An Investigation of the Relationship between Psychological Flexibility and Bisexuality

ABSTRACT

The flexibility model of bisexuality views bisexuality as the successful integration of homosexual and heterosexual identities into a dual sexual orientation. In addition, the model characterizes bisexual individuals as cognitively and interpersonally flexible. In this study, the authors tested the “bisexuals are more flexible” hypothesis. Participants (N = 640; 40% bisexuals) completed an online survey that included the Cognitive Flexibility Scale, the Battery of Interpersonal Capabilities, and the Outness Inventory. Bisexuals and nonbisexuals did not differ on the two measures of psychological flexibility or outness. Asexuals, however, scored lower on cognitive flexibility and outness. Outness scores were correlated with scores on both measures of psychological flexibility, which suggests that persons who are more open about their sexual orientation are also more flexible, cognitively and interpersonally.

KEYWORDS:

• bisexual
• asexual
• cognitive flexibility
• interpersonal flexibility
• outness

Funding

This research was supported by a grant from the Department of Psychology at Beloit College.

Notes

1. Moore and Norris (2005) measured androgyny. We measured functional flexibility instead of androgyny because ‘functional flexibility’ refers to one's ability to deploy masculine and feminine attributes across domains, whereas ‘androgyny’ refers to the possession of masculine and feminine attributes but not their use.

2. Unfortunately, the BIC scores in this study are not directly comparable to BIC scores in other studies. The BIC developed by Paulhus and Martin (1988) uses a 7-point Likert-type scale, but we inadvertently used a 6-point scale.

3. In this two-group comparison, with α =.05 and 640 participants, estimated power to detect a small-to-medium effect (d =.30) was .97 (see Cohen, 1977, p. 37).

4. In the “Other” category of sexual orientation, some participants described themselves with unconventional labels (e.g., grey-bisexual, omnisexual, pansexual, biromantic) that suggest a nonexclusive sexual identity. Categorizing these individuals as bisexuals instead of nonbisexuals did not alter the results of our data analyses.

5. The reasons for these apparent gender differences have been much discussed (Schunk & Pajares, 2002). Nevertheless, self-efficacy reports are often correlated with gender.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Andreea Hrehorciuc-Caragea

Andreea Hrehorciuc-Caragea, Beloit College Alumnus: Honors: Departmental Honors in Psychology, Walter Van Dyke Bingham Fellowship, Phi Beta Kappa Society Member, Moore Family Endowed Scholarship, World Affairs Center Scholarship, Psi Chi International Honor Society Member, Sanger Scholar. Scientific Interests: social and personality psychology, social justice & LGBT studies, gender development, health psychology.

Lawrence T. White

Lawrence T. White, Professor of Psychology, Lawrence T. White earned a PhD in social psychology at the University of California, Santa Cruz. He has been a professor of Psychology at Beloit College in Wisconsin since 1984. He also directs the College's Law and Justice Program. Professor White is the recipient of grants from the National Research Council and the National Institute of Mental Health. He was a Fulbright Scholar at Tartu University (Estonia) in 1997–98 and writes a blog for Psychology Today's online magazine called “Culture Conscious.” Primary Interests: Applied social psychology, culture and ethnicity, law and public policy, social cognition.