The authors present 3 studies on the initial validity and reliability of the Scale of Ethnocultural Empathy (SEE), a self-report instrument that measures empathy toward people of racial and ethnic backgrounds different from one's own. Specifically, the exploratory factor analysis yielded 4 factors: Empathic Feeling and Expression, Empathic Perspective Taking, Acceptance of Cultural Differences, and Empathic Awareness. A confirmatory factor analysis provided evidence for the stability and generalizability of this 4-factor solution. The SEE was correlated in the predicted directions with general empathy and attitudes toward people's similarities and differences. High internal consistency and test-retest reliability estimates were also found across the three studies. A discussion of how this scale can add to the research and practice regarding empathy and multicultural issues is provided.

Four studies were conducted on the development and validation of the Measure of Sexual Identity Exploration and Commitment (MoSIEC). Exploratory factor analysis of an initial item pool yielded a 22-item measure with 4 distinct factors assessing commitment, exploration, sexual orientation identity uncertainty, and synthesis/integration. Exploratory factor analysis findings support the argument that sexual identity is a broad, multidimensional construct and that the MoSIEC assesses the construct of sexual identity in a manner consistent with J. E. Marcia's (1966) model of identity development. Confirmatory factor analyses demonstrated the stability of the MoSIEC factor structure, providing evidence of construct validity. Test-retest stability, internal consistency, and validity coefficients supported the use and continued development of the MoSIEC. Significant differences in levels of exploration and sexual orientation identity uncertainty were found among different sexual orientation identity groups, establishing the criterion-related validity of the MoSIEC. Implications for further development and use of the MoSIEC are discussed.

This article builds on earlier conceptual models of identity development to propose a model of heterosexual identity development. A review of the existing literature on majority and minority group identity development, heterosexuality, and other relevant foundational literature is provided as a rationale for the proposed model. Based on an analysis of the strengths and limitations of the existing literature, the authors propose a preliminary model of heterosexual identity development. The article concludes with implications for research, practice, training, and measurement in counseling psychology.

The authors present a qualitative analysis of a process by which a research team of counselors-in-training confronted their heterosexist biases while investigating heterosexual attitudes toward sexual minorities. Members of the research team discovered that it was essential to reflect on and evaluate their attitudes. assumptions. and biases before they could conduct scientific research about affirmative attitudes toward lesbian. gay male. and bisexual male and female individuals. Self-reflective narratives written by each research team member were analyzed using consensual qualitative research methodology. Results yielded 10 general categories or themes. Implications for counseling theory, training. and future research are discussed.An estimated 5 to 25 million people in the United States self-Identify as lesbian, gay. or bisexual (LGB; Gelberg & Chojnacki, 1995). Although the members of the LGB population are not a visible minority, they are still treated differently than are members of the majority, heterosexual population.LGB individuals experience oppression on a variety of levels because of their sexual identity/orientation. LGB individuals' daily experiences differ from those of the heterosexual majority in numerous ways, including but not limited to a lack of fundamental civil rights. discrimination. rejection or ostracism by family of origin. societal censure, physical violence. and objectification by campaigns of defamation and hatred (Perez. Defsord, & Bieschke, 2000).Recent efforts in the counseling field demonstrate that there is a dedication to affirmative practice and training regarding counseling for (or providing services to) LGB individuals (Bieschke. Eberz, Bard, & Croteau. 1998;Bowman. 2003;Croteau, Bieschke, Philips. & Lark. 1998; Fasstnger, 1991;Phillips & Fisher. 1998;Phillips, Ingram. Smith, & Mindes, 2003). Yet, many counseling graduate students feel inadequately trained to work with LGB clients (Bieschke et aI., 1998;Croteau et al., 1998 There are potential consequences to the low levels of training regarding LGB issues. Counselors may exhibit heterosexist biases in their work with and attitudes toward LGB individuals (Rudolph. 1988(Rudolph. . 1990).LGB clients have reported being dissatisfied with their counseling experiences because of incorrect assumptions and blatant biases on the part of their counselors. Examples of these biases include automatically assuming that a client is heterosexual before he or she indicates his or her sexual orientation. not recognizing the problems of social prejudice against gay men and lesbians and/or internalized homophobia. and lacking the basic knowledge ofLGB issues necessary to be an effective counselor (Garnets. Hancock. Cochran. Goodchllds, & Peplau, 1991;Glenn & Russell. 1986; Graham. Rawlings. Halpern. & Hermes. 1984;Liddle, 1996;Rudolph. 1988Rudolph. . 1990). These findings indicate a critical need to increase the number of heterosexual allies and mentors in the counseling field (Lark & Croteau. 1998). An investigation of how heterosexual coun...