Skip to main content
PMC home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Sep 1.
Published in final edited form as: Psychol Sex Orientat Gend Divers. 2017 Sep;4(3):251–256. doi: 10.1037/sgd0000240

Perceptions of Safety Among LGBTQ People Following the 2016 Pulse Nightclub Shooting

Christopher B Stults 1, Sandra A Kupprat 2, Kristen D Krause 3, Farzana Kapadia 4, Perry N Halkitis 5
PMCID: PMC5693229  NIHMSID: NIHMS891226  PMID: 29159198

Abstract

The goals of this manuscript are two-fold. First, we provide a brief reaction to this journal’s “Special Section: Reflections on the Orlando Massacre on its First Anniversary.” Second, we present findings from a study on perceptions of safety among LGBTQ individuals following the Pulse shooting. These issues are discussed within the historical context of hate crimes experienced by the LGBTQ population (Herek), media coverage following the shooting (Hancock & Halderman), and the immediate reaction of LGBTQ graduate students to the event (Jackson). Our study sought to examine differences in perceptions of personal and peer safety by race/ethnicity, gender identity, and sexual orientation among a large, diverse sample of LGBTQ people. Findings from our study indicate that there were differences in perceptions of personal safety by gender identity, and differences in perceptions of peer safety by gender identity and sexual orientation. These findings also suggest that subgroups of the LGBTQ community with more marginalized gender and sexual identities (e.g., female, transgender, genderqueer, bisexual, queer respondents) perceived more concerns related to safety, on average, than subgroups with relatively more privilege (e.g., gay, male). Elevated safety concern may exacerbate multiple minority stress burden, a known driver of poor health outcomes among LGBTQ people. These findings are a call to action to healthcare providers to be well informed and trained to provide the appropriate care and counseling referrals that can address the safety-related concerns of LGBTQ individuals in the aftermath of identity-related attacks.

Keywords: Pulse nightclub, mass shooting, LGBTQ people, collective trauma, perceived safety, perceptions of safety

The June 12th, 2016 mass shooting at Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida was a tragedy that shocked lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people around the United States and the world (Alvarez & Pérez-Peña, 2016). With 49 deaths and 53 wounded, the Pulse massacre was the deadliest mass shooting in American history. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity included a Special Section in remembrance of the one-year anniversary of the shooting in Issue 2 of Volume 4. The Special Section included three papers related to the attack, including a comprehensive review of the literature related to LGBTQ hate crimes (Herek, 2017), media coverage of the event (Hancock & Haldeman, 2017), and reactions of LBGTQ graduate students immediately following the shooting (Jackson, 2017). In this paper, we will present a summary reacting to the manuscripts included in the Special Section. In addition, we will present findings from a study examining perceptions of safety among LGBTQ people following the Pulse massacre.

Reaction

First, Herek (2017) presents a thoughtful summary of the history of hate crime laws and a review of LGBTQ hate crime surveillance efforts in the United States. Whether hate crime laws act as a deterrent against crimes targeting LGBTQ people is arguable, however we agree with Herek that they remain important because they codify society’s collective opposition to such acts. Also, in outlining some of the methodological limitations of both nationally representative surveys and community-based reporting, Herek notes that non-identified LGBTQ people (i.e., people who are not “out” or those who do not identify with a particular LGBTQ subgroup) may not be included in hate crime prevalence estimates. This is noteworthy, as we found in our own study, that non-identified LBGTQ people may perceive more concern for their safety and the safety of their peers in the aftermath of such attacks.

The distinction between a hate crime and an act of terrorism is often determined by assessing the perpetrator’s motives; specifically, hate crimes are motivated by bias toward a particular group but do not require an intended consequence, whereas acts of terrorism are intended to intimidate or coerce people or governments and may or may not be motivated by bias (Brown, 2015; Criss, 2017; Forest, Deloughery, King, & Asal, 2012). As the massacre unfolded and thereafter, local and national media outlets conducted extensive reporting on the event itself, the shooter, the victims, and the shooter’s possible motives. As Hancock and Haldeman (2017) appropriately note, the media coverage was complicated by the fact that the shooting occurred during a highly polarized U.S. Presidential election, with President Barack Obama, as well as then candidates Donald Trump and Secretary Hillary Clinton, all emphasizing different, politically-driven aspects of the unfolding narrative in their responses (e.g., gun control laws, counterterrorism efforts).

Hancock and Haldeman argue that the media incorrectly portrayed the event as an act of terrorism, rather than as a hate crime targeting LGBTQ people. While we are sensitive to the undeniable reality that LGBTQ people were maimed and murdered at a LGBTQ-specific space in this horrific attack, we would like to note that it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between hate crimes and acts of terrorism, particularly when only incomplete information is available to journalists and law enforcement officials. In the 9-1-1 calls placed during the shooting, the shooter makes multiple references to the “bombing” of “innocent people” by America in Syria and Iraq and states that he was “triggered” by the recent U.S. killing of an ISIL commander and makes no references to bias against LGBTQ people. The Pulse shooting can certainly be viewed as a hate crime specifically targeting sexual and gender minority people. However, as news of the event unfolded in real-time and without full details of the gunman’s motivation, coupled with prior attacks designed to inflict mass casualties (e.g., the Boston Marathon bombing), we recognize the challenge that those in the media and in law enforcement had in characterizing the nature of this attack.

However, Hancock and Haldeman (2017) also present information regarding allegations that the shooter was a closeted gay man. The authors posit that these allegations emerged immediately after the shooting and were not investigated in a systematic manner suggesting that the media “could easily have included a frame that involved a homophobic male (who may have been gay) who killed gay men.” First, given that a number of the victims did not identify as gay cisgender men and that the shooting took place during the club’s Latin night, we would like to suggest that this argument is conjecture and leaves out large segments of the LGBTQ community who were also victims. Also, we draw the authors’ attention to an article published in The New York Times two weeks after the shooting which does indeed follow up on those allegations and includes extensive reporting which found that the allegations were unable to be corroborated and that the F.B.I. was not able to find any conclusive evidence that the shooter was motivated by internalized (or regular) homophobia (Robles & Turkewitz, 2016). Thus, while it is possible that the shooter was motivated by anti-LGBTQ bias, we caution the authors against speculating on the shooter’s sexual orientation, and suggest that this argument may increase bias against non-identified or “closeted” LGBTQ people. Moreover, we suggest that categorizing the Pulse massacre as an act of terrorism – as an act that strongly impacted the LGBTQ community and its allies, as well as the greater Orlando community – is not as problematic as they claim. In fact, the strong show of support for LGBTQ people, as seen on social media (e.g., the rainbow flag and “We Are Orlando” profile photo overlays), as well as in public demonstrations and vigils, may be viewed as a sign of the country’s affirmation of the dignity and worth of LGBTQ lives.

Related to the impact of the attack on LGBTQ people, Jackson (2017) provides important information regarding the immediate reactions of LGBTQ graduate students to the shooting. Specifically, the study uses qualitative data to examine emotional, cognitive, and behavioral responses of LGBTQ graduate students to the attack. We agree with the importance of the study’s objectives and, in our own study, we use quantitative data to examine safety-related emotional and cognitive reactions of LGBTQ people following the massacre. We also concur with Jackson’s emphasis of an intersectional approach to such research. Thus, we examine differences in perceptions of safety by sexual orientation, gender identity, and race/ethnicity, in order to assess if the shooting disproportionately impacted certain subgroups of LGBTQ people. Finally, based on Jackson’s findings, we agree that online platforms (e.g., listservs, chat rooms, message boards) may serve as effective interventions for people who are experiencing distress in the aftermath of such atrocities.

Background for Present Study

Many in the LGBTQ community experienced psychological distress following the Pulse massacre, including feeling fearful and unsafe (Alvarez & Pérez-Peña, 2016; Ben-Ezra, Hamama-Raz, Mahat-Shamir, Pitcho-Prelorentzos, & Kaniasty, 2017; Jackson, 2017). One study found that, in the weeks following the shooting, residents of Tulsa, Oklahoma reported feeling less safe in LGBT-friendly bars than those living in the New York City and Washington, D.C. metropolitan areas (Croff et al., 2017). The researchers also found that Tulsa residents were less likely to attend LGBT-friendly bars, as compared to residents in the Philadelphia and Washington, D.C. metropolitan areas (Croff et al., 2017). Another study that examined the coping of LGB people after the Pulse attack found that the use of alcohol and substances to cope with the shooting was associated with the perception that ones peers were using substances to cope (Boyle et al., 2017). In fact, those who perceived their peers were using alcohol to cope with the tragedy were 15 times more likely to report using alcohol to cope than those who did not have the same perception of their peers (Boyle et al., 2017). Additionally, those who perceived their peers were using drugs to cope with the shooting were 9 times more likely to use drugs to cope with the tragedy (Boyle, 2017). Finally, in a representative sample of Florida residents conducted three weeks after the shooting, 13% of respondents reported elevated psychological distress and 8.1% reported having symptoms associated with acute stress disorder (Ben-Ezra et al., 2017). In fact, those who reported higher rates of psychological distress were significantly more likely to report a disrupted worldview, a shift in political views, and a change in position on gun control (Ben-Ezra et al., 2017).

Many individuals in the LGBTQ community view gay bars and nightclubs as safe spaces, as places where they can be free from the day-to-day slights and homo-aggressive behaviors experienced outside of such venues (Croff, Hubach, Currin, & Frederick, 2017). Therefore, we hypothesize that LGBTQ people may have experienced the shooting as a traumatic event, irrespective of their geographic proximity to the shooting. This hypothesis is supported by research showing that incidents of mass violence can shatter the collective worldview of an impacted community and trigger symptoms of posttraumatic stress among individual members (Ben-Ezra et al., 2017; Gross, 2016; Updegraff, Silver, & Holman, 2008). The construct of collective trauma (i.e., psychological trauma experienced by a group of people) has emerged in the literature to describe how large-scale traumatic events (e.g., terrorist attacks, mass shootings) impact the worldview, meaning-making, and post-traumatic adjustment of impacted communities (Boyle, LaBrie, Costine, & Witkovic, 2017; Jenkins & Baird, 2002; Luszczynska, Benight, & Cieslak, 2009; Poulin, Silver, Gil-Rivas, Holman, & McIntosh, 2009; Rimé, Páez, Basabe, & Martínez, 2010; Seery, Silver, Holman, Ence, & Chu, 2008; Updegraff et al., 2008). More specifically, collective traumas may impact individuals’ perceptions of their own safety and the safety of their peers.

To our knowledge, no study has examined perceptions of safety among LGBTQ people following the Pulse shooting. This gap in our understanding is problematic, as certain subgroups of LGBTQ people may have been disproportionately impacted by the event, thus warranting additional attention from healthcare providers and researchers. The present study will examine differences in perceptions of safety by race/ethnicity, gender identity, and sexual orientation among a large, diverse sample of LGBTQ people. Given that many of the victims in the shooting were Hispanic/Latinx, we hypothesize that Hispanic/Latinx respondents will perceive more concerns related to safety on average, as compared to their non-Hispanic/Latinx counterparts. We also hypothesize that historically marginalized subgroups of the LGBTQ community (e.g., transgender, queer) will perceive more concerns related to safety on average, than those subgroups whose identities afford relatively more privilege (e.g., gay, cisgender male).

Methods

Study Design & Sample

Data for this cross-sectional analysis were derived from a survey administered in the weeks following the Pulse nightclub shooting. Participants were recruited to take the study in-person or online in order to ensure geographic representation of study participants. Thus, n = 1,118 (80.1%) individuals completed an online Qualtrics survey and n = 277 (19.1%) of participants completed an in-person survey assessing reactions of LGBTQ people to the attack. Targeted recruitment of individuals completing the online survey was conducted by advertising and distributing the survey on LGBTQ-related email listservs and social media pages between July 27, 2016 and September 20, 2016. Individuals completing the survey in-person were solicited from a pool of participants enrolled in an on-going cohort study of racially/ethnically diverse young men who have sex with men (YMSM). In-person assessments were conducted between June 15, 2016 and September 20, 2016.

To be eligible for the present study, participants had to report being at least 18 years old and self-identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer. All participants were provided with information on the purpose of the study and informed consent was provided by all participants. Prior to study implementation, the [edited out for blind review] Institutional Review Board approved the study protocol.

Measures

Respondents provided demographic information, including age, race/ethnicity, gender identity, and sexual orientation. For analytic purposes, race/ethnicity information was categorized as Hispanic/Latinx, white non-Hispanic, black non-Hispanic, Asian non-Hispanic, and biracial/multiracial/other. Gender identity was categorized as male, female, transgender, genderqueer, and non-identified/other. Sexual orientation was categorized as gay/lesbian, bisexual, queer, and non-identified/other.

Perceptions of safety

To assess the extent to which the Pulse shooting affected participants’ perceptions of personal and peer safety, they were asked to respond to several safety-related items using the stem, “On a scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely), to what extent has the shooting in Orlando made you feel…”

  1. Less safe in public

  2. Less safe at LGBTQ spaces or events

  3. Less safe showing affection to your friends or partner(s) in public

  4. Worry or fear for the safety of the people you love

  5. Worry or fear for the safety of LGBTQ people

  6. Worry or fear for the safety of LGBTQ people of color

The first three items assessed personal safety and were summed to create a composite variable (personal safety), while the second three items assessed the safety of one’s peers and were summed to create a second composite variable (peer safety). Both subscales demonstrated high internal consistency in this study (Cronbach’s α’s = .82 and .87 respectively).

Analytic Plan

First, univariate analyses were conducted to examine the distributions of the variables of interest. Next, one-way ANOVAs were used to test differences in mean personal and peer safety by race/ethnicity, gender identity, and sexual orientation. LSD post hoc tests were used to test individual differences in subgroup means using the omnibus F-test and effect sizes were also computed. In addition, we assessed whether differences in the dependent variables were related to the amount of time elapsed between the Pulse shooting and the time of survey completion. Cases with missing data for the factor variables or the dependent variables were excluded analysis by analysis. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 24.

Results

Information on perceptions of safety are shown in Table 1 for the entire sample and by race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity. Respondents’ perceptions of personal safety varied significantly by gender identity [F(4, 1,358) = 3.001, p = .018, η2 = .009], but not by race/ethnicity nor sexual orientation. Female (M = 9.06, SD = 2.81) and genderqueer (M = 9.32, SD = 2.88) respondents perceived more concern for personal safety, as compared to male respondents (M = 8.58, SD = 3.08; p = .008 and p = .022, respectively).

Table 1.

Perceptions of Safety Among LGBTQ People Following the 2016 Pulse Shooting

Personal safety Peer safety
n Mean SD n Mean SD
Overall sample 1,365 8.80 2.99 1,357 11.73 2.97
Race/ethnicity
 Hispanic/Latinx 208 9.14 3.06 207 11.89 3.13
 Black non-Hispanic 97 8.84 3.48 98 11.73 3.40
 Asian non-Hispanic 80 8.75 3.32 78 11.22 3.46
 White non-Hispanic 893 8.76 2.86 889 11.78 2.80
 Biracial/multiracial/other 83 8.46 3.23 82 11.35 3.27
Gender identity * **
 Male 800 8.58 3.08 795 11.19 3.18
 Female 405 9.06 2.81 403 12.40 2.52
 Transgender 37 8.86 2.31 37 12.62 2.52
 Genderqueer 95 9.32 2.88 95 12.99 2.10
 Non-identified/other 26 9.54 3.37 25 12.08 2.64
Sexual orientation **
 Gay/lesbian 923 8.80 3.04 917 11.36 3.07
 Bisexual 214 8.50 3.00 214 12.06 3.00
 Queer 193 8.94 2.69 192 12.94 2.04
 Non-identified/other 31 9.77 3.11 30 13.07 2.12
Open in a new tab

Note:

*

p < .05.

**

p < .01.

Respondents’ perceptions of peer safety varied significantly by gender identity [F(4, 1,350) = 17.641, p < .001, η2 = .050] and sexual orientation [F(3, 1,349) = 18.987, p < .001, η2 = .041], but not by race/ethnicity. Female (M = 12.40, SD = 2.52), genderqueer (M = 12.99, SD = 2.10), and transgender-identified (M = 12.62, SD = 2.52) respondents perceived more concern for peer safety, as compared to male respondents (M = 11.19, SD = 3.18; p < .001; p < .001; p = .003). Non-identified/other (M = 13.07, SD = 2.12), queer (M = 12.94, SD = 2.04), and bisexual (M = 12.06, SD = 2.99) respondents perceived greater concern than gay/lesbian respondents (M = 11.36, SD = 3.07; p = .002; p < .001; p = .002); also, queer respondents perceived more concern than bisexual respondents (p = .002).

With regard to time elapsed since the shooting and perceptions of safety, our analyses revealed that there was no significant association between the number of days since the Pulse shooting and perceptions of personal (r = .012, p = .662) or peer safety (r = .013, p = .664).

Discussion

In this study, we sought to examine differences in perceptions of safety following the Pulse massacre by race/ethnicity, gender identity, and sexual orientation. Given that the shooting took place during the club’s “Latin Night” party, it was hypothesized that Hispanic/Latinx respondents would perceive more concerns related to safety than non-Hispanic respondents. However, these data do not support our first hypothesis, as perceptions of personal and peer safety did not vary significantly by race/ethnicity. That is, while Hispanic/Latinx LGBTQ people were clearly impacted by the shooting in Orlando, it does not appear that they were disproportionately more concerned for their safety or for the safety of their peers, as compared to their non-Hispanic/Latinx counterparts. In a follow-up analysis, we compared the perceptions of safety of white non-Hispanic respondents to all other non-white respondents (i.e., grouped together) and again found no significant differences in perceptions of safety by race/ethnicity. Thus, this appears to have been a traumatic event that impacted LGBTQ people across racial/ethnic groups.

Given the privilege associated with being a cisgender male in most Western societies, it was hypothesized that cisgender males would perceive less concern related to safety than other gender identity groups (McIntosh, 2010; Phillips & Phillips, 2009). Consistent with this hypothesis, cisgender males perceived less safety-related concern, on average, as compared to cisgender women, transgender, genderqueer, and non-identified/other LGBTQ people. These data suggest that the privilege associated with identifying as a cisgender male may have served as a protective factor for some respondents, at least with regards to perceptions of safety. These data also suggest that people whose identities are more marginalized (e.g., genderqueer, transgender, non-identified/other) may be more vulnerable to identity-related threats and attacks. However, it should be noted that we did not include a measure of privilege and thus the interpretations regarding identity and privilege are based on theory (McIntosh, 2010; Phillips & Phillips, 2009).

The findings regarding sexual orientation were more varied but demonstrate similar trends as those for gender identity. Specifically, people whose sexual identities carry more privilege and mainstream approval (e.g., gay/lesbian) appear to have perceived less concern for safety following the Pulse shooting than those with more marginalized sexual identities (e.g., queer). Thus these data support our third hypothesis, suggesting that identities that afford more privilege may provide some protection against the negative consequences of identity-related attacks.

Taken together, these findings suggest that LGBTQ people perceived concerns related to their own safety and the safety of their peers following the June 2016 mass shooting. These safety-related concerns may combine with myriad other stressors experienced by LGBTQ people (e.g., stigma, prejudice) that collectively compromise the health and wellbeing of sexual, gender, and racial/ethnic minority people (Meyer, 1995). These chronic experiences of minority stress have been linked to a range of health problems, including depression, substance use, and HIV infection (Frost, Lehavot, & Meyer, 2015; Hatzenbuehler, Nolen-Hoeksema, & Erickson, 2008; Meyer, 1995). Furthermore, according to intersectional theory, those with multiple marginalized identities (e.g., transgender women of color) may be disproportionately vulnerable to the psychological distress associated with incidents of mass identity-related violence (Crenshaw, 1991). While we did not test an intersectional model in these analyses, we recommend that researchers consider such analyses in the future.

Implications

The results of this study suggest that LGBTQ-identified people perceived concerns related to their personal safety and the safety of their peers after the Pulse massacre. Thus, in the aftermath of identity-related attacks, such as the shooting at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina, we recommend that health promotion and community mental health organizations make efforts to outreach to members of the community affected, irrespective of their geographic proximity to the tragedy.

Moreover, these data indicate that LGBTQ people with more marginalized gender and sexual identities (e.g., genderqueer, queer, non-identified/other) were disproportionately impacted by the shooting. Thus, we also posit that communities impacted by collective traumas are not monolithic and, as such, within an affected population, there may be subgroups that that experience greater psychological distress. Therefore we also recommend that healthcare providers, and particularly those in mental health, pay close attention to signs of posttraumatic stress among their patients who may identify as part of a marginalized subgroup within a larger impacted community. Attending to such symptoms soon after the traumatic event may lead to improved mental health outcomes over time.

Additionally, given the dearth of information regarding the impact of the Pulse shooting on LGBTQ people, we recommend that researchers with cross-sectional data, drawn from LGBTQ samples and collected soon after the shooting, consider publishing any noteworthy findings. We also suggest that researchers with longitudinal data, drawn from LGBTQ samples, could contribute pre- and post-attack analyses that would advance our understanding of how this event impacted sexual and gender minority people. Finally, we recommend that future researchers examine both the short-term and long-term mental health consequences of mass violence among LGBTQ populations.

Strengths and Limitations

To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine differences in perceptions of safety among LGBTQ people in the aftermath of the Pulse massacre. This novel research aim was strengthened by a methodology that utilized a large, diverse sample. Additionally, given that a portion of the sample was constructed using a participants from an ongoing project examining the experiences of sexual and gender minority people, data was able to be collected within days of the attack, thereby capturing a unique point in time that other studies may fail to fully assess.

These findings should be considered in light of the potential limitations. First, the sample is constructed of participants from both an ongoing cohort study, as well as from a large internet-based sample. As such, the sampling methodology was not consistent across participants and there may be systematic differences in the groups that are not assessed in the present study. However, by including participants from the ongoing [edited out for blind review] research study, we were able to construct a more racially/ethnically diverse sample. Second, given the lack of research on the topic of collective trauma, we were unable to use a preexisting, validated measure to assess LGBTQ perceptions of safety, instead creating a measure of our own. Future researchers may wish to use these or similar items to measure dimensions of collective trauma, modified to fit the unique characteristics of their population of interest. Third, some may caution against using internet samples, given that it is hard to validate whether respondents meet the study’s inclusion criteria and whether you are only receiving unique responses. We recognize this concern, however, it would be infeasible to collect a similarly large and diverse sample, as close to the time of the shooting, using an in-person method without having considerable financial and material resources. Additionally, given the cross-sectional nature of these data, no causal inferences can be drawn. As such, the authors’ discussion of how privilege may relate to differences in perceptions of safety by sexual orientation and gender identity is based on theory and previous research (McIntosh, 2010; Phillips & Phillips, 2009).

Conclusion

While it may remain unclear whether the mass shooting that took place at Pulse nightclub in June 2016 was a bona fide hate crime or an act of terrorism targeting LGBTQ people, it is evident that LGBTQ people perceived concerns related to their own safety and the safety of their peers in the months following the attack. These dimensions of collective trauma varied by gender and sexual identity, suggesting that those with multiple minority identities may be more vulnerable to psychological distress in the wake of such identity-related attacks. Healthcare providers and organizations can improve the wellbeing of impacted populations, and those subgroups disproportionately impacted, by using targeted outreach efforts and addressing safety-related concerns in the aftermath such collective traumas. Additionally, online platforms (e.g., listservs, chat rooms) may be particularly helpful to LGBTQ people coping with hate crimes and collective traumas.

Public Significance Statement.

LGBTQ people perceived concerns related to their personal safety and the safety of their peers following the Pulse nightclub shooting. Members of more marginalized LGBTQ subgroups (e.g., transgender, genderqueer) may be more vulnerable to dimensions of collective trauma than subgroups with relatively more privilege (e.g., gay, cisgender men).

Acknowledgments

Research reported in this publication was supported in part by the National Institute On Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number R01DA025537. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Contributor Information

Christopher B. Stults, Center for Health, Identity, Behavior & Prevention Studies, College of Global Public Health and Department of Applied Psychology Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development, New York University

Sandra A. Kupprat, Center for Health, Identity, Behavior & Prevention Studies, College of Global Public Health and Department of Applied Psychology Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development, New York University

Kristen D. Krause, Center for Health, Identity, Behavior & Prevention Studies, College of Global Public Health

Farzana Kapadia, Center for Health, Identity, Behavior & Prevention Studies, College of Global Public Health College, New York University and Department of Population Health, Langone School of Medicine, New York University.

Perry N. Halkitis, Departments of Biostatistics, Health Education, and Behavioral Science, Rutgers School of Public Health, Rutgers University

References

  1. Alvarez L, Pérez-Peña R. Orlando gunman attacks gay nightclub, leaving 50 dead. The New York Times; 2016. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/13/us/orlando-nightclub-shooting.html. [Google Scholar]
  2. Ben-Ezra M, Hamama-Raz Y, Mahat-Shamir M, Pitcho-Prelorentzos S, Kaniasty K. Shattering core beliefs: Psychological reactions to mass shooting in Orlando. Journal of Psychiatric Research. 2017;85:56–58. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2016.09.033. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Boyle SC, LaBrie JW, Costine LD, Witkovic YD. “It’s how we deal”: Perceptions of LGB peers’ use of alcohol and other drugs to cope and sexual minority adults’ own coping motivated substance use following the Pulse nightclub shooting. Addictive Behaviors. 2017;65(2017):51–55. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2016.10.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Brown T. Terrorism v hate crime: How US courts decide. BBC News. 2015 Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33205339.
  5. Crenshaw K. Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review. 1991;43(6):1241–1299. [Google Scholar]
  6. Criss D. When is a crime a hate crime and when is it terrorism? CNN. 2017 Retrieved from: http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/19/us/hate-crime-or-terrorism-definition-trnd/index.html.
  7. Croff JM, Hubach RD, Currin JM, Frederick AF. Hidden rainbows: Gay bars as safe havens in a socially conservative area since the Pulse nightclub massacre. Sexuality Research and Social Policy. 2017;14(2):233–240. [Google Scholar]
  8. Forest J, Deloughery K, King RD, Asal V. Close cousins or distant relatives? The relationship between terrorism and hate crime. Crime & Delinquency. 2012;58(5):663–688. [Google Scholar]
  9. Frost DM, Lehavot K, Meyer IH. Minority stress and physical health among sexual minority individuals. Journal of Behavioral Medicine. 2015;1(38):1–8. doi: 10.1007/s10865-013-9523-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Gross N. Are Americans experiencing collective trauma? The New York Times; 2016. Dec 16, Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/16/opinion/sunday/are-americans-experiencing-collective-trauma.html/ [Google Scholar]
  11. Hancock KA, Haldeman DC. Between the lines: Media coverage of Orlando and beyond. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity. 2017;4(2):152–159. [Google Scholar]
  12. Herek GM. Documenting hate crimes in the United States: Some considerations on data sources. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity. 2017;4(2):143–151. [Google Scholar]
  13. Halkitis PN, Kapadia F, Siconolfi DE, Moeller RW, Figueroa RP, Barton SC, Blachman-Forshay J. Individual, psychosocial, and social correlates of unprotected anal intercourse in a new generation of young men who have sex with men in New York City. American Journal of Public Health. 2013;103(5):889–895. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2012.300963. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Halkitis PN, Siconolfi DE, Stults CB, Barton S, Bub K, Kapadia F. Modeling substance use in emerging adult gay, bisexual, and other YMSM across time: the P18 cohort study. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2014;145:209–216. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2014.10.016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Hatzenbuehler ML, Nolen-Hoeksema S, Erickson SJ. Minority stress predictors of HIV risk behavior, substance use, and depressive symptoms: Results from a prospective study of bereaved gay men. Health Psychology. 2008;27(4):455. doi: 10.1037/0278-6133.27.4.455. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Jackson SD. “Connection is the antidote”: Psychological distress, emotional processing, and virtual community building among LGBTQ students after the Orlando shooting. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity. 2017;4(2):160–168. [Google Scholar]
  17. Jenkins SR, Baird S. Secondary traumatic stress and vicarious trauma: A validational study. Journal of Traumatic Stress. 2002;15(5):423–432. doi: 10.1023/A:1020193526843. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Luszczynska A, Benight CC, Cieslak R. Self-efficacy and health-related outcomes of collective trauma: A systematic review. European Psychologist. 2009;14(1):51–62. [Google Scholar]
  19. McIntosh P. White privilege and male privilege. The Teacher in American Society: A Critical Anthology 2010 [Google Scholar]
  20. Meyer IH. Minority stress and mental health in gay men. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 1995;36(1):38–56. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Phillips DA, Phillips JR. Privilege male. Encyclopedia of Gender and Society. 2009;2:683–684. [Google Scholar]
  22. Poulin MJ, Silver RC, Gil-Rivas V, Holman EA, McIntosh DN. Finding social benefits after a collective trauma: Perceiving societal changes and well-being following 9/11. Journal of Traumatic Stress. 2009;22(2):81–90. doi: 10.1002/jts.20391. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Rimé B, Páez D, Basabe N, Martínez F. Social sharing of emotion, post-traumatic growth, and emotional climate: Follow-up of Spanish citizen’s response to the collective trauma of March 11th terrorist attacks in Madrid. European Journal of Social Psychology. 2010;40(6):1029–1045. [Google Scholar]
  24. Robles F, Turkewitz J. Was the Orlando Gunman Gay? The Answer Continues to Elude the FBI. The New York Times; 2016. Jun 26, 2016. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/26/us/was-the-orlando-gunman-gay-the-answer-continues-to-elude-the-fbi.html. [Google Scholar]
  25. Seery MD, Silver RC, Holman EA, Ence WA, Chu TQ. Expressing thoughts and feelings following a collective trauma: Immediate responses to 9/11 predict negative outcomes in a national sample. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2008;76(4):657–667. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.76.4.657. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Stults CB. After Orlando: Memories of Pulse, and a call to action. Chelsea Now. 2016 Jun 23; Retrieved from http://chelseanow.com/2016/06/after-orlando-memories-of-pulse-and-a-call-to-action.
  27. Updegraff JA, Silver RC, Holman EA. Searching for and finding meaning in collective trauma: Results from a national longitudinal study of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2008;95(3):709–722. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.95.3.709. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES