Accepted Manuscript

To “B” or not to “B”: Assessing the disclosure dilemma of

bisexual individuals at work

David F. Arena, Kristen P. Jones

PII: S0001-8791(17)30086-6
DOI: doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2017.08.009
Reference: YJVBE 3101
To appear in: Journal of Vocational Behavior
Received date: 29 September 2016
Revised date: 22 August 2017
Accepted date: 30 August 2017

Please cite this article as: David F. Arena, Kristen P. Jones , To “B” or not to “B”:
Assessing the disclosure dilemma of bisexual individuals at work, Journal of Vocational
Behavior (2017), doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2017.08.009

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As
a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The
manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before
it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may
be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the
journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

To “B” or not to “B”: Assessing the Disclosure Dilemma of Bisexual Individuals at

Work

David F. Arena Jr. & Kristen P. Jones

The University of Memphis

T
Corresponding Author: David F. Arena Jr.

IP
Fogelman College of Business and Economics, University of Memphis

CR
3675 Central Ave, FAB 201, Memphis, TN, 38152-3120

901.678.4788

US
dfarena@memphis.edu
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Abstract

Despite a recent push toward understanding and advocating for LGB employees

in the workplace, the unique experiences of bisexual individuals have received little

attention in scholarly and organizational contexts. In this manuscript, we attempt to

address this by providing novel empirical data from two studies that assess the experience

T
of disclosing bisexuality in a workplace context from multiple perspectives –bisexual

IP
employees themselves, as well as non-bisexual (i.e., heterosexual, gay, lesbian)

CR
individuals. Taken together, we found evidence suggesting bisexual employees are less

likely to disclose their sexual orientation at work as compared to gay and lesbian

US
employees. In addition, our findings indicate that heterosexual, gay, and lesbian
AN
individuals hold negative views about bisexuality, which we argue may in part explain

bisexual employees’ stronger hesitation to disclose their identities at work as compared to

M

gay and lesbian employees. Finally, we found in a vignette-based study that bisexual
ED

applicants who disclosed their sexual identities in a job application incurred substantial

job-related penalties as compared to gay applicants. We discuss the theoretical and

PT

practical implications of our findings and provide insight into several promising
CE

directions for future research.

Keywords: Bisexuality, Disclosure, Stereotypes, Workplace

AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

To “B” or not to “B”: Assessing the Disclosure Dilemma of Bisexual Individuals at

Work

Individuals in the lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) community continue to

receive scrutiny from others based on their sexual orientation. A study by the Williams

Institute found that one of these subgroups – bisexual individuals – comprises a slightly

T
larger percentage of individuals as compared to those who identify as gay and lesbian,

IP
making bisexual individuals the largest subgroup within the LGB population (Gates,

CR
2011). Despite their large societal representation, the unique experiences of bisexual

individuals have been under-examined in organizational and social psychological

US
scholarship, and thus remain poorly understood (Israel & Mohr, 2004). One reason for
AN
this lack of attention may stem from continued confusion among scholars when

attempting to identify the ways in which bisexuality is distinct from (and similar to) gay
M

and lesbian identities. Another potential explanation for the slower recognition of
ED

bisexuality in recent literature may be the elevated levels of discrimination bisexual

individuals face from both heterosexual and gay and lesbian communities (Friedman et.
PT

al., 2014).
CE

Despite the relative inattention to bisexuality in past literature, the scant evidence

that does exist suggests that bisexuality is associated with experiences and challenges that
AC

are unique from other identities within the LGB umbrella. For example, research has

shown that bisexual individuals suffer physically and psychologically in a way that is

distinct from gay and lesbian individuals (Jeffries, 2014; Kuyper & Fokkema, 2011).

Furthermore, in comparison to lesbian and gay individuals, evidence suggests that

bisexual individuals are more likely to experience general health problems and are
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

susceptible to higher cholesterol and asthma (Human Rights Campaign, 2015). Other

evidence indicates that bisexual women are more prone to cancer, obesity, and heart

disease (Human Rights Campaign, 2015), and bisexual men may face higher rates of

sexually transmitted diseases as compared to straight and gay men (Jeffries, 2014).

In addition to physical health disparities, bisexual individuals report lower mental

T
and emotional well being as compared to gay and lesbian individuals. For instance,

IP
bisexual individuals have more negative feelings about their sexuality (Cox, Vanden

CR
Berghe, Dewaele, & Vincke, 2010; Kuyper & Fokkema, 2011) and report lower levels of

social support, which can serve as a critical resource for emotional well being (Nahum-

US
Shani, Bamberger, & Bacharach, 2011). Further, recent research suggests that the higher
AN
incidence of discrimination against bisexual individuals by heterosexual, gay, and lesbian

groups may explain higher rates of negative mental health in bisexual individuals
M

(Bostwick, 2012; Persson & Pfaus, 2015). Indeed, recent research found that bisexual
ED

individuals were significantly less likely to disclose their sexual identities to their

healthcare providers as compared to gay and lesbian individuals (Durso & Meyer, 2013),
PT

a hesitation that may be due to experiencing bisexuality discrimination from health care
CE

providers in the past (Rankin, Morton, & Bell, 2015). In the current paper, we build on

this initial evidence to explore how these disparities may spillover to impact how
AC

bisexual employees function in their workplace environment.

Taken together, these unique challenges likely affect how bisexual individuals

navigate their identities with others at work, meaningfully shaping choices about

whether, when, and how to conceal or reveal their sexual orientation to their coworkers or

supervisors. These decisions can have critical implications for workplace functioning, as
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

evidence suggests employees who choose to conceal their sexual identities are less

satisfied at work (Mock, Sedlovskaya, & Purdie-Vaughns, 2011), suffer worsened job

performance (Madera, 2010), and experience cognitive depletion and disruptions of

executive functioning (Engle, 2002; Madera, 2010).

Here, we aim to advance scholarship in two critical ways. First, we extend

T
existing work on sexual orientation that lumps bisexuality into a single overarching

IP
category of individuals classified as non-heterosexual and focus exclusively and

CR
intentionally on the experiences of and attitudes toward bisexual individuals. In doing so,

we build on previous research on the health and work-related disparities between bisexual

US
individuals and their non-bisexual counterparts to examine the disclosure dilemma that
AN
bisexual employees face at work (Ragins, 2008). Consistent with existing scholarship, we

categorize sexual orientation as an invisible stigmatized identity, or an identity that is

M

socially devalued in some way but can be hidden from others (such as alcoholism or
ED

religion; Ragins, 2008). Second, we provide insight into multiple perspectives on

bisexuality, both bisexual individuals’ self-views as well as non-bisexual groups’

PT

perceptions of bisexuality within the context of the workplace. In light of evidence that
CE

bisexual individuals receive discrimination from heterosexual, gay, and lesbian groups

(Friedman et. al., 2014), we argue that bisexual individuals must manage their identity in
AC

an ongoing, dynamic manner contextualized by unique pressures and concerns that are

not as relevant to gay or lesbian individuals.

We conducted two studies to begin to assess the complex process of the

disclosure of bisexuality at work. The goal of our first study was to provide evidence that

bisexual individuals are more hesitant to disclose their sexual identities at work than their
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

lesbian and gay counterparts (Hypothesis 1). Further, we sought to examine one possible

reason that bisexual employees may be more closed off by showing that lesbian and gay

individuals, despite their membership in the LGB community, hold negative attitudes

toward bisexuality (Hypothesis 2), increasing the total amount of discrimination bisexual

individuals incur on average. As a result of increased vulnerability to discrimination from

T
multiple communities, we expect bisexual individuals will be more hesitant to disclose

IP
their sexual identities at work than their lesbian and gay counterparts. In the sections that

CR
follow, we first provide an overview of the critical factors that may contribute to bisexual

individuals’ hesitation to disclose their sexual identity at work as a bridge to Study 1.

US
Next, we integrate minority stress theory (Meyer, 1995) and theoretical work on the
AN
importance of authenticity (Rankin, Morton, & Bell, 2015) to generate support for our

expectation that bisexual individuals will be less likely to disclose their sexuality at work
M

because they face discrimination from heterosexual, gay, and lesbian communities.
ED

Study 1

Extant research suggests that there are direct benefits to disclosing a stigmatized
PT

identity and in turn displaying one’s authentic self, including the development of deeper
CE

relationships through increased trust, intimacy, and interpersonal liking (Manne et al.,

2009; Turner, Hewstone, & Voci, 2007). Yet, somewhat paradoxically, evidence suggests
AC

that bisexual individuals are less likely to reveal or be open about their sexual identity as

compared to gay or lesbian individuals (Durso & Meyer, 2013). According to minority

stress theory (Meyer, 1995), when an individual experiences an event that reinforces their

status as a minority, they endure greater physical and psychological stress (Waldo, 1999).

We extrapolate this notion to the “event” of disclosing bisexuality. In light of pervasive

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

prejudice against bisexual individuals held by both heterosexual and gay and lesbian

communities, we propose that the mere anticipation of possible discrimination as a result

of disclosing may produce similar effects to actually experiencing the event itself.

Indeed, there is evidence to support that bisexual individuals may anticipate

discrimination upon disclosing their sexual identity. Research has shown there is

T
contention within non-bisexual populations about whether bisexuality is an authentic

IP
identity, a skepticism which reinforces the societal understanding of sexual orientation as

CR
a dichotomous variable and undermines the credibility of those who claim identities that

do not fit this prevailing understanding (Bradford, 2004). For example, bisexuality is

US
widely believed to be merely a stepping stone to either transitioning to a gay or lesbian
AN
identity, or moving back to heterosexuality after a period of experimentation rather than a

final destination (Diamond, 2005; Israel & Mohr, 2004; Rust, 1995).
M

Such beliefs about bisexuality pose a looming threat to the authenticity of

ED

bisexual individuals’ identities in a way that gay and lesbian individuals do not

experience. We anticipate that a recipient of bisexuality disclosure will react with more
PT

confusion, skepticism, and doubt as compared to a gay or lesbian disclosure because

CE

bisexuality is not generally well understood and is not widely accepted as a valid identity.

In contrast, recipients may more easily understand gay and lesbian disclosures because
AC

they are less ambiguous and more likely accepted as valid identities. As a result, bisexual

individuals who disclose their identities are more likely to experience reactions from

others that perpetuate negative stereotypes of bisexuality as an invalid identity. Thus,

when a bisexual individual decides to disclose their sexual orientation, they still may not

feel as if their true self is projected accurately in the face of societal misconceptions
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

about their identity. Moreover, the advantage of being authentic that most individuals

with concealable stigmas may benefit from as a result of disclosing may be diminished or

even nonexistent for bisexual individuals, as disclosing can lead to further inaccurate

categorization (e.g., “are you sure you’re not just gay?”), which detracts from felt

authenticity.

T
While concealing a bisexual identity at work may serve as a form of protection

IP
from stigmatization, there is evidence to suggest that employees who consciously

CR
contradict their authenticity by displaying external behaviors that do not match on to their

internal emotions experience decreased job satisfaction and increased intention to leave

US
their organization (Hochchild, 1983; Morris & Feldman, 1996; Rafaeli & Sutton, 1987).
AN
Therefore, while concealing their sexual orientation may protect the authenticity of

bisexual individuals due to likelihood that others may inaccurately assume they are gay
M

or straight even after disclosing, concealing may also lead to negative consequences that
ED

undermine organizational functioning. Overall, we contend that this perceived threat to

authenticity associated with disclosing bisexuality suppresses disclosure and openness (in
PT

work and non-work settings) of bisexual as compared to gay and lesbian individuals. In
CE

light of this reasoning, we propose:

Hypothesis 1: Bisexual individuals will be (a) less likely to disclose their sexual
AC

orientation at work, (b) less open about their sexuality in workplace contexts, and

(c) less open about their sexuality in non-workplace contexts as compared to gay

or lesbian individuals.

We further contend that the lower levels of disclosure among bisexual employees

as compared to lesbian and gay employees can be partially explained by the endorsement
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

of negative bisexuality stereotypes among other communities. As we discuss above,

research has revealed a myriad of negative bisexuality stereotypes that are unique from

those associated with the larger LGB community (Burke & LaFrance, 2016a; Rust,

2001). For example, bisexual individuals are perceived as confused about their sexuality

(Mohr, Weiner, Chopp, & Wong, 2009), often referred to as “on the way”,

T
“transitioning”, or are seen as unwilling to choose one orientation (Beaber, 2008). Some

IP
scholars have argued that gay and lesbian individuals may perpetuate this stereotype

CR
given it is not uncommon for gay and lesbian individuals to initially identify as

“bisexual” as they are coming to terms with their own sexual orientation (Fox, 2006) –

US
effectively reinforcing the perceived association between bisexuality and inauthenticity.
AN
In the context of the workplace, recent literature suggests that the perceived confusion of

bisexual individuals carries over into a perception that bisexual individuals are indecisive
M

in all situations, including work-related tasks and decisions (Zivony & Lobel, 2014).
ED

Thus, the perceived confusion stereotype may spillover into all aspects of life including

the workplace and can create perceptions of bisexual workers as less qualified to make
PT

critical organizational decisions.

CE

Another common stereotype of bisexual individuals is that they are sexually

promiscuous (Burke & LaFrance, 2016a). This stereotype likely stems from the
AC

perception that bisexual individuals are strongly motivated by sexual impulses beyond

gay, lesbian, or heterosexual individuals (Pirlott & Neuberg, 2014) and may be

exacerbated by the notion that bisexuality is seen as less socially acceptable as compared

to other sexual identities (Morgan and Thompson, 2007). Further, evidence suggests that

bisexual individuals are perceived as less interested in monogamous relationships and

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

more likely to transmit sexually transmitted diseases as compared to other groups

(Spalding & Peplau, 1997). We reason that perceived sexual promiscuity could lead to

perceptions that bisexual individuals are frivolous, sexually greedy, and reinforce an

overall negative attitude toward those who identify as bisexual.

Interestingly, recent evidence suggests that bisexual individuals themselves do not

T
hold the same negative stereotypes of bisexuality as compared to gay, lesbian, and

IP
heterosexual individuals (Burke & LaFrance, 2016b). Specifically, bisexual participants

CR
did not rate bisexual targets as any more indecisive, confused, or promiscuous in

comparison to other groups, suggesting the unique stereotypes of bisexual individuals are

US
not actually self-endorsed. Therefore, evidence suggests negative bisexuality stereotypes
AN
come exclusively from others (i.e., the population of individuals outside of the bisexual

community). Based on the above reasoning, we propose the following:

M

Hypothesis 2: Gay and lesbian individuals will be more likely to hold negative
ED

attitudes towards bisexuality as compared to bisexual individuals.

Study 1 Method
PT

Participants
CE

In an effort to assess the workplace experiences of bisexual employees directly,

we collected a sample of 297 LGB workers (95 gay men, 97 lesbian women, and 105
AC

bisexual individuals consisting of 48 men, and 57 women) through Amazon’s Mechanical

Turk software to participate in our study. All participants were required to be at least 18

years of age and employed for at least 35 hours per week outside of Mturk. We

intentionally sampled for approximately equal numbers of each target group so that we

could compare the experiences and attitudes of bisexual workers to those of lesbian and
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

gay workers. The sample was 47% male, predominantly Caucasian (63%), and had a

mean age of 32 years. A large portion of our sample had at least obtained a Bachelor’s

degree (68%), 49% were single, 23% were married, and 20% were living with a partner.

Procedure

Participants completed a 10-minute survey during which they were instructed to

T
reflect on their workplace experiences and respond to survey items aimed at assessing

IP
their experiences as LGB employees, their attitudes towards bisexuality, and their

CR
workplace behaviors and attitudes. Participants were compensated $3 for their

completion of the survey.

Measures
US
AN
Disclosure decision. Disclosure decision was measured using a single yes or no

item towards the beginning of the survey asking whether participants had disclosed their
M

sexual orientation at their workplace.

ED

Workplace openness. Openness about sexual orientation was measured using an

adapted version of Button’s (2004) Openness scale. Responses were anchored on a 1

PT

(strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree) scale. Since we were primarily interested in the
CE

openness of these individuals at work, we separated out the three items related to

workplace disclosure to examine this variable across subgroups. The workplace openness
AC

items included “my coworkers know about my sexual orientation,” “my supervisor knows

about my sexual orientation,” and “everyone at work knows about my sexual orientation”

( = .94).

Non-workplace openness. We also assessed non-workplace openness using the

three remaining items from Button’s (2004) Openness scale. These items – with
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

responses anchored in the same manner as the workplace openness scale – included, “the

members of my immediate family (i.e., mother, father, siblings) are aware of my sexual

orientation,” “the members of my extended family (i.e., aunts, uncles, cousins) are aware

of my sexual orientation,” and “my primary care physician knows my sexual orientation”

( = .87).

T
Attitudes toward bisexuality. Attitudes towards bisexuality was based on 11

IP
items from Mohr and Rochlen’s (1999) Attitudes Regarding Bisexuality scale. In

CR
concurrence with the original measure, we split these 11 items into two subscales

US
measuring tolerance of bisexuality and stability of bisexuality. The tolerance scale

consisted of six items where high values indicated higher intolerance – examples of
AN
which include “Bisexuality is not a perversion,” (reverse coded) and “Bisexual

individuals are sick” ( = .89). The stability scale consisted of six items where high
M

values indicated higher perceived instability – an example of which was “Just like
ED

Heterosexuality and Homosexuality, Bisexuality is a stable sexual orientation,” (reverse

coded) and “Most people who claim to be bisexual are in denial about their true sexual
PT

orientation” ( = .84). Responses were anchored from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 6

CE

(Strongly agree). Because we changed the language of the original questions to reflect
AC

more generalized attitudes towards bisexuality, we have included these items in

Appendix 1.

Study 1 Results and Discussion

A correlation table of relevant study variables is located in Table 1. We created

two dichotomous variables representing gender (where male was coded as 0 and female

was coded as 1) and sexual orientation (where non-bisexual was coded as 0 and bisexual
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

was coded as 1) in an effort to isolate the effects of sexual orientation and gender. We

then took the product of these two variables as our interaction term (gender x sexual

orientation). Ordinary least squares regression was conducted where disclosure decision

was regressed onto gender (step 1), sexual orientation (step 1), and our calculated

interaction term (step 2). The first step of the regression was statistically significant, R =

T
0.19, R2 = 0.04, adjusted R2 = 0.03, [F (2,294) = 5.47, p < 0.01]. Sexual orientation

IP
yielded a significant main effect (b = -0.16, [t (294) = -2.83, p < 0.01] indicating that

CR
bisexual individuals were less likely to disclose their sexual identities at work as

compared to non-bisexual individuals in support of Hypothesis 1a. The main effect of

US
gender on disclosure decisions was non-significant, (b = 0.10, [t (294) = 1.81, p > 0.05]).
AN
The second step of the regression yielded significant results, R = 0.22, R2 = 0.05,

adjusted R2 = 0.04, [F (2,293) = 5.10, p < 0.01] with a significant R2 change of 0.014 [F
M

(3,293) = 4.24, p < 0.05). The interaction between sexual orientation and gender had a
ED

significant effect on disclosure decisions (b = 0.24, [t (293) = 2.06, p < 0.05]) indicating

that the effect of one predictor (sexual orientation or gender) on disclosure decisions
PT

varied across levels of the other predictor. In an effort to further understand the effect, we
CE

plotted the interaction (see Figure 1) utilizing the unstandardized regression coefficients,

means, and standard deviations for our predictor variables and their interaction. We
AC

observed non-parallel lines in our plotted interaction, which served as an indicator of a

significant interaction. On average, gay and lesbian scores were higher than reported

bisexual scores, indicating that gay and lesbian individuals were more likely to disclose at

work as compared to bisexual workers. In assessing gender, the disclosure values for

bisexual and non-bisexual women were similar; interestingly, there was a difference in
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

disclosure scores between bisexual and non-bisexual men – bisexual men appeared to

disclose at work at a lower frequency than gay men. Thus, while the main effect of

gender was not significant in Step 1, we found that the effect of sexual orientation on

disclosure depended on gender such that being bisexual led to significantly lower rates of

disclosure for men but not women. Although sexual orientation interacted with gender in

T
predicting disclosure rates, the overall main effect of sexual orientation on disclosure was

IP
still significant as noted above, providing support for Hypothesis 1a. A summary of the

CR
regression results is located in Table 2.

To examine Hypothesis 1b, which predicted lower openness of bisexuals as

US
compared to gay and lesbian employees, we assessed group differences in the workplace
AN
and non-workplace openness variables. We conducted a two-way ANOVA with our

sexual orientation and gender variables and their interaction as predictor variables and
M

workplace openness as our dependent variable. Results produced a significant main effect
ED

for sexual orientation [F (1,293) = 24.22, p < 0.001] indicating that there was a

discrepancy between the workplace openness of bisexual individuals as compared to gay

PT

and lesbian individuals. Supporting Hypothesis 1b, bisexual individuals reported a lower
CE

average workplace openness (M = 2.96, SD = 1.68) as compared to gay and lesbian

individuals (M =3.98, SD = 1.71). Neither gender nor the interaction between sexual
AC

orientation and gender predicted workplace openness.

To assess Hypothesis 1c, we conducted a two-way ANOVA with sexual

orientation, gender, and their interaction as the grouping variables and non-workplace

openness as the dependent variable. We again found a significant main effect for sexual

orientation [F (1,293) = 19.70, p < 0.001] and non-significant effects for both gender [F
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

(1,293) = 0.70, p > 0.05] and the interaction of sexual orientation and gender [F (1,293) =

0.52, p > 0.05]. Examination of the descriptive statistics yielded similar results to

workplace openness, as bisexual individuals (M = 3.86, SD = 1.52) reported a lower

average non-workplace openness score as compared to gay and lesbian individuals (M =

4.65, SD = 1.45), supporting Hypothesis 1c.

T
Hypothesis 2 examined the possibility that the lower rates of disclosure among

IP
bisexual individuals could be explained in part by the negative attitudes towards

CR
bisexuality endorsed within the larger LGB community. We first conducted a two-way

ANOVA using gender, sexual orientation, and their interaction as predictors of tolerance

US
of bisexuality. Results produced a significant main effect for sexual orientation [F (1,290)
AN
= 8.545, p < 0.01], a non-significant main effect of gender [F (1,290) = 0.13, p > 0.05],

and a non-significant interaction effect [F (1,290) = 1.17, p > 0.05]. An examination of

M

the descriptive statistics indicated that gay and lesbian individuals (M = 2.03, SD = 1.14)
ED

reported a greater intolerance for bisexuality as compared to bisexual individuals

themselves (M = 1.65, SD = 0.87).

PT

We then conducted a second two-way ANOVA utilizing the same independent

CE

variables to predict perceived stability of bisexuality. Similar to the results pertaining to

tolerance of bisexuality, results indicated a significant main effect for sexual orientation
AC

[F (1,290) = 18.50, p < 0.001] a non-significant effect for gender [F (1,290) = 1.94, p >

0.05] and a non-significant interaction effect [F (1,290) = 0.04, p > 0.05]. Similar results

indicated that gay and lesbian individuals reported a higher view of instability (M = 2.57,

SD = 1.25) as compared to bisexual individuals themselves (M = 1.97, SD = 0.86). Thus,

we found support that gay and lesbian individuals were more likely to perceive
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

bisexuality as unstable, and were more likely to express intolerance towards bisexuality

as compared to bisexual individuals. Notably, our results are consistent with prior

research suggesting that bisexuals themselves do not endorse negative bisexuality

stereotypes (Burke & LaFrance, 2016b).

Our first study highlights the nuanced experience of bisexual individuals

T
themselves as compared to gay and lesbian individuals as they navigate disclosure

IP
decisions at work. We found support for our expectations that bisexual individuals would

CR
be less likely to disclose at work and less open about their sexual orientation in their work

and non-work lives as compared to gay and lesbian individuals. Also, we found support

US
for the notion that non-bisexual members of the LGB community are more likely to hold
AN
negative attitudes about bisexual individuals as compared to bisexual individuals

themselves. While our findings highlight the discrepancies between bisexual individuals
M

and gay and lesbian individuals, our first study does not shed light on the potential
ED

consequences of identifying as bisexual at work. Thus, we conducted a second study to

assess the relative impact of disclosing bisexuality at work, reasoning that the stigma of
PT

bisexuality spills over into organizational contexts, creating meaningful disadvantage for
CE

bisexuals who are open about their identities at work.

Study 2
AC

In an effort to examine this phenomenon from multiple perspectives, we

conducted a complimentary second study to assess how attitudes towards bisexual as

compared to gay job applicants are related to potential job-relevant consequences. Thus,

the focus of Study 2 was not on the endorsement of bisexuality stereotypes (as it was with

Hypothesis 2), but on how the disclosure of bisexuality could potentially impact job-
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

related variables and manifest in meaningful disadvantage for bisexual job seekers. In

other words, whereas Study 1 sought to establish evidence of prejudice toward bisexual

individuals within the LGB community, Study 2 aimed to examine how these prejudices

may lead to discriminatory behavior toward bisexual individuals in a common workplace

situation that involves a high degree of impression management – the hiring process.

T
Sexual orientation minorities face substantial barriers throughout the hiring

IP
process, as evidenced by one study finding that after controlling for relevant variables,

CR
gay men were 40% less likely to be hired as compared to equally qualified heterosexual

applicants (Tilcsik, 2011). Given hiring professionals act as the initial gatekeepers

US
between an applicant and tangible employment outcomes, conscious management of
AN
one’s identity may be imperative to facilitate gaining entry into an organization. While

individuals with stigmatized identities may be motivated to conceal during the hiring
M

process in an effort to “pass” as normal, we postulate that this process may be a

ED

meaningful time for bisexual individuals to engage in signaling behaviors, which involve

seeking additional information by dropping hints or “testing the waters” in order to gauge
PT

how others may react to disclosure (Clair, Beatty, & MacLean, 2005; Jones et al., 2016;
CE

King, Mohr, Peddie, Jones, & Kendra, 2014). Indeed, the hiring process is as much a time

for interviewers to learn about applicants as it is for applicants to learn about the
AC

organization to which they are applying. Thus, signaling a potential stigmatized identity

during the hiring process may help bisexual individuals gain perspective about how

others within a given organization will react to the disclosure of their sexual orientation.

As a result, we contend that much can be learned from assessing the disclosure of

a stigmatized identity during the hiring process. Building from our Study 1 findings, we
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

expect that bisexual individuals who disclose their sexual orientation during the hiring

process will incur more job-related consequences as compared to gay individuals.

Specifically, we expect disclosure of bisexuality during the hiring process will be

perceived as less appropriate as compared to disclosure of a gay identity, and this in turn

will predict lower intention to hire, lower perceived job qualifications, lower perceived

T
person-organization fit (POF), and lower recommended starting salaries for bisexual as

IP
compared to gay job applicants. As attitudes and perceptions of job applicants during

CR
initial hiring processes (e.g., application reviews or interviews) are likely tied to decisions

to hire and other job-related outcomes, the appropriateness of disclosing bisexuality may

US
have a relevant impact due to the aforementioned stigma associated with bisexuality.
AN
Thus, we anticipate:

Hypothesis 3: Perceived appropriateness of disclosure will partially mediate the

M

relationship between disclosure condition (gay versus bisexual disclosure) and

ED

relevant job outcomes such that as compared to a job applicant’s disclosure of a

gay identity, a job applicant’s disclosure of a bisexual identity will be perceived

PT

as less appropriate, which in turn will lead to (a) a lower intention to hire, (b)
CE

lower perceived job qualifications, (c) lower perceived person-organization fit,

and (d) lower recommended starting salary.

AC

Study 2 Method

Participants

We recruited 594 individuals through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk software to

participate in Study 2. As compared to our first study, we were primarily interested in

how heterosexual individuals reacted to the disclosure of bisexuality. Because of this, we

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

removed participants who did not identify as heterosexual from our analysis – reducing

our sample size to (N = 512). The final sample was 56% female, had a mean age of 34

years, and was 80% Caucasian. A large amount of our sample had at least some form of

higher education (52% had their Bachelor’s degree or higher).

Procedure

T
Participants were randomly assigned to one of three experimental conditions (gay,

IP
bisexual, or control) and were directed to one of three online surveys. Participants were

CR
instructed take the perspective of a search committee member looking to hire a new

employee and to read the resume and letter of intent of one prospective job applicant.

US
Resumes were identical across conditions, but the letter of intent contained our
AN
manipulation. Specifically, we manipulated a sentence in the letter in which the applicant

disclosed a gay identity (i.e., As a gay man, I encountered some challenges in gaining my
M

coworkers’ liking and respect), a bisexual identity (i.e., As a bisexual man, I encountered
ED

some challenges in gaining my coworkers’ liking and respect), or did not disclose a

sexual identity (i.e., As a strong-willed man, I encountered some challenges in gaining

PT

my coworkers’ liking and respect). We decided to focus exclusively on men as a result of

CE

the Study 1 finding that bisexual men disclosed at a lower frequency than bisexual

women, which suggests bisexuality may be more stigmatizing for men as compared to
AC

women.

We included the disclosure manipulation in the letter of intent in an effort to

design our study in a manner that was both realistic and practically important. As sexual

orientation is likely to be a core part of a bisexual individual’s identity, the letter of intent

would more easily allow an applicant to contextualize his experience within a modern
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

organization as a bisexual man rather than disclosing within a resume. After reading the

application, participants completed several evaluative measures including the extent to

which they felt the information the applicant disclosed in the application was appropriate,

their perceptions of the applicant’s qualifications, the degree to which they felt the

applicant was a good fit with the hiring organization, the likelihood that they would hire

T
this person, and their recommendations for the applicant’s starting salary if hired.

IP
Measures

CR
Appropriateness of disclosure. Perceived appropriateness of disclosure was

assessed via a 5-item measure created by the authors based on the existing literature on

US
identity management, disclosure, and bisexuality (Burke & LaFrance, 2016a; Chrobot-
AN
Mason, Button, & DiClementi, 2001; Ragins, 2008). Responses were anchored on a 1

(Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree) scale, and items included “This participant
M

disclosing parts of their lifestyle choices was not relevant to this application,” (reverse
ED

coded) “I would have preferred to know less about this applicant’s lifestyle,” (reverse

coded) “This applicant’s personal statement was a good supplement to their application,”
PT

“The information in this application leads me to believe that they will be an excellent
CE

addition to this organization,” and “I respect this applicant’s decision to reveal some

aspects of their lifestyle” ( = 0.77).

AC

Intention to hire. Intention to hire was assessed using a one-item measure, “I

would hire this applicant for the job he is applying for, “which was anchored on a 7-point

scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).

Job qualifications. Perceived job qualifications were assessed using a three-item

scale developed by the primary researchers. Items included “The applicant is qualified
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

for this position”, “The experiences of this applicant make them a good fit for this job”,

and “All of the applicant’s prior skills are useful for this position.” Responses were

anchored on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree; α = 0.91).

Person-organization fit. Perceptions of person-organization fit were assessed

using a three-item scale from the Supplementary Person-Organization fit measure (Bye,

T
Horverak, Sandal, Sam, & Van de Vigjer, 2014). Items included “This applicant will fit

IP
into the organization”, “This applicant will be similar to other employees”, and “This

CR
applicant’s values will reflect the values of this organization.” Responses were anchored

on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree; α = 0.87).

US
Starting salary. Participants were instructed to indicate the salary at which they
AN
would recommend the applicant start if hired based on their application materials. If the

participant did not want to hire this individual, they were instructed to enter a “0” into the
M

free response box. We understand that instructing the participants to enter a “0” if they
ED

did not elect to hire these individuals would likely have an impact on our results.

Therefore, we provide results with and without these values included. Additionally, as
PT

salary estimates are usually positively skewed, we took steps to ensure that our salary
CE

variable was not driven by a subset of extreme cases. Specifically, we assessed the

metrics of skewness for the salary variable (skewness = -0.41, kurtosis = -0.52), the
AC

salary variable with the zeros removed (skewness = 0.42, kurtosis = 0.44), and the natural

log (ln) of the salary variable (skewness = -0.73, kurtosis = 1.56). While these metrics

varied, recent scholars have discussed that acceptable values for these metrics fall

between -2 and +2 (George & Mallery, 2010). As our results fall between these critical
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

values, this provides evidence to suggest that our salary variable was not driven by

extreme values regardless of whether zeros are included.

Study 2 Results and Discussion

Table 3 provides the correlations among the study variables of interest. Results of

a one-way ANOVA with condition (bisexual, gay, control) as the grouping variable

T
suggested a significant difference among the three groups on the appropriateness of

IP
disclosure measure [F (1,512) = 26.51, p < 0.001]. Specifically, a post hoc Tukey test

CR
showed that the gay disclosure (M = 4.41, SD = 0.99) was perceived as significantly more

appropriate than the bisexual disclosure (M = 3.51, SD = 1.25) at p < 0.001; however,

US
there was no significant difference between the bisexual condition and the control
AN
condition on perceived appropriateness (M =3.75, SD = 1.27, p > 0.05). Although we did

not initially expect that the control condition would be perceived as less appropriate than
M

the gay condition, we reason that the wording of the control condition may be associated
ED

with some negative connotations such as hard-headedness or a lower willingness to work

with others. While this could account for some nuance in our data, we were primarily
PT

concerned with the difference between perceptions of a gay disclosure as compared to a

CE

bisexual disclosure, and thus continued with our analyses examining only the gay and

bisexual conditions, excluding the control condition.

AC

To examine Hypothesis 3, we conducted a simple mediation model in SPSS

using the PROCESS macro (Model 4) wherein X reflected the disclosure condition (gay

disclosure was coded as 0 and bisexual disclosure was coded as 1), M reflected perceived

appropriateness of disclosure, and Y reflected each of the job outcomes examined –

intention to hire, job qualifications, perceived POF, and recommendations for starting
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

salary. Since we were not interested in the control condition for these analyses, we

reduced our sample size to only reflect the reactions to a gay applicant and a bisexual

applicant (N = 336). From there, individuals who did not enter a value for starting salary

were also deleted from our analysis to remove missing data. Our final sample size for the

mediation analyses described below was N = 285.

T
For Hypothesis 3a, the outcome variable utilized in our model was intention to

IP
hire. The effect of disclosure condition (gay versus bisexual) on perceived

CR
appropriateness of was significant, suggesting bisexual disclosures were perceived as less

appropriate than gay disclosures (b = -0.92, p < 0.001). Further, the effect of perceived

US
appropriateness on intention to hire was significant such that a more appropriate
AN
disclosure was associated with a greater intention to hire (b = 0.71, p < 0.001). Finally,

the indirect effect of disclosure condition on intention to hire through perceived

M

appropriateness was significantly different from zero [b = 0.65, 95%CI = (-0.89, -0.45)],
ED

providing support for Hypothesis 3a.

To assess Hypothesis 3b, we utilized perceived job qualifications as the outcome

PT

variable. The effect of disclosure condition on perceived appropriateness remained

CE

significant (b = -0.92, p < 0.001). The effect of perceived appropriateness on job

qualifications was significant such that a more appropriate disclosure led to the applicant
AC

being perceived as more qualified for the job (b = 0.41, p < 0.001). Finally, the indirect

effect of disclosure condition on perceived job qualifications through perceived

appropriateness was significantly different from zero [b = -0.38, 95%CI = (-0.54, -0.26)],

providing support for Hypothesis 3b.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Hypothesis 3c examined perceptions of person-organization fit as the outcome

variable in our mediation model. The effect of disclosure condition on perceived

appropriateness was again significant (b = -0.92, p < 0.001). Further, the effect of

perceived appropriateness on perceived POF was significant suggesting that when

disclosure is viewed as appropriate, applicants are more likely perceived as a good “fit”

T
with the hiring organization (b = 0.55, p < 0.0012). Finally, the indirect effect of

IP
condition onto perceptions of fit was significant, indicating that bisexual applicants were

CR
less likely to be perceived as a good fit with the hiring organization in part because

bisexual disclosures are perceived as less appropriate as compared to gay disclosures [b

US
= -0.50, 95%CI = (-0.69, -0.34)]. These results provide support for Hypothesis 3c.
AN
Finally, in an effort to provide support for Hypothesis 3d, we utilized our salary

variable with the zeros included as the outcome variable for our mediation model. The
M

effect of disclosure condition onto perceived appropriateness remained significant (b = -

ED

0.92, p < 0.001). The effect of perceived appropriateness on salary recommendations was

significant such that a single point increase in perceived appropriateness was associated
PT

with a $5,178.77 increase in starting salary (b = 5178.77, p < 0.001). Further, the indirect
CE

effect of disclosure condition on recommended salary through perceived appropriateness

was significantly different from zero [b = -4751.95, 95%CI = (-7372.88, -2789.59)],

AC

providing support for Hypothesis 3d.

Additionally, we calculated the means and standard deviations that were entered

for starting salary with and without the participants who entered zero for salary. We

included the values associated with the control condition in this analysis to include the

full range of responses in our dataset. When including the zero values (i.e., those who
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

chose not to hire the applicant and therefore likely held more negative attitudes toward

the applicant), bisexual individuals were given the lowest starting salary (M = 30,126.99,

SD = 19,469.68) followed by gay applicants (M = 33,183.10, SD = 18,847.04), followed

by the control condition (M = 35,555.19, SD = 19,902.83). Notably, when excluding the

zero values (i.e., only looking at people who would hire the applicant and thus likely had

T
more positive attitudes toward the applicant), the same trend emerged with bisexual

IP
applicants receiving the lowest salary (M = 38,465.71, SD = 12,699.99), followed by gay

CR
applicants (M = 40,620.69, SD = 11,435.57) followed by the control (M = 43,114.17, SD

= 12,349.92).

US
Taken together, these results suggest that simply disclosing bisexuality can lead to
AN
a myriad of negative job-relevant outcomes. For example, recommended starting salaries

for applicants who disclosed a bisexual identity were approximately $3,056.11 less than
M

recommended starting salaries for applicants who disclosed a gay identity, in part
ED

because evaluators perceived the disclosure of bisexuality as less appropriate than the

disclosure of a gay identity. Thus, our second study highlights that bisexual individuals
PT

could incur tangible negative costs for disclosing their sexual orientation at work. This
CE

cost of disclosure provides a potential explanation for the results found in Study 1, that

bisexual individuals are less likely to disclose and are less open about their sexual
AC

orientation than other groups.

General Discussion

Taken together, our findings advance existing scholarship in two important ways.

First, we found that bisexual employees are less open about their sexual orientation at

work and are less likely to disclose their sexual orientation at work as compared to gay or
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

lesbian employees. Specifically, our primary study exemplified that only 53% of bisexual

individuals had disclosed their sexual orientation at work as compared to 68% of gay men

and 70% of lesbian women. Interestingly, bisexual men were the least likely to disclose

as compared to gay men, lesbian women, and bisexual women. Second, our findings

confirm that the stigma of bisexuality is not limited to the heterosexual community; it

T
also pervades the larger LGB community. By assessing multiple perspectives toward

IP
bisexuality, we found that both gay and lesbian individuals and heterosexual individuals

CR
hold negative views of bisexuality. Indeed, Study 1 showed gay and lesbian individuals

were more likely to endorse negative views of bisexuality than bisexual individuals

US
themselves. Moreover, Study 2 showed that disclosing a bisexual identity as compared to
AN
a gay identity was perceived as less appropriate, which in turn produced tangible

financial loss for bisexual as compared to gay job applicants. Thus across both studies we
M

provide multiple perspectives as to the contributing factors that may influence bisexual
ED

individuals decision to disclose at work.

Additionally, our findings highlight the exacerbated risk that bisexual individuals
PT

incur in deciding whether or not to disclose their sexual orientation in an organizational

CE

setting. While there is a plethora of research detailing the positives and negatives of

disclosing a stigmatized identity (Clair et al., 2005; Ragins, 2008), there is a lack of
AC

research focusing on the unique challenges and concerns associated with managing a

bisexual identity in the workplace context. Holistically, the results of our studies

highlight some of the job-related consequences of disclosing a bisexual identity and

provide further evidence for the elevated apprehension that bisexual individuals face in

disclosing their identity at work.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Theoretical Implications

Our findings yield important theoretical implications with respect to bisexuality as

a unique subpopulation within the larger LGB community. Specifically, we extend the

parameters of minority stress theory (Meyer, 1995) to argue that the anticipation of a

discriminatory event could have a similar impact for bisexual individuals that

T
experiencing a discriminatory event does for those with other stigmatized identities.

IP
While anticipating and experiencing discrimination are different by nature, past research

CR
highlights the implications associated with anticipating discrimination such as decreased

physical and psychological well-being (Quinn & Chaudoir, 2009), which can lead to

US
further negative impacts on workplace performance. Thus, this anticipation could act as
AN
motivation for bisexual individuals to conceal their identity rather than reveal in an effort

to avoid the perceived stigma associated with their identity. Our results also provide a
M

pattern of support for the notion that bisexual individuals receive discrimination from
ED

both heterosexual and gay and lesbian groups, as bisexuality does not adhere to the

societally formed dichotomous perception of sexual orientation. This discrimination may

PT

lead more bisexual individuals to conceal their sexual orientation in an effort to blend in
CE

and avoid any negative costs associated with revealing a bisexual identity. Indeed, this

aligns with our earlier arguments that bisexual individuals may experience a larger threat
AC

to authenticity as compared to gay or lesbian individuals. Specifically, bisexual

individuals who choose to reveal their identity still may be improperly categorized as

either heterosexual or gay/lesbian, facilitating a largely negative experience and creating

even more dissonance about disclosing their identity in future interactions. However,

concealing a bisexual identity is not a viable solution either, as this facilitates a scenario
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

where these individuals are not being authentic externally to what they identify as

internally (Martinez, Sawyer, Thoroughgood, Ruggs, & Smith, 2017). Both of these

realities can contribute to the complex disclosure process that bisexual individuals face at

work.

In addition, the results of Study 1 provide a preliminary look into the differing

T
experiences of bisexual men and bisexual women. The results of our regression analysis

IP
indicated that gender and sexual orientation interacted to display that bisexual men were

CR
less likely to disclose as compared to bisexual women. This finding is consistent with

extant research on sexuality highlighting the harsher penalty that gender nonconforming

US
men incur as compared to gender nonconforming women (Herek, 2000; Herek, 2002;
AN
Monto & Supinski, 2014). While the mentioned studies pertain to gay men and lesbian

women, we argue that the trend present in our data is a reflection of this.
M

Practical Implications
ED

In addition to the theoretical implications of our work, our findings yield several

important implications for practitioners. First, our findings highlight the work-related
PT

disparities between bisexual employees as compared to their gay, lesbian, and

CE

heterosexual counterparts. Thus, organizations should be mindful to be as inclusive and

supportive as possible by promoting cultures that are explicitly accepting of bisexuality.

AC

This could be accomplished through awareness and education of the problems associated

with bisexuality discrimination in diversity trainings (Green & Chamberlain, 2014). We

postulate that a critical step in fostering this environment is first recognizing the

authenticity of bisexuality as a valid and concrete identity. Other scholars agree, as this

simple acknowledgement can convey willingness to advocate and invest in bisexual

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

individuals (Pope & Reynolds, 1991). We speculate that not only will this facilitate

disclosure through the perceptions of support and perceived positive reactions from

confidantes, but it may also reduce the threat to authenticity that bisexual individuals

often face as a result of their increased likelihood for being improperly categorized or

“not believed” even after they disclose. Training and education efforts could provide

T
strategies for fostering an inclusive environment to employees such as promoting

IP
authenticity, teaching effective ally behaviors, and providing counter-stereotypic

CR
information about bisexuality.

Current scholarship has examined how allies, or individuals who act as advocates

US
for stigmatized targets, can positively impact stigmatized individuals themselves. For
AN
example, there is a growing body of literature about how heterosexual individuals can act

as allies to members of the LGB community (Dessel, Goodman, & Woodford, 2017;
M

Rostosky, Black, Riggle, & Rosenkrantz, 2015), some of which relates the presence of
ED

allies and supportive coworkers to higher rates of disclosure at work (Wessel, 2017). In

the context of bisexuality, having allies that are outside of the bisexual community is
PT

imperative for the reduction of the aforementioned threat to authenticity. We argued

CE

earlier in this manuscript that the endorsement of bisexuality stereotypes comes

predominantly from outsiders. Thus, having outsider individuals validate bisexuality as

AC

authentic and discount negative bisexuality stereotypes could potentially serve as a direct

antecedent for bisexuality disclosure as well as facilitate an inclusive environment.

Future Research Directions

In light of the above discussion, we postulate that there are several potential

research avenues to be explored as the literature moves toward a stronger integration of

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

research and theory on bisexuality and extant organizational scholarship. Broadly, we

hope that our findings motivate others to conduct research with bisexuality as a focal

demographic, as the research in this area is particularly scant. In addition, we suggest

here that the costs of disclosing bisexuality in a workplace setting may outweigh any

potential positive outcomes to revealing, but there may be positive outcomes to

T
disclosing bisexuality that were not considered nor explored here given the preliminary

IP
scope of our work. For example, disclosing bisexuality may promote the authenticity and

CR
concrete nature of bisexuality as a valid sexual orientation, thereby reinforcing one’s

sense of self.

US
Interestingly, recent evidence suggests bisexual individuals are more likely to
AN
value diversity and inclusion as a whole, as compared to gay and lesbian individuals who

tend to value sexual orientation diversity above and beyond other specific types of
M

diversity (Robinson, Brown, Sleight, & Thomas, 2017). Based on these findings, future
ED

research could explore the possibility that bisexual individuals are more likely to be

accepting of dissimilar others due to the relatively stronger stigma of bisexuality as

PT

compared to other groups. Extending this notion, it is possible that bisexual individuals
CE

may be more open to different types of people, work projects, creative ideas, and

experiences.
AC

Finally, further research assessing the boundary conditions that facilitate or hinder

the decision to reveal a bisexual identity at work is also critical. Drawing from the model

proposed by Ragins (2008), we expect there are important boundary conditions for

disclosing bisexuality (i.e., support, stigma perception, reaction of confidante) that help

individuals navigate these identity management decisions. While recent research has
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

identified boundary conditions that are related to the disclosure of general stigmatized

identities such as the expectation of the reaction of the confidante (Clark, Linder,

Armistead, & Austin, 2003; Jones & King, 2014; Zea, Reisen, Poppen, Bianchi, &

Echeverry, 2007), internal psychological factors such as self-verification (Ragins, 2008),

and environmental factors such as perceived support (Griffith & Hebl, 2002; Rhoades &

T
Eisenberger, 2002), we encourage future research to explore how these boundary

IP
conditions may operate similarly or distinctly in the case of bisexuality disclosure. For

CR
instance, future research could assess organizationally relevant characteristics of bisexual

workers including hierarchical level within their organization, bisexuality-related

US
language in their organization’s diversity policies, and overall organizational climate and
AN
receptiveness to a bisexual identity. Thus, while our study serves as an initial approach to

understanding the disclosure decisions for bisexual individuals, future scholars should
M

take advantage of the aforementioned nuances in this complex process.

ED

Conclusion

We sought to shed preliminary light on the complex and unique experiences of

PT

bisexual employees in modern workplace settings. Taken together, the results of our two
CE

studies revealed that bisexual employees feel less comfortable being open about their

sexuality at work as compared to gay and lesbian employees, that bisexuality is

AC

stigmatized in the gay and lesbian community as well as the heterosexual community,

and that disclosing a bisexual identity at work is markedly more disadvantaging to

bisexuals as compared to gay individuals. It is our hope that our research serves as

motivation for both academicians and practitioners to explore and evaluate how

organizations and their employees can serve as stronger allies to bisexual workers.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Indeed, it is incumbent upon us as scholars and practitioners to provide psychologically

safer, more inclusive, and therefore more productive working environments for bisexual

employees.

T
IP
CR
US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

References

Beaber, T. (2008). Well-being among bisexual females: The roles of internalized

biphobia, stigma consciousness, social support, and self-disclosure (Unpublished

doctoral dissertation). The California School of Professional Psychology, Alliant

International University, San Francisco, CA.

T
Bostwick, W. (2012). Assessing bisexual stigma and mental health status: A brief report.

IP
Journal of Bisexuality, 12, 214–222. Doi:

CR
http://doi.org/10.1080/15299716.2012.674860

Bradford, M. (2004). The bisexual experience: Living in a dichotomous culture. Journal

US
of Bisexuality, 4, 7-23. Doi: http://doi.org/10.1300/J159v04n01_02
AN
Burke, S. E., & LaFrance, M. (2016a). Lay conceptions of sexual minority groups.

Archives of sexual behavior, 45, 635-650. Doi: http://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-

M

015-0655-5
ED

Burke, S. E., & LaFrance, M. (2016b). Stereotypes of bisexual people: What do bisexual

people themselves think? Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity,

PT

3, 247-254. Doi: http://doi.org/10.1037/sqd0000168

CE

Button, S. B. (2004). Identity management strategies utilized by lesbian and gay

employees: A quantitative investigation. Group & Organization Management, 29,

AC

470-494. Doi: http://doi.org/10.1177/105960113257417

Bye, H. H., Horverak, J. G., Sandal, G. M., Same, D. L., & van de Vigver, F. J. R.

(2014). Cultural fit and ethnic background in the job interview. International

Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 14, 7-26. Doi:

http://doi.org/10.1177/1470595813491237
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Chrobot-Mason, D., Button, S. B. & DiClementi, J. D. (2001). Sexual identity

management strategies: An exploration of antecedents and consequences. Sex

Roles 45, 321-336. Doi: http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014357514405

Clair, J. A., Beatty, J. E., & MacLean, T. L. (2005). Out of sight but not out of mind:

Managing invisible social identities in the workplace. Academy of Management

T
Review, 30, 78-95. Doi: http://doi.org/10.2307/20159096

IP
Clark, H. J., Lindner, G., Armistead, L., & Austin, B. J. (2003). Stigma, disclosure, and

CR
psychological Functioning Among HIV-Infected and Non-Infected African-

American Women. Women & Health, 38, 57-71. Doi:

http://doi.org/10.1300/J013v38n04_04
US
AN
Cox, N., Vanden Berghe, W., Dewaele, A., & Vincke, J. (2010). Acculturation strategies

and mental health in gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth. Journal of Youth and
M

Adolescence, 39, 1199-1210. Doi: http://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-009-9435-7

ED

Dessel, A. B., Goodman, K. D., & Woodford, M. R. (2017). LGBT discrimination on

campus and heterosexual bystanders: Understanding intentions to intervene.

PT

Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 10, 101-116. Doi:

CE

http://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000015

Diamond, L. M. (2005). ‘I’m straight, but I kissed a girl’: The trouble with American
AC

media representations of female-female sexuality. Feminism & Psychology, 15,

104-110. Doi: http://doi.org/10.1177/0959353505049712

Durso, L. E., & Meyer, I. H. (2013). Patterns and predictors of disclosure of sexual

orientation to healthcare providers among lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 10, 35-42. Doi:

http://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-012-0105-2

Engle, R. W. (2002). Working memory capacity as executive attention. Current

Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 19-23. Doi: http://doi.org/10.1111.1467-

8721.00160

T
Friedman, M. R., Dodge, B., Schick, V., Herbenick, D., Hubach, R. D., Bowling, J.,

IP
Goncalves, G., Krier, S., & Reece, M. (2014). From bias to bisexual health

CR
disparities: Attitudes towards bisexual men and women in the United States.

LGBT health, 1, 309-318. Doi: http://doi.org/10.1089/lgbt.2014.0005

US
Fox, R. C. (2006). Affirmative psychotherapy with bisexual women and bisexual men:
AN
An introduction. Journal of Bisexuality, 6, 1-11. Doi:

http://doi.org/10.1300/J159v06n01_01
M

Gates, G. J. (2011). How many people are lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender? UCLA:
ED

The Williams Institute. Retrieved from: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/09h684x2

George, D., & Mallery, P. (2010). SPSS for Windows step by step. A simple study guide
PT

and reference (10. Baskı).

CE

Green, H. B., & Chamberlain, B. (2014). Measuring Bisexual Workplace Inclusion: A

Bisexual Equality Index. Retrieved from http://www.outandequal.org/wp-

AC

content/uploads/2014/12/3W12229.pdf

Griffith, K. H., & Hebl, M. R. (2002). The disclosure dilemma for gay men and lesbians:

"Coming out" at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1191-1199. Doi:

http://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.6.1191
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Herek, G. M. (2000). Sexual Prejudice and Gender: Do Heterosexuals' Attitudes Toward

Lesbians and Gay Men Differ?. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 251-266.

https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00164

Herek, G. M. (2002). Heterosexuals' attitudes toward bisexual men and women in the

United States. Journal of sex research, 39, 264-274.

T
http://doi.org/10.1080/00224490209552150

IP
Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart. Berkeley: University of California Press.

CR
Human Rights Campaign. (2015). Health disparities among bisexual people. Retrieved

from http://hrc-assets.s3-website-us-east-

US
1.amazonaws.com//files/assets/resources/HRC-BiHealthBrief.pdf
AN
Israel, T., & Mohr, J. J. (2004). Attitudes toward bisexual women and men: Current

research, future directions. Journal of Bisexuality, 4, 117-134. Doi:

M

http://doi.org/10.1300/J159v04n01_09
ED

Jeffries, W. L. (2014). Beyond the bisexual bridge: Sexual health among U.S. men who

have sex with men and women. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 47,
PT

320–329. Doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2014.05.002

CE

Jones, K. P., & King, E. B. (2014). Managing concealable stigmas at work: A review and

multilevel model. Journal of Management, 40, 1466-1494. Doi:

AC

http://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313515518

Jones, K. P., King, E. B., Gilrane, V. L., McCausland, T. C., Cortina, J. M., & Grimm, K.

J. (2016). The baby bump: Managing a dynamic stigma over time. Journal of

Management, 42, 1530-1556. Doi: http://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313503012

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

King, E. B., Mohr, J. J., Peddie, C. I., Jones, K. P., & Kendra, M. (2014). Predictors of

identity management: An exploratory experience-sampling study of lesbian, gay,

and bisexual workers. Journal of Management, 43, 476-502. Doi:

http://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314539350

Kuyper, L., & Fokkema, T. (2011). Minority stress and mental health among Dutch

T
LGBs: Examination of differences between sex and sexual orientation. Journal of

IP
Counseling Psychology, 58, 222-233. Doi: http://doi.org/10.1037/a0022688

CR
Madera, J. M. (2010). The cognitive effects of hiding one’s homosexuality in the

workplace. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science

US
and Practice, 3, 86-89. Doi: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2009.01204.x
AN
Manne, S., Ostroff, J., Rini, C., Fox, K., Goldstein, L., & Grana, G. (2004). The

interpersonal process model of intimacy: The role of self-disclosure, partner

M

disclosure, and partner responsiveness in interactions between breast cancer

ED

patients and their partners. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 589-599. Doi:

http://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.18.4.589
PT

Martinez, L. R., Sawyer, K. B., Thoroughgood, C. N., Ruggs, E. N., & Smith, N. A.
CE

(2017). The importance of being “me”: The relation between authentic identity
AC

expression and transgender employees’ work-related attitudes and

experiences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102, 215-226. Doi:

http://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000168

Meyer, I. H. (1995). Minority stress and mental health in gay men. Journal of Health

Sciences and Social Behavior, 36, 38-56. Doi: http://doi.org/10.2307/2137286

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Mock, S. E., Sedlovskaya, A., & Purdie-Vaughns, V. (2011). Gay and bisexual men’s

disclosure of sexual orientation in the workplace: Associations with retirement

planning. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 30, 123-132. Doi:

http://doi.org/10.1177/0733464809358081

Mohr, J. J., & Rochlen, A. B. (1999). Measuring attitudes regarding bisexuality in

T
lesbian, gay male, and heterosexual populations. Journal of Counseling

IP
Psychology, 46, 353-369. Doi: http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.46.3.353

CR
Mohr, J. J., Weiner, J. L., Chopp, R. M., & Wong, S. J. (2009). Effects of client

bisexuality on clinical judgment: When is bias most likely to occur?. Journal of

US
Counseling Psychology, 56, 164-175. Doi: http://doi.org/10.1037/a0012816
AN
Monto, M. A., & Supinski, J. (2014). Discomfort with homosexuality: A new measure

captures differences in attitudes toward gay men and lesbians. Journal of

M

homosexuality, 61, 899-916. Doi: http://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2014.870816

ED

Morgan, E. M., & Thompson, E. M. (2007). Young women's sexual experiences within

same-sex friendships: Discovering and defining bisexual and bi-curious identity.

PT

Journal of Bisexuality, 6, 7-34. Doi: http://doi.org/10.1300/J159v06n03_02

CE

Morris, J. A., & Feldman, D. C. (1996). The dimensions, antecedents, and consequences

of emotional labor. The Academy of Management Review, 21, 986-1010. Doi:

AC

http://doi.org/10.2307/259161

Nahum-Shani, I., Bamberger, P. A., & Bacharach, S. B. (2011). Social support and

employee well-being: The conditioning effect of perceived patterns of supportive

exchange. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 52, 123-139. Doi:

http://doi.org/10.1177/0022146510395024
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Persson, T. J., & Pfaus, J. G. (2015). Bisexuality and mental health: Future research

directions. Journal of Bisexuality, 15, 82-98. Doi:

http://doi.org/10.1080/15299716.2014.994694

Pirlott, A. G., & Neuberg, S. L. (2014). Sexual prejudice: Avoiding unwanted sexual

interest? Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5, 92-101. Doi:

T
http://doi.org/10.1177/1948550613486674

IP
Pope, R. L., & Reynolds, A. L. (1991). Including bisexuality: It’s more than just a label.

CR
In N. Evans, & V. Wall (Eds.). Beyond tolerance: Gays, lesbians and bisexuals

on campus (pp. 205-212). Alexandria, VA: American College Personnel

Association.
US
AN
Quinn, D. M., & Chaudoir, S. R. (2009). Living with a concealable stigmatized identity:

the impact of anticipated stigma, centrality, salience, and cultural stigma on

M

psychological distress and health. Journal of personality and social

ED

psychology, 97, 634-651. Doi: http://doi.org/10.1037/a0015815

Rafaeli, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1987). Expression of emotion as part of the work role. The
PT

Academy of Management Review, 12, 23-37. Doi: http://doi.org/10.2307/257991

CE

Ragins, B. R. (2008). Disclosure disconnects: Antecedents and consequences of

disclosing invisible stigmas across life domains. The Academy of Management

AC

Review, 33, 194-215. Doi: http://doi.org/10.2307/20159383

Rankin, S., Morton, J., & Bell, M. (2015). Complicated? Bisexual people’s experiences

of and ideas for improving services. Retrieved from http://www.equality-

network.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Complicated-Bisexual-Report.pdf
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the

literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698-714. Doi:

http://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.698

Robinson, A., Brown, B. L., Sleight, R., & Thomas, K. M. (2017). LGBTQ experiences

in healthcare: How sexual identity matters. In D. F. Arena & K. P. Jones (Chairs),

T
Don’t trust the B: Bisexual stigma in modern organizations. Symposium to be

IP
conducted at the annual conference of the Society for Industrial Organizational

CR
Psychology, Orlando, FL.

Rostosky, S. S., Black, W. W., Riggle, E. D., & Rosenkrantz, D. (2015). Positive aspects

US
of being a heterosexual ally to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT)
AN
people. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 85, 331-338. Doi:

http://doi.org/10.1037/ort0000056
M

Rust, P. C. (1995). Bisexuality and the challenge to lesbian politics: Sex, loyalty, and
ED

revolution. NYU Press.

Rust, P. C. (2001). Make me a map: Bisexual men’s images of bisexual community.

PT

Journal of Bisexuality, 1, 47-108. Doi: http://doi.org/10.1300/J159v01n02_03

CE

Spalding, L. R., & Peplau, L. A. (1997). The unfaithful lover: Heterosexuals' perceptions

of bisexuals and their relationships. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 611-

AC

625. Doi: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00134.x

Tilcsik, A. (2011). Pride and prejudice: Employment discrimination against openly gay

men in the United States. American Journal of Sociology, 117, 586-626. Doi:

http://doi.org/10.1086/661653
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Turner, R. N., Hewstone, M., & Voci, A. (2007). Reducing explicit and implicit outgroup

prejudice via direct and extended contact: The mediating role of self-disclosure

and intergroup anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 369–

388. Doi: http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.3.369

Waldo, C. R. (1999). Working in a majority context: A structural model of heterosexism

T
as minority stress in the workplace. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46, 218-

IP
232. Doi: http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.46.2.218

CR
Wessel, J. L. (2017). The importance of allies and allied organizations: Sexual orientation

disclosure and concealment at work. Journal of Social Issues, 73(2), 240-254.

http://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12214
US
AN
Zea, M. C., Reisen, C. A., Poppen, P. J., Bianchi, F. T., & Echeverry, J. J. (2007).

Predictors of disclosure of human immunovirus-positive serostatus among Latino

M

gay men. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 13, 304-312. Doi:
ED

http://doi.org/10.1037/1099-9809.13.4.304

Zivony, A., & Lobel, T. (2014). The invisible stereotypes of bisexual men. Archives of
PT

Sexual Behavior, 43, 1165-1176. Doi: http://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-014-0263-9

CE
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 1
Descriptive Statistics and Zero-Order Correlations Among Study 1 Variables

M (SD) Disc Work NonWork Stability Tolerance

Disclosure 0.64 -
(0.48)

T
Work Open 3.62 0.71** -

IP
(1.76)

CR
Nonwork Open 4.37 0.37** 0.60** -
(1.52)

US
Stability 2.36 -0.002 -0.01 -0.08 -
(1.16)
AN
Tolerance 1.89 -0.04 -0.08 -0.18** 0.74** -
(1.06)
M
ED

Notes. Disc = disclosure decision. Disclosure decision was coded such that individuals
who indicated that they had not disclosed were coded as 0 and individuals who had
PT

disclosed were coded as 1. Work = workplace openness. NonWork = nonworkplace

openness. Stability = perceived stability of bisexuality. Tolerance = tolerance of
CE

bisexuality.
** p < .01.
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 2
Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Disclosure (N = 297)
Step 1 Step 2

Variable B SE B β B SE B β

T
IP
Gender 0.10 0.06 0.10 0.02 0.07 0.02
Sexual Orientation -0.16* 0.06 -0.16* -0.29** 0.08 -0.29**

CR
Gen x Sex Ori 0.24* 0.12 0.19*

US
R2 0.04* 0.05*
F for change in R2 5.27* 4.24*
AN
Note: Gender was a dichotomous variable in which men were coded as 0 and women
were coded as 1. Sexual orientation was a dichotomous variable in which non-bisexual
M

individuals were coded as 0 and bisexual individuals were coded as 1.

*p < .05. **p < .01.
ED
PT
CE
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 3
Descriptive Statistics and Zero-Order Correlations Among Study 2 Variables

M (SD) App Qual Hire POF Sal Sal x Z

App 3.86 (1.19) -
Qualifications 5.24 (1.18) 0.34** -

T
IP
Hire 4.84 (1.49) 0.48** 0.73** -
POF 4.89 (1.25) 0.45** 0.68** 0.73** -

CR
Salary 31,649.68 0.30** 0.51** 0.62** 0.50** -
(19,189.37)

US
Salary No Zero 39,562.11 0.03 0.21** 0.21** 0.18** 1.00** -
(12,094.80)
AN
Notes. App = Appropriateness of Disclosure. Qual = job qualifications. Hire = intention
M

to hire. POF = person-organization fit. Sal = salary with zeros included. Sal x Z = Salary
with zeros not included.
ED

** p < .01.
PT
CE
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figure 1

The Interaction Between Gender and Sexual Orientation in Predicting

Disclosure Decision

0.8

T
0.7

IP
0.6
Disclosure Decision

CR
0.5 Bisexual
Gay/Lesbian
0.4

US
0.3

0.2
AN
0.1
M

0
Male Female

Notes: Disclosure decision was coded such that individuals that indicated that they had
ED

not disclosed were coded as 0 and individuals who had disclosed were coded as 1.
PT
CE
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Appendix 1

Attitudes Towards Bisexuals Scale – Stability

Please indicate your level of agreement to the following statements.

1. Most people who claim to be bisexual are in denial about their true sexual
orientation.
2. Just like Heterosexuality and Homosexuality, Bisexuality is a stable sexual
orientation. (Reverse coded)
3. Most individuals who identify as Bisexual have not yet discovered their true

T
sexual orientation.

IP
4. Most individuals who call themselves Bisexual are temporarily experimenting
with their sexuality.

CR
5. Bisexuals are afraid to commit to one lifestyle.

Attitudes Towards Bisexuals Scale – Tolerance

US
Please indicate your level of agreement to the following statements.
1. Bisexuality is harmful to society because it breaks down the natural decisions
between the sexes.
AN
2. Bisexuality is immoral.
3. Bisexual individuals are sick.
4. Bisexuality is not a perversion. (Reverse coded)
M

5. As far as I'm concerned, Bisexuality is unnatural.

6. The growing acceptance of Bisexuality indicates a decline in American values.
ED
PT
CE
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

HIGHLIGHTS

 Provides multiple perspectives about bisexual individuals over two studies

 Highlights job related penalties for disclosing bisexuality at work
 Explains the disclosure of bisexuality in the context of Minority Stress Theory
 Highlights bisexual individuals as the focal demographic of study
 Presents evidence of the nuanced disclosure experience for bisexual individuals

T
IP
CR
US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC