| Despite the volume of research and theory addressing the definition of sexual orientation, there has never been a widely accepted consensus on how the construct of sexual orientation should be defined. When assessing sexual orientation to assign individuals to different cohorts, the vast majority of researchers do so with the essentialist assumption that whatever components they use to define and measure sexual orientation (a) are valid, and (b) mean the same thing to all individuals despite variations in social context. This approach is questionable because, while certain components have been hypothesized to be part of the construct, the accuracy of these components has never been tested for construct validity among different sexual orientation communities. The most common method of assessing sexual orientation for research is through self-reported label (Chung & Katayama, 1996), which has received some support as a valid measure (Weinrich, 1993). The purpose of the present study was to examine sexual orientation constructs used by the academic community for construct validity among individuals in heterosexual, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT), and academic (expert) communities. The second purpose was to examine personal identification with components of sexual orientation for comparability with self-reported label, as obtained in the Demographics section. The results of this study indicated that significant differences in socially constructed meaning existed for 11 of the 14 examined components: Sexual Behavior, Fantasy, Social Preference, Relationship Status, Sexual Orientation Identity Acceptance, Gender Identity, Sex Role Identity, Social Context, Sociocultural experiences, and Biology. The data suggested that only Self-Identified Sexual Orientation Label, Emotional Preference, and Time maintained their meaning and value across sexual orientation, sex, and expert versus layperson communities. Sexual Attraction was rated as most important in conceptualizing sexual orientation by every cohort, although significant differences in these ratings across groups were present.;In particular, the expert sample rated the components of Attraction, Sexual Orientation Self-Identification, Fantasy, and Emotional Preference as most important in conceptualizing sexual orientation, whereas the LGBT group rated Attraction, Emotional Preference, Sexual Orientation Self-Identification, and Sexual Orientation Identity Acceptance as most important, and the heterosexual sample rated Attraction, Sexual Orientation Identity Acceptance, Behavior, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation Self-Identification as the most important. Ratings of components were also analyzed by sexual orientation group (homosexual, bisexual, and heterosexual), sex (male, female, and transgendered), and sex-by-sexual orientation, where some data emerged indicating significant differences in the conceptualization of sexual orientation by these social contexts as well.;Finally, in support of the proposed hypothesis, personal identification with the examined components in this study corresponded strongly with each component, and with overall 'profile' scores (averages), of every examined cohort.;The present study provides some evidence that social context does play a role in the social construction of sexual orientation. It also provides support for self-reported Self-Identified Sexual Orientation label as an accurate measure for grouping participants into sexual orientation cohorts for research purposes. Implications of these findings for counseling psychology and future research are discussed. |
