4.3 Article

Religious Affiliation, Internalized Homophobia, and Mental Health in Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexuals

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ORTHOPSYCHIATRY
Volume 82, Issue 4, Pages 505-515

Publisher

EDUCATIONAL PUBLISHING FOUNDATION-AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1111/j.1939-0025.2012.01185.x

Keywords

lesbians; gay men; bisexuals; minority stress theory; homosexuality; homophobia; internalized homophobia; self-esteem; nonaffirming religious settings; affirming religious settings

Funding

  1. National Institute of Mental Health [R01-MH066058]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Most religious environments in the United States do not affirm homosexuality. The authors investigated the relationship between exposure to nonaffirming religious environments and internalized homophobia and mental health in a sample of lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals (LGBs) in New York City. Guided by minority stress theory, the authors hypothesized that exposure to nonaffirming religious settings would lead to higher internalized homophobia, more depressive symptoms, and less psychological well-being. The authors hypothesized that Black and Latino LGBs would be more likely than White LGBs to participate in nonaffirming religious settings and would therefore have higher internalized homophobia than White LGBs. Participants were 355 LGBs recruited through community-based venue sampling and evenly divided among Black, Latino, and White race or ethnic groups and among age groups within each race or ethnic group, as well as between women and men. Results supported the general hypothesis that nonaffirming religion was associated with higher internalized homophobia. There was no main effect of nonaffirming religion on mental health, an unexpected finding discussed in this article. Latinos, but not Blacks, had higher internalized homophobia than Whites, and as predicted, this was mediated by their greater exposure to nonaffirming religion.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available