Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2025 Sep 4.
Published in final edited form as: J Homosex. 2024 Sep 4;72(10):1897–1917. doi: 10.1080/00918369.2024.2398552

A Latent Profile Analysis of Religious Parents’ Responses to their Sexual and Gender Diverse Child

Veronica Hanna-Walker 1, Eva S Lefkowitz 1, Ryan J Watson 1
PMCID: PMC11876460  NIHMSID: NIHMS2023613  PMID: 39230418

Abstract

Prior research indicates that religious parents can have negative, positive, or ambivalent responses to their child’s sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI). Yet, to our knowledge no research has quantitatively examined patterns of sexual and gender diverse (SGD) youth’s perceptions of their religious parents’ responses to their SOGI. Without examining variations in these patterns, we are unable to better understand the experiences of SGD youth with religious parents. In the current paper, we examined patterns of SGD youth’s perceptions of their religious parents’ SOGI-specific rejection, acceptance, and SOGI change efforts. We also examined if these patterns differed by SGD youth’s individual and contextual factors. The analytic sample consisted of online responses from 5,686 SGD youth (Mage = 15.95). We found four distinct profiles: Positive Parental Response, Moderate Negative Parental Response, Low Parental Response, and High Negative Parental Response. The largest profile was the Positive Parental Response, suggesting that many SGD youth perceived positive responses from their religious parents. SGD youth with diverse gender identities and intersecting identities, such as race/ethnicity, were more vulnerable to religious parents’ negative responses. Findings have implications for existing resources and programs aimed at strengthening SGD youth’s relationship with their religious parents.

Keywords: Religious parents, parental responses to sexual orientation/gender identity, SOGI-specific rejection, SOGI-specific acceptance, LGBTQ+ youth, change efforts, religion

Parental responses to their adolescents’ sexual orientation and/or gender identity (SOGI) can have important implications for youth’s mental health symptoms and risk-taking behavior during adolescence (Willoughby et al., 2010) and into adulthood (Clark et al., 2022; D’Amico & Julien, 2012). Parental rejection specific to their child’s sexual and gender diverse (SGD) identities is associated with their children experiencing more depressive and anxiety symptoms, suicidal ideation, and substance use (D’Amico et al., 2015; Grossman et al., 2021). In contrast, SOGI-specific parental acceptance can be protective against stress and depressive and anxiety symptoms (Miller et al., 2020). Religious parents, or parents who affiliate with a religious denomination and engage in private and public religious activities (Baiocco et al., 2015) may be particularly likely to reject or fail to accept their SGD youth. In addition, religious parents may also engage in SOGI change efforts (Ryan et al., 2020), or any practices that therapists, parents, or religious leaders use with the intent to alter diverse sexual and gender identities (American Psychological Association, 2021a; 2021b). Extant evidence demonstrates that experiencing SOGI change efforts is associated with worse mental health symptoms for SGD youth, such as more depressive symptoms and suicidal attempts during adolescence (Green et al., 2020; Meanley et al., 2020; Ryan et al., 2020).

SOGI-specific parental rejection and acceptance are distinct constructs that can co-occur and are not simply two ends of one continuum (e.g., Pollit et al., 2023). In fact, some parents may have both positive and negative responses to their children, sometimes referred to as ambivalent responses (Reczek, 2016; van Bergen et al., 2021). Little research has quantitatively examined if there are distinct groupings, or profiles, of SGD youth based on their reports of their religious parents’ responses to their SOGI. Furthermore, we know of no research that has examined patterns of parental responses to their child’s SOGI that include SOGI change efforts. It is also important to understand how SGD youth’s individual and contextual factors (e.g., sexual orientation, gender identity, race/ethnicity, age, and parents’ education) are associated with profiles of religious parents’ responses as prior research found that parental responses vary by such factors (e.g., Clark et al., 2022; Simon et al., 2022). Thus, in the current paper we use a family stress theory lens and latent profile analysis (LPA) to identify profiles of religious parental responses to their child’s SOGI, specifically SOGI-specific rejection and acceptance and SOGI change efforts. We also examine SGD youth’s individual and contextual factors that are associated with these profiles.

Family Stress Theory and Parental Responses to Their Child’s SOGI

Family stress theory is a relevant framework for examining parental responses to their child’s SOGI. According to family stress theory, the family works to maintain a state of equilibrium (Malia, 2006). When families experience a stressor, or a crisis-provoking event (Boss, 1987), family members use coping skills to resist change and maintain equilibrium (McCubbin & Patterson, 1985). Stressors can either be normative and expected, such as children leaving for college, or non-normative and unexpected, such as teenage pregnancy. If family members’ coping skills are insufficient to counteract change, they enter a process of disequilibrium called family stress (Boss, 2002). Three factors determine how a family reacts to a stressor: 1) the availability of family-based resources (e.g., family cohesion; Willoughby et al., 2006), 2) the meaning given to the stressor, and 3) preexisting stressors (Hill, 1949; McCubbin & Patterson, 1985). Family stress theory also suggests that a family’s response to a stressor will impact the health of individual family members (Hill, 1949).

Having a SGD child could be considered a non-normative stressor that threatens family equilibrium (e.g., Willoughby et al., 2006), especially for parents who are affiliated with religions that are non-affirming of sexual and gender diversity (e.g., do not promote gender-affirming care or same-gender relationships; Campbell et al., 2019). For some religious parents, having a SGD youth may be at odds with their religious beliefs. If parents cannot resolve the discrepancy between their religious beliefs and their child’s SOGI, having a child with a diverse SOGI would result in family stress (Boss, 2002).

Person-Centered Analyses and Religious Parents’ Responses to Their Child’s SOGI

Mostly qualitative or mixed-methods research has examined religious parental responses to their child’s SOGI (e.g., Seager van Dyk et al., 2022). For instance, Christian parents of a lesbian, gay, or bisexual child feel grief, sorrow, anger, and shame, but also feel love and a desire to get to know their child better (Gattamorta et al., 2019; Maslowe & Yarhouse, 2015). This work is important as it documents that religious parents can have nuanced responses to their child’s SOGI. However, to our knowledge no research has quantitatively examined if different patterns of religious parents’ responses to their child’s SOGI exist, or if SGD youth’s individual and contextual factors relate to these patterns. In contrast to qualitative methods, person-centered analyses are quantitative methods to examine patterns or profiles within a sample. Such analyses assume that within heterogeneous samples there are subsamples that share distinct patterns based on primary variables of interest (Collins & Lanza, 2009). Therefore, person-centered analyses such as LPA, are needed to examine possible patterns in SGD youth’s experiences of their parents’ responses to their SOGI. If different patterns or profiles of SGD youth’s experiences of their parents’ responses to their SOGI exist, comparing these profiles, and what individual and contextual factors are associated with profile membership, can further our understanding of the experiences of SGD youth with religious parents.

