Journal of Lesbian Studies

ISSN: 1089-4160 (Print) 1540-3548 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjls20

Still Stressful After All These Years: A Review of

Lesbians’ and Bisexual Women's Minority Stress

Robin J. Lewis , Tatyana Kholodkov & Valerian J. Derlega

To cite this article: Robin J. Lewis , Tatyana Kholodkov & Valerian J. Derlega (2012) Still Stressful
After All These Years: A Review of Lesbians’ and Bisexual Women's Minority Stress, Journal of
Lesbian Studies, 16:1, 30-44, DOI: 10.1080/10894160.2011.557641

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10894160.2011.557641

Published online: 12 Jan 2012.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1018

View related articles

Citing articles: 29 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wjls20
Journal of Lesbian Studies, 16:30–44, 2012
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1089-4160 print / 1540-3548 online
DOI: 10.1080/10894160.2011.557641

Still Stressful After All These Years:

A Review of Lesbians’ and Bisexual
Women’s Minority Stress

ROBIN J. LEWIS, TATYANA KHOLODKOV,

and VALERIAN J. DERLEGA
Psychology, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia, USA

This article reviews the conceptualization of, and empirical liter-

ature on, lesbians’ and bisexual women’s sexual minority stress.
In much of the early research, the experiences of sexual minority
women and men were considered together (or women’s experiences
were inferred from men’s), obscuring important differences. There
is empirical and theoretical justification to consider the experiences
of women and men separately and to develop and evaluate com-
prehensive models of sexual minority stress for women. Existing
conceptualizations of sexual minority stress that include assess-
ment of discrimination, victimization, harassment, concealment,
internalized homonegativity may be applied, and perhaps adapted,
to facilitate understanding of the unique stressors associated with
women’s sexual minority status. Future research must include me-
diators of the relationship between stressors and outcomes such as
individual (e.g., coping and resilience) and group (e.g., social sup-
port, identification with a sexual minority community) resources.
It is also essential to understand what factors may buffer the dele-
terious effects of these stressors.

KEYWORDS sexual minority stress, lesbian, minority stress, sexual

minority women, sexual orientation, stigma

In the late 1990s an informal discussion among stress and coping re-
searchers at Old Dominion University led to recognition of the gap in
the literature regarding sexual minority stress, or the unique experiences of

Address correspondence to Robin J. Lewis, Psychology Department, MGB 250, Old Do-
minion University, Norfolk, VA 23520-0267. E-mail: rlewis@odu.edu

30
 Still Stressful After All These Years 31

sexual minorities as a stigmatized group in a majority heterosexual society.

We relied on Brooks’ (1981) definition of minority stress to guide our re-
search, focusing on “. . . culturally sanctioned, categorically ascribed inferior
status, social prejudice and discrimination, the impact of these environmental
forces on psychological well-being, and consequent readjustment or adap-
tation” (p. 107).
This article describes the evolution of our conceptualization of, and re-
search on, sexual minority stress in the last 15 years. Our early work focused
on developing a measure of sexual minority stress (Lewis, Derlega, Berndt,
Morris, & Rose, 2001). Subsequently, we demonstrated the unique effects
of sexual minority stress relative to general life stress on dysphoria (Lewis,
Derlega, Griffin, & Krowinski, 2003) and correlates of sexual minority stress
in lesbians (Lewis, Derlega, Clarke, & Kuang, 2006) and bisexuals (Lewis,
Derlega, Brown, Rose, & Henson, 2009). We have come to appreciate the
importance of considering potential differences between men and women
and between lesbian/gay and bisexual individuals. In this article we review
progress in research and theory about sexual minority stress with specific
consideration of sexual minority women’s experiences, concluding with di-
rections for future research.

PROBLEMS WITH TERMINOLOGY IN EARLY RESEARCH

Early research on sexual minority stress was based primarily on men’s expe-
rience and this is reflected in the language of that time. For example (and
this is not easy to admit, let alone write in a scholarly article), we used the
generic term “homosexual” in our first focus groups discussing sexual minor-
ity stress (circa 1995) and were admittedly naı̈ve about important differences
in stressors for gay versus lesbian and gay/lesbian versus bisexual individ-
uals. In our first article on this topic (Lewis et al., 2001), despite analyzing
data for men and women separately, we used the blanket term “gay stress.”
It is only within the past 15 years that researchers in the field of gay and
lesbian studies have consistently differentiated men’s and women’s experi-
ences and used appropriate language to reflect these distinctions. Similarly,
the importance of differentiating between lesbians’ and bisexual women’s
experiences has come to the forefront (Fox, 2003; Lewis et al., 2009). Defin-
ing and describing sexual minority women has been an ongoing challenge
(Moradi, Mohr, Worthington, & Fassinger, 2009; Morris & Rothblum, 1999).
Although this article focuses on sexual minority women’s (i.e., lesbians’ and
bisexual women’s) experiences, the term “sexual minority stress” may in-
clude men and women, and individuals who identify as any sexual minority
(e.g., lesbian, gay, queer, questioning, transgendered).
32 R. J. Lewis et al.

LESBIANS’ AND BISEXUAL WOMEN’S HEALTH

AND MINORITY STRESS

Concurrent with the emergence of research on sexual minority stress, the In-
stitute of Medicine Report (IOM, 1999) identified methodological challenges
and important directions in the area of lesbian health research. Consistent
with the minority stress model, the IOM report recognized the connection
between stress and health, noting that lesbians experience the stress of ev-
eryday life as well as additional stressors related to living in a heterosexist
society. Sexual minority women’s health was identified as a priority by the
IOM and important health disparities have since been documented.
Sexual minority women continue to be at greater risk for a variety of
emotional, behavioral, and health problems. For instance, compared to het-
erosexual women, sexual minority women have elevated rates of anxiety and
depression, tobacco use, suicidality, and substance-use problems. Moreover,
sexual minority women tend to weigh more, have less healthy diets, smoke
more, have more coronary problems, have a higher rate of heart attacks,
and may have greater risk for lung cancer. In addition, lesbians have higher
rates of endometriosis, may have greater risk for ovarian cancer, and more
risk factors (e.g., null parity, hormone replacement therapy) associated with
breast cancer (Herek & Garnets, 2007; Mayer et al., 2008; O’Hanlan & Isler,
2007).

EARLY RESEARCH ON SEXUAL MINORITY STRESS

In an early study of gay men, Lindquist and Hirabayashi (1979) suggested

that sexual minority status is concealable, and thus unlike other minorities
gay men may not have a positive identification with their minority group.
This study represented an important first step in understanding the unique
experiences of sexual minorities.
In a comparison of other stigmatized groups, Pagelow (1980) described
the stressful experiences of heterosexual and lesbian single mothers. She
noted, “While both groups report oppression in the areas of freedom of as-
sociation, employment, housing, