Interpersonal and Intrapersonal Coping As Mediators between Intersectional Stress and Depression Among LGBTQ+ Youth: Results from Structural Equation Modeling

Background and Purpose: Intersectional stress, including identity conflicts or marginalizations within both LGBTQ+ and racial/ethnic communities, reflects the complex challenges faced by individuals with multiple minoritized identities. Prior research found negative effects of intersectional minority stress on mental health, but limited studies have examined how LGBTQ+ youth cope with intersectional stress and how these coping strategies shape mental health outcomes. Guided by the Psychological Mediation Framework and the Minority Stress Theory, this study investigated the direct and indirect effects of intersectional stress on depression among LGBTQ+ youth, with a focus on coping strategies as mediators. Research questions included the following: (1) What is the relationship between intersectional stress and depression? (2) To what extent do coping strategies mediate this relationship?

Methods: This study used three waves of data from a national longitudinal survey of LGBTQ+ adolescents in the United States to conduct structural equation modeling (SEM) analyses. Participants aged 14-17 years were recruited in 2018 and completed online surveys every 6 months across seven time points. The analytic sample included 896 participants at wave 5 for exogenous variables (i.e., identity conflict; cultural marginalization in LGBTQ+ community; LGBTQ+ marginalization in cultural community), 878 at wave 6 for mediators (i.e., emotion-/problem-focused (dis)engagement; LGBTQ+ exploration; LGBTQ+ community engagement; LGBTQ+ avoidant; seeking family support), and 871 at wave 7 for the outcome (i.e. depression). SEM models tested interpersonal and intrapersonal coping as mediators using Mplus with Weighted Least Squares with Mean and Variance estimation.

Results: SEM models showed good fit (i.e., RMSEA < .06; CFI/TLI > .94). For intrapersonal coping, identity conflict negatively predicts emotion-focused engagement (β = -.12, p < .01) and positively predicts problem-focused (β = .13, p < .01) and emotion-focused (β = .20, p < .001) disengagement but does not directly predict depression. Emotion-focused disengagement was a mediator between identity conflict and depression (β = .10, p < .01). Regarding interpersonal coping, cultural marginalization in LGBTQ+ community predicted family support seeking (β = -.13, p < .01), LGBTQ+ exploration (β = .14, p = .01), and depression (β = .19, p = .001). Surprisingly, higher level of LGBTQ+ marginalization in youth’s cultural group predicted lower depression (β = -.12, p < .05). Family support was a mediator between cultural marginalization and depression (β = .03, p < .05).

Conclusions and Implications: The findings revealed underlying risks of avoidance of family support-seeking and emotional disengagement when LGBTQ+ youth face intersectional stress, which were further linked to adverse mental health outcomes. These results underscore the importance of recognizing the unique needs of youth navigating their identity in multiple minority groups. Culturally responsive interventions are urgently needed to address mental health disparities and promote psychological well-being among this vulnerable population.