p33.)l.=.t... r

.1...- I

 

\. ..:A_a\

.33....5...
1' 3.1.... >\
.1... 1..

s5...~.-—u

.x. 3;:
. 5.... .1
:?

“$.13".

tlx: i .

 

THESIS

ill/WIII///I//////I/II/iliifii/I/fl/m/i/"Ii/fiiW/I 1' L

81

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

Sources of
Coming Out Self-efficacy
- for Lesbians

presented by

Mary Kathryn Anderson

 

 

f." . ‘tf'has been accepted towards fulfillment
4 ,1 ’-_ of the requirements for
“o 4 -
23.1; 3; Ph.D. degree in Counsel ing Psychology
,.
I
“J

173:;
v ’ ]/

Major professorc/

Date October 25, 1993

 

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

‘———.

- v—‘v

 

  
   
   

LIBRARY
Michigan State
Universlty

  
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this c

TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

heckout from your record.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE
i 8 m 3

Mali 3 ,.

[:1 ‘.~, '

 

 

 

MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal O

 

pponunity Institution
“WWW

 

 

SOURCES OF
COMING OUT SELF-EFFICACY
FOR LESBIANS

BY

Mary Kathryn Anderson

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Counseling,
Educational Psychology, and Special Education

1993

 

ABSTRACT

SOURCES OF
COMING OUT SELF-EFFICACY
FOR LESBIANS

BY

Mary Kathryn Anderson

In their daily lives, lesbians must repeatedly make
decisions about whether or not to disclose their sexual
orientation to others in the face of potential rejection,
discrimination, alienation, or violence (Fassinger, 1991).
Although the cost of self-disclosure may be high, the
benefits may include the development of a positive lesbian
identity, psychological adjustment, and enhanced self—esteem
and self-acceptance (Case, 1979; Fassinger, 1991).

Much of the empirical literature on the act of coming
out (Cody-Murphy, 1989; Kahn, 1991; Schneider, 1986; Wells &
Kline, 1989) has explored the circumstantial and demographic
variables related to this process. This exploratory study
utilized self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1986) to investigate
the extent to which each of the four sources of efficacy
information (e.g., performance accomplishments, vicarious
experience, verbal persuasion, or emotional arousal)
contributed to coming out self-efficacy. Further, this
study sought to establish the relevance of coming out self-
efficacy by exploring its relationship to outness and
lifestyle satisfaction. Relationships between these same

variables and adjustment were also explored.

Participants were 134 lesbians. Each completed a
survey packet which included measures of coming—out self-
efficacy, the four sources of self—efficacy information,
outness, adjustment, and lifestyle satisfaction. Two novel
measures were developed for this study. The first, the
Sources of Coming Out Self—efficacy Scale (SCOSS), was
designed to assess the four sources of efficacy information
in relation to coming out. The second, the Coming Out Self-
efficacv Scale (COSS), was designed to assess lesbians’
confidence in their ability to come out in a variety of ways
and circumstances. Results indicated that the C088 was a
highly reliable measure; the reliability of the SCOSS was
marginal.

Results of the regression analyses indicated that
emotional arousal was the most potent predictor of coming
out self-efficacy. Verbal persuasion and vicarious
experience also were significant. The most theoretically
salient source of self—efficacy information, performance
accomplishments (Bandura, 1986), was not a significant
predictor of coming out self—efficacy for this group of
lesbians. Further, significant correlations were found
between coming out self—efficacy and outness and life-style
satisfaction. The last variable was also significantly

correlated to measures of adjustment.

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

No tour is complete without an informed and entertaining
tour guide. I must thank Brian Mavis, Ph.D., for helping me
navigate through the various components of this dissertation.
He taught me much about the process and I am very grateful for
his contributions and good company.

Second, I would like to thank my steadfast travelling
companion, Chris, for her patience and belief in me and my
ability to finish this dissertation.

Third, I would like to acknowledge the contributions of
my committee members, Linda Forrest, Ph.D., Fred Lopez, Ph.D.,
Anita Skeen, Ph.D., and Terry Stein, M D., to this journey.
Each provided important and unique guidance. Special thanks
to Linda Forrest, Ph.D., for the time and energy she invested
in this process from beginning to end. Her guidance and
editorial assistance were very important.

Finally, I would like to thank the many individuals who
were close at hand during this trip and who made significant
contributions to this work through their ideas, support, and
encouragement. I couldn’t have accomplished this without one

and all.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1 1

Introduction . 1

Statement of othe Problem 1

Summary 7

CHAPTER 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Lesbian Identity Formation . . . . . . . . . 9

The Act of Coming Out . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Research on Coming Out . . . . . . . . . . 27

Introduction to Self— —efficacy . . . . . . . . 35

Self— efficacy . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Research on self— efficacy . . . 42

Research on sources of efficacy information . 49

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

CHAPTER 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Scale Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

The Pilot Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Measures . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Reliability of Novel Scales . . . . . . . . . 73

The Main Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

CHAPTER 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Testing the Model . . . . . . 92

Prediction of Coming Out Self— efficacy . . . 95
Relationships Between Self— efficacy and

Adjustment Variables . . . 98

Post- hoc Analyses Predicting Coming Out Self—

efficacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

CHAPTER 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

Summary of the Study . . . . . 112
Interrelationships Among the Predictor

Variables . . . . . . . 113

Results of the Regression Analyses . . . . . 118

Interpretation of Regression Results . . . . 120

iv

 

 

Relationships Between Self—efficacy and
Adjustment Variables

Limitations of the Study

Future Research Directions

Implications and Applications

Appendix A
Idea Generation Format

Appendix B .
Item Evaluation Format

Appendix C .
Survey Cover Letter

Appendix D .
Final Survey Packet

Appendix E
Correlation Matrix of All Variables

LIST OF REFERENCES

 

129
130
131
133

136
136

139
139

142
142

143
143

152
152

153

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1

Overview of Lesbian Identity Formation Theories.

Table 3.1
Demographic Information for Pilot Sample

Table 3.2
Performance Accomplishments Subscale

Table 3.3
Vicarious Experience Subscale

Table 3.4
Verbal Persuasion Subscale

Table 3.5
Emotional Arousal Subscale

Table 3.6
Coming Out Self—efficacy Scale

Table 3.7
Internal Consistency of Scales--Pilot Study

Table 3.8
Intercorrelations among Variables-—Pilot Study

Table 3.9
Demographic Information for Total Sample

Table 3.10
Demographic Comparison of Sample Groups

Table 3.11
Internal Consistency of Scales--Main Study

Table 3.12
Intercorrelations among Variables

Table 3.13
Novel Scale Descriptive Statistics

vi

 

15

62

67

68

69

7O

72

74

75

78

81

84

85

86

Table 3.14
Scale Descriptive Statistics

Table 4.1
Intercorrelations among Variables

Table 4.2
Hierarchical Regression Predicting Self—efficacy

Table 4.3
Intercorrelation among Variables

Table 4.4
Demographic Comparison of Age Cohorts

Table 4.5 .
Regression Predicting Self-efficacy for Younger than 37

Table 4.6
Regression Predicting Self-efficacy for Older than 37

Table 4 . 7
Regression for Women with High Outness

Table 4.8
Regression for Women with Low Outness

vii

87

94

97

99

102

104

106

109

110

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Statement of the Problem

On a day to day basis lesbians are confronted with the
dilemma of whether or not to disclose their sexual
orientation. This process of repeated self—disclosure, also
known as coming out, is a component of every relationship in
which a lesbian participates, from family, to work
relationships, to friendships within both the homosexual and
heterosexual worlds. Theoretically, this act of self—
disclosure has been conceptualized in two ways. First, it
has been described as a developmental task; an essential
component of the coming out process which may ultimately
lead to the acquisition of a lesbian identity (Cass, 1979;
Cass, 1984a; Cass, 1990; Coleman, 1982; deMonteflores &
Schultz, 1978; Fassinger, 1991; Groves, 1985; Lewis, 1984;
Stein, 1993; Troiden, 1989). Second, the act of coming out
has also been conceptualized as an identity management or
coping technique in which the lesbian has a "secret" over
which she controls, to some extent, the flow of information
between herself and her world (Groves & Ventura, 1983;
Miranda & Storms, 1989; Moses, 1978).

Ultimately, "coming out” is a process comprised of

2
developmental stages which include self—awareness, self-
labeling, self-acceptance, and self—disclosure of sexual
orientation on the part of a lesbian woman (Troiden, 1989).
This on—going process is also considered by some to be
synonymous with the manner in which lesbians come to develop
a positive lesbian identity (Coleman, 1982; Troiden, 1989).
This process has been theoretically delineated by several
authors (Cass, 1979; Chapman & Brannock, 1987; Coleman,
1982; Troiden, 1989). Although it has been conceptualized
within a stage framework, the nature of this process is not
necessarily linear because individuals move through the
stages in idiosyncratic ways (Sophie, 1986). Thus, the act
of coming out, or disclosing one’s sexual orientation to
self and others, is a discrete component of the coming out
process. The probable outcome of this process is the
development of a positive lesbian identity; one in which
one’s experience of self as lesbian is congruent with
other’s perception of self (Stein, 1993).

Quite often the coming out process as well as the act
of disclosure occur in the context of few role models,
inadequate support systems, lack of legal protection,
isolation, and the potential loss of one’s primary racial or
ethnic community (Fassinger, 1991). Further, in disclosing
the fact that one is a lesbian, one faces not only negative
societal attitudes, but also one’s own internalized
homophobia which may be experienced as feelings of guilt,

shame, and anxiety (Browning, Reynolds, & Dworkin, 1991).

3
Although the cost of self-disclosure is high, the benefits
may include the development of a positive lesbian identity,
psychological adjustment, increased satisfaction with one's
lifestyle, enhanced self—esteem and self—acceptance, as well
as authentic interpersonal relationships (Cass, 1979;
deMonteflores & Schultz, 1978; Fassinger, 1991; Groves,
1985; Miranda & Storms, 1989; Sophie, 1982).

Given that there are numerous risks involved with the
disclosure of a homosexual orientation, there are clearly
important benefits associated with making that disclosure.
Thus, it may be important to understand what information
lesbians use to appraise their own abilities to disclose
their sexual orientation in various circumstances. One
model that may clarify the relative importance of different
types of information utilized by lesbians to assess and
enhance their own confidence in their ability to disclose
their sexual orientation to others is Bandura’s theory of
self-efficacy.

Self—efficacy refers to beliefs about one’s ability to
perform specific behaviors in a specific situation (Bandura,
1986). Bandura suggests that self—efficacy beliefs grow out
of and are modified by four major sources of information:
personal performance accomplishments (e g., actually coming
out to someone), vicarious experience (e.g., listening to
the coming out experiences of another lesbian), verbal
persuasion (e.g., having a partner, friend, or sibling offer

opinions about coming out), and emotional arousal, the

 

4
affective and physiological cues associated with coming out
and how they are interpreted (e.g., feeling overwhelmed,
anxious, or proud in the face of coming out). The influence
of each of these sources may serve to enhance or diminish a
woman’s confidence in her ability to disclose her sexual
orientation to others.

Most of the treatment literature on sexual orientation
disclosure suggests that there is a cognitive appraisal of
self, motivations, and consequences that takes place for a
lesbian as she decides whether or not to self—disclose
(Browning et al, 1991; Falco, 1990; Fassinger, 1991;
Gartrell, 1985). Because the four sources of self—efficacy
information are theoretically linked with the development of
self-efficacy, understanding how these sources of efficacy
information may differentially enable lesbians to disclose
their sexual orientation to important others in their lives
may be important. Further, understanding what types of
information lesbians find useful may also have implications
for designing therapeutic interventions which will enhance a
lesbian’s self-efficacy in relation to disclosing her sexual
orientation as well as coping with the repercussions of that
disclosure. These applications are consistent with the
emphasis within Counseling Psychology on the use of
affirmative and empowering counseling strategies, especially
in relation to this "hidden minority" (Fassinger, 1991).

Theoretically, personal performance accomplishments are

the most salient source of self-efficacy information because

 

5
they provide the individual with actual mastery or failure
experiences (Bandura, 1986). Vicarious experience provides
important efficacy information by allowing an individual to
compare herself, in terms of personal attributes and
capabilities, to others with whom she identifies and who
possess relevant experience within a particular arena.
Vicarious experience is hypothesized to be an especially
important source of information for someone with little or
no experience in a particular domain (Bandura, 1986). The
third source of efficacy information is not as potent in
promoting enduring changes in self-efficacy as the previous
two sources, though theoretically, it can be very helpful in
persuading someone to attempt a behavior which can then be
used as the basis of her self—efficacy judgments (Bandura,
1986). Finally, the emotional arousal experienced by the
individual when facing the specific task affects efficacy
judgments. It is not the arousal per se that impacts those
judgments, but how the individual interprets her arousal
that affects them (Bandura, 1986).

Although the differential contribution of the four
sources of efficacy information has been investigated in a
number of fields, (Bandura, Adams, & Beyer, 1977; Barling &
Snipelisky, 1983; Feltz & Mungo, 1983; Lent, Lopez, &
Bieschke, 1991; Lopez & Lent, 1992; Matsui, Matsui, &
Ohnishi, 1990; Ozer & Bandura, 1990; Shunk & Gunn, 1985),
the relationship between the four sources of self-efficacy

and a lesbian’s confidence in her ability to disclose her

6

sexual orientation has not been explored. The purpose of
this preliminary study is to explore the extent to which
each of the four theoretical sources of self-efficacy
information contribute to a lesbian’s coming out self-
efficacy: her confidence in her ability to disclose her
sexual orientation to others. Additionally, this study will
examine the relationship between coming out self—efficacy
and domain specific adjustment factors such as lifestyle
satisfaction and outness, (e.g., breadth of disclosure).
Finally, the relationships between outness, lifestyle
satisfaction, self—esteem, and affectivity will be explored.

Bandura’s theory of self—efficacy suggests several
hypotheses regarding the relative contribution of each of
these sources to a lesbian’s coming out self-efficacy.
First, a lesbian who reports a high level of past coming out
experiences, positive in nature, is likely to perceive
herself as efficacious in disclosing her sexual orientation.
Second, a lesbian who reports that she has been exposed to
the positive coming out experiences of other lesbians is
likely to perceive herself as efficacious in disclosing her
sexual orientation. Third, a lesbian who reports that she
has received positive verbal support in relation to
disclosing her sexual orientation is likely to perceive
herself as efficacious in disclosing her sexual orientation.
And, finally, a lesbian who reports experiencing low levels
of negative emotional and physiological arousal in the face

of coming out is likely to perceive herself as efficacious

 

7
in disclosing her sexual orientation. In exploring the
relationship between coming out self—efficacy and
adjustment, higher coming out self-efficacy will be
associated with higher levels of expressed lifestyle
satisfaction and outness.
Summary

To address these preliminary questions, this study
consisted of two phases. In the first phase, two measures,
the Sources of Coming Out Self-Efficacy Scale (SCOSS) and
the Coming Out Self-efficacy Scale (COSS) were developed.
Content validity of these measures was established by a
panel of experts who evaluated and rated the theoretical
consistency of the scales. Subsequently, the measures were
pilot tested on a small sample of lesbians (N=28). The
results of the pilot study empirically established the
internal consistency of both measures, and the construct
validity of the C088.

In the second phase, the main study investigated the
contributions of the four sources of efficacy information,
as measured by the Sources of Coming Out Self-efficacy
Sgale, to coming out self-efficacy as measured by the
Cominngut Self—efficacy Scale. The results of this study
offer a theoretical framework that clarifies the internal
motivational process involved in the act of coming out as
well as establishing the relationship between coming out
self-efficacy and measures of outness and lifestyle

satisfaction. Additionally, this study is a novel

8
application of self—efficacy theory in terms of the
population involved and the behavior of interest; the
results may have implications not only for better
understanding the act of coming out, but also for better

understanding the construct of self-efficacy.

CHAPTER 2

Literature Review

Lesbian Identity Formation

The importance of the act of disclosing one’s sexual
orientation may best be understood in the context of
identity formation. Although confusing, the psychological
literature on lesbians suggests that a positive lesbian
identity is a likely outcome of the coming out process
(Cass, 1979; Falco, 1990; Fassinger, 1991; Lewis, 1984;
Stein, 1993; Troiden, 1989). Generally, this process is
comprised of developmental stages that include self-
awareness, self—acceptance, and self-disclosure of sexual
orientation on the part of the lesbian woman (Troiden,
1989). The disclosure of one’s sexual orientation is simply
one behavioral component of this process. It is nonetheless
a significant component because psychological adjustment,
authenticity in relationships, and satisfaction with a
lesbian lifestyle have been found to be correlated with
degree of disclosure (Graham, Rawlings, & Girten, 1985;
Kahn, 1991; Miranda & Storms, 1989). The formation of a
positive lesbian identity takes place in the face of
societal homonegativism that includes: potential

discrimination, oppression, disapproval, and stigmatization

10
across many areas of a woman’s life (Brown, 1991; Fassinger,
1991). Concurrently, a lesbian also must deal with her own
internalized sense of loss, guilt, and shame about her
sexual orientation that result from being socialized in a
heterosexist society (Browning et al, 1991).

Several authors have written about the process of
developing a positive homosexual identity (Cass, 1979;
Chapman & Brannock, 1987; Coleman, 1982; Troiden, 1989),
however, for the purpose of this review, the focus will be
primarily on two developmental theories of homosexual
identity formation, namely Cass’s model (1979) and Troiden’s
model (1989). Cass’s model is probably the most widely
cited model in the literature (Falco, 1990), whereas
Troiden’s model synthesizes not only Cass’s work, but the
theoretical constructs of several others. The particular
relevance of these two theories to this study lie in their
emphasis upon the cognitive processes involved in
identifying oneself as a lesbian. Although both of these
models are applicable to lesbians and gay men, differences
have been found between men and women in this process
(deMonteflores & Schultz, 1978), thus, the focus of this
review will be on the formation of lesbian identity only.

Identity. Identity is a cognitive construct, a means
of defining the self in relation to a specific social
category. A lesbian identity, then, is one in which one’s
perceptions of self in terms of affection, behavior, or

interests, are congruent with what one believes to be

11

characteristic of a lesbian (Cass, 1979; Cass, 1984a; Falco,
1990; Troiden, 1989). Hence, there is no such thing as a
single lesbian identity; the definition of the construct
varies across individuals, contexts, and eras. Further, a
lesbian identity is not a fixed entity, rather it is always
in a state of evolving or "becoming" as the woman more
clearly defines herself to self and others over time and
experience (Cass, 1984a; Stein, 1993; Troiden, 1989).

Identity is composed not only of one’s self-perception,
but also of others’ perception of the self. How one is
perceived by others is based upon how the individual
regularly presents the self to them. Thus, a lesbian will
have not only a self—perceived identity, but also an
identity that she presents to others which may or may not be
consistent with her self-identity, as well as an identity as
perceived by others (Cass, 1984a). Because the formation of
a fully integrated lesbian identity theoretically requires
the communication of that identity to others, interpersonal
relationships with both heterosexuals and other homosexuals
play an important role in that process (Cass, 1979; Cass,
1984a; Cass, 1984b; Coleman, 1982; Falco, 1990; Troiden,
1989). In other words, when one’s perception of self as a
lesbian is congruent with how one is perceived by others, a
lesbian identity has been acquired (Cass, 1984a).

Generally, the models of lesbian identity formation
describe how lesbians move toward an integrated identity

(Cass, 1979; Cass, 1984a; Coleman, 1982; Troiden, 1989).

 

\\
-

12

The coming out process begins when an individual defines
self as lesbian and continues over time. Clinical
experience and research (Cass, 1979; Cass, 1984b; Kahn,
1991; Troiden, 1989) suggest that women do experience
similar stages and tasks in this process as they increase
their contact with other homosexuals and more readily accept
the label of "lesbian," though some women do not engage in
all the stages or the tasks. Further, this is not to say
that the development of these identities is a linear one;
peOple progress through these stages in idiosyncratic ways
(Sophie, 1986). Additionally, the growth and expression of
these homosexual identities is invariably affected by the
atmosphere of stigma in which they develop (Troiden, 1989).

Models of identity. In 1979, Cass proposed a six-stage
model of homosexual identity development. Her theory
suggests that individual growth takes place when a person
attempts to resolve the cognitive dissonance between how one
perceives oneself and how one is perceived by others. An
additional source of motivation within this process is the
need to develop positive feelings about the self and one’s
sexual orientation. Within Cass’s theory, the individual
has an active and conscious role in the formation of a
lesbian identity, though this does not rule out unconscious
change. Yet, Cass suggests that people can and do make
decisions and take action at a conscious level. Thus, in
the formation of a lesbian identity the individual has the

choice of promoting or preventing change via a number of

l3
capabilities (Cass, 1990). These include:

"...the capacity to choose from a range of

alternatives, the capacity to motivate oneself, the

ability to recognize consequences and implications, the
ability to select from a range of strategies aimed at

self-enhancement and self-fulfillment, and the capacity
to engage in decision-making processes, to name a few."

(p.259)

At each stage of the theory these capabilities are utilized
in the formation or foreclosure of one’s homosexual
identity.

Troiden (1989) considered the process through a
slightly different lens. His four-stage theory, based in a
sociological perspective, attempts to explain what
interactions in particular social contexts make
homosexuality personally relevant. The cognitive processes
involved in his model are of a socially comparative nature
in that the individual evaluates her own behavior in light
of the actions of individuals occupying the social category
called "lesbians." Features of this process include: the
realization that such a category exists and is occupied by
others perceived to be similar to the self; identification
with others in that group; labeling self as a member of the
category; and finally, including that label as part of one’s
identity over time (Troiden, 1989). Thus, the individual
moves from self-identification, to self—labeling, to self-
disclosure, to self—identity in the coming out process
(Cass, 1979, 1984a, 1984b, 1990; Troiden, 1989).

Stages of identity development. In this section the

stages of lesbian identity formation will be reviewed.

14
Although Cass and Troiden’s models consist of different
stages, the process that both describe is remarkably
similar. For that reason, these developmental models will
be discussed concurrently. Table 2.1 provides an overview

of the stages for each model.

Table 2.1

Overview of Lesbian Identity

15

Formation Theories.

 

Cass

Troiden

 

1. Identity Confusion:
Includes a vague sense of
difference that leads the
woman to question the
assumption that she is
heterosexual.

2. Identity Comparison:
Characterized by a sense of
differentness, the task is to
resolve this dissonance by
answering the question, "Am I
a lesbian?"

3. Identity Tolerance:
Lesbian identity is accepted
but not prized. Additional
information and experience is
sought with other lesbians.

4. Identity Acceptance:
Disclosure of sexual
orientation to others comes to
the fore as a means of
demonstrating acceptance and
legitimization of lesbian
identity.

5. Identity Pride:
Heterosexual lifestyles and
values are rejected as the
woman immerses herself into
the lesbian subculture.

6. Identity Synthesis:
Dichotomized view of the world
is relinquished. With total
self-acceptance lesbian
identity becomes merely one
aspect of a more integrated
identity.

 

 

1. Sensitization: Occurs
before puberty and is marked by
a sense of differentness from
one’s same sex peers in both
interests and behaviors.

2. Identity Confusion:
Individual experiences
dissonance around uncertain
sexual status. This is
resolved by either denying the
possibility of being lesbian,
or by accepting the possibility
and seeking information and
experience with other lesbians.

3. Identity Assumption: A
lesbian identity has become a
self—identity. Presenting that
identity to others, initially
homosexuals, is central.

4. Commitment: Lesbianism
becomes accepted as a way of
life. This is reflected
behaviorally through
participation in a committed
relationship and emotionally
through satisfaction and
happiness with one’s life.

 

 

16

The process of forming a lesbian identity begins with
the realization that one is somehow different from one’s
peers. Troiden (1989) describes this awareness in the first
stage of his model called "Sensitization." He suggests that
this stage takes place before puberty and is marked by a
sense of being separate and different from one’s same sex
peers. It is in looking back on this felt sense, as well as
one’s non-traditional interests and activities, that
lesbians interpret as the first signs of their
homosexuality. However, Troiden points out that these early
experiences are not sufficient for the formation of
homosexual identities, rather, it is the definition assigned
to these experiences in retrospect that provide the
potential basis for self—definition as lesbian during or
after adolescence.

The next phase of the process of developing a lesbian
identity is comprised of labeling this sense of
differentness. In the first stage of her model, "Identity
Confusion," Cass (1990) states that the individual
recognizes that there is something about one’s thoughts,
feelings, or behavior that may be construed as lesbian.
Cass’s description of this stage is parallel with that of
Troiden’s second stage, also called "Identity Confusion."
The task for the individual at this stage is to resolve the
confusion that goes along with this awareness by answering
the question, "Am I lesbian?" To do so, women may utilize a

number of strategies. They may deny the possibility

l7
altogether, they may avoid anyone or anything having to do
with lesbianism, or they may redefine these feelings as
"just a phase" or as specific to one relationship in
particular. On the other hand, they may accept the
possibility of a lesbian identity and pursue further
information and experience (Troiden, 1989). According to
Cass (1979), this phase ends when the individual
acknowledges that she may be a lesbian.

The third stage of Troiden’s model, "Identity

Assumption," incorporates the second and third stages of
Cass’s model, "Identity Comparison" and "Identity
Tolerance." This developmental phase is characterized by

feelings of loss and alienation as the woman realizes that
the expectations and assumptions of the heterosexual world
no longer are relevant to her (Falco, 1990). The tasks of
this phase include defining self as lesbian, presenting that
identity primarily to other lesbians, and exploring the
lesbian subculture (Troiden, 1989). Typically, women first
label themselves as lesbians in the context of a
sexual/emotional relationship with another woman, perhaps
due to sex role socialization (Browning et al., 1991;
deMonteflores & Schultz, 1978). At this stage, lesbian
identity is tolerated rather than accepted (Cass, 1979).
Working through this identity ambivalence may be facilitated
by the tenor of the contacts one has with other lesbians or
gay males. Negative experiences may lead to termination of

further contacts as well as negative evaluations of self and

18
other lesbians. On the other hand, positive contacts
provide an opportunity for the individual to re-examine her
own assumptions about homosexuality while concurrently
feeling more positively about her lesbianism. Through
contacts with other lesbians, the woman may also learn about
her own developing identity in terms of management
strategies, (e.g. passing as heterosexual or disclosing
one’s sexual orientation), how to deal with internalized
homophobia, and the range and variety of identities that are
acceptable within the lesbian subculture (Troiden, 1989).
By the end of this stage, the individual has accepted her
lesbianism and has even disclosed it to some others, though
disclosure is the exception rather than the rule (Cass,
1979) .

At this point in the developmental process, the woman
has not only accepted her lesbianism, but has developed a
positive self—image in relation to this identity and its
accoutrements. Cass and Troiden differ in how they explain
the final developmental tasks and stages that ultimately
lead to a positive and integrated lesbian identity. The act
of self—disclosure of one’s sexual orientation is an
integral component of these final developmental stages.

The final three stages of Cass’s model are "Identity
Acceptance," "Identity Pride," and "Identity Synthesis."
"Identity Acceptance" is characterized by a process in which
the woman moves from accepting her lesbian identity to

selectively disclosing it, both publicly and privately, as a

19

means of legitimizing her chosen lifestyle (Fassinger,
1991). There can be some dissonance in this process for the
woman as she feels an increasing sense of pride in herself
and in her lifestyle, yet both are met with continuous
societal sanction. This juncture signals the beginning of
"Identity Pride" in which the woman may take a more
political stance. This perspective is one in which her
lesbian lifestyle is considered to be the only way to live
whereas all that is associated with heterosexual lifestyles
and values are rejected. In this phase, disclosure of one's
sexual orientation is used as a means of confronting
society’s inequities rather than as a means of developing or
enhancing relationships (Cass, 1990). It is through
accepting and affirming responses to her disclosure that the
woman reconsiders her stance against all heterosexuals.
Ultimately, in Cass’s final stage, "Identity Synthesis,"
this dichotomized view of the world is relinquished by the
woman. She becomes more confident and secure in disclosing
her identity and interacting in both the homosexual and
heterosexual worlds. Through this interaction, the public
and private aspects of the woman’s identity have
synthesized; instead of being phe identity, her lesbianism
has become simply one aspect of her self-identity (Cass,
1979).

The final stage of Troiden’s model (1989) is called
"Commitment." This stage begins when the woman enters a

relationship with another woman. It is comprised of both

20
internal and external markers of one’s commitment to a
lesbian identity and lifestyle. However, commitment to a
lesbian lifestyle varies from person to person; it also
waxes and wanes under the influence of personal, social, and
professional factors. Internally, the lesbian perceives
lesbianism as a valid lifestyle and feels more satisfaction
and happiness in relation to being seriously involved with
other women both emotionally and sexually. Externally,
commitment to-a lesbian lifestyle is reflected by her wider
disclosure of sexual orientation to others who are not
lesbian or gay. As the identity formation process
progresses, the desire to be more open about one’s sexual
orientation increases and, hence, disclosure is made to an
ever—widening audience. That is not to say that disclosure
is made in as indiscriminate fashion; rather, openness
varies across personal and contextual variables
(deMonteflores & Schultz, 1978). In the formation of a
lesbian identity, according to Troiden (1989), disclosure
brings that identity into existence in a variety of contexts
and relationships. And, like Cass's model, when one
presents and is perceived as lesbian, identity synthesis has
been achieved.

Summary. The coming out process has been
conceptualized as a developmental process in which a woman
moves from a sense of confusing differentness, to
consciously labeling herself as a lesbian, to disclosing her

sexual orientation to others. Over the course of this

21

process, the woman is moving toward integrating her sexual
identity into her overall self-identity with a positive
lesbian identity being the potential outcome. The act of
disclosing her sexual orientation to others is an important
aspect of this process because it is one means by which the
woman is able to obtain recognition for who she is, rather
than for whom people assume her to be. As the woman’s self—
identity and perceived identity merge, an integrated lesbian
identity is said to have formed.
The Act of Coming Out

On a day to day basis lesbians are confronted with the
conscious decision of whether or not to disclose their
sexual orientation to important others in their families,
workplaces, and social networks. Making this disclosure is
important for individual and interpersonal reasons. For the
lesbian herself, wider disclosure of Sexual orientation is
associated with self-acceptance and validation
(deMonteflores & Schultz, 1978; Fassinger, 1991; Sophie,
1982). In interpersonal relationships, self—disclosure of
one’s sexual orientation lends authenticity and depth to the
relationship as well as being a potential avenue for social
support (Fassinger, 1991; Sophie, 1982; Wells & Kline,
1987).

Experiential support for the importance of coming out
is evident in The Original Coming Out Stories (1989). In
this collection of personal vignettes, lesbian writers

recount their own coming out experiences as well as the

22
impact of those experiences on their developing sense of
identity, both as lesbians and as women. In summarizing the
contributions of the writers included in the collection,
Penelope and Wolfe (1989) state that in the process of
developing a lesbian identity, it is the "self-naming" of
oneself as a lesbian that is central in self-affirmation.
They add that in our heterosexist society where one is
assumed to be heterosexual, the repeated act of coming out
is a means of claiming an identity. Thus, the process of
coming out, identifying oneself as lesbian and sharing that
identity with others, is likened to a "coming together" of
oneself.

Yet, the act of coming out often takes place in the
context of few role models, inadequate support systems, lack
of legal protection, isolation, and the potential loss of
one’s primary racial or ethnic community (Fassinger, 1991).
Further, in disclosing the fact that one is a lesbian, one
faces not only negative societal attitudes, but also one’s
own internalized homophobia which may be experienced as
feelings of guilt, shame, and anxiety (Browning et al,
1991). Additionally, in coming out to others, women run the
risks of rejection by family and friends, discrimination in
the workplace and in housing, and even violence (Browning et
al., 1991; Fassinger, 1991; Lewis, 1984; Riddle & Sang,
1978; Wells & Kline, 1987).

Although the costs of disclosure seem prohibitive,

theoretically it is emotionally and behaviorally taxing for

23
a lesbian not to disclose her sexual orientation. If one is
perpetually worried about being identified as a lesbian, one
may become increasingly paranoid and vigilant (Sophie,
1982). Behaviorally, a great deal of energy is required to
maintain the appearances of a heterosexual lifestyle when
one is, in fact, living as a lesbian (Falco, 1990). A
lesbian may avoid certain social situations, may introduce
her partner as a "friend," or may be reluctant to discuss
anything about her personal life or living situation with
others to avoid being identified as a lesbian (Moses, 1978).
Under these conditions the woman will not develop a positive
lesbian identity, nor will she fully possess a heterosexual
identity. Hence, the implications of denying herself and
her sexuality may include devaluing of the self and
lesbianism, low self—esteem, and increased levels of daily
stress (Berger, 1990).

Facilitating the process. Because disclosing one’s
sexual orientation is so important for personal adjustment
and identity development, many writers in both the popular
and professional press have written about how to come out
(Browning et al., 1991; Eichenberg, 1991; Falco, 1990;
Fassinger, 1991; Gartrell, 1984b; Groves, 1985; Hanley—
Hackenbruck, 1988; Sophie, 1982; Woodman, 1988). In
general, this literature describes a cognitive appraisal and
choice process in which the lesbian evaluates the potential
costs and benefits of disclosing her sexual orientation

within particular relationships and circumstances, as well

24
as her ability and willingness to cope with the potential
repercussions.

For instance, several writers have written about how
the coming out process can be facilitated by therapists
(Browning et al., 1991; Falco, 1990; Fassinger, 1991;
Gartrell, 1984b; Sophie, 1982; Woodman, 1988). Some women
may have difficulty identifying themselves as lesbian,
others with the act of coming out, and still others with
disclosing their sexual orientation in specific life arenas.
Thus, before encouraging a woman to disclose her sexual
identity, exploring her feelings about her sexuality may be
important. Given that lesbians are socialized to be
heterosexual, they often experience feelings of guilt,
shame, and loss in conjunction with lesbianism. Before
coming out to others, the woman may need help working
through these feelings, otherwise the rejection and
condemnation she may experience after disclosure will
confirm her own internalized homophobia (Gartrell, 1984a;
Sophie, 1987). In general, for lesbians to disclose their
sexual orientation to others from a position of identity
strength and pride is optimal (Gartrell, 1984b).

The next phase of the disclosure process involves
exploring the risks and benefits of such a disclosure as
well as the social and psychological consequences of not
coming out (Gartrell, 1984b). Additionally, it can be
helpful in this phase to also clarify the woman’s hopes and

expectations in relation to her disclosure, as well as her

25
motivation for making the disclosure (Browning et al., 1991;
Falco, 1990; Hanley-Hackenbruck, 1988; Woodman, 1988).

Many authors agree that it is important for lesbians to
initially come out to others who they believe will be
accepting and supportive of their lifestyle especially early
on in the process (Coleman, 1982; Falco, 1990; Gartrell,
1984b; Sophie, 1982). In general, lesbians seem to come out
to an expanding range of individuals beginning with self,
moving to other homosexuals and close heterosexual friends,
to family, coworkers and employers, to, ultimately, public
identification as a lesbian (Troiden, 1989). Across all of
these audiences, the woman may have to deal with rejection,
discrimination, alienation, and being judged as different or
even deviant (Browning et al., 1991; Fassinger, 1991;
Gartrell, 1984b). Hence, it can be helpful to prepare the
woman for the potential criticism and reactions that others
may have to her disclosure, as well as assisting her in
developing some strategies about how to work through those
feelings (Fassinger, 1991; Gartrell, 1984b). Because women
are socialized to develop and maintain relationships, the
conflict associated with the coming out process can be
particularly stressful (Fassinger, 1991).

Regardless of the situation in which one comes out,
there are many factors which affect that decision.

According to Hanley—Hackenbruck (1988), individual variables
contribute the most variation in the process. They include:

race or ethnic group membership, urban versus rural locale,

26
societal atmosphere, age of first awareness, family rigidity
and religiosity, and overall psychological functioning.
Further, in an unpublished study by Ort (cf, Falco, 1990,
pp. 103-104), 72 lesbians rank ordered aspects of coming out
that either enabled or inhibited the overall process.
Summarizing her results, the top 10 enablers included: an
accepting audience, the belief that people deserve to be
what they want to be, a sense of identity and pride, wanting
to be fully known, not wanting to hide, meeting other women
who are comfortable being out, feeling good and confident
about self as a lesbian, wanting to add depth to a
relationship, wanting to be myself, and finally, having
previous positive experiences in disclosing lesbianism.
Conversely, the top 10 inhibitors included: the fear that
disclosure would make self or others feel awkward or
uncomfortable, the sense that sexuality was an inappropriate
topic within relationship, interacting with others who have
limited exposure to other lifestyles, hearing homophobic
jokes, fearing repercussions on the job, interacting with
close-minded and prejudiced people, wanting approval yet
fearing it would be lost if others knew about lesbianism,
fear of loss of respect, and fear of rejection.

In summary, the decision to disclose one’s sexual
orientation is based on many factors. A lesbian consciously
appraises her willingness and ability to cope with the
potential repercussions of her disclosure. Further, she

appraises the tenor of the relationship in which she is

27
contemplating coming out and the circumstances under which
that disclosure will be made. Although the response one
receives to the disclosure of one’s lesbianism is rarely
unequivocally positive, it is through the act of disclosure
that one affirms one’s lesbianism.
Research on Coming Out

In general, there is a dearth of systematic research
surrounding lesbian issues (Buhrke, Ben-Ezra, Hurley, &
Ruprecht, 1992). However, there have been a couple of
studies that have investigated the factors that contribute
to a lesbian’s willingness to disclose her sexual
orientation (Kahn, 1991; Wells & Kline, 1989), whereas
others have investigated coming out in specific arenas like
family of origin (Cody-Murphy, 1989) or the workplace
(Schneider, 1986). Additionally, the implications of coming
out on psychological adjustment and satisfaction with
lifestyle have been investigated by Miranda and Storms
(1989). These studies will be briefly reviewed in this
section.

In a small exploratory study, Wells and Kline (1987)
utilized an open-ended questionnaire to investigate how,
when, where, why, and to whom gay men and lesbians disclose
their sexual orientation as well as the risks they perceive
in doing so. Seventeen women and 23 men participated in
this study. Responses to the questionnaire were organized
into categories based on the literature about coming out in

terms of who they told, (e.g , close friends, family, etc ),

28
why they told them, (e.g., honesty, openness), and how they
told them, (e.g., contextual and interpersonal factors).

The results of this study for the lesbians indicated
that most of these women disclosed their sexual orientation
to others they trusted or who they believed would respond
favorably. Further, it was easier for these women to
disclose their orientation to other lesbians rather than to
straight women. In addition, these women were inclined to
disclose their sexual orientation for self-validation and
affirmation or to deepen an existing relationship. However,
before taking the chance of disclosing their orientation,
these women tested the views of their intended audience in
relation to lesbianism. They also attempted to give this
person some clues about their orientation before they
actually made the disclosure. Finally, these women also
attempted to select an appropriate time and place to make
their disclosure.

Kahn (1991) also explored factors associated with
disclosure of lesbianism, specifically those that facilitate
the development of a lesbian identity and their relationship
to the disclosure of that identity. In a study of 81
lesbians, she examined the relationship between stage of
lesbian identity development and the degree of openness
about one’s sexual orientation. The stage of lesbian
identity develOpment was assessed by Cass’s Stage Allocation
Measure (1984b) whereas, self-disclosure was operationalized

on a likert scale indicating how open a response would be

29
made, expectations about being open, and the importance of
openness in domains ranging from the lesbian/gay community,
to the workplace, to the woman’s family of origin. She also
explored the contribution of family dynamics, beliefs about
women, and internalized homophobia to both identity
development and self—disclosure.

Results of the study indicated that the reported stage
of identity development was significantly correlated with
the degree of outness reported by the woman. Additionally,
the expectations held by the woman about the potential
reactions of others and the importance she assigned to
coming out in that relationship were significantly
correlated with the degree of outness reported. In
regression analyses, liberal attitudes towards women’s roles
and low levels of internalized homophobia were also
associated with greater degrees of openness though it was
not clear if these attitudes facilitated identity
deve10pment. Finally, communication patterns from family of
origin also contributed to the degree of outness one
reported. When women reported feeling intimidated by their
parents, levels of openness decreased, as did the likelihood
that the woman would be "out" in her family of origin.

Schneider (1986) specifically explored the demographic
characteristics and work conditions under which lesbians
were willing to self—disclose their sexual orientation.
Two—hundred and twenty-eight self—identified lesbians

completed a questionnaire that was designed especially for

30
this study. It included items focusing on demographic
information, the woman’s perception of her work environment,
and her perception of the risks of disclosure within that
environment. Disclosure in the workplace was assessed by a
single item rated on a scale from "not open at all" to
"totally open."

Schneider tested a causal model that was based on the
assumption that disclosure is specific to particular
situations, and workplace factors create the context in
which disclosure may or may not occur. Results of the
analysis indicated that disclosure of one’s sexual
orientation was most likely to occur when women were
employed in small, non—bureaucratic organizations, when they
worked with adults in human service organizations, and in
female dominated settings. Wider disclosure was also
associated with income, with women who made less money being
more open in the workplace. In general, these factors
increased the level of sociability leading to increased
intimacy which facilitated disclosure. Schneider (1986)
suggested that over the course of developing some level of
intimacy with co—workers, a lesbian has the opportunity to
assess the political awareness, sensitivity, and
trustworthiness of her co-workers before disclosing to them-
-a process over which she has some control, compared to
other’s reactions.

Cody-Murphy (1989) also investigated the impact of

coming out to parents, specifically in how it affects

31
lesbians in committed relationships. Twenty lesbians who
had been in a committed relationship for at least two years
and who had come out to her respective parents participated
in the study. Respondents were asked to respond to a
forced-choice questionnaire about their perceptions of their
parent’s feelings about their partners and their lesbianism.
Then they were asked to rate how those attitudes affected
their relationship. Additionally, demographic and
historical information was collected in relation to coming
out to parents. Respondents indicated that they came out to
parents to be acknowledged as the person they were, even if
parents disapproved. Doing so decreased the isolation
experienced by these women as well as enhancing the sense of
integrity and integration these women felt. However, in
some instances even though women came out to their parents,
their lesbianism and their relationships were not
acknowledged by the parents.

More often than not in this study, women (61%) reported
that their parents liked their partner "a lot." However,
parental feelings about lesbianism seemed to overshadow
their feelings about the partner. In other words, the
parents’ attitude toward the daughter and her partner were
perceived to have changed once it became clear that the two
were lovers. Even so, these women reported that being out
to parents, even when they did disapprove was more affirming
than was denying their lesbian identity.

Miranda and Storms (1989) explored the relationship

32

between disclosure of one’s sexual orientation and
satisfaction with gay/lesbian lifestyle, and with
psychological adjustment in two samples: an older one from
gay/lesbian bars and friendship networks, and a second
sample from a college population. For the first study,
one’s outness, (e.g., breadth of one’s disclosure) was
assessed in 38 life areas (e.g., family, school, employment)
with a questionnaire developed for this project on a three—
point scale with 1="not out", 2="partly out", 3="completely
out." For the second study, participants rated the extent
of their disclosure to significant persons in 15 life areas
on a revised questionnaire with a likert scale from 1="not
out" to 7="completely out." Satisfaction with gay/lesbian
lifestyle was rated by participants on a scale of
1="extremely unhappy and unsatisfied" to 7="extremely happy
and satisfied." Psychological adjustment was assessed using
the Evsenck Personality Inventory which measures neurotic
anxiety and by two items which assessed psychological well-
being and strength. These two items asked respondents to
rate the degree to which they were pleased or displeased
with their current lifestyle, and the degree to which they
felt psychologically intact. The responses to these items
were averaged to provide an index of ego strength.

Results of the analysis were similar for both studies.
Positive gay and lesbian identity was associated with low
neurotic anxiety and high level of ego strength. Wider

self—disclosure was also associated with positive identity,

33
though it was not related directly to psychological
adjustment. There were no gender differences found. The
authors concluded that helping clients develop a positive
identity through the use of disclosure may promote further
psychological adjustment.

In conclusion, these studies investigated the
motivation behind coming out, factors associated with
greater openness, and the implications of self~disclosure of
one's sexual orientation. It seems that lesbians are
motivated to disclose their sexual orientation based on a
desire to be themselves and to validate their lifestyle, as
well as to establish more authentic interpersonal
relationships (cf. Falco, 1991; Wells & Kline, 1987). The
benefits associated with making that disclosure include:
lesbian identity development (Kahn, 1991) and satisfaction
with a lesbian lifestyle which is associated with
psychological adjustment (Miranda & Storms, 1989). Other
research investigated factors associated with disclosure in
social relationships, family of origin, and in the
workplace. Among friends, lesbians seem to come out to
others in the context of a trusting relationship, especially
when they believe that they will receive a positive reaction
from the person (Wells & Kline, 1987). In family of origin,
intergenerational intimidation plays a role in whether a not
a lesbian will disclose her sexual orientation to her family
(Kahn, 1991). And finally, in the workplace, disclosure was

associated with the type of employment in which a lesbian

34
engaged, as well as the work environment and her income.

However, in considering the results of these studies,
the methodological and theoretical shortcomings are
apparent. Generalizability of results is limited in all
studies for two main reasons: small sample size (Cody—
Murphy, 1989; Kahn, 1991; Wells & Kline, 1987) and bias
within the samples, such as the use of a college age sample
(Miranda & Storms, 1989) or a highly educated one
(Schneider, 1986). Additionally, measurement rigor is
lacking in the questionnaire studies (Schneider, 1986; Wells
& Kline, 1987), as well as in studies that operationalized
constructs such as ego strength (Miranda & Storms, 1989) and
homophobia (Kahn, 1991) but failed to assess the validity
and reliability of these constructs.

For each of these studies the authors presented a
rationale for investigating the variables of interest.
However, most of them are loosely based in the extant
literature on coming out and homosexual identity formation
(Cody-Murphy, 1989; Kahn, 1991; Miranda & Storms, 1989), and
consequently lack theoretical rigor. This has resulted in a
large literature base that is fragmented and in need of
integration. Self-efficacy theory offers a theoretical
framework for organizing the internal factors that mediate
the act of coming out for lesbians. Thus, understanding the
potential contribution that different types of efficacy
information, (e.g., past performance accomplishments,

vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and emotional

35
arousal), may make to a lesbians’s confidence in her ability
to disclose her sexual orientation may be important.

In the next section, the theoretical construct of self-
efficacy will be reviewed as will its empirical
applications.

Introduction to Self—efficacy

The construct of self-efficacy has not yet been
explored within a lesbian population, nor in relation to the
act of disclosing a homosexual orientation. Yet, because
not only the act of disclosing a lesbian identity, but also
the formation of that identity are based in a conscious and
cognitive appraisal process, self-efficacy may be a
particularly relevant construct. It may clarify the
relationship between a lesbian’s confidence in her ability
to come out and her previous disclosure behavior, as well as
what types of experiential information have contributed to
her level of confidence. In this section, the component
parts of Bandura’s theory of self—efficacy will be reviewed.
For this study, the most salient feature of the theory is
the theoretical contribution of the four sources of efficacy
information to the development of self-efficacy itself.

The construct of self—efficacy is one component of
Bandura's Social Cognitive theory (1986). Social Cognitive
theory explains human functioning through the "triadic
reciprocality" of behavior: cognitive factors, personal
factors, and environmental events. Each of these components

interacts with every other component to determine an

36
individual’s behavior. At any one time, however, an
individual’s behavior, thoughts, or environment may be most
influential in determining action depending upon which is
exerting the most salient influence on the individual at the
time.

Within Social Cognitive theory, people are assumed to
possess several different capabilities that are the basis of
their individual agency (Bandura, 1986). The first of these
is the ability to transform experiences into symbols that
become internal models that guide subsequent behavior.
Second, people have the ability for forethought that guides
behavior as people set goals, consider consequences, and are
purposive in their behavior. Third, people can acquire
important information about how to behave through vicarious
experience. Fourth, people are able to self—regulate--they
set internal standards for their behaviors that they use to
evaluate their own performances. Finally, Bandura states
that a uniquely human attribute is the ability to be self-
reflective, to ponder one’s experiences and own thought
processes. It is within this aspect of human nature that
self-efficacy lies, being, according to Bandura, central to
how individuals judge their abilities to deal effectively
with different circumstances, ultimately affecting what one
does with the skills that one possesses.

Self-efficacy
Self-efficacy refers to beliefs about one’s ability to

perform specific behaviors in a specific situation (Bandura,

37
1986). It is a form of self-referent thought that reflects
an individual’s sense of his or her ability to have some
control over the events of his or her life (Bandura, 1989).
In appraising one’s ability to successfully perform in a
given circumstance, the relationship between what one knows
and the action that is taken is mediated by the person’s
self-efficacy beliefs. Self-efficacy is not directly
concerned with the skills that an individual possesses, but
with the judgments the individual makes regarding what she
can do with those skills. Thus, self-efficacy is one’s
belief in one’s ability to garner the motivation and
cognitive resources requisite to ultimately performing a
specific behavior in a specific situation (Bandura, 1986;
Ozer & Bandura, 1990).

One’s perception of self-efficacy in any given domain
is distinguished from outcome expectations by Bandura
(1977). An outcome expectation is a person’s judgment that
a behavior will lead to a likely outcome, whereas self-
efficacy is the person’s belief in one’s ability to perform
the behavior that will lead to that outcome. Outcome
expectations can be confused with a successfully performed
skill or behavior. Effectively performing a skill or task
may lead to likely outcomes, but in and of itself, the
performance is not an outcome. In other words, self-
efficacy concerns one’s beliefs about performing an act,
whereas outcome expectations are the consequences of the act

not the act itself (Bandura, 1984). That is not to say that

38
outcome expectations do not influence one’s behaviors. "It
is because people see outcomes as contingent on the adequacy
of their performances, and care about those outcomes, that
they rely on self-judged efficacy in deciding which courses
of action to pursue" (Bandura, 1986, p. 392).

Dimensions of self-efficacy. Self-efficacy varies
along three dimensions according to Bandura (1977). First,
it varies on level. This reflects an individual’s
confidence in his or her ability to complete an easy task
versus a complex one. Second, self—efficacy varies in terms
of strength with stronger self—efficacy associated with
perseverance in the face of obstacles and weaker self-
efficacy easily disconfirmed by failures. Finally, self-
efficacy varies in terms of generality; some individuals may
consider themselves efficacious in only certain life
domains, but not in others. Therefore, an individual with a
high level of self—efficacy is more likely to select
challenging tasks, to persevere even in the face of
difficulties, and is more likely to perform these tasks
successfully.

Sources of self—efficacy. The appraisal that one makes
about one’s efficacy is based on four sources of efficacy
information (Bandura, 1986). For this information to be
useful to the individual, a cognitive appraisal process
ensues. First, the information must be selected for
attention by the individual from all of the possible

information available from personal, social, situational,

39

and temporal sources. Next, it must be weighted by the
individual in terms of relative importance and accuracy
until finally, it is integrated into personal self-efficacy
judgments specific to task and circumstance (Bandura, 1977).

The first source of efficacy information is personal
performance accomplishments. For instance, in specific
relation to this study, these would include previous
experiences of coming out to others. Theoretically, this is
the most influential source of efficacy information because
it is based on the mastery experiences of the individual
(Bandura, 1986). However, like all of the sources of
information, the impact, positive or negative, that an
actual experience will have on one’s self-efficacy judgments
depends on how the individual evaluates the experience.
Bandura suggests that experiences will be judged on
difficulty, the amount of effort expended, the amount of
assistance received, the circumstances under which the task
was performed, as well as the amount of time between related
successes and failures. Thus, self-efficacy is likely to
increase if the individual successfully accomplishes a
difficult task, whereas it will be adversely affected if the
person succeeds only with a great deal of effort under
optimal circumstances on an easy task.

Self-efficacy is also affected by how the individual
accounts for the success or failure of performances
(Bandura, 1977). For example, an individual with high self-

efficacy is likely to attribute failure to a lack of effort

40
and success to ability. Conversely, someone with low self-
efficacy is likely to attribute failure to inability and
success to circumstances or luck. In general, failures are
likely to lower self-efficacy, especially early in one’s
experience in a specific task domain (Bandura, 1986). Yet,
failures that are turned into successes through a great deal
of effort will enhance self-efficacy.

The second source of efficacy information is vicarious
experience; it would include, for example, hearing the
coming out stories of other lesbians. Vicarious experience
provides important efficacy information by allowing an
individual to compare herself to another person with whom
she identifies, and who has accomplished a task that is
personally relevant to her (Bandura, 1977). This "model"
may also act as a knowledgeable source who may be able to
provide better strategies for dealing with difficult or
threatening situations. Vicarious information is
particularly relevant to an individual who has little
experience with a certain task because it provides a basis
for evaluating one’s own personal competence (Bandura,
1986). In this situation, an individual is likely to judge
herself by comparing her capabilities to the performances of
someone who is perceived to be similar to self in ability as
well as in personal characteristics like age, gender,
education, socioeconomic status, and race.

The third source of efficacy information is verbal

persuasion. In relation to coming out, this would include

41
messages from others about the importance of coming out even
though it is risky. Although verbal persuasion is not as
powerful in promoting enduring changes in one’s self—
efficacy, it can be used to persuade someone to attempt or
to persevere in an activity that will increase her self-
efficacy through a personal performance accomplishment
(Bandura, 1986). Verbal persuasion has its greatest impact
on someone who has some reason to believe that through her
actions, especially with more effort, the desired
performance can be achieved. The potential impact of verbal
persuasion on an individual is also dependent upon who the
persuader is, what his or her credibility is in relation to
the task, as well as his or her perceived expertness.
Lastly, verbal persuasion is more likely to be influential
when it is given in a situation in which the task is
slightly beyond the reach of the person, but is possible
with extra effort.

The final source of efficacy information is emotional
arousal. For example, this would include the emotional and
physiological arousal experienced by the woman in
circumstances when she is or has been coming out. According
to Bandura (1986), people often read anxiety and nervousness
as signs of inability or incompetence in stressful or taxing
situations, whereas they associate low arousal with success.
However, it is not arousal itself, but the level of that
arousal that impacts self-efficacy judgment. Low arousal

often facilitates performance, whereas high arousal is

42
inhibitory. Thus, it becomes important to understand how an
individual appraises the arousal experienced. If arousal is
experienced as a normal part of the task, it will have
little impact on one’s judgment of self—efficacy. However,
if arousal is interpreted as a lack of ability it will have
a detrimental impact on self-efficacy.

An individual’s self—efficacy beliefs impact
psychosocial functioning in that they affect the activities
and environments in which one chooses to participate
(Bandura, 1989). In general, people avoid tasks and
situations that they believe exceed their capabilities,
whereas they will attempt those that they judge themselves
capable of handling (Bandura, 1986). Further, self—efficacy
also influences how people appraise themselves and
circumstances. People with low self-efficacy tend to dwell
on their own shortcomings in relation to a task and appraise
the difficulties associated with that task as overwhelming.
Although self-efficacy mediates the relationship between
knowledge and action, it is important to note that self-
efficacy alone is not sufficient to insure successful
performance. An individual must possess the requisite
subskills associated with the endeavor, as well as having
some incentive to perform those skills.

Research on self—efficacy

Although no research has investigated how self-efficacy

might be helpful in explaining the act of coming out,

understanding what types of efficacy information are most

43

influential in developing coming out self-efficacy is
important for designing interventions to promote and
facilitate these disclosures. Lesbians with greater coming
out self-efficacy would be more likely to have disclosed
their sexual orientations to more people in a variety of
domains. Consequently, they would be more likely to feel as
if they are themselves in relation to others, to possess a
positive sense of self-esteem, and thus, are theoretically
likely to have an integrated lesbian identity as well.

Self-efficacy has been shown to be a predictor of
behavior in a broad range of areas (Maddux & Stanley, 1986).
In the area of adjustment, these include: adjustment to
abortion (Major, Cozzarelli, Sciacchitano, Cooper, Testa, &
Mueller, 1990; Mueller & Major, 1989), management of chronic
pain (Jensen, Turner, & Romano, 1991), and adjustment to
aging (Holahan & Holahan, 1987). Self-efficacy has also
been used to predict mathematics achievement and math and
science career development (Lent & Hackett, 1987; Lent,
Larkin, & Brown, 1989; Multon, Brown, & Lent, 1991) and
reading and writing achievement (Shell et al., 1989).
Finally, self-efficacy has been found to be predictive of
behavior in social arenas as well; for instance in self-
presentation and social anxiety (Maddux, Norton, & Leary,
1988) and in assertion and social skills (Lee, 1984; Moe &
Zeiss, 1982).

Although the construct of self-efficacy has been

established as a useful predictor of behavior, few studies

44
have looked at the mechanisms that contribute to the
formation of self-efficacy. In this section, some of the
studies that have examined the sources of self-efficacy
information, such as modeling or vicarious experience, will
be reviewed as they relate to self—efficacy and behavior
(Bandura, Adams, & Beyer, 1977; Barling & Snipelisky, 1983;
Feltz & Mungo, 1983; Ozer & Bandura, 1990; Shunk & Gunn,
1985). Finally, the three studies that have explored the
relationship between all of the sources of efficacy
information and the development of math self—efficacy will
be reviewed (Lent et al., 1991; Lopez & Lent, 1992; Matsui,
Matsui, & Ohnishi, 1990). These last studies are very
similar to the study at hand.

In an early treatment study, Bandura, Adams, and Beyer
(1977) found that different treatment modalities did,
indeed, affect efficacy beliefs and behavioral performance
of snake phobics. As predicted by self-efficacy theory,
members of the group that received both modeling and mastery
components in treatment had the highest levels of self-
efficacy expectations. Further, participants assigned to
just the modeling treatment had lower self—efficacy than the
combination treatment, but greater self-efficacy than those
assigned to the control condition. Additionally, the
congruence between efficacy and actual performance was 89%
for those assigned to the modeling and mastery group, and
86% for those in the vicarious learning group. This study

illustrates the significant contributions of personal

45
performance accomplishments and vicarious experience on
self-efficacy beliefs. In addition, it highlights the
relationship between self-efficacy and performance as well
as its association with behavior change.

The results of this study are similar to the results of
another study involving snake phobics (Bandura & Adams,
1977). In assessing the efficacy of desensitized snake
phobics, Bandura and Adams found varying levels of self-
efficacy; however, these self-efficacy ratings were highly
predictive of behavior in a snake approach task. Second,
they also found that self—efficacy and performance increased
conjointly in a mastery-modeling treatment, but that self-
efficacy was still a better predictor of behavior than was
past performance.

Feltz and Mungo (1983) used path analysis to examine
the influence of perceived and actual (heart rate) autonomic
arousal on the self-efficacy beliefs of 80 inexperienced
divers on the performance of a modified back dive over four
trials. Results of the analysis indicated that self-
efficacy was the major predictor of performance on Trial 1,
however, performance on the subsequent trials became more
influenced by previous attempts. Consistent with Bandura’s
theory, self—efficacy increased with diving attempts, though
its influence on performance decreased. Although the
diver’s heart rate was not a predictor of self—efficacy,
perceived autonomic arousal did significantly predict self-

efficacy but not performance of the dive. Thus, both

46
performance accomplishments and perceived autonomic arousal
did act as sources of efficacy information as postulated by
Bandura, though only performance accomplishments affected
behavior after the first dive.

Barling and Snipelisky (1983) examined the relationship
between performance accomplishments, (e.g , grades and a
classroom participation score); modeling, (e.g., teacher’s
self-efficacy), as well as the impact of these same sources
of information on student outcome expectations.
Participants were 350 children in grades 2-7. Results of
multiple regression indicated that consistent with Bandura’s
theory, performance accomplishments explained more of the
variance in self-efficacy beliefs than did modeling, though
this relationship was moderated by the child's age and how
the child accounted for his or her success. The same
relationship was found between performance accomplishments
and outcome expectations. Like Bandura’s theory, these
results reflect the major role that attributions play in
deve10ping self—efficacy. That is, in order for past
performance accomplishments to influence efficacy beliefs,
the success must be attributed to self.

The contribution of vicarious experience has been
explored in the academic arena as well. Shunk and Gunn
(1985) explored the contribution of modeling to self—
efficacy and the development of math skills (division) in a
group of 40 elementary school children. The students were

assigned to one of four modeling conditions: division-

47
strategy alone; division strategy with emphasis on the
importance of following the strategy; division strategy with
the addition of short statements of belief in ability to
successfully complete the division problem; and to a group
which combined both importance of task strategy and
achievement beliefs.

The results of ANCOVA analysis from pretest to posttest
revealed that students in the group that received
information on both the importance of strategies as well as
encouragement about their ability had the highest self-
efficacy, though their level of skill at posttest was not
significantly different from the group that received just
the strategy information. Students in the group that
emphasized the importance of following the division strategy
enhanced their self—efficacy in relation to solving division
problems as well as their skill in actually solving the
division problems. A key component of the information
provided to this group was that it was socially comparative
in nature. For instance, students were told that other
students who carefully used these strategies were able to
successfully complete the division problems. The authors
speculated that this may have motivated students as well as
providing them with a sense of self-efficacy for performing
well.

The mechanisms contributing to the development of
coping and cognitive control self—efficacy were examined by

Ozer and Bandura (1990). In this experiment 43 women who

48
were enrolled in a self-defense program rated their coping
capabilities in three major domains at pretest, posttest,
and follow-up. Interpersonal self-efficacy was measured by
8 scales that assessed the woman’s confidence in her ability
to cope with potential social conflicts, e.g. hassles,
coercive encounters, in a.variety of social situations like
dating, parties, or at work. Activities Self-efficacy
gauged a woman’s confidence in her ability to deliver a
variety of strikes and blows to an assailant under different
types of assaultive attacks by strangers or acquaintances.
Cognitive Control Self-efficacy was a woman’s sense of her
ability to dismiss thoughts of sexual assault. Participants
also rated the extent to which they were disturbed by
thinking patterns, anxiety, or engaged in avoidant behavior.
At the end of the class, the physical self—defense skills of
the participants were assessed in three standardized ways
and then were coded for proficiency.

The self-defense class itself was based on a mastery
modeling format. Thus, women in the class experienced
performance accomplishments by actually performing the self—
defense techniques; they had opportunity for vicarious
learning as they witnessed effective coping strategies; they
received verbal encouragement for their skills; and finally,
they were provided with information about the emotional and
physiological arousal they experienced.

Ozer and Bandura (1990) compared self-efficacy ratings

across time and found that the mastery modeling self-defense

49
program enhanced the participants’ sense of coping self—
efficacy in assaultive situations, it also increased their
sense of efficacy for controlling negative and disturbing
thoughts. Causality was assessed through path analysis.
Self—efficacy beliefs in cognitive, affective, and
behavioral domains were beneficial in empowering women in
self-defense. Thus, the self-defense training enhanced
coping and cognitive control self—efficacy that, in turn,
decreased women’s sense of vulnerability as well as their
negative thinking and anxiety.

These studies illustrate that the most potent source of
efficacy information is personal performance
accomplishments, as theorized by Bandura (1986). Modeling
has also been shown to be a source of efficacy information,
particularly when used in conjunction with experience (Ozer
& Bandura, 1990). The influence of perceived autonomic
arousal was also found to contribute to self—efficacy,
though only until the individual had actual experience upon
which to base subsequent judgments (Feltz & Mungo, 1985).
Furthermore, across all of these studies, self—efficacy was
predictive of behavior.

Research on sources of efficacy information

There have been three studies that have examined the
hypothesized relationships between the four sources of
efficacy information and math self-efficacy. The first
study was conducted by Matsui, Matsui, and Ohnishi (1990).

They initially explored the relationship between the four

50
sources of efficacy information based on a student’s
experiences in high school math and the degree of math self—
efficacy possessed by a sample of 163 Japanese college
freshmen. They also examined the moderating influences of
locus of control on this relationship.

For this study the authors utilized a two-part
questionnaire. Part I assessed math self-efficacy and was
used as a criterion measure. Part II, administered two
weeks later, consisted of four scales designed to assess the
four sources of efficacy information. These scales were
developed by the authors and were theoretically congruent
with Bandura’s theory. The performance accomplishment scale
reflected students’ mastery experiences through the use of
self—reports of the highest grade they obtained in high
school math. The other three scales, consisting of five
items each, assessed students’ experiences of modeling,
verbal persuasion, and emotional arousal during their high
school math experiences. Students were asked to rate the
degree of congruence between each statement and themselves.

A two—step regression analysis was utilized in this
study. In the first step, gender and every source of
efficacy information except the one of interest was entered
into the regression equation. In the second step, the same
four variables plus the efficacy source of interest was
entered. The results of this analysis indicated that three
of the four sources of efficacy information did make unique

contributions to math self—efficacy. Verbal persuasion did

51
not, perhaps because it was highly correlated with
performance accomplishments. Thus, these Japanese students
reported higher self—efficacy when they had done well in
math, when they saw similar others doing well in math, and
when they felt little anxiety in relation to math.
Together, the four sources accounted for 29.2 percent of the
variance in math self-efficacy in the analysis by Matsui et
al. (1990). The authors (Matsui et al., 1990) suggested
that the moderate level of explained variance might have
reSulted from not including other relevant variables in the
regression equation, like years of high school math and
masculinity.

Additionally, Matsui et al. (1990) found that the
relationship between math self-efficacy and modeling, verbal
persuasion, and emotional arousal was weakly moderated by
locus of control. This same variable did not moderate the
relationship between performance accomplishments and math
self—efficacy; the authors suggested that this supports
Bandura’s contention that mastery experiences are the most
potent source of efficacy information. However, the authors
did conclude that people with internal locus of control may
make better use of efficacy information than do those with
an external locus of control.

The second study was conducted by Lent, Lopez, and
Bieschke (1991). They further explored the relationship
between the four sources of efficacy information and math

self—efficacy; they also investigated the relationship

52
between math self-efficacy and scientific career choice.
The contribution of the four sources of efficacy information
to college students’ math self—efficacy was assessed with a
40-item questionnaire developed by the authors. For
example, past performance accomplishments were assessed on a
likert scale by statements like, "I received good grades in
my math class." Vicarious experience was assessed with
statements like, "My favorite teachers were usually math
teachers.", and verbal persuasion with statements like, "My
friends have discouraged me from taking math classes."
Emotional arousal, however, was assessed with the Fennema—
Sherman Math Anxiety Scale. Math self—efficacy was
operationalized as the mean rating of each student’s
confidence in his or her ability to complete each of 15 math
courses with a grade of B or better.

Lent et al. (1991) found support for the relationship
between the four sources of efficacy information and
student’s rating of math self-efficacy, especially the
influence of prior performance on those percepts. However,
in the full regression equation that predicted math self-
efficacy, only past performance accomplishments, both actual
(Math ACT) and perceived, explained significant variance.
The other sources were significant only in terms of
bivariate correlations with math self—efficacy.

In a subsequent study, Lopez and Lent (1992) explored
the relationship between the four theoretical sources of

efficacy information and math self—efficacy for a sample of

53
50 high school students. They also examined the
contribution of the students’ academic self—concept to math
self-efficacy beyond that of the four sources of efficacy
information. Further, they investigated the relationship
between math self—efficacy and students’ perceptions of
math/science interest and usefulness in life and work. The
40—item Sources of Math Self-efficacy scale was used to
assess the contribution of the four sources of efficacy
information. This same instrument was used in the former
study (Lent et al., 1991) and was slightly revised for use
with a high school population. Math self-efficacy was
assessed with a 20—item scale that asked students to rate
their confidence in their ability to solve math problems
representative of those they would encounter in the Algebra
II course in which they were enrolled.

Results of the hierarchical regression indicated that
this group of high school students relied primarily on
actual (grades) and perceived past performance
accomplishments when appraising their ability to solve
mathematical problems. Of the remaining sources of efficacy
information, only emotional arousal explained significant
variance in the prediction of math self—efficacy.
Additionally, academic self-concept was not significant in
the prediction of math self-efficacy. Finally, in exploring
the relationship between math self-efficacy and math
interest and usefulness, Lopez and Lent (1992) found a

positive relationship between math self-efficacy and math

54
science interests; math science interests also mediated the
relationship between math self-efficacy and perceived
usefulness.

The findings of this study (Lopez & Lent, 1992) are
consistent with both Bandura’s theory of how self—efficacy
develops and with the results of their prior study (Lent et
al., 1991). In both of these studies, past performance
accomplishments, both actual and perceived, were found to be
the most salient predictor of math self-efficacy. However,
in the latter study, (Lopez & Lent, 1992) emotional arousal
was also found to be a significant predictor. These results
differ from the results obtained by Matsui et al. (1990) who
found that three of the four sources of efficacy information
(e.g., all except verbal persuasion), made unique
contributions to students’ perceptions of math self-
efficacy.

Several factors may have accounted for the results
obtained by Lent et al., (1991) and Lopez and Lent (1992).
First, in the earlier study (Lent et al., 1991), the source
variables were highly intercorrelated with each other and
with math self-efficacy. This multicollinearity may have
lessened the predictive contribution of vicarious learning,
verbal persuasion, and emotional arousal. Further, the
scale measuring vicarious learning in that study had
questionable internal consistency. Although there were
measurement problems within the study, the high correlation

between each of the source variables and math self-efficacy

55
does support Bandura’s (1986) theoretical premise. These
authors (Lent et al., 1991) speculated that by the time
students reach college they have had a lot of direct
academic experience that may be the basis of their self—
efficacy judgments. The other sources of information may be
more influential for someone who has had less direct
experience within a given domain.

In the latter study (Lopez & Lent, 1992), both past
performance accomplishments and emotional arousal were
significant predictors of math self-efficacy. Like the
earlier study, the scale measuring vicarious learning had
marginal internal consistency making it difficult to
accurately assess the true contribution of vicarious
learning to math self—efficacy. However, by using a high
school population, Lopez and Lent (1992) were better able to
assess the contribution of the four sources of efficacy
information to math self—efficacy for students with
potentially less math experience than college students.

The results of these studies have several implications
for the study at hand. First, it is important to assess the
contribution of the four sources of information in a manner
congruent with Bandura’s (1986) theoretical definition of
each. Thus, items within each scale were evaluated by
independent experts for face and content validity in
relation to the act of coming out as well as being
statistically assessed for internal consistency. Next, it

was expected that the sources of efficacy should be somewhat

56

correlated with each other and highly correlated with coming
out self-efficacy, while remaining discrete enough to
measure the unique contribution of each to coming out self-
efficacy. Finally, the theoretical basis of this study,
that is, the theoretical potency of each of the four sources
of efficacy information, dictated the regression model that
was utilized to analyze the data.
Conclusion

Given that a lesbian makes a conscious decision
(Browning et al, 1991; Falco, 1990; Fassinger, 1991;
Gartrell, 1985) about whether or not to come out in a
variety of situations, understanding which sources of
efficacy information foster a sense of coming out self-
efficacy may have important theoretical and therapeutic
implications. Theoretically, the results of this study may
clarify the contribution of internal motivation to coming
out. Therapeutically, the results may have implications for
the design of interventions to facilitate the rite of
passage that is coming out, as well as to promote the
development of a positive lesbian identity.

In the next chapter, the methodology behind this study

will be reviewed.

CHAPTER 3

Methodology

This study consisted of two phases. The first phase
included scale construction and pilot testing of the Sources
of Coming Out Self-efficacy Scale (SCOSS) and the Coming Out
Self-efficacy Scale (COSS). The second phase consisted of
the actual field study and data analysis.

Scale Construction

The first task in this study was to develop two
measures. The first, the Sources of Coming Out Self-
efficacy Scale (SCOSS), was designed to assess the four
sources of efficacy information in relation to coming out.
The second measure, the Coming Out Self—efficacy Scale
(COSS), was designed to assess lesbians’ confidence in their

ability to come out in a variety of ways and circumstances

in the future. There were two stages in the development of
these measures. Stage I was the actual development of the
two measures. Stage II involved pilot testing the measures

and determining their validity and reliability.

Sources of Coming Out Self—efficacy Scale. Because
IBandura (1986) has not provided clear guidelines for the
assessment of the four sources of self—efficacy, it was

important that the items for SCOSS be written in a manner

57

58

consistent with the theory of self-efficacy (Dawis, 1987).
Thus, items were developed congruent with Bandura’s
definition of each of the sources: past performance
accomplishments, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion,
and emotional arousal. Items were also similar in form to
those developed by Lent et al. (1991) to assess the
perceived sources of mathematics self-efficacy. The purpose
of these items was to assess the extent to which the
influence of prior experiences within the realm of each of
the four sources of self—efficacy was true for the
respondent, and whether that influence was positive or
negative. Items for the SCOSS were developed in conjunction
with 5 lesbian and 2 gay counselors who possessed not only
personal but professional experience (an average of 9 years
-counseling experience) with the coming out process. The
group was provided with Bandura’s (1986) theoretical
description of self—efficacy and the four sources of
efficacy information as well as example items for each
measure (Appendix A). The group was then asked to
brainstorm coming out experiences and circumstances that
might be related to each of the four sources of efficacy
information. From their ideas, items were developed for
each of the subscales of the Sources of Coming Out Self-
efficacy Scale.

Next, the potential items were reviewed by a different
group of 4 experts, comprised of two Ph.D. level

professionals and two Ph.D. candidates who had previous

59
experience with research on self-efficacy. At least 15
items were selected for each source subscale. Item
selection was based on the congruence between the item and
both the self-efficacy and coming out literatures. To
insure that these items possessed adequate content validity,
a "back translation" method was utilized (Dawis, 1987). The
second panel of experts was given the same example items and
definitions as those used by the first group with slightly
different instructions (Appendix B). They were asked to
label which source of efficacy information was being tapped
by each item. If the items were written in a fashion
consistent with self-efficacy theory, high congruence
between judges about what source was being tapped by each
item was expected. Items were retained if 3 of the 4
experts agreed about item intent.

Coming Out Self-efficacy Scale. Bandura (1984, 1986)
has been more clear about how to assess the construct of
self-efficacy. He suggests that a microanalytic approach be
taken in assessing the individual’s perceptions of his or
her confidence to perform a given behavior, in this
instance, to come out, under a variety of different
situational demands. Like the SCOSS, I provided the first
group of counselors with the definition of self-efficacy and
some example items (Appendix A). They were asked to
generate experiences that tapped different ways in which a
lesbian might behaviorally disclose her sexual orientation.

From the ideas generated by the counselors, I created 20

60
items that are theoretically and conceptually consistent
with self-efficacy and coming out literature. These items
were also reviewed for readability and content validity by
the second panel of experts, though the experts were not
asked to translate the items back to self-efficacy theory as
they had been on the SCOSS. Instead, the experts were asked
to rate each item for its accuracy in tapping coming out
self—efficacy on a Likert scale of 1=not at all to
5=completely. Items that averaged a three or above across
all of the experts were retained on the measure.
The Pilot Study

Recruitment of participants. The sample for the pilot
study was obtained through the snowball sampling technique
(Schneider, 1987) in which friends, acquaintances, and
colleagues were asked to distribute the survey to other
lesbians who they thought might be interested in
participating in this research study. Fifty surveys were
distributed for the pilot study and 28 were returned for a
response rate of 56 percent.

Description of the sample. The demographic
characteristics of the pilot sample (N=28) are summarized in
Table 3.1. The majority of respondents (92.9%) were
Caucasian. The mean age for the group was 33 years (§_ =
4.26) and ranged from 22 to 41 years of age. This sample
was highly educated, with 75% of the respondents possessing
a graduate degree, and more than half (68%) working in a

professional capacity. Most of the participants in the

61
pilot study (71%) reported that they were currently living
with their partner. Twenty-five percent of the participants
in the pilot study reported that they had children who were
living with them. And, finally, the vast majority (89%) of
pilot study respondents reported being very satisfied with

their lifestyle.

62
Table 3.1

Demographic Information for Pilot Sample

 

 

 

 

 

Variable N %
Ethnicity
Caucasian 26 92.9
African American 1 3.6
Hispanic 1 3.6
Education
Some college 4 14.3
Bachelor’s degree 1 3.6
Some grad school 2 7.1
Graduate degree 21 75.0
Income
Under $9,999 3 10.7
$10,000-19,999 4 14.3
$20,000-29,999 11 39.3
$30,000-39,999 5 17.9
Over $40,000 5 17.9
Occupation
Major professionals 6 21.4
Professionals 13 46.4
Administrative personnel 2 7.1
Clerical/Technical 2 7.1
Retired, unemployed,

students 5 17.9
Relationship Status
Single, not dating 2 7.1
Dating 1 3.6
Seeing one person 5 17.9
Living with partner 20 71.4
Parenthood Status
Have children 7 25.0
Children live with you 7 25.0
No children 21 75.0

 

63

Table 3.14 continued

 

 

 

 

 

Mean Range SQ
Age 33.43 22-41 4.26
Age of identification 21.43 14-32 4.86
Lifestyle satisfaction 4.32 2-5 .77
Procedures. For the pilot study, a subject was given
or mailed a questionnaire packet. The cover letter

(Appendix C) explained that I am a lesbian psychologist who
is interested in exploring how lesbians experience coming
out. I also assured potential subjects that their responses
were anonymous and would be kept completely confidential and
that if they had any questions or concerns they could
contact me by phone. I also emphasized that the results of
this study might be used to develop affirmative ways of
assisting lesbians in the process of coming out.

The cover of the questionnaire packet provided a brief
summary of this study, as well as informing subjects of
their rights. Informed and voluntary consent was assumed
when the questionnaire packet was returned. Subjects were
asked to complete the enclosed questionnaires (described in
the next section): a demographic form, the Rosenberg Self—
esteem Scale, the Sexual Orientation Disclosure Scale, the
Sources of Coming Out Self—efficacy Scale, the Coming Out
Self-efficacy Scale, and the Multiple Affect Adjective

Checklist--Revised. (The final version of the questionnaire

64
packet can be found in Appendix D.) Upon completing the
packet, respondents were asked to return the packet in the
stamped, self-addressed envelope.
Measures

Demographics. All respondents were asked to complete a
demographic information form. Information was collected on
the following: age, age of first identification as lesbian,
current relationship status, ethnicity, education,
occupation, income, religious affiliation, and living
location (urban or rural area). Additionally, participants’
sexual orientation self-label was assessed with the Kinsey
Scale (1953), as modified by McDermott, Tyndall, and
Lichtenberg (1989). This is a single item, seven point
scale that asks respondents to choose one of seven
categories that best describes their orientation toward
sexual involvement with members of the same sex, opposite
sex, or both. Current satisfaction with lesbian lifestyle
was assessed with one item on a Likert scale with
1=extremely unhappy and unsatisfied to 5=extremely happy and
satisfied (Miranda & Storms, 1989).

RosenbergSelfeesteem Scale. To assess positive and
negative feelings toward the self, the Rosenberg Self-esteem
Scale (1965) was utilized. This scale is comprised of 10
Likert—type items that provide a unidimensional measure of
self-esteem (e.g., ”On the whole, I am satisfied with
myself"). The internal consistency of this scale is

adequate and has been estimated by previous researchers as

65
.79 to .88 (Cronbach’s alpha). Convergent validity has also
been demonstrated with a variety of other self-esteem
instruments (Robertson, Shaver, & Wrightsman, 1991).

Sexual Orientation Disclosure Scale. Respondents were
asked to rate the extent of their disclosure to others in
their lives, their outness, on the Sexual Orientation
Disclosure Scale (Miranda & Storms, 1989). This scale is
comprised of 15 Likert—type items which range from 1=not out
to 7=completely out. The scale was found to be internally
consistent by its authors with a Cronbach’s alpha of .92.
Guttman’s scaling criteria was met by 7 of 15 items on the
scale. The coefficient of reproducibility was r(131)=.92
and the coefficient of scalability was r(131)=.67. No
validity information was provided.

Multiple Affect Adjective Checklist-~Revised. To
assess positive and negative affect, the Multiple Affect
Adjective Checklist-~Revised (MAACL-R) was utilized. This
instrument is comprised of 132 adjectives. Respondents are
asked to "check" those adjectives that reflect how they
"generally" feel. The previously demonstrated internal
consistency of the scale is adequate, ranging from .69 to
.92. Test-retest reliability was low for the positive
affect scale at .49, although it was found to be .89 for the
negative affect scale. Convergent validity has also been
demonstrated with a variety of affective measures (Zuckerman
& Lubin, 1985).

Sources of Coming Out Self-efficacy. To assess the

66
contribution of the four theoretical sources of self-
efficacy, the Sources of Coming Out Self-efficacy Scale
(SCOSS) was utilized. It consists of four subscales. For
the pilot study, the Performance Accomplishment (PA)
subscale (Table 3.2) consisted of 13 items, the Vicarious
Experience (VE) subscale (Table 3.3) consisted of 14 items,
the Verbal Persuasion (VP) subscale (Table 3.4) consisted of
12 items, and Emotional Arousal (EA) subscale (Table 3.5)
consisted of 15 items. The items were randomly ordered
within the SCOSS measure and are scored on a scale of 1-5,
with 1=strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree with the
statement provided. Approximately half of the items for
each subscale were positively worded with the other half
negatively worded. The negatively worded items were reverse
scored. Items were summed and divided by the number of
items in the respective scale, creating an average score
ranging from 1-5. Thus, higher average scores indicate
generally more positive coming out experiences within each

of the source areas (e.g., being accepted, feeling proud).

67

Table 3.2

Performance Accomplishments Subscale

 

16.

17.

19.

22.

30.

41.

45.

50.

51.

52.

I have lost friends when I told them that I was a
lesbian.

I have come out to others only to have them continue to
treat me as if I was straight, instead of acknowledging
my lesbianism.

In general, coming out to others has been easy for me
to do.

I have experienced discrimination after coming out as a
lesbian.

I have been rejected by people important to me when I
told them that I am a lesbian.

Other people have treated me as if there was something
wrong with me after I told them that I was a lesbian.

Others have responded positively to me when I came out
to them.

I have been loved and accepted when I came out to
others who are important to me.

I have been harassed by others after I told them that I
am a lesbian.

Others have responded violently toward me after I told
them I am a lesbian.

Important others have been pleased when I shared the
fact that I was a lesbian with them.

I have come out to many people.

Coming out to people whose opinions I value has not
been easy for me.

 

68

Table 3.3

Vicarious Experience Subscale

 

*7.

*9.

**13.

*14.

15.

20.

*23.

Many of my friends have had positive experiences coming
out to their families.

I know many lesbians who believe that it is important
to hide their lesbianism from others.

I have read positive newspaper accounts about
lesbians.

I have seen positive stories about lesbians who have
come out on tv or in the movies.

I know of lesbians who have been disowned by their
families when they came out to them.

I know of lesbians who lost their jobs after they came
out at work.

Most of the lesbians I know tend to be out to most
others.

*28.I have read books about how to come out as a lesbian.

 

31. In the newspaper I have read about women who have been
discriminated against because of their sexual
orientation.

**33.I am aware of public figures who are openly and
positively lesbian.

*34. My friends have shared many of their positive coming
out experiences with me.

*35. My lesbian friends have shared many of their negative
coming out experiences with me.

37. I have heard many negative stereotypes about lesbians.

53. I know of lesbians who have been the victims of
violence after they came out.

Note. * Deleted after pilot study.

** Deleted for main study data analysis.

69

Table 3.4

Verbal Persuasion Subscale

 

 

4. Indirectly, people have encouraged me to come out to
them.

8. My friends have encouraged me not to come out to
important people in my life.

10. I have been encouraged by my family to come out to
others.

*11 I have been warned by other lesbians that I could lose
my job if I come out.

24. People I care about have supported my lesbianism by
encouraging me to come out to others.

*26. Co-workers have encouraged me to be more out at my
workplace.

27. Close friends have encouraged me not to tell my parents
that I am a lesbian.

38. My best friend has encouraged me to come out.

40. Others lesbians have told me that my sexual orientation
is nothing to hide from people who love me.

**46.Family members have encouraged me not to tell others
about my lesbianism.

47. People have often let me know indirectly that they do
not want to know that I am a lesbian.

54. My friends have encouraged me to come out to others.

Note. * Deleted after pilot study.

** Deleted for main study data analysis.

70

Table 3.5

Emotional Arousal Subscale

 

2 .

3.

12.

18.

21.

25.

29.

32.

36.

39.

42.

43.

44.

48.

49.

I feel happy when I come out to others.

I feel anxious when I think about coming out to
important others in my life.

I feel terrified about what might happen if I come out
to others in my life.

I am afraid that if I come out I will be rejected by
people I care about.

I feel powerful when I think about coming out.

I feel relieved when I disclose my sexual orientation
to others.

I often feel sick to my stomach when I think about
coming out to others.

I feel vulnerable when I come out to someone.

I feel ashamed to be a lesbian when I think about
coming out to other members of my family.

I dread coming out to others.
I feel proud when I come out to others.

I worry that others will make fun of me once they know
I am a lesbian.

I feel true to myself when I come out.
It feels self—validating for me to come out to others.

I feel excited when I think about telling others about
my lesbianism.

 

71

Coming Out Self-efficacy Scale. The Coming Out Self-
Efficacy Scale (Table 3.6) was designed to assess
participant’s confidence in their ability to disclose their
sexual orientation in a variety of circumstances. It
consists of 14 items, scaled on a 1-5 scale with 1=not at
all confident and 5=totally confident. Like the sources
subscales, item scores were summed and divided by the total
number of items resulting in an average score that could
range from 1 to 5. Higher scores represent greater degrees

of coming out self—efficacy.

72

Table 3.6

Coming Out Self-efficacy Scale

 

*1.

*2.

*3.

10.

11.

12.

13.

*14.

subscribe to a lesbian publication?
attend a womyn’s music festival?

go to a lesbian/gay bar or restaurant in the town in
which you live?

participate in a local lesbian organization?
come out to other members of your family?
come out to your boss at your workplace?

participate in a gay/lesbian pride march in the town in
which you live?

speak out as a lesbian for lesbian rights?
openly discuss your lesbian lifestyle with co—workers?
be openly affectionate with a lover in public?

attend a program for lesbians sponsored by a
lesbian/gay organization in the town in which you live?

come out to heterosexuals?
come out to others who you believe are lesbian or gay?

purchase books that are clearly by or about lesbians at
a bookstore?

 

Note. * Deleted for main study data analysis.

73

Reliability of Novel Scales

The main purpose of the pilot study was to assess the
reliability of the scales designed especially for this
study. To determine the degree of reliability for each of
the scales, the coefficient alpha was calculated for each
(N=28). Nunnally (1978) suggested that all newly developed
measures should be assessed for internal consistency before
other forms of reliability are assessed. A high alpha
indicates homogeneous items that are internally consistent.
A low alpha indicates heterogeneous items that are not
consistent. To enhance the consistency of the scales during
the statistical analysis, items that were not statistically
consistent with the other items within that scale were
dropped (See Tables 3.2-3.6).

The final results of the reliability analyses on the
C088 and the four subscales of the SCOSS are reported in
Table 3.7. The alpha coefficient obtained for the C088
(.83) indicated a high degree of internal consistency among
all of the original items. The alpha coefficients obtained
for the four subscales of the SCOSS (PA=.75; VE=.68; VP: 71;
EA=.89) were more variable. Although Nunnally (1978)
suggests that an alpha of .80 indicates adequate reliability
and thus is suitable for research purposes, the alphas
obtained for three of the four sources subscales are lower
than his criteria. Further, the alpha obtained for the
vicarious experience subscale (.68) is indicative of

mariginal reliability. However, the alphas that were

74
obtained are comparable to those obtained by other
researchers in the field (Lent et al., 1991; Lopez & Lent,
1992) for similar scales and thus were utilized for the main

study.

Table 3.7

Internal Consistency of Scales—-Pilot Study

 

 

Scale Alpha
Coming Out Self Efficacy Scale .83
Performance Accomplishments Subscale .75
Vicarious Experience Subscale .68
Verbal Persuasion Subscale .71
Emotional Arousal Subscale .89

 

Note. N = 28

Additional validity information for the C088 was
obtained by calculating the Pearson-Product—Moment
correlations between it and outness and satisfaction with

lesbian lifestyle. The significant correlations between

coming out self-efficacy and outness (; = .63, p < .001) and
lifestyle satisfaction (3 = .55, p < .001) support the
construct validity of the C088. Results are summarized in

Table 3.8.

75
Table 3.8

Intercorrelations among Variables--Pilot Study

 

Variable 1 2 3

 

1. Outness —-
2. Satisfaction .56” --

3. Efficacy .63"' .55” —-

 

Note. N = 28.

Outness = Sexual Orientation Disclosure Scale
Satisfaction = Lifestyle Satisfaction
Efficacy = Coming Out Self-efficacy Scale

* = p < .05
** = p < .01
*** = p < .001

The Main Study

Recruitment of participants. One of the major
problems in conducting lesbian and gay research has been
obtaining a sample (Burhke et al., 1992). This is due to a
variety of reasons with probably the most cogent one being
that, in general, lesbians are considered to be an invisible
population. Consequently, a number of practices have been
utilized to obtain a sample. Many researchers have enlisted
the cooperation of lesbian social and political
organizations in obtaining participants for their studies;
others have obtained participants through lesbian support
groups or activities (Chapman & Brannock, 1987; Kahn, 1991;

Miranda & Storms, 1989; Shachar & Gilbert, 1983; Wells &

76
Kline, 1987). On the other hand, some researchers have
taken advantage of interpersonal connections within the
lesbian community by recruiting subjects through friendship
and acquaintance networks (Moses, 1978; Schneider, 1986).
Most studies utilize a combination of these techniques to
obtain the largest, most representative sample possible
(Chapman & Brannock, 1987; Kahn, 1991; Miranda & Storms,
1989; Shachar & Gilbert, 1983; Wells & Kline, 1987).
Although researchers have utilized a variety of techniques
to obtain participants for research studies, return rates
and sample sizes tend to be smaller than more traditional
studies due to concern about being identified as lesbian on
the part of participants (Buhrke, Ben—Ezra, Hurley, &
Ruprecht, 1992).

For the main study, a combination of recruitment
methods was utilized. First, in an attempt to use a more
conventional sampling strategy, the Michigan Organization
for Human Rights (MOHR) randomly selected four—hundred
lesbians from their membership list of 5,000 lesbians.
These women received the survey packet in the mail and were
invited to participate in the study. Only 71 of these women
chose to participate for a response rate of 18 percent.
However, these women comprised more than half of the
participants (53%) for the main study. The response to this
more traditional methodology was disappointing, and
illustrates the difficulty associated with obtaining a

representative sample from this population.

77

Second, a survey methodology that has been successful
in obtaining lesbian participants was used. One-hundred-
twenty survey packets were distributed through friendship
and acquaintance networks in what is known as a snowball
methodology (Moses, 1978; Schneider, 1987). Sixty-three
women responded to these surveys for a response rate of 53
percent. These women comprised 47 percent of the sample for
the main study. The overall response rate for the main
study was 26 percent.

Description of the main study sample. A number of
demographic characteristics were collected for the main
study sample (N=134) and are summarized in Table 3.9. The
vast majority of the participants were Caucasian (95.5%).
The mean age of participants was 37.58 (§Q=9.27), and ranged
between 18 and 67 years. More than half of the participants
had completed at least a bachelor’s degree if not more
(67.4%). Additionally, almost half (46.9%) of the
participants reported an annual income of more than $30,000
a year. Participants in the study tended to be involved in
a committed relationship with another woman. About half
(49.6%) of the participants reported that they were
currently living with their lover or partner, whereas about
a quarter of the sample (26.3%) described themselves as
single, not dating. Less than a quarter (22.9%) of the
participants reported that they had children, with children
living with more than half (12.3%) of those women who

reported having children.

Table 3.9

Demographic Information for Total Sample

 

 

 

 

Variable N %
Ethnicity
Caucasian 127 95.5
African American 1 .8
Native American 2 1.5
Hispanic 1 .8
Other 2 1.5
Education
Grade school 1 .8
High school 4 3.0
Some college 38 28.8
Bachelor’s degree 29 22.0
Some grad school 13 9.8
Graduate degree 47 35.6
Income
Under $9,999 25 18.9
$10,000-l9,999 20 15.2
$20,000-29,999 25 18.9
$30,000-39,999 23 17.4
Over $40,000 39 29.5
Occupation
Major professionals 4 3.1
Professionals 48 36.9
Administrative personnel 27 20.8
Clerical/Technical 16 12.3
Skilled labor 7 5.4
Machine operators 8 6.2
Retired, unemployed,

students 20 15.4

Table 3.9, continued

79

 

Relationship Status

Single, not dating
Dating

Seeing one person
Living with partner
Other

Parenthood Status
Have children?

Live with you?
No children

Age

35

21
66

30

16
102
Mean

37.58

Age of lesbian awareness 19.67

Lifestyle satisfaction

4.38

26.

15.
49.

WOWCDOLU

.75

 

80

To determine if there were differences between the
sample obtained through MOHR and the one obtained Via the
snowball technique, between—group differences were examined
statistically. The two groups were compared on demographic
characteristics and on responses to the survey scales. The
results are summarized in Table 3.10. The only significant
demographic difference found between the groups was age (t:-
3.46, p<.001). The average age for the group from the MOHR
sample was 40, whereas the average age of the group obtained
through the snowball methodology was 35. The two groups did
not vary significantly from each other on any other
dimension. Consequently, the two samples were combined for

the proposed data analysis.

81
Table 3.10

Demographic Comparison of Sample Groups

 

 

 

 

 

 

Demographic Snowball MOHR Test
Statistic

Age 34.76 40.11 t=-3.46“*
(df=131)

Age of Awareness 19.65 19.69 =-.03
(df=131)

Income 18:1.36
<$10,00 22% 16% (df=4)
<19,999 14% 16%
<$29,999 21% 18%
<$39,999 16% 19%
>$40,000 27% 31%

Education )8=.23
BA or less 52% 57% (df=1)
Some grad
or more 48% 43%

Occupation 28:.23
Professional 63% 59% (df=1)
Clerical,
unskilled labor 37% 41%

Relationship Status 18:.36
Living with (df=1)
partner 52% 47%

Uncommitted 48% 53%

 

82

Table 3.10, continued

 

 

 

 

 

Snowball MOHR Range Test
Statistic
Lifestyle
Satisfaction 4.44 4.34 1-5 t=.87
(df=129)
25 3.50 3.45 1-5 =.43
(df=121)
yp 2.26 2.28 1-5 t=.08
(df=125)
yg 3.19 2.91 1-5 t=2.28
(df=118)
EA 3.58 3.45 1-5 t=1.16
(df=121)
Efficacy 3.88 3.76 1—5 t=.80
(df=124)
Outness 4.59 4.29 1-7 t=1.25
(df=132)
Positive 18.33 18.39 0-32 =—.04
(df=131)
Negative 5.81 6.79 0-29 t=.97
(df=131)
Self-esteem 3.52 3.38 1-4 t=1.52
(df=127)
Note. Efficacy = Coming Out Self-efficacy Scale
PA = Performance Accomplishments subscale
VE = Vicarious Experience Subscale
VP = Verbal Persuasion Subscale
EA = Emotional Arousal Subscale

Outness = Sexual Orientation Disclosure Scale
Satisfaction = Lifestyle Satisfaction

Self-esteem = Rosenberg Self—esteem Scale
Positive = Positive Affect as measured by MAACL-R
Negative = Negative Affect as measured by MAACL-R
** = p < .01

*** = p < .001

83

Procedures. The procedures for the main study were
exactly the same as they were for the pilot study.
Participants were either handed or mailed a questionnaire
packet which included a cover letter (Appendix C) and a
survey packet (Appendix D). Like the pilot study,
participants in the main study were asked to complete the
demographic information form and the Rosenberg Self-esteem
Spalp, the Sexual Orientation Disclosure Scale, the revised
versions of the Sources of Coming Out Self-efficacy Scale
and the Coming Out Self-efficacy Scale, and the Multiple
Affect Adjective Checklist--Revised. (These measures are
described in detail in the Pilot Study section.) Once they
had completed the survey, respondents were asked to return
it in the stamped, pre—addressed envelope.

Reliability. Before any data analyses were conducted
for the main study, the degree of reliability (the
coefficient alpha) for each of the novel scales was again
calculated this time using the main sample (N=134). Again,
to enhance the consistency of the scales for the statistical
analyses, items that were not statistically consistent with
the other items within the subscale were dropped. (See
Tables 3.2-3.6).

The final results of the reliability analyses for the
main study on the C088 and the four subscales of the SCOSS
are reported in Table 3.11. The alpha coefficient that was
obtained for the C088 (.90) indicated a high degree of

internal consistency among 10 of the 14 items. Four items

84
were deleted to enhance scale precision because they were
consistently endorsed by respondents as easy to do. The
alpha coefficients obtained for the four subscales of the
SCOSS (PA=.73; VE=.69; VP=.68; EA=.85) were more variable.
Although the alphas obtained for the four sources subscales
are lower than Nunnally’s (1978) criteria they were
comparable to those obtained by other researchers in the
field (Lent et al, 1991; Lopez & Lent, 1992) for similar

scales.

Table 3.11

Internal Consistency of Scales--Main Study

 

 

Scale Alpha
Coming Out Self Efficacy Scale .90
Performance Accomplishments Subscale .73
Vicarious Experience Subscale .69
Verbal Persuasion Subscale .68

Emotional Arousal Subscale .85

 

Note. N = 115

Additional validity information for the C088 was
obtained by calculating the Pearson—Product-Moment
correlations between it, outness, and satisfaction with
lesbian lifestyle. The significant correlations with the

more domain specific constructs of lifestyle satisfaction

85
(r=.20, p < .05) and outness (r=.73, p < .001) support the
construct validity of the C088. Results are summarized in

Table 3.12.

Table 3.12

Intercorrelations among Variables

 

Variable 1 2 3

 

1. Outness --
2. Satisfaction .12' —-

3. Efficacy .73”' .20’ --

 

Note. N = 110
Outness = Sexual Orientation Disclosure Scale
Satisfaction = Lifestyle Satisfaction
Efficacy = Coming Out Self—efficacy Scale
at

= p < .05
** = p < .01
*** = Q < .001

The descriptive information for each of the scales
developed for this study are presented in Table 3.13. The
mean score for the performance accomplishment subscale was
3.47 with a potential range of 1—5; the mean for the
vicarious experience subscale was 2.27 with a potential
range of 1-5; the mean of the verbal persuasion subscale was
3.05 with a potential range of 1-5; and the mean for the
emotional arousal subscale was 3.51 with a potential range
of 1-5. Descriptive information was also obtained for the

C088; the mean was 3.47 with a potential range of 1-5.

Table 3.13

86

Novel Scale Descriptive Statistics

 

 

 

N Mean Median Mode Potential SQ
Range
PA 123 3.47 3.46 3.93 1-5 .61
(13 items)
VE 127 2.27 2.00 1.80 1-5 .88
(5 items)
VP 120 3.05 3.00 2.67 1—5 .68
(9 items)
EA 123 3.51 3.47 3.80 1-5 .65
(15 items)
Efficacy 126 3.47 3.60 3.70 1-5 .99
(10 items)
Note. PA = Performance Accomplishments Subscale
VE = Vicarious Experience Subscale
VP = Verbal Persuasion Subscale
EA = Emotional Arousal Subscale

Efficacy

Coming Out Self—efficacy Scale

87

The descriptive information was also obtained for the

established scales utilized in this study. The mean score

for the Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale was 3.45 with a

 

 

 

 

potential range of 1 to 4. The mean for the Outness scale
was 4.43 with a potential range of 1 to 7. The mean of the
Positive Affect scale was 18.36, with scores ranging from 4
to 32, and finally, the mean for the Negative Affect scale
was 6.32 with scores ranging from 0 to 29.
Table 3.14
Scale Descriptive Statistics

p Mean Median Mode Potential SQ

Range

Self-esteem 129 3.45 3.50 4.00 1-4 .50
(10 items)
Outness 134 4.43 4.54 4.00 1—7 1.36
(15 items)
Positive 133 18.36 19.00 10.00 4-32 7.00
(33 items)
Negative 133 6.32 5.00 .00 0-29 5.80
(37 items)
Note. Self-esteem = Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale

Positive = Positive Affect as measured by MAACL-R

Negative

Negative Affect as measured by MAACL—R
Outness = Sexual Orientation Disclosure Scale

Design. The design of both the pilot and the field

study can be considered to be Correlational Field Studies

(Gelso, 1980). This is because there was little, if any,

88
experimental control over, or manipulation of, the predictor
variables, and the setting for the investigation was the
real world. Further, subjects were self-selected on the
basis of their acknowledged lesbianism.

Analysis. The first step in analyzing the data from
the main study consisted of generating an intercorrelation
matrix of all variables under investigation (Appendix E).
This was done for two reasons. First, it provided a means
for examining relationships among the main variables of
interest. Second, it was examined to insure that the
predictor variables, the demographic information, and the
four sources of efficacy information were not excessively
correlated. Lewis—Beck (1980) suggests that coefficients of
.8 or above among independent variables signal
multicollinearity, which is the major problem with multiple
regression.

Next, hierarchical regression analysis was utilized as
a vehicle to confirm or disconfirm relationships between the
predictor variables of age and the four sources of coming
out efficacy information, and the dependent variable of
coming out self-efficacy. This is a robust method of
analysis when used with an adequate sample size (Lewis-Beck,
1980) .

In hierarchical regression, the variables are entered
into the regression equation on the basis of their
theoretical relevance (Wampold & Freund, 1987). Thus, using

self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1986) as a guide, the four

89
sources of efficacy information were entered in order of
their theoretical potency: personal performance
accomplishments, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion,
and emotional arousal. To test the hypotheses then, the
data were entered into the regression model in the following
manner. First, the demographic variable of age was entered
into the first step of the regression equation because it
was significantly correlated with coming out self—efficacy.
Next, the score from the personal performance
accomplishments subscale of the Sources of Coming Out Self—
efficacy Scale was added to the regression equation. Third,
the score from the vicarious experience subscale was added
to the equation. Similarly, the verbal persuasion and
finally the emotional arousal subscales were added to the
regression equation. In each step of the regression, it was
the amount of change in the coefficient of determination
that was of interest.
Hypotheses
1. Significant bivariate relationships will be found
between coming out self-efficacy and the demographic
variables of age, income, and education. Further,
significant positive bivariate relationships will exist
between the four sources of coming out self-efficacy
subscales, (e.g., performance accomplishments,
vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and emotional
arousal), and coming out self—efficacy.

2. A significant amount of the variance in coming out

9O
self-efficacy will be explained by demographic
variables.
3. Controlling for those covariates that were
significantly correlated with coming out self—efficacy,
the personal performance accomplishments, vicarious
experience, verbal persuasion, and emotional arousal
subscales of the Sources of Coming Out Self—efficacy
Spalp will each make unique and significant
contributions to the prediction of the coming out self—
efficacy of lesbians.
Specifically,
a) positive past performance accomplishments will
predict a high level of coming out self-efficacy;
b) controlling for past performance
accomplishments, positive vicarious experiences
will be associated with a high level of coming out
self-efficacy;
c) controlling for past performance
accomplishment and vicarious experience, positive
verbal persuasion will be associated with a high
level of coming out self-efficacy; and
d) controlling for all other sources of coming
out self—efficacy, a low level of emotional
distress will be associated with a high level of
coming out self—efficacy.
4. Coming out self-efficacy will be positively

associated with lifestyle satisfaction and outness.

91
5. Lifestyle satisfaction will be positively
associated with self—esteem and positive affectivity

and inversely related to negative affectivity.

CHAPTER 4

Results

In this chapter, the results of the data analyses
conducted to address the research hypotheses posed in this
study will be presented. Initially, the correlations
between demographic variables and scores for each of the
self-efficacy source scales and the Coming Out Self—efficacy
Sgalp will be reviewed. Then the results of the regression
analysis which tested the model will be presented. Third,
the relationship between coming out self-efficacy and life
adjustment measures will be reviewed. Finally, the results
of post hoc analyses which explored how the model functioned
within four sample cohorts defined by age and outness will
be presented.

Testing the Model

The main purpose of this study was to test the
relationship between the four sources of coming out self-
efficacy information and coming out self—efficacy. The
first step in this process was to examine the relationships
between the demographic variables, the four sources of
efficacy subscales, and coming out self-efficacy.
Correlations among demographic characteristics and total

scores for each of the scales are presented in Table 4.1.

92

93

Significant positive relationships were found among the
demographic variables of age and education (; = .31, p <
.001) and age and income (; = .53, p < .001). The
relationship between these same variables and coming out
self-efficacy was also explored. There was a significant
inverse relationship between self-efficacy and age (p = —
.31, p < .001) and self-efficacy and income (; = -.43, p <
.001). The relationship between self—efficacy and education
was not significant.

The relationship between coming out self-efficacy and
the four self-efficacy sources subscales was also examined.
Again, significant relationships were found between self-
efficacy and performance accomplishments (; = .31, p <
.001); between self—efficacy and vicarious experience (I = -
.36, p < .001); between self-efficacy and verbal persuasion
(; = .54, p < .001); and between self-efficacy and emotional

arousal (; = .59, p < .001).

94

Table 4.1

Intercorrelations among Variables

 

 

 

Variable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Age —— .31*** .53“ -.23** .16 —.21* -.13 31*"
2. Education -- .44*** -.02 -.10 —.04 -.07 07
3. Income —— —.09 .22' —.17' -.23” 43*"
4. PA —— .14 .40“ .49“ 31*“
5. VB —— -.28" —.17" 36'“
6. VP -- .59'" 54*"
7. EA -- .59'”
8. Efficacy ——
Note. N = 110.

PA = Performance Accomplishments Subscale

VE = Vicarious Experience Subscale

VP = Verbal Persuasion Subscale

EA = Emotional Arousal Subscale

Efficacy = Coming Out Self-efficacy Scale

* = p < .05

** = p_ < .01

*** = p < 001

95

There were significant inverse relationships between
self—efficacy and the demographic variables of age and
income. There was also a significant positive relationship
between age and income (;=.53, p < .001), suggesting that
greater income is associated with greater age. Further, the
significant inverse relationship of both age and income with
coming-out self-efficacy suggests that older lesbians and
those with higher incomes report feeling less efficacious
than other lesbians. Thus, because these two variables seem
to function similarly in relation to coming out self-
efficacy, age was used to represent both in the main
regression model.

The significant positive relationships between self—
efficacy and three of the four sources of efficacy
information was expected. Generally, positive perceptions
of performance accomplishments, verbal persuasion, and
emotional arousal were associated with higher levels of
perceived self—efficacy. However, the relationship between
self-efficacy and vicarious experience was inverse in
nature, suggesting that negative perceptions of vicarious
experiences were associated with higher levels of coming out
self—efficacy.

Prediction of Coming Out Self—efficacy

Hierarchical regression analyses were performed to
establish the predictive relationship between the four
sources of coming out self-efficacy information and coming

out self-efficacy. To test the theoretical model proposed

96
in this study, the demographic variable of age was entered
in the first step of the regression equation. Subsequently,
each of the four sources of efficacy information (PA, VE,
VP, and EA) was entered into the equation in the order of
their theoretical contribution to self—efficacy. To clarify
the unique contribution of each of the source variables
beyond the effects of the age, each source was entered as a
separate step in the regression equation. The results of
the hierarchical regression analysis are presented in Table
4.2. The variables were entered in the order in which they
are listed in the table. Of interest is the change in the
coefficient of determination, R?, which reflects the unique
contribution of each of the variables to the regression

model, controlling for each of the variables entered at

previous steps.

97
Table 4.2

Hierarchical Regression Predicting Self-efficacy

 

 

Variables B R? R_2 Change 3; B E for
R_?Change

Age .32 .10 .10 —.31”* —.17 5.66"

PA .44 .19 .09 .31”* .05 .36

VE .56 .31 .12 -.36wM -.19 6.15“

VP .65 .42 .11 .54“. .22 6.25"

EA .71 .50 .09 .59”* .40 18.69".

 

Note. N = 112

PA = Performance Accomplishments Subscale
VE = Vicarious Experience Subscale

VP = Verbal Persuasion Subscale

EA = Emotional Arousal Subscale

* = p < .05

.** = p < .01

*** = p < .001

In the regression equation predicting coming out self-

efficacy, age accounted for a significant amount of the

variance (R? Change = .10). Further, vicarious experience
(R? Change = .12), verbal persuasion (R? Change = .11), and
emotion arousal (R? Change = .09) all accounted for

significant amounts of the variance within the regression
equation beyond that accounted for by variables entered in
earlier steps. Performance accomplishments did not account
for a significant amount of the variance within the

regression equation. This is contrary to Bandura’s theory

98

in that performance accomplishments are hypothesized to be
the most significant source of efficacy information.
Although the results of the hierarchical regression are not
exactly as expected, three of the four sources of efficacy
information were significant in predicting coming out self-
efficacy. Additionally, the entire regression model did
account for 50% of the total variance in coming out self-
efficacy.
Relationships Between Self-efficacy and Adjustment Variables

The second purpose of this study was to explore the
relationship between coming out self-efficacy and a number
of life adjustment variables such as self-esteem, lifestyle
satisfaction, positive or negative affectivity, and outness.
Theoretically, greater coming out self-efficacy should be
positively associated with lifestyle satisfaction and
outness. Further, it was hypothesized that lifestyle
satisfaction would be positively related to self—esteem and
positive affectivity. Thus, to explore these relationships,
the average scores for each of the scales was correlated
with coming-out self—efficacy. Age was also included in the
correlation matrix. (Descriptive information for the
Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale, the Multiple Affect Adjective
Checklist-—Revised, and the Sexual Orientation Disclosure
Scale are presented in Table 3.14; Descriptive information
for the Coming Out Self—efficacy Scale in Table 3.13.)

Pearson intercorrelations are presented in Table 4.3.

 

99

Table 4.3

Intercorrelation among Variables

 

 

Variable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Age -- -.05 .01 .05 —.05 -.10 -.31“‘
2. Satisfaction -- .44”‘ .37”’ -.22' .12 .20'
3. Self-esteem —— .63"* —.47"' -.01 .10
4. Positive -- —.20‘ —.04 .06
5. Negative -— —.08 —.15
6. Outness -- .73”*

7. Efficacy —-

 

Note. N = 110.

Satisfaction = Satisfaction with lesbian lifestyle
Self-esteem = Rosenberg Self—esteem Scale

Positive = Positive Affect as measured by MAACL-R
Negative = Negative Affect as measured by MAACL-R
Outness = Sexual Orientation Disclosure Scale
Efficacy = Coming Out Self—efficacy Scale

*

= p < .05
** = p < .01
*** = p < .001

100

Results showed a significant inverse relationship
between the demographic variable of age and coming out self—
efficacy (; = -.31, p < .001). Both lifestyle satisfaction
(3 = .20, p < .05) and outness (; = .73, p < .001) were also
significantly correlated with coming out self—efficacy.
Self-esteem, positive and negative affectivity were not
significantly correlated with self—efficacy; however, they
were correlated with each other and with lifestyle
satisfaction.

The significant relationship between coming out self—
efficacy and age suggests that older lesbians report feeling
less efficacious than do their younger counterparts.
However, the significant relationships found between the
variables of lifestyle satisfaction and outness, and self-
efficacy, suggest that the more efficacious lesbians report
feeling, the more satisfied they feel with their lifestyle
and the more "out" they tend to be.

Post-hoc Analyses Predicting Coming Out Self-efficacy

In this final section, the results of the post hoc
analyses will be reviewed. The relationships between the
four sources of efficacy information and coming out self—
efficacy were explored for two key variables that were
significantly correlated with coming out self—efficacy: age
and outness.

Predicting coming out self-efficacy for age cohorts.
Because there was a significant negative correlation between

age and coming out self—efficacy (-.31, p < .001), the

101
differences and similarities between older and younger
lesbians across demographic characteristics, outness, and
self-efficacy were explored. To do so, two age cohorts were
formed by splitting the total sample at the median age of
37; thus one group contains all of the information obtained
from women younger than 37 and the other group contains the
information from the women who are 37 or older.

Initially, between group differences were examined for
the two cohorts (Table 4.4). The mean age of the younger
cohort was 30.09 and the mean age of the older cohort was
44.74. Women in the younger cohort reported, on average,
that they identified themselves as lesbians at 17 years, and
the older cohort reported knowing, on average, at 22 years
of age. The women in the younger cohort reported making
significantly ( =-5.76, p < .001) less money than the women
in the older cohort. Similarly, women in the older cohort
were significantly LxG6.96, p < .01) more educated and
tended to work in professional capacities, whereas their
younger cohorts reported less education and were more likely
to worked in less professional capacities or were students.
In terms of relationship status, the majority (52.9%) of
women in the older cohort reported living with their
partner, whereas the majority (53.8%) of women in the
younger cohort were either single or dating. The women in
the younger cohort also reported a significantly higher
degree of coming out self—efficacy (t: 3.82, p < .001) than

their older counterparts.

Table 4.4

Demographic Comparison of Age Cohorts

 

 

 

 

 

 

Demographic Younger Older Test

than 37 than 37 Statistic

Age 30.09 44.74

Age of Awareness 17.20 22.03 t=—3.74"‘

(df=131)

Income t=—5.76“‘
<$10,00 32.3 5.9% (df=130)
<19,999 20.0% 10.3%
<$29,999 21.5% 16.2%
<$39,999 12.3% 22.1%
>$40,000 13.8% 44.1%

Education 28:6.96"
BA or less 66.2% 52.2% (df=1)
Some grad
or more 33.8% 47.8%

Occupation )8=20.17"‘
Professional 41.5% 80% (df=1)
Clerical,
unskilled labor 58.5% 20%

Relationship Status )8=.61
Living with (df=1)
partner 46.2% 52.9%

Uncommitted 43.8% 47.1%

Lifestyle

Satisfaction 4.52 4.24 t=2.18
(df=129)

Efficacy 3.78 3.13 t=3.82”'
(df=124)

Outness 4.70 4.18 t=2.20
(df=131)

Note. ** = Q < .01

*** 9 < .001

103

Then, to further understand the predictive relationship
between the four sources of self—efficacy information and
coming out self-efficacy for the younger and older cohorts,
separate hierarchical regression analyses were performed.
Like the main model, the goal of these analyses was to
determine the contribution of each of the four sources of
self-efficacy to the coming out self—efficacy of younger and
older lesbians. Like the test of the model for the full
sample, each source of efficacy information was entered on a
separate step of the regression equation. The change in the
coefficient of determination was examined to determine the
unique contribution of each of the variables to the
regression equation, controlling for the variables entered
on previous steps. The results of these analyses must be
interpreted with some caution given the small sample size
used for the younger (N=57) and older (N=57) cohorts. With
the reduced sample size it is more difficult to accurately
assess the relation between variables and the significance
of those relationships because power has been diminished
(Wampold & Freund, 1987).

For the younger cohort, the results of the hierarchical
regression (Table 4.5) indicated that of the four sources of
efficacy information, verbal persuasion (R? Change = .17)
and emotional arousal (R? Change = .08) were the two sources
which explained a significant amount of the variance in the

prediction of coming out self-efficacy.

Table 4.5

104

Regression Predicting Self-efficacy for Younger than 37

 

 

 

Variables R B? EfiChange ;. B E for
R_?Change

PA .24 .05 .05 24* - 05 14
VE .38 .14 .09 27' -.09 .61
VP .56 .32 .17 54"' .28 3.80'
EA .63 .40 .08 59"* .40 7.58"
Note. N = 57

PA = Performance Accomplishments Subscale

VE = Vicarious Experience Subscale

VP = Verbal Persuasion Subscale

EA = Emotional Arousal Subscale

* = p < .05

** = p < .01

*** = p < .001

105
The results of the hierarchical regression for the
older cohort differed slightly from that of the younger
cohort. The results (Table 4.6) indicated that vicarious
experience (R? Change = .09) and emotional arousal (R2
Change = .08) explained a significant amount of the variance

in the coming out self-efficacy of this cohort.

Table 4.6

Regression Predicting Self-efficacy for

106

Older than 37

 

 

Variables R B? EEChange ;; B, E for
_R_Change

PA .39 .15 .15 29' .14 1.09

VE .57 .32 .17 .39” - 28 6.59"

VP .64 .42 .10 .48“* .23 3.64

EA .72 .52 .09 .58”* .42 10.14'

 

Note. N = 57

PA
VE
VP
EA

*
*
*

*
**

Performance Accomplishments Subscale
Vicarious Experience Subscale
Verbal Persuasion Subscale
Emotional Arousal Subscale

E<
p<
E<

.05
.01
.001

107

Predicting coming out self-efficacy for outness
cohorts. Because there was a significant correlation
between outness and coming out self—efficacy (.73, p <
.001), the contribution of the four sources of efficacy
information to coming out self—efficacy was explored for two
additional cohorts: lesbians who reported being more out
and those who reported less outness. The two cohorts were
formed by splitting the total sample at the median outness
score (4.24); thus one group contained women with high
outness and the other those with low outness.

The theoretical rationale for this final analysis was
that Bandura (1986) posits that the four sources of efficacy
information function in relation to the amount of experience
one has had in a particular domain. In this instance, then,
it would be assumed that for the women who are more out,
performance accomplishments would be a salient source of
efficacy information. For the women with less experience or
outness, Bandura would suggest that the three other sources
of efficacy information would take on additional import,
until the women have more actual experience upon which to
base their efficacy appraisals.

To understand the predictive relationship between the
four sources of efficacy information and coming out self-
efficacy, separate hierarchical regressions were run for
each of the cohorts. The results of the regression run for
the high outness lesbians (Table 4.7) indicated that of the

four sources of efficacy information, only emotional arousal

108
UV Change = .07) explained a significant amount of the
variance in the prediction of coming out self—efficacy.
This finding differs from that suggested by Bandura, but is
in accord with the results of the other regression results

of this study.

Table 4.7

109

Regression for Women with High Outness

 

 

 

Variables B B? BfChange ; B B
BiChange

PA .28 .08 .08 .28* .07 27
VE .44 .19 .11 -.30** -.20 2.68
VP .48 .23 .04 .40*** .14 .34
EA .54 .30 .07 .47*** .35 6.37*
Note. N = 64

PA = Performance Accomplishments Subscale

VE = Vicarious Experience Subscale

VP = Verbal Persuasion Subscale

EA = Emotional Arousal Subscale

* = p < .05

** = p < .01

*** = p < .00

110
The results of the hierarchical regression for the low
outness cohort indicated that none of the sources of
efficacy information were significant predictors of coming
out self-efficacy for this group of women. These results

are also contrary to Bandura’s theory.

Table 4.8

Regression for Women with Low Outness

 

 

Variables B B? BfiChange ;. B B
BEChange

PA .42 .17 .17 .28* .26 3.08

VE .47 .22 .05 -.20* —.21 2.64

VP .54 .29 .07 .28* .19 1.83

BA .58 .34 .05 .42** .27 3.18

 

Note. N = 59

PA = Performance Accomplishments Subscale
VE = Vicarious Experience Subscale

VP = Verbal Persuasion Subscale

EA = Emotional Arousal Subscale

* = p < .05

** = p < .01

*** = p < .001

111

The results of the regressions run on the two outness
cohorts failed to further clarify the relationships between
the four source variables and coming out self-efficacy for
lesbians with high or low outness. However, for the high
outness group, the emotional arousal variable was a
significant predictor. This finding is consonant with the
results of the other regression analyses.
Conclusion

Overall, the results of this study were supportive of
the five hypotheses that were advanced. Generally, expected
relationships were found between predictor variables,
although, surprisingly, the relationships between vicarious
experience and verbal persuasion, emotional arousal, and
coming out self—efficacy were all inverse in nature. The
results of the regression analyses were not fully supportive
of self—efficacy theory (Bandura, 1986), although three of
the four sources of efficacy information were significant
predictors of coming out self-efficacy. Finally, coming out
self—efficacy was significantly related to both outness and
lifestyle satisfaction. The last variable was also
significantly related to positive affectivity and self—
esteem.

In the next chapter, the meaning of the results of

this study will be presented.

CHAPTER 5

Discussion

In this final chapter, the purpose and method of this
study will be summarized. Then the results of the data
analyses will be interpreted. Directions for future
research will be addressed. Finally, the practical
implications of the results will be reviewed.

Summary of the Study

In their daily lives, lesbians must repeatedly make
decisions about whether or not to disclose their sexual
orientation to others with whom they interact. Much of the
extant empirical literature on this process (Cody-Murphy,
1989; Kahn, 1991; Schneider, 1986; Wells & Kline, 1989) has
explored the circumstantial and demographic variables
related to this process. This study was designed to add to
this knowledge base by exploring this same process but
through a theoretical lens, specifically that of self-
efficacy. Thus, this exploratory study examined what types
of information and experience (e.g., performance
accomplishments, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, or
emotional arousal) contribute to a lesbian’s confidence in
her ability to disclose her sexual orientation to others.

Utilizing Bandura’s theory of self-efficacy (1986),

112

113

this study investigated the extent to which each of the four
sources of efficacy information contributed to coming out
self-efficacy. Further, this study sought to establish the
relevance of coming out self-efficacy by exploring its
relationship to outness and lifestyle satisfaction.
Relationships between these same variables and self—esteem
and positive and negative affectivity were also explored.

The following sections will discuss the
interrelationships between the predictor variables and
coming out self-efficacy; the prediction of coming out self-
efficacy for the entire sample and then for two cohorts of
younger and older lesbians and two cohorts of high and low
outness cohorts; and the interrelationships between coming
out self—efficacy and outness and life adjustment variables.
The last section will discuss the limitations and
implications for research and practice of the findings.
Interrelationships Among the Predictor Variables

Several significant correlations were found among
coming out self-efficacy, demographic characteristics, and
the four sources of coming out self-efficacy. The
significant inverse relationships between coming out self-
efficacy and both age and income suggests that older
lesbians who earn greater incomes report feeling less
efficacious than other lesbians. This may be the case for
this group of women because they perceive that there are
more risks with increased visibility and outness, such as

the loss of employment, income, or status. There is also a

114
potential historical confound between age and coming out
self-efficacy within this sample. Writing from a
sociological perspective, Herdt and Boxer (1993) suggest
that since the turn of the century there have been four
distinct historical age cohorts within American homosexual
subculture. The individuals within each of the cohorts
shared similar sociopolitical contexts and events which
shaped their beliefs and behaviors about being homosexual.

According to Herdt and Boxer (1993), there has been a
significant shift in the feelings and behaviors of gay men
and lesbians who came of age around the time of the
Stonewall riots in 1969. Prior to that time, homosexuals
tended to stay in the "closet." Since then, a new gay and
lesbian culture has emerged which is increasingly visible,
and in which gays and lesbians acknowledge their sexual
orientation to enter and be supported by this subculture.
Consequently, the fact that the older lesbians in this
sample feel less confident about their ability to disclose
their sexual orientation may reflect the values, beliefs,
and behavioral mores of their respective historical age
cohort.

It is also possible that these older lesbians
developed a number of coping strategies for managing
information around their sexual orientation which were
appropriate for the sociopolitical zeitgeist in which they
grew up and lived. These strategies may have become an

established means of protecting self when interacting with

115
an oppressive and violent world (Fassinger, 1992). Further,
it is likely that the heterosexual contemporaries of these
older lesbians continue to hold conservative beliefs around
homosexuality, making coming out to others of their
generation more difficult as well. Consequently, these
factors would likely reduce this cohort’s confidence in
their ability, or more likely their desire, to disclose
their sexual orientation in today’s world.

Next, the relationships among the four source
variables were explored. Self-efficacy theory suggests that
each of the four sources of efficacy information should be
interrelated. Results of the correlation analyses
demonstrated significant relationships among the four
sources subscales with the exception of the correlation
between performance accomplishments and vicarious experience
which was not significant. The relationships between the
vicarious experience subscale and the verbal persuasion and
emotional arousal subscales were significant though,
surprisingly, inverse in nature. Thus, perceptions of
negative vicarious experiences were associated with high
levels of positive verbal messages and positive emotional
arousal.

The inverse nature of the correlations between the
vicarious experience subscale and the other source scales is
an interesting, albeit counter—intuitive finding. These
inverse relationships may be a function of the composition

of the vicarious experience subscale itself. Over the

 

116
course of the scale development and refinement process,
items with positive themes such as, "My friends have shared
many of their positive coming out experiences with me,"
failed to correlate with the subscale in general or more
specifically with the items whose content was more negative
in focus. Ultimately, because of the lack of internal
consistency these positive items were dropped from the main
study data analysis. Consequently, the theme of the
remaining items was similar in that each item presented a
situation in which negative consequences were associated
with the act of coming out on the part of other lesbians.

Thus, one potential explanation for the inverse
relationships between the vicarious experience subscale and
the other source subscales is that these relationships are a
function of the constricted thematic content of this
subscale. Because the items utilized in the analysis were
all negative in focus, the potential impact of more positive
coming out stories on lesbians is difficult to ascertain.
Thus, the scale may provide a limited picture of the impact
of different types of vicarious experience on lesbians.

Yet, the women who participated in this study
indicated that they had heard many of these negative coming
out stories while at the same time perceiving supportive
verbal messages from others and positive feelings within
themselves about coming out. It is plausible then, that the
negative thematic content of the vicarious experience

subscale accurately reflects the nature of the majority of

 

117
coming out stories heard by lesbians, specifically, stories
of rejection, discrimination, and violence. Further, the
vicarious experience subscale may accurately reflect the
impact that these stories have on lesbians. If so, the
feelings connected with hearing repeated accounts of
discrimination and violence may have the same effect of
bolstering one’s confidence in her ability to disclose her
sexual orientation as positive verbal persuasion and
emotional arousal. Thus, it makes sense that these negative
stories would be correlated with verbal encouragement and
positive feelings about coming out.

Finally, self-efficacy theory also suggests that each
of the source variables should be positively associated with
coming out self—efficacy. Significant positive
relationships were found between the performance
accomplishments, verbal persuasion, and emotional arousal
subscales and coming out self-efficacy; additionally, a
significant inverse relationship was found between the
vicarious experience subscale and coming out self—efficacy.
These findings establish the relationship of each of the
four source subscales with coming out self-efficacy which is
consistent with self-efficacy theory.

Once again, the inverse relationship between vicarious
experience and coming out self—efficacy may be a function of
the negative item composition of the scale itself. On the
other hand, this result suggests that the negative coming

out experiences of others is associated with higher levels

118
of coming out self-efficacy. For this group of lesbians,
the impact of hearing numerous stories of rejection and
discrimination may ultimately become a source of
indignation, power, and inspiration to come out. Fueled by
anger and frustration, these women may feel more confident
in their ability to come out in spite of the potential
reactions of others. Ultimately, coming out may seem like
the only means of standing up for one’s self and lifestyle
in the face of societal oppression and discrimination.
Results of the Regression Analyses

The extent to which each of the four sources of
efficacy information predicted coming out self—efficacy was
tested with regression analyses. In this section the
results of the regression analyses will be summarized. Then
plausible explanations for those results will be offered in
the next section.

Self—efficacy theory (Bandura, 1986) posits that self-
efficacy beliefs grow out of or are modified by four major
sources of information: performance accomplishments,
vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and emotional
arousal. However, the regression results did not fully
support Bandura’s theory. Rather, they indicated that for
the entire sample, age, vicarious experience, verbal
persuasion, and emotional arousal accounted for significant
variance in the prediction of coming out self-efficacy.

The most theoretically salient source of efficacy

information, performance accomplishments (Bandura, 1986),

119
did not explain a significant amount of the variance in
coming out self—efficacy for this sample of lesbians
although it was significantly correlated with coming out
self-efficacy. To rule out the possibility that performance
accomplishments would emerge as a significant predictor of
coming out self—efficacy if age were not a part of the
regression equation, an additional regression analysis was
conducted. Because the performance accomplishments subscale
was significantly correlated with age, it was possible that
the actual contribution of the performance accomplishments
subscale was being accounted for by age. However, the
results of the regression analysis indicated that even when
age was not controlled for, the performance accomplishments
variable was not a significant predictor of coming out self-
efficacy, only vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and
emotional arousal accounted for significant variance in the
prediction of coming out self-efficacy.

Additionally, the results of the original regression
for this group of lesbians indicated that emotional arousal
was the most potent predictor of coming out self-efficacy,
followed by verbal persuasion, vicarious experience, and
then age. Additionally, the relationship between vicarious
experience and coming out self-efficacy was an inverse one,
as it had been in the correlational analyses.

To better understand how the four sources of efficacy
information might contribute differentially to the coming

out self-efficacy possessed by younger and older lesbians,

 

120

and to those with high or low outness, additional regression
analyses were conducted. Like the regression model for the
entire sample, the results of the regressions run on the age
and outness cohorts challenged Bandura’s theory. As in the
results for the main regression, emotional arousal was the
most salient predictor for both of the age cohorts.
However, only one other source accounted for significant
variance in the coming out self-efficacy of these groups.
For the older cohort, vicarious experience was significant
and for the younger cohort, verbal persuasion was
significant. Regression results for the high and low
outness cohorts indicated that only emotional arousal
explained a significant amount of the variance in the coming
out self—efficacy of the high outness cohort. None of the
source variables were significant for the low outness group.
Interpretation of Regression Results

This study was a unique application and test of
Bandura’s theory of self-efficacy. To understand why the
results did not fully support this theory, one potential
explanation lies in the theoretical formulation of how self-
efficacy develops and is enhanced. According to Bandura,
(1986), there is a cognitive appraisal process that takes
place as one evaluates one’s ability to successfully perform
a behavior in a specific situation. In making this
appraisal, the individual selects, attends to, and
emphasizes the information perceived to be most relevant to

self. This information becomes the basis of one’s self—

121
efficacy judgments.

In the instance of appraising one’s coming out self—
efficacy, it seems that even though all of the lesbians who
participated in this study had some experience coming out
across a variety of contexts, they did not base their
efficacy judgments on those experiences. Rather, they
attended to their feelings about coming out (emotional
arousal), the positive messages they received from others
(verbal persuasion), and the negative accounts of other’s
coming out experiences (vicarious experience) as the basis
for their efficacy judgments. This emergent pattern is
contrary to self—efficacy theory (Bandura, 1986) which
suggests that performance accomplishments are the most
salient source of information because they are based on the
actual mastery experiences of the individual. The remaining
sources of efficacy information gain relevance in the
appraisal of one’s self—efficacy only when the individual
has had little or no experience with a specific task.

Consequently, the fact that the performance
accomplishments subscale did not explain significant
variance in the prediction of coming out self-efficacy is a
surprising result. In prior research exploring the
contributions of the four sources of efficacy information in
relation to math self—efficacy, performance accomplishments,
both actual (e.g. Math ACT scores and course grades) and
perceived, have proven to be the most salient source of

efficacy information (Matsui et al., 1990; Lent et al.,

122
1991; Lopez & Lent, 1992). Because the findings of this
study vary significantly from those of similar studies of
the sources of math self—efficacy as well as from Bandura’s
(1986) theoretical formulation, two plausible explanations
will be presented to account for the lack of significance of
the performance accomplishments variable in this study.

First, the performance accomplishments subscale
demonstrated adequate internal consistency and items were
written in a fashion consistent with Bandura’s theory and
with measures from previous studies. However, those factors
do not insure the validity of the performance
accomplishments subscale. Thus, it is possible that this
subscale did not accurately tap the types of experiences
that lesbians would consider to be coming out performance
accomplishments. If so, this may explain why the
performance accomplishment subscale was not a signigicant
predictor of coming out self-efficacy in the regression
model.

On the other hand, the act of coming out is a complex
one. Therefore, exploring the potential appraisals made on
the part of a lesbian before coming out to another and
considering some additional nuances of self-efficacy theory
may help to explain why lesbians don’t attend to performance
accomplishments when evaluating their confidence in their
ability to come out.

Essentially, one’s sexual orientation is disclosed in

the context of a relationship. To a certain extent then,

123

making the disclosure itself is under the control of the
woman——she can appraise her ability to make the disclosure.
However, unlike other more discrete skills or tasks in which
specific outcomes are predictably linked with performance,
in the instance of coming out to someone, how the person who
is hearing the disclosure will react is unpredictable. A
woman’s willingness to disclose her sexual orientation may
be colored by the potential reaction and consequences she
anticipates from her disclosure. These considerations may
be likened to outcome expectations. According to Bandura
(1986), outcome expectations are the individual’s judgment
of the likely consequences of an act, but are distinct from
the act. Although Bandura (1986) has found that self—
efficacy judgments are more salient predictors of behavior,
it is plausible that in relation to coming out, outcome
expectations, that is, the expected or anticipated reactions
or consequences of the disclosure, may be a significant
determinant of the woman’s willingness to disclose her
sexual orientation.

In a similar vein, there is yet another layer within
the act of coming out. Even though a woman may anticipate a
particular reaction to her disclosure, she has a great deal
of latitude in determining how she will feel about or
respond to that reaction. In this instance the woman may
acknowledge the "threat" inherent in disclosing her sexual
orientation, but make the disclosure nonetheless. Bandura

(1988) has termed this type of judgment as "coping

 

124
efficacy." Like self-efficacy, women with low percepts of
coping efficacy in relation to the act of coming out may
avoid making the disclosure to avoid a situation that may
exceed their perceived coping capabilities, whereas those
with high coping efficacy would proceed regardless of the
potential outcomes. It seems likely that for the act of
disclosing one’s sexual orientation, judgments of coming out
self-efficacy, coping efficacy, and outcome expectations
would be made in each instance in which the woman is
considering coming out.

Consequently, it is difficult to ascertain how
lesbians interpret their prior coming out experiences,
particularly if each instance is considered for its own
merits and hazards. It seems likely that like the layers of
the act itself there would be several layers involved in
assessing these experiences. Perhaps in reflecting upon
their coming out experiences, lesbians may feel positively
about making the disclosure, but may also feel disappointed
with the reaction of another, but proud of self for making
the disclosure. Hence the act or performance itself may not
be interpreted as a success or failure. If this is the
case, perceptions of prior coming out experiences would have
very little to contribute to the appraisal of one’s coming
out self—efficacy.

It is also noteworthy that the results of the
regression analyses indicated that for this group of

lesbians, emotional arousal was the most potent source of

125
efficacy information. Hence, in the case of developing
coming out self—efficacy, the lesbians who participated in
this study seem to base their efficacy judgments on how they
feel about coming out, regardless of how old they are. The
fact that this sample of lesbians attended to this source of
information rather than performance accomplishments may be a
function of the nature and complexity of the act of
disclosing one’s sexual orientation to others.

The theoretical literature written not only on the act
of coming out but also on the life long process of coming
out, may illuminate the significance of the emotional
arousal variable. In its entirety, coming out is a complex
and lifelong psychological process in which an individual
moves from curiosity to awareness to acknowledgement of
lesbian thoughts and feelings. For some, this process
results in self-identification as a lesbian (Cass, 1979;
Cohen & Stein, 1986; Stein, 1993; Troiden, 1989).

Throughout this process, the woman must struggle not only
with her own feelings of internalized homophobia as well as
those of others who are important to her, but also with the
societal values and mores which are discriminatory and
prejudiced against lesbianism. Concurrently, the woman is
reclaiming parts of herself which have been rejected or
devalued because of their association with lesbianism, all
in an attempt to feel good about herself (Cohen & Stein,
1986).

One aspect of this on-going process is to disclose her

126
identity to others. In making the decision about whether or
not to disclose her sexual orientation, a cognitive
appraisal process ensues in which the lesbian evaluates
herself, her motivation, and the potential consequences of
her disclosure (Browning et al., 1991; Falco, 1990;
Fassinger, 1991; Gartrell, 1985). In the process of
thinking about herself in this appraisal, the literature
suggests that a lesbian often discloses her sexual
orientation to others in an effort to resolve the dissonance
between who she is and who she is perceived by others to be-
-in other words, to be acknowledged and sometimes even
affirmed for who she really is—-by self and by others
(Browning et al., 1991; Cass, 1979; Falco, 1990; Fassinger,
1991; Kahn, 1991). In this process, the question for the
lesbian might not be, "Do I have confidence in my ability to
come out?", but rather, "Do I have the desire or need to
come out?" In the latter example, this type of decision
most likely would be based in feelings about self as a
lesbian and coming out, rather than in prior experiences.
Ultimately, disclosing one’s sexual orientation to another
is an emotional experience, simply because it is so entwined
with one’s sense of self (Stein, 1993).

Coming out to self and others is also perceived as a
ritual (Herdt & Boxer. 1993), and like the life long process
of coming out, the coming out ritual is also seen as a
process. The core of this on—going process is the identity

transition from one social role and culture to that of the

127
lesbian subculture. By repeatedly coming out to others, one
is proclaiming one’s belonging and commitment to one’s own
lesbianism and to the lesbian subculture. There is an
important shift for lesbians between perceiving the act of
coming out as "identity management" as it historically has
been (deMonteflores, 1986; Groves & Ventura, 1983; Moses,
1978; Schneider, 1986), versus perceiving it as a ritual in
which one celebrates one’s identity by sharing it with
others. The implications of this change in perception is
that the feelings associated with coming out shift from
shame to pride, both of which are based in the emotional
realm as well.

Finally, because the perception of coming out self—
efficacy held by this sample of lesbians was strongly
influenced by their emotional arousal is not to say that
other sources of efficacy information were not utilized.
The emotional arousal experienced by this group was
augmented by verbal persuasion-~messages they have had that
are supportive of their being out—-and vicarious experience-
-negative stories they have heard about the coming out
experiences of other lesbians. It is additionally
noteworthy that in the regressions run for the two age
cohorts, vicarious experience was significant for older
lesbians. This may suggest that hearing these negative
stories over time is an impetus for the development of
feelings of confidence and desire in relation to the act of

coming out. For younger lesbians, verbal persuasion was a

128
significant predictor. For this group of lesbians, more
importance may be attached to the support and encouragement
of others rather than to vicarious experience simply because
they have not been exposed to these stories over the same
amount of time or within the same sociopolitical zeitgeist.
Further, support and encouragement may be more available
from others and from components within contemporary society
for this younger cohort.

The results of the regressions run on the high and low
outness cohorts were less informative. Emotional arousal
was the only significant predictor of coming out self—
efficacy for the high outness cohort. This result supports
the salience of the emotional arousal variable in the
prediction of coming out self-efficacy. Conversely, none of
the source variables were explanatory in the coming out
self-efficacy of the low outness cohort. This is a
surprising result because it was expected that since this
cohort has had less actual coming out experience, the other
sources of efficacy information (VE, VP, EA) would be more
salient sources of efficacy information (Bandura, 1986).
This finding may suggest that women with less coming out
experience may rely more heavily on circumstantial
information when appraising their willingness to come out,
rather than relying on their own internal motivation.
However, because of the small sample sizes utilized for the
cohort analyses, it is more difficult to accurately assess

the relationships between the variables of interest, thus,

 

129
it is plausible that these results do not reflect the nature
of the relationships between the four source variables and
coming out self-efficacy for this cohort.

In summary, the results of the regression analysis for
the entire sample suggest that younger women who feel
positively about coming out, who have received positive
verbal messages about being out, and who have been exposed
to the negative coming out experiences of others tend to
feel more confident in their ability to come or be out.
Relationships Between Self-efficacy and Adjustment Variables

Self-efficacy theory suggests that higher levels of
coming out self—efficacy should be positively associated
with those constructs specifically related to coming out
(e.g., lifestyle satisfaction, outness), rather than the
more global constructs of adjustment utilized in this study
\(e.g., self—esteem, positive and negative affectivity). As
expected, coming out self—efficacy was significantly
correlated with both lifestyle satisfaction and outness,
though outness and satisfaction were not significantly
related. This finding supports the construct validity of
the Coming Out Self-efficacy Scale. Perhaps it is not one’s
actual outness that is significant in lifestyle
satisfaction, but rather one’s confidence in one’s ability
to be out that is more important in providing freedom to
chose when or if to come out. Consequently, the unique act
of disclosing one’s sexual orientation may be related to two

separate but interrelated appraisal processes. First, one

130

may appraise one’s confidence and willingness, or one’s
coming out self-efficacy, to disclose her sexual orientation
at a given moment in time. Concurrently, one may also
appraise the person and situation variables unique to each
instance of coming out before making any disclosure.
However, it may be the sense of coming out self-efficacy
that empowers one to even consider making such a disclosure.

Finally, like previous research (Miranda & Storms,
1989), it was also hypothesized that greater lesbian
lifestyle satisfaction would be positively associated with
higher levels of self—esteem and positive affectivity.
Correlation analyses supported this hypothesis. Thus,
greater satisfaction with a lesbian lifestyle was related to
more positive feelings about self.
Limitations of the Study

There are several issues that make the interpretation
and application of the results of this study tenuous.
First, it is unwieldy to: 1) develop and test novel
measures and, 2) test a theory within the same study because
the results of the first step strongly influence the second
step. In this instance, because the internal consistency of
the vicarious experience and the verbal persuasion subscales
of the Sources of Coming Out Self-efficacy Scale were
marginal the actual contribution of those scales to coming
out self-efficacy is difficult to assess. Second, because
the design of this study is correlational in nature, the

results are descriptive of this sample and no causality can

131
be implied. For example, whether coming out self—efficacy
stems from or contributes to lifestyle satisfaction is not
clear.

Third, the generalizability of the results of this
study are limited by several factors. The
representativeness of the present sample is questionable
given the low response rate obtained through the sampling
procedures at the Michigan Organization of Human Rights.
Further, because it is easier to locate and enlist the
participation of lesbians who tend to be more openly lesbian
identified, it is likely that this sample is more "out" than
the lesbian population in general. Finally, the women who
participated in this study tended to be Caucasian, highly
educated, and financially successful. Thus, the
characteristics of the present sample suggest that these
results should not be generalized to lesbians of different
ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds.

Future Research Directions

In terms of future research, the internal consistency
of the verbal persuasion and vicarious experience subscales
and the validity of the performance accomplishments subscale
of the Sources of Coming Out Self-efficacy Scale need to be
refined to more accurately assess the contribution of the
four sources of efficacy information to the coming out self-
efficacy of lesbians. This refinement might be accomplished
by asking a focus group of lesbians to define a variety of

experiences which they believe represent the construct of

132
performance accomplishments in relation to disclosing their
sexual orientation. Similarly, to revise the vicarious
experience and verbal persuasion subscales, the lesbian
focus group could also provide examples of how other
individuals have been competent models for their coming out,
along with specifying messages they have received from
others which have encouraged or discouraged them from coming
out. These ideas could be the basis for new items for each
of the respective subscales.

Next, replication of this study with different
samples, such as minority or college-age women, would be
important to better understand the differential contribution
of the sources of self—efficacy information for different
groups of women. By redesigning this study, the causal
relationships between these variables could be assessed
statistically. Additionally, because gender may play a role
in what source variables are important in predicting coming
out self-efficacy, this study could be replicated with a
sample of gay men.

The Coming Out Self-efficacy Scale worked very well in
this study, and there is some evidence to indicate that this
construct may be an important one for lesbians in terms of
lifestyle satisfaction and outness. In the future, the
relationships between coming out self—efficacy and outness,
a better measure of lifestyle satisfaction, relationship
satisfaction, and perhaps, measures of psychological

adjustment or stress should be explored. Additionally, the

133
relationship between outcome expectations and coming out
self-efficacy and outness need to be explored.
Implications and Applications

The findings of the present study suggest that
lesbians rely on their feelings about themselves and coming
out, the encouragement that they receive, and the negative
stories they have heard about others in appraising their own
ability to come out in a variety of situations. Further,
women who reported higher levels of coming out self—efficacy
also reported greater outness and higher levels of lifestyle
satisfaction. However, only tentative suggestions for
practical applications of these results can be made given
the limitations of measurement and generalization inherent
in this study.

With those limitations in mind, the results of this
study suggest several considerations for treatment planning
for therapists working with lesbians around coming out
issues. Because emotional arousal was the most salient
source of coming out self—efficacy information, to explore
the woman’s feelings around identifying as a lesbian, being
"out" or not, and how she feels about coming out in general
would be important. For example, exploring a woman’s
feelings of internalized homophobia or shame, feelings
around myths and stereotypes concerning lesbians and
homosexuality, and feelings of pride in relation to being a
lesbian would be fruitful. Further, to explore the impact

of family, friends, and society upon the way one feels about

134
one’s self is important. Empowerment to make decisions
around coming out results from self-understanding and
acceptance (Falco, 1990; Fassinger, 1992).

To generate better self-understanding and awareness in
relation to the act of disclosing one’s sexual orientation,
exploring the woman’s fears, wishes, and realities may be
important. In particular, helping the woman focus on her
feelings about coming out rather than on the potential
reaction of others may help clarify the woman’s motivation
and desire to come out in specific relationships. Finally,
devising strategies for dealing with the aftermath of coming
out, both for the woman and her audience, can also be
helpful in enhancing the woman’s coming out self-efficacy.

Verbal persuasion and negative vicarious experience
were also found to be salient sources of efficacy
information for this group of lesbians. Thus, connecting
the woman with the coming out experiences of other women
through support groups, books of coming out stories, books
about coming out in general, and historic readings around
the gay/lesbian movement may be helpful. These sources
would all serve as vehicles for the woman to learn more
about how others have experienced coming out, to gain
support from others, and to develop a sense of personal
pride and identity.

The results of this study seem to suggest that coming
out self-efficacy is a salient construct for lesbians. On a

practical level, the results of this study suggest that

135
understanding how coming out self-efficacy develops and what
impact that self-efficacy has on lesbian life satisfaction
and adjustment may be significant not only to researchers in
this area, but also to practitioners working with lesbian
clients who are dealing with outness and identity issues.
In essence, coming out self-efficacy may reflect a sense of
personal power and control which makes it less intimidating
and more satisfying to navigate the realities of being a

lesbian in today’s world.

Appendix A

Idea Generation Format

The problem: Items are needed for my study that assess the
impact of different aspects of previous coming out
experiences for lesbians in a variety of domains,
particularly social networks, family of origin, and the
workplace.

The method: The items need to be written in accord with
self-efficacy theory. Toward that end, below you will find
the definition of self—efficacy along with the definition of
each of four sources of efficacy information. Example items
that tap each construct are also provided. Basically,
lesbians will be asked to rate the extent to which these
experiences are true for her on a scale from 1=not at all
true to 5=extremely true.

Your mission (Should you choose to accept it, is): To
brainstorm coming out experiences that are congruent with
the definition of self-efficacy and each source of efficacy
information.

Self-efficacy: Self-efficacy in this study is a
lesbian’s confidence in her ability to disclose her sexual
orientation to others in a behavioral sense. For instance,
this includes a variety of behaviors that would reflect
one’s sexual orientation through action. In this study
self-efficacy will be assessed by the degree of confidence
indicated by the respondent in her ability to disclose her
sexual orientation in a variety of future situations.

The degree of confidence will be assessed on a Likert—
type scale ranging from 1=not at all confident to
7=completely confident. Example items for the Coming Out
Self-efficacy Scale include:

In the future how confident are you that you could:

I. disclose your sexual orientation to others in your
family of origin?

2. participate in a gay/lesbian pride march?

Personal performance accomplishments: This source of

 

efficacy information is comprised of a lesbian’s previous
experiences coming out to others. The intent of this scale
is to assess the impact of these typical coming out
experiences on lesbians in their social networks, their

families of origin, and in their workplaces. Items should
have a behavioral focus in terms of coming out (e.g.,
disclosing, attending, subscribing, marching, etc). These

experiences may be perceived as positive and successful or

136

negative and failures by the woman.

For example:

1. Coming out to people whose opinions I value has
not been easy for me.

2. Among my lesbian friends, I am generally the most
out.

Vicarious experience: The second source of efficacy
information is vicarious experience. The information
obtained through vicarious experience might include hearing
the coming out stories of other lesbians or being influenced
by women’s music or literature. Vicarious experience
provides important efficacy information by allowing a
lesbian to learn from and to compare herself to other
lesbians with whom she identifies, and who have come out in
a variety of circumstances that may be relevant to her.

This "model" may also act as a knowledgeable source who may
be able to provide better strategies for dealing with
difficult or threatening situations. Further, a lesbian is
likely to judge her capability to come out by comparing her
capabilities to the performances of other lesbians who are
perceived to be similar to self in ability as well as in
personal characteristics like age, gender, education,
socioeconomic status, and race.

For example:

1. I have read positive accounts of lesbians who have
come out to their families.
2. I know lesbians who lost their jobs after they

came out at work.

Verbal persuasion: The third source of efficacy
information is verbal persuasion. In relation to coming
out, this would include persuasive messages from others
about the importance of coming out or the risk involved in
coming out. Verbal persuasion can be used to persuade
someone to attempt or to persevere in coming out. Verbal
persuasion is more likely to influence someone if the
persuader is perceived as knowledgeable or credible in
relation to the act of coming out or within the domain in
which the disclosure may occur. Further, verbal persuasion
is more likely to influence behavior when it is given in a
situation in which coming out is slightly beyond the reach
of the person, but is possible with extra effort.

1. My friends have discouraged me from coming out to

important others in my life.
2. Other lesbians have told me that I deserve to be

who I am.

137

Emotional arousal: The final source of efficacy
information is emotional arousal. For example, this would
include the emotional and physiological arousal experienced
by the woman in circumstances when she is or has been coming
out. It is important to understand how an individual
appraises the arousal she experiences. If arousal is
experienced as a normal part of the task, it will have
little impact on one’s judgment of coming out self-efficacy.
However, if arousal is interpreted as a lack of ability it
will have a detrimental impact on self-efficacy.

1. I feel strong when I come out to others at work.
2. I have nightmares about what might happen if I
came out to someone.

138

 

Appendix B

Item Evaluation Format

PART I:

Directions: Below you will find the definition coming out
self-efficacy as well as two example items. Please read the
items on the Coming Out Self-efficacy Scale and rate the
level of congruence between each item and this definition
with the following scale:

1 2 3 4 5
not at all totally
congruent congruent

Please place the your rating to the left of the item number.
I would appreciate it if you would explain the reasoning
behind any rating of less than 3. Additionally, I would
appreciate any feedback in terms of item construction or
content.

Self-efficacy: Self-efficacy in this study is a
lesbian’s confidence in her ability to disclose her sexual
orientation to others in a behavioral sense. For instance,
this includes a variety of behaviors that would reflect
one’s sexual orientation through action. In this study
self-efficacy will be assessed by the degree of confidence
indicated by the respondent in her ability to disclose her
sexual orientation in a variety of future situations.

The degree of confidence will be assessed on a Likert—
type scale ranging from 1=not at all confident to
7=completely confident. Example items for the Coming Out
Self-efficacy Scale include:

In the future how confident are you that you could:

1. disclose your sexual orientation to others in your
family of origin?
2. participate in a gay/lesbian pride march?

PART II:

Directions: Below you will find the definitions of the four
sources of efficacy information being assessed on the
Sources of Cominquut Self-efficacy Scale. Please read each
of the items on this measure and indicate which source of
efficacy information you believe is being tapped by writing
the initials for that source next to the item number:
PA=personal performance accomplishments
VE=vicarious experience
VP= verbal persuasion
EA=emotional arousal

139

For example:
PA 1. Among my lesbian friends, generally, I am
the most out.

Additionally, I would appreciate any feedback about
item construction or content.

Personal performance accomplishments: This source of
efficacy information is comprised of a lesbian’s previous
experiences coming out to others. The intent of this scale
is to assess the impact of these typical coming out
experiences on lesbians in their social networks, their

families of origin, and in their workplaces. Items should
have a behavioral focus in terms of coming out (e.g.,
disclosing, attending, subscribing, marching, etc). These

experiences may be perceived as positive and successful or
negative and failures by the woman.

For example:

1. Coming out to people whose opinions I value has
not been easy for me.

2. Among my lesbian friends, I am generally the most
out.

Vicarious experience: The second source of efficacy
information is vicarious experience. The information
obtained through vicarious experience might include hearing
the coming out stories of other lesbians or being influenced
by women’s music or literature. Vicarious experience
provides important efficacy information by allowing a
lesbian to learn from and to compare herself to other
lesbians with whom she identifies, and who have come out in
a variety of circumstances that may be relevant to her.

This "model" may also act as a knowledgeable source who may
be able to provide better strategies for dealing with
difficult or threatening situations. Further, a lesbian is
likely to judge her capability to come out by comparing her
capabilities to the performances of other lesbians who are
perceived to be similar to self in ability as well as in
personal characteristics like age, gender, education,
socioeconomic status, and race.

For example:

1. I have read positive accounts of lesbians who have
come out to their families.
2. I know lesbians who lost their jobs after they

came out at work.

Verbal persuasion: The third source of efficacy
information is verbal persuasion. In relation to coming
out, this would include persuasive messages from others
about the importance of coming out or the risk involved in
coming out. Verbal persuasion can be used to persuade

140

 

someone to attempt or to persevere in coming out. Verbal.
persuasion is more likely to influence someone if the
persuader is perceived as knowledgeable or credible in
relation to the act of coming out or within the domain in
which the disclosure may occur. Further, verbal persuasion
is more likely to influence behavior when it is given in a
situation in which coming out is slightly beyond the reach
of the person, but is possible with extra effort.

For example:

1. My friends have discouraged me from coming out to
important others in my life.

2. Other lesbians have told me that I deserve to be
who I am.

Emotional arousal: The final source of efficacy
information is emotional arousal. For example, this would
include the emotional and physiological arousal experienced
by the woman in circumstances when she is or has been coming
out. It is important to understand how an individual
appraises the arousal she experiences. If arousal is
experienced as a normal part of the task, it will have
little impact on one’s judgment of coming out self-efficacy.
However, if arousal is interpreted as a lack of ability it
will have a detrimental impact on self—efficacy.

For example:

1. I feel strong when I come out to others at work.
2. I have nightmares about what might happen if I
came out to someone.

141

 

Appendix C

Survey Cover Letter

October 21, 1992

Greetings;

As you are well aware, lesbians must decide whether or not to disclose their sexual
orientation on a daily basis. Psychologists know very little about how lesbians make
this decision. This limited information may affect the quality of services available
to lesbians. As a lesbian psychologist, I am committed to expanding what is
currently known about the lesbian experience of coming out.

In order to accurately understand this on-going process, information about a wide
range of coming out experiences in necessary. Thus, your perspective on coming
out is especially important. By completing the enclosed questionnaire you will
provide important insights into the complex issue of coming out.

It should take no longer than 20 minutes for you to totally complete this survey. It
is important that all of the questions be completed and returned to me in the
enclosed envelope by November 6, 1992. As a participant, your anonymity is
assured; you don’t need to provide your name although general demographic
information is requested.

The results of this research will be made available to psychologists. However, you
may receive a summary of results by writing "copy of results requested" on the back
of the return envelope and printing your address below it. Please do not put this
information on the questionnaires themselves.

I would be glad to answer any questions you might have. Please feel free to call me
at (517)355-2310.

Thank you very much for your help!

Sincerely,

Mary K. Anderson, M.A.

142

Appendix D

Final Survey Packet

The Act of Coming Out

for Lesbians

Thank you for taking the time and effort necessary to complete this survey. This
study explores how lesbians interpret their experiences of coming out in today’s
world. The information gained through this research will be used to better
understand the act of coming out for lesbians.

Your participation in this study is voluntary. You may choose not to participate at
all or to end your involvement at any time. You have the right to refuse to answer
any question. However, the information provided by each answer is important in
gaining a full understanding of lesbians and coming out.

It should take you about 20 minutes to complete the entire survey. To insure your
anonymity, please do not put your name anywhere on this survey. If you have any
questions about this project, please feel free to contact me at (517)355-2310.

Please return you completed survey in the enclosed self-addressed, stamped envelope
by November 6, 1992.

Thanks again for your help!

The return of the completed survey reflects your informed and voluntary consent to
participate in this study.

143

Part 1.

Below are listed 15 different types of relationships in which a lesbian may or may not be
”out" to others. Please circle the number that reflects the degree to which you are out
in each relationship area. The scale ranges from 1 (not 0ut--nobody in the area knows you
are a lesbian) to 7 (completely out--everybody in the area knows you are a lesbian).

If one of the relationship areas is not applicable, just circle "NA" and go on to the next

area.
AREA NOT PARTIALLY COMPLETELY
OUT OUT OUT
1. To other gay NA 1 Z 3 4 5 6 7
people
2. To your boss NA . l 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. To your co-workers NA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. To your fellow NA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
students
5. To your doctor, , NA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
lawyer, therapist,
or other
professionals
6. To your mother NA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. To your father NA 1 ' 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. To your siblings NA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9. To members of your NA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
extended family
10. To friends you NA 1 Z 3 4 5 6 7
have met since you
acknowledged that
you were a lesbian
11. To friends you had NA 1 2 3 4 S 6 7
before you
acknowledged you
were gay
12. To casual NA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
acquaintances
13. To your pastor, NA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
priest, etc.
14. To your fellow NA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
religious friends
15. To people involved NA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

with your housing

144

 

S

 

Part II.
Djregtions: Using the scale below, please circle the number which represents how
confident you are that you ggglg do the following...

IN THE EUIURE, HOH CONFIDENT ARE YOU THAT YOU COULD...

NOT AT ALL TOTALLY
CONFIDENT CONFIDENT

I. subscribe to a lesbian publication? 1 2 3 4 5

2. attend a womyn’s music festival? 1 2 3 4 5

3. go to a lesbian/gay bar or restaurant 1 2 3 4 5
in the town in which you live?

4. participate in a local lesbian l 2 3 4 5
organization?

5. come out to other members of your 1 2 3 4 5
family?

6. come out to your boss at your 1 2 3 4 5
workplace? ' :

7. participate in a gay/lesbian pride 1 2 3 4 5
march in the town in which you live?

8. speak out as a lesbian for lesbian l 2 3 4 5
rights?

9. openly discuss your lesbian lifestyle 1 2 3 4 5
with co-workers?

10. be openly affectionate with a lover in l 2 3 4 5
public?

11. attend a program for lesbians sponsored l 2 3 4 5
by a lesbian/gay organization in the
town in which you live?

12. come out to heterosexuals? 1 2 3 4 5

13. come out to others who you believe are 1 2 3 4 5
lesbian or gay?

14. purchase books that are clearly by or 1 2 3 4 5

about lesbians at a bookstore?

Directions: From the list of activities above, please write the item numbers of the
four activities that you believe would be easiest for you to do in the first set of
boxes. Then write the item numbers of the four most challenging activities in the
second set of boxes.

EASIEST ACTIVITIES FOR ME...

HOST CHALLENGING ACTIVITIES FOR ME...

1 j

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

145

Part III.
Dirggtigns: Please circle the number that reflects how true the following statements
are in relation to your experiences of coming out.

NOT AT ALL EXTREMELY
TRUE TRUE

1. I have lost friends when I told them that l 2 3 4 5
I was a lesbian.

2. I feel happy when I come out to others. I 2 3 4 5

3. I feel anxious when I think about coming I‘ 2 3 4 5
out to important others in my life.

4. Indirectly, people have encouraged me to 1 2 . 3 4 5
come out to them.

5. I have come out to others only to have I 2 3 4 5
them continue to treat me as if I was
straight. '

6. In general, coming out to others has been 1 2 3 4 5
easy for me to do.

7. My friends have encouraged me not to come 1 2 3 4 5
out to important people in my life.

8. I have been encouraged by my family to ‘1 2 3' 4 5
come out to others.

9. I feel terrified about what might happen 1 2 3 4 5
if I come out to others in my life.

10. I have read positive newspaper accounts I 2 3 4 5
about lesbians.

11. I know of lesbians who have been disowned I 2 3 4 5
by their families when they came out to
them.

12. I have experienced discrimination after 1 2 3 4 5
coming out as a lesbian.

13. I have been rejected by people important 1 2 3 4 5
to me when I came out to them.

14. I am afraid that if I come out I will be 1 2 3 4 5
rejected by people I care about.

15. Other people have treated me as if there I Z 3 4 S
was something wrong with me after I told
them that I was a lesbian.

16. I know of lesbians who lost their jobs 1 2 3 4 5
after they came out at work.

17. I feel powerful when I think of coming 1 2 3 4 5
out.

18. Others have responded positively to me 1 2 3 4 5

when I came out to them.
146

I9.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.
34.

35.
36.

37.

People I care about” have supported my
lesbianism by encouraging me to come out
to others.

I feel relieved when I disclose my sexual
orientation to others.

Close friends have encouraged me not to
tell my parents that I am a lesbian.

I often feel sick to my stomach when I
think about coming out to others.

I have been loved and accepted when I
came out to others important to me.

I have read about women who have been
discriminated against because of their
sexual orientation.

I feel vulnerable when I come out.

I am aware of public figures
who are openly and positively lesbian.

I feel ashamed to be a lesbian when I
think about coming out to other members
of my family.

I have heard many negative stereotypes
about lesbians.

My best friend has encouraged me to be
out.

I dread coming out to others.

Other lesbians have told me that my
sexual orientation is nothing to hide
from people who love me.

I have been harassed by others after I
told them that I am a lesbian.

I feel proud when I come out to others.

‘I worry that others will make fun of me

once they know I am a lesbian.
I feel true to myself when I come out.

Others have responded violently toward me
after I told them I am a lesbian.

Family members have encouraged me not to
tell others about my lesbianism.

147

NOT AT ALL
TRUE
1 Z
l 2
l 2
l 2
l 2
l 2
1 2
l 2
l 2
l 2
I 2
l 2
l 2
I 2
1 2
1 2
l 2
I 2
1 2

EXTREMELY
TRUE
5

NOT AT ALL EXTREMELY

TRUE TRUE

38. People have often let me know indirectly l 2 3 4 5
that they do not want to know that I am
a lesbian.

39. It feels self-validating for me to come 1 2 3 4 5
out to others.

40. I feel excited when I think about telling I 2 3 4 5
others about my lesbianism.

41. Important others have been pleased when l 2 3 4 5
I shared the fact that I was a lesbian
with them.

42. I have come out to many people. 1 2 3 4 5

43. Coming out to people whose opinions I l 2 3 4 5
value has not been easy for me. -

44. I know of lesbians who have been the l 2 3 4 5
victims of violence after they came out.

45. My friends have encouraged me to come out 1 2 3 4 5
to others.

Part IV.

Instrugtjons: In answering the following set of questions, indicate the extent to which
each statement describes your current feelings about yourself. Use the scale below to
indicate your agreement.

§TRONGLY DISAGREE QISAGREE AGREE STRONGLY AQBEE
l 2 3 4
1. I feel that I am a person of worth, at least on an equal basis

with others.

2. I feel that I have a number of good qualities. ______
3. All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure. ______
4. I am able to do things as well as most other people. ______
5. I feel I do not have much to be proud of. ______
6. I take a positive attitude toward myself. ______

7. .On the whole, I am satisfied with myself.
8. I wish I could have more respect for myself.
9. I certainly feel useless at times.

10. At times I think I am no good at all.

148

Part VI.

Qirggtiogs: Please provide the following information. In order to insure

your anonymity, please do not write your name anywhere on this form.

1. In what year were you born?

2. What is your ethnic background? (Circle number)
Caucasian
African-American

. Native American
Hispanic

. Asian American

Other, please specify.

GUI-hWNt-I
o o o o

 

3. Which is the highest level of education you have completed? (Circle

number)

Grade school graduate

. High school graduate

Some college

Completed college, specify degree

 

. Some graduate school
. Graduate degree, please specify

aim-hoot»:—
O 0 O

 

4. What is your current occupation?

 

5. What is your current income, before taxes, per year? (Circle number)

1. Under $10,000

2. 10,000 to 19,999
3. 20,000 to 29,999
4. 30,000 to 39,999
5. over 40,000

6. At what age did you first know that you were a lesbian?

 

7. What is your current relationship status? (Circle number)
Single, not dating

. Dating

Seeing one woman on a regular basis
Living with lover/partner

Other, please specify

crawl»...-

8. How long have you been in the above relationship status?

 

9. Do you have any children? (Circle number)
.1. Yes
2. No

149

Part V.

pigggslgns: On this sheet you will find words which desc
feelings. Mark an ”X' in the boxes beside the words whic
fggl. Some of the words may sound alike, but you should

describe your feelings. Work rapidly.

1 C] acthge
2 [j adventurous
3 D affectionate
4 U afraid
5 Cl agitated
6 [j agreeable
7 Dagmssive
8 D alive
9 C] alone
10 D amiable
11 [j amused
12 (Janet!
13 C] annoyed
14 C] awful
15 [j bashful
16 D bitter
17 Dblue
. 18 Dbored
19 D calm
20 [j cautious
21 D cheerful
22 0 clean
23 E] complaining
24 C] contented
25 C] contrary
26 C] cool
27 D cooperative
28 C] critical
29 0 cross
30 C] cruel
31 Ddaring
32 D desperate
33 Ddestroyed
34 Ddevoted
‘ 35 . [jdisagreeable
36 {j discontented
37 D discouraged
38 Udtsgusted
39 U displeased
40 Denergetic
41 C] enraged
42 Denthustastlc
43 D fearful
44 [3 fine

45 C] [It

46 D forlorn
47 Clfinnk

48 Utree

49 Dfriendly
50 Ufrightened
51 Dfurious
52 Olively

53 [jgentle

54 Dglad

55 Dgloomy
56 Dzood

57 Ugood-namred
58 Ugrim

59 Elbappy

60 Ubealthy
61 Dbopeless
62 Dhostlle

63 Dimpatlent
64 E] lncensed
65 [j lndignant
66 D InSpired
67 Ulnterested
68 [j Irritated
69 Ujealous
70 Djoyful
vitjkmmuy

72 D lonely

73 Blast

74 Clloving
75 Dlow

76 Dlucky

77 Band

78 0 mean

79 [j meek

80 Dmerry
31 Hanna

82 Dmiserable
83 Dnenrous
84 [jobltging
85 [joffended
86 Donn-aged

' 87 Upanlcky

88 C] patient

150

ribe different kinds of moods and
h describe w u

119—Will
gheck all pf thg ugrds that

89 [j peaceful
90 D pleased
91 D pleasant.
92 [j pom:

93 D powerful
94 C] quiet

95 C] reckless
96 C] rejected
97 C] rough
ssIZIsad

99 C] safe

100 C] satisfied
101 D secure
102 D shaky
103 [j shy

104 D soothed
106 D steady
106 C] stubborn
107 [j stormy
108 C] strong
109 D suffering
110 U sullen
111 C] sunk

112 D sympathetic

"113 Utame

114 C] tender

115 U tense

116 C] terrible
117 D terrified
118 D thoughtful
119 D timid

120 C] tormented
121 [3 understanding
122 D mhappy
123 [j ‘unsociable
124 D upset

125 [j vexed

126 C] warm

127 0 whole

123 C] wild

129 D willful
130 C] wilted

131 C] worrying
132 C] young

10. Do they live with you? (Circle number)

1. Yes
2. No
3. Not applicable

11. Current religious affiliation?

 

1. Catholic
2. Protestant
3. Jewish
4. Atheist
5. Womyn’s Spirituality
6. Other, please specify
7. Not applicable
12. How would you describe the area in which you live? (Circle number)
1. Urban
2. Suburban
3. Rural

13. Circle the number of the category which best describes your sexual

orientation.

6.

Exclusive orientation toward sexual relations with members
of the same sex, and no interest in sexual relations with
members of the opposite sex

Predominant orientation for sexual relations with members of
the same sex, with only incidental interest in sexual
relations with members of the opposite sex

Clear preference for same-sex sexual relations, with a
lesser but still active interest in sexual relations with
members of the opposite sex '
Approximately equal interest in sexual relations with
members of the opposite sex and members of the same sex

Clear preference for opposite-sex sexual relations, with a
lesser but still active interest in sexual relations with
members of the same sex

Predominant orientation for opposite-sex sexual relations,
with only incidental interest in sexual relations with
members of the same sex

Exclusive orientation for sexual relations with members of
the opposite sex and no interest in sexual relations with
members of the same sex

14. To what degree are you satisfied with being a lesbian? (Circle number)
2 5

I 3 4

extremely extremely
unhappy and happy and
unsatisfied satisfied

151

Appendix E

Correlation Matrix of All Variables

ofiaom somosueu-usmm use mcseou I suspense

QHQUWDSW H0m502 HOCOHUOEW I (m
msaomnsm cosmasmuoa Hmnum> I a>

mamumpom oucoflumdxm moofluuoe> a m>

oaoomndm mucoenmeaaeooo< oucssuowumn I 4m

maeom unamoHUmwo c0auoucoewo Hesxom a mmoCuSO
m-au<<z Sp venomous mo uoouu< o>euemoz a m>auemoz
mtgu<<z >p powsmmme me uomuu< m>auwmon I m>euwmon
oHeom sooumm-uaom muoncmmom I Eooumo-uaom

Hoe. v a u 0

so. v a u a
mo. v a u m
.oaa I z .ouoz

 

noduoosom .mH

 

nmm. -- oeoocH .ms
can. 0mm. -- ems .HH
«H.- ms.- mo.- -- eosooeuasuem .os
~H.- mo.- -mo.- mm.. -- o>soomoz .m
we. no. mo. ohm. ao~.- -- o>sosmon .m
6H. me. so. use. oev.- 0mm. -- souumo-uflom .e
mo. eo~.- os.- «a. .mo.- «0.- so.- -- amoeoso .m
so.- om¢.- osm.- mom. mH.- so. ms. ome. -- soaoeuum .m
eo.- omm.- mH.- use. 0mm.- nmm. 0mm. on. 0mm. -- «m .e
vo.- es.- 6H~.- new. nm~.- es. ems. 0mm. 04m. 0mm. -- n> .m
os.- mmm. we. HH.- «0.- so.. me. oem.- 0mm.- es - nmm.- -- m> .N
«0.- os.- nmm.- oom. mH.- ma. om. «H. osm. ems. ooe. .es. -- «a .H
ma NH HH oa m m n m m e m m H magmawm>

 

152

LIST OF REFERENCES

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying
theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review,
B4, 191-215.

 

Bandura, A. (1984). Recycling misconceptions of perceived
self-efficacy. Cognitive Therapy and Research, B,
231-255.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and

action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey: Prentice—Hall, Inc.

Bandura, A. (1988). Self—efficacy conception of anxiety.
Anxiety Research, I, 77-98.

Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive
theory. American Psychologist, 4g, 1175-1184.

Bandura, A., Adams, N., & Beyer, J. (1977). Cognitive
processes mediating behavioral change. Personality
and Social Psychology, BB, 125—139.

Barling, J., & Snipelisky, B. (1983). Assessing the
determinants of children’s academic self-efficacy
beliefs: A replication. Cognitive Therapy and
Research, 1, 371-376.

Berger, R.M. (1990). Passing: Impact on the quality of
same—sex couple relationship. Social Work, BB, 328—
332.

Brown, L.S. (1991). Commentary on the special issue of The
Counseling Psychologist: Counseling with lesbians and
gay men. The Counseling Psychologist, 12, 235-238.

Browning, C., Reynolds, A. L., & Dworkin, S. H. (1991).
Affirmative psychotherapy for lesbian women. The
Counseling Psychologist, ;B, 177-196.

Buhrke, R., Ben-Ezra, L., Hurley, M., & Ruprecht, L. (1992).
Content analysis and methodological critique of
articles concerning lesbian and gay male issues in
counseling journals. Journal of Counseling

153

 

Psychology, 39, 91-99.

 

Cass, V.C. (1979). Homosexual identity formation: A
theoretical model. Journal of Homosexuality, 4, 219—
235.

Cass, V.C. (1984a). Homosexual identity: A concept in need

of definition. Journal of Homosexuality, 1B, 105-126.

 

Cass, V.C. (1984b). Homosexual identity formation: Testing
a theoretical model. Journal of Sex Research, BB,
143-167.

Cass, V.C. (1990). The implications of homosexual identity

formation for the Kinsey model and scale of sexual
preference. In D.P. McWhirter, S.A. Sanders, & J.
Reinisch (Eds.), HomosexualityjHeterosexuality:
Concepts of Sexual Orientation (pp. 239-266). New
York: Oxford.

Chapman, B.E., & Brannock, J.C. (1987). Proposed model of
lesbian identity development: An empirical

examination. Journal of Homosexuality, ;4, 69-79.

Cody—Murphy, B. (1989). Lesbian couples and their parents:
The effects of perceived parental attitudes on the
couple. Journal of Counseling and Development, BB,
46-51.

Cohen, C.J., & Stein, T.S. (1986). Reconceptualizing
individual psychotherapy with gay men and lesbians.
In T.S. Stein & C.J. Cohen (Eds.), Contemporapy
perspectivew on psychotherapy with lesbians and gay
mpg (pp.27—54). New York: Plenum.

Coleman, E. (1982). Developmental stages of the coming out
process. Journal of Homosexuality, 1, 31-43.

Dawis, R. (1987). Scale construction. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, Bi, 481-489.

deMonteflores, C. (1986). Notes on the management of
difference. In T.S. Stein & C.J. Cohen (Eds.),
Contemporary perspective on psychotherapy with
lesbians and gay men (pp. 73-102). New York: Plenum.

de Monteflores, C., & Schultz, S. (1978). Coming out:
Similarities and differences for lesbians and gay men.
Journal of Social Issues, BB, 59- 72.

Eichenberg, R. (1991). Coming out: An act of love. New
York, New York: Plume.

154

 

Falco, K.L. (1990). Psychotherapy with lesbian clients:
Theory into practice. New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Fassinger, R. (1991). The hidden minority: Issues and
challenges in working with lesbian women and gay men.
The Counseling Psychologist, BB, 157-176.

Feltz, D., & Mungo, D. (1983). A replication of the path
analysis of the causal elements in Bandura’s theory of
self-efficacy and the influence of autonomic
perception. Journal of Sport Psychology, B, 263-277.

Gartrell, N. (1984a). Combating homophobia in the
psychotherapy of lesbians. Women & Therapy, B, 13—29.

Gartrell, N. (1984b). Issues in psychotherapy with lesbian
women. Work in Progress: Stone Center for
Developmental Services and Studies, 83-04, 1-12.

Graham, D., Rawlings, E., & Girten, A. (1985). Are closets
healthy? Unpublished manuscript, University of
Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Groves, P.A. (1985). Coming out: Issues for the therapist
working with women in the process of lesbian identity
formation. Women and Therapy, 4, 17—22.

Groves, P.A., & Ventura, L. A. (1983). The lesbian coming
out process: Therapeutic considerations. The
Personnel and Guidance Journal, BB, 146-149.

Hanley—Hackenbruck, P. (1988). Psychotherapy and the
"coming out" process. Journal of Gay Q Lesbian

Psychotherapy, B, 21-39.

 

 

 

Herdt, G., & Boxer, A. (1993). Children of Horizons: How
gay and lesbian teens are leading a new way out of the
closet. Boston: Beacon Press.

Holahan, C.K., & Holahan, C.J. (1987). Self-efficacy,
social support, and depression in aging: A
longitudinal analysis. Journal of Gerontology, _B,
65—68.

Jensen, M.P., Turner, J., & Romano, J. (1991). Self-
efficacy and outcome expectancies: Relationship to
chronic pain, coping strategies and adjustment. Pain,

BBJ 263-269.

Kahn, M.J. (1991). Factors affecting the coming out process
for lesbians. Journal of Homosexuality, 21, 47— 70.

Kinsey, A.E., Pomeroy, W.B., Martin, C.E., & Gebbhard, P.H.

155

(1953). Sexual behavior in the human female.
Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders.

Lee, C. (1984). Accuracy of efficacy and outcome
expectations in predicting performance in a simulated

assertiveness task. Cognitive Therapy and Research,
B, 37-48.

Lent, R., & Hackett, G. (1987). Career self-efficacy:
Empirical status and future directions [Monograph].
Journal of Vocational Behavior, BB, 347-382.

Lent, R., Larkin, K., & Brown, S. (1989). Relation of self—
efficacy to inventoried vocational interests. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, BB, 279-288.

Lent, R., Lopez, F., & Bieschke, K. (1991). Mathematics
self-efficacy: Sources and relation to science—based
career choice. Journal of Counseling Psychology, BB,

 

424—430.

Lewis, L.A. (1984). The coming-out process for lesbians:
Integrating a stable identity. Social Work, BB, 464—
469.

Lewis—Beck, M. (1980). Applied regression: An

 

introduction.: Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Lopez, F., & Lent, R. (1992). Sources of mathematics self—
efficacy in high school students. The Career
Development Quarterly, 41, 3-12.

Maddux, J., Norton, L., & Leary, M. (1988). Cognitive
components of social anxiety: An investigation of the
integration of self—presentation theory and self—
efficacy theory. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 5, 180—190.

Maddux, J., & Stanley, M. (Eds.) (1986). Self-efficacy
theory in contemporary psychology (special issue).
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4, 249—255.

Major, B., Cozzarelli, C., Sciacchitano, M., Cooper, M.L.,
Testa, M. & Mueller, P. (1990). Perceived social
support, self-efficacy, and adjustment to abortion.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,.52, 452-
463.

Matsui, T., Matsui, K., & Ohnishi, R. (1990). Mechanisms
underlying math self-efficacy learning of college
students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, B1, 225—
238.

156

McDermott, D., Tyndall, L., & Lichtenberg, J. (1989).
Factors related to counselor preference among gays and

lesbians. Journal of Counseling and Development, BB,
31-35 .

Miranda, J., & Storms, M. (1989). Psychological adjustment
of lesbians and gay men. Journal of Counseling and

Development, BB, 41-45.

Moe, K., & Zeiss, A. (1982). Measuring self-efficacy
expectations for social skills: A methodological

inquiry. Cognitive Therapy and Research, B, 191-205.

Moses, A.E. (1978). Identity management in lesbian women.
New York: Praeger Publishers.

Mueller, P., & Major, B. (1989). Self-blame, self-efficacy,
and adjustment to abortion. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, B1, 1059-1068.

Multon, K., Brown, S., & Lent, R. (1991). Relation of self—
efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: A meta—
analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, BB, 531-538.

Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York:
McGraw-Hill.

Ozer, E., & Bandura, A. (1990). Mechanisms governing
empowerment effects: A self-efficacy analysis.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 472-

 

486 .
Penelope, J., & Wolfe, S. (Eds.). (1989). The original
coming out stories (2nd ed.). Freedom, CA: The

 

Crossing Press.

Riddle, D.I., & Sang, B. (1978). Psychotherapy with
lesbians. Journal of Social Issues, BBJ 84-100.

Robinson, J., Shaver, P., & Wrightsman, L. (Eds.). (1991).
Measures of personality and social psychological
attitudes (Vol. 1). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Schneider, B.E. (1986). Coming out at work: Bridging the
private/public gap. Work and Occupations, BBJ 463—
487.

Shell, D., Murphy, C., & Bruning, R. (1989). Self-efficacy
and outcome expectancy mechanisms in reading and
writing achievement. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 81, 91-100.

157

Shunk, D., & Gunn, T. (1985). Modeled importance of task
strategies and achievement beliefs: Effect on self—
efficacy and skill development. Journal of Early
Adolescence, B, 247-258.

Sophie, J. (1986). A critical examination of stage theories
of lesbian identity development. Journal of
Homosexuality, BB, 39-51.

Sophie, J. (1982). Counseling lesbians. The Personnel and
Guidance Journal, BB, 341-345.

Sophie, J. (1987). Internalized homophobia and lesbian
identity. Journal of Homosexuality, 14J 53-65.

Stein, T.S. (1993). An overview of new developments in
understanding homosexuality. In J.M. Oldham, M.D.
Riba, & A. Tasman (Eds.), Review of Psychiatry: Vol.
BB (pp.9-40). Washington, D.C.: American
Psychiatric Press, Inc.

Stein, T. (1988). Theoretical considerations in
psychotherapy with gay men and lesbians. Journal of
Homosexuality, 15, 75-95.

Troiden, R. (1989). The formation of homosexual identities.
Journal of Homosexuality, BB, 43-73.

Wampold, B., & Freund, R. (1987). Use of multiple
regression in counseling psychology research: A
flexible data-analytic strategy. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, BB, 372-382.

Wells, J.W., & Kline, W.B. (1987). Self-disclosure of
homosexual orientation. Journal of Social Psychology,
127, 191-197.

Woodman, N. (1989). Mental health issues of relevance to
lesbian women and gay men. Journal of Gay and Lesbian

Psychotherapy, 1, 53-64.

158

 

 

 

IBRQRIE"

I.

 

 

 

 

“1......

\

 

u'

. r I»... ".17....
a i . . .

3......rai;

.
I..,