need a discussion questions (in 5 hours)

ORIGINAL PAPER

Sexual Fluidity and Related Attitudes and Beliefs Among Young Adults with a Same-Gender Orientation

Sabra L. Katz-Wise • Janet S. Hyde

Received:17October2013 / Revised:1April2014 / Accepted:3August2014 / Publishedonline:7November2014

� Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Abstract Littleresearchhasexaminedwhetherexperiencing

sexual fluidity—changes over time in attractions and sexual

orientationidentity—isrelatedtospecificcognitions.Thisstudy

explored attitudes and beliefs among sexually fluid and non-

sexually fluid individuals and developed two new measures of

sexuality beliefs based on Diamond’s sexual fluidity research

and Dweck’s psychological theory of intelligence beliefs. Par-

ticipants were 188 female and male young adults in the United

States with a same-gender orientation, ages 18–26years. Par-

ticipants completed an online questionnaire which assessed

sexual fluidity in attractions and sexual orientation identity,

attitudes toward bisexuality, sexuality beliefs, and demograph-

ics. Sexual fluidity in attractions was reported by 63 % of

femalesand50%ofmales,with48%ofthosefemalesand34%

of those males reporting fluidity in sexual orientation identity.

Nosignificantgenderdifferencesinfrequencyofsexualfluidity

were observed. Sexually fluid females had more positive atti-

tudes toward bisexuality than non-sexually fluid females;

however, no significant difference was observed for males.

Females were more likely than males to endorse sexual fluidity

beliefs and to believe that sexuality is changeable; and sexually

fluidpersonsweremorelikelythannon-sexuallyfluidpersonsto

hold those two beliefs. Among males, non-sexually fluid

individuals were more likely than sexually fluid individuals to

believe that sexuality is something an individual is born with.

Females were more likely than males to endorse the belief that

sexuality is influenced by the environment. Findings from this

research link sexual fluidity with specific cognitions.

Keywords Sexual fluidity � Sexual orientation � Sexual minority

Introduction

Formation of sexual orientation is a normative part of devel-

opment,typicallybeginningduringadolescenceanddeveloping

alongside attitudes and beliefs about sexuality. Although the

majority of individuals develop a heterosexual sexual orienta-

tion, data from the U.S. National Survey of Family Growth

indicated that up to 14% of adult women and 8% of adult men

report some element of a same-gender orientation (Chandra,

Mosher, Copen, & Sionean, 2011), which refers to attractions,

sexual behavior, or a sexual orientation identity that is oriented

toward same-gender others. Classic models of sexual orienta-

tion identity development proposed that sexual orientation

forms prior to adolescence and remains stable over time (Bell,

Weinberg, & Hammersmith, 1981; Money, 1988), but a grow-

ing body of research on sexual fluidity challenges these models

for both females and males (Dickson, Paul, & Herbison, 2003;

Dickson, van Roode, Camerson, & Paul, 2013; Katz-Wise,

2014; Kinnish, Strassberg, & Turner, 2005; Mock & Eibach,

2012; Ott, Corliss, Wypij, Rosario, & Austin, 2011; Savin-

Williams, Joyner, & Rieger, 2012). Some researchers have

begun to consider specific cognitions related to sexual fluidity,

such as person-based attractions (e.g., Diamond, 2008b), but

more research is needed to understand these associations in

contemporary adolescents and young adults. The current study

S. L. Katz-Wise (&) Division of Adolescent/Young Adult Medicine, Boston Children’s

Hospital, 300 Longwood Ave., Boston, MA 02115, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

S. L. Katz-Wise

Department of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA,

USA

S. L. Katz-Wise � J. S. Hyde Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Madison,

Madison, WI, USA

123

Arch Sex Behav (2015) 44:1459–1470

DOI 10.1007/s10508-014-0420-1

investigated attitudes and beliefs related to sexual fluidity in

attractions in a sample of female and male young adults with a

same-gender orientation and examined two new measures of

sexuality beliefs.

Sexual Fluidity and Gender

Sexualorientationcanbeconceptualizedasamulti-dimensional

construct comprising three main elements: attractions, sexual

behavior, and sexual orientation identity (Institute of Medicine,

2011). Sexual fluidity has been defined as situation-dependent

flexibility in sexual responsiveness which may manifest in

changes in sexual orientation identity over time (Diamond,

2008b), with sexual responsiveness further operationalized as

attractions. This definition implies that change in sexual orien-

tationidentityfollowsfromchangeinattractions;forexample,a

female might identify as completely heterosexual and experi-

enceattractionsonlytowardmales,butlateridentifyasbisexual

after recognizing attractions toward both females and males. In

the current study, sexual fluidity was measured based on this

assumptionandincludedmeasuresofchangeinbothattractions

and sexual orientation identity.

Sexual fluidityencompasseschangesinsexualorientationin

multiple directions. It may represent change in attractions or

sexual orientation identity toward or away from same-gender

orientation. Previous research has found evidence of sexual

fluidity among heterosexually-identified and other-gender

attracted individuals (Dickson et al., 2003, 2013; Katz-Wise,

2014; Kinnish et al., 2005; Mock & Eibach, 2012; Ott et al.,

2011; Savin-Williams et al., 2012). This suggests that sexual

fluidity is not limited to sexual minorities and may represent a

coming out process for individuals who first indicate a hetero-

sexual orientation but later indicate some element of same-

gender orientation (e.g., same-gender attractions, non-hetero-

sexual sexual orientation identity). The assertion that sexual

fluidity is situation-dependent (Diamond, 2008b) suggests the

importance of considering the influence of social context on

sexual fluidity experiences. For instance, an individual with

exclusive other-gender attractions may never question their

sexual orientation until becoming friends with a same-gender

attractedindividual.Bythesametoken,asame-genderattracted

individual may become more open to the possibility of other-

gender attraction if they are exposed to the notion of sexual

fluidity in a college sexuality course. In this sense, one’s pro-

pensitytowardsexualfluiditycanneverreallybeknownuntilthe

‘‘right’’environment or social context occurs.

Although some researchers have suggested that fluidity is

a general property of sexuality (e.g., Blumstein & Schwartz,

1990; Weinberg, Williams, & Pryor, 1994) and evidence of

sexual fluidity exists in non-Western cultures (Wekker, 2006),

sexual fluidity has been studied primarily among sexual

minority females living in the United States (e.g., Diamond,

2008b; Rust, 1993). Recently, a number of studies using both

cross-sectional and longitudinal designs have begun to include

both females and males and heterosexually-identified individ-

uals in addition to sexual minorities. Whereas many of these

studies have found greater frequency of sexual fluidity among

females and sexual minorities, compared to males and hetero-

sexualindividuals(Dicksonetal.,2003,2013;Mock&Eibach,

2012;Savin-Williamsetal.,2012),somestudieshavefoundthe

opposite pattern, with sexual minority males indicating greater

likelihood of sexual fluidity than sexual minority females

(Rosario, Schrimshaw, Hunter, & Braun, 2006) or no signifi-

cant gender difference among some sexual orientation groups

(Katz-Wise, 2014; Kinnish et al., 2005; Ott et al., 2011). Now

that it has been established that both females and males expe-

rience sexual fluidity, more research is needed to understand

whether specific attitudes and beliefs are related to sexual

fluidity.

