same sex and another five volunteered that they were attracted to both
men and women (Harry 1990).
Sex Res Soc Policy (2010) 7:176–200
whether they are gay, lesbian, or bisexual without differentiating among these groups (Edelman 1993; Hertzog 1996).
Yet, empirical research with nonprobability samples
suggests that important differences may exist among
sexual-minority subgroups. For example, lesbians may
differ from gay men in their likelihood of being involved
in an intimate relationship (Peplau and Fingerhut 2007),
bisexuals may differ from lesbians and gay men in the
extent to which they are open about their sexual orientation
and feel connected to a sexual-minority community
(Balsam and Mohr 2007), and lesbians and bisexual women
may differ from gay and bisexual men in the extent to
which they manifest self-directed stigma (Balsam and Mohr
2007; Herek et al. 2009). Whether or not these findings can
be generalized beyond the specific samples in which they
were initially observed is as yet unknown, but they
highlight the value of collecting data from probability
samples that are sufficiently large to permit comparisons
among gender and sexual orientation subgroups.
This article uses data from a national probability sample
of self-identified gay, lesbian, and bisexual adults to
estimate population parameters on a variety of demographic, psychological, and social variables. Recognizing that
sexual orientation subgroups may differ, we also compare
and contrast gay men, lesbians, bisexual men, and bisexual
women on each variable. Rather than testing specific
hypotheses, our central goal is to report basic descriptive
data about self-identified gay, lesbian, and bisexual adults.
Although an overwhelming number of questions about
potentially interesting and important characteristics of the
sexual-minority population could be generated, practical
considerations limited the number of variables that could be
assessed. Guided mainly by our review of policy studies
and amicus briefs from scientific and professional organizations that have addressed topics for which data about the
US population of self-identified gay, lesbian, and bisexual
adults would be relevant (e.g., American Psychological
Association 1986, 2003, 2007; Belkin 2008; Black et al.
2000; Egan and Sherrill 2005; Herek 2006; Schaffner and
Senic 2006), we focused on variables in four categories.
First, we examined the basic demographic characteristics
of this population, including age, educational background,
and race and ethnicity. We also examined key variables
identified by Black et al. (2000) as warranting description,
including geographical distribution, household structure,
and military veteran status.
Second, consistent with the present study’s focus on
adults who identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, we report
descriptive data about key aspects of sexual orientation
identity. These include the extent to which respondents
used various identity labels in describing themselves; felt
committed to their sexual orientation identity; had disclosed
their sexual orientation to others; and were involved with
Sex Res Soc Policy (2010) 7:176–200
the gay, lesbian, and bisexual community. We also assessed
the extent to which respondents perceived they had chosen
their sexual orientation, an issue that has often been raised
in policy debates and in legal discussions of gay, lesbian,
and bisexual rights (see, for example, the 2003 APA amicus
brief quoted at the beginning of this article; see also
Herman 1997).
Third, recognizing the importance of religious and political
institutions in shaping contemporary policy and public
opinion affecting gay, lesbian, and bisexual people, we
assessed several aspects of respondents’ religious and political
involvement. Although it is widely recognized that the
condemnation of homosexuality that characterizes many
religious denominations often creates conflicts and challenges
for gay, lesbian, and bisexual people, there has been relatively
little examination of the role that religion plays in the lives of
sexual-minority individuals (Rodriguez and Ouellette 2000).
We obtained descriptive data concerning respondents’
affiliation with a religious denomination, their participation
in religious services, and the importance of religion in their
daily lives. In the realm of political involvement, national
exit poll data have suggested that lesbian, gay, and bisexual
voters tend to be liberal and identify with the Democratic
Party (e.g., Edelman 1993; Hertzog 1996). We assessed the
extent to which these attributes characterize the larger
lesbian, gay, and bisexual population.
Finally, relevant to ongoing national debates about
marriage equality and lesbian and gay parenting (e.g.,
Herek 2006), we collected data concerning respondents’
current relationship and parental status, as well as their
future aspirations related to marrying. We also asked
respondents about their general attitudes toward civil
unions and marriage rights for same-sex couples.2
Method
The study employed a probability sample of Englishspeaking, self-identified lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults
residing in the USA. The sample was drawn from the
Knowledge Networks (KN) panel, a large (approximately
40,000 households at the time of data collection) probability
sample of English-speaking US residents who were recruited
through random digit dialing (RDD) methods. Upon initially
joining the KN panel, respondents agreed to participate
regularly in on-line surveys and were provided with free
Internet access and equipment if they did not already have it.
Thus, in contrast to Internet studies with volunteer samples
recruited via the Web, the KN panel includes individuals who
would not otherwise have Internet access because of their
2
Data about hate crime victimization and related experiences among
members of this sample are reported elsewhere (Herek 2009a).
179
financial or social situation. Reflecting this fact, KN samples
more closely match the US population than do other Internet
samples. Indeed, they are demographically similar to the RDD
samples used in traditional telephone surveys (Chang and
Krosnick 2009; see also Berrens et al. 2003) and have been
used extensively in academic research (for examples, see
Knowledge Networks 2009).
Sample and Procedure
All KN panel members routinely answer a battery of
background questions, including one about their sexual
orientation (“Are you yourself gay, lesbian, or bisexual?”).
A probability sample of 902 English-speaking adults
(≥18 years of age) was drawn from the subset of all panel
members who had previously responded affirmatively to
this question. Following standard KN procedures, they each
received an e-mail invitation to complete the survey at their
convenience. A follow-up e-mail was sent to nonresponders
after approximately 1 week. Neither invitation mentioned
sexual orientation. As with all KN surveys, panel members
were free to decline to participate.
A total of 775 individuals (86%) accessed the questionnaire between September 13 and October 7, 2005. In response
to an initial screening question (described subsequently), six
respondents declined to state their sexual orientation, and 50
indicated they were heterosexual.3 They were thanked for
their assistance, and their survey was terminated. This
3
We hypothesized that these individuals were heterosexual respondents who had incorrectly characterized their sexual orientation on the
original screening questionnaire (e.g., due to misunderstanding the
question). However, we also recognized that some may have been gay,
lesbian, or bisexual but reluctant to disclose this fact in the current
questionnaire (e.g., out of concern that their responses might be seen
by a household member who was unaware of their sexual orientation).
We compared the personal characteristics of these respondents with
those of the self-identified sexual-minority adults in the current
sample. On most variables (including marital status, race and ethnicity,
current employment status, residence in a metropolitan area, presence
of children under 18 in their household, Internet access independent of
KN, political party affiliation, and self-described political ideology),
the 50 respondents who reported they were heterosexual differed from
the self-identified sexual-minority sample. Although we cannot draw
definitive conclusions, these patterns are consistent with the hypothesis that most of the 50 respondents were indeed heterosexual.
Moreover, insofar as educational level is correlated with general
questionnaire response validity (e.g., Krosnick 1991), the fact that
these respondents had less formal education than others (42% had not
attended college) is consistent with the hypothesis that many of them
had misunderstood the original KN screening question. These
analyses suggest that simply asking respondents whether they are
“gay, lesbian, or bisexual”—with response options of “yes” and
“no”—may not be an optimal strategy for ascertaining sexual
orientation identity in national probability samples. The question on
the current survey, which presented the different sexual orientations
along a continuum and included the familiar term “straight” as a
synonym for “heterosexual,” may have been easier to comprehend and
answer accurately.
180
screening process left 719 self-identified lesbian, gay, and
bisexual respondents who completed the questionnaire.
Within that group, 56 households were represented by
multiple respondents. In these cases, one respondent was
randomly selected from the household for inclusion in the
data set, yielding a final sample of 662. Taking into account
all attrition in the KN panel since the earliest stage of RDD
recruitment, the response rate for the present study was 30%
(American Association for Public Opinion Research 2006
[Formula 3]). This rate is relatively high for contemporary
commercial surveys (Holbrook et al. 2008).
Measures
The variables included in the questionnaire are described
here, and the wording of most questions is reported in the
tables. When appropriate, the question wording was
tailored to respondents’ sexual orientation (bisexual vs
homosexual) and gender.
Basic Demographic Characteristics and Other Background
Variables Information about respondents’ age, race and
ethnicity, residence, location, and household composition
had been routinely collected by Knowledge Networks in
prior questionnaires. The present survey included a question asking whether the respondent was currently on active
military duty, a member of the Military Reserves or
National Guard, or a military veteran.
Sexual Orientation Identity As noted previously, all respondents had reported they were gay, lesbian, or bisexual on a
previously administered KN questionnaire. The present survey
began with a screening question that asked respondents
“Which of the following best describes your sexual orientation?” and provided five options arrayed on a continuum from
homosexual to heterosexual. For male respondents, the options
were (a) gay or homosexual; (b) bisexual, mostly attracted to
men; (c) bisexual, equally attracted to men and women; (d)
bisexual, mostly attracted to women; (e) heterosexual or
straight. For females, the first response option was lesbian,
gay, or homosexual, and options (b) and (d) were transposed. Respondents were asked how often they use various
identity terms to describe themselves (“Gay,” “Lesbian”
[women only], “Bisexual,” “Queer,” “Dyke” [women only],
“Homosexual”). They were then asked to indicate their
preferred term for characterizing their own sexual orientation
(e.g., “Gay,” “Lesbian,” “Bisexual,” “Queer,” “Homosexual”).
This label was subsequently inserted into questions that
referred to the respondent’s sexual orientation or identity. This
individualized item wording is indicated throughout the
present article as [L/G/B/Q/H].
We used two measures to assess the strength of respondents’ commitment to their sexual orientation identity and to
Sex Res Soc Policy (2010) 7:176–200
the larger gay, lesbian, and bisexual community. First, three
items assessing commitment to a sexual-minority identity
were taken from the Internalized Homophobia Scale, or IHP
(Herek et al. 1998; Herek et al. 2009): (1) “In general, I’m
glad to be [L/G/B/Q/H]”; (2) “If someone offered me the
chance to be completely heterosexual (‘straight’), I would
accept the chance”; and (3) “I wish I weren’t [L/G/B/Q/H].”
Second, two items assessing community identification were
adapted from the Importance to Identity subscale of the
Collective Self-Esteem scale (Herek and Glunt 1995;
Luhtanen and Crocker 1992): (1) “My membership in the
[L/G/B/Q/H] community is an important reflection of who I
am” and (2) “Overall, my membership in the [L/G/B/Q/H]
community has very little to do with how I feel about
myself.” All of these items were presented with 5-point
Likert-type response formats ranging from “strongly agree”
to “strongly disagree,” with each respondent’s preferred
identity label substituted for [L/G/B/Q/H].
Perceived choice about one’s sexual orientation was
assessed with the question, “How much choice do you feel
you had about being [L/G/B/Q/H]?” The response options
were “no choice at all,” “a small amount of choice,” “a fair
amount of choice,” and “a great deal of choice.”
Respondents were asked their age when they first knew
about their sexual orientation (“How old were you when you
first knew or decided you were [gay/lesbian/bisexual]?”) and
when they first disclosed it to another person (“How old were
you the first time you told someone else that you are [gay/
lesbian/bisexual]?”). They were subsequently asked whether
their mother or father knew about their sexual orientation and,
if applicable, how many of their sisters and brothers knew
about it. In addition, using a scale that ranged from 0 (not at
all out to any of them) to 7 (completely out to all of them),
respondents reported the extent to which they were “out of
the closet (openly [L/G/B/Q/H])” to six additional groups:
(1) “other relatives—not your immediate family,” (2) “your
current heterosexual (‘straight’) friends,” (3) “your casual
acquaintances who are heterosexual (‘straight’),” (4) “heterosexual (‘straight’) friends whom you knew before you
came out,” (5) “your boss and other supervisors at work,”
and (6) “the people you work with on a daily basis (other
than your boss or supervisors).” A “doesn’t apply to me”
response option was included for each group.
Community involvement was assessed by asking respondents to “rate how important each of the following activities
is to you these days. By important, we mean that you would
feel differently about life and about yourself if you couldn’t
do this activity.” The list of activities was adapted from a
scale developed by Herek and Glunt (1995) and consisted of
the following: (1) “Knowing what is going on in the local
[L/G/B/Q/H] community,” (2) “Doing volunteer work in
the [L/G/B/Q/H] community,” (3) “Giving money to [L/G/
B/Q/H] organizations,” (4) “Being politically active in the
Sex Res Soc Policy (2010) 7:176–200
[L/G/B/Q/H] community,” and (5) “Reading community
newspapers and magazines for news about the [L/G/B/Q/H]
community.” Each activity was rated on a 4-point scale
(Not at all important, Somewhat important, Fairly important, Very important).
Respondents also were asked whether they had ever
engaged in a variety of activities related to lesbian, gay, or
bisexual issues, including public expressions of opinion (“Wore
a button, posted a sign, or displayed a bumper sticker”);
participating in a rally, march, or demonstration; contacting a
government official; and contributing money to a lesbian, gay,
or bisexual organization or cause. For comparison purposes,
this series of questions was followed by a parallel set of items
that asked whether the respondent had participated in the same
activities for “a non-gay issue or cause—that is, something not
related mainly to gay men, lesbians, or bisexuals.”
Political and Religious Involvement Information about
respondents’ political party affiliation and ideology (liberal,
moderate, conservative) had been previously collected by
Knowledge Networks. For the present study, respondents
were asked whether they had voted in the most recent (2004)
presidential election and, if so, for which candidate. They
were also asked for information about their religious
denomination, frequency of attendance at religious services
during the previous 12 months, how much guidance religion
provides in their day-to-day living, and (for respondents who
reported affiliation with a religious denomination and any
attendance at religious services) the extent to which their
congregation includes lesbian, gay, and bisexual members.
Relationships, Marriage, and Family Respondents were
asked their current relationship status, their legal marital
status, and how many children they have (including adopted
children and stepchildren). Respondents currently in a
relationship (including those who were married) were asked
the gender of their partner. Those who were in a relationship
but not married were asked whether they were cohabiting and
the likelihood they would marry their partner if their state
were to allow same-sex marriages (this conditional clause was
omitted for respondents in Massachusetts, the only state
where marrying a same-sex partner was legal at the time of
data collection). Those who were not currently in a
relationship were asked whether they would like to marry
someday. Respondents’ attitudes toward marriage rights
for same-sex couples were assessed with three items. Using a
5-point Likert-type response format ranging from “strongly
agree” to “strongly disagree,” they indicated the extent to
which they agreed or disagreed with each of the following
statements: (1) “The law should allow two people of the
same sex to marry each other.” (2) “There is really no need
to legalize same-sex marriage in the United States.” (3) “The
U.S. public isn’t ready for a debate about gay marriage.” In
181
addition, respondents were asked whether they strongly
supported, somewhat supported, somewhat opposed, or
strongly opposed state laws to create civil unions. An
accompanying note explained that “civil unions are not
marriage, but give a same-sex couple some legal protection
in their home state in areas such as inheritance, health
insurance, and hospital visits.”
Data Analysis
Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 report population parameter
estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The CIs
facilitate comparisons among the four gender and sexual
orientation subgroups and are preferable to p values
because they indicate whether group differences are
statistically significant while also providing additional
information about effect size (Cumming 2008; Wilkinson
and Task Force on Statistical Inference 1999).
As reported subsequently, the four subgroups differed
significantly in age, race, and educational level. We
conducted analyses to assess whether these demographic
patterns might account for the group differences in the
outcome variables reported in Tables 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. For
each outcome variable, therefore, we conducted two linear
regression analyses (for continuous and ordinal outcome
variables) or two logistic regression analyses (for categorical
outcome variables). In the first equation, sexual orientation
(homosexual vs bisexual), gender, and their multiplicative
interaction term were entered. In the second equation, age,
educational level, and race (dichotomized as Black vs nonBlack) were added as statistical controls. Except where noted
in the subsequent text, inclusion of the control variables did
not alter the patterns of significant differences among
subgroups shown in the tables.
Weighting
The KN panel’s original RDD design yielded a simple
random sample with equal probability of selection for all
US households with a landline telephone. However, the
actual probability of selection for individual respondents
was affected by multiple factors (e.g., differences in
household size, number of telephone lines). Design weights
were assigned to each case to adjust for unequal probability
of selection (e.g., Kish 1965).4 Because the use of weighted
4
Design weights were computed to account for (a) variations in the
number of adults and telephone lines in the household; (b) oversampling of Blacks and Hispanics, households with prior Internet
access, and, early in the life of the KN panel, residents of California,
New York, Florida, Texas, and Central regional states; (c) undersampling of telephone numbers for which matching addresses were
unavailable and of households in areas without MSN-WebTV
coverage; and (d) slight overrepresentation of Chicago and Los
Angeles during KN’s early pilot testing.
182
data necessitates special analytic techniques to correct
standard errors (Lee and Forthofer 2006), analyses were
conducted using STATA and SPSS Complex Samples,
which permit such correction.
Results
The sample consisted of 311 women (152 lesbians, 159
bisexuals) and 351 men (241 gay men, 110 bisexuals).
Applying design weights, the weighted sample was 34.8%
gay male, 14.6% lesbian, 26.9% bisexual male, and 23.7%
bisexual female (Table 1).5 Unless otherwise indicated, the
weighted data are used hereafter.
Representativeness Check
One challenge associated with evaluating the representativeness of a lesbian, gay, and bisexual probability
sample is the general lack of comparison data from the
population of self-identified sexual minorities. Even
though the US Census does not collect information about
individuals’ sexual orientation, however, Census data are
available for a subset of the sexual-minority population,
namely, adults who report they are members of a cohabiting same-sex couple. Taking advantage of the fact that
such individuals were able to identify themselves in the
2000 Census, we assessed the present sample’s representativeness by comparing its members who were cohabiting
with a same-sex partner to their counterparts in the Census
data.
These comparisons are shown in Table 2, with the
2000 Census data corrected for misclassifications of
some heterosexual couples due to miscodings of the
partners’ gender (Black et al. 2007).6 Except for mean
age, the two groups do not differ significantly, as
indicated by the overlapping 95% CIs. These findings
are consistent with the conclusion that, apart from being
slightly older, the current sample was generally representative of self-identified lesbian, gay, and bisexual
adults in the USA.
Sex Res Soc Policy (2010) 7:176–200
Age, Race, Ethnicity, and Education
As shown in Table 1, the mean age of respondents was 39,7
approximately two thirds were non-Hispanic White, and
roughly one third had earned a college degree. Significant
differences were observed in these variables among the
sexual orientation and gender groups. Gay men (M=
45 years) were significantly older than all other groups,
and lesbians (M=40 years) were significantly older than
bisexual women (M=32 years). Only 43% of bisexual men
were non-Hispanic White, compared with more than 70%
of other respondents (21% of bisexual men were Hispanic
and 29% were non-Hispanic Black). More homosexuals
than bisexuals had earned a bachelor’s degree: 46% of gay
men and 41% of lesbians reported having a degree,
compared with only 16% of bisexual men and 28% of
bisexual women.
According to Census data from approximately the same
time period, the mean age of US adults (18 and older) was
45, about 75% were non-Hispanic White, and 24% had
earned a college degree.8 Thus, the present sample was
younger than the US adult population, was less likely to be
non-Hispanic White, and had a higher level of formal
education. However, these patterns were not uniform across
subgroups within the sample. Gay men’s mean age was not
significantly different from that of US adult men, whereas
the other sexual orientation groups were significantly
younger. Patterns of race and ethnicity among gay men
and lesbians did not differ from the US population, but
bisexual men were less likely to be non-Hispanic White,
and bisexual women were less likely to be Hispanic or nonHispanic Black.9 Finally, whereas gay men and lesbians
were significantly more likely than the US adult population
to have earned a college degree, bisexual men and women
did not differ significantly from the population in this
regard.
7
5
Among bisexuals, 27% (40 men, 33 women) reported they were
mainly attracted to people of their same sex, 39% (34 men, 71
women) were mainly attracted to the other sex, and 34% (36 men,
55 women) were attracted equally to both sexes. Because of the
large margin of error associated with groups of such small size,
these three categories were combined for the analyses presented
subsequently.
6
We are grateful to Dr. Gary Gates (UCLA Williams Institute) for his
kind assistance in this regard.
Approximately one third of the respondents (34%) were under 30,
33% were 30–44 years old, and 33% were 45 or older. Gay men were
underrepresented in the 18–29 age category, compared with bisexual
men and women; bisexual men were underrepresented in the 30–44
category, compared with gay men and lesbians; and bisexual women
were underrepresented in the 45 and older category, compared with
gay men and lesbians. However, because of the small number of
respondents in some subcategories, these comparisons across sexual
orientation subgroups must be considered tentative.
8
Comparisons were made with data from the US Census Bureau’s
American Community Surveys 2000–2003, using the UC Berkeley
SDA interface (http://sda.berkeley.edu/archive.htm).
9
These patterns describe respondents who identified with a single
racial or ethnic group. Our data do not permit intensive analyses of
respondents reporting mixed race ancestry.
Sex Res Soc Policy (2010) 7:176–200
183
Table 1 Demographic characteristics of sample
Variable
Gay men
Lesbians
Bisexual men
Bisexual women
241
152
110
159
662
34.8
28.9–41.2
14.6
11.7–18.2
26.9
19.1–36.4
23.7
18.8–29.3
100
23–89
45.3 a
18–79
40.1 b
18–40
36.6 bc
18–76
31.8 c
18–89
39.0
43.0–47.5
37.7–42.6
32.0–41.1
29.3–34.3
37.1–40.9
Race/Ethnicity
Non-Hispanic White
CI
70.5% ab
59.6–79.5
74.4% a
62.6–83.5
43.0% b
25.8–62.1
77.5% a
65.9–86.0
65.4%
56.5–73.2
Non-Hispanic Black
CI
14.0%
7.6–24.3
12.8%
6.1–24.9
28.6%
10.9–56.8
5.2%
2.4–10.9
15.6%
9.1–25.5
Hispanic
CI
11.3%
6.1–20.0
10.5%
5.0–20.6
20.6%
7.2–46.6
6.2%
2.7–13.6
12.5%
7.4–20.2
Other, mixed race
CI
4.2%
1.0–16.1
2.3%
0.8–6.6
7.8%
3.2–17.7
11.1%
4.8–23.5
6.5%
3.8–11.0
Education (highest level)
Less than high school
CI
5.6%
2.2–13.5
7.8%
3.1–18.4
8.0%
3.1–19.4
8.9%
3.6–20.2
7.3%
4.6–11.6
High school diploma
CI
19.5%
12.6–29.1
17.5%
9.8–29.3
47.2%
27.1–68.3
26.8%
16.5–40.4
28.4%
20.7–37.6
Some college (<4 years)
CI
28.5%
21.4–36.9
33.8%
25.3–43.5
28.9%
15.1–48.2
36.8%
27.1–47.8
31.4%
25.6–37.7
Bachelor’s degree or higher
CI
46.4% a
37.5–55.4
40.9% ac
31.9–50.6
15.9% b
9.1–26.1
27.5% bc
19.3–37.4
32.9%
27.5–38.8
Military service
Currently serving or veteran
CI
15.1% a
9.8–22.5
10.6% a
5.5–19.4
20.8% a
11.4–34.8
0.7% b
0.1–5.1
12.6%
9.3–16.8
84.9% a
77.5–90.2
89.4% a
80.6–94.5
79.2% a
65.2–88.6
99.3% b
94.9–99.9
87.4%
83.2–90.7
Unweighted N
Weighted %
CI
Age
Range
Mean
CI
Never served
CI
Census region
Northeast
Total
21.9%
17.8%
27.6%
18.5%
22.0%
CI
15.5–30.1
10.7–28.0
12.4–50.5
12.3–27.0
16.3–29.0
South
CI
37.7%
29.4–46.8
36.2%
26.8–46.8
40.6%
21.3–63.4
35.1%
23.9–48.2
37.7%
30.4–45.5
184
Sex Res Soc Policy (2010) 7:176–200
Table 1 (continued)
Variable
Gay men
Lesbians
Bisexual men
Bisexual women
Midwest
CI
11.9%
7.8–17.8
22.9%
16.2–31.3
17.1%
8.8–30.4
16.5%
11.0–24.1
16.0%
12.5–20.2
West
CI
28.4%
20.4–38.2
23.2%
16.3–31.9
14.7%
7.6–26.6
29.9%
20.7–41.0
24.3%
19.5–29.9
56.1%
47.1–64.7
40.8%
31.1–51.2
43.3%
24.1–64.7
38.0%
27.7–49.5
46.1%
39.0–53.5
Small city
CI
18.1%
12.7–25.0
27.1%
19.0–37.2
21.8%
9.7–41.9
27.0%
18.4–37.6
22.5%
17.4–28.5
Suburban
CI
17.5%
11.7–25.2
16.7%
10.8–25.0
22.2%
8.5–46.6
18.6%
9.8–32.4
18.9%
13.3–26.2
Rural or small town
CI
8.4%
4.7–14.7
15.4%
9.9–23.1
12.7%
6.7–22.7
16.4%
10.1–25.7
12.5%
9.5–16.3
Homeowner
CI
56.4% a
46.9–65.4
60.9% a
50.2–70.7
30.8% b
18.2–47.0
40.3% ab
30.0–51.6
46.4%
39.5–53.3
Renter
CI
38.9% a
29.9–48.7
34.1% a
24.5–45.1
67.6% b
51.0–80.8
52.8% ab
41.4–64.0
49.2%
42.0–56.5
4.8%
2.3–9.7
5.0%
2.2–11.1
1.6%
0.4–5.7
6.8%
2.4–17.9
4.4%
2.7–7.3
1 adult (18 years or older)
CI
55.4% a
46.4–64.1
28.7% b
21.0–37.8
30.1% ab
17.2–47.1
21.8% b
15.0–30.5
36.7%
30.7–43.2
2 adults
CI
32.3% a
25.0–40.5
54.0% b
44.0–63.8
44.6% ab
24.6–66.6
55.3% b
43.6–66.5
44.2%
37.0–51.8
3+ Adults
CI
12.3%
7.2–20.3
17.3%
10.5–27.2
25.2%
12.4–44.7
22.9%
13.1–37.0
19.0%
13.9–25.5
% with any children (<18 years)
CI
4.8% a
2.0–10.9
16.6% a
9.8–26.8
25.6% ab
10.0–51.5
49.3% b
38.0–60.8
22.7%
16.3–30.6
Type of residence area
Large city
CI
Total
Housing
Doesn’t pay for housing
CI
Household composition
Within rows, values with different lowercase letters differ significantly, as indicated by nonoverlapping confidence intervals
Sex Res Soc Policy (2010) 7:176–200
185
Table 2 Demographic characteristics of cohabiting same-sex couples:
2000 US Census data and current sample
Variable
US Census
Current sample
Gender (% female)
49.3% (48.8–49.9)
48% (39.1–56.9)
Race/ethnicity
(% non-Hispanic
White)
77.4% (77.0–77.9)
74.1% (63.7–82.4)
Mean age (years)
40.1 (40.0–40.3)
43.8 (41.7–45.9)
Education (% with
college degree or
higher)
41.9% (41.3–42.4)
48% (39.2–56.9)
Employment status
(% employed)
79.2% (78.7–79.6)
79.2% (70.7–85.7)
Housing (%
homeowner)
61.8% (61.2–62.3)
69.1% (59.5–77.2)
Military service
(% veteran)
12.0% (11.7–12.4)
11.8% (6.9–19.4)
Table displays population parameter estimates and 95% confidence
intervals (CIs) for same-sex cohabiting couples in 2000 US Census
and current sample. Census data are drawn from a combined sample
of the 1% and 5% Public Use Micro Samples of the 2000 US Census
by G. Gates (May 3, 2007, personal communication), based on Black
et al. (2003)
Residence Variables
In terms of residence patterns, the sample generally
matched the US population except that a disproportionately
small number of respondents lived in the Midwest. Within
the sample, the sexual orientation groups did not differ
significantly in their geographic distribution or the extent to
which they resided in urban, suburban, or rural settings
(Table 1). Women were more likely than men to live in a
household with another adult. Although higher proportions
of homosexuals reported owning their home and more
bisexuals reported renting, this difference was not significant when age, education, and race were statistically
controlled.
Military Service
Approximately 15% of gay men and 11% of lesbians had a
history of military service. Compared with the US adult
population, gay men were significantly less likely to have
served, compared with all adult males (approximately 25%
of whom had served), whereas lesbians were significantly
more likely to have a history of military service, compared
with all adult females (approximately 2% of whom had
served). By contrast, bisexual men and women did not
differ significantly from the US population in their pattern
of military service.
Sexual Orientation Identity
Identity Labels Table 3 reports the proportions of respondents in each subgroup who said they used various identity
labels for themselves “all the time,” “often,” or “sometimes” (vs respondents who reported using the labels
“rarely” or “never”). Nearly all homosexual men (93%)
called themselves “Gay” at least sometimes, as did 76% of
lesbians, 19% of bisexual men, and 10% of bisexual
women. The proportions of lesbians (73%) and bisexual
women (11%) who used “Lesbian” as an identity label was
about the same as the proportions using “Gay.” Among
bisexuals, 71% of men and 60% of women labeled
themselves “Bisexual” at least sometimes. By contrast,
“Bisexual” was rarely used as an identity label by gay men
(2%) or lesbians (8%). “Queer” was used by relatively few
respondents (12% overall), and “Dyke” was used as a selflabel by only 10% of women. “Homosexual” was used at
least sometimes by more than one third of the gay men and
lesbians, but by relatively few bisexuals. Only 4% of
respondents reported never using any of the labels.
Identity Commitment and Community Identification IHP
scores were computed by summing responses to the items
and dividing by 3 (responses to the “glad to be [L/G/B/Q/
H]” item were reversed). This procedure yielded a scale
score (α=0.82) that could range from 1 to 5, with higher
scores indicating more negative attitudes toward or greater
psychological distancing from one’s sexual-minority identity (Herek et al. 2009).10 As indicated by the relatively low
overall IHP mean score (Table 3), respondents generally
expressed positive feelings about their sexual orientation
identity. Indeed, only 6% of respondents manifested a
general pattern of agreement with statements expressing
negative feelings about one’s sexual orientation (i.e., scored
4 or greater). The greatest degree of identity distancing was
observed among bisexual men, who scored significantly
higher than lesbians but whose mean score was nevertheless below the hypothetical midpoint of the scale.11The two
items assessing community identification were not significantly intercorrelated (r=−0.09) and thus were analyzed
separately. As shown in Table 3, a majority of respondents
agreed that their membership in the sexual-minority
10
Coefficient alpha was computed with unweighted data for all scales
reported in this article.
11
Because IHP scores were highly skewed, analyses were also
conducted with a log-transformation of the scale scores. The pattern
of results did not differ from the raw scores. Table 3 reports the more
easily interpreted raw scores.
186
Sex Res Soc Policy (2010) 7:176–200
Table 3 Identity characteristics
Variable
Gay men
Lesbians
Bisexual men
Bisexual women
Total
“Gay”
CI
93.0% a
87.7–96.1
75.9% b
66.3–83.5
18.7% c
10.2–31.6
9.5% c
5.9–14.9
50.7%
43.5–58.0
“Lesbian”
CI
N/A
73.4% a
64.2–80.9
N/A
11.2% b
7.0–17.5
34.9%
28.3–42.3
“Bisexual”
CI
2.4% a
1.0–5.3
7.6% a
3.7–14.9
71.3% b
54.9–83.5
60.3% b
49.0–70.7
35.4%
27.7–44.0
“Queer”
CI
16.8%
11.8–23.2
16.4%
10.4–24.8
8.5%
3.7–18.2
7.2%
2.7–17.5
12.2%
9.2–16.0
“Homosexual”
CI
38.7% a
30.4–47.7
35.9% a
27.0–45.9
10.8% b
5.0–21.8
3.7% b
1.8–7.4
22.5%
18.1–27.6
“Dyke”
CI
N/A
16.9%
11.2–24.8
N/A
6.0%
1.9–17.0
10.1%
6.3–16.1
1.97 ab
1.65 a
2.62 b
1.84 ab
2.07
1.77–2.16
1.49–1.82
1.88–3.36
1.63–2.06
1.81–2.32
Self-labeling (% using label “all the time,”
“often,” or “sometimes”)
Identity distancing (mean IHP;
higher score = greater distancing)
CI
Community identification (% strongly agree or agree somewhat)
“My membership in the [L/G/B/Q/H]
community is an important reflection
of who I am.”
CI
44.6% a
43.1% a
15.6% b
24.7% ab
32.0%
35.8–53.8
33.6–53.0
8.4–27.0
15.0–38.0
26.4–38.2
“Overall, my membership in the
[L/G/B/Q/H] community has very little to
do with how I feel about myself.”
CI
55.1%
51.3%
60.2%
68.1%
59.0%
46.1–63.9
41.2–61.4
37.8–78.9
57.9–76.8
51.6–66.0
88.0% a
80.6–92.8
68.4% b
57.8–77.4
38.3% bc
21.8–57.9
40.6% c
30.1–52.0
60.6%
52.6–68.1
Perceived choice about sexual orientation
No choice at all
CI
Small amount
6.9%
15.2%
22.4%
15.2%
14.2%
CI
3.2–14.1
9.6–23.3
8.6–46.9
9.6–23.1
9.2–21.3
Fair amount/Great deal
CI
5.2% a
2.6–9.9
16.4% ab
9.3–27.3
39.3% bc
20.6–61.9
44.3% c
32.9–56.3
25.2%
18.4–33.5
Within rows, values with different lowercase letters differ significantly, as indicated by nonoverlapping confidence intervals. N/A=question not
asked
Sex Res Soc Policy (2010) 7:176–200
187
Table 4 Openness about sexual orientation
Variable
Gay men
Lesbians
Bisexual men
Bisexual women
Mean age of self-identification
CI
15.1 a
14.0–16.1
18.0 b
16.5–19.5
17.5 ab
14.6–20.4
19.9 b
18.5–21.4
17.3
16.4–18.3
Mean age of first disclosure
CI
20.2
19.2–21.2
21.1
19.7–22.4
21.5
18.6–24.4
21.0
19.7–22.4
20.9
20.0–21.7
Out to:
Mother
Total
73.8% a
81.4% a
25.0% b
35.4% b
52.7%
CI
65.5–80.6
73.0–87.7
12.2–44.5
25.9–46.2
45.3–60.0
Father
CI
60.1% a
50.7–68.9
58.0% a
47.6–67.8
19.5% b
8.3–39.4
22.2% b
15.2–31.2
39.8%
33.2–46.5
Sister(s) (out to one or more)
CI
82.3% ab
73.3–88.7
87.4% a
78.2–93.0
56.8% bc
34.4–76.7
50.4% cd
36.8–63.9
69.1%
61.7–75.7
Brother(s) (out to one or more)
CI
84.8% a
77.1–90.3
81.5% a
70.7–89.0
58.9% ab
35.1–79.2
39.1% b
27.4–52.2
66.3%
58.3–73.6
80.3% a
80.3–86.9
83.2% a
83.2–89.3
27.6% b
27.6–47.8
53.3% c
53.3–64.6
60.3%
60.3–68.0
86.4% ab
79.3–91.4
94.2% a
86.7–97.6
69.2% b
51.6–82.6
84.1% ab
73.1–91.1
82.6%
77.4–86.7
Out to at least one:
Distant family member
CI
Current heterosexual friend
CI
Casual heterosexual friend
81.6% a
85.6% a
49.9% b
69.1% ab
70.9%
CI
74.1–87.3
77.4–91.1
29.2–70.7
58.2–78.3
63.0–77.7
Prior heterosexual friend
CI
83.5% a
75.9–89.0
89.5% a
81.3–94.3
39.8% b
22.7–59.8
79.8% a
68.8–87.6
71.2%
61.9–79.0
Coworker
CI
80.8% a
72.8–86.8
77.4% ab
67.5–85.0
18.1% c
9.5–31.6
56.0% b
43.7–67.5
57.8%
49.3–65.8
Boss or supervisor
CI
72.8% a
63.7–80.4
71.2% ab
60.9–79.7
13.8% c
7.0–25.4
50.3% b
38.0–62.6
50.9%
43.0–58.8
5.40 ac
4.94–5.86
5.73 a
5.29–6.17
2.52 b
2.12–2.92
4.45 c
3.81–5.08
4.46
4.10–4.83
5.20 a
4.64–5.76
4.98 a
4.37–5.58
1.78 b
1.23–2.33
3.36 c
2.52–4.20
3.80
3.33–4.27
Mean Summary Score. Extent of outness to:
Extended family, heterosexual friends, and acquaintances
CI
Coworkers and supervisors
CI
Within rows, values with different lowercase letters differ significantly, as indicated by nonoverlapping confidence intervals. Questions about
outness to parents were worded to reflect whether each parent was living or deceased. Questions about outness to siblings were asked only if
respondents reported that they had one or more sisters or brothers
188
Sex Res Soc Policy (2010) 7:176–200
Table 5 Community involvement and activism
Variable
Gay men
Lesbians
Bisexual men
Bisexual women
Total
Importance of community involvement (% responding “very important” or “fairly important”)
Knowing what is going on
CI
57.4% a
48.2–66.1
47.3% a
37.4–57.4
29.0% ab
12.1–54.8
15.7% b
9.4–25.3
38.4%
31.4–45.9
Doing community volunteer work
CI
29.4% a
22.0–38.0
29.0% a
20.8–38.8
10.7% ab
4.8–22.1
12.2% b
7.2–20.0
20.3%
16.1–25.2
Giving money to organizations
CI
43.1% a
34.3–52.3
33.9% a
25.2–43.8
6.5% b
3.0–13.6
7.8% b
4.5–13.0
23.5%
19.0–28.6
Being politically active
CI
33.4% a
25.5–42.4
36.2% a
27.2–46.3
8.4% b
3.8–17.4
13.4% b
8.1–21.5
22.3%
18.0–27.4
Reading newspapers and magazines
CI
56.0% a
46.5–65.0
51.6% a
41.5–61.6
31.3% ab
13.9–56.2
19.4% b
12.1–29.6
40.0%
33.1–47.4
Community activism (% reporting having ever done this related to a sexual minority issue)
Button, sign, bumper sticker
CI
43.6% ab
35.0–52.7
58.1% a
47.6–67.9
23.5% b
11.2–42.8
41.7% ab
30.6–53.7
39.9%
33.4–46.7
Rally, march, or demonstration
CI
49.4% a
40.3–58.5
44.4% ab
34.8–54.4
25.3% ab
12.5–44.6
27.9% b
19.7–38.1
37.0%
30.9–43.7
Contacting a government official
CI
42.3% a
33.8–51.3
39.1% a
30.3–48.7
24.7% ab
11.7–44.8
20.2% b
13.2–29.7
31.9%
26.1–38.3
Contributing money
CI
65.3% a
56.1–73.5
53.3% ab
43.0–63.4
28.0% bc
14.6–47.0
24.6% c
16.8–34.5
43.9%
37.1–50.8
Within rows, values with different lowercase letters differ significantly, as indicated by nonoverlapping confidence intervals
community had little to do with how they felt about
themselves, and fewer than half considered their community
membership to be an important reflection of themselves.
These patterns were different across subgroups, however,
with lesbians and gay men indicating stronger identification
with the sexual-minority community than bisexuals (Table 3).
Choice about Sexual Orientation Overall, respondents
reported that they did not experience their sexual orientation as a choice. This pattern varied somewhat, however,
according to gender and sexual orientation. The vast
majority of gay men (88%) and roughly two thirds of
lesbians (68%) reported having had no choice at all about
their sexual orientation. Combining respondents who said
they’d had a small amount of choice with those reporting
no choice, 95% of gay men and 84% of lesbians could be
characterized as perceiving that they had little or no choice
about their sexual orientation. More bisexuals than homosexuals reported having had a fair amount or great deal of
choice about their sexual orientation. Nevertheless, fewer
than half of the bisexuals (39% of men, 44% of women)
endorsed either of the latter response options.
Disclosure of Sexual Orientation On average, respondents
reported having first recognized their own sexual orientation
when they were 17 years old (Table 4). Gay men said they
first knew or decided they were gay at age 15, which was
significantly younger than for lesbians (18 years) or bisexual
women (20 years). Bisexual men reported that they recognized their bisexuality at 17.5 years. On average, all groups
Sex Res Soc Policy (2010) 7:176–200
189
Table 6 Religious characteristics of sample
Variable
Gay men
Lesbians
Bisexual men
Bisexual women
Protestant/other Christian: not Born Again
CI
31.6%
(23.5–41.0)
Born Again Christian
CI
Catholic
CI
Total
36.6%
(27.6–46.6)
29.9%
(15.5–49.8)
22.6%
(15.7–31.4)
29.7%
(24.0–36.2)
15.9%
(10.6–23.1)
14.8%
(8.2–25.3)
22.1%
(6.6–53.3)
16.3%
(7.6–31.5)
17.5%
(11.1–26.3)
21.8%
(15.3–30.2)
16.4%
(9.9–25.9)
26.3%
(11.1–50.5)
11.2%
(6.3–19.3)
19.7%
(14.0–26.8)
Jewish
CI
0.4%
(0.1–3.0)
1.9%
(0.8–4.9)
0.5%
(0.1–2.3)
2.4%
(0.8–6.8)
1.2%
(0.6–2.2)
Wiccan, pagan
CI
1.5%
(0.4–5.3)
4.5%
(2.1–9.4)
1.5%
(0.4–5.2)
6.6%
(3.4–12.4)
3.1%
(2.0–5.0)
Buddhist
CI
0.4%
(0.1–2.6)
1.1%
(0.3–3.8)
3.4%
(0.5–20.8)
5.8%
(2.3–13.7)
2.6%
(1.1–5.9)
26.7%
(19.4–35.7)
21.4%
(14.2–31.1)
16.3%
(8.2–29.9)
30.7%
(21.0–42.5)
24.2%
(19.3–29.8)
Weekly or more
CI
7.2%
(4.0–12.6)
8.9%
(4.9–15.6)
24.0%
(8.3–52.6)
7.5%
(3.4–15.8)
12.0%
(6.5–21.2)
Less than weekly but at least monthly
CI
13.9%
(8.1–22.7)
7.9%
(4.2–14.4)
12.7%
(4.0–33.8)
7.9%
(4.1–14.5)
11.3%
(7.3–16.9)
Once or a few times
CI
39.3%
(30.9–48.4)
48.6%
(38.7–58.6)
30.8%
(14.9–53.1)
44.1%
(32.8–56.0)
39.5%
(32.8–46.7)
Never
CI
39.7%
(31.1–48.9)
34.6%
(25.0–45.6)
32.5%
(18.8–50.1)
40.5%
(30.1–51.8)
37.2%
(31.1–43.8)
All or mostly heterosexual
CI
35.2%
(27.0–44.3)
36.5%
(27.9–46.2)
43.9%
(24.9–64.8)
30.8%
(22.1–41.2)
36.7%
(30.0–44.0)
At least half sexual minority
CI
12.0%
(6.7–20.5)
16.5%
(10.1–25.8)
19.3%
(4.9–52.4)
12.3%
(4.5–29.1)
14.7%
(8.6–24.0)
Not applicable
CI
52.8%
(43.6–61.8)
47.0%
(37.0–57.2)
36.9%
(21.7–55.1)
56.9%
(45.0–68.0)
48.6%
(41.5–55.8)
Religious denomination
Atheist, agnostic, none
CI
Attendance at religious services (past 12 months)
Type of congregation
190
Sex Res Soc Policy (2010) 7:176–200
Table 6 (continued)
Variable
Gay men
Lesbians
Bisexual men
Bisexual women
None at all
CI
33.4%
(25.5–42.4)
Some
CI
Total
26.7%
(18.3–37.1)
16.7%
(9.0–28.9)
35.0%
(25.1–46.2)
28.3%
(23.2–34.1)
44.5%
(35.6–53.9)
42.1%
(32.7–52.1)
44.9%
(25.8–65.7)
42.8%
(32.1–54.1)
43.9%
(36.8–51.1)
Quite a bit
CI
15.0%
10.0–21.7
14.1%
8.7–22.0
17.6%
8.7–32.3
12.7%
5.1–28.3
15.0%
11.0–20.2
A great deal
CI
7.1%
3.9–12.4
17.1%
10.3–27.1
20.8%
6.0–51.8
9.5%
5.3–16.5
12.8%
7.2–21.7
Mean score
CI
1.96
1.8–2.1
2.22
2.0–2.4
2.42
1.9–2.9
1.97
1.8–2.2
2.12
2.0–2.3
Amount of daily guidance from religion
reported having first told someone else about their sexual
orientation when they were in their early 20s (Table 4).
However, the regression analysis revealed differences among
the subgroups. With age, education, and race entered in the
equation, the effect of age was significant (b=0.26 [CI=0.18,
0.34], t(643)=6.50, p <0.001), and the parameter estimates
became significant for both sexual orientation (b=2.40 [CI=
0.69, 4.10], t(643)=2.76, p < 0.01) and gender (b=−2.30 [CI
=−3.93, −0.66], t(643)=−2.76, p < 0.01). Thus, older
respondents were likely to have first disclosed their sexual
orientation at a later age than younger respondents. When this
generational difference was statistically controlled, bisexuals
and women tended to have first disclosed at a later age than,
respectively, homosexuals and men.
Regarding respondents’ outness within their immediate
families, Table 4 indicates that their fathers were the least
likely to know about their sexual orientation, whereas their
sisters were the most likely to know. Gay men and lesbians
were substantially more open about their sexual orientation
with their parents and siblings than were bisexuals. For
example, they were about three times as likely as bisexual
men, and at least twice as likely as bisexual women, to be
out to their mother.
Similar patterns were observed for outness to relatives
outside one’s immediate family, heterosexual friends and
acquaintances, and workplace contacts (Table 4). The four
items assessing openness to distant family members and
heterosexual friends and acquaintances were recoded as a
continuum ranging from 1 to 8, summed, and divided by the
number of items. The resulting scale scores (α = 0.91) can
range from 1 (not at all out) to 8 (completely out). The same
procedure was followed with the two items about outness in
the workplace (α = 0.95). On average, respondents scored at
the midpoint for outness to extended family and heterosexual
friends and acquaintances, and slightly lower for outness to
coworkers and supervisors. Comparisons of summary scores
revealed that lesbians and gay men were more out to their
relatives and heterosexual acquaintances and in the workplace
than were bisexuals, especially bisexual men.
With the demographic control variables included in the
regression equation, the unstandardized parameter estimates
for workplace outness remained significant for sexual
orientation but not for gender. Instead, the parameter for race
became significant (b = 1.10 [CI=0.28, 1.92], t(568) = 2.63,
p < 0.001), indicating that Black respondents were less open
about their sexual orientation in the workplace than were
others. With this effect statistically controlled, bisexual men
were still significantly less open in the workplace than other
groups, as indicated by the significant parameter estimate
for the gender × sexual orientation interaction (b=−1.52
[CI=−2.84, −0.19], t(568)=−2.25, p < 0.05).
Community Involvement and Activism As shown in Table 5,
fewer than half of the respondents attached a high level of
importance to any of the aspects of community involvement
included in the questionnaire. The greatest importance was
accorded to obtaining information about the community
(“knowing what is going on” and “reading newspapers or
magazines”). Gay men and lesbians placed more importance on each of the five types of community involvement
than did bisexual men and women. By summing responses
and dividing by the total number of items, scale scores were
Sex Res Soc Policy (2010) 7:176–200
Table 7 Political characteristics
of sample
191
Variable
Gay men
Lesbians
Bisexual men
Bisexual women
Total
Democrat
CI
82.0%
(74.6–87.6)
81.7%
(71.3–88.9)
60.5%
(38.1–79.3)
76.0%
(65.5–84.0)
74.7%
(66.7–81.3)
Republican
CI
13.1%
(8.7–19.3)
16.7%
(9.8–27.1)
29.8%
(12.8–55.2)
17.3%
(10.4–27.5)
19.2%
(13.0–27.4)
Other
CI
4.9%
(2.0–11.3)
1.6%
(0.3–7.1)
9.6%
(3.5–23.8)
6.7%
(3.4–12.6)
6.1%
(3.7–10.0)
Liberal
CI
62.9%
53.1–71.8
66.0%
55.4–75.2
45.3%
25.7–66.4
53.0%
41.1–64.5
56.4%
48.6–63.8
Moderate
CI
27.4%
19.2–37.5
24.5%
16.8–34.3
27.5%
13.6–47.6
33.4%
22.5–46.5
28.4%
22.4–35.4
Conservative
CI
9.7%
5.7–15.9
9.5%
4.4–19.3
27.2%
10.1–55.6
13.6%
7.5–23.6
15.2%
9.1–24.3
% Voted in 2004
CI
88.8%
(79.9–94.1)
83.6%
(71.3–91.2)
86.1%
(71.4–93.9)
83.4%
(71.9–90.8)
86.2%
(80.8–90.2)
John Kerry
CI
86.2%
(79.5–91.0)
91.5%
(84.5–95.5)
81.9%
(66.5–91.1)
79.6%
(69.9–86.8)
84.4%
(79.6–88.3)
George W. Bush
CI
11.7%
(7.4–18.0)
7.6%
(3.9–14.3)
9.9%
(5.0–18.6)
15.0%
(9.4–23.1)
11.2%
(8.4–14.8)
Ralph Nader
CI
1.4% a
(0.3–5.9)
0b
7.1% a
(1.9–23.4)
2.9% a
(0.7–11.2)
3.2%
(1.3–7.6)
Party affiliation
Political ideology
Candidate voted for
Within rows, values with different lowercase letters differ significantly, as indicated by
nonoverlapping confidence
intervals
computed that indicate overall perceived importance of
involvement in the sexual-minority community. Scores can
range from 1 to 4, with higher scores indicating greater
importance attached to community involvement (α = 0.91).
Gay men and lesbians scored significantly higher on this
measure than bisexuals: Mean scores were 2.4 for gay men
(CI = 2.25–2.57), 2.25 for lesbians (2.06–2.45), 1.65 for
bisexual men (1.44–1.86), and 1.68 for bisexual women
(1.54–1.82). Consistent with that pattern, lesbians and
gay men reported higher levels of past activism in all areas,
compared with bisexuals (see Table 5). The four sexualminority activism items were summed to form an index
ranging from 0 (did not engage in any of the activities) to 4
(engaged in all activities; not shown in Table 5). Gay men
reported community activism in significantly more areas
(M = 1.97, CI = 1.71–2.29) than did bisexual men
(M = 1.01, CI=0.38–1.65) or bisexual women (M = 1.13,
CI=0.83–1.44). Lesbians also reported activism in more
areas (M = 1.94, CI = 1.63–2.26) than bisexuals, but their
CI slightly overlapped with that of bisexual men. When the
parallel questions about activism that was unrelated to
sexual-minority issues were combined to create a summary
score, a similar pattern emerged. As with sexual-minority
activism, bisexuals reported a lower level of general
activism than gay men and lesbians, although only the
difference between gay men (M = 2.13, CI = 1.86–2.40)
192
Sex Res Soc Policy (2010) 7:176–200
Table 8 Relationship and family characteristics
Variable
Gay men
Lesbians
Bisexual men
Bisexual womena
4.1% a
2.3–7.4
16.1% b
9.8–25.2
0.2% c
0–1.7
1.5% ac
0.5–4.3
Total
Current relationship status
In a same-sex relationship
Married, civil union, domestic partner
CI
Cohabitingb
4.2%
2.9–6.1
24.9% a
45.3% b
3.0% c
3.3% c
16.9%
CI
18.5–32.6
35.5–55.4
0.9–9.5
1.3–8.2
13.5–21.0
Not cohabiting
CI
10.7% ab
6.7–16.6
14.5% a
8.1–24.7
2.1% ab
0.5–8.8
2.8% b
1.1–7.2
7.1%
5.0–10.0
0.3% a
0.1–1.1
0a
29.2% b
13.8–51.5
45.2% b
34.3–56.6
18.6%
13.2–25.7
Cohabiting, not married
CI
0a
0a
0.8% b
0.2–3.7
16.3% c
7.7–31.2
4.1%
1.9–8.6
Not cohabiting
CI
0a
0a
7.9% b
3.2–18.3
7.0% b
3.3–14.4
3.8%
2.1–6.7
60.0% a
51.3–68.1
24.2% b
16.9–33.2
56.7% a
36.2–75.2
23.3% b
15.3–33.8
45.2%
37.9–52.7
In a different-sex relationship
Currently married
CI
Not in a committed relationshipc
CI
Would like to marry someday? (respondents not currently in a relationship)
Yes
CI
33.8%
22.9–46.8
46.0%
27.8–65.3
43.0%
23.9–64.5
40.9%
20.9–64.4
38.1%
29.4–47.6
No
CI
22.6%
13.5–35.5
8.3%
3.3–19.5
25.9%
12.7–45.8
8.3%
3.3–19.0
20.1%
13.8–28.4
Not sure
CI
43.5%
30.5–57.5
45.7%
27.4–65.1
31.0%
14.5–54.5
50.9%
29.4–72.0
41.8%
32.5–51.7
How likely would marry current same-sex partner, if legal?d (Respondents currently in a same-sex relationship)e
Not at all likely
CI
21.6%
13.3–33.2
11.5%
5.9–21.1
*
*
Somewhat likely
CI
37.7% a
26.3–50.6
12.2% b
6.8–20.8
*
*
Fairly likely or very likely
CI
40.7% a
29.8–52.5
76.4% b
65.6–84.5
*
*
Sex Res Soc Policy (2010) 7:176–200
193
Table 8 (continued)
Gay men
Lesbians
Bisexual men
Bisexual womena
91.6% a
87.1–94.6
65.1% b
54.9–74.1
63.5% bc
42.1–80.7
32.8% c
23.6–43.5
66.2%
59.1–72.7
1 child
CI
3.3% a
1.5–7.1
15.7% b
10.2–23.3
8.4% ab
3.6–18.5
27.5% b
17.2–40.8
12.2%
8.7–16.9
2+ children
CI
5.1% a
3.0–8.5
19.3% b
12.0–29.4
28.0% bc
12.8–50.9
39.7% c
29.4–51.1
21.5%
15.9–28.4
Variable
Total
Parental status
No children
CI
Within rows, values with different lowercase letters differ significantly, as indicated by nonoverlapping confidence intervals. * = results not
reported because of the small number of bisexuals in a same-sex relationship
a
Two bisexual women reported that they were cohabiting but did not report the gender of their partner; they are excluded from the “Relationship
Status” section of the table
b
Includes four lesbians and four gay men who reported they were in a cohabiting relationship but did not report the gender of their partner, as well
as one lesbian and one bisexual woman who characterized their cohabiting partner as transgender
c
Includes two lesbians and three gay men who did not report their current relationship status but reported elsewhere in the questionnaire that they
were legally single or divorced
d
For Massachusetts residents, the clause “if same-sex marriages were legally recognized in your state” was not included in the question
e
Because of the small number of bisexual men and women in a same-sex relationship, responses are reported only for gay men and lesbians
and bisexual women (M = 1.46, CI = 1.11–1.82) was
reliable. Lesbians (M = 1.93, CI = 1.62–2.25) scored
between the two, and bisexual men scored the lowest, albeit
with the largest CI (M = 1.34, CI = 0.64–2.05).
Religious and Political Characteristics
As shown in Table 6, more than half of the respondents
belonged to a Christian denomination, and most of these
were Catholics (20%) or Protestants who reported they
were not born again Christians (30%). However, slightly
more than one respondent in six reported being born again.
Roughly 3% reported they were Wiccan or pagan, and
about the same proportion were Buddhist. About 1% were
Jewish. Nearly one respondent in four was an atheist or
agnostic or reported having no religion.
Across sexual orientation subgroups, the distributions
among religious denominations, attendance at religious
services, and proportion of sexual-minority members in
one’s congregation did not differ significantly. However,
with age, education, and race statistically controlled, lesbians
and bisexual men reported receiving significantly more daily
guidance from their religion, compared with gay men and
bisexual women. With religious guidance expressed as a
score on a 4-point scale (1 = none at all, 4 = a great deal of
guidance), lesbians’ and bisexual men’s mean scores were
2.22 and 2.42, respectively, compared with 1.96 for gay
men and 1.97 for bisexual women (Table 6). Examination
of the frequencies within each response category suggests
that lesbians and bisexual men were somewhat more likely
to report that religion offers them a great deal of guidance,
whereas gay men and bisexual women were more likely to
report receiving no guidance from religion.
However, in response to a follow-up question (“How
important is spirituality in your life?”), roughly two thirds
of the respondents who said they received no daily
guidance from religion nevertheless assigned at least some
importance to spirituality (not shown in Table 6). When
these responses were combined with ratings of the
importance of religion, the aforementioned group differences were eliminated. Only 10.6% of the sample reported
both that they received no guidance from religion and that
spirituality was “not at all important” to them (CI=7.6–
14.7). A majority (51.8%, CI=44.6–59.0) reported either
that they received “some” guidance from religion or that
spirituality was “not too important.” Another 21.4% (CI=
16.7–26.9) received “quite a bit” of guidance or considered
spirituality to be “somewhat important,” and 16.2% (CI=
10.4–24.5) received “a great deal” of guidance or considered spirituality to be “very important.”
As reported in Table 7, the sample largely identified as
Democratic, tended to be politically liberal, and overwhelmingly reported having voted for John Kerry in the
2004 presidential election. These patterns are consistent
with findings from previous studies that gay, lesbian, and
bisexual voters are less conservative than the general voting
194
public (e.g., Edelman 1993; Hertzog 1996). Except for
the fact that no lesbians reported having voted for Ralph
Nader, the subgroups did not differ significantly on these
variables.
Relationship and Family Characteristics
Women were significantly more likely than men to report
they were currently in a committed relationship, either
heterosexual or homosexual. As shown in Table 8, 60% of
gay men and 57% of bisexual men were not in a committed
relationship, compared with fewer than one fourth of
lesbians and bisexual women. Another notable difference
was observed between homosexual and bisexual respondents: Whereas all coupled lesbians and virtually all coupled
gay men reported that their partner was someone of their
same sex, the vast majority of coupled bisexual men (88%)
and women (90%) had a different-sex partner.
Most uncoupled respondents either stated they would
like to marry someday or indicated uncertainty about it;
overall, only 20% expressed no interest in ever marrying.
Among respondents who were currently in a same-sex
relationship, significantly more lesbians than gay men said
they were “very likely” or “fairly likely” to marry their
partner (76% and 41%, respectively), whereas more gay
men than lesbians said they were “somewhat likely” to
marry (38% and 12%, respectively). In all, nearly 90% of
lesbians and 80% of gay men indicated some likelihood of
marrying their current partner. (Because so few bisexuals
were in a same-sex relationship, their responses to this
question are not reported.)
Overall, approximately one third of respondents reported
having one or more children, including adopted and
stepchildren. Gay men were the least likely to have a child
(8%), whereas approximately two thirds of bisexual women
reported having one or more children. About one third of
lesbians and bisexual men reported having children.
Respondents overwhelmingly supported legal recognition for same-sex couples. Although bisexual males were
somewhat less supportive than others, the overlapping
confidence intervals across groups indicate that these
differences were not reliable. Overall, 77.9% of respondents
(CI=69.7–84.4) agreed that “The law should allow two
people of the same sex to marry each other,” whereas
74.4% (CI=66.4–81.1) disagreed with the assertion that
“There is really no need to legalize same-sex marriage in
the United States.” Similarly, 89.1% (CI = 81.2–93.9)
supported civil unions. The sample was divided in its
response to the statement “The U.S. public isn’t ready for a
debate about gay marriage.” A plurality (42%, CI = 35.1–
49.2) disagreed, but 28.1% (CI = 23.0–33.9) agreed, and
29.9% (CI = 22.9–38.1) placed themselves “in the middle”
between agreement and disagreement.
Sex Res Soc Policy (2010) 7:176–200
Discussion
The data presented here offer a wealth of information about
the general characteristics of self-identified gay, lesbian,
and bisexual adults in the USA while highlighting important commonalities and differences among sexual orientation subgroups. Without recapitulating all of the results, we
comment here on some key findings.
To begin, the composition of the sample is noteworthy.
With design weights applied to account for aspects of the
sampling procedures that might have affected respondents’
likelihood of inclusion in the KN panel, fully half of the
participants identified as bisexual, indicating that bisexuals
constitute a substantial portion of the self-identified sexualminority population. In addition, gay men outnumbered
lesbians at a ratio of approximately 2.4:1. This finding is
consistent with data from other national probability samples
(Black et al. 2000; Laumann et al. 1994) and suggests that
self-identified gay men may outnumber self-identified
lesbians in the US adult population. Among self-identified
bisexuals, by contrast, the weighted proportions of women
and men did not differ significantly. Within genders, the
weighted sample included more gay than bisexual men
and more bisexual women than lesbians, but the difference was reliable only among the women respondents. Of
course, any inferences from these patterns about the
composition of the sexual-minority population must be
considered tentative until more data are obtained from
other probability samples.
Sexual orientation and gender subgroups within the
sample differed on key demographic variables, with
bisexuals tending to be younger than homosexuals, and
bisexual men the least likely to be non-Hispanic White or to
have a college degree. Comparisons to the US adult
population using contemporaneous Census data suggest
that lesbians and bisexuals (but not gay men) may be
younger, on average, than the US adult population; that
bisexual men (but not lesbians, gay men, or bisexual
women) may be less likely to be non-Hispanic White; and
that lesbians and gay men (but not bisexuals) may be more
highly educated. These patterns are consistent with previous findings from nonprobability samples indicating that
lesbians and gay men tend to be highly educated (e.g.,
Herek et al. 1999; Rostosky et al. 2009; Rothblum and
Factor 2001). They are also consistent with past observations that bisexual behavior is more common among
African American and Latino men than among nonHispanic White males (e.g., Millett et al. 2005; O’Leary
et al. 2007; Rust 2000).
Bisexual men and women were not only younger than
the US adult population, they were also significantly
younger than lesbians and gay men. This age difference
might reflect generational differences in patterns of identity
Sex Res Soc Policy (2010) 7:176–200
labeling: Perhaps younger people are more likely than their
older counterparts to view their own sexuality in fluid terms
and thus to identify as bisexual rather than exclusively
homosexual or heterosexual. Alternatively, it could reflect
developmental differences insofar as some younger
respondents who currently self-identify as bisexual might
later identify as gay or heterosexual (indeed, roughly one
fifth of bisexual men and one tenth of bisexual women said
they label themselves Gay or Lesbian at least some of the
time). These accounts are not mutually exclusive. Younger
adults may be more open to a bisexual identity today than
was the case a generation ago, and bisexuality may
constitute a transitional identity for some individuals who
will ultimately define their sexuality in terms of exclusive
attraction to men or women. Indeed, the findings of the
present study suggest that bisexuals may constitute a more
heterogeneous population than gay men and lesbians, one
that includes not only individuals who publicly identify as
bisexual but also those who privately acknowledge samesex attractions while currently maintaining a heterosexual
relationship, and still others who are in the process of
defining their sexuality. It is possible that comparisons of
self-identified bisexual men and women according to their
self-reported attraction patterns (i.e., mainly attracted to men,
mainly attracted to women, equally attracted to both sexes)
would yield useful insights in this regard. However, the
present sample was not large enough to permit such analyses.
Compared with bisexual men and women, gay men and
lesbians were more strongly committed to a minority sexual
identity, identified more strongly with a sexual-minority
community, were more likely to consider their community
membership to be a reflection of themselves, and were
generally more open about their sexual orientation. Overall,
gay men and lesbians tended to attach greater importance
than bisexuals to community involvement and were more
likely to engage in such behaviors as attending rallies and
demonstrations or donating money to community organizations. Here again, the present data suggest that the
population of individuals who label themselves bisexual
may be a more diverse group than those who self-identify
as lesbian or gay and may include many women and men
for whom being bisexual is not a primary basis for a
personal identity or community involvement. These patterns may also reflect, in part, bisexuals’ sometimes
marginal status in established gay and lesbian communities,
along with the relative lack of visible bisexual communities, owing to bisexuality’s recent emergence as a public
identity linked to a social movement (Herdt 2001; UdisKessler 1995).
Related to this point, substantial minorities of the
bisexual respondents said they never (4.6% of bisexual
women, 8.1% of bisexual men) or rarely (34.9% and
20.7%, respectively) used Bisexual as a self-descriptor. By
195
contrast, men who indicated they were homosexual overwhelmingly reported using the term Gay to describe
themselves at least some of the time. Similarly, about three
fourths of homosexual women used Lesbian as a self-label,
and roughly the same proportion employed Gay as a selfdescriptor. The latter finding is somewhat surprising
because Gay has often been assumed to be primarily a
male-oriented identity label (e.g., Kulick 2000).
Other patterns of self-labeling also warrant comment.
The term Queer was used by only a small minority of
respondents, as was the case for Dyke among female
respondents. Considerably more respondents (more than
one third of gay men and lesbians) used Homosexual as a
self-descriptor at least some of the time. Notably, gay male
and lesbian respondents were much more likely to say they
never used Queer as a self-descriptor (58.9% of gay men,
65% of lesbians) than to say they never used Homosexual
(32% and 34.1%, respectively). Bisexuals, by contrast,
were about equally likely to say they never used either
term. Among bisexual men, 71.7% never used Homosexual
and 77.9% never used Queer; for bisexual women, the
proportions were 88.8% and 87.3%, respectively. Thus,
although Queer has sometimes been suggested as an
inclusive label for sexual minorities (e.g., Jacobs 1998), it
appears that a majority of US gay, lesbian, and bisexual
adults never used it to describe themselves at the time the
survey was conducted.
Some recent court cases addressing rights for gay,
lesbian, and bisexual people have considered questions
related to the origins of sexual orientation and its mutability
(e.g., In re Marriage Cases 2008; Varnum v. Brien 2009).
Moreover, some opponents of equal rights for sexual
minorities have asserted that homosexuality represents a
willful choice of a sinful way of life (Herman 1997).12 In
this context, it is noteworthy that most respondents in the
present study—including bisexual men and women—
reported that they experienced little or no choice about
their sexual orientation. The question of exactly what is
meant by “choice” in this realm warrants further discussion
and research (see, for example, Whisman 1996), but if
one’s sexual orientation were experienced as a choice, it
seems reasonable to expect that large numbers of gay,
lesbian, and bisexual people would report this perception in
response to a survey question.
We believe that the responses to this question may also
provide a useful insight for interpreting the often observed
correlation between heterosexuals’ levels of sexual prejudice and their beliefs about whether homosexuality is a
choice (e.g., Haider-Markel and Joslyn 2008; Hegarty
12
At least one conservative Christian organization has broken with
this position, stating on its website that “[w]e do not believe anyone
chooses his or her same-sex attractions” (Love Won Out 2008).
196
2002). If, as the present data indicate, gay, lesbian, and
bisexual people experience little or no choice about their
sexual orientation, they probably communicate this fact to
their heterosexual friends and relatives. Given the consistently high correlations observed between heterosexuals’
attitudes toward sexual minorities and the extent of their
personal relationships with nonheterosexual individuals
(Herek and Capitanio 1996; Lewis 2008; Pettigrew and
Tropp 2006), the correlation that is reliably observed
between origin beliefs and attitudes may result at least in
part from both variables’ association with personal contact.
Related to this point, the data reveal notable differences
in disclosure and outness between gay men and lesbians, on
the one hand, and bisexuals, on the other. The parents and
siblings of gay men and lesbians are substantially more
likely to know about the latter’s sexual orientation than is
the case for the families of bisexual men and women. A
similar pattern was also observed in most categories of
friends, other family, and coworkers: Compared with
lesbians and gay men, significantly fewer bisexuals—
especially men—reported they were out of the closet to
even one member of these groups. Coming out as bisexual
may differ in important respects from coming out as a gay
or lesbian person (McLean 2007). Nevertheless, insofar as
heterosexuals’ levels of sexual prejudice are reduced by
having personal relationships with nonheterosexuals (Herek
and Capitanio 1996; Lewis 2008; Pettigrew and Tropp
2006), these patterns could have important implications for
societal attitudes toward bisexual men and women.
The data indicate that self-identified gay, lesbian, and
bisexual adults tend to be less religious and more politically
liberal than the US population. Although most respondents
reported that religion or spirituality provides some guidance
in their daily lives, the sample overall reported a fairly low
level of religious commitment. Slightly more than one
fourth stated that they receive “quite a bit” or “a great deal”
of guidance from religion in their daily lives, and this
proportion increased to approximately 38% when the
question was expanded to include spirituality as well as
formal religion. By comparison, in the 2004 American
National Election Survey (ANES), 35% of US adults
reported that religion provides a great deal of guidance in
their day-to-day lives, and another 24% said it provides
quite a bit of guidance.13 Whereas about one fourth of the
present sample reported at least monthly attendance at
religious services, a 2008 Pew survey found that 39% of
Americans reported at least weekly attendance at religious
13
The figures are based on our analysis of the 2004 National Election
Study pre-election interview data, using the UC Berkeley SDA
interface (http://sda.berkeley.edu/archive.htm).
Sex Res Soc Policy (2010) 7:176–200
worship services (Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life
2008).
The data corroborate previous findings that sexual
minorities constitute a politically progressive constituency
(e.g., Edelman 1993; Hertzog 1996; Schaffner and Senic
2006). A majority of respondents described themselves as
liberal, and the sample was overwhelmingly Democratic in
party affiliation and voting patterns. By comparison, 25% of
the 2004 ANES respondents said they were liberal, and 32%
identified as Democrats, whereas a plurality (about 41%)
described themselves as conservative and 29% identified as
Republicans.
Consistent with findings from previous research with
convenience samples (Peplau and Fingerhut 2007), sexualminority women were substantially more likely than
sexual-minority men to report that they were currently in
a committed relationship. Whereas virtually all coupled
gay men and lesbians had a same-sex partner, the vast
majority of coupled bisexuals were in a heterosexual
relationship. This disproportionate number of differentsex couples among bisexual adults probably has multiple
explanations. In part, it may simply reflect the fact that
most adults are heterosexual, and thus, bisexuals have
many more opportunities to form a different-sex intimate
relationship than a same-sex relationship. In addition,
same-sex relationships are stigmatized and lack widespread legal recognition in the USA, whereas different-sex
relationships enjoy social approval and many tangible
benefits (Herek 2006). These factors may facilitate
different-sex relationships among those bisexuals who are
attracted to the other sex at least as much as to their own
sex (roughly three fourths of the bisexual respondents in
the present sample).
Among respondents who were not currently in a
committed relationship, relatively few said they would not
want to marry someday. A plurality, however, indicated
uncertainty about the desirability of marrying. Among the
homosexual respondents currently in a relationship, lesbians were substantially more likely than gay men to say
they would be “very likely” or “fairly likely” to marry their
current partner if they could legally do so (76% vs 41%).
This pattern is consistent with the available data concerning
patterns of marriage and registrations of civil unions and
domestic partnerships, which reveal that female couples are
considerably more likely than male couples to formally
register their relationship when the law allows them to do
so (Korber and Calvan 2008; Rothblum et al. 2008). It is
also consistent with the present finding that lesbians are
significantly more likely than gay men to live in a
household with at least one other adult. Lesbians’ greater
tendency to seek legal recognition of their relationships
may be explained in part by the fact that they are about four
times more likely than gay men to have one or more
Sex Res Soc Policy (2010) 7:176–200
children or to report that they have children younger than
18 years residing in their home. Seeking legal protections
and benefits for children may be an important motivator for
marrying (Herek 2006).
The data obtained in any survey are subject to possible
error due to sampling, telephone noncoverage, and problems with question wording. In addition to these sources of
error, we note several important limitations of the present
study that should be kept in mind when interpreting the
results. Our operationalization of sexual orientation in terms
of identity means that the findings reported here should
not be generalized to the population of US adults who
experience same-sex attractions or have engaged in samesex sexual behavior but do not identify as lesbian, gay, or
bisexual. The sample was restricted to English-speaking
adults in households with a telephone; thus, it is potentially
problematic to generalize from these results to non-English
speakers, nonadults, and individuals without a telephone.
In addition, it is likely that some lesbian, gay, and
bisexual adults in the full KN panel did not report their true
sexual orientation in response to the original screening
question and thus had no opportunity of being included in
the present sample. Insofar as self-administered Internet
questionnaires appear to elicit greater disclosure of sensitive
and potentially stigmatizing information than telephone and
face-to-face interviews (e.g., Kreuter et al. 2008), such
underreporting may be less common in the KN panel than
in surveys using other modes of data collection. Without
minimizing the possibility of problems created by such
nonreporting in the present study, we note that many
respondents who had not disclosed their sexual orientation
to their family or friends nevertheless reported it in the
questionnaire.
Another potential limitation results from the fact that the
data are derived from self-reports. As in any survey study,
some respondents may have provided inaccurate responses to
questions, either intentionally (e.g., because of social desirability concerns) or because of problems with comprehension
or recall (Tourangeau et al. 2000). Yet another potential
concern is whether the survey responses obtained from
experienced Internet panel members might differ from those
of naïve or “fresh” respondents. To date, the minimal
research that has addressed this issue suggests that the response patterns of the two groups probably do not differ
substantially (Toepoel et al. 2009). Finally, as with all
surveys, the data represent a snapshot of the population at
the time the study was fielded. Additional research with
comparable probability samples will be needed to develop
a more definitive portrait of sexual-minority adults in the
USA. Such research will be useful not only in assessing the
extent to which the findings of the present study can be
reliably replicated but also might permit more detailed
analyses of key subgroups within the sexual-minority
197
population. It would be illuminating, for example, to
compare lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults in different race
and ethnic groups on many of the variables discussed
previously. In the present sample, these subgroups are too
small for reliable analyses.
Throughout the present article, we have noted the
importance of having accurate data about gay, lesbian,
and bisexual people for legal and policy debates. Such
information will also be highly useful for informing
behavioral and social science research on sexual orientation and sexual minorities in a variety of ways. In
particular, the present findings highlight the importance
for researchers of distinguishing among lesbian, gay,
bisexual female, and bisexual male individuals, rather than
combining them into an undifferentiated “LGB” group. For
example, the data indicate that sexual orientation groups
differ in their levels of identity commitment, community
involvement, and outness. Future research might profitably
examine whether the meanings attached to these and
related variables—and, indeed, the very concept of
community membership—might differ among sexual orientation subgroups.
Moreover, because these variables may play important
roles in moderating the effects of sexual stigma on
psychological well-being (Herek and Garnets 2007; Meyer
2003), studies of sexual-minority mental health should
include separate analyses of bisexuals and homosexuals, as
well as of men and women. A similar analytic strategy
should be followed in studies of intimate relationships
among sexual minorities because, as shown here, sexual
orientation and gender groups differ significantly in their
relationship patterns. More broadly, the present study
demonstrates the need for researchers to conceive of gay
men, lesbians, bisexual men, and bisexual women not only
as a cultural minority united by the common experience of
sexual stigma but also as distinct groups whose members
have different experiences, beliefs, and needs.
As society confronts a widening array of policy issues
that uniquely affect sexual minorities, accurate scientific
information about the lesbian, gay, and bisexual population
will continue to be needed by government officials, the
courts, and legislative bodies. Social and behavioral
researchers working in this area have long recognized the
value of data collected through probability sampling
methods and have used a variety of creative strategies
during the past two decades to obtain such data. In
reporting what is perhaps the most extensive description
to date of a national probability sample of self-identified
lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults in the USA, the present
article extends these efforts. We hope it will be useful not
only for informing policy but also for generating hypotheses that can be tested in future studies with ever more
sophisticated samples.
198
Acknowledgments Data collection was funded by a grant to Gregory
Herek from the Gill Foundation. Throughout the project, we received
assistance, feedback, and helpful suggestions from a large number of
colleagues—too many to list here. We express our appreciation to all of
them and our special thanks to Lee Badgett, Aaron Belkin, Murray
Edelman, Gary Gates, Ethan Geto, Jeff Henne, Anne Peplau, and Ken
Sherrill. We also thank Clinton Anderson and Linda Garnets for their
helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
References
American Association for Public Opinion Research. (2006). Standard
definitions: Final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates
for surveys. Lenexa, KS: Author.
American Psychological Association. (1986). Bowers v. Hardwick:
Brief for amicus curiae, Supreme Court of the United States.
Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychological Association. (2003). Lawrence v. Texas: Brief for
amicus curiae, Supreme Court of the United States. Washington,
DC: Author.
American Psychological Association. (2007). In re marriage cases:
Brief for amicus curiae, California Supreme Court. Washington,
DC: Author.
Badgett, M. V. L. (1995). The wage effects of sexual orientation
discrimination. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 48, 726–739.
Balsam, K. F., & Mohr, J. J. (2007). Adaptation to sexual orientation
stigma: A comparison of bisexual and lesbian/gay adults. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 54, 306–319.
Balsam, K. F., Beauchaine, T. P., Rothblum, E. D., & Solomon, S. E.
(2008). Three-year follow-up of same-sex couples who had civil
unions in Vermont, same-sex couples not in civil unions, and
heterosexual married couples. Developmental Psychology, 44, 102–
116.
Belkin, A. (2008). “Don’t ask, don’t tell”: Does the gay ban
undermine the military’s reputation? Armed Forces & Society,
34, 276–291.
Bell, A. P., & Weinberg, T. S. (1978). Homosexualities: A study of
diversity among men and women. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Berg, N., & Lien, D. (2002). Measuring the effect of sexual
orientation on income: Evidence of discrimination? Contemporary Economic Policy, 20, 394–414.
Berrens, R. P., Bohara, A. K., Jenkins-Smith, H., Silva, C., & Weimer,
D. L. (2003). The advent of Internet surveys for political
research: A comparison of telephone and Internet samples.
Political Analysis, 11, 1–22.
Black, D., Gates, G., Sanders, S., & Taylor, L. (2000). Demographics
of the gay and lesbian population in the United States: Evidence
from available systematic data sources. Demography, 37, 139–
154.
Black, D., Gates, G., Sanders, S., & Taylor, L. (2003). The measurement
of same-sex unmarried partner couples in the 2000 U.S. Census.
Paper presented at the meeting of the Population Association of
America, Minneapolis, MN.
Black, D., Gates, G., Sanders, S., & Taylor, L. (2007). The
measurement of unmarried partner couples in the 2000 U.S.
Census (On-line working paper CCPR-023-07). Los Angeles:
California Center for Population Research. http://www.ccpr.ucla.
edu/ccprwpseries/ccpr_023_07.pdf. Accessed 7 Sept 2007.
Sex Res Soc Policy (2010) 7:176–200
Blair, J. (1999). A probability sample of gay urban males: The use of twophase adaptive sampling. Journal of Sex Research, 36, 39–44.
Blandford, J. M. (2003). The nexus of sexual orientation and gender in
the determination of earnings. Industrial & Labor Relations
Review, 56, 622–642.
Bradford, J., Ryan, C., & Rothblum, E. D. (1994). National Lesbian
Health Care Survey: Implications for mental health care. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 228–242.
Carpenter, C. S. (2005). Self-reported sexual orientation and earnings:
Evidence from California. Industrial & Labor Relations Review,
58, 258–273.
Chang, L., & Krosnick, J. A. (2009). National surveys via RDD
telephone interviewing vs. the Internet: Comparing sample representativeness and response quality. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73,
641–678.
Cochran, S. D., & Mays, V. M. (2000). Lifetime prevalence of suicide
symptoms and affective disorders among men reporting same-sex
sexual partners: Results from NHANES III. American Journal of
Public Health, 90, 573–578.
Cochran, S. D., & Mays, V. M. (2006). Estimating prevalence of
mental and substance-using disorders among lesbians and gay
men from existing national health data. In A. M. Omoto & H. S.
Kurtzman (Eds.), Sexual orientation and mental health: Examining identity and development in lesbian, gay, and bisexual
people (pp. 143–165). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Cumming, G. (2008). Replication and p intervals: p values predict the
future only vaguely, but confidence intervals do much better.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 286–300.
Diaz, R. M., Stall, R. D., Hoff, C., Daigle, D., & Coates, T. J. (1996).
HIV risk among Latino gay men in the southwestern United
States. AIDS Education and Prevention, 8, 415–429.
Diaz, R. M., Ayala, G., & Bein, E. (2004). Sexual risk as an outcome
of social oppression: Data from a probability sample of Latino
gay men in three U.S. cities. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic
Minority Psychology, 10, 255–267.
Edelman, M. (1993). Understanding the gay and lesbian vote in ’92.
The Public Perspective, 4(3), 32–33.
Egan, P. J., & Sherrill, K. (2005). Marriage and the shifting priorities
of a new generation of lesbians and gays. PS: Political Science &
Politics, 38, 229–232.
Haider-Markel, D. P., & Joslyn, M. R. (2008). Beliefs about the
origins of homosexuality and support for gay rights: An
empirical test of attribution theory. Public Opinion Quarterly,
72, 291–310.
Harry, J. (1986). Sampling gay men. Journal of Sex Research, 22, 21–34.
Harry, J. (1990). A probability sample of gay males. Journal of
Homosexuality, 19(1), 89–104.
Hegarty, P. (2002). “It’s not a choice, it’s the way we’re built”: Symbolic
beliefs about sexual orientation in the US and Britain. Journal of
Community & Applied Social Psychology, 12, 153–166.
Herdt, G. H. (2001). Social change, sexual diversity, and tolerance for
bisexuality in the United States. In A. R. D’Augelli & C. J.
Patterson (Eds.), Lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities and youth:
Psychological perspectives (pp. 267–283). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Herek, G. M. (2000). Homosexuality. In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 149–153). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Herek, G. M. (2006). Legal recognition of same-sex relationships in
the United States: A social science perspective. American
Psychologist, 61, 607–621.
Herek, G. M. (2009a). Hate crimes and stigma-related experiences
among sexual minority adults in the United States: Prevalence
estimates from a national probability sample. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 24, 54–74.
Sex Res Soc Policy (2010) 7:176–200
Herek, G. M. (2009b). Sexual stigma and sexual prejudice in the
United States: A conceptual framework. In D. A. Hope (Ed.),
Contemporary perspectives on lesbian, gay and bisexual identities: The 54th Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (pp. 65–111).
New York: Springer.
Herek, G. M., & Capitanio, J. P. (1996). “Some of my best friends”:
Intergroup contact, concealable stigma, and heterosexuals’
attitudes toward gay men and lesbians. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 22, 412–424.
Herek, G. M., & Garnets, L. D. (2007). Sexual orientation and mental
health. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 3, 353–375.
Herek, G. M., & Glunt, E. K. (1995). Identity and community among
gay and bisexual men in the AIDS era: Preliminary findings from
the Sacramento Men’s Health Study. In G. M. Herek & B.
Greene (Eds.), AIDS, identity, and community: The HIV epidemic
and lesbians and gay men (pp. 55–84). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Herek, G. M., Cogan, J. C., Gillis, J. R., & Glunt, E. K. (1998).
Correlates of internalized homophobia in a community sample of
lesbians and gay men. Journal of the Gay and Lesbian Medical
Association, 2, 17–25.
Herek, G. M., Gillis, J. R., & Cogan, J. C. (1999). Psychological
sequelae of hate-crime victimization among lesbian, gay, and
bisexual adults. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
67, 945–951.
Herek, G. M., Chopp, R., & Strohl, D. (2007). Sexual stigma: Putting
sexual minority health issues in context. In I. Meyer & M.
Northridge (Eds.), The health of sexual minorities: Public health
perspectives on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender populations (pp. 171–208). New York: Springer.
Herek, G. M., Gillis, J. R., & Cogan, J. C. (2009). Internalized stigma
among sexual minority adults: Insights from a social psychological perspective. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56, 32–43.
Herman, D. (1997). The antigay agenda: Orthodox vision and the
Christian right. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hertzog, M. (1996). The lavender vote: Lesbians, gay men, and
bisexuals in American electoral politics. New York: New York
University Press.
Holbrook, A. L., Krosnick, J. A., & Pfent, A. (2008). The causes and
consequences of response rates in surveys by the news media and
government contractor survey research firms. In J. Lepkowski, C.
Tucker, J. M. Brick, E. de Leeuw, L. Japec, P. J. Lavrakas, et al.
(Eds.), Advances in telephone survey methodology (pp. 499–
528). New York: Wiley.
In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d 384, 76 Cal. Rptr. 3d 683 (2008).
Jacobs, G. (1998). The struggle over naming: A case study of “queer”
in Toronto, 1990–1994. World Englishes, 17, 193–201.
Kish, L. (1965). Survey sampling. New York: Wiley.
Knowledge Networks. (2009). Knowledge Networks bibliography:
Articles and presentations based on KN collected data, analysis,
methodology. http://www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp/. Accessed
26 March 2009.
Korber, D., & Calvan, B. C. (2008). Female couples taking the lead in
same-sex marriage. Sacramento Bee. http://www.sacbee.com/
101/v-print/story/1027609.html. Accessed 20 June 2008.
Kreuter, F., Presser, S., & Tourangeau, R. (2008). Social desirability
bias in CATI, IVR, and Web Surveys: The effects of mode
and question sensitivity. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72, 847–
865.
Krosnick, J. A. (1991). Response strategies for coping with the
cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. Applied
Cognitive Psychology, 5, 213–236.
Kulick, D. (2000). Gay and lesbian language. Annual Review of
Anthropology, 29, 243–285.
199
Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T., & Michaels, S.
(1994). The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in
the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lee, E. S., & Forthofer, R. N. (2006). Analyzing complex survey data
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Lewis, G. B. (2008). The friends and family plan: Knowing LGBs and
supporting gay rights Atlanta: Andrew Young School of Policy
Studies Research Paper Series No. 07-10. http://ssrn.com/
abstract=975975 Accessed 4 February 2010.
Love Won Out. (2008). Frequently asked questions. http://www.
lovewonout.com/questions/. Accessed 29 Aug 2009.
Luhtanen, R. K., & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale:
Self-evaluation of one’s social identity. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 18, 302–318.
Martin, J. L., & Dean, L. (1990). Developing a community sample of
gay men for an epidemiologic study of AIDS. American
Behavioral Scientist, 33, 546–561.
Mays, V. M., & Cochran, S. D. (2001). Mental health correlates of
perceived discrimination among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults
in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 91,
1869–1876.
McLean, K. (2007). Hiding in the closet? Bisexuals, coming out and
the disclosure imperative. Journal of Sociology, 43, 151–166.
Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in
lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and
research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 674–697.
Meyer, I. H., & Colten, M. E. (1999). Sampling gay men: Random
digit dialing versus sources in the gay community. Journal of
Homosexuality, 37(4), 99–110.
Meyer, I. H., & Wilson, P. A. (2009). Sampling lesbian, gay, and bisexual
populations. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56, 23–31.
Millett, G., Malebranche, D., Mason, B., & Spikes, P. (2005).
Focusing “down low”: Bisexual Black men, HIV risk and
heterosexual transmission. Journal of the National Medical
Association, 97, 52S–59S.
O’Leary, A., Fisher, H. H., Purcell, D. W., Spikes, P. S., & Gomez, C.
A. (2007). Correlates of risk patterns and race/ethnicity among
HIV-positive men who have sex with men. AIDS and Behavior,
11, 706–715.
Peplau, L. A., & Fingerhut, A. W. (2007). The close relationships of
lesbians and gay men. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 405–424.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of
intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 90, 751–783.
Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. (2008). U.S. religious
landscape survey. http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report2religious-landscape-study-full.pdf. Accessed 23 June 2008.
Riggle, E. D., Rostosky, S. S., & Reedy, C. S. (2005). Online surveys
for BGLT research: Issues and techniques. Journal of Homosexuality, 49(2), 1–21.
Rodriguez, E. M., & Ouellette, S. C. (2000). Gay and lesbian
Christians: Homosexual and religious identity integration in the
members and participants of a gay-positive church. Journal for
the Scientific Study of Religion, 39, 333–347.
Rostosky, S. S., Riggle, E. D. B., Horne, S. G., & Miller, A. D.
(2009). Marriage amendments and psychological distress in
lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) adults. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 56, 56–66.
Rothblum, E. D., & Factor, R. (2001). Lesbians and their sisters as a
control group: Demographic and mental health factors. Psychological Science, 12, 63–69.
Rothblum, E. D., Balsam, K. F., & Mickey, R. M. (2004). Brothers
and sisters of lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals as a demographic
200
comparison group. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40,
283–301.
Rothblum, E. D., Balsam, K. F., & Solomon, S. E. (2008). Comparison
of same-sex couples who were married in Massachusetts, had
domestic partnerships in California, or had civil unions in Vermont.
Journal of Family Issues, 29, 48–78.
Rust, P. C. (2000). Bisexuality in HIV research. In P. C. Rust (Ed.),
Bisexuality in the United States: A social science reader (pp.
356–399). New York: Columbia University Press.
Schaffner, B., & Senic, N. (2006). Rights or benefits? Explaining the
sexual identity gap in American political behavior. Political
Research Quarterly, 59, 123–132.
Sell, R. L. (2007). Defining and measuring sexual orientation for
research. In I. H. Meyer & M. E. Northridge (Eds.), The health of
sexual minorities: Public health perspectives on lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender populations (pp. 355–374). New York:
Springer.
Sell, R. L., & Petrulio, C. (1996). Sampling homosexuals, bisexuals,
gays, and lesbians for public health research: A review of the
literature from 1990 to 1992. Journal of Homosexuality, 30(4),
31–47.
Sell, R. L., & Silenzio, V. M. B. (2006). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender public health research. In M. D. Shankle (Ed.), The
Sex Res Soc Policy (2010) 7:176–200
handbook of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender public
health (pp. 33–56). New York: Harrington Park Press.
Sell, R. L., Kates, J., & Brodie, M. (2007). Use of a telephone
screener to identify a probability sample of gays, lesbians, and
bisexuals. Journal of Homosexuality, 53(4), 163–171.
Stall, R., & Wiley, J. (1988). A comparison of alcohol and drug use
patterns of homosexual and heterosexual men: The San Francisco Men’s Health Study. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 22,
63–73.
Toepoel, V., Das, M., & Van Soest, A. (2009). Effects of design in
web surveys: Comparing trained and fresh respondents. Public
Opinion Quarterly, 72, 985–1007.
Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. A. (2000). The psychology
of survey response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Udis-Kessler, A. (1995). Identity/politics: A history of the bisexual
movement. In N. Tucker (Ed.), Bisexual politics: Theories,
queries, and visions (pp. 17–30). New York: Haworth Press.
Varnum v. Brien, Iowa Sup. LEXIS 31 (2009).
Whisman, V. (1996). Queer by choice: Lesbians, gay men, and the
politics of identity. New York: Routledge.
Wilkinson, L., & Task Force on Statistical Inference. (1999).
Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and
explanations. American Psychologist, 54, 594–604.