I facilitated a round table discussion at the 2012 NASPA Region 1 conference in Mystic, CT.

1. Models of Sexual Identity Development
& Today’sYouth
Cornell F. Woodson
NASPA Region I Conference 2012
Mystic, CT

2. Outline for Discussion
• Review of Sexual Identity Models
• Fassinger, Cass, and D’Augelli
• Critique of Models
• New Generation
• Suggestions Expanding on Current Models

3. Fassinger’s Model of Gay/Lesbian Identity
Formation (1997)
Phase I – Awareness
(I) – Feeling different or being different
(G) – Existence of different sexual orientation in people
Phase II – Exploration
(I) – Strong erotic feelings for same-sex
(G) – One’s position on gay people as a group

4. Fassinger Model of Gay/Lesbian Identity
Formation
Phase III – Deepening/Commitment
(I) – Labeling sexual identity
(G) – Awareness of oppression of group
Phase IV – Internalization/Synthesis
(I) – Secure/confident in love for same sex
(G) – Secure/reliant on group membership

5. • Outlines two separate processes.
 Individual/Internal process
 Group Membership process
• Branches are assumed to be catalytic
 Each produces movement in the other
• Does not emphasize public disclosure
 It’s about self-disclosure
• Considers cultural factors
 Ethnicity, religion, etc.

6. Cass’ Model of Sexual Orientation Identity
Formation (1979)
Stage 1: Confusion
– Am I gay?
Stage 2: Comparison
– Accepts possibility, grieves for losses.
Stage 3: Tolerance
– Not the only one; seeks out other gay and lesbian
people.

7. Cass’ Model of Sexual Orientation Identity
Formation (1979)
Stage 4: Acceptance
– Begins to self-identify
Stage 5: Pride
– Goes public
Stage 6: Synthesis
– Sexual identity becomes a “piece” of self.

8. • Explains ALL students' thoughts, feelings, and
behaviors (Cass, 1979).
• Represents a sequential process.
• Emphasizes public disclosure.
• Emphasizes aquisition of homosexual identity
into concept of self.

9. D’Augelli’s Model of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual
Identity Development (1994)
Process I – Exiting a homosexual identity
• Self-disclosure
• Public disclosure
Process II – Develop a personal sexual identity status
• Challenge of internalized myths about what it
means to be GLB in conjunction with others.
• Ability to summarize thoughts, feelings, and
desires.

10. D’Augelli’s Model of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual
Identity Development (1994)
Process III – Developing a GLB social identity
• Creating a supportive network of people
Process IV – Becoming a GLB offspring
• Coming out to parents

11. D’Augelli’s Model of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual
Identity Development (1994)
Process V – Developing a GLB intimacy status
• Enter into a same-sex relationship
Process VI – Entering a GLB community
• Engaged in social and political action

12. • Indicates various times that people come out to
others.
• Reflects the importance of coming out to
parents.
• Discusses the influence people have on their
own development.
• Human plasticity: response to biological
changes and environmental circumstances
• Development is life long process

13. Critique of Coming Out Models
1. Studies included small sample sizes (Bilodeau & Renn, 2005).
1. Most of the models were developed based on the experiences
of white gay men and generalized to include everyone else
(Bilodeau & Renn, 2005; Fassinger, 1998; Golden, 1996).
1. Most coming out models propose an orderly or linear series of
stages (Cohen & Savin-Williams, 1996; Fassinger, 1998).

14. Critique of Coming Out Models
4. There is an assumption that a person’s sexual orientation and
sexual behavior will match and neglect that sexuality exists on a
continuum (Kinsey, Pomeroy & Martin, 1948; Golden, 1996).
5. Models do not include bisexuality as a stopping point. It is seen
as a path to an ultimate goal of acquiring a gay or lesbian identity
(Pope & Reynolds, 1991; Rust, 2000; Dolan, 2012)
6. The models mark the end of one’s process as LABELING
themselves as gay or lesbian (D’Augelli, 1994).

15. Critique of Coming-Out Models
7. The use of language, such as: lack of awareness of same-sex
attractions, exiting heterosexuality, and identity confusion (Cass,
1979; D’Augelli, 1994; Fassinger, 1998).
8. Models, aside from Fassinger’s, do not include cultural influences
on the development of racial/ethnic groups (Fassinger, 1998;
Savin-Williams, 2005 ).
9. Models do not represent the differences in the coming-out
process between genders (Saghir & Robins, 1973; Bell et al.,
1981; Chapman & Brannock, 1987; Cohen & Savin-Willams,
1996) .

16. New Generation of Students
1. Being labeled or acquiring an LGBTQ identity matters very
little, because there isn’t a link between their sexual identity
and their sexual behavior (Savin-William, 2005).
2. Consider sexual terms as something the adults do; this
generation does not relate.(Unks, 1995; Savin-Williams, 2005).
3. “Teenagers are redefining, reinterpreting, and renegotiating their
sexuality and the terms used to describe it” (Savin-Williams,
2005, p. 1).

17. New Generation of Students
4. Age in which this generation recognized their same-sex
attraction was, on average, early childhood (Savin-Williams,
2005; Anderson, 1995).
5. Average coming out age is 11-14, which is 5-6 years earlier than
the older generation (Boxer, Cook & Herdt, 1989; Offer &
Boxer, 1991; Anderson, 1995; Beemyn & Rankin, 2011b).
6. Impacted by the intersectionality of their identities (Winter,
2004; Stevens, 2004).

18. Expanding on the Models
1. Conduct new research that includes a more diverse
population.
2. Conduct new research that addresses the experience of
people with intersecting identities.
3. Develop new models that are not linear and allows for
repetition; similarly to D’Augelli’s notion that sexual
identity development is a life-long process.

19. Expanding on the Models
4. Create new models that include bisexuality as a stopping
point.
5. Create models that include other forms of sexual
orientation, such as pansexual.
6. Create models that respect the fact that some people do
not label themselves LGB or do not use labels at all.

20. Conclusion
• As the new generation of student affairs professionals, it
is our duty to develop new resources.
• I recognize that some students do identify with the labels
we currently use.
• Our models should reflect the world we are trying to
establish.

21. Reference List
Anderson, D.A. (1995). Lesbian & Gay Adolescents. In G. Unks (Ed.), The Gay
Teen (pp. 3-28). New York, NY: Routledge.
Beemyn, G., & Rankin, S. (2011). The Lives of Transgender People. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Beemyn, G. & Rankin, S. (2011b). Introduction to the Special Issue on “LGBTQ
Campus Experiences”. Journal of Homosexuality, 58(9), 1159-1164.
Bell, A.P., Weinberg, M.S., & Hammersmith, S.K. (1981). Sexual Preference: Its
Development in Men & Women. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Bilodeau, B. & Renn, K. (2005). Analysis of LGBT Identity Development Models
and Implications for Practice. New Directions for Student Services, 111, 25-39
Cass, V.C. (1979). Homosexual Identity Formation: A Theorectical Model. Journal
of Homosexuality, 4, 219-234.

22. Reference List
Cohen, K.M. & Savin-Williams, R.C. (1996). Developmental Perspectives on Coming Out to
Self and Others. In R.C. Savin-Williams & K.M. Cohen (Eds.), The Lives of Lesbians, Gays,
and Bisexuals: Children to Adults (pp. 113-151). Philadelphia, PA: Harcourt Brace College
Publishers.
D’Augelli, A. R. (1994). Identity development and sexual orientation: Toward a model of
lesbian, gay, and bisexual development. In E. J. Trickett, R. J. Watts, & D. Birman (Eds.),
Human diversity: Perspectives on people in context (pp. 312-333). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Dolan, C. (2012). The Excluded Middle: Supporting Bisexual Students on College Campuses.
Research Summary & Compilation Whitepaper, NASPA
Fassinger, R.E., & Miller, B.A. (1997). Validation of an Inclusive Model of Homosexual
Identity Formation in a Sample of Gay Men. Journal of Homosexuality, 32(2), 53-78
Fassinger, R.E. (1998). Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Identity and Student Development
Theory. In R. Sanlo (Ed.), Working with Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender College
Students (pp. 13-22). Connecticut: Greenwood Press.

23. Reference List
Golden, C. (1996). What’s in a Name? Sexual Self-Identification Among Women. In R.C.
Savin-Williams and K.M. Cohen (Eds.), The Lives of Lesbians, Gays, and Bisexuals: Children
to Adults (pp. 229-249). Philadelphia, PA: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Kinsey, A.C., Pomeroy, W.B., & Martin, C.E. (1948). Sexual Behavior in the Human Male.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 4(3), 314-330.
McCarn, S.R. & Fassinger, R.E (1996). Revisioning Sexual Minority Identity Formation: A
New Model of Lesbian Identity and Its Implications for Counseling and Research. The
Counseling Psychologist, 24(3), 508-534.
Offer, D. & Boxer, A.M. (1991). Normal Adolescent Development: Empirical Research
Findings. In M. Lewis (Ed.), Child and Adolescent Psychiatry: A Comprehensive Textbook.
Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins.
Pope, R.L. & Reynolds, A.L. (1991). The Complexitites of Diversity: Exploring Multiple
Oppressions. Journal of Counseling and Development, 70, 174-180.

24. Reference List
Saghir, M.T. & Robins, E. (1973). Male and Female Homosexuality. Baltimore, MD: Williams
& Wilkins.
Savin-Williams, R.C. (2005). The New Gay Teenager. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Stevens, R. A. (2004). Understanding Gay Identity Development Within the College
Environment. Journal of College Student Development, 45(2), 185-206
Unks, G. (1995). Thinking About the Gay Teen. In G. Unks (Ed.), The Gay Teen: Educational
Practice and Theory for Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual (pp. 3-12). New York: Routledge.
Winter, M. (2004). ReConceptualizing the Gay Teen. Human Ecology Journal, 32(1), pp. 14-
16
Rust, P. C. R. (2000). Criticisms of the Scholarly Literature on Sexuality for Its Neglect of
Bisexuality. In P. C. R. Rust (Ed.), Bisexuality in the United States: A Social Science Reader
(pp. 5-10). New York: Columbia University Press.