Connecting to Your Communities: The Impact of Outness, Identity, and Internalized Homophobia Among LGB Adults

Background and Purpose: The lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community is historically marginalized in the United States and continues to face discrimination because of their sexual or gender identities. As the population of this diverse community increases, there is also a developing interest in their health and mental health outcomes. Connecting to supportive communities is a protective factor against adverse health outcomes, but little is known about what factors influence community connectedness for LBG individuals. This study aimed to expand knowledge about the LGBT population by examining factors that impact minority stress on LGB individuals and their connections to their sexual minority community. The study explored the relationship between outness, identity centrality, internalized homophobia, and community connectedness among LGB adults.

Methods: The current study utilized cross-sectional data from The 2016 - 2019 Generations study (n = 1518). Generations was a quantitative, longitudinal, five-year study using self-administered survey data. Inclusion criteria included identifying as LGB, targeted ethnic and racial group (Latino, Black, or White), being within the 18-59, and meeting a minimum education of sixth grade. The current study focused on three primary independent variables (identity centrality, internalized homophobia, and outness) and their relationship with community connectedness. These variables, along with race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, and sex and gender identity, were included in a multiple linear regression model.

Results: The regression results indicated that identity centrality was negatively associated with community connectedness, meaning that participants with higher levels of identity centrality were less likely to be connected to LGB communities. Regression results also indicated that internalized homophobia and age were positively associated with community connectedness. Finally, regression results regarding sexual orientation were surprising since identifying as straight/heterosexual significantly and positively predicted connectedness to LGB communities.

Conclusions and Implications: Findings from this study emphasize the complexity of the factors impacting the well-being of LBG individuals. Findings that participants identifying as straight and those reporting higher levels of internalized homophobia were more likely to be connected to their communities may indicate that connecting to the LBG community is seen as protective and could reflect an effort to deflect minority stress. Findings from this study also suggest that understanding identity merely as sexual orientation or gender identity is incomplete and that other elements of identity ought to be considered in future research. Although there have been social changes for sexual minorities in the past decades, research indicates that exposure to minority stress persists. Implications for practice include increased attention to connecting LGBTQIA+ individuals to supportive sexual minority communities as a way to address stress and uncertainty. Future research should focus on intersectional identities when examining stress and protective factors.