Conversations about Psychology and Sexual Orientation

Chapter 6: Implications for Psychological Research and Theory Building

Chapter 6 Implications for Psychological Research and Theory Building Janis S. Bohan and Glenda M. Russell As we discussed in chapter 2, psychology’s approach to the topic of sexual orientation has been primarily essentialist in nature. In the previous section of the book we explored how this phenomenon affects clinical practice; here we examine its impact on psychological research and the development of psychological theory dealing with sexual orientation . As before, the aim here is to inquire how these areas of psychological work would differ were they approached from a constructionist orientation. Essentialism and Psychological Research The most fundamental critique of an essentialist approach to psychological research in this topic area challenges the foundational assumption that we know what sexual orientation is and that individuals can be neatly sorted into categories whose shared attributes or whose points of similarity and difference with other groups can be explored through the application of psychological research methods. Psychological research in its most common, positivist forms relies on sorting individuals into groups in order to develop general statements about those groups and to explain differences between or among groups.1 However, when we consider the topic of sexual orientation, a substantial literature attests to the inadequacy of the assumption that people can be neatly sorted into sexual orientation categories. The inexact meaning of sexual orientation 85 posited by a constructionist model presents a profound challenge to essentialist -based attempts to understand the experience of variations in sexual orientation. The Problem with Categories We can begin to understand the complexity behind the superficially elementary construct of sexual orientation by questioning the most uncomplicated (and the most commonplace) contemporary rendition, namely the notion that people can be grouped into two categories on the basis of sexual orientation: homosexual and heterosexual. This conception of sexual orientation is the understanding that underpins most everyday conversations about the topic, as well as media presentations and political discussions about topics such as “gay rights,” a “gay gene,” and gays in the military. It is also the assumption undergirding research that compares gays and lesbians with heterosexual subjects or with each other. Further, it is this model that underlies the question, asked so frequently , about what proportion of the population is heterosexual or homosexual ; to ask this question is to presume that it is possible to group people into these two categories and simply count them.2 As we considered in chapter 1, this categorical construal of sexual orientation fails to take into account the vast array of understandings to be found across cultures and across history. Perhaps more striking is the persistent popularity of this dichotomous portrayal given that, even within this culture, its inadequacy was established more than forty years ago, when Kinsey and his colleagues demonstrated that this binary depiction of sexual orientation is flawed.3 Their work revealed, instead, a range of self-reported sexual orientation described not by discrete categories but by a seven-point continuum, ranging from exclusive homosexuality (six on Kinsey’s scale), through varying degrees of bi- or ambisexuality (scores of five to one), to exclusive heterosexuality (zero on the scale) (Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948; Kinsey et al., 1953). Kinsey’s work also suggested that sexual orientation is not entirely defined by sexuality per se; an individual’s placement along the continuum reflected both overt and “psychic” reactions. In addition, Kinsey’s findings indicated that people’s self-defined positions along this continuum may change over time and that many subjects identified periods in their lives when their sexual orientation was quite different from how they 86 j a n i s s . b o h a n a n d g l e n d a m . r u s s e l l later identify themselves. Thus, sexual orientation as portrayed by Kinsey ’s work is composed not of discrete categories, whatever the number, but of vague, permeable, and potentially shifting “locations” along a continuum . Since Kinsey’s work, others have suggested even more complex understandings of sexual orientation. For example, Shiveley and DeCecco (1977) and Storms (1980) joined Kinsey in rejecting a dichotomy in favor of a continuum and further argued that not one but two continua are necessary: heterosexuality and homosexuality, they argued, are separate dimensions. Further, Shiveley & DeCecco presented physical/sexual interest and affectional attraction as independent phenomena; thus, an individual could experience intense emotional attractions to members of her or his own sex but...