Cognitions Related to Sexual Fluidity

Diamond (2008b) suggested that the amount of sexual fluidity

experienced by a female is determined by her initial propensity

for sexual fluidity and her exposure to environmental, situa-

tional, and interpersonal factors that might trigger fluidity. An

individual’s propensity for sexual fluidity may be related to

holding particular attitudes about sexuality. Previous research

has suggested that many individuals hold negative attitudes

toward bisexuality (Israel & Mohr, 2004), particularly toward

bisexual men (Eliason, 2001; Yost & Thomas, 2012). A recent

study of heterosexual women’s and men’s beliefs found that

participantsusedmorenegativestereotypestoevaluatebisexual

men, compared to evaluations of heterosexual and gay men

(Zivony & Lobell, 2014). In addition, bisexual individuals have

reported experiencing biphobia—negative attitudes about

bisexuality—from both heterosexual and sexual minority

communities (Mulick & Wright, 2002). Little is known

regarding how sexually fluid individuals view bisexuality.

Sexual fluidity in attractions necessitates experiencing

attractions toward more than one gender at some point, which

could be classified as bisexual by some definitions. Exploring

how sexual fluidity relates to attitudes toward bisexuality may

shedlightonattitudestowardsexualfluidityitself,whichmaybe

related to the likelihood of experiencing sexual fluidity.

Social identity theory proposes that individuals hold more

favorable views toward in-group members than toward out-

group members (Brown, 2000). Sexually fluid individuals

may hold more favorable attitudes toward bisexual individ-

uals because they are a natural in-group. On the other hand,

individuals with exclusive same-gender or other-gender

attractions may hold negative attitudes toward bisexuality

until they are presented with a social context that allows

sexualfluidityto occur. It isalso possiblethat the relationship

between attitudes toward bisexuality and sexual fluidity is

bidirectional, such that positive attitudes toward bisexuality

1460 Arch Sex Behav (2015) 44:1459–1470

123

maypredictsexualfluidityorviceversa.Asafirststeptoward

understanding the relationship between sexual fluidity and

attitudes toward bisexuality, the current study examined this

association cross-sectionally among females and males with

a same-gender orientation.

An individual’s propensity for sexual fluidity may also be

related to specific beliefs about the origin of sexuality. National

survey results suggest that U.S. adults hold differing beliefs

about the origins of sexual orientation as biologically or envi-

ronmentally based. In 2011, 42% of adults surveyed believed

that being gay or lesbian was due to factors such as upbringing

and environment whereas 40% believed that being gay or les-

bian was something an individual is born with (Gallup, 2011).

Diamond’s(2008b)viewofsexualfluidityasapropensitythatis

triggeredbyenvironmentalfactorssuggeststhatasexuallyfluid

individual’s sexual orientation is both biological and environ-

mentally based. Diamond (2005) measured biological (born

withit)versusenvironmentalinfluenceviewsofsexualityinher

longitudinal study of sexual fluidity among sexual minority

females and found no significant differences in beliefs among

stable lesbians (no change in sexual orientation identity), fluid

lesbians (change in sexual orientation identity), and non-lesbi-

ans (bisexual and unlabeled).

Sexual fluidity may also be related to other beliefs about

sexuality. Diamond (2008b) has used the term person-based

attractions to conceptualize the nature of attractions for women

inherstudywhodescribedbeingattractedto‘‘theperson,notthe

gender’’(p. 172). In other words, individuals with person-based

attractions consider characteristics other than gender to have a

greater role in their attractions to others. Diamond (2005)

measured person-based attraction beliefs in her study, finding

that,comparedtostablelesbians,fluidlesbiansandnon-lesbians

were more likely to believe that their attractions were directed

toward an individual rather than an individual’s gender. In the

current study, we developed a scale of sexual fluidity beliefs

based on Diamond’s (2003, 2005) findings, which included

assessment of person-based attractions.

Beliefsaboutthechangeabilityofsexualorientationmayalso

be related to sexual fluidity and examining this belief may shed

light on why some people experience sexual fluidity whereas

othersdonot.Forinstance,ifanindividualinitiallybelievesthat

sexual orientation is changeable, they may be more open to

changes in their own attractions and sexual orientation identity.

An initial belief in the changeability of sexual orientation may

also reflect an individual’s propensity for sexual fluidity.

Dweck’s psychological theory of intelligence beliefs (Dweck,

Chiu, & Hong, 1995) can be applied to beliefs about sexual

fluidity. Dweck proposed two views of intelligence: an entity

view suggests that intelligence is fixed and cannot change with

effort whereas an incremental view suggests that intelligence is

malleableandcanchangewitheffort.Asappliedtosexuality,an

entity view suggests that sexuality is fixed and cannot change

whereasanincrementalviewsuggeststhatsexualityismalleable

and can change. An incremental view of sexuality may be

more consistent with sexual fluidity than an entity view; this

pattern was explored in the current study.

An additional component of this belief deserving further

attentionistheagentofchange,thatis,whethersexualorientation

changesbyitselforwhetheranindividualhascontroloverchang-

ing their sexual orientation. Dweck’s original theory was con-

ceptualized in terms of the individual as the agent of change, as

revealedinasampleitemtestingthistheory:‘‘Youhaveacertain

amountofintelligenceandyoureallycan’tdomuchtochangeit’’

(Dweck et al., 1995, p. 269). The use of‘‘you’’in the wording of

this item suggests that the individual is the agent of change. This

theory can be expanded to reflect two different agents of change

inbeliefsaboutsexuality.Anindividualmayholdanentityview,

that sexuality is fixed or that one cannot change one’s sexuality,

oranincremental view,thatsexualitycanchangeor thatone can

changeone’ssexuality.Viewsofsexualitymaynotbeconsistent

across agents; for instance, an individual may have an incre-

mental view when sexual orientation is the agent of change, but

anentityviewwhentheindividualistheagentofchange.Inother

words,anindividualmaybelievethattheirsexualitycanchange,

but not that they themselves have control over the changes that

occur. In the current study we developed a new measure of

sexualitybeliefsbasedonDweck’stheoryofintelligencebeliefs,

which included both sexual orientation and the individual as

agents of change.

The Current Study

Previously, we demonstrated that females and males were sim-

ilarlylikelytoexperiencesexualfluidityinattractionsandsexual

orientation identity and we documented associations among

sexual fluidity in attractions, specific elements of sexual orien-

tation, and traditional conceptualizations of sexual orientation

identity development (Katz-Wise, 2014). However, more

research is needed to explore related cognitions as an

important step toward understanding why some individuals

experience sexual fluidity while others do not. In the current

study, we conducted new analyses using data from the same

sample to investigate attitudes and beliefs related to sexual flu-

idity in attractions and examined two new measures of sexuality

beliefsbasedonDiamond’s(2003,2005)sexualfluidityresearch

and Dweck et al.’s (1995) theory of intelligence. Sexually fluid

individualswereexpectedtoholdmorepositiveattitudestoward

bisexuality and to endorse more sexual fluidity-related beliefs

than non-sexually fluid individuals. In addition, sexually fluid

individuals were expected to be more likely than non-sexually

fluid individuals to believe that sexuality is influenced by envi-

ronment and less likely to believe sexuality was something they

were born with. Sexually fluid individuals were also expected

to hold an incremental view of sexuality when both sexual

orientation and the individual were agents of change whereas

Arch Sex Behav (2015) 44:1459–1470 1461

123

non-sexually fluid individuals were expected to hold an entity

view of sexuality.

Method

Participants

Study participants were 188 young adults (118 females, 70

males) with a same-gender orientation, ages 18–26 years

(M=21.40, SD=2.48). Participants were excluded from the

current analyses if they reported a transgender or‘‘other’’gender

identity (n=11) or lived outside of the United States (n=1).

Participants were required to meet at least one of the following

criteria: (1) identify with a sexual orientation other than hetero-

sexual, (2) prefer not to label their sexual orientation, or (3)

experience past attractions to someone of the same gender or to

both females and males. Sample demographic information is

shown in Table1.

Multiple methods of recruitment were utilized. Under-

graduate students identifying as mostly heterosexual, bisex-

ual, homosexual/gay/lesbian, or questioning/unsure on an

introductory psychology mass survey at a large U.S. mid-

western university were contacted for participation in this study.

Recruitment emails were sent to instructors of gender and sex-

uality courses, women’s and gender studies department listservs

at 15 colleges and universities, and 28 LGBTQ (lesbian, gay,

bisexual,transgender,queer)campusandcommunitycentersin

citiesacrossamidwesternU.S.state.Studyinformationwasalso

posted on Craigslist.org and relevant Facebook pages targeting

sexualminorityyouth.Flyerswerepostedaroundthecampusof

a large midwestern university and the surrounding mid-sized

city, particularly in locations where sexual minority youth typ-

ically frequent (e.g., gay bars, queer theater spaces).

The recruitment materialsstated the eligibilitycriteria and

asked for volunteers to participate in a study investigating

romantic and sexual attractions and behavior. The recruit-

ment email contained the following additional text: ‘‘More

and more people are seeing sexuality as something fluid that

changes over our lifetimes rather than something fixed, and

wewould liketolearn moreabout this. Withthis information,

we will understand more about how people form a sexual

orientation identity and why sexual orientation might or

might not change over time. We hope this knowledge will

improve the lives of young adults with various sexual iden-

tities, because we will understand more about their experi-

ences.’’ Recruitment emails and electronic study postings

encouraged individuals to pass information about the study

ontootherpotential participants.AllemailscontainedaURL

link to the online survey and flyers asked potential partici-

pants to contact the investigator for more information. This

study was approved by the institutional review board at the

investigators’ institution.

Table 1 Sampledemographicsandrecruitmentsourcesbygenderfor118female and 70 male young adults

Measure Females Males

Individual demographics

Age (years, M/SD) 21.49 (2.44) 21.25 (2.57)

Race/ethnicity (%, n)

White 80.4 (86) 86.6 (58)

Black/African American 1.9 (2) 0 (0)

Asian 5.6 (6) 3.0 (2)

Latino/Hispanic 1.9 (2) 4.5 (3)

Native American 0.9 (1) 1.5 (1)

Mixed ethnicity 9.3 (10) 4.5 (3)

Sexual orientation identity (%, n)

Completely heterosexual/straight 14.4 (17) 2.9 (2)

Mostly heterosexual/straight 13.6 (16) 2.9 (2)

Bisexual 19.5 (23) 11.4 (8)

Mostly lesbian/gay 9.3 (11) 12.9 (9)

Completely lesbian/gay 16.1 (19) 54.3 (38)

Queer 15.3 (18) 7.1 (5)

Questioning/unsure 4.2 (5) 4.3 (3)

Unlabeled 7.6 (9) 4.3 (3)

Location (%, n)

Primary Midwestern state 86.9 (93) 89.7 (61)

Other U.S. state 13.1 (14) 10.3 (7)

Current level of education (%, n)

Some high school/high school degree 5.6 (6) 6.0 (4)

Some college/college degree 79.4 (85) 80.6 (54)

Some grad or prof school/grad or prof degree 15.0 (16) 13.4 (9)

Current student (%, n)

No 37.3 (38) 33.9 (21)

Yes 62.7 (64) 66.1 (41)

Family demographics

Mother’s level of education (%, n)

Some high school/high school degree 21.5 (23) 32.4 (22)

Some college/college degree 52.3 (56) 55.9 (38)

Some grad or prof school/grad or prof degree 26.2 (28) 11.8 (8)

Father’s level of education (%, n)

Some high school/high school degree 25.7 (27) 33.8 (23)

Some college/college degree 47.6 (50) 42.6 (29)

Some grad or prof school/grad or prof degree 26.7 (28) 23.5 (16)

Parental divorce (%, n)

No 76.4 (81) 74.6 (50)

Yes 23.6 (25) 25.4 (17)

Age at parental divorce (M/SD) 9.72 (6.31) 9.59 (5.87)

Recruitment Sources (%, n)

UW-Madison psychology department 15.0 (16) 10.4 (7)

Women’s/gender studies department 12.1 (13) 4.5 (3)

LGBT college/university/community center 12.1 (13) 11.9 (8)

Email/listserv 30.8 (33) 25.4 (17)

Friend 15.0 (16) 28.4 (19)

Other 15.0 (16) 19.4 (13)

Sample sizes associated with frequencies are based on the number of participants

who responded to a particular item, excluding missing data. Age at parental

divorce is reported only for participants who responded that their parents were

divorced. Other recruitment sources included gender/sexuality class, flyer,

Facebook post

1462 Arch Sex Behav (2015) 44:1459–1470

123

Measures

Participants completed an online survey, which included the

following measures: sexual fluidity in attractions and sexual

orientation identity, attitudes toward bisexuality, sexuality

beliefs, and demographics. In the survey, attitudes toward

bisexuality and sexuality beliefs were assessed prior to the

assessment of sexual orientation identity and sexual fluidity.

Other measures included in the survey (e.g., assessment of

sexual orientation dimensions, sexual orientation identity

development) were not related to the current study and are

reportedelsewhere(Katz-Wise,2012,2014).Separatefemale

andmale versionsof thesurveywerecreatedto accommodate

differentversions oftheattitudestowardbisexualitymeasure.

Sexual Fluidity in Attractions and Sexual Orientation

Identity

A sexual fluidity measure was developed for the current study.

Participants were asked the following item to assess sexual

fluidity in attractions:‘‘Have you ever experienced a change in

attractions to others over time (e.g., feeling only attracted to

women, then feeling attracted to both women and men)?’’(yes,

no).Ifparticipantsansweredyestothisitem,theywereasked(1)

to report the approximate age when they experienced the initial

change (years), (2) ‘‘Did the change in attractions result in a

change in the labels you use to describe your sexual orienta-

tion?’’(yes, no), and (3)‘‘Have you experienced more than one

change in attractions to others over time?’’(yes, no). If partici-

pants answered yes to the item assessing multiple changes in

attractions,theywereaskedtoreporttheapproximatenumberof

changesexperienced.Anadditionalitemassessedthelikelihood

offuturechanges,‘‘Howlikelyisitthatyourattractionsorsexual

identity will change in the future?’’which was measured on a

scale from 1 (extremely unlikely) to 5 (extremely likely).

Attitudes Toward Bisexuality

Attitudes toward bisexuality were assessed using the Atti-

tudes Regarding Bisexuality Scale-Female version (ARBS-

F) and Male version (ARBS-M) (Mohr & Rochlen, 1999).

Eachscaleconsistedof12items,withtwosubscales:stability

(e.g., ‘‘Most women who call themselves bisexual are tem-

porarily experimenting with their sexuality’’) and tolerance

(e.g.,‘‘Bisexuality in menis immoral’’).Itemswere measured

on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree),

with higher scores indicating more positive attitudes toward

bisexuality. Reliability in a previous study ranged from

a = .85 to .93 for both subscales (Mohr & Rochlen, 1999). In the current study, reliability for all items was a = .69 for females and a = .73 for males.

Sexual Fluidity Beliefs Scale

A 5-item Sexual Fluidity Beliefs Scale was developed for the

currentstudywithoneitemdevelopedbyDiamond(2005),(1)‘‘I

feelmyownsexualidentity(howIlabelmysexualorientation)is

something I chose’’and four additional items based on themes

related to sexual fluidity that Diamond (2003) found in her

qualitative interviews: (2) ‘‘For me, I believe romantic love

depends on the person, not the gender’’ (love depends on the

person vs. gender), (3)‘‘I don’t know who (which gender) I will

be attracted to in the future’’ (uncertainty about future attrac-

tions),(4)‘‘Idon’tknowhowIwilllabelmysexualorientationin

thefuture’’(uncertaintyaboutfuturesexualorientationidentity),

and (5)‘‘I feel my sexuality is fluid (changeable)’’(beliefs that

sexuality is fluid). Item 1 was measured on a scale from 1

(completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree) and Items 2–5

were measured on a scale from 1 (completely disagree) to 7

(completely agree). Item 1 was transformed to match the

response scale for Items 2–5 and a scale score was created by

averaging the items; higher scores indicated greater endorse-

ment of sexual fluidity-related beliefs. In the current study,

reliability was a= .86 for females and a= .85 for males.

Sexuality Origin Beliefs

Two beliefs about the origin of sexuality were assessed sep-

arately using items developed by Diamond (2005): (1)‘‘I feel

my sexuality is something I was born with’’and (2)‘‘I feel my

sexuality has been influenced by my environment.’’ Items

were measured on a scale from 1 (completely disagree) to 5

(completely agree).

Entity Versus Incremental Views of Sexual Orientation

An 8-item Entity versus Incremental Views of Sexual Orienta-

tion measure was developed for the current study based on

Dweck et al.’s (1995) psychological theory of intelligence

beliefs. Dweck et al.’s original items were worded as follows:

(1)‘‘You have a certain amount of intelligence and you can’t do

much to change it’’; (2)‘‘Your intelligence is something about

you that you can’t change very much’’; and (3)‘‘You can learn

newthings,but youcan’treallychange your basic intelligence.’’

The measure was adapted to views of sexual orientation and

extended to two subscales to reflect the agent of change. Four

items were worded such that sexual orientation was the agent of

change: (1) ‘‘A person’s sexual orientation is something very

basic about them that can’t change’’; (2) A person can have a

sexualpartnerthatdoesnotmatchtheirsexualorientation(e.g.,a

gay man who has a female sexual partner), but their real sexual

orientation can’t really change’’; (3) No matter what a person’s

sexualidentity(howtheylabeltheirsexualorientation,e.g.,gay)

is, it can always change quite a bit’’; and (4) A person’s sexual

orientation can change substantially.’’Four items were worded

Arch Sex Behav (2015) 44:1459–1470 1463

123

suchthattheindividualwastheagentofchange:(1)‘‘Aperson’s

sexual orientation is something very basic about them that they

can’t change’’; (2)‘‘A person can have a sexual partner that does

not match their sexual orientation, but they can’t change their

real sexual orientation.’’; (3)‘‘No matter what a person’s sexual

identity is, they can always change it quite a bit.’’ and (4) ‘‘A

person can substantially change their sexual orientation.’’Items

were measured on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7

(strongly agree). A scale score was created by averaging the

items; higher scores indicated an incremental view, that sexu-

ality can change or that one can change one’s sexuality; lower

scoresindicatedanentityview,thatsexualityisfixedorthatone

cannot change one’s sexuality. For females, reliability was

a = .80 for the sexual orientation-based scale and a = .88 for theperson-basedscale.Formales,reliabilitywasa= .86forthe sexual orientation-based scale and a= .91 for the person-based scale.

Demographics

Individual demographics included age (month/year of birth),

ethnicity (white/Caucasian, black/African American, Asian,

Latino/Hispanic, Native American, mixed ethnicity, other),

current level of education, and the city/state in which the

participant currently lived. Family demographics included

parental level of education, parental divorce, and age of the

participant at the time of divorce. Education variables were

measured categorically with response options ranging from

some high school to graduate/professional degree.

Procedure

The online survey wasadministered between January and April

2011. Participants accessed the survey using the URL link

provided in the recruitment email. They were directed to the

female or male version based on their answer to an item

assessing current gender identity. Participants gave consent at

the start of the survey and completed it using their own com-

puter.Duration of surveycompletionranged from 20to60min.

As part of the larger study, participants were asked to consent to

be contacted for follow-up interviews and to provide contact

information.Resultsfromthequalitativeportionofthestudyare

detailedelsewhere(Katz-Wise,2012).Followingcompletionof

the survey, participants were entered into a random drawing for

one of five $20 gift certificates to Amazon.com.

Analytic Plan

Scale scores were calculated and reliability statistics were

computed for each scale and subscale. Descriptive statistics

and bivariate correlations were computed for each of the

measures.Participantswereclassifiedassexuallyfluidifthey

responded yes and non-sexually fluid if they responded no to

the item measuring sexual fluidity in attractions:‘‘Have you

ever experienced a change in attractions to others over time

(e.g., feeling only attracted to women, then feeling attracted

to both women and men)?’’Differences between sexual flu-

idity groups (sexually fluid vs. non-sexually fluid) and

between gender groups (female vs. male) were tested using t

tests, chi square tests, univariate tests (ANOVA), and multi-

variatetests(MANOVA),whereappropriate.Forunivariateand

multivariatetests,TypeIIIsumsofsquareswereusedtoaccount

for unequal sample sizes in females compared with males.

Cohen’s d was calculated to determine effect sizes for gender

and sexual fluidity group differences.

Results

Descriptive statistics are shown by gender in Table 2, corre-

lations betweenthe measures are shown bygender inTable 3,

Table 2 Descriptivestatisticsforallmeasuresbygenderfor118female and 70 male young adults

Measure Females Males

Sexual fluidity

Change in attractions (%, n) 62.7 (74) 50.0 (35)

Changeinsexualorientationidentity(%,n) 48.3 (57) 34.3 (24)

[1 change in attractions (%, n) 21.2 (25) 18.6 (13) Number of changes (M/SD) 2.58 (1.03) 2.75 (1.14)

Age of first change (years; M/SD) 17.54(2.53) 15.59(4.18)

Likelihood of future changes in attractions/

sexual orientation identity (M/SD)

2.17 (1.11) 1.67 (0.96)

Attitudes and beliefs

Attitudes toward bisexuality (M/SD) 4.39 (0.66) 4.31 (0.66)

Stability 4.08 (0.84) 3.83 (0.88)

Tolerance 4.71 (0.64) 4.78 (0.62)

Sexual fluidity beliefs scale (M/SD) 4.35 (1.45) 3.29 (1.56)

Sexuality origin beliefs (M/SD)

Sexuality influenced by environment 3.06 (1.19) 2.66 (1.25)

Sexuality born with 4.05 (0.56) 4.24 (0.96)

Entity vs. incremental views of sexual orientation (M/SD)

Sexual orientation-based 4.09 (1.37) 3.40 (1.54)

Person-based 3.41 (1.55) 2.67 (1.50)

Frequencies for change in sexual orientation identity labels and indica-

tion of more than one change in attractions are reported only for partic-

ipants who indicated a change in attractions. Number of changes in

attractions (range, 1–5.5 changes) and age of first change (range, 8–

25 years) are reported only for participants who indicated more than one

changeinattractions.Higherscoresrepresentgreaterlikelihoodoffuture

changes in attractions/sexual orientation identity (range, 1–5), more

positive attitudes toward bisexuality (range, 1–5), greater endorsement

of sexual fluidity beliefs (range, 1–7) and sexuality origin beliefs (range,

1–5), and an incremental view of sexuality rather than an entity view

(range, 1–7)

1464 Arch Sex Behav (2015) 44:1459–1470

123

and descriptive statistics and comparisons by gender and

sexual fluidity are shown in Table 4.

Sexual Fluidity

To identify sexual fluidity groups for comparison on related

attitudes and beliefs, frequencies were computed for sexual

fluidity items (Table 2) and comparisons were made between

females and males. 1 No significant gender differences were

found regarding change in attractions or sexual orientation

identity. Change in attractions was reported by 63 % of

females and 50 % of males; of those reporting a change in

attractions, 48 % of females and 34 % of males reported that

the change in attractions resulted in a change in sexual ori-

entation identity labels used to describe their sexual orien-

tation. Multiple changes in attractions were reported by 21 %

of females (M = 2.58 changes) and 19 % of males (M = 2.75

changes) who reported one change. Although gender differ-

ences were not significant, a small effect size for gender was

found for both variables (d = 0.25 for change in attractions,

d = 0.30 for change in sexual orientation identity), indicating

that females were slightly more likely than males to report

sexual fluidity.

The only significant gender differences for sexual fluidity

were age of first change in attractions and likelihood of future

changes in attractions and sexual orientation identity. Age of

first change in attractions was older among females (M=

17.54years) than among males (M=15.59years), t(103)=

2.98, p= .004; however, males first experienced a change in

attractions at a wider range of ages (SD=4.18), compared to

females (SD=2.53). Both females and males responded that

futurechangesinattractionsandsexualorientationidentitywere

not very likely, with females believing that future changes were

more likely (M=2.17) than males (M=1.67), t(181)=3.08,

p= .002. A moderate effect size for gender was found for both

variables (d=0.45 for age of first change, d=0.46 for likeli-

hood of future change).

Attitudes and Beliefs

Attitudes Toward Bisexuality

Analyses to test for gender differences in attitudes toward

bisexuality were not conducted and analyses to test for sexual

fluidity group differences were conducted separately by

gender because females and males completed different ver-

sions of the scale (ARBS-F and ARBS-M). Descriptively,

females and males indicated similarly positive attitudes

toward bisexuality in general (females: M = 4.39; males:

M = 4.31) and specifically regarding tolerance of bisexuality

(females:M = 4.71;males:M = 4.78).However,femaleshad

slightly more positive attitudes toward bisexuality as a stable

identity, compared to males (females: M = 4.08; males: M =

3.83) (Table 2).

To test the hypothesis that sexually fluid individuals had

more positive attitudes toward bisexuality compared to non-

sexually fluid individuals, two 2-group (Sexual Fluidity in

Attractions: Fluid vs. Non-Fluid) MANOVAs were conducted

with the subscale scores for stability and tolerance as the out-

come variables. Among females, the overall MANOVA was

significant, F(2, 115)=6.27, p= .003; however, the tests of

univariate effects revealed that only the tolerance subscale was

significant, F(1, 116)=12.64, p\.001. Sexually fluid females were more tolerant of bisexuality (M=4.86) than non-sexually

fluidfemales(M=4.45),buttherewasnosignificantdifference

between the sexual fluidity groups regarding beliefs about

bisexualityasastableidentity(sexuallyfluidfemales:M=4.19;

non-sexuallyfluidfemales:M=3.89)(Table4).Amongmales,

no significant difference was found between the two sexual

fluidity groups regarding attitudes toward bisexuality.

Sexual Fluidity Beliefs Scale

To test whether sexual fluidity beliefs differed by gender and

sexual fluidity in attractions, a 2 (Gender: Female vs. Male) X 2

(Sexual Fluidity in Attractions: Fluid vs. Non-Fluid) ANOVA

was conducted with the Sexual Fluidity Beliefs Scale score as

the outcome variable. The results indicated significant main

effects for gender, F(1, 184)=19.08, p\.0001, and sexual fluidity, F(1, 184) = 12.32, p = .001, but not a significant

interaction (Table 4). As expected, females indicated greater

sexual fluidity beliefs (M = 4.35) than males (M = 3.29)

(Table 2), and sexually fluid individuals indicated greater

sexual fluidity beliefs (females: M=4.64; males: M=3.67)

than non-sexually fluid individuals (females: M=3.86; males:

M = 2.90). Moderate effect sizes were found for gender

(d = 0.66) and sexual fluidity (d = 0.52) (Table 4).

Sexuality Origin Beliefs

To test the hypothesis that sexually fluid individuals were

morelikelythannon-sexuallyfluidindividualstobelievethat

sexuality is influenced by the environment and less likely to

believe their sexuality is something they were born with, two

2 (Gender: Female vs. Male) X 2 (Sexual Fluidity in Attrac-

tions: Fluid vs. Non-Fluid) ANOVAs were conducted, with

itemstestingthetwobeliefsasseparateoutcomes.Theresults

indicated a significant main effect for gender for the belief

that sexuality is influenced by the environment, F(1, 184) =

5.64, p = .02, but no significant main effect for sexual fluidity

and no significant interaction (Table 4). Females were more

1 Descriptive statistics reported for sexual fluidity differ slightly from

those reported in Katz-Wise (2014) because the sample for the current

study was restricted to individuals who did not report a transgender or

‘‘other’’gender identity.

Arch Sex Behav (2015) 44:1459–1470 1465

123

likely (M = 3.06) than males (M = 2.66) to endorse the belief

thatsexualityisinfluencedbytheenvironment.Asmalleffect

size was found for gender (d = 0.36).

Analyses to test the belief that sexuality is something one is

born with revealed a significant interaction between gender and

sexualfluidity,F(1,183)=4.63,p= .03,butnosignificantmain

effects for gender or sexual fluidity (Table4). Among females,

no significant sexual fluidity group difference was found, but

amongmales,non-sexuallyfluidindividualsweremorelikelyto

endorse this belief (M=4.51) than sexually fluid individuals

(M=3.97). Small effect sizes were found for gender (d=0.21)

and sexual fluidity (d=0.23 for sexual fluidity). Therefore, the

hypothesiswaspartiallysupportedforthebeliefthatsexualityis

something a person is born with.

Entity Versus Incremental Views of Sexual Orientation

To test the hypothesis that sexually fluid individuals were

more likely than non-sexually fluid individuals to have an

incremental view of sexual orientation, a 2 (Gender: Female

vs. Male) X 2 (Sexual Fluidity in Attractions: Fluid vs. Non-

Fluid)MANOVAwas conducted withthesexualorientation-

based and person-based subscale scores as outcome vari-

ables. The overall MANOVA revealed significant main

Table 3 Correlations among attitudes and beliefs measures for 118 female and 70 male young adults

Measures 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Bisexuality attitudes .92** .86** .31** -.11 -.04 .12 -.07

2. Bisexuality attitudes—Stability .92** .58** .27** -.13 -.07 .21* .01

3. Bisexuality attitudes—Tolerance .83** .56** .29** -.05 .02 -.03 -.15

4. Sexual fluidity beliefs scale .19 .27* .04 .10 -.17 .19* .20*

5. Sexuality origin belief—Influenced by environment .09 .14 .01 .53** -.40** .21* .38**

6. Sexuality origin belief—Born with .28* .16 .38** -.31** -.31* -.25** -.35**

7. Entity vs. incremental—Sexual orientation-based .07 .13 -.04 .62** .48** -.52** .66**

8. Entity vs. incremental—Person-based -.06 .01 -.14 .50** .42** -.39** .61**

Bivariate correlations for females are above the diagonal and correlations for males are below the diagonal

* p\.05; ** p\.01

Table 4 Comparison of sexually fluid and non-sexually fluid female (N = 118) and male (N = 70) young adults on attitudes and beliefs

Females Males Females vs. males Sexually fluid vs.

non-sexually fluid

Gender X

sexual fluidity

Measure Sexually

fluid

(n = 74)

Non-sexually

fluid (n = 44)

Sexually

fluid

(n = 35)

Non-sexually

fluid (n = 35)

Sig. test d Sig. test d Sig. test

Attitudes toward bisexuality 4.53 (0.52) 4.17 (0.80) 4.43 (0.57) 4.18 (0.72) – – F(1, 116) = 8.64** 0.56 –

Stability 4.19 (0.79) 3.89 (0.91) 3.99 (0.89) 3.68 (0.84) – – F(1, 116) = 3.70 0.37 –

Tolerance 4.86 (0.39) 4.45 (0.85) 4.87 (0.40) 4.69 (0.77) – – F(1, 116) = 12.64* 0.68 –

Sexual fluidity beliefs scale 4.64 (1.30) 3.86 (1.56) 3.67 (1.59) 2.90 (1.45) F(1, 184) = 19.08** 0.66 F(1, 184) = 12.32** 0.52 F\1

Sexuality origin beliefs

Sexuality influenced

by environment

2.95 (1.22) 3.25 (1.14) 2.69 (1.28) 2.63 (1.24) F(1, 184) = 5.64* 0.36 F\1 0.10 F\1

Sexuality born with 4.08 (0.94) 4.00 (1.01) 3.97 (0.99) 4.51 (0.85) F(1, 183) = 1.93 0.21 F(1, 183) = 2.51 0.23 F(1, 183) = 4.63*

Entity vs. incremental views of sexual orientation

Sexual

orientation-based

4.23 (1.47) 3.86 (1.14) 3.63 (1.43) 3.16 (1.62) F(1, 182) = 10.01** 0.48 F(1, 182) = 4.47* 0.31 F\1

Person-based 3.38 (1.67) 3.44 (1.34) 2.76 (1.43) 2.57 (1.59) F(1, 182) = 10.04** 0.48 F\1 0.04 F\1

For all variables with a mean, SD is in parentheses. Higher scores represent more positive attitudes toward bisexuality (range 1–5), greater endorsement of sexual fluidity

beliefs (range 1–7) and sexuality origin beliefs (range 1–5), and an incremental view of sexuality rather than an entity view (range 1–7). Significance tests and effect sizes

arenotreportedforgenderdifferencesinattitudestowardbisexualitybecausefemalesandmalescompleteddifferentversionsofthescale.Sexualfluiditygroupdifferences

in attitudes toward bisexuality are presented for females only; no significant differences were found for males. Univariate and multivariate tests with Type III sums of

squareswereusedtoassessgroupdifferences.Cohen’sdisreportedforeffectsizes;positivevaluesindicatehigherscoresforfemalesthanmalesandforsexually-fluidthan

non-sexually fluid individuals

* p\.05, ** p\.01

1466 Arch Sex Behav (2015) 44:1459–1470

123

effects for gender, F(2, 181) = 6.05, p = .003, and sexual

fluidity, F(2, 181) = 3.27, p = .04, but not a significant

interaction.Thetests ofunivariateeffectsforgenderrevealed

significant main effects for the sexual orientation-based

scale, F(1, 182) = 10.01, p = .002, and for the person-based

scale, F(1, 182) = 10.04, p = .002 (Table 4).

For both scales, females indicated a view that was more

incremental(sexualorientation-based:M=4.09;person-based:

M=3.41) than males (sexual orientation-based: M=3.40;

person-based: M=2.67; Table2). The effect sizes for gender

were moderate (d=0.48 for both subscales). In other words,

females were more likely than males to endorse the view that

sexuality is changeable and that a person can change their sex-

uality. The testsof univariate effects for sexual fluidity revealed

a significant main effect only for the sexual orientation-based

scale, F(1, 182)=4.47, p= .04 (Table4). Sexually fluid indi-

viduals indicated a more incremental view (females: M=4.23;

males: M=3.63) that one’s sexuality could change, than non-

sexually fluid individuals (females: M=3.86; males: M=

3.16). The effect size for sexual fluidity was small (d=0.31).

Thus, the hypothesis was supported.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to explore whether several

cognitions and attitudes were related to sexual fluidity in

attractionsamongfemaleandmaleyoungadultswithasame-

genderorientation,andtoexaminetwonewscalestomeasure

sexual fluidity-related beliefs and entity versus incremental

views of sexual orientation.

Attitudes Toward Bisexuality

One aim of this study was to examine associations between

sexual fluidity in attractions and attitudes toward bisexuality.

Sexually fluid females held more positive attitudes toward

bisexuality than non-sexually fluid females, but there were no

significant differences among males. Bisexuality may be con-

sistent with sexual fluidity because it includes attraction toward

more than one gender. We found previously that sexually fluid

females in this sample were more likely than non-sexually fluid

females to identify with sexual identities that indicated orien-

tation toward more than one gender (mostly heterosexual,

bisexual, mostly lesbian) (Katz-Wise, 2014). Social identity

theory proposes that individuals view in-group members more

favorablythanout-groupmembers(Brown,2000).Itispossible

thatsexuallyfluidfemalesviewbisexualindividualsasin-group

members,whichmayaccountfor theirpositiveattitudestoward

bisexuality. Although sexually fluid females were more likely

than non-sexually fluid females to indicate tolerance of bisex-

uality, there was no significant difference between the groups

regarding beliefs about bisexuality as a stable identity. This

findingmayreflectlargersocietalandculturalstereotypesabout

bisexualityasatransitionalidentitythatmaybeheldbysexually

fluid and non-sexually fluid individuals alike.

Attitudes toward bisexuality were unrelated to sexual

fluidity in attractions among males, which represented a key

gender difference in the findings. Consistent with previous

research (Yost & Thomas, 2012), females held more positive

attitudes toward bisexuality than males across sexual fluidity

groups. Researchers have suggested that gender-role conflict

in males is related to fears of femininity and homosexuality

(O’Neil, Helms, Gable, David, & Wrightsman, 1986), and

that a key component of conformity to masculine norms is

disdain for homosexuals (Mahalik et al., 2003). Negative

attitudestowardbisexualityamongmales mayreflect fearsof

homosexuality as a threat to masculinity. Although males

heldmorenegativeattitudesthanfemalestowardbisexuality,

males did report relatively positive attitudes toward male

bisexuality overall; the average score for males was 4.31 on a

scale of 1 to 5, with higher scores representing more positive

attitudes. This was somewhat surprising, considering previ-

ous findings regarding negative attitudes toward bisexual-

ity—particularly toward bisexual men—among gay and

lesbian individuals in addition to the general heterosexual

population (Mulick & Wright, 2002). This level of positivity

may reflect changing societal attitudes toward bisexuality.

However, only 11 % of males in the current sample identified

as bisexual compared to 20 % of females, suggesting that

although males have positive views of bisexuality, they may

not feel as comfortable adopting a bisexual label.

Sexual Fluidity-Related Beliefs

Another goal of this study was to examine a new scale to mea-

sure sexual fluidity-related beliefs based on Diamond’s (2003,

2005)research.Sexuallyfluidindividualsweremorelikelythan

non-sexually fluid individuals to endorse sexual fluidity-related

beliefs, including beliefs that romantic love depends on the

individual rather than the individual’s gender and uncertainty

about future attractions and sexual orientation identity. In her

longitudinal study, Diamond (2008b) found that approximately

half of her sample reported having some experience with per-

son-based attractions. Diamond proposed that person-based

attractions represent either a fourth sexual orientation, describ-

ingacategoryofindividualsforwhomgenderisnotimportantto

attractionordesire,oranindependentcharacteristicofsexuality

that all individuals possess to a certain degree, similar to sex

drive (Diamond, 2008a). Resultsfrom the current study suggest

that females endorsed more sexual fluidity-related beliefs and

may possess a greater degree of person-based attractions com-

pared to males. A more detailed investigation of sexual fluidity-

related beliefs, particularly regarding the directionality of

beliefs predicting sexual fluidity or vice versa, would be a

fruitful area of future research.

Arch Sex Behav (2015) 44:1459–1470 1467

123

Entity Versus Incremental Views of Sexual Orientation

A new scale of entity versus incremental views of sexual ori-

entation was created for this study. Gender and sexual fluidity

differences on this scale were noteworthy, particularly with

regards to the agent of change. Females were more likely than

males to endorse the view that sexual orientation is changeable

(sexualorientationastheagentofchange)andthatanindividual

canchangetheirsexualorientation(theindividualastheagentof

change).Genderdifferencesinbeliefsaboutthechangeabilityof

sexual orientation could help to explain why some previous

studies have found females to be more sexually fluid than males

although this gender difference was not supported in the current

study.Thesefindingsmayalsoberelatedtogenderdifferencesin

sexualorientationidentityinthecurrentsample,suchthatmales

were more likely to identify as completely gay whereas females

identifiedacrossa range of sexual identities. Gender differences

in sexual orientation identity may reflect beliefs about the

changeability of sexuality, such that non-exclusive sexual ori-

entation identities (e.g., mostly heterosexual, bisexual, queer)

mayhave more room for potential change than exclusive sexual

orientationidentities(e.g.,completelyheterosexual,completely

gay/lesbian). Sexual fluidity group differences were found only

when sexual orientation was the agent of change, such that

sexually fluid individuals were more likely than non-sexually

fluid individuals to endorse the view that one’s sexuality could

change, but they did not believe they had control over their

sexualitychanging.ThisfindingwasconsistentwithDiamond’s

(2008b) research suggesting that sexually fluid individuals do

not perceive sexuality changes to be in their control.

Entityversusincrementalviewsofsexualorientationmaybe

related to essentialist beliefs about the origin of sexuality. In

particular, views that are more entity-based may indicate

essentialist beliefs. Researchers have proposed that essentialist

beliefs about homosexuality,which have been linked toantigay

attitudes, have a three-factor structure: (1) beliefs that homo-

sexuality is biologically based, immutable, and fixed in early

life; (2) beliefs that homosexuality is universal both cross-cul-

turally and historically; and (3) beliefs that homosexuality is

binaryanddeeplyrooted(Haslam&Levy,2006).Inthecurrent

study, compared to females and sexually fluid males, non-sex-

uallyfluidmaleshadthemostentity-orientedviewsofsexuality,

consistent with essentialist beliefs about the nature of homo-

sexuality. Non-sexually fluid males were also more likely than

sexually fluid males to endorse the belief that sexuality was

something they were born with and males across both sexual

fluidity groups were less likely than females to believe that

sexuality was influenced by the environment.

Strengths and Limitations

This study examined attitudes and beliefs related to sexual flu-

idity in attractions among female and male young adults with a

same-gender orientation. The inclusion of both females and

males allowed for examination of gender differences and sim-

ilarities in attitudes and beliefs related to sexual fluidity. A

secondarygoalofthisstudywastodeveloptwonewmeasuresof

sexuality beliefs based on Diamond’s (2003, 2005) sexual flu-

idityresearchandDwecketal.’s(1995)psychologicaltheoryof

intelligencebeliefs,whichwasextendedtoincludeadistinction

between two possible agents of change (sexual orientation vs.

person). Findings from the new Entity versus Incremental

Views of Sexual Orientation measure suggest that beliefs about

sexuality as changeable may be a key characteristic of individ-

uals who report sexual fluidity. Both scales showed good reli-

abilityamongfemalesandmalesinthecurrentsample.Thenext

step will be to validate these scales so they may be used more

widely to assess sexuality beliefs.

A number of limitations should be mentioned. First, the

sample was largely white (83%), although the racial/ethnic

compositionofthesamplewasrepresentativeoftheregionfrom

whichparticipantswererecruited.Futureresearchwouldbenefit

from the use of more diverse samples. Second, the study design

was cross-sectional, which may be problematic for determining

the direction of the relationship between attitudes and beliefs

and sexual fluidity in attractions. The use of longitudinal

methods will be crucial to clarify the direction of these

associations. Third, movement from other-gender attractions

to same- or both-gender attractions may represent a sexual

minoritycomingoutprocess.Some researchersconsidersexual

fluiditytobe a change (or changes) occurringafter an individual

‘‘comes out’’as a sexual minority. However, this is complicated

by the fact that heterosexually-identified individuals also report

experiencing sexual fluidity (Dickson et al., 2003; Katz-Wise,

2014; Kinnish et al., 2005; Ott et al., 2011); such as initially

experiencing exclusive other-gender attractions, then experi-

encing attractions toward both genders while remaining het-

erosexually-identified. The current study recruited participants

based on past same-gender attractions or non-heterosexual

sexual orientation identity; therefore, some individuals were

eligible to participate even if they were heterosexually-

identified.

The notion of sexual fluidity as a coming out process for

heterosexualsassumesthat all sexualminoritieswere originally

attractedtoother-genderindividuals,sincereportingachangein

attractions assumes that an individual had attractions to begin

with. Therefore, sexual minorities with exclusive same-gender

attractions would not report sexual fluidity. The assessment of

sexual fluidity in attractions used in the current study likely

captured anyone who had experienced previous changes in

attractions, regardless of the direction of those changes in terms

of the gender of the object of attraction. It would be useful in

future research to examine the direction of sexual fluidity (from

heterosexual to sexual minority or vice versa) more closely and

to more explicitly include heterosexually-identified individuals

in the sample.

1468 Arch Sex Behav (2015) 44:1459–1470

123

Conclusions

Endorsement of sexual fluidity-related beliefs and endorse-

mentofanincrementalviewthatsexualityischangeablewere

related to sexual fluidity in attractions in both females and

males; whereas attitudes toward bisexuality were related to

sexual fluidity in attractions only among females. Among

males, non-sexually fluid individuals were more likely than

sexually fluid individuals to believe that sexuality was

something they were born with and females were more likely

than males to believe that sexuality was influenced by the

environment. In addition, this study presents two promising

newmeasuresofsexualitybeliefsbasedonDiamond’ssexual

fluidity research and Dweck et al.’s psychological theory of

intelligence beliefs.

Acknowledgments This research was supported by funding from the Kinsey Institute at Indiana University and the Graduate School of the

University of Wisconsin-Madison. The authors wish to acknowledge

Alison Manley for her help with the online survey; Martha Alibali, Jane

Collins, Julie D’Acci, Kristin Shutts, and Stephanie Budge for their

feedback throughout this project; and S. Bryn Austin and the Sexual

Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression (SOGIE) Working

Group for their insight and suggestions.

References

Bell, A. P., Weinberg, M. S., & Hammersmith, S. K. (1981). Sexual

preference: Its development in men and women. Bloomington:

Indiana University Press.

Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1990). Intimate relationships and the

creation of sexuality. In D. P. McWhirter, S. A. Sanders, & J. M.

Reinisch(Eds.),Homosexuality/heterosexuality:Conceptsofsexual

orientation (pp. 307–320). New York: Oxford University Press.

Brown, R. (2000). Social identity theory: Past achievements, current

problems and future challenges. European Journal of Social Psychol-

ogy,30,745–778.doi:10.1002/1099-0992(200011/12)30:6\745:AID- EJSP24[3.0.CO;2-O.

Chandra, A., Mosher, W. D., Copen, C., & Sionean, C. (2011). Sexual

behavior,sexualattraction,andsexualidentityintheUnitedStates:

Data from the 2006–2008 National Survey of Family Growth.

National Health Statistics Reports, 36. Hyattsville, MD: National

Center for Health Statistics.

Diamond,L.M.(2003).Wasitaphase?Youngwomen’srelinquishment

of lesbian/bisexual identities over a 5-year period. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 352–364. doi:10.1037/

0022-3514.84.2.352.

Diamond, L. M. (2005). A new view of lesbian subtypes: Stable versus

fluid identity trajectories over an 8-year period. Psychology of

Women Quarterly, 29, 119–128. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2005.

00174.x.

Diamond, L. M. (2008a). Female bisexuality from adolescence to

adulthood: Results from a 10-year longitudinal study. Develop-

mental Psychology, 44, 5–14. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.44.1.5.

Diamond, L. M. (2008b). Sexual fluidity: Understanding women’s love

and desire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Dickson, N., Paul, C., & Herbison, P. (2003). Same-sex attraction in a

birth cohort: Prevalence and persistence in early adulthood. Social

Science&Medicine,56,1607–1615.doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(02)

00161-2.

Dickson, N., van Roode, T., Camerson, C., & Paul, C. (2013). Stability

and change in same-sex attraction, experience, and identity by sex

and age in a New Zealand birth cohort. Archives of Sexual

Behavior, 42, 753–763. doi:10.1007/s10508-012-0063-z.

Dweck,C.S.,Chiu,C.,&Hong,Y.(1995).Implicittheoriesandtheirrolein

judgments and reactions: A world from two perspectives. Psycho-

logical Inquiry, 6, 267–285. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli0604_1.

Eliason, M. (2001). Bi-negativity: The stigma facing bisexual men.

Journal of Bisexuality, 1, 137–154. doi:10.1300/J159v01n02_05.

Gallup, Inc. (2011). Results of Gallup’s annual Values and Beliefs Poll.

Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/147785/Support-

Legal-Gay-Relations-Hits-New-High.aspx.

Haslam, N., & Levy, S. L. (2006). Essentialist beliefs about homosex-

uality: Structure and implications for prejudice. Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 471–485. doi:10.1177/014616720

5276516.

Institute of Medicine. (2011). The health of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and

transgender people: Building a foundation for better understand-

ing. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Israel, T., & Mohr, J. J. (2004). Attitudes toward bisexual women and

men: Current research, future directions. Journal of Bisexuality, 4,

117–134. doi:10.1300/J159v04n01_09.

Katz-Wise, S. L. (2012). Beyond labels: Sexual fluidity and sexual

identitydevelopmentinsexualminorityyoungadults.Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Katz-Wise, S. L. (2014). Sexual fluidity in young adult women and men:

Associationswithsexualorientationandsexualidentitydevelopment.

Psychology & Sexuality. doi:10.1080/19419899.2013.876445.

Kinnish, K. K., Strassberg,D.S., &Turner, C.W.(2005). Sexdifferences

in the flexibility of sexual orientation: A multidimensional retro-

spective assessment. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34, 173–183.

doi:10.1007/s10508-005-1795-9.

Mahalik,J.R.,Locke,B.D.,Ludlow,L.H.,Diemer,M.A.,Scott,R.P.J.,

Gottfried, M., … Freitas, G. (2003). Development of the Confor- mity to Masculine Norms Inventory. Psychology of Men &

Masculinity, 4, 3–25. doi:10.1037/1524-9220.4.1.3.

Mock, S. E., & Eibach, R. P. (2012). Stability and change in sexual

orientation identity over a 10-year period in adulthood. Archives of

Sexual Behavior, 41, 641–648. doi:10.1007/s10508-011-9761-1.

Mohr, J. J., & Rochlen, A. B. (1999). Measuring attitudes regarding

bisexualityinlesbian,gaymale,andheterosexualpopulations.Journal

ofCounselingPsychology,46,353–369.doi:10.1037/0022-0167.46.3.

353.

Money, J. (1988). Gay, straight, and in-between: The sexology of erotic

orientation. New York: Oxford University Press.

Mulick, P. S., & Wright, L. W. (2002). Examining the existence of

biphobia in the heterosexual and homosexual populations. Journal

of Bisexuality, 2, 45–64. doi:10.1300/J159v02n04_03.

O’Neil, J. M.,Helms, B. J., Gable, R. K., David, L., &Wrightsman, L. S.

(1986). Gender-Role Conflict Scale: College men’s fear of

femininity. Sex Roles, 14, 335–350. doi:10.1007/BF00287583.

Ott,M.Q.,Corliss,H.L.,Wypij,D.,Rosario,M.,&Austin,S.B.(2011).

Stability and change in self-reported sexual orientation identity in

young people: Application of mobility metrics. Archives of Sexual

Behavior, 40, 519–532. doi:10.1007/s10508-010-9691-3.

Rosario, M., Schrimshaw, E. W., Hunter, J., & Braun, L. (2006). Sexual

identity development among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths:

Consistency and change over time. Journal of Sex Research, 43,

46–58. doi:10.1080/00224490609552298.

Rust, P. C. (1993).‘‘Coming out’’in the age of social constructionism:

Sexual identity formation among lesbian and bisexual women.

Gender & Society, 7, 50–77. doi:10.1177/089124393007001004.

Savin-Williams, R. C., Joyner, K., & Rieger, G. (2012). Prevalence and

stability of self-reported sexual orientation identity during young

adulthood.ArchivesofSexualBehavior,41,103–110.doi:10.1007/

s10508-012-9913-y.

Arch Sex Behav (2015) 44:1459–1470 1469

123

Weinberg,M. S., Williams, C.J., & Pryor,D.W.(1994). Dualattraction:

Understanding bisexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.

Wekker, G. (2006). The politics of passion: Women’s sexual culture in

the Afro-Surinamese diaspora. New York: Columbia University

Press.

Yost,M.R.,&Thomas,G.D.(2012).Genderandbinegativity:Men’sand

women’s attitudes toward male and female bisexuals. Archives of

Sexual Behavior, 41, 691–702. doi:10.1007/s10508-011-9767-8.

Zivony, A., & Lobell, L. (2014). The invisible stereotypes of bisexual

men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43, 1165–1176. doi:10.1007/

s10508-014-0263-9.

1470 Arch Sex Behav (2015) 44:1459–1470

123

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.