43P
“We're like a Family”: How Nonmetropolitan LGBT Youth Perceive the Quality of Their Friendships with LGBT and Non-LGBT Peers
During adolescence, youth become more reliant on the support of their peers, making their social environment paramount to their positive development (Sullivan & Wodarski, 2002). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth, however, receive less overall social support than their non-LGBT peers (Diamond & Lucas, 2004). They are more likely to receive support for general and sexuality-related stressors from LGBT peers than non-LGBT peers (Doty et al., 2010). Nonmetropolitan LGBT youth may have less access to LGBT peers from whom to access support. Little is known about how nonmetropolitan LGBT youth perceive their friendships with LGBT and non-LGBT peers, limiting our understanding of how these youth utilize peer support. The purpose of this study was to enhance understanding of how nonmetropolitan LGBT youth perceive the quality of their friendships with LGBT and non-LGBT peers.
Methods:
This study utilized in-depth interviews (n=30) with LGBT youth across the nonmetropolitan region of one state. Participants were 14-18 years old (M=16); White (40%), multiracial (40%), or African-American (20%); female (50%), male (30%), transgender or questioning (20%). Interviews explored similarities and differences between LGBT and non-LGBT friends, perceptions of the types of support LGBT youth receive from friends, and ways in which they wish their friendships were different. A team of three researchers used the grounded theory procedures of line-by-line and incident-by-incident coding (Charmaz, 2006) to identify characteristics and patterns regarding LGBT youth perceptions of their friendships.
Results
Most participants reported having at least one LGBT friend; a few reported having predominantly LGBT friends. While many of the participants initially stated that there were no differences between their LGBT and non-LGBT friends, nearly all went on to describe specific differences. LGBT friendships were described as closer than non-LGBT friendships because youth felt their sexual/gender identities were more supported in these friendships. Participants specifically described receiving support and advice regarding their (same-sex) intimate relationships from their LGBT friends; this was rarely mentioned in their descriptions of support received from non-LGBT friends. Regarding their non-LGBT friends, participants described feeling as if their sexual/gender identity was always on display; not receiving adequate support related to their sexual/gender identity; and feeling the need to constantly educate their friends about LGBT issues. These observations were discussed as “differences”; youth rarely described them as overly negative. In fact, several participants shared stories about how their non-LGBT friends stood up for them when other peers teased or bullied them, a phenomenon infrequently discussed regarding their LGBT friends. Nearly all of the participants described both types of friends as important, yet most indicated they would like to have more LGBT friends in their communities.
Implications:
This study found that nonmetropolitan LGBT youth perceive their friendships with LGBT and non-LGBT peers as qualitatively different, but important in unique ways, while wishing they had greater access to LGBT peers. These findings highlight the importance of providing LGBT-specific social outlets for nonmetropolitan youth. Future research should attend to the association between social support received from both LGBT and non-LGBT peers and indicators of well-being.