Religiosity and Parental Reactions to Their Child’s SOGI

Examining religious parental responses to their child’s SOGI is important because parents who are either more religious or are affiliated with disaffirming religions respond to their child’s SOGI in more negative ways than less religious parents (van Bergen et al., 2023). For instance, SGD children who view their parents as more religious experience more SOGI change efforts than SGD children who perceive their parents as less religious (Ryan et al., 2020).

SOGI change efforts have been linked to suicidal ideation and attempts in SGD youth (Hill et al., 2022). However, several states do not have laws prohibiting SOGI change efforts for SGD youth (Movement Advancement Project, 2023). Given how detrimental SOGI change efforts can be for SGD individuals (Hill et al., 2022; Ryan et al., 2020), more research that considers SOGI change efforts when examining patterns of religious parents’ responses to their child’s SOGI is needed. For instance, it is unclear if SOGI-specific rejection and SOGI change efforts happen in tandem, or if religious parents use SOGI change efforts while simultaneously responding to their SGD child’s SOGI in an accepting way. Qualitative research suggests that religious parents can hold contradictory feelings about their child’s SOGI (Reed et al., 2020; Zeininger et al., 2017) and believe that engaging in SOGI change efforts is a way to show their child they love them and want the best for them (McCormick & Kriger, 2020). Thus, although we would expect to find profiles of SGD youth whose parents are high in rejection and SOGI change efforts and low in acceptance, and profiles high in acceptance and low in rejection and SOGI change efforts, we also expect to find additional patterns. Specifically, given prior qualitative research (McCormick & Kriger, 2020; Reed et al., 2020), we may find patterns of SGD youth whose religious parents are accepting and not rejecting of their SGD child’s SOGI, but still engage in SOGI change efforts as these parents try to reconcile their religious beliefs with being the parent of a SGD child (Aramburu Alegría, 2018).

Individual and Contextual Factors

Broad family rejection and acceptance and SOGI change efforts vary by SGD youth’s sexual orientation, gender identity, race/ethnicity, age, and parents’ education (Clark et al., 2022; Ryan et al., 2020). Lesbian and gay youth are more likely to have parents who respond to their SOGI negatively or experience less family support compared to bisexual, queer, and questioning youth (Clark et al., 2022; Darwich, 2008). However, bisexual youth also experience more family rejection through homelessness than lesbian and gay youth (Siconolfi et al., 2020). Asexual youth experience less SOGI-specific family support than non-asexual SGD youth (Simon et al., 2022). Research on experiences with SOGI change efforts is mixed, suggesting either that lesbian and gay youth experience more SOGI change efforts than bisexual youth (Green et al., 2020) or that there are no differences based on sexual orientation (Ryan et al., 2020).

Transgender and nonbinary youth are more likely to have parents who respond positively to their SOGI than sexual diverse cisgender youth (Clark et al., 2022). However, transgender and nonbinary youth experience more homelessness than cisgender youth (Eisenberg et al., 2019). Findings are mixed for SOGI change efforts, with some research suggesting that transgender and nonbinary youth experience more SOGI change efforts than sexual diverse cisgender youth (Green et al., 2020), or that the groups do not differ (Ryan et al., 2020).

Some studies suggest that Black, Hispanic, and multiracial SGD youth are more likely to report ambiguous or rejecting parental responses to their SOGI than White SGD youth (Clark et al., 2022). Mixed findings for SOGI change efforts indicate Hispanic SGD youth experience more SOGI change efforts than White SGD youth (Green et al., 2020) or that there are no ethnic/racial differences (Ryan et al., 2020).

Older SGD youth are more likely to have parents who have negative responses to their SOGI and report more instances of SOGI change efforts than younger SGD youth (Clark et al., 2022; Fenaughty et al., 2023). We include parents’ education as a proxy for socioeconomic status (SES). Given that one of the determinants of family’s responses to stressors are preexisting stressors (McCubbin & Patterson, 1985), SGD youth in lower SES families may be more likely to report negative parental responses due to financial strain (Conger & Elder, 2020). In addition, more educated parents are more likely to respond ambiguously to their child’s SOGI and engage in fewer SOGI change efforts than less educated parents (Clark et al., 2022; Ryan et al., 2022).

The Current Study

In the current study, we identified profiles of religious parental responses to their SGD child’s SOGI, and what individual and contextual factors are associated with these profiles. We know of two prior studies that have used LPA to examine patterns of family environments and parental support for their SGD child (Allen et al., 2022; Clark et al., 2022). Our study extends this prior work in several ways. First, we included a large sample of SGD youth with a range of sexual orientations and gender identities, whereas some prior work included only transgender youth (Allen et al., 2022). Second, we assessed parental response from the SGD youth’s perspective, but prior work assessed parents’ perceptions of their own responses (Clark et al., 2022). Third, we focused specifically on SGD youth with religious parents because religious parents’ responses to their child’s SOGI are generally more negative and detrimental than less religious parents’ responses (van Bergen et al., 2023). Fourth, we included religious SOGI change efforts as an additional parental response. Finally, our measures of parental rejection and acceptance were SOGI-specific, an important focus as SOGI-specific responses have consistently been found to moderate the associations between SGD youth’s experiences of victimization and mental health symptoms, whereas general parental support or acceptance inconsistently moderate these associations (Feinstein et al., 2014; Little et al., 2023).

Due to the exploratory nature of LPA, we made no a priori predictions of the number of profiles. Yet, prior qualitative work on religious parents’ responses to their child’s SOGI suggests parents respond in negative, positive, or ambiguous and complex ways (McCormick & Kriger, 2020; Reed et al., 2020; Zeininger et al., 2017). In summary, we tested the following research questions:

RQ1: What different LPA profiles of SOGI-specific rejection and acceptance and religious-based parental SOGI change efforts exist for SGD youth?

RQ2: How does profile membership differ by individual and contextual factors (i.e., sexual orientation, gender identity, race/ethnicity, age, and parent’s education)?

Method

Participants and Procedure

We used data from the 2022 LGBTQ National Teen Survey, collected between February and October 2022 in conjunction with the Human Rights Campaign (HRC; Watson et al., 2023). The research team recruited youth online in the following ways: (1) advertisements or unpaid posts on Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Reddit, TikTok, and Discord; (2) contacting and compensating social media influencers who promoted the survey on their social media accounts; (3) recruiting high school gay straight alliances, principals, superintendents, and university LGBTQ+ centers to distribute advertisements. To be eligible, youth had to be between the ages of 13–18, identify as sexual and/or gender minority, speak English, and reside in the United States at the time they took the survey. The research team examined IP addresses to identify duplicate screener surveys to prevent bot or scammer responses. Eligible screener participants received a link to an anonymous Qualtrics survey via the participant-provided email address. Participants who completed the entire survey received a $5 Amazon or Starbucks gift card. Participants also had the option to remain anonymous. The Institutional Review Board at the University of Connecticut approved all study procedures, including a waiver of parental consent.

Out of the 37,221 youth who entered the consent page on the Qualtrics survey, 23,778 met the inclusion criteria. Among eligible youth, the research team removed respondents that stopped the survey before answering 10% of the questions, provided illogical answers for write-in responses, or had illogical response patterns. See Watson et al. (2023) for more information on sample recruitment and data cleaning. For the purposes of this paper, we excluded participants who selected atheist, agnostic, secular, were not raised within a religion, or were not out about their SOGI to their parents. Thus, our final analytical sample is 5,686 SGD youth.

The age range of our analytic sample was 13 – 18 (Mage = 15.95). Our sample was diverse in regard to sexual orientation and gender identity. Participants were categorized into eight sexual orientation and six gender identity groups, with lesbian/gay (31.3%) and cisgender (31.6%) the largest category in each, respectively. See Table 1 for more demographic information. We note that 4.3% of the sample identified as an emerging sexual orientation (e.g., wrote in unlabeled, abrosexual, or gynesexual) and 4.2% identified as an emerging gender identity (e.g., cassgender, bigender, or xenogender). Thus, we created emerging sexual orientations and emerging gender identity categories because we know of no prior research on these identities and SGD youth are constantly developing new and nontraditional ways to describe themselves (Watson et al., 2020). Regarding ethnicity, 19.1% of our sample were Latine and for race 79.4% were White. A little more than half of our sample (51.1%) reported Protestant Christian as their childhood religious denomination. Regarding parents’ level of education, 37.5% of our sample had parents who were college graduates.

Table 1.

Demographics for variables of interest (N = 5,686)

Percentage N
Sexual Orientation
 Lesbian/Gay 31.3 1,780
 Bisexual 28.2 1,603
 Pansexual 13.8 785
 Queer 10.8 614
 Asexual 8.3 471
 Questioning 2.4 136
 Straight/Heterosexual 1.1 63
 Emerging Sexual Orientation 4.3 244
Gender Identity
 Cisgender 31.6 1,797
 Transgender 26.3 1,495
 Nonbinary 16.6 944
 Gender Nonconforming 15.5 881
 Questioning 5.7 324
 Emerging Gender Identity 4.2 239
Race/Ethnicity
 White 79.4 3,494
 Latine 19.1 1,160
 Black/African American 10.5 335
 Asian 7.3 181
 Alaskan Indian/Native American 5.0 27
 Hawaiian Native/Pacific Islander 1.4 9
 Other 7.9 63
Childhood Religious Denomination
 Protestant Christian 51.1 2,906
 Roman Catholic 24.4 1,387
 Evangelical/Southern Baptist 6.7 381
 Mormon/Latter-day Saints 5.2 296
 Jewish 4.2 239
 Orthodox Christian 2.0 114
 Non-Denominational 1.7 97
 Muslim 1.2 68
 Hindu 0.9 51
 Buddhist 0.8 45
 Other 1.7 97
Parents’ Education
 Less Than High School/High School or GED 16.3 927
 Vocational/Technical School or Some College 16.3 927
 College Graduate 37.5 2,132
 Postgraduate Degree or Higher 29.9 1,700
Open in a new tab

Note. Race/Ethnicity categories are not mutually exclusive.

Measures

SOGI-Specific Parental Rejection

We measured SOGI-specific parental rejection using a 3-item family rejection (Meanley et al., 2021) subscale adapted from Ryan et al.’s (2010) Family Rejection subscale to broadly include LGBTQ+ identities (e.g., Meanley et al., 2021). The prompt for the SOGI-specific parental rejection subscale is: “How often do your parents or caregivers…” followed by three statements (e.g., “say negative comments about you being an LGBTQ person,” “taunt or mock you because you are an LGBTQ person,” and “make you feel like you are bad because you are an LGBTQ person”). Response options ranged from “never” (= 1) to “often” (= 4). We averaged the three items to create a mean score with higher scores reflecting more SOGI-specific parental rejection. Cronbach’s alpha was good (α = .87) and similar to prior research (α = .84; Meanley et al., 2021).

SOGI-Specific Parental Acceptance

We measured SOGI-specific parental acceptance using a 3-item family acceptance subscale (Miller et al., 2020) adapted from Ryan et al.’s (2010) Family Acceptance subscale to broadly include LGBTQ+ identities (Miller et al., 2020). The measure uses the same prompt and response options as the SOGI-Specific Parental rejection subscale, and includes three statements (e.g., “say they were proud of you for being an LGBTQ person,” “say that they like you as you are in regards to being an LGBTQ person,” and “speak positively about your LGBTQ identity”). We averaged the three items to create a mean score with higher scores reflecting more SOGI-specific parental acceptance. Cronbach’s alpha was good (α = .86).

Religious-Based Parental SOGI Change Efforts

Participants completed VanderWaal et al.’s (2017) 6-item Impact of Religion scale. We used the following three items to assess religious-based parental SOGI change efforts: “My parents prayed that God would change my sexual orientation and/or gender identity,” “My parents used Scripture to try and talk me out of my sexual orientation and/or gender identity,” and “My parents took me to a religious leader (such as a pastor) for prayer and counseling to change my sexual orientation and/or gender identity.” We created a mean score for the two items on parents’ religious efforts using scripture and prayer with higher scores reflecting more change efforts. Response options ranged from “strongly disagree” (= 1) to “strongly agree” (= 5). We know of no prior research on the reliability of these items. Cronbach’s alpha was good (α = .89).

Individual and Contextual Factors

Sexual Orientation.

Participants answered a question about sexual orientation by selecting the option that best describes them. For participants who selected different identity not listed and wrote-in an identity, we recoded their responses into either a pre-existing category or the emerging sexual orientations category. We used the responses to create seven dichotomous variables: bisexual, pansexual, asexual, queer, questioning, heterosexual, and emerging sexual orientations (= 1) with lesbian/gay (= 0) as the reference group.

Gender Identity.

Participants indicated their gender identity by selecting the option that best describes them. For participants who selected different identity not listed and wrote-in an identity, we recoded their responses into either a pre-existing category or the emerging gender identities. We used the responses to create five dichotomous variables: transgender (transgender girl and transgender boy), nonbinary, questioning, gender nonconforming (gender nonconforming, gender queer, and gender fluid), and emerging gender identities (= 1) with cisgender (cisgender girl and cisgender boy) as the reference group (= 0).

Race/Ethnicity.

Participants could select all races that applied to them. Participants also answered the question “Are you Hispanic/Latina/e/o/x?” with response options “yes” (= 1) and “no” (= 0). We created five dichotomous variables that are not mutually exclusive: Latine, American Indian/Alaska Native/Hawaiian Native/Pacific Islander, Asian, Black, and other (= 1) with White as the reference group (= 0).

Age.

We measured age in years.

Parents’ Highest Level of Education.

Participants answered one question about their parents’ education: “Across all your caregivers, please indicate the highest level of education that any of your caregivers completed.” Response options were Less than High School or GED, High School or GED, Vocational/Technical school (2 years), Some College, College Graduate and Postgraduate Degree of Higher.

Data Analysis Plan

To answer RQ1, we utilized latent profile analysis (LPA) in Mplus 8 (Muthén & Muthén, 2017) to examine profiles of religious parents’ SOGI-specific rejection, acceptance, and SOGI change efforts. We used Bayesian Information Criteria (BIC; Schwarz, 1978), sample size adjusted BIC (SABIC; Sclove, 1987), and Akakie’s Information Criteria (AIC; Akaike, 1998) to evaluate model fit. BIC, SABIC, and AIC with values closer to zero indicate better model fit (Masyn, 2013). We also used the adjusted Lo-Mendell-Rubin likelihood ratio test (LMR) and bootstrapped likelihood ratio test (BLRT) to compare the k-profile model to the k-1 profile model. If the adjusted LMR or BLRT was significant, the k-1 profile model had significantly worse fit than the k-profile model (Spurk et al., 2020). We also examined model entropy to measure profile separation, where values closer to one indicate better profile separation (Celeux & Soromenho, 1996). After choosing the best fitting model, we tested RQ2 by using multinomial regression in Mplus to examine how odds of profile membership differ by individual and contextual factors (Ferguson et al., 2020). We used a p-value of .01 as our cutoff for significance due to the large sample size.

Results

Identifying the Best Fitting Model

We examined models containing two to eight profiles; we stopped computing models at the eight-profile solution because the adjusted LMR and BLRT would not converge. Additionally, the best log likelihood was not replicated. The four-profile solution was chosen as the best fitting model because of low AIC, BIC, and SABIC values compared to the three-profile solution; the adjusted LMR and BLRT also indicated that the four-profile solution fit better than the three-profile solution. The four-profile solution also had good classification quality (entropy = .98). Although model fit values for the five- to seven-profile solutions continued to decrease and the adjusted LMR and BLRT were significant, the additional profiles in the five- to seven-profile solutions were not meaningfully different from the profiles in the four-profile solution. Model fit statistics for the one- to eight-profile solutions can be found in Table 2.

Table 2.

Model fit and profile separation statistics for one to eight profile solutions

Profiles Log Likelihood AIC BIC SABIC VLMR BLRT Entropy
1 −35479.67 70975.34 71029.04 71003.61 -- -- --
2 −28640.87 57307.73 57394.98 57353.67 p < .001 p < .001 .95
3 −26492.24 53020.48 53141.28 53084.09 p < .001 p < .001 .94
4 −24263.01 48572.02 48726.39 48653.30 p < .001 p < .001 .98
5 −24034.14 48124.28 48312.20 48223.23 p < .001 p < .001 .97
6 −23866.06 47798.12 48019.60 47914.73 p < .001 p < .001 .89
7 −23696.63 47469.25 47724.29 47603.54 p < .001 p < .001 .90
8 −23550.60 47187.20 47475.80 47339.16 -- -- .87
Open in a new tab

Note. Bolded values indicate the chosen number of profiles. Entropy is a measure of profile separation.

Descriptions of Each Profile

The first profile, Positive Parental Response, was the largest profile with 41.8% of youth in our sample. These youth reported low levels of SOGI-specific rejection and SOGI change efforts and high levels of SOGI-specific acceptance. The second profile, Moderate Negative Parental Response included 24.9% of youth in our sample and was characterized by moderate levels of SOGI-specific rejection and SOGI change efforts and low levels of SOGI-specific acceptance. The third profile, Low Parental Response, contained 18.1% of youth in our sample who reported low levels on all parental response variables. Finally, the fourth profile, High Negative Parental Response, included 15.2% of youth in our sample who experienced high levels of SOGI-specific rejection and SOGI change efforts paired with low levels of SOGI-specific acceptance. See Figure 1 for profile means.

Figure 1. Item response means for the 4-profile solution.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Note. P = parent; RL = religious leader; SOGI = sexual orientation/gender identity; SGD = sexual and gender diverse.

Predictors of Profile Membership

The Positive Parental Response profile was chosen as the reference profile for all analyses to examine what individual and contextual factors make SGD youth vulnerable to negative responses about their SOGI from their religious parents. See Table 2–3 for complete results on all demographics predictors.

Table 3.

Odds ratios of logistic regression for individual and contextual predictors of profile membership

Reference Group – Positive Parental Response
Moderate Negative Parental Response Low Parental Response High Negative Parental Response
OR SE p OR SE p OR SE p
Bisexuala 0.86 0.08 0.08 0.95 0.09 0.58 0.88 0.09 0.20
Pansexuala 1.07 0.12 0.55 1.01 0.12 0.95 1.01 0.13 0.97
Asexuala 0.94 0.12 0.63 0.81 0.12 0.14 0.91 0.14 0.54
Queera 0.86 0.10 0.21 0.91 0.12 0.47 0.78 0.11 0.08
Sexual Orientation Questioninga 0.92 0.22 0.75 1.19 0.29 0.47 1.08 0.28 0.79
Heterosexuala 1.00 0.33 1.00 0.96 0.36 0.91 1.20 0.41 0.61
Emerging Sexual Orientationa 1.08 0.24 0.75 1.46 0.33 0.10 1.39 0.34 0.19
Transgenderb 1.49 0.14 < 0.001 1.30 0.13 < 0.01 1.98 0.22 < 0.001
Nonbinaryb 1.32 0.14 < 0.01 1.01 0.12 0.96 1.56 0.19 < 0.001
Gender Identity Questioningb 1.37 0.21 0.04 1.09 0.19 0.61 1.21 0.24 0.33
Gender Nonconformingb 1.42 0.15 < 0.01 1.18 0.14 0.16 1.31 0.17 0.04
Emerging Gender Identityb 1.28 0.23 0.16 0.82 0.17 0.33 1.45 0.30 0.07
Blackc 1.54 0.17 < 0.001 1.01 0.14 0.94 2.07 0.25 < 0.001
Asianc 1.27 0.16 0.06 0.95 0.14 0.74 1.25 0.19 0.13
Latinec 1.04 0.10 0.68 1.01 0.11 0.95 0.92 0.11 0.48
IPIc 1.61 0.22 < 0.01 1.23 0.21 0.22 1.75 0.28 < 0.001
Otherc 1.28 0.18 0.08 1.18 0.19 0.32 1.43 0.25 0.04
Age 1.08 0.03 < 0.01 1.01 0.03 0.61 1.05 0.03 0.11
Parents’ Education 0.81 0.02 < 0.001 0.93 0.03 < 0.01 0.81 0.02 < 0.001
Open in a new tab

Note. Significant values are bolded for ease of interpretation.

a

= reference group is lesbian/gay;

b

= reference group is cisgender;

c

= reference group is White.

Sexual Identity

We found no differences in profile membership based on sexual orientation.

Gender Identity

Compared to cisgender youth, transgender and nonbinary youth had higher odds of membership in the Moderate Negative Parental Response and the High Negative Parental Response profiles than in the Positive Parental Response profile. Transgender youth also had higher odds of membership in the Low Parental Response profile than the Positive Parental Response profile compared to cisgender youth. Compared to cisgender youth, gender nonconforming youth had higher odds of being in the Moderate Negative Parental Response profile than the Positive Parental Response profile. We found no significant differences for questioning youth and youth with emerging gender identities compared to cisgender youth.

Race/Ethnicity

Compared to White youth, Black and Indigenous/Pacific Islander (IPI) youth had higher odds of being in the Moderate Negative Parental Response and High Negative Parental Response profiles than in the Positive Parental Response profile. We found no significant difference in profile membership for Asian, Latine, or youth with another race/ethnicity (Other) compared to White youth.

Age

Older youth had higher odds of membership in the Moderate Negative Parental Response profile than in the Positive Parental Response profile.

Parents’ Education

Youth whose parents had more education had lower odds of being in the Moderate Negative Parental Response, Low Parental Response, and High Negative Parental Response profiles than the Positive Parental Response profile.

Discussion

Examining the possible variations in SGD youth’s experiences of their religious parents’ responses to their SOGI, and what individual and contextual factors are associated with profile membership, can further our understanding of the experiences of SGD youth with religious parents. In the current paper, we found four distinct profiles that characterized SGD youth’s experiences with their religious parents’ responses to their SOGI: Positive Parental Response, Moderate Negative Parental Response, Low Parental Response, and High Negative Parental Response. We also found that profiles differed based on youth’s gender identity, race/ethnicity, age, and their parents’ education.

Many SGD Youth Perceived Positive Responses From Their Religious Parents

Our profiles suggest that many SGD youth perceived their religious parents to respond to their SOGI in more accepting than rejecting ways as the Positive Parental Response profile was the largest profile and the High Negative Parental Response was the smallest. This finding is supported by prior qualitative research which suggests religious parents can have positive responses to their child’s SOGI (Maslowe & Yarhouse, 2015) or work to reconcile their religious beliefs and their child’s SOGI (Aramburu Alegría, 2018). Quantitative research indicates that religious parents respond to their child’s SOGI in more negative and harmful ways than parents who are not affiliated with a religious denomination or are less religious (Ryan et al., 2020; van Bergen et al., 2023). Our results contribute to the current literature by providing quantitative evidence that among religious parents, there is variation in negative responses, and that not all religious parents respond to their child’s SOGI in largely negative ways.

SGD Youth Did Not Perceive Ambivalent Parental Responses

Profiles that indicated religious parents respond in ambivalent ways to their child’s SOGI were not found. Our results do not support prior work indicating parents’ positive and negative responses co-occur (Pollitt et al., 2023; Reed et al., 2020; Zeininger et al., 2017). However, prior work mostly used religious parents’ reports (Zeininger et al., 2017). Therefore, our findings may reflect that although some religious parents report responding in both positive and negative ways, their SGD child may be perceiving their responses as largely negatively or positively valanced. Prior work that has assessed SGD children’s perspective have focused on young adults (Reed et al., 2020). Our results could indicate that SGD youth perceive parental responses in less nuanced ways than SGD young adults, possibly due to increasing complexity in cognitive development from adolescence to young adulthood (King & Kitchener, 2015).

One of our profiles was characterized by SGD youth reporting minimal positive or negative parental responses to their SOGI. The Low Parental Response profile provides support for prior qualitative work suggesting that SGD individuals can experience silence from their parents about their SOGI (van Bergen et al., 2021). SGD individuals interpreted this silence as indicative of a subtle negative or positive response from their parents, but also silence made it hard for SGD individuals to know how their parents felt about their SOGI (van Bergen et al., 2021). It is important to note that the Low Parental Response profile may not suggest that SGD youth in this profile have neglectful parents, in that our measures focused specifically on SOGI-specific rejection, acceptance, and SOGI change efforts. Thus, these youth may experience other more general responses from their parents, such as support or abuse (Grossman et al., 2021). Further work is needed to understand whether SGD youth in the Low Parental Response profile are or are not neglected by their religious parents and the meaning behind parents’ silence.

How Individual and Contextual Factors Matter for Profile Membership

Despite the diversity of sexual orientation in our sample, we found no differences in profile membership based on SGD youth’s sexual orientation, contradicting prior work (Clark et al., 2022; Ryan et al., 2020; Simon et al., 2022). However, compared to cisgender youth, transgender, nonbinary, and gender nonconforming youth had higher odds of being in profiles characterized by negative or low parental responses than youth in profiles high in positive parental responses. Our results regarding gender identity support prior variable-centered work related to parental rejection and SOGI change efforts (Eisenberg et al., 2019; Green et al., 2020). Our findings stress the vulnerable position of transgender, nonbinary, and gender nonconforming youth. As of 2023, 22 states in the U.S. have laws or policies that ban gender-affirming care in children and youth until the age of 18 (HRC, 2023). Our findings related to SGD youth’s sexual orientation and gender identity provide further support for the idea that although there may be societal shifts toward more acceptance of sexual diversity (Pew Research Center, 2020), many gender diverse youth are still vulnerable to rejecting and harmful responses from their religious parents. Viewing these results through a family stress lens, religious parents of a gender diverse child may experience additional stress as they worry about their gender diverse child’s well-being as their children navigate an unsupportive environment (e.g., HRC, 2023). Therefore, religious parents may try to mitigate their feelings of stress and protect their gender diverse child by engaging in SOGI-specific rejection and SOGI change efforts.

We found that older youth had higher odds of being in profiles characterized by moderately negative responses than profiles high in positive parental responses compared to younger SGD youth, supporting prior work (Clark et al., 2022; Fenaughty et al., 2023). One explanation for our findings is that SOGI development and expression increases with age (Hall et al., 2021), which could result in more negative and SOGI-specific rejecting responses from religious parents. We also found that SGD youth whose parents had more education had lower odds of being in profiles characterized by negative or low parental responses than a positive profile. Our results support prior work on SOGI change efforts (Clark et al., 2022; Fenaughty et al., 2023) but do not support prior work indicating parents with higher levels of education are more likely to respond to their child’s SOGI in ambivalent ways (Clark et al., 2022) as none of our profiles were characterized by ambivalent responses.

Some SGD Youth with Intersecting Identities are at Higher Risk of Experiencing Religious Parents’ Rejecting Responses

Black and Indigenous/Pacific Islander (IPI) youth had higher odds of being in profiles characterized by negative parental responses as compared to White youth. The current literature on racial/ethnic diversity in parental responses to their child’s SOGI are nuanced, so our findings both support and contradict prior research (Green et al., 2020; Heiden-Rootes et al., 2022). One possible explanation for our findings regarding Black SGD youth is that Black individuals are more religious than members of other racial/ethnic groups in the U.S. (Pew Research Center, 2021). Therefore, Black SGD youth’s parents may adhere to more traditional religious beliefs related to sexual and gender diversity (Heiden-Rootes et al., 2022). Related to Indigenous SGD youth, one possible explanation is that their parents respond in negative ways to their SOGI because they worry for their safety as Indigenous peoples continue to experience high rates of discrimination, marginalization, racism, and violence (see Wei et al., 2023 for a review). In contrast, we found no differences between profiles for Latine SGD youth, possibly because numerous aspects of Latine culture such as familismo (see Przeworski & Piedra, 2020 for a review), influence parents’ responses to their SGD child. We also found no differences between profiles for Asian American SGD youth. Future research is needed to better understand the intersection of Asian American SGD youth’s racial and SGD identities.

Implications

Our paper has several implications for possible resources and programs focused on SGD youth and their religious parents. Religious parents indicate that they sometimes engage in SOGI change efforts because they want to show their love for their child and want the best for their child (McCormick & Kriger, 2020). However, we did not find profiles that suggest religious parents respond in ambivalent ways to SGD youth’s SOGI. Developing resources for religious parents that explain how SGD youth experience parental responses may help these parents better understand their SGD child’s perspective and potentially reduce these parents’ efforts to change their child’s SOGI. Specifically, nonprofit organizations focused on the health and well-being of SGD youth in religiously conservative states or schools could develop these resources.

An additional implication is that programs aimed at improving the health and health-related experiences of SGD youth with religious parents should focus on youth who may be more vulnerable to negative parental responses due to individual and contextual factors, especially their gender and racial/ethnic identities. Doing so may help these programs better support SGD youth who experience harmful responses to their SOGI from their religious parents.

Limitations and Future Directions

Although our study adds to the literature by examining patterns of SGD youth’s reports of their religious parents’ responses to their SOGI, it is not without limitations. First, we did not know if SGD youth’s childhood religion was affirming of sexual and gender diversity. Profiles may differ depending on how affirming SGD youth’s childhood religion was, possibly resulting in their parents responding with more SOGI-specific rejection and SOGI change efforts. Future work should examine if patterns of religious parents’ responses to their child’s SOGI differ based on the specific denomination. Second, we did not know how religious SGD youth’s parents were. Even if SGD youth’s parents were affiliated with a non-affirming religion, they may not adhere to religious ideologies or engage in religious practices in their home. Because religion is a multidimensional construct, future work should examine patterns of SGD youth’s parents’ responses based on multiple dimensions of religiosity. Third, we do not know when SGD youth disclosed their SOGI to their parents. Parents’ responses to their child’s SOGI can change with time, typically becoming more positive (van Bergen et al., 2021). Therefore, future research should consider when SGD youth disclosed their SOGI to their parents as the timing of disclosure may alter the patterns we observed.

Conclusion

In the current paper, we found that many SGD youth perceive positive responses from their religious parents, with some perceiving high levels of SOGI-specific rejection and SOGI change efforts. We did not find profiles that suggest parents respond in ambivalent ways to their child’s SOGI. SGD youth with diverse gender identities and intersecting identities, such as race/ethnicity, were more likely to experience religious parents’ negative responses. Our results have implications for resources and programs aimed at strengthening the relationship between SGD youth and their religious parents.

References

  1. Akaike H (1998). Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In Bühlmann P, Diggle P, Gather U, & Zeger S (Eds.) Selected papers of Hirotugu Akaike (pp. 199–213). Springer. [Google Scholar]
  2. Allen SH, Fish JN, McGuire JK, & Leslie LA (2022). Beyond the (family) binary: Family environment heterogeneity among transgender adults. Journal of Marriage and Family, 84(4), 941–961. 10.1111/jomf.12835 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. American Psychological Association. (2021a). APA resolution on sexual orientation change efforts. https://www.apa.org/about/policy/resolution-sexual-orientation-change-efforts.pdf.
  4. American Psychological Association. (2021b). APA resolution on gender identity change efforts. https://www.apa.org/about/policy/resolution-gender-identity-change-efforts.pdf
  5. Aramburu Alegría C (2018). Supporting families of transgender children/youth: Parents speak on their experiences, identity, and views. International Journal of Transgenderism, 19(2), 132–143. 10.1080/15532739.2018.1450798 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Baiocco R, Fontanesi L, Santamaria F, Ioverno S, Marasco B, Baumgartner E, Willoughby BLB, & 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(5), 1490–1500. 10.1007/s10826-014-9954-z [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Boss P (1987). Family stress. In Sussman MB & Steinmetz SK (Eds.), Handbook of marriage and the family (pp. 695–723). Plenum Press. [Google Scholar]
  8. Boss P (2002). Family stress management (2nd ed.). Sage. [Google Scholar]
  9. Campbell M, Hinton JD, & Anderson JR (2019). A systematic review of the relationship between religion and attitudes toward transgender and gender-variant people. International Journal of Transgenderism, 20(1), 21–38. 10.1080/15532739.2018.1545149 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Celeux G, & Soromenho G (1996). An entropy criterion for assessing the number of clusters in a mixture model. Journal of Classification, 13(2), 195–212. 10.1007/BF01246098m [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Clark KA, Dougherty LR, & Pachankis JE (2022). A study of parents of sexual and gender minority children: Linking parental reactions with child mental health. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 9(3), 300–308. 10.1037/sgd0000456 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Collins LM, & Lanza ST (2009). Latent class and latent transition analysis: With applications in the social, behavioral, and health sciences. John Wiley. [Google Scholar]
  13. Conger RD, & Elder GH (2020). Family stress and adaptation: Reviewing the evidence. In Conger DR (Ed.) Families in troubled times: Adapting to change in rural America (pp. 255–268). Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  14. D’Amico E, & Julien D (2012). Disclosure of sexual orientation and gay, lesbian, and bisexual youths’ adjustment: Associations with past and current parental acceptance and rejection. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 8(3), 215–242. 10.1080/1550428X.2012.677232 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. D’Amico E, Julien D, Tremblay N, & Chartrand E (2015). Gay, lesbian, and bisexual youths coming out to their parents: Parental reactions and youths’ outcomes. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 11(5), 411–437. 10.1080/1550428X.2014.981627 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Darwich LL (2008). Lesbian, gay, bisexual and questioning adolescents: Their social experiences and the role of supportive adults in high school [Master’s thesis, University of British Columbia]. The University of British Columbia Open Collections. [Google Scholar]
  17. Eisenberg ME, Kelly ED, McRee AL, Brady SS, & Barnes AJ (2019). Homelessness experiences and gender identity in a population-based sample of adolescents. Preventive Medicine Reports, 16(100986), 2211–3355. 10.1016/j.pmedr.2019.100986 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Feinstein BA, Wadsworth LP, Davila J, & Goldfried MR (2014). Do parental acceptance and family support moderate associations between dimensions of minority stress and depressive symptoms among lesbians and gay men? Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 45(4), 239–246. 10.1037/a0035393 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Fenaughty J, Tan K, Ker A, Veale J, Saxton P, & Alansari M (2023). Sexual orientation and gender identity change efforts for young people in New Zealand: Demographics, types of suggesters, and associations with mental health. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 52(1), 149–164. 10.1007/s10964-022-01693-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Ferguson SL, G. Moore EW, & Hull DM (2020). Finding latent groups in observed data: A primer on latent profile analysis in Mplus for applied researchers. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 44(5), 458–468. 10.1177/0165025419881721 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Gattamorta KA, Salerno J, & Quidley-Rodriguez N (2019). Hispanic parental experiences of learning a child identifies as a sexual minority. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 15(2), 151–164. 10.1080/1550428X.2018.1518740 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Green AE, Price-Feeney M, Dorison SH, & Pick CJ (2020). Self-reported conversion efforts and suicidality among US LGBTQ youths and young adults, 2018. American Journal of Public Health, 110(8), 1221–1227. 10.2105/AJPH.2020.305701 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Grossman AH, Park JY, Frank JA, & Russell ST (2021). Parental responses to transgender and gender nonconforming youth: Associations with parent support, parental abuse, and youths’ psychological adjustment. Journal of Homosexuality, 68(8), 1260–1277. 10.1080/00918369.2019.1696103 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Hall WJ, Dawes HC, & Plocek N (2021). Sexual orientation identity development milestones among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer people: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 753954. 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.753954 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Heiden-Rootes K, McGeorge CR, Salas J, & Levine S (2022). The effects of gender identity change efforts on Black, Latinx, and White transgender and gender nonbinary adults: Implications for ethical clinical practice. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 48(3), 927–944. 10.1111/jmft.12575 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Hill R (1949). Families under stress. Greenwood. [Google Scholar]
  27. Hill AO, Lyons A, Power J, Amos N, Ferlatte O, Jones J, Carman M, & Bourne A (2022). Suicidal ideation and suicide attempts among lesbian, gay, bisexual, pansexual, queer, and asexual youth: Differential impacts of sexual orientation, verbal, physical, or sexual harassment or assault, conversion practices, family or household religiosity, and school experience. LGBT Health, 9(5), 313–324. 10.1089/lgbt.2021.0270 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Human Rights Campaign (n.d.). Stances of faiths on LGBTQ issues: Roman Catholic church. Retrieved from https://www.hrc.org/resources/stances-of-faiths-on-lgbt-issues-roman-catholic-church
  29. Human Rights Campaign (2017, October 31). Reformation day: Protestant Christians embrace LGBTQ diversity 500 years after Martin Luther. Retrieved from https://www.hrc.org/news/reformation-day-protestant-christians-embrace-lgbtq-diversity-500-years-aft
  30. Jones T, Power J, Hill AO, Despott N, Carman M, Jones TW, Anderson J & Bourne A (2022). Religious conversion practices and LGBTQA+ youth. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 19(3), 1155–1164. 10.1007/s13178-021-00615-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. King PM, & Kitchener KS (2015). Cognitive development in the emerging adult: The emergence of complex cognitive skills. In Arnett JJ (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of emerging adulthood (pp. 105–125). Oxford Publisher Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199795574.001.0001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Little KK, Lindahl KM, & Malik NM (2023). Family functioning and youth outness: Indirect effect of sexuality specific family social support. LGBTQ+ Family: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 19(2), 160–174. 10.1080/27703371.2023.2167759 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Malia JA (2006). Basic concepts and models of family stress. Stress, trauma, and crisis, 9(3–4), 141–160. 10.1080/15434610600853717 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Maslowe KE, & Yarhouse MA (2015). Christian parental reactions when a LGB child comes out. American Journal of Family Therapy, 43(4), 352–363. 10.1080/01926187.2015.1051901 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Masyn KE (2013). Latent class analysis and finite mixture modeling. In Little T (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of quantitative methods (pp. 551–611). Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  36. McCormick M, & Krieger M (2020). Religion and bullying: Perspectives from sexual and gender minority youth (SGMY) in Michigan. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 32(2), 191–208. 10.1080/10538720.2020.1728460 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. McCubbin HI, & Patterson JM (1985). Adolescent, stress, coping, and adaptation: A normative family perspective. In Leigh GK & Peterson GW (Eds.), Adolescents in Families (pp. 256–276). Southwestern. [Google Scholar]
  38. Meanley S, Flores DD, Listerud L, Chang CJ, Feinstein BA, & Watson RJ (2021). The interplay of familial warmth and LGBTQ+ specific family rejection on LGBTQ+ adolescents’ self-esteem. Journal of Adolescence, 93(1), 40–52. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2021.10.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Meanley S, Haberlen SA, Okafor CN, Brown A, Brennan-Ing M, Ware D, Egan JE, Teplin LA, Bolan R,K, Friedman MR, & Plankey MW (2020). Lifetime exposure to conversion therapy and psychosocial health among midlife and older adult men who have sex with men. The Gerontologist, 60(7), 1291–1302. 10.1093/geront/gnaa069 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Miller KK, Watson RJ, & Eisenberg ME (2020). The intersection of family acceptance and religion on the mental health of LGBTQ youth. Annals of LGBTQ Public and Population Health, 1(1), 27–42. 10.1891/LGBTQ.2019-0005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Movement Advancement Project (2023). Conversion “therapy” laws. https://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/conversion_therapy
  42. Muthén LK, & Muthén BO (2017). Mplus: Statistical analysis with latent variables: User’s Guide (8th ed.). [Google Scholar]
  43. Pew Research Center (2020, June 25). The global divide on homosexuality persists. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/06/25/global-divide-on-homosexuality-persists/
  44. Pew Research Center (2021, February 16). Faith among Black Americans. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/02/16/faith-among-black-americans/
  45. Pollitt AM, Fish JN, & Watson RJ (2023). Measurement equivalence of family acceptance/rejection among sexual and gender minority youth by disclosure status. Journal of Family Psychology, 37(2), 195–202. 10.1037/fam0001056 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Przeworski A, & Piedra A (2020). The role of the family for sexual minority Latinx individuals: A systematic review and recommendations for clinical practice. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 16(2), 211–240. 10.1080/1550428X.2020.1724109 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Reed JL, Stratton SP, Koprowski G, Dillon C, Dean JB, Yarhouse MA, Lastoria M, & Bucher EK (2020). “Coming out” to parents in a Christian context: A consensual qualitative analysis of LGB student experiences. Counseling and Values, 65(1), 38–56. 10.1002/cvj.12121 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Ryan C, Toomey RB, Diaz RM, & Russell ST (2020). Parent-initiated sexual orientation change efforts with LGBT adolescents: Implications for young adult mental health and adjustment. Journal of Homosexuality, 67(2), 159–173. 10.1080/00918369.2018.1538407 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Reczek C (2016). Ambivalence in gay and lesbian family relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 78(3), 644–659. 10.1111/jomf.12308 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Schwarz G (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics, 6(2), 461–464. [Google Scholar]
  51. Sclove SL (1987). Application of model-selection criteria to some problems in multivariate analysis. Psychometrika, 52(3), 333–343. 10.1007/BF02294360 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. Seager van Dyk I, Clark KA, Dougherty LR, & Pachankis JE (2022). Parent responses to their sexual and gender minority children: Implications for parent-focused supportive interventions. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity. Advance online publication. 10.1037/sgd0000589 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  53. Siconolfi D, Tucker JS, Shadel WG, Seelam R, & Golinelli D (2020). Health, homelessness severity, and substance use among sexual minority youth experiencing homelessness: A comparison of bisexual versus gay and lesbian youth. Journal of Sex Research, 57(7), 933–942. 10.1080/00224499.2019.1695723 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Simon KA, Hawthorne HM, Clark AN, Renley BM, Farr RH, Eaton LA, & Watson RJ (2022). Contextualizing the well-being of asexual youth: Evidence of differences in family, health, and school outcomes. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 51(1), 128–140. 10.1007/s10964-021-01500-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Spurk D, Hirschi A, Wang M, Valero D, & Kauffeld S (2020). Latent profile analysis: A review and “how to” guide of its application within vocational behavior research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 120, 103445. 10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103445 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  56. van Bergen D, Smit A, & Feddes AR (2023). Stigma, depression, suicidal thoughts and coping of sexual minority youth raised in conservative versus mainstream denominations of Christianity: A mixed method study. Sexuality & Culture, 27(3), 972–994. 10.1007/s12119-022-10050-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  57. van Bergen DD, Wilson BD, Russell ST, Gordon AG, & Rothblum ED (2021). Parental responses to coming out by lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, pansexual, or two-spirited people across three age cohorts. Journal of Marriage and Family, 83(4), 1116–1133. 10.1111/jomf.12731 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. VanderWaal CJ, Sedlacek D, & Lane L (2017). The impact of family rejection or acceptance among LGBT+ millennials in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Social Work & Christianity, 44(1–2), 72–95. [Google Scholar]
  59. Watson RJ, Caba AE, Lawrence S, Renley B, McCauley P, Wheldon CW, Eaton LA, Russell ST, & Eisenberg ME (2023). Examining mental health and bullying concerns at the intersection of sexuality, gender, race, and ethnicity among a national sample of sexual and gender diverse youth. LGBT Health. Advance online publication. 10.1089/lgbt.2023.0072 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Watson RJ, Wheldon CW, & Puhl RM (2020). Evidence of diverse identities in a large national sample of sexual and gender minority adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 30(S2), 431–442. 10.1111/jora.12488 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Wei A, Zhang YB, Robertson E, Steen J, Mushquash C, & Wekerle C (2023). Global Indigenous gender concepts, gender-based violence and resilience: A scoping review. Child Abuse & Neglect. Advance online publication. 10.1016/j.chiabu.2023.106185 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Willoughby BLB, Malik NM, & Lindahl KM (2006). Parental reactions to their sons’ sexual orientation disclosures: The roles of family cohesion, adaptability, and parenting style. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 7(1), 14–26. 10.1037/1524-9220.7.1.14 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  63. Willoughby BL, Doty ND, & Malik NM (2010). Victimization, family rejection, and outcomes of gay, lesbian, and bisexual young people: The role of negative GLB identity. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 6(4), 403–424. 10.1080/1550428X.2010.511085 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  64. Zeininger K, Holtzman M, & Kraus R (2017). The reciprocal relationship between religious beliefs and acceptance of one’s gay or lesbian family member. Sociological Spectrum, 37(5), 282–298. 10.1080/02732173.2017.1348279 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES