Cass V C
J Homosex. 1983;9(2-3):105-26.
Despite the fact that the concept homosexual identity has been used extensively in the literature on homosexuality since the late 1960s, investigators have shown little concern for defining or discussing the manner in which it is used. As a result, the study of homosexual identity has been characterized by confusion, disarray, and ambiguity. A multiplicity of terminologies makes comparisons between studies difficult. There has been little attempt to place theoretical proposals or data within the framework of existing psychological literature on identity. A number of assumptions critical to an understanding of homosexual identity are commonly made, and several of these are discussed: The synonymity of homosexual identity and self-concept; homosexual identity as childhood identity; homosexual identity as sexual identity; and homosexuality as distinct essence. This review also considers the following issues: The distinction between identity and behavior; the utility of an identity construct as applied to the study of homosexuals; the definition of identity in developmental theories of homosexual identity; and homosexual group identity.
尽管自20世纪60年代末以来,“同性恋身份”这一概念在关于同性恋的文献中被广泛使用,但研究者们很少关注对其定义或讨论其使用方式。因此,对同性恋身份的研究一直存在混乱、无序和模糊不清的特点。多种术语使得不同研究之间难以进行比较。几乎没有人尝试将理论提议或数据置于现有的关于身份认同的心理学文献框架内。人们通常会做出一些对于理解同性恋身份至关重要的假设,本文将讨论其中的几个:同性恋身份与自我概念的同义性;作为童年身份的同性恋身份;作为性身份的同性恋身份;以及将同性恋视为独特本质。本综述还考虑以下问题:身份与行为之间的区别;身份建构在同性恋研究中的效用;同性恋身份发展理论中身份的定义;以及同性恋群体身份。