Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Oct 7.
Published in final edited form as: J Bisex. 2019 Nov 2;19(4):461–482. doi: 10.1080/15299716.2019.1671295

A Qualitative Examination of Bisexual Identity Invalidation and its Consequences for Wellbeing, Identity, and Relationships

Brian A Feinstein 1, Marisa Franco 2, Regine Faith Henderson 3, Laniqua Kemecee Collins 4, Jaleh Davari 5
PMCID: PMC7539694  NIHMSID: NIHMS1543914  PMID: 33033465

Abstract

Bisexual people face unique stressors related to their sexual orientation, but identity invalidation (experiences in which others deny, negate, or refuse to accept an individual’s identity) has received limited empirical attention. As such, the goals of the current study were to examine manifestations of bisexual identity invalidation and their consequences for wellbeing, identity, and relationships. Fifty-two bisexual and other non-monosexual (e.g., pansexual, queer) participants completed a qualitative survey that asked them to describe their most stressful experience of identity invalidation. Three coders analyzed the data using a consensual qualitative research approach, and the coding scheme was confirmed by two auditors. Most participants (85%) had experienced identity invalidation. They described five perceived reasons: (1) others did not understand or accept bisexuality; (2) the gender of their partner did not fit with others’ beliefs about bisexuality; (3) others believed they were confused; (4) others believed they were “faking” it; and (5) others rejected bisexuality for religious reasons. Participants described consequences of identity invalidation including negative emotions, identity-related challenges, and relational difficulties. These findings suggest that identity invalidation is a common experience among bisexual people and it may be an important intervention target.

Keywords: bisexual, non-monosexual, identity invalidation, discrimination, minority stress

Bisexual people experience the worst mental health outcomes of any sexual orientation group (Plöderl & Tremblay, 2015; Ross, Salway, Tarasoff, MacKay, Hawkins, & Fehr, 2018; Salway et al., 2019), and this is due, in part, to the unique forms of discrimination that they experience (see Feinstein & Dyar, 2017). For example, there are unique stereotypes about bisexual people, and they face discrimination from heterosexual as well as gay and lesbian individuals. One additional, yet understudied, form of discrimination that bisexual people may experience is identity invalidation—experiences in which others deny, negate, or refuse to accept an individual’s identity (Franco & O’Brien, 2018; Johnson, LeBlanc, Deardorff, & Bockting, 2019). While previous research has broadly focused on bisexual-specific discrimination and microaggressions, identity invalidation has received limited attention as a unique form of discrimination. This represents a gap in our understanding of bisexual people’s experiences, given that previous research on other marginalized populations suggests that identity invalidation is conceptually distinct and has unique consequences from other forms of discrimination (Franco & Durkee, 2019). Further, while previous research has described the negative mental health consequences of bisexual-specific discrimination (Doan Van, Mereish, Woulfe, & Katz-Wise, 2019; Flanders, Dobinson, & Logie, 2017; Ross et al., 2008; Salim et al., 2019), less attention has been paid to its consequences for identity and relationships. As such, the goals of the current study were to examine manifestations of bisexual identity invalidation and their impact on wellbeing, identity, and relationships.

Bisexual-specific Discrimination

While acceptance of same-sex relationships has increased over time (Pew Research Center, 2017), attitudes toward bisexual people remain neutral at best and often negative (Dodge et al., 2016). Further, attitudes toward bisexual people tend to be more negative than attitudes toward gay men and lesbian women (see Dyar & Feinstein, 2018). These negative attitudes can manifest as stereotypes about bisexual people (e.g., that they are confused, hypersexual, and prone to infidelity) and as stereotypes about bisexuality in general (e.g., that it is not a legitimate and stable sexual orientation). Consistent with minority stress theory (Meyer, 2003), bisexual people experience unique stressors related to their sexual orientation (Flanders, Robinson, Legge, & Tarasoff, 2016; Ross, Dobinson, & Eady, 2008), and these unique stressors can have damaging effects on their mental health (Flanders, Dobinson, & Logie, 2017; Ross et al., 2008). For example, bisexual people have described experiences in which others have denied the possibility of bisexuality, having to explain or justify their sexual orientation, having to repeatedly disclose their bisexual identity, and being labeled as gay, lesbian, or heterosexual based on the gender of their partner (Flanders et al., 2016; Ross et al., 2008). These types of experiences can also manifest as microaggressions, or subtle behaviors (whether intentional or unintentional) that communicate negative attitudes toward bisexual people (Bostwick & Hequembourg, 2014; Flanders, LeBreton, & Robinson, 2018; McClelland, Rubin, & Bauermeister, 2016; Salim, Robinson, & Flanders, 2019). While several of these stereotypes and stressors can be experienced as invalidating, they may not capture the full range of ways in which bisexual people’s identities can be invalidated.

Identity Invalidation as a Unique Form of Discrimination

Separate from the literature on bisexual-specific discrimination, race scholars have conceptualized identity invalidation as unique type of minority stress (Franco & O’Brien, 2018). Although definitions of racial identity invalidation vary across studies, Franco and O’Brien (2018) proposed the following comprehensive definition:

“[Racial identity invalidation] occurs when there is misalignment between an individual’s self-defined racial identity and the way that others perceive them within a particular context…Invalidation can manifest directly or indirectly when others passively misperceive or actively deny an individual’s self-defined race.” (p. 112)

Therefore, whereas discrimination generally refers to being treated negatively because of one’s membership in a stigmatized group, identity invalidation specifically refers to having one’s membership in a group denied by others (Franco & O’Brien, 2018).

The construct of identity invalidation is particularly relevant to the experiences of people with “border identities,” or identities that challenge binaries (e.g., Multiracial1 identities, gender non-binary identities). Given pervasive essentialist conceptualizations of identities as binary, people with border identities are subject to a lack of recognition of their identities (Chen, 2018; Johnson et al., 2019). For example, Multiracial people are more likely to be miscategorized than any other racial group (Chen, 2018), and gender non-binary individuals report anticipating that others will deny the existence of their gender (Johnson et al., 2019). Border identities are also denied at the institutional level, such as when Multiracial people are not able to identify as such on forms (Rockquemore, Brunsma, & Delgado, 2009) and when gender non-binary people are not able to change their gender markers on documents (Johnson et al., 2019).

In addition to being conceptually distinct from discrimination, identity invalidation also has unique consequences. Previous research has found that discrimination generally contributes to individuals identifying more strongly with their marginalized group (Lee & Ahn, 2013) and to forming communities with others who are marginalized (Franco, 2019; Szymanski, Mikorski, & Carretta, 2017). In contrast, identity invalidation is associated with identity instability, uncertainty, and confusion (Franco, Katz, & O’Brien, 2016; Johnson et al., 2019; Lou, Lalonde, & Wilson, 2011; McLemore, 2015; Vargas & Stainback, 2016) and to feeling as though one lacks a group to belong to (Albuja et al., 2018; Franco & O’Brien, 2018; Sanchez, 2010). In other words, discrimination tends to affirm that an individual is a member of a stigmatized group, whereas identity invalidation tends to communicate that an individual is not truly a member of said group. Consistent with the notion that identity invalidation is a unique form of discrimination, Franco and Durkee (2019) found that identity invalidation was uniquely associated with negative mental health outcomes in a sample of Multiracial individuals, even after controlling for the effects of discrimination in general. Given that bisexuality is also a non-binary identity, identity invalidation may be particularly relevant to the experiences of bisexual people.

Applying the Identity Invalidation Framework to Bisexual People

In the current study, we extended the aforementioned definition of racial identity invalidation to the experiences of bisexual people. Specifically, we propose that bisexual identity invalidation occurs when there is a misalignment between an individual’s self-defined bisexual identity and the way that others perceive them within a particular context. Further, bisexual identity invalidation may manifest directly or indirectly when others passively misperceive or actively deny an individual’s self-defined bisexual identity. A direct examination of bisexual identity invalidation has the potential to broaden our understanding of the ways in which identity invalidation manifests in the lives of bisexual individuals. Further, while previous qualitative studies have described the negative mental health consequences of bisexual-specific discrimination and microaggressions (Doan Van, Mereish, Woulfe, & Katz-Wise, 2019; Flanders, Dobinson, & Logie, 2017; Ross et al., 2008; Salim et al., 2019), less attention has been paid to its consequences for identity and relationships. That said, there is some evidence that bisexual-specific discrimination is associated with identity-related challenges (e.g., identity uncertainty; Dyar & London, 2018) and relational difficulties (see Feinstein & Dyar, 2018). As such, in addition to examining manifestations of bisexual identity invalidation, we also examined its consequences for identity and relationships.

The Current Study

The current qualitative study employed a ground-up approach to examining experiences of bisexual identity invalidation. Our study was guided by two specific research questions: (1) How does identity invalidation manifest in the lives of bisexual people? (2) How does identity invalidation affect bisexual people’s emotional wellbeing, identity, and relationships? By characterizing invalidating experiences and their impact on bisexual people, we sought to broaden our understanding of this unique form of discrimination affecting bisexual people and the range of ways in which it affects their lives.

Method

Procedure

All procedures were approved by the IRB at a Southeastern University. Participants were recruited online via MTurk and paid $0.50 to complete a survey. The survey was administered via Qualtrics, an online survey platform. Prior to beginning the survey, participants provided informed consent. At the start of the survey, we indicated that we would be using the term “bi+” as an umbrella term to refer to individuals who are attracted to more than one gender/sex (e.g., bisexual, pansexual, queer, fluid). Then, participants completed a demographic questionnaire, which assessed sexual orientation, sex assigned at birth, gender identity, race, ethnicity, age, education, and income. Finally, they were presented with the following prompt about identity invalidation:

Has anyone ever tried to tell you that you’re not really bi+? Has anyone ever invalidated or denied your bi+ identity? Think about the most stressful experience you have had where someone has done something like this to you. Then, describe that experience.

The prompt was followed by a series of additional questions (presented at the same time) to help participants describe their experience and its impact on them:

What did the person say or do to you? How did it make you feel? What were you thinking before, during, and after? How did it affect your thoughts and feelings about yourself and other people?

Consistent with previous research on racial identity invalidation (e.g., Franco et al., 2016), the prompt and the additional questions were designed to be specific in nature and to elicit descriptions of identity invalidation and its consequences for wellbeing, identity, and relationships.

Participants

A total of 55 participants completed the study, but three were excluded from the analytic sample because they failed attention checks in the survey. As such, the analytic sample included 52 participants, all of whom reported attractions to more than one gender/sex and lived in the U.S. Most identified as bisexual (80.8%), whereas some identified as pansexual (13.5%) or used other identity labels (e.g., queer, fluid; 5.7%). In addition, most were cisgender women (67.3%), some were cisgender men (25.0%), and the rest identified as transgender or gender non-binary (7.7%). In regard to race, the majority of participants identified as White (76.9%), with some participants identifying as Black or African American (9.6%), Biracial or Multiracial (9.6%), or Asian (3.8%). A subset of participants also identified as Hispanic or Latinx (7.7%). The average age of participants in the sample was 30.3 years (SD = 8.4 years; range = 18–55 years). Regarding highest education level, 15.4% had completed an Associate’s degree, 30.8% had completed some college, 40.4% had completed a Bachelor’s degree, 1.9% had completed some graduate school, and 11.5% had completed a graduate degree. Income varied such that 38.5% of participants reported that they made $23,999 or less, 17.3% made $24,000-$44,999, 32.7% made $45,000-$74,999, and 11.5% made $75,000 or more.

Analyses

Three coders analyzed the data. The coders were trained through readings on consensual qualitative research (CQR; Hill, Thompson, & Nutt Williams, 1997; Hill et al., 2005), along with a two-hour coding training from the second author, who has published multiple articles using CQR. CQR was chosen for analyses because it utilizes an inductive approach—findings are developed based on participant perspectives rather than through applying a pre-existing framework onto participant experiences. Thus, it is useful when there is little existing data on a topic. In CQR, open-ended questions are used to solicit participant perspectives. The open-ended questions we developed were in line with our larger objectives of leveraging minority stress theory to explore the effects of identity invalidation on wellbeing, identity, and relationships. Once data are collected, themes are developed through coders reading over responses, developing domains (i.e., overarching themes) and categories (i.e., subthemes within domains), and then reaching consensus regarding these themes. In CQR, first coders create domains through chunking data into sections, then they create core ideas through describing data in concise abstracts, and finally, they analyze core ideas within a domain in order to create categories or subthemes within each domain. Philosophically, CQR has elements of both constructionist and post-positivist philosophies in that it highlights the validity of subjective experiences but also emphasizes that themes or “truth” can be drawn by comparing and integrating across subjective experiences.

The three coders read through transcripts multiple times to generate domains. Coders came to consensus regarding domains and then developed core ideas—concise descriptors for each data point—within the domains (Hill et al., 1997). The coding team then performed cross analysis, wherein they analyzed similarities across core ideas to compile a list of overlapping categories within a domain. Domains and categories were recursively revised to better address the data throughout analyses. Each meeting, a recorder tracked domains, categories, and/or core ideas. The coders also engaged in a stability check wherein 10 transcripts were excluded from initial analyses and were analyzed only after analyses of the rest of the transcripts were finished. If no new themes arose from the additional 10 transcripts, then the domains and categories were thought to be “stable” and the existing domains and categories were thought to sufficiently capture the phenomenon under study. No new themes arose within the additional 10 transcripts, indicating stability.

An auditor read through the codes after the coders met initially, when coders were halfway through transcripts, and when coders finished coding transcripts. The auditor offered suggestions for shifting and redefining domains and categories. The coders either incorporated the auditor’s feedback or offered a rebuttal if they disagreed. When all transcripts were coded, an additional auditor read through the codes and offered feedback. Again, the coders either incorporated the feedback or offered a rebuttal if they disagreed. In the case of disagreements between the coders and the auditors, the codes were discussed until consensus was reached.

Before and throughout data analysis, coders engaged in bracketing: reflecting and writing down biases related to the data with the intention of setting these biases aside. As such, trustworthiness was established through reflection and bracketing of biases throughout the research process, iterative creation of domains and categories to ensure they fit the data, achieving consensus amongst multiple coders, developing relatively exclusive domains and categories, retaining codes that were expressed by a minimum of five participants, a stability check, and utilizing multiple auditors who are experts on the research topic. We decided on a minimum of five participants per category as CQR indicates that with samples greater than 15, a “rare” category is one with three or fewer cases. Given that our sample size was significantly larger than 15, we decided on a minimum threshold of five to ensure that we included data that was thematic, rather than idiosyncratic, across participants (Hill et al., 2005).

The research team (i.e., the coders and the auditors) included three graduate students and two faculty members. They varied in gender (4 women, 1 man), race/ethnicity (2 Black, 2 White, 1 Biracial), and sexual orientation (2 heterosexual, 1 bisexual, 1 queer, 1 gay). Data were collected online and, as such, it is unlikely that the identities of the research team members had an influence of participants’ responses. However, team members’ understandings and interpretations of participants’ responses were subject to influence. We addressed this by individually and collectively reflecting on our positionality and its influences on the data analysis process. Team members’ and participants’ identities were similar in some ways (e.g., most were women) and different in other ways (e.g., only one research team member specifically identified as bisexual). The Biracial team member drew connections between their own experiences of racial identity invalidation and the participants’ experiences of bisexual identity invalidation. However, given that the study focused on bisexual identity invalidation, team members’ sexual identities were most likely to influence the data analysis process. One of the heterosexual team members was surprised and saddened by participants’ narratives, citing their lack of experience with this form of stress as contributing to their feelings. Although three other team members did not specifically identify as bisexual, they were not surprised by participants’ narratives, because they had more connections to bisexual people, or else because they could draw from their experiences of minority stress related to being non-heterosexual or to being a person of color. Though team members were not surprised at the experiences of invalidation in general, some were surprised at how often it was perpetrated by family members.

Results

The number and percentage of participants who endorsed each code are reported in Table 1

Table 1.

Number and Percentage of Participants who Endorsed Each Code

Code Percentage of participants (n)
Perpetrator of invalidation
 Family member 37% (19)
 Friend 19% (10)
Perceived reason for invalidation
 Lack of understanding or acceptance 31% (16)
 Partner gender 17% (9)
 Others believed they were confused 12% (6)
 Others believed they were “faking” it 10% (5)
 Religious beliefs 10% (5)
 Did not experience invalidation 15% (8)
Effect of invalidation on feelings
 Angry or frustrated 33% (17)
 Hurt or sad 25% (13)
Effect of invalidation on identity
 Struggles with one’s sexual identity 15% (8)
 A strong sense of self protected against the internalization of invalidation 12% (6)
Effect of invalidation on relationships
 Distanced oneself from the perpetrator of the invalidation 16% (8)
 No longer trusting of others 13% (7)
Open in a new tab

Note. The analytic sample included 52 people; codes within domains are not mutually exclusive (e.g., one participant could endorse more than one reason for invalidation); some participants did not contribute data to some domains (e.g., only 15 participants reported on the effect of invalidation on relationships); descriptions of each code are presented in-text.

Perpetrators of invalidation

A subset of participants (n = 35) reported on their relationship to the person who invalidated their identity. The most common perpetrators of invalidation were family members (n = 19) and friends (n = 10), suggesting that bisexual identity invalidation most often occurs in the context of close relationships.

Reasons for invalidation

This domain included five categories related to participants’ perceptions of the reasons why their identities were invalidated: (1) others did not understand or accept bisexuality (n = 16); (2) the gender of participants’ romantic partners did not fit with others’ beliefs about bisexuality (n = 9); (3) others believed that the bisexual person was confused about their sexuality (n = 6); (4) others believed that participants were “faking” being bisexual to get attention (n = 5); and (5) others rejected bisexuality for religious reasons (n = 5). These categories, described below, demonstrate the range of ways in which identity invalidation manifests in the lives of bisexual people. Only a minority of the sample (n = 8) indicated that they had not experienced identity invalidation, highlighting the pervasiveness of this unique form of discrimination. Of note, some of the participants who had not experienced identity invalidation reported that people were accepting of their bisexuality, while others had either not disclosed their sexual orientation or had only disclosed their sexual orientation to a few people who they assumed would be accepting.

Lack of understanding or acceptance

The most common reason why participants perceived their bisexual identity was invalidated was because others did not understand or accept bisexuality. These responses reflected perceived invalidation based on a general lack of understanding or acceptance, whereas other themes (described below) reflected more specific reasons for why participants thought people invalidated their identities. Within this category, participants described being accused of lying about their sexuality and being questioned about whether or not they would soon revert back to heterosexuality. These accusations were driven by the idea that bisexuality was not a real or legitimate sexual orientation, and often reflected the monosexist belief that people can only be gay or straight. For example, Participant 19 (cisgender woman, bisexual, White, 29 years old) disclosed: “One person had a very difficult time understanding it. It was like they didn’t believe someone could be attracted to both men and women. I tried to explain to them that it was more common than they realized.” In addition, Participant 9 (cisgender woman, bisexual, White, 20 years old) reflected on coming out to her mother:

When coming out to my mom, it was very hard for her to grasp. I was already dating a girl at the time, and in a 6 month relationship when I told her. She kept thinking I was a lesbian and couldn’t understand that I was attracted to both females and males. She kept thinking it had to be one or the other.

Partner gender

The second most common reason why participants perceived their bisexual identity was invalidated was because of the gender(s) of their current or previous sexual or romantic partners. For example, Participant 11 (cisgender woman, bisexual, White, 34 years old) reported:

A close relative told me on several occasions that I am not really bi. She claims that it is just a phase—though I have been out for over a decade. I am committed to a man (the opposite sex) for the rest of my life, so I am frequently told that I’m not bi after all.

Of note, every participant who reported on this theme was assigned female at birth, and all but one identified as a woman. Further, they all currently or previously had male partners, which provoked invalidation. Interestingly, no participants reported having their bisexuality invalidated because they were in a same-gender relationship. Even when participants had same-gender relationships in the past, if they were currently in a different-gender relationship, this history was marked as a “phase.” Thus, it seemed difficult for participants to have their bisexuality validated if they had any different-gender relationships at all, given that these relationships were seen as reflective of participants’ “true” heterosexual orientation.

Confusion

Participants reported that when they disclosed their bisexual identity, others assumed they were simply confused about their sexual orientation rather than actually bisexual. Participants were accused of being confused because they may have been projecting romantic feelings onto a relationship with a friend, were just “curious” about the same-gender, or were out of touch with reality. For example, Participant 23 (cisgender woman, bisexual, White, 35 years old) reported: “I told a close friend about being bi. She couldn’t understand it and refused to hear me out. She started thinking I told her because I want her but in reality she was just my friend.” In addition, Participant 17 (cisgender woman, bisexual, White, 26 years old) described: “A friend once told me that she thought I was just curious about women and not actually interested in them. She said that she thought maybe I was just interested in the idea of being bisexual rather than actually being bisexual.”

Faking bisexuality

Participants also reported that when they disclosed their bisexuality, others responded that they only identified as bisexual because they wanted attention from others. In these instances, bisexuality was perceived as desirable to appropriate because either it would get the participant special attention or it was seen as “cool, hip, or authentic” (Participant 36; cisgender woman, bisexual, Biracial or Multiracial, 51 years old). Further, Participant 39 (cisgender woman, bisexual, White, 30 years old) indicated:

In high school, when I was a sophomore, my mother told me it was just a phase, I was an attention whore, and I need to stop embarrassing her and telling people I am bisexual. Shortly after I was asked to move out and move in with my dad.

In addition, Participant 43 (cisgender man, bisexual, White, 26 years old) reflected on coming out to his best friend:

When I first disclosed my orientation to my best friend at the time, he tried to persuade me to really look inward and see that I am completely straight—that maybe I wanted attention because gay people were beginning to get all the attention.

When participants described being accused of faking their bisexuality, they described their attractions to women, in particular, being questioned. For example, both cisgender women and cisgender men were accused of faking their attractions to women. It is likely that these findings reflect the pervasiveness of misogyny and patriarchy.

Religious beliefs

Participants reported experiences of others invalidating their bisexuality because it was perceived as a sin or unnatural in the eyes of god. According to participants, perpetrators argued that god does not make people bisexual. Perpetrators recommended that participants talk to a religious leader to fix their sexuality. For example, Participant 51 (gender non-binary, fluid, Black or African American, 26 years old) described:

I was discussing my sexuality with a family member that’s very close to me. She told me that my beliefs are demonic and that I needed to go to church to have the preacher pray the demons off of me.

In addition, Participant 30 (cisgender woman, bisexual, White, 36 years old) disclosed:

My grandmother caused me the most stressful experience I’ve had where someone has [invalidated] me. She told me that I was a parasite and a piece of s**t [sic] and going against god, and tried using religion against me.

Based on these findings, religious beliefs appear to play a role in the invalidation of bisexual people’s identities, but it remains unclear if the perpetrators of the perceived invalidation objected to participants’ bisexuality in particular or to their non-heterosexuality in general.

Effects of invalidation on feelings

Participants reported a number of negative emotional reactions to their experiences of bisexual identity invalidation, with the most common being anger/frustration (n = 17) and feeling hurt/sad (n = 13), and many participants reporting a mix of both emotions. For example, Participant 11 (cisgender woman, bisexual, White, 31 years old) stated quite simply: “This makes me feel really frustrated and angry because I am still bisexual even if I am monogamous with a man!” Further, Participant 3 (cisgender woman, bisexual, White, 24 years old) explained the extent to which having their bisexual identity invalidated affected them: “It was one of the most stressful moments in my life. This person was trying to deny the fact that I was bi and not straight and it made me feel very angry.” In addition, after Participant 40 (cisgender woman, bisexual, Black or African American, 26 years old) came out to her parents, and they told her that her identity was a phase and a lie, she reported:

I felt sad and angry because I felt as though my parents weren’t listening to me or hearing me. After the conversation I felt ashamed and felt as though I should have never told them. This made me feel very insecure, misunderstood, and feel unlovable. I was very depressed as well.

Based on these findings, affective reactions to identity invalidation include both anger and sadness, which may have different consequences for mental health over time.

Effects of invalidation on identity

Invalidating experiences intersected with identity in one of two ways—either invalidation provoked struggles with one’s sexual identity (n = 8) or an established strong sense of self protected against the internalization of invalidation (n = 6). Participants who struggled with their sexual orientation anticipated ongoing rejection following the invalidating experience. Participant 4 (cisgender man, bisexual, Latinx, 25 years old) described: “I felt negative about my sexuality…I felt more hostile and secretive about my sexuality ever since this encounter in fear of people not believing that I am bisexual.” This suggests that the experience of invalidation may contribute to internalized binegativity. Also, for some, when invalidation of their identity was internalized, they became more confused about their sexuality. For example, after Participant 40 (cisgender woman, bisexual, Black or African American, 26 years old) came out to her parents and her parents responded that her identity was a phase, the participant reported: “that made me feel as if my feelings toward women were lies and I didn’t know what I was talking about.” These findings suggest that the consequences of identity invalidation are not limited to mental health. Instead, they extend to the internalization of the invalidation and, for some, confusion about one’s sexuality.

In contrast, other participants maintained the belief that there was nothing wrong with who they were despite others’ opinions. For example, Participant 8 (cisgender woman, bisexual, White, 29 years old) described: “I have a very strong sense of myself and other people’s opinions have never affected my personal decisions…I doubted myself only for a very brief time and dug my heels in on the subject.” These participants likely had higher self-esteem and confidence prior to the invalidation occurring. These findings suggest that some bisexual people experience resilience in the face identity invalidation, although it may take time to resolve self-doubt and other negative consequences of identity invalidation.

Effects of invalidation on relationships

A subset of participants reported on the effect of invalidation on their relationships (n = 15), and all participants within this subset viewed invalidation as having negative effects on relationships. Some participants reported no longer being trusting of others after the invalidation occurred (n = 7) and others reported distancing themselves from the perpetrator of the invalidation (n = 8). For those who reported no longer being trusting of others, invalidation led them to not only have a strained relationship with the person perpetrating the invalidation, but to distrust others more generally because they feared that the negative response they received in reaction to the disclosure of their sexual identity might be repeated. For example, after Participant 16 (cisgender woman, bisexual, White, 29 years old) had her bisexual identity invalidated because she had never dated a woman, she reflected: “Before I heard them say such a thing, I thought they were a good person, but during and after it just made me incredibly angry to even look at them.… it made me really distrust any other person that wasn’t also bi+.” Other participants reported on how experiencing invalidation led to distancing from the person committing the invalidation. Generally, the invalidation made bisexual participants perceive the perpetrator more negatively, and in some cases, made them end their relationship with the perpetrator. For example, after Participant 30 (cisgender woman, bisexual, White, 36 years old) had her grandmother tell her that she was a “parasite” in reaction to her disclosure of her bisexual identity, she ended the relationship:

It got to a point where when I was 15 years old, I realized her abusive ways- so I generally stopped talking to her and taking her crap…and resolved to cut her completely out of my life once and for all.

These findings suggest that the consequences of identity invalidation also extend to bisexual people’s relationships and, at times, identity invalidation can lead to the termination of relationships. Invalidation likely contributes to bisexual people’s loneliness and disconnection from LGB and heterosexual communities alike, and also from their family members and friends who perpetrate invalidation. Further, this loneliness likely exacerbates identity confusion and negative affective responses that occur as a result of invalidation.

Discussion

The current study investigated bisexual people’s perceptions of sexual orientation identity invalidation and how it affects their wellbeing, identity, and relationships. While previous studies have identified a number of unique stressors that bisexual people face (Flanders et al., 2016; Ross et al., 2008), experiences of identity invalidation have yet to be comprehensively studied among bisexual people. Findings from the current study highlight that identity invalidation is a common experience among bisexual people (experienced by 85% of the sample). Also, in line with minority stress theory (Meyer, 2003), findings highlight the role of invalidation in contributing to bisexual people’s psychological distress (generating feelings of sadness and anger), negative sense of identity, anticipation of stigma (provoking mistrust of others), and social isolation (contributing to distancing oneself from the perpetrator of the invalidation).

One unique contribution of this study is that it highlights the breadth of reasons why invalidation occurs according to bisexual individuals. Specifically, consistent with previous research (Flanders et al., 2019; Lambe, Cerezo, & O’Shaughnessy, 2017; Roberts, Horne, & Hoyt, 2015; Ross et al., 2010), the most common reasons why participants reported that their bisexual identities were invalidated included: because others did not understand or accept bisexuality as a possible sexual orientation, others believed the legitimacy of bisexuality was contingent on one’s current or past romantic history, and others believed that the bisexual person was confused about their sexuality. The notion that others do not accept or understand bisexuality is often rooted in the monosexist belief that one can only be gay or straight (Roberts et al., 2015). This is in line with previous research on other border identities, which finds that these identities are less accessible to others and thus less likely to be applied, increasing rates of identity misclassification (Chen, 2018). Our findings are also in line with research indicating that when exposed to individuals with border identities, others feel confused and react by projecting confusion onto the individual (Holmes & Bonam, 2018).

In addition to providing additional support for previously identified forms of bisexual identity invalidation, we identified two forms of bisexual identity invalidation that have received little to no previous empirical attention: invalidation based on the belief that participants were faking their bisexual identification for attention and invalidation based on the belief that bisexuality was antithetical to one’s religious beliefs. One previous study found that some people believe that women claim a bisexual identity to get men’s attention (Alarie & Gaudet, 2013). Our findings provide additional evidence of bisexual people’s reports of their identities being invalidated based on the belief that they are faking their bisexual identification for attention. Further, our findings extend previous research by demonstrating that this form of identity invalidation is not unique to bisexual women; in our study, bisexual men also described being accused of faking their bisexual identification for attention. Of note, when participants described being accused of faking their bisexuality, they described their attractions to women, in particular, being questioned. For example, both cisgender women and cisgender men were accused of faking their attractions to women. It is likely that these findings reflect the pervasiveness of misogyny and patriarchy. In addition, to our knowledge, previous research has yet to identify religious beliefs underlying bisexual identity invalidation. In our study, participants described having their bisexual identities invalidated based on the belief that bisexuality is a sin or unnatural in the eyes of god. Of note, in the case of bisexual identity invalidation related to religion, it remains unclear if the perpetrators of the perceived invalidation objected to participants’ bisexuality in particular or to their non-heterosexuality in general. It will be important for future research to consider this question. In sum, our findings support and extend previously documented forms of bisexual identity invalidation, demonstrating the breadth of reasons used to invalidate bisexual people’s identities.

Generally, invalidation provoked negative emotions among bisexual people, with the most prominent being anger and sadness. This is in line with quantitative research with other groups that finds that identity invalidation contributes to psychological distress (Albuja et al., 2018; Franco et al., 2016; Franco & O’Brien, 2018). Given that bisexual people have the worst mental health of any sexual orientation group (Plöderl & Tremplay, 2015; Ross et al., 2018; Salway et al., 2019), identity invalidation may play a significant role in explaining their mental health disparities. Invalidation also strained relationships between the bisexual person and the perpetrator of the invalidation, sometimes leading to the relationship ending. One reason why bisexual people have worse mental health outcomes and are more susceptible to prejudice is because of a lack of social support (Pakula, 2017), and invalidation may be one of the mechanisms through which bisexual people lose social support and become more susceptible to ongoing minority stress. Further, invalidation not only leads to strained relationships between the bisexual person and the invalidation perpetrator, but also to more general fears of people reacting negatively to a bisexual person’s identity. Thus, similar to other forms of bisexual-specific discrimination and in line with minority stress theory, identity invalidation contributes to anticipation of stigma (Brewster et al., 2013; Jorm, Korten, Rodgers, Jacomb, & Christensen, 2002).

Still, the current study finds that some bisexual people are resilient in the face of invalidating experiences. Our data suggest that a strong sense of self may keep bisexual people from internalizing identity invalidation. It was slightly more common, however, for participants to report that identity invalidation made them feel negatively about and struggle with their sexuality. The belief that bisexual people are confused about their identity is a stereotype (Roberts et al., 2015) and it is generally untrue, but some bisexual people may develop confusion after internalizing negative societal attitudes toward bisexuality. In fact, Dyar and London (2018) found that experiencing more anti-bisexual discrimination was associated with increases in internalized binegativity and sexual identity uncertainty. They also found that increases in internalized binegativity were associated with decreased identification as bisexual and increased identification as monosexual (i.e., lesbian or heterosexual). They suggested that some bisexual people may change how they identify in an unconscious attempt to reduce the negative effects of internalized binegativity on their self-concept and mental health. Consistent with this possibility, we also found that some of the bisexual people in our sample described experiencing invalidation and, in turn, feeling badly about and struggling with their bisexual identity. Further, these findings are consistent with psychological theories (e.g., the “looking glass self” theory, reflective appraisal theory), which posit that people form a stable sense of their identities through having their identities affirmed by others (Cooley, 1902; Rockquemore et al., 2009; Swann & Bosson, 2010). As such, not having one’s identity affirmed by others can present challenges to forming a stable sense of self. It will be important for research to continue to examine the extent to which external factors (e.g., experiences of identity invalidation) lead some bisexual people to alter how they identify.

Finally, invalidation was most commonly perpetrated by family members. Given previous findings that discrimination from family members is more harmful than discrimination from non-family members (Franco & Carter, 2018; Franco, Katz, Pickens, & Brunsma, 2018; Franco & Durkee, 2019), this finding further highlights invalidation as a stressor that might explain bisexual people’s poorer mental health outcomes. More generally, sexual minorities can face rejection when coming out to family members (Heatherington, & Lavner, 2008), but given monosexism, bisexual people may face rejection as well as invalidation of their sexual orientation. This may be why some bisexual people claim a lesbian or gay identity when coming out to others (Wandrey, Mosack, & Moore, 2015). Further, some research indicates that family members’ rejection during the coming out process is related to broader patterns of family dysfunction (e.g., enmeshment; Baiocco et al., 2015); thus, bisexual people who face invalidation when they come out may be more likely to contend with dysfunctional family dynamics in general. Overall, invalidation may contribute to unique vulnerabilities during the coming out process for bisexual people.

Limitations and Future Directions

The current study makes a significant contribution in identifying the range of ways in which bisexual people’s identities are invalidated and how these experiences impact their wellbeing, identity, and relationships. Still, findings from this study come with a number of limitations. First, most participants in the current sample were White and identified as women. Bisexual people of color face unique challenges at the intersection of their sexual orientation and race (e.g., a lack of belonging based on having multiple invisible identities; Ghabrial, 2019). Given that people of color, especially Biracial and Multiracial people, also experience identity invalidation, it is possible that people who identify as both bisexual and Biracial or Multiracial may experience identity invalidation related to both of their identities. It will be important for future research to examine whether identity invalidation and its consequences differ based on demographic characteristics such as race, ethnicity, and gender. Further, in gathering online reports of bisexual people’s experiences of identity invalidation, we were unable to probe further about their experiences. Findings from the current study might be supplemented by more extensive interviews or focus groups. Results of the current study, linking invalidation to negative affect, identity-related challenges, and relational difficulties, might also be verified with quantitative studies including larger numbers of participants.

Implications

The current findings have several important implications. First, identity invalidation may be an important intervention target to reduce the mental health disparities affecting bisexual people. Second, there is a critical need to address misconceptions about sexual orientations (e.g., that a person can only be gay or straight, that sexual orientation can be assumed based on the gender of a person’s partner) in order to reduce the invalidation of bisexual identities. Third, it is important to validate bisexual people’s identities and to acknowledge that the challenges they experience are rooted in monosexism. Finally, one reason why invalidation may be understudied among bisexual people may be because of the dearth of adequate measures to assess identity invalidation in this population. Future research might use results of the current study to inform the development of a comprehensive measure of identity invalidation among bisexual individuals separate from other experiences of anti-bisexual discrimination.

Conclusion

Identity invalidation was a common experience in our sample of bisexual and other non-monosexual individuals. Consistent with minority stress theory (Meyer, 2003) and previous research on racial identity invalidation (Franco & Durkee, 2019; Franco et al., 2016; Franco & O’Brien, 2018), bisexual identity invalidation had a negative impact on wellbeing, identity, and relationships. The current findings suggest that identity invalidation is an important construct to consider in research on bisexual-specific stress and the health disparities affecting bisexual people. Further, findings from the current study are informative as to how to cultivate more affirming environments for bisexual people—namely, by validating their identities.

Acknowledgments

Funding

Brian A. Feinstein’s time was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (K08DA045575). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the funding agency.

Contributor Information

Brian A. Feinstein, Northwestern University, 625 N Michigan Ave #14-047, Chicago, IL 60611

Dr. Marisa Franco, Georgia State University

Regine Faith Henderson, Georgia State University.

Laniqua Kemecee Collins, Georgia State University.

Jaleh Davari, Georgia State University.

References

  1. Alarie M, & Gaudet S (2013). “I don’t know if she is bisexual or if she just wants to get attention”: Analyzing the various mechanisms through which emerging adults invisibilize bisexuality. Journal of Bisexuality, 13, 191–214. doi: 10.1080/15299716.2013.780004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Albuja AF, Sanchez DT, Gaither ST (2018). Identity denied. Comparing American or White identity denial and psychological health outcomes among Bicultural and Biracial people. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1–15. doi: 10.1177/0146167218788553pspb.sagepub. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Baiocco R, Fontanesi L, Santamaria F, Ioverno S, Marasco B, Baumgartner E, … Laghi F (2015). Negative parental responses to coming out and family functioning in a sample of lesbian and gay young adults. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24, 1490–1500. doi: 10.1007/s10826-014-9954-z [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bostwick W (2012). Assessing bisexual stigma and mental health: A brief report. Journal of Bisexuality, 12, 214–222. doi: 10.1080/15299716.2012.674860 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bradford M (2004). The bisexual experience: Living in a dichotomous culture In Fox RC (Ed.), Current research on bisexuality (pp. 7–23). New York, NY: Haworth. [Google Scholar]
  6. Brewster ME, & Moradi B (2010). Perceived experiences of anti-bisexual prejudice: Instrument development and evaluation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57, 451–468. doi: 10.1037/a0021116 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Brewster ME, Moradi B, DeBlaere C, & Velez BL (2013) Navigating the borderlands: Cognitive flexibility, bicultural self-efficacy, and minority stress in the lives of bisexual individuals. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60, 543–556. doi: 10.1037/a0033224 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Burleson WE (2005). Bi America: Myths, truths, and struggles of an invisible community. New York, NY: Harrington Park Press. [Google Scholar]
  9. Burrell JO, Winston CE, & Freeman KE (2013). Race-acting: The varied and complex affirmative meaning of “acting Black” for African-American adolescents. Culture & Psychology, 19, 95–116. doi: 10.1177/1354067X12464981 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Center for Disease Control (2015). Table 46 (page 1 of 2). Serious psychological distress in the past 30 days among adults aged 18 and over, by selected characteristics: United States, average annual, selected years 1997–1998 through 2013–2014. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2015/046.pdf
  11. Chen JM (2018). An integrative review of impression formation processes for Multiracial individuals. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 13 Advance online publication. doi: 10.1111/spc3.12430 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Cheryan S, Schwartz Cameron J, Katagiri Z, & Monin B (2015). Manning up: Threatened men compensate by disavowing feminine preferences and embracing masculine attributes. Social Psychology, 46, 218–227. doi: 10.1027/1864-9335/a000239 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Cooley CH (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York: Scribner ‘ s. [Google Scholar]
  14. Dodge B, Herbenick D, Friedman MR, Schick V, Fu T-C, Bostwick W, et al. (2016). Attitudes toward bisexual men and women among a nationally representative probability sample of adults in the United States. PLoS ONE, 11, e0164430. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Dyar C, & Feinstein BA, (2018). Binegativity: Attitudes toward and stereotypes about bisexual individuals In Swan DJ & Habibi S (Eds)., Bisexuality: Theories, Research, and Recommendations for the Invisible Sexuality (pp. 95–111). Springer. [Google Scholar]
  16. Feinstein BA, & Dyar C (2017). Bisexuality, minority stress, and health. Current Sexual Health Reports, 9, 42–49. doi: 10.1007/s11930-017-0096-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Feinstein BA, & Dyar C (2018). Romantic and sexual relationship experiences among bisexual individuals In Swan DJ & Habibi S (Eds)., Bisexuality: Theories, Research, and Recommendations for the Invisible Sexuality (pp. 145–163). Springer. [Google Scholar]
  18. Flanders CE, Dobinson C, & Logie C (2017). Young bisexual women’s perspectives on the relationship between bisexual stigma, mental health, and sexual health: A qualitative study. Critical Public Health, 27, 75–85. doi: 10.1080/09581596.2016.1158786 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Flanders CE, LeBreton M, & Robinson M (2019). Bisexual women’s experience of microaggressions and microaffirmations: A community-based, mixed-methods scale development project. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 48, 143–158. doi: 10.1007/s10508-017-1135-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Flanders CE, Robinson M, Legge MM, & Tarasoff LA (2016). Negative identity experiences of bisexual and other non-monosexual people: A qualitative report. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health, 20, 152–172. doi: 10.1080/19359705.2015.1108257 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Franco MG (2019). Let the racism tell you who your friends are: The effects of racism on social connections and life-satisfaction for Multiracial people. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 69, 34–64. doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2018.12.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Franco MG & Carter S (2019). Discrimination from family and substance use for Multiracial individuals. Addictive Behaviors, 92, 203–207. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2019.01.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Franco MG & Durkee M (2019). Discrimination comes in layers: Dimensions of discrimination and mental health for Multiracial people. Manuscript submitted for publication. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Franco MG, Katz R, & O’Brien KM (2016). Forbidden identities: A qualitative examination of racial identity invalidation for Black/White Biracial individuals. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 50, 96–109. doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2015.12.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Franco MG, Katz R, Pickens J, & Brunsma D (2018). From my own flesh and blood: An exploratory examination of discrimination from family for Black/White Multiracial people. Qualitative Social Work. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1177/1473325018815734 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Franco MG, & O’Brien KM (2018). Racial identity invalidation with Multiracial individuals: An instrument development study. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 24, 112–135. doi: 10.1037/cdp0000170 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Ghabrial MA (2019). “We can shapeshift and build bridges”: Bisexual women and gender diverse people of color on invisibility and embracing the borderlands. Journal of Bisexuality, 19, 169–197. [Google Scholar]
  28. Heatherington L, & Lavner JA (2008). Coming to terms with coming out: Review and recommendations for family systems-focused research. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 329–343. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.22.3.329 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Hill C, Knox S, Thompson B, Williams EN, Hess H, & Ladany N (2005). Consensual qualitative analysis: An update. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 196–205. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.196 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Hill CE, Thompson BJ, Nutt Williams E (1997). A guide to conducting consensual qualitative research. The Counseling Psychologist, 25, 517–572. [Google Scholar]
  31. Holmes OL (2018). The effects of racial categorization struggle. (Doctoral dissertation; ). Retrieved from http://www.indigo.lib.uic.edu:8080/handle/10027/23142 [Google Scholar]
  32. Johnson KC, LeBlanc AJ, Deardorff J & Bockting WO (2019): Invalidation experiences among non-binary adolescents. The Journal of Sex Research. Advanced online publication. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2019.1608422 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Jorm A, Korten A, Rodgers B, Jacomb P, & Christensen H (2002). Sexual orientation and mental health: Results from a community survey of young and middle – aged adults. British Journal of Psychiatry, 180, 423–427. doi: 10.1192/bjp.180.5.423 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Kozee HB, Tylka TL, & Bauerband LA (2012). Measuring transgender individuals’ comfort with gender identity and appearance: Development and validation of the Transgender Congruence Scale. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 36, 179–196. doi: 10.1177/0361684312442161 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Lou E, Lalonde RN, & Wilson C (2011). Examining a multidimensional framework of racial identity across different biracial groups. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 2, 79–90. doi: 10.1037/a0023658 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. McLemore KA (2015). Experiences with misgendering: Identity misclassification of transgender spectrum individuals. Self and Identity, 14, 51–74. doi: 10.1080/15298868.2014.950691 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Meyer IH (2003). Prejudice, social stress and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 674–697. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Mohr JJ, & Rochlen AB (1999). Measuring attitudes regarding bisexuality in lesbian, gay male, and heterosexual populations. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46, 353–369. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.46.3.353 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Pakula B (2017). Sexual identity, minority stress, and the mental health of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and heterosexual Canadians (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/24/items/1.0355875
  40. Pew Research Center. (2017). Changing attitudes on gay marriage. Retrieved May 7, 2019 from http://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/
  41. Plöderl M & Tremplay P (2015) Mental health of sexual minorities. A systematic review. International Review of Psychiatry, 275, 367–85. doi: 10.3109/09540261.2015.1083949. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Roberts TS, Horne SG, & Hoyt WT (2015). Between a gay and a straight place: Bisexual individuals’ experiences with monosexism. Journal of Bisexuality, 15, 554–569. doi: 10.1080/15299716.2015.1111183 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Rockquemore KA, Brunsma DL, & Delgado DJ (2009). Racing to theory or retheorizing race? Understanding the struggle to build a Multiracial identity theory. Journal of Social Issues, 65, 13–34. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2008.01585.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Ross LE, Dobinson C, & Eady A (2010). Perceived determinants of mental health for bisexual people: A qualitative examination. American Journal of Public Health, 100, 496–502. 10.2105/AJPH.2008.156307 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Ross LE, Salway T, Tarasoff LA, MacKay JM, Hawkins BW, & Fehr CP (2018). Prevalence of depression and anxiety among bisexual people compared to gay, lesbian, and heterosexual individuals: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Sex Research, 55, 435–456. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2017.1387755 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Salway T, Ross LE, Fehr CP, Burley J, Asadi S, Hawkins B, & Tarasoff LA (2019). A systematic review and meta-analysis of disparities in the prevalence of suicide ideation and attempt among bisexual populations. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 48, 89–111. Doi: 10.1007/s10508-018-1150-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Sanchez DT (2010). How do forced-choice dilemmas affect Multiracial people? The role of identity autonomy and public regard in depressive symptoms. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40, 1657–1677. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00634.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Sellers RM, & Shelton JN (2003). The role of racial identity in perceived racial discrimination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1079–1092. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.84.5.1079 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Swann WB Jr. & Bosson J (2010). Self and identity In Fiske ST, Gilbert DT, & Lindzey G (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed; pp. 589–628), New York: McGraw-Hill. [Google Scholar]
  50. Szymanski DM, Mikorski R, & Carretta RF (2017). Heterosexism and LGB Positive Identity: Roles of Coping and Personal Growth Initiative. The Counseling Psychologist, 45, 294–319. doi: 10.1177/0011000017697195 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. Townsend SSM, Markus HR, & Bergsieker HB (2009). My choice, your categories: The denial of Multiracial identities. Journal of Social Issues, 65, 185–204. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2008.01594.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. Tran AT, Miyake ER, Martinez-Morales V, & Csizmadia A (2016). ‘What are you?’ Multiracial individuals’ responses to racial identification inquiries. Cultural Diversity And Ethnic Minority Psychology, 22, 26–37. doi: 10.1037/cdp0000031 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Wandrey RL, Mosack KE, & Moore EM (2015). Coming out to family and friends as bisexually identified young adult women: A discussion of homophobia, biphobia, and heteronormativity. Journal of Bisexuality, 15, 204–229. doi: 10.1080/15299716.2015.1018657 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  54. Vargas N, & Stainback K (2016). Documenting contested racial identities among self-identified Latina/os, Asians, Blacks, and Whites. American Behavioral Scientist, 60, 442–464. doi: 10.1177/0002764215613396 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Veale JF, Watson RJ, Peter T, & Saewyc EM (2017). Mental health disparities among Canadian transgender youth. Journal of Adolescent Health, 60, 44–49. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2016.09.014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES