Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Oct 14.
Published in final edited form as: Int J Psychol. 2019 Jun 3;55(3):405–412. doi: 10.1002/ijop.12585

Factor analysis of the heterosexist harassment, rejection, and discrimination scale in lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer people of colour

Erin R Smith 1, Paul B Perrin 1, Megan E Sutter 1,2,3
PMCID: PMC8515875  NIHMSID: NIHMS1723778  PMID: 31161655

Abstract

The factor structure of the Heterosexist Harassment, Rejection, and Discrimination Scale (HHRDS) was examined in lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people of colour. Two hundred participants completed a survey with the HHRDS and several mental health scales. A confirmatory factor analysis suggested the original HHRDS structure fit the data poorly. Exploratory factor analyses found a different 2-factor structure, consisting of harassment/rejection and family discrimination. Convergent validity analyses demonstrated that family discrimination had the largest association with depression and anxiety, indicating that family discrimination may be particularly salient among LGBTQ people of colour. This study supports the use of the HHRDS in racially/ethnically diverse samples, but with a slightly different factor structure. Examining discriminatory experiences from family members is an important direction for future research in LGBTQ people of colour.

Keywords: Discrimination, LGBT, Race/ethnicity

Although the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) community has gained notable national visibility and civil rights in recent years due to political activism, many LGBTQ adults still face job loss, harassment, and discrimination. Over 75% of LGB individuals have experienced discrimination at some point in their lifetime (Mays & Cochran, 2001), and 21.4% of LGB individuals reported experiencing discrimination within the past year (McLaughlin, Hatzenbuehler, & Keyes, 2010). The minority stress model (Meyer, 2003) posits that individuals from minority communities experience unique stressors (e.g., discriminatory events, microaggressions) related to their minority status, which has been linked to health disparities including hypertension (Williams & Mohammed, 2008), poorer self-reported heath (Williams & Mohammed, 2008), and reduced mental health (D’Augelli & Grossman, 2001). Sexual prejudice and heterosexism may be associated with fear and discomfort as well as in-group norms that are not receptive to sexual and gender minorities (Herek, 2000). In addition, sexual prejudice has been associated with discriminatory behaviours in experimental studies (Haddock & Zanna, 1998).

As noted by DeBlaere, Brewster, Sarkees, and Moradi (2010), the majority of the literature on LGB adults has used primarily White samples, resulting in a gap concerning the experiences of LGB adults who are also people of colour. This observation is of particular importance, as individuals who are discriminated against with multiple minority identities have been shown to have greater depression and anxiety (Sanders Thompson, Noel, & Campbell, 2004). Further, LGBTQ people of colour are subjected to multiple forms of microaggressions (e.g., racist and heterosexist; Balsam, Molina, Beadnell, Simoni, & Walters, 2011).

Despite the frequency with which LGBTQ individuals experience discrimination (Mays & Cochran, 2001; McLaughlin et al., 2010), previous scales assessing perceived heterosexist experiences have traditionally focused on hate crimes and discrimination based in the workplace, and consisted of 1 or 2 items (Szymanski, 2006). A more comprehensive scale created by Szymanski (2006), the Heterosexist Harassment, Rejection, and Discrimination Scale (HHRDS), and resultant study assessed heterosexist harassment, rejection, and discrimination in a sample of primarily White sexual minority women. This study found a three-factor structure consisting of harassment/rejection, work/school, and “other” heterosexism.

Although the HHRDS has been adapted by other researchers (e.g., Figueora & Zoccola, 2016) for use in LGBTQ populations, no research has validated the HHRDS or its factor structure in LGBTQ people of colour. Due to potential differences in discriminatory experiences between LGBTQ people of colour and Whites, it is possible that the scale may show different psychometric properties or a different factor structure. The purpose of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of the HHRDS in a sample of LGBTQ people of colour.

METHOD

Participants

The sample consisted of men (n=64), women (n=106), and transgender/non-binary individuals (n=30) from the United States (total n=200) who identified as gay (40.0%), bisexual (27.5%), queer (25.5%), an “other” non-heterosexual sexual orientation (5.0%), or identified as heterosexual and transgender, intersex, or other gender identity (2.0%). The average age of participants was 29.52years (SD=9.93). The sample was 33% Black/African-American (non-Latino), 28.5% Asian/Asian-American/Pacific Islander, 19.0% Multiracial/Multiethnic, 13.0% Latino/Hispanic, 4.5% American Indian/Native American, and 2% identified as an “other” racial/ethnic minority category. Of the sample, 28.5% of participants had a 4-year college degree, 30.0% some college (no degree), 19.5% a master’s degree, 10.0% a 2-year/technical degree, 7.5% a high school diploma/GED, 4.0% a doctorate degree, and 0.5% had completed only grade school. Of the sample, 39.0% reported their family’s income was $30,000 to $59,999, 34.0% $60,000 and $199,999, 15.5% $15,000 to $29,999, 10.5% $7000 to $14,999, and 1.0% reported income over $200,000.

Materials

Heterosexism

Experiences with heterosexism were measured with the HHRDS (Szymanski, 2006). The HHRDS consists of 14 items across three subscales: harassment/rejection, work/school, and “other.” The scale uses a 6-point Likert-type response option to assess experiences with heterosexism in the past year with 1 indicating “the event has never happened to you,” and 6 indicating that “the event occurred almost all of the time (more than 70% of the time).” It has been shown to be internally consistent in Szymanski’s (2006) original study in primarily White, lesbian women (α=.90; Szymanski, 2006). The subscales demonstrated acceptable internal consistency: harassment/rejection (α=.89), work/school (α=.84), other (α=.78). As the original scale was used with lesbian participants (Szymanski, 2006), the scale items in the current study were modified to include the term “an LGBTQ individual” instead of “lesbian.”

Depression and anxiety

The Hopkins Symptoms Checklist 25 (HSCL; Derogatis, Lipman, Rickels, Uhlenhuth, & Covi, 1974) was used to assess depression and anxiety for convergent validity. The HSCL consists of 10 questions that measure anxiety, and 15 questions that measure depression. A total score on the HSCL is calculated where higher scores on the HSCL correspond to greater symptom severity, and the current sample’s total score α was .94.

Procedure

The study was approved by the host university’s institutional review board. To recruit a racially/ethnically diverse sample, groups, forums, and organisations that cater to LGBTQ people of colour were identified. Researchers contacted these organisations via email and provided them information on the current study for recruitment purposes. A study coordinator screened interested individuals via email, who confirmed that the individual self-identified as LGBTQ. Upon approval for participation, an email was sent to participants with a link to the study with a unique code for compensation purposes (a $15 gift card to amazon.com). The current study did not contain any missing data as the survey software required participants to respond to every item if they were to proceed with the survey.

RESULTS

Confirmatory factor analysis

All statistical analyses were run using version 24 of IBM SPSS Statistics or AMOS (IBM Corporation, 2016). Normality tests revealed that skewness and kurtosis coefficients for all items were at or below 1.57, suggesting that Item transformations were not needed. The χ2 goodness of fit test provided evidence that the initial 3-factor solution of the HHRDS did not fit the data well, χ2 (74)=476.54, p<.001. Other indices of fit generally suggest that the model did not fit the data well (Table 1). Within this model (Figure 1), the correlation between the latent variables harassment/rejection and work/school heterosexism was .53, p<.001; the correlation between the latent variables harassment/rejection and other heterosexism was .62, p<.001; and the correlation between the latent variables work/school and other heterosexism was .74, p=.001.

TABLE 1.

Fit indices for confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the HHRDS

Fit index Value
GFI .731
AGFI .618
NFI .746
IFI .777
CFI .774
RMSEA .165
Open in a new tab
*

GFI, AGFI, NFI, IFI, and CFI values >.90 indicate adequate fit (Meyers, Gamst, & Guarino, 2013). *RMSEA values <.08 adequate fit (Meyers et al., 2013).

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

CFA for all 14 items in the HHRDS.

Exploratory factor analyses

Exploratory factor analysis 1

As the initial 3-factor CFA suggested poor model fit, to examine whether a better pattern of item loadings would emerge for the HHRDS in LGBTQ people of colour, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) specifying a 3-factor solution but without specifying a priori item loadings on the factors was conducted using maximum likelihood factoring and a Promax rotation including all 14 items. To evaluate the factor solution, the following criteria were used (Tabachnick & Fidel, 2001): (a) the chi-square statistic, where a non-significant (p>.05) indicates a well-fitting model; (b) eigenvalues greater than 1 (the Kaiser rule; numerical and as interpreted from a Scree plot); and (c) simple structure (items that load ≥.40 on its primary factor, <.30 on all other factors).

A scree plot (Figure 2) revealed a pronounced inflection point at the third-highest eigenvalue. Although the third factor had an eigenvalue less than 1 (.994), its value was extremely close to 1, and therefore this 3-factor solution was examined. The chi-square statistic was significant, χ2 (91, n=200)=1823.35, p<.001. The pattern matrix for the model is shown in Table 2. The first factor consisted of items describing harassment and unfair treatment from strangers. The second factor described work/school heterosexism, similar to the original work/school factor obtained by Szymanski (2006). However, additional items also loaded onto this factor, including unfair treatment by individuals in helping professions (e.g., doctors), as well as unfair treatment by co-workers, fellow students, and colleagues. The third factor was comprised of all three of the items assessing heterosexism from family members. The first factor explained 49.88% of the variance, the second factor explained 12.89%, and the third factor explained 7.10% of the variance, a total of 69.87% of cumulative explained variance.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Scree plot of eigenvalues after EFA for all 14 items in HHRDS.

TABLE 2.

Factor loadings for all 14 items of the HHRDS

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3
How many times have you been treated unfairly by strangers because you are an LGBTQ individual? .822
How many times have you been treated unfairly by people in service jobs (by store clerks, waiters, bartenders, waitresses, bank tellers, mechanics, and others) because you are an LGBTQ individual? .793 −.123
How many times have you been verbally insulted because you are an LGBTQ individual? .761 .126
How many times have you been made fun of, picked on, pushed, shoved, hit, or threatened with harm because you are an LGBTQ individual? .734
How many times have you been called heterosexist or transphobic names like dyke, lezzie, faggot, queer, tranny, or other names? .692
How many times were you denied a raise, a promotion, tenure, a good assignment, a job, or other such thing at work that you deserved because you are an LGBTQ individual? .932
How many times have you been treated unfairly by teachers or professors because you are an LGBTQ individual? .845
How many times have you been treated unfairly by your employer, boss, or supervisors because you are an LGBTQ individual? .258 .544
*How many times have you been treated unfairly by people in helping jobs (by doctors, nurses, psychiatrists, caseworkers, dentists, school counsellors, therapists, paediatricians, school principals, gynaecologists, and others) because you are an LGBTQ individual? .336 .534
How many times have you been rejected by friends because you are an LGBTQ individual? .136 .497 .115
*How many times have you been treated unfairly by your co-workers, fellow students, or colleagues because you are an LGBTQ individual? .331 .349
How many times have you heard ANTI-LGBTQ remarks from family members? −.175 .874
How many times have you been treated unfairly by your family because you are an LGBTQ individual? .823
How many times have you been rejected by family members because you are an LGBTQ individual? .116 .807
Open in a new tab
*

Note: Items with asterisks were removed prior to running the final analyses.

The first and third factors demonstrated simple structure, with each item loading ≥.40 on its primary factor and <.30 on all other factors. In the second factor, however, two items failed to demonstrate simple structure (unfair treatment from individuals in helping professions and unfair treatment by co-workers, fellow students, etc.). For this reason, these items were potentially poorly performing items.

The overall scale demonstrated excellent internal consistency (α=.92), while the subscales of the three factors had good internal consistency (α=.89, α=.88, and α=.87, respectively). The first and third factors were moderately correlated with each other (r=.475), demonstrating related but unique aspects of heterosexism. The second and third factors, however, had a large correlation (r=.735). As noted by Meyers et al. (2013), correlations among factors within scales should be ≤ .70.

A parallel analysis was utilised to determine the number of factors by comparing eigenvalues of the actual data to simulated data. The analysis simulated data for an EFA using principal axis factor and varimax rotation with a sample size of 200, 14 items, and 1000 iterations. The eigenvalues for the simulation were 6.61 for 1 factor, 1.44 for 2 factors, and .61 for 3 factors, suggesting that there were two factors in the scale.

Exploratory factor analysis 2

An a-priori two-factor solution was then specified using maximum likelihood estimation and Promax rotation on the 12 items that demonstrated simple structure in the first EFA. The chi-square statistic for the second EFA was significant, χ2 (66, n=200)=1485.95, p<.001. The first factor explained 50.04% of the variance, and the second factor explained 12.32% of the variance for a total of 58.24% variance explained. The scree plot is presented in Figure 3. The factors that emerged in this two-factor solution were harassment/rejection and discrimination from family. Every item included in the analysis demonstrated simple structure (Table 3). Overall, the scale demonstrated excellent internal consistency (α=.90). The first factor of harassment/rejection demonstrated excellent internal consistency (α=.91) and the second factor of discrimination from family demonstrated acceptable internal consistency (α=.70). Factors 1 and 2 correlated at .46, suggesting that these are two related but distinct factors. In the same method above, a parallel analysis was utilised with the 12 items that obtained simple structure. The simulated data eigenvalues were 5.62 for 1 factor, 1.36 for 2 factors, and .56 for 3 factors.

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Open in a new tab

Scree plot of eigenvalues after EFA with 12 items of the HHRDS.

TABLE 3.

Factor loadings for 12 items of the HHRDS

Factor 1 Factor 2
How many times have you been made fun of, picked on, pushed, shoved, hit, or threatened with harm because you are an LGBTQ individual? .818
How many times have you been treated unfairly by people in service jobs (by store clerks, waiters, bartenders, waitresses, bank tellers, mechanics, and others) because you are an LGBTQ individual? .803
How many times have you been verbally insulted because you are an LGBTQ individual? .782 .119
How many times have you been treated unfairly by strangers because you are an LGBTQ individual? .743
How many times were you denied a raise, a promotion, tenure, a good assignment, a job, or other such thing at work that you deserved because you are an LGBTQ individual? .715
How many times have you been treated unfairly by your employer, boss, or supervisors because you are an LGBTQ individual? .714
How many times have you been treated unfairly by teachers or professors because you are an LGBTQ individual? .702
How many times have you been called heterosexist or transphobic names like dyke, lezzie, faggot, queer, tranny, or other names? .672
How many times have you been rejected by friends because you are an LGBTQ individual? .565 .105
How many times have you heard ANTI-LGBTQ remarks from family members? −.118 .871
How many times have you been treated unfairly by your family because you are an LGBTQ individual? .833
How many times have you been rejected by family members because you are an LGBTQ individual? .110 .817
Open in a new tab

Convergent validity

The anxiety and depression subscales of the HSCL were used to assess convergent validity with the 2-factor structure of the HHRDS. Due to previous research demonstrating an association between heterosexism and mental health problems (Mays & Cochran, 2001), it was expected that the two subscales should be associated with higher levels of anxiety and depression. A correlation matrix was generated to examine these relationships (Table 4). As expected, significant positive associations were found between each type of heterosexism and anxiety and depression, demonstrating convergent validity.

TABLE 4.

Correlation matrix examining convergent validity with anxiety and depression

1 2 3
1. Discrimination from Family
2. General Discrimination .456**
3. Anxiety .374** .366**
4. Depression .364** .302** .786
Open in a new tab
**

Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.

DISCUSSION

An EFA found evidence to support a two-factor structure including 12 items from the HHRDS (Szymanski, 2006) in a sample of 200 LGBTQ people of colour. The current study found two factors: (a) general harassment/rejection and (b) discrimination from family. The two-factor model explained 58.24% of the variance, with the two factors explaining 50.04%, and 12.32% of the variance, respectively.

The two-factor structure found in the current study differs somewhat from the original three-factor structure obtained by Szymanski (2006) in a sample of 143 primarily White sexual minority women, and a principal components analysis by Figueora and Zoccola (2016) in primarily White sexual minority adults. Two items from the original scale were dropped from the current study because they did not demonstrate simple structure (discrimination from co-workers, students, colleagues, and from those in helping professions). It is possible that participants in the current study were less out in their workplace or in settings where they interact with individuals in helping professions (e.g., with health care providers), perhaps in part because this was an online sample. In addition, Figueora and Zoccola (2016) utilised Szymanski’s original 14-item HHRDS and found two factors, one consisting of heterosexism from friends and family, with the other scale containing items involving discrimination from others. Apart from the two items removed in the current study, the only difference between the current study and results obtained by Figueora and Zoccola (2016) is that discrimination from friends loaded onto the general harassment/discrimination factor instead of the discrimination from family factor. Overall, the differences between the Szymanski (2006) and Figueora and Zoccola (2016) studies may suggest that the experiences of LGBTQ people of colour may vary in important ways from those of White sexual minority individuals (DeBlaere et al., 2010).

The literature has traditionally focused on family and friends to be a source of support for sexual minority individuals. For example, family acceptance has been shown to be a protective factor against substance abuse, depression, and suicidal behaviours (Ryan, Russell, Huebner, Diaz, & Sanchez, 2010). Although the results from the current study suggest that discrimination from family may be an important avenue of research, only a few studies have examined the family as a source of LGBTQ discrimination, especially among adults (Figueora & Zoccola, 2016). There is ample evidence to suggest that this may be critical to study: LGB individuals report more abuse from their families than heterosexuals (McLaughlin, Hatzenbuehler, Xuan, & Conron, 2012), and up to 52% of parents may have a negative reaction to their child’s sexual orientation (D’Augelli, Grossman, & Starks, 2008). In addition, research has found that discrimination from family and friends is independently associated with physical symptoms and poorer self-rated physical health (Figueora & Zoccola, 2016).

Prior research also suggests that experiencing family rejection as a youth due to sexual minority status may lead to deleterious outcomes into adulthood, which further demonstrates the importance of examining discrimination from family in LGBTQ individuals. In a sample of LGB young adults, Ryan, Huebner, Diaz, and Sanchez (2009) found an association between parental rejection and depression, attempted suicide, and substance use. Parental rejection when coming out to parents has also been associated with suicidal ideation and anxiety in adulthood (Puckett, Woodward, Mereish, & Pantalone, 2015). Therefore, although the LGBTQ adults in the current study may not be living with parents or other family members, is possible that they still experience distress as a result of family rejection as a youth. Further, it is also possible that they remain in contact with their families into adulthood, and therefore may continue to experience heterosexism stemming from these interactions. Indeed, in the current study, discrimination from family had the strongest relationships with depression and anxiety (Table 4).

Discrimination from family may be particularly harmful for LGBTQ people of colour due to the stigma of being a sexual minority in a non-White community, or to certain cultural values in racial/ethnic minority communities including religiosity or the endorsement of traditional gender roles (Lasala & Frierson, 2012). This may serve to further stigmatise LGBTQ people of colour, leading to them to experience more discriminatory events, such as heterosexism. Indeed, previous research has demonstrated that family rejection is higher among Latinos than Whites (Ryan et al., 2009), although to the knowledge of the authors no other studies have examined family discrimination across other racial/ethnic groups. Therefore, further research examining discrimination from family members in LGBTQ people of colour is needed.

Limitations and future directions

It is possible that different racial/ethnic groups have varying experiences with heterosexism and cis-genderism. Certain Native American tribes, for example, view sexuality as fluid (Bridges, Selvidge, & Matthews, 2003), and therefore experiencing heterosexism from family members may not be as pervasive in these populations compared to other racial/ethnic groups. Due to the limited sample size in the current study (n=200), as well as the small number of participants in certain racial/ethnic groups (e.g., Native Americans), the current study is limited in its ability to examine differences among these groups. Similarly, future studies should also examine discrimination from different types of family members (e.g., parents, siblings, etc.), as some may be more harmful than others. Previous findings have demonstrated that fathers and mothers may have different reactions to their child disclosing their sexual orientation. Divergent validity was not examined in the current study and should be examined in future studies analysing the factor structure of the HHRDS. In addition, the sample in the current study may not generalise to all LGBTQ people of colour due to sampling bias as a result of online sampling, and the cross-sectional nature of the current study precludes causal interpretations of the data.

When the HHRDS has been utilised in other studies (e.g., Szymanski, 2009; Szymanski & Sung, 2010), heterosexist experiences assessed with the HHRDS were collapsed into a single category of heterosexist experiences, rather than examining the original three-factor structure. However, analysing data in this manner may lead researchers to miss the nuanced relationships between various types of heterosexism (e.g., from family versus work/school) and outcomes in LGBTQ people of colour. Therefore, it is important to consider varying types of heterosexism, yet the creation of additional items to do so may be an important inclusion in future research.

Overall, in contrast to Szymanski’s (2006) study, the current study found a two-factor structure of the HHRDS among LGBTQ people of colour consisting of two factors: general discrimination and discrimination from family. Results may suggest that discrimination from family members is particularly salient for LGBTQ people of colour. However, given the scant research in this area, future studies should examine discrimination from family among LGBTQ people of colour.

Acknowledgments

The survey software for this study was funded by award number UL1TR000058 from the National Center for Research Resources.

Footnotes

Copyright of International Journal of Psychology is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

REFERENCES

  1. Balsam KF, Molina Y, Beadnell B, Simoni J, & Walters K. (2011). Measuring multiple minority stress: The LGBT people of color microaggressions scale. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Diversity Psychology, 17(2), 163–174. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bridges SK, Selvidge MMD, & Matthews CR (2003). Lesbian women of color: Therapeutic issues and challenges. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 31, 113–130. [Google Scholar]
  3. D’Augelli AR, & Grossman AH (2001). Disclosure of sexual orientation, victimization, and mental health among lesbian, gay, and bisexual older adults. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16, 1008–1027. [Google Scholar]
  4. D’Augelli AR, Grossman AH, & Starks MT (2008). Families of gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth: What do parents and siblings know and how do they react? Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 4(1), 95–115. [Google Scholar]
  5. DeBlaere C, Brewster ME, Sarkees A, & Moradi B. (2010). Conducting research with LGB people of color: Methodological challenges and strategies. The Counseling Psychologist, 38(3), 331–362. [Google Scholar]
  6. Derogatis LR, Lipman RS, Rickels K, Uhlenhuth EH, & Covi L. (1974). The Hopkins Symptoms Checklist (HSCL): a self-report symptom inventory. Behavioral Sciences, 19(1), 1–15. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Figueora WS, & Zoccola PM (2016). Sources of discrimination and their associations with health in sexual minority adults. Journal of Homosexuality, 63(6), 743–763. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Haddock G, & Zanna M. (1998). Authoritarianism, values, and the favorability and structure of antigay attitudes. In Herek GM (Ed.), Stigma and sexual orientation: Understanding prejudice against lesbian, gay men, and bisexuals (pp. 82–107). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  9. Herek GM (2000). The psychology of sexual prejudice. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(1), 19–22. [Google Scholar]
  10. Lasala MC, & Frierson DT (2012). African American gay youth and their families: Redefining masculinity, coping with racism and homophobia. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 8, 428–445. [Google Scholar]
  11. Mays VM, & Cochran SD (2001). Mental health correlates of perceived discrimination among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 91(11), 1869–1876. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. McLaughlin KA, Hatzenbuehler ML, & Keyes KM (2010). Responses to discrimination and psychiatric disorders among black, hispanic, female, and lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals. American Journal of Public Health, 100(8), 1477–1484. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. McLaughlin KA, Hatzenbuehler ML, Xuan Z, & Conron KJ (2012). Disproportionate exposure to early-life adversity and sexual orientation disparities in psychiatric comorbidity. Child Abuse & Neglect, 36, 645–655. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Meyer IH (2003). Prejudice, social stress,and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5), 674–697. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Meyers LS, Gamst G, & Guarino AJ (2013). Applied multivariate research: Design and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  16. Puckett JA, Woodward EN, Mereish EH, & Pantalone DW (2015). Parental rejection following sexual orientation disclosure: Impact on internalized homophobia, social support, and mental health. LGBT Health, 2(3), 265–269. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Ryan C, Huebner D, Diaz RM, & Sanchez J. (2009). Family rejection as a predictor of negative outcomes in white and Latino lesbian, gay, and bisexual young adults. Pediatrics, 123(1), 346–352. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Ryan C, Russell ST, Huebner D, Diaz R, & Sanchez J. (2010). Family acceptance in adolescence and the health of LGBT young adults. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 23(4), 205–213. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Sanders Thompson VL, Noel JG, & Campbell J. (2004). Stigmatization, discrimination, and mental health: The impact of multiple identity status. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 74, 529–544. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Szymanski DM (2006). Does internalized heterosexism moderate the link between heterosexist events and lesbians’ psychological distress? Sex Roles, 54(3–4), 227–234. [Google Scholar]
  21. Szymanski DM (2009). Examining potential moderators of the link between heterosexist events and gay and bisexual men’s psychological distress. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56(1), 142–151. [Google Scholar]
  22. Szymanski DM, & Sung MR (2010). Minority stress and psychological distress among American sexual minority persons. The Counseling Psychologist, 38(6), 848–872. [Google Scholar]
  23. Tabachnick BB, & Fidel LS (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. [Google Scholar]
  24. Williams DR, & Mohammed SA (2008). Discrimination and racial disparities in health: Evidence and needed research. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 32(1), 20–47. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES