Is Cass's Model of Homosexual Identity Formation Relevant To Today's Society?

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/272121636
Is Cass's Model of Homosexual Identity Formation Relevant to

Today's Society?
Article in American Journal of Sexuality Education · May 2014

DOI: 10.1080/15546128.2014.900465
CITATIONS READS
11 3,515
2 authors, including:
Arjay Kenneady
Alamo Community College District
1 PUBLICATION 11 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Arjay Kenneady on 28 September 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [Donna Kenneady]
On: 23 May 2014, At: 07:14
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
American Journal of Sexuality Education

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wajs20
Is Cass's Model of Homosexual Identity

Formation Relevant to Today's Society?
a b
Donna Ann Kenneady MA & Sara B. Oswalt MPH PhD
a
Department of Educational Leadership and Policy, University of
Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA
b
Department of Kinesiology, Health and Nutrition, University of
Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA
Published online: 21 May 2014.
To cite this article: Donna Ann Kenneady MA & Sara B. Oswalt MPH PhD (2014) Is Cass's Model of
Homosexual Identity Formation Relevant to Today's Society?, American Journal of Sexuality Education,
9:2, 229-246, DOI: 10.1080/15546128.2014.900465
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2014.900465
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
American Journal of Sexuality Education, 9:229–246, 2014
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1554-6128 print / 1554-6136 online
DOI: 10.1080/15546128.2014.900465
Is Cass’s Model of Homosexual Identity

Formation Relevant to Today’s Society?
DONNA ANN KENNEADY, MA

Department of Educational Leadership and Policy, University of Texas at San Antonio,
San Antonio, TX, USA
SARA B. OSWALT, MPH, PhD

Department of Kinesiology, Health and Nutrition, University of Texas at San Antonio, San
Antonio, TX, USA
Downloaded by [Donna Kenneady] at 07:14 23 May 2014
Cass’s Homosexual Identity Formation Model (1979) is one of the

most well-known and well-referenced models of identity develop-
ment for gay males and lesbians. This article provides a review of
Cass’s six steps of the model, as well as research support for and cri-
tiques of the model. As the model was developed more than 30 years
ago, the applicability of the model for today’s youth is explored and
implications for practitioners are discussed.
KEYWORDS Sexual orientation, identity development, gay males,

lesbians, Cass
INTRODUCTION
Dr. Vivienne Cass, a psychologist in the late 1970s at the Western Australian
Health Department, listened to her gay male and lesbian clients talk about
their identity and noticed that their experiences had consistency. As a re-
sult, she developed the Homosexual Identity Formation Model (Cass, 1979),
which continues to be one of the most cited models of gay and lesbian iden-
tity development (Savin-Williams, 2011). In this article, we briefly review the
six stages of Cass’s Homosexual Identity Formation Model, illustrate support
and critiques for Cass’s Model, and determine how today’s culture coordi-
nates with this model and sexuality education efforts.
Many consider Cass’s work to affect psychological practices, but her
work extends its influence to sexuality education books and curricula. One
Address correspondence to Sara B. Oswalt, MPH, PhD, Department of Kinesiology, Health

and Nutrition, University of Texas at San Antonio, One UTSA Circle, San Antonio, TX 78249.
E-mail: sara.oswalt@utsa.edu
229
230 D. A. Kenneady and S. B. Oswalt
such example is safe space programs. Trainings for ally or safe space pro-
grams (programs designed to create a “safe” space for nonheterosexuals)
often utilize Cass’s model as a way to familiarize participants with the de-
velopment process of gay males, lesbians, and bisexual individuals. In fact,
the Human Rights Campaign resource page on how to develop an ally or
safe space program lists the work of Vivienne Cass as an example of a
sexual identity model to include in such training programs (Human Rights
Campaign, 2014).
There is inconsistency and variety in language related to sexual identity
in the literature (e.g., gay men, gay males, gay people). For this article, we
will use the terms gay male, lesbian, and nonheterosexual. Likewise, some
terminology that is no longer common, such as homosexuality, is used if
that language is the wording of the original source. On another note, Cass’s
model, and as a result this article, focus on the development of sexual orien-
tation and not gender identity. We acknowledge that some theorists believe
the development of gender identity and sexual orientation are intrinsically
intersected, but the focus on the Cass model limits the ability of this commen-
tary to explore this connection. Likewise, a separate examination of gender
identity development and issues relating to transgender and gender fluidity
are beyond the scope of the article.
OVERVIEW OF CASS’S MODEL
Documentation of gay male and lesbian identity development did not begin
until the late 1960s and early 1970s. In 1979, Cass published Homosexual
Identity Formation: A Theoretical Model, which presented a six-stage model
based upon individuals’ perceptions of their own behavior and actions within
the Western culture’s viewpoint. At that time, few empirical studies had been
conducted on how an individual developed a gay or lesbian identity. Cass’s
model was based upon the assumptions that identity is achieved through a
developmental process and interactions that occur between the individual
and the environment (Cass, 1979). The process by which the stages were
characterized are (a) an acceptance of the label gay or lesbian; (b) a positive
attitude of one’s self-identity; (c) a desire for disclosure of one’s identity; and
(d) more frequent and personalized direct contact with other gay males or
lesbians (Cass, 1984).
Cass (1979) stated all people move through stages in a certain order
to gain a self-identity and move to a fully integrated self. The Homosexual
Identity Formation Model commences when males and females acknowledge
to themselves that their behavior is congruent with being a gay male or
lesbian (Cass, 1990). Foreclosure, when the individual decides to stop the
process of moving through the stages, can occur at any stage (Cass, 1979).
Based on her initial research, Cass created six stages (Cass, 1979) but later
Is Cass Relevant to Today’s Society? 231
determined that the six stages could be condensed to four (Cass, 1984), and
after further research Cass (1996) included a Prestage 1.
CASS’S HOMOSEXUAL IDENTITY FORMATION MODEL

Prestage 1
Prestage 1 is an assumption of one’s sexual orientation as part of the het-
erosexual group. The person recognizes heterosexuality as the norm and
homosexuality is viewed as a minority status (Cass, 1996).
Stage 1: Identity Confusion

At this stage individuals recognize a difference in their own behavior from
the dominant heterosexual norm and question that behavior as being that of
a lesbian or gay male (Cass, 1990). There is a disconnect between previously
considering oneself as a heterosexual and the current perception of oneself
(Cass, 1979).
Stage 2: Identity Comparison

In this stage, there is vacillation between acceptance of a possible homosex-
ual identity (“I may be a gay male or lesbian”) and complete denial, often
concluding with acknowledging that one’s identity as a gay male or lesbian
is probably true to self (Cass, 1984, 1990). One is faced with feelings of
alienation as distinctions between self and heterosexuals become more clear
(Cass, 1984, 1996).
Stage 3: Identity Tolerance

The individual now moves to acknowledgment of a gay male or lesbian
identity with the sexual identity not being fully accepted (Cass, 1979, 1990).
One can fall into three groups of people: those who find this desirable,
those who consider it undesirable, and those who feel partly positive about
themselves by accepting the probably statement. As individuals begin to
make more friends or contacts with other gay males or lesbians, they increase
self-esteem and reduce alienation (Cass, 1996).
Stage 4: Identity Acceptance

The stage of Identity Acceptance continues to include interaction with gay
males and lesbians (Cass, 1979). The individual’s identity is clearer and the
individual has a more positive self-image as a gay male or lesbian and

develops a greater security in the gay male or lesbian role (Cass, 1990).
Involvement in the gay male or lesbian subculture and the network of gay
and lesbian friends increases and becomes more frequent (Cass, 1979, 1990).
Stage 5: Identity Pride

Individuals exhibit feelings of pride toward their gay male or lesbian iden-
tity and are loyal toward gay male and lesbian groups, creating a sense
of belonging (Cass, 1984, 1990). Individuals become consumed with gay
and lesbian culture and literature (Cass, 1979). To promote the validity and
equality of gay males and lesbians, anger about society’s stigmatization of
gay males and lesbians leads to disclosure and purposeful confrontation with
heterosexuals (Cass, 1984, 1990).
Stage 6: Identity Synthesis

In this final stage, personal and public sexual identities are synthesized into
one image, and a sense of oneself as a gay male or lesbian fully develops
(Cass, 1979, 1990). The gay male or lesbian identity is viewed as an important
part of the individual, but it is not looked upon as the sole identity of the
person (Cass, 1990). Anger, alienation, frustration, and pride from stage 5
(Identity Pride) are evident but are more controlled (Cass, 1984, 1996). The
development process is complete with one now being able to combine a
gay male or lesbian identity with all aspects of self (Cass, 1979). In this final
stage, self-disclosure becomes automatic and a nonissue with heterosexual
interactions becoming more rewarding (Cass, 1984, 1990).
RESEARCH EXAMINING CASS’S MODEL
The Homosexual Identity Formation Model is the most cited of the existing
models for gay male and lesbian identity development and has formed a
solid foundation for much subsequent work related to sexual identity forma-
tion. When considering different models of traditional sexual development
theories, Cass is known for being the first to include both gay males and les-
bians (Edwards & Brooks, 1999), which is unique as most other researchers
focused only on the experiences of gay males (Levine, 1997). In addition,
Cass’s “developmental process” (Rowen & Malcolm, 2003, p. 78) expansively
includes cognitive, affective, and behavioral components for both gay males
and lesbians (McCarn & Fassinger, 1996), whereas other researchers do not.
Several researchers incorporated Cass’s developmental stage model (e.g.,
Coleman, 1982; Martin, 1991; Minton & McDonald, 1984; Troiden, 1989);
however, Cass’s 1984 study with 178 participants is the most well-known
research demonstrating validity for the model. Cass acknowledged a linear
model was supported, although there were no definitive boundaries between
stages 1 and 2 and between stages 5 and 6 (Degges-White, Rice, & Myers,
2000) indicating a four-stage model may be more accurate.
Other researchers also tested Cass’s Homosexual Identity Formation
Model. Brady and Busse (1994) administered the Gay Identity Questionnaire
(GIQ), a questionnaire based on the Homosexual Identity Formation model,
to 225 male participants. Instead of discovering a linear model, Brady and
Busse discovered a two-stage model. Stage one consisted of Cass’s stages 1
through 3, while stage 2 consisted of Cass’s stages 4 through 6. The main
difference between stages 1 and 2 was that in stage 2 the individual had
a coherent self-identity and a sense of belonging as a gay male (Brady &
Busse).
Levine (1997) examined the Cass model using lesbians. His results
showed females in stage 5 had lower self-esteem than females in stages
4 and 6. Levine’s stage 5 had significantly younger participants than in Cass’s
(1984) stages 4 and 6, which may account for this difference. Unfortunately,
Levine’s (1997) research had primarily White participants who were required
to “tentatively” self-identify as lesbian. This self-selection resulted in a non-
random and highly skewed sample, and as a result there were only nine
participants in the first three stages. Consequently, the study then actually
assessed late identity development rather than a full developmental process.
These limitations leave less room for generalization of the model to the
whole population (Adams & Phillips, 2009; Eliason, 1996).
In 1984, Cass studied people who self-identified as a gay male or les-
bian ranging in age from adolescence to adulthood. Van de Meerendonk and
Probst (2004) adapted Cass’s model but only utilized the latter four stages
with an adult sexual minority population. This revision was deemed nec-
essary because the first two stages were considered more relevant for ado-
lescent populations when the person is discovering oneself. The findings of
Van de Meerendonk and Probst’s study did not support the Cass model; they
found a sexual identity formation manifested around a two-phase process
that was less likely to revisit previous stages (Van de Meerendonk & Probst).
OTHER SUPPORT FOR CASS’S STAGES
Chapman and Brannock (1987) developed a five-stage lesbian identity devel-

opment model which closely resembles Cass’s (1979) model. For example,
Cass’s stage 3 is similar to Chapman and Brannock’s stage 3 because both
explore the possibility of being a lesbian. However, Cass’s stage 5 (Identity
Pride) is not included in Chapman and Brannock’s stages because they found
most of the 197 women who entered their study began a relationship with
another woman after experiencing a period of questioning of their sexuality.
Self-labeling varied among the women and often occurred before the indi-
vidual was aware of the incongruency between self and the heterosexual
community and the resulting minority status (Chapman & Brannock). These
findings support the idea of prestage 1 in Cass’s model.
Plummer (1975) asserted that isolation can be caused by feelings or
acting differently from peer groups, and Walters and Simoni’s (1993) work
supported this idea and how it relates to Cass’s stage 1. Working with 96
gay males and lesbians, they examined the connection of self-esteem with
sexual identity development and found those in later stages of identity devel-
opment showed higher self-esteem. Distress in gay identity can be formed by
the social environment, homophobia (defined as “personal and institutional
prejudice against lesbians and gay men”) (Herek, 1988, p. 453) in society,
and fear of rejection (Halpin & Allen, 2004).

Within Kahn’s (1991) work, many lesbians could relate to Cass’s (1979)
model. Kahn found that self-disclosure in the early stages of Cass’s model
decreased because of confusion, personal alienation, and an awareness of
public alienation; women in the early stages also had difficulty identifying
as a lesbian because they did not participate in the lesbian community.
Typically, identity tolerance and identity acceptance are the stages where
individuals commence disclosure, but this can be challenging because it is
combined often “with social judgment, stigma, less contact with other gay
individuals and perhaps even lack of confidence in the newly acquired ‘gay
person”’ (Halpin & Allen, 2004, p. 122). However, when a female feels a
special bond with her family, she is able to accept the risks of self-disclosure
(Kahn, 1991). Kahn also found that some females progress more slowly in
the identity development stages and have time to integrate changes with dis-
closure entering the latter stages; they are less open in the stage of synthesis.
This supports Cass’s model which includes self-disclosure in the final stage.
CRITIQUES OF CASS’S MODEL
Since the creation of Cass’s model, there have been many critiques of the
model and also development of other models related to sexual identity for-
mation. Some of these models focus on biological theories, stage theories,
life span models, and sexual identities beyond homosexual and heterosexual
(Edwards & Brooks, 1999). Some of the models address youth and others ad-
dress ethnicity, but they all consider sexuality as it relates to the intersection
of the individual and society (Edwards & Brooks); this critical component
was introduced by and is central to the Homosexual Identity Formation
Model.
These critiques of Cass’s Homosexual Identity Formation Model focus on

four areas: (a) the limitation of a linear stage model, (b) the narrow focus on
only gay male and lesbian identity development, (c) the lack of addressing
differences between males and females in sexual identity development, and
(d) the lack of addressing how racial and ethnic aspects of identity influence
sexual identity.
Limitation of Linear Stage Model

In the original development of the Homosexual Identity Formation Model,
the stages were progressive. Brown (1995) and Edwards (1997) believed
stage theories are too simplistic, and Weinberg (1984) proposed that linear
models were constricting and resulted in only one path of identity, without
looking at the possibility of many paths to multiple identities that start at
different points. Similarly, Sophie’s (1986) work with women participants

who were struggling with their sexual orientation found linear models did
not fit in the development of lesbians. She concluded no specific sequence
can be generalized to the population of the group and that the great va-
riety in the order and timing of events prevented support for the stage
model. Horowitz and Newcomb (2002) also critiqued the stage model and
recognized that people who are gay males or lesbians may not progress
through all of the stages (similar to Cass’s foreclosure concept) or through
a sequential order. From their perspective, individuals may even regress
or simultaneously attend to more than one stage at a time. More recent
examination of nonheterosexuality identity development includes a variety
of social and environmental influences. Combined with the fact that many
consider the process too complex and fluid to be linear, the emergence
of a life-span approach to identity is often preferred (Bilodeau & Renn,
2005).
Another concern is that identity models in general—and Cass
specifically—do not address issues of fluidity in sexual identity (Savin-
Williams, 2011). There is a growing body of research to support that iden-
tities change as awareness and experiences occur (e.g., Diamond, 2008).
Likewise, Malcolm (2008) argued that Cass’s model did not address the ex-
periences of people who engage in same-sex behavior but do not adopt
a gay male or lesbian identity. This is a limitation as researchers and ed-
ucators need to consider both the development of a socially constructed
identity as well as behavior. Specifically relating to education programs, if
a stage model is presented to help understand the coming out process, the
implied expectation is that there is a specific endpoint to reach and if an
individual has not achieved that endpoint, they are inferior in their develop-
ment (Bilodeau & Renn, 2005). Obviously, this is a message that one would
not want to convey to anyone, so educators need to be mindful of this
perception.
Focus on Gay Males and Lesbians

A second limitation of Cass’s model is the focus on gay males and lesbians.
According to Meyer (2010), there are four main categories of sexual orien-
tation: asexuals—not attracted to any sex; bi-omni-pansexuals—attracted to
both or all sexes; heterosexuals—attracted to members of a different sex;
and gay/lesbian—attracted to the same sex. Cass’s model only emphasized
sexual identities of gay males and lesbian, and as of this publication, no
research has explored how the Cass model may or may not fit these other
identities. Research has shown differences between bisexual women and
lesbians regarding identity development (Rosario, Schrimshaw, Hunter, &
Levy-Warren, 2009; Rust, 1993) and similar differences in gay and bisexual
males (Weinberg, Williams, & Pryor, 1994). In addition, the premise of the
model is a binary for both gender and sexual orientation; some theorists ad-
vocate for removing the binary lens when considering these issues (Lenius,
2011).
It is important for educators to not make assumptions based on Cass
and to understand how the process may differ for a non-heterosexual who
identifies as something other than a gay male or lesbian. For example, in
some geographical areas, there is not an active and visible bisexual commu-
nity. If educators are working with students and refer them to local gay and
lesbian resources (because according to Cass’s model, they need to become
familiar and integrate) but there is a lack of acceptance and connection, the
result may not be as positive as the educator envisioned.
Insufficiently Addresses Differences Between Men and Women

Edwards and Brooks (1999) presented concerns that Cass’s model makes
the assumption men and women develop sexual identities similarly. Exten-
sive research has documented that nonheterosexuality identity development
may be different for females and males (Diamond, 2003; McCarn & Fassinger,
1996; Schneider, 2001; Sophie, 1986). Women often have later ages of aware-
ness and self-identification, are more likely to identify as bisexual, and are
more likely to have heterosexual experiences (Floyd & Bakeman, 2006; Grov,
Bimbi, Nanı́n, & Parsons, 2006; Schneider, 2001). Savin-Williams and Dia-
mond (2000) also found that, for many women, identity as a nonheterosex-
ual came before a same-sex sexual experience, but the same was not true
for men as the same-sex sexual experience often occurred at the same time
as self-identification.
Lacks Inclusion of Ethnic and Race Differences

According to Adams and Phillips (2009), Cass’s model influenced the design
of interventions that served as a universal yardstick for assessing individuals’
development into gay male and lesbian identities. However, the fourth
limitation of this model is that it does not accurately reflect or consider
the identity development of some ethnicities (Chun & Singh, 2010) and the
majority of research related to identity development was conducted with
White middle-class men (Rowen & Malcolm, 2003).
Adams and Phillips (2009) studied the experiences of gay males and
lesbians of Native American descent and found racism in the two-spirit
(Native American and First Nation members who express gender variance
possibly by the person having both masculine and feminine spirits) les-
bian and gay people which affects their ability to progress through the
stages as developed by Cass. Other research has shown differences in iden-
tity development formation which, while not directly using Cass’s model,
also relate to the stages of the Homosexual Identity Formation model.
For example, Rosario, Schrimshaw, and Hunter (2004), in a comparison
study of Black, Latino and White youths, found that Black youths reported
less involvement in gay-related social activities, reported less comfort with
others knowing their sexual identity, and disclosed that identity to fewer
people than did White youths. Interestingly, the groups did not differ in
terms of when their identity as a gay male, lesbian, or bisexual individual
coalesced.
In many instances, racial identity (e.g., Cross, 1995; Helms, 1990, 1992,
1995) and ethnic identity (Phinney, 1990, 1992) received the primary focus in
the development of socially constructed identities (Jones & McEwen, 2000)
and some evidence exists that this identity—compared with their sexual
identity—will predict life satisfaction (Crawford, Allison, Zamboni, & Soto,
2002). People who have multiple identities—for instance, a person who is
female, black, and a lesbian—often encounter more challenges regarding
identity development (McCarn & Fassinger, 1996) since the identities may be
in conflict. Integration of an ethnic and sexual minority identity is positively
correlated with having higher levels of self-esteem and self-efficacy, greater
levels of life satisfaction, lower levels of psychological distress, and stronger
social support networks (Crawford et al., 2002). Cass’s model does not ad-
dress dual identity development. Morales (1989) proposed a five-stage dual
identity model for visible racial/ethnic gay males and lesbians to consolidate
their dual identities (McCarn & Fassinger, 1996), but its support in research
is limited.
Unfortunately, there are few studies that provide empirical support for
development models addressing the intersection of ethnic identity and sex-
ual identity. Jamil, Harper, and Fernandez (2009) found that ethnic identity
and sexual identity happen concurrently but also independently with no
influence on the other identity formation. More recently developed models
(e.g., Abes, Jones, & McEwen, 2007; Jones & McEwen, 2000; King, 2011;
Sim Chun & Singh, 2010) provide promising conceptual ideas that warrant
further research to determine if they can be empirically supported.
Educators need to be inclusive of the experiences of many and not

solely the dominant paradigm. Including the Cass model in workshops and
education helps individuals understand the “coming out” process in a system-
atic, linear, and clear way. Unfortunately, excluding the differences between
males and females and the complexities of dual identity issues may simplify
the process too much. As students and others consider the current culture,
they may wonder why coming out is so challenging if the process is that
“simple,” especially given today’s culture.
THE EVOLVING CULTURE
Evans, Forney, and Guido-DiBrito (1998) stated there are some essential
problems applying Cass’s model for youth today: it is based historically on
1970s context, little testing of Cass’s model has been done until the present
time, and the participants of Cass’s early research were White gay males.
Fricke (2010) stated further studies should include “transgender individuals,
people of color, and individuals with multiple intersecting identities” (p. 44).
While the authors acknowledge that there are limitations to the Cass Model,
professional and personal experiences of the authors indicate that the model
resonates with older individuals and may still be applicable to some youth
depending on their circumstances.
Cass (1979) first introduced her model over three decades ago, but the
evolving culture is one that still exhibits discrimination against nonhetero-
sexuals. Gay males and lesbians still face discrimination in employment,
housing, and health care (Winfeld, 2005). There is no federal law that ex-
plicitly provides protection for individuals based on sexual orientation; in-
dividuals can allege discrimination based on sex-stereotyping which may
provide workplace protection (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Com-
mission, n.d.).
From a legal perspective, marriage equality is changing in the United
States based on the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act and the number
of states that allow same sex marriage; however, the daily interactions one
may face may not be supportive. In fact, more than 90% of nonheterosexual
people feel that society is more accepting today, but over half still believe
that discrimination exists. From the same survey, 30% report being physically
attacked or threatened; 29% report being made to feel unwelcome in a place
of worship; one in five report unfair treatment by an employer; almost six in
ten have been the target of slurs or jokes; and almost 40% have experienced
rejection by a family member or close friend because of their sexual orien-
tation or gender identity at some point in their lives (Pew Research Center,
2013). This discrimination is especially true for individuals living in some
rural and/or conservative areas of the country that have demonstrated more
negative attitudes toward sexual minorities (Herek, 2002). For example,
nonheterosexual individuals living in states with nondiscrimination policies

that include sexual orientation as a protected category perceive fewer
negative messages, more positive messages from the environment, and
higher levels of social support (Riggle, Rostosky, & Horne, 2010).
The Pew Research Center study (2013) also showed that almost half
(49%) of the nonheterosexual respondents felt the best way to attain equality
is for nonheterosexuals to merge with the mainstream culture, but an equal
number believe that equality can be achieved while the nonheterosexual
community retains its own distinct culture and way of life. According to Cass’s
model, the distinction between the nonheterosexual and the mainstream
culture is critical to identity formation. According to Savin-Williams (2005),
many of today’s youth who have same-sex attraction do not believe this
differentiation or, in some cases, even a gay or lesbian identity, is needed
for equality.
Another way the Cass model may still be applicable is the “coming-
out” process. For many youth even today, the coming-out process is still
very similar to Cass’s model. Leaving behind a heterosexual identity and
developing a gay male, lesbian, or bisexual identity is a major challenge.
Parrish and Frieden (2008) found that gay males often faced a struggle or a
longing to connect with loved ones from the past who were unsupportive.
They also had a desire to protect oneself from consequences that could be
considered negative. In fact, only six in ten nonheterosexuals had told one
or both parents about their sexual orientation, but most had told individuals
they considered most important in their lives (Pew Research Center, 2013).
These issues related to coming out arise from difficulties with self-acceptance
in a society that often does not support sexual minorities. Another conflict
within the individual is called “dual cultural identity” where there is turmoil
within the individual because the majority society and the minority society
collide (Parrish & Frieden, p. 39).
On the other hand, some research has shown that some females did not
experience a negative identity as a lesbian because they were exposed to a
supportive environment before self-acceptance (Cox & Gallois, 1996). Simi-
larly, the end result of identifying as a lesbian or gay male may be different
among today’s youth because, as Savin-Williams (2011, p. 673) states, “the
distinctive aspects of growing up as lesbian or gay have greatly diminished
as the current cohort of youth has increasingly accepted sexual diversity
as normative, acceptable, and even desirable.” Previous research indicates
that older cohorts have more negative attitudes toward sexual minorities
(Herek, 2002; Herek & Gonzalez-Rivera, 2006) and that as these cohorts
are replaced, more positive attitudes supporting equality emerge especially
related to same-sex marriage (Baunach, 2011).
In addition, youth and emerging adults seem to be less likely to choose
one of the traditional labels of gay male and lesbian (or even bisexual).
A variety of research with youth and emerging adults provides evidence
that somewhere between five and 12 different subgroups of categories

may actually exist for self-identification (see Thompson & Morgan, 2008;
Vrangalova & Savin-Williams, 2012; Weinrich & Klein, 2002; Worthington &
Reynolds, 2009), and some consider this research to conclusively indicate that
two-category (gay/lesbian or heterosexual) or three-category (gay/lesbian,
bisexual, or heterosexual) classification systems are not adequate options for
self-identity of today’s youth and young adults (Morgan, 2013).
One critical aspect of Cass’s model is connection and integration with
the gay male and lesbian community. The use of the Internet as a way
to connect with the nonheterosexual community allows easier and greater
access to community members, especially for those individuals in remote
locations. Harper, Bruce, Serrano, and Jamil (2009) have found that gay and
bisexual male youths’ Internet use specifically affects identity development
by providing opportunities to increase self-awareness of sexual identity, find
comfort with and acceptance of sexual identity, learn about gay/bisexual

community life, communicate with and meet other gay/bisexual people, and
facilitate the coming-out process.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
As sexuality educators or individuals serving sexual minority youth, we need

to consider what this means not only for education and awareness about
sexual orientation but also for programmatic and service efforts directed
at sexual minorities. Many educators still consider Cass’s model to be the
standard for identity development and coming out, and this influences our
work.
For example, many safe space programs or related education focus
on increasing awareness and sensitivity to sexual minorities and their ex-
periences. This approach often assumes that the overall environment is
not friendly or supportive and that individuals are “safe havens” within
a homonegative culture. In designing or revising such programs, sexual-
ity educators need to continually assess the culture of their community to
determine if Cass’s stage of identity differentiation is relevant. If the sur-
rounding environment has progressed, more complex ideas about sexual
orientation and sexual identity can be explored in a safe space training pro-
gram or the need for such a program may no longer exist. However, if
heteronormative and homonegative beliefs and attitudes are still prominent
in the environment, utilizing aspects of the Cass model may be helpful to
understand the identity development of gay males and lesbians within that
community.
In addition, as some nonheterosexual youth are using the Internet ex-
tensively to connect with the gay and lesbian community to assist with iden-
tity acceptance, pride, and synthesis, educators need to have knowledge of
and provide information about quality online resources. Education for youth
about online etiquette, including safety measures, and how to critically look
at a website to determine its quality is also warranted. The plethora of in-
formation and materials online can be overwhelming, and the potential for
websites to contain misinformation and/or opportunities for exploitation is
high without guidance or direction.
Similarly, nonprofit organizations, support groups, and school and uni-
versity departments that provide services to sexual minorities need to ex-
amine how the legacy of the Cass model is potentially influencing their
approach to programs and outreach. Is the continuum of gay/lesbian to
heterosexual (including bisexual) relevant to your participants? Or are you
excluding individuals as your organization’s name may not include indi-
viduals whose sexual identity or orientation does not fit neatly into those
traditional categories?
In some cases, the Cass model may be appropriate to incorporate to

understand the needs of individuals, but in others it may not. As sexual-
ity educators, we need to realize that ideas and environmental influences
around sexual identity are evolving and we need to examine relevant iden-
tity development research in order to best meet the needs of others. As we
move forward to better understanding the needs of youth today, realizing
that they are different from youth 10, 20, or 30 years ago is critical (Morgan,
2013). Multiple identities (e.g., race, gender, ethnicity, religious, national-
ity, socioeconomic class; Morgan) all need to be considered together as we
strive to understand and provide services and education that best represent
the needs of youth and emerging adults.
REFERENCES
Abes, E. S., Jones, S. R., & McEwen, M. K. (2007). Reconceptualizing the model of
multiple dimensions of identity: The role of meaning-making capacity in the
construction of multiple identities. Journal of College Student Development, 48,
1–22. doi:1353/csd.2007.0000
Adams, H. L., & Phillips, L. (2009). Ethnic related variations from the Cass model of
homosexual identity formation: The experiences of two spirit, lesbian and gay
Native Americans. Journal of Homosexuality, 56, 959–976.
Baunach, D. M. (2011). Decomposing trends in attitudes toward gay marriage,
1988–2006. Social Science Quarterly, 92, 346–363. doi:10.1111/j.1540–6237.
2011.00772.x
Bilodeau, B. L., & Renn, K. A. (2005). Analysis of LGBT identity development models
and implications for practice. New Directions for Student Services, 2005, 25–39.
doi:10.1002/ss.171
Brady, S., & Busse, W. J. (1994). The gay identity questionnaire: A brief
measure of homosexual identity formation. Journal of Homosexuality, 26,
1–22.
Brown, L. S. (1995). Lesbian identities: Concepts and issues. In A. R. D’Augelli &

C. J. Patterson (Eds.), Lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities over the lifespan:
Psychological perspectives (pp. 3–23). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Cass, V. (1979). Homosexuality identity formation: A theoretical model. Journal of
Homosexuality, 4, 219–235.
Cass, V. (1984). Homosexual identity formation: Testing a theoretical model. Journal
of Homosexuality, 20, 143–167.
Cass, V. C. (1990). The implications of homosexual identity formation for the Kin-
sey model and scale of sexual preference. In D. McWhirter, S. Sanders, & R.
Reinisch (Eds.), Heterosexuality-homosexuality: Concepts of sexual orientation
(pp. 239–266). New York, NY: Oxford Press.
Cass, V. C. (1996). Sexual orientation identity formation: A Western phenomenon.
In R. Cabaj & T. Stein (Eds.), Textbook of homosexuality and mental health (pp.
227–251). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.
Chapman, B. E., & Brannock, J. E. (1987). Proposed model of lesbian identity de-
velopment: An empirical examination. The Journal of Homosexuality, 14(3–4),

69–80.
Chun, K. Y. S., & Singh, A. A. (2010). The bisexual youth of color intersecting
identities development model: A contextual approach to understanding multiple
marginalization experiences. Journal of Bisexuality, 10, 429–451.
Coleman, E. (1982). Developmental stages of the coming out process. Journal of
Cox, S., & Gallois, C. (1996). Gay and lesbian identity development: A social identity
perspective. Journal of Homosexuality, 30(4), 1–30.
Crawford, I., Allison, K. W., Zamboni, B. D., & Soto. T. (2002). The influence
of dual-identity development on the psychosocial functioning of African-
American gay and bisexual men. The Journal of Sex Research, 39, 179–189.
doi:10.1080/00224490209552140
Cross, W. E. (1995). The psychology of nigrescence: Revising the Cross model. In J.
G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of
multicultural counseling (pp. 93–122). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Degges-White, S., Rice, B., & Myers, J. E. (2000). Revisiting Cass’ theory of sexual
identity formation: A study of lesbian development. Journal of Mental Health
Counseling, 22, 318–333.
Diamond, L. (2008). Sexuality fluidity: Understanding women’s love and desire.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Diamond, L. M. (2003). Love matters. In P. Florsheim (Ed.), Adolescent romantic
relations and sexual behavior (pp. 85–107). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Edwards, K., & Brooks, A. K. (1999). The development of sexual identity. New
Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 84, 49–57.
Edwards, K. A. (1997). Troubling transformations: A collaborative inquiry into
women’s learning experiences in the construction and reconstruction of identi-
ties (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Texas at Austin, TX.
Eliason, M. J. (1996). Identity formation for lesbian, bisexual, and gay persons:
Beyond a “minoritizing” view. Journal of Homosexuality, 30, 31–58.
Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student development in
college. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Floyd, F. J., & Bakeman, R. (2006). Coming-out across the life course: Implica-
tions of age and historical context. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35, 287–296.
doi:10.1007/s10508-006-9022-x
Fricke, K. (2010). The influence of society on queer identity development and clas-
sification. The Vermont Connection, 31, 37–45.
Grov, C., Bimbi, D. S., Nanı́n, J. E., & Parsons, J. T. (2006). Race, ethnicity, gender,
and generational factors associated with the coming-out process among gay,
lesbian, and bisexual individuals. The Journal of Sex Research, 43, 115–121.
doi:10.1080/00224490609552306
Halpin, S. A., & Allen, M. W. (2004). Changes in psychosocial well-being during
stages of gay identity development. Journal of Homosexuality, 47, 109–126.
Harper, G. W., Bruce, D., Serrano, P., & Jamil, O. B. (2009). The role of the Inter-
net in the sexual identity development of gay and bisexual male adolescents. In
P. Hammack & B. J. Cohler (Eds.), The story of sexual identity: Narrative perspec-
tives on the gay and lesbian life course (pp. 297–326). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195326789.003.0013

Helms, J. E. (1990). Toward a model of White racial identity development. In J. E.
Helms (Ed.), Black and White racial identity: Theory, research, and practice
(pp. 49–66). New York, NY: Greenwood Press.
Helms, J. E. (1992). A race is a nice thing to have: A guide to being a White person,
or Understanding the White persons in your life. Topeka, KS: Content Commu-
nications.
Helms, J. E. (1995). An update of Helm’s White and people of Color racial identity
model. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.),
Handbook of multicultural counseling (pp. 181–198). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Herek, G. M. (1988). Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbian and gay men: Correlates
and gender differences. The Journal of Sex Research, 25, 451–477.
Herek, G. M. (2002). Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward bisexual men and
women in the United States. The Journal of Sex Research, 39, 264–274.
doi:10.1080/00224490209552150
Herek, G. M., & Gonzalez-Rivera, M. (2006). Attitudes toward homosexuality among
U.S. residents of Mexican descent. The Journal of Sex Research, 43, 122–135.
doi:10.1080/00224490609552307
Horowitz, L. J., & Newcomb, M. D. (2002). A multidimensional approach to homo-
sexual identity. Journal of Homosexuality, 42, 1–19.
Human Rights Campaign. (2014). Establishing an allies/safe zone program.
Retrieved from http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/establishing-an-allies-safe-
zone-program
Jamil, O. B., Harper, G. W., & Fernandez, M. I. (2009). Sexual and ethnic iden-
tity development among gay-bisexual-questioning (GBQ) male ethnic minority
adolescents. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 15, 203–214.
Jones, S. R., & McEwen, M. K. (2000). A conceptual model of multiple dimensions
of identity. Journal of College Student Development, 41, 405–414.
Kahn, M. (1991). Factors affecting the coming out process for lesbians. Journal of
King, A. R. (2011). Environmental influences on the development of fe-
male college students who identify as multiracial/biracial-bisexual/pansexual.
Journal of College Student Development, 52, 440–455. doi:10.1353/csd.2011.

0050
Lenius, S. (2011). A reflection on “Bisexuals and BDSM: Bisexual people in a pansex-
ual community”—ten years later (and a preview of the next sexual revolution).
Journal of Bisexuality, 11, 420–425. doi:10.1080/15299716.2011.620466
Levine, H. (1997). A further exploration of the lesbian identity development process
and its measurement. Journal of Homosexuality, 34, 67–76.
Malcolm, J. P. (2008). Heterosexually married men who have sex with men: Mari-
tal separation and psychological adjustment. The Journal of Sex Research, 45,
350–357. doi:1080/0022449080239831650-357
Martin, H. P. (1991). The coming-out process for homosexuals. Hospital & Commu-
nity Psychiatry, 42, 158–162.
McCarn, S. R., & Fassinger, R. E. (1996). Revisioning sexual minority identity forma-
tion: A new model of lesbian identity and its implications for counseling and
research. The Counseling Psychologist, 24, 508–534.
Meyer, E. J. (2010). Understanding sexuality. In S. R. Steinberg & K. Tobin (Series

Eds.), Explorations of educational purpose: Vol. 10. Gender and sexual diversity
in schools: An introduction (pp. 47–59). doi:10.1007/978-90-481-8559-7_3
Minton, H., & McDonald, G. (1984). Homosexual identity formation as a develop-
mental process. Journal of Homosexuality, 9, 91–104.
Morales, E. S. (1989). Ethnic minority families and minority gays and lesbians. Journal
of Homosexuality, 17, 217–239.
Morgan, E. M. (2013). Contemporary issues in sexual orientation and iden-
tity development in emerging adulthood. Emerging Adulthood, 1, 52–66.
doi:10.1177/2167696812469187
Parrish, P. L., & Frieden, G. (2008). The lived experience of gay identity development:
A phenomenological study. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 2(1), 26–52.
Pew Research Center. (2013). A survey of LGBT Americans: Attitudes, experiences
and values in changing times. Retrieved from http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/
files/2013/06/SDT_LGBT-Americans_06-2013.pdf
Phinney, J. S. (1990). Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: Review of research.
Psychological Bulletin, 108, 499–514.
Phinney, J. S. (1992). The Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure: A new scale for use
with diverse groups. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7, 156–176.
Plummer, K. (1975). Sexual stigma: An interactionist account. London, UK: Rout-
ledge.
Riggle, E. D. B., Rostosky, S. S., & Horne, S. (2010). Does it matter where you
live? Nondiscrimination laws and the experiences of LGB residents. Sexuality
Research and Social Policy, 7, 168–175. doi:10.1007/s13178-010-0016-z
Rosario, M., Schrimshaw, E. W., & Hunter, J. (2004). Ethnic/racial differences in
the coming-out process of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths: A comparison of
sexual identity development over time. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority
Psychology, 10, 215–228. doi:10.1037/1099-9809.10.3.215
Rosario, M., Schrimshaw, E. W., Hunter, J., & Levy-Warren, A. (2009). The coming-
out process of young lesbian and bisexual women: Are there butch/femme
differences in sexual identity development? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38,
34–49. doi:10.1007/s10508-007-9221-0
Rowen, C. J., & Malcolm, J. P. (2003). Correlates of internalized homophobia and ho-
mosexual identity formation in a sample of gay men. Journal of Homosexuality,
43, 77–92.
Rust, P. C. (1993). “Coming out” in the age of social constructionism: Sexual identity
formation among lesbian and bisexual women. Gender & Society, 7, 50–77.
doi:10.1177/089124393007001004
Savin-Williams, R. C. (2005). The new gay teenager. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni-
versity Press.
Savin-Williams, R. C. (2011). Identity development among sexual-minority youth. In
S. J. Schwartz, V. L. Vigoles, & K. Luyckx (Eds.), Handbook of identity theory
and research (pp. 671–689). New York, NY: Springer.
Savin-Williams, R. C., & Diamond, L. M. (2000). Sexual identity trajectories among
sexual-minority youths: Gender comparisons. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29,
607–627. doi:10.1023/A:1002058505138
Schneider, M. (2001). Toward a reconceptualization of the coming-out process for
adolescent females. In A. R. D’Augelli & C. J. Patterson (Eds.), Lesbian, gay and

bisexual identities and youth (pp. 71–96). New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Sim Chun, K. Y., & Singh, A. A. (2010). The Bisexual Youth of Color Intersect-
ing Identities Development Model: A contextual approach to understanding
multiple marginalization experiences. Journal of Bisexuality, 10(4), 429–451.
doi:10.1080/15299716.2010.521059
Sophie, J. (1986). A critical examination of stage theories of lesbian identity devel-
opment. Journal of Homosexuality, 12, 39–51.
Thompson, E., & Morgan, E. M. (2008). “Mostly straight” young women: Variations
in sexual behavior and identity development. Developmental Psychology, 44,
15–21. doi:10.1037/0012–1649.44.1.15
Troiden, R. R. (1989). The formation of homosexual identities. Journal of Homosex-
uality, 17, 43–74.
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (n.d.). Facts about discrimi-
nation in federal government employment based on marital status, politi-
cal affiliation, status as a parent, sexual orientation, or transgender (gender
identity) status. Retrieved from http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/otherprotections.
cfm
Van de Meerendonk, D., & Probst, T. M. (2004). Sexual minority identity formation
in an adult population. Journal of Homosexuality, 47, 81–90.
Vrangalova, Z., & Savin-Williams, R. C. (2012). Mostly heterosexual and mostly
gay/lesbian: Evidence for new sexual orientation identities. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 41, 85–101. doi:10.1007/s10508-012-9921-y
Walters, K. L., & Simoni, J. M. (1993). Lesbian and gay male group identity attitudes
and self-esteem: Implications for counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
40, 94–99.
Weinberg, M. S., Williams, C. J., & Pryor, D. W. (1994). Dual attraction: Understand-
ing bisexuality. New York, NY: Oxford Press.
Weinberg, T. S. (1984). Biology, ideology, and other reification of developmental
stages in the study of homosexual identities. Journal of Homosexuality, 10,
77–84.
Weinrich, J. D., & Klein, F. (2002). Bi-gay, bi-straight, and the bi-bi: Three bisexual
subgroups identified using cluster analysis of the Klein Sexual Orientation Grid.
Journal of Bisexuality, 2, 111–139.
Winfeld, L. (2005). Straight talk about gays in the work place: Creating an inclusive,
productive environment for everyone in your organization (3rd ed.). New York,
NY: Harrington Park Press.
Worthington, R. L., & Reynolds, A. L. (2009). Within-group differences in sex-
ual orientation and identity. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56, 44–55.
doi:10.1037/a0013498
View publication stats

Is Cass's Model of Homosexual Identity Formation Relevant To Today's Society?

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Is Cass's Model of Homosexual Identity Formation Relevant To Today's Society?

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Is Cass's Model of Homosexual Identity Formation Relevant to

Article in American Journal of Sexuality Education · May 2014

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

American Journal of Sexuality Education

Is Cass's Model of Homosexual Identity

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2014.900465

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Is Cass’s Model of Homosexual Identity

DONNA ANN KENNEADY, MA

SARA B. OSWALT, MPH, PhD

Cass’s Homosexual Identity Formation Model (1979) is one of the

KEYWORDS Sexual orientation, identity development, gay males,

Address correspondence to Sara B. Oswalt, MPH, PhD, Department of Kinesiology, Health

OVERVIEW OF CASS’S MODEL

CASS’S HOMOSEXUAL IDENTITY FORMATION MODEL

Stage 1: Identity Confusion

Stage 2: Identity Comparison

Stage 3: Identity Tolerance

Stage 4: Identity Acceptance

individual has a more positive self-image as a gay male or lesbian and

Stage 5: Identity Pride

heterosexuals (Cass, 1984, 1990).

Stage 6: Identity Synthesis

RESEARCH EXAMINING CASS’S MODEL

OTHER SUPPORT FOR CASS’S STAGES

Chapman and Brannock (1987) developed a five-stage lesbian identity devel-

and fear of rejection (Halpin & Allen, 2004).

CRITIQUES OF CASS’S MODEL

These critiques of Cass’s Homosexual Identity Formation Model focus on

Limitation of Linear Stage Model

different points. Similarly, Sophie’s (1986) work with women participants

Focus on Gay Males and Lesbians

Insufficiently Addresses Differences Between Men and Women

Lacks Inclusion of Ethnic and Race Differences

Educators need to be inclusive of the experiences of many and not

THE EVOLVING CULTURE

nonheterosexual individuals living in states with nondiscrimination policies

that somewhere between five and 12 different subgroups of categories

comfort with and acceptance of sexual identity, learn about gay/bisexual

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

As sexuality educators or individuals serving sexual minority youth, we need

In some cases, the Cass model may be appropriate to incorporate to

Brown, L. S. (1995). Lesbian identities: Concepts and issues. In A. R. D’Augelli &

velopment: An empirical examination. The Journal of Homosexuality, 14(3–4),

University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195326789.003.0013

Journal of College Student Development, 52, 440–455. doi:10.1353/csd.2011.

Meyer, E. J. (2010). Understanding sexuality. In S. R. Steinberg & K. Tobin (Series

adolescent females. In A. R. D’Augelli & C. J. Patterson (Eds.), Lesbian, gay and

View publication stats

You might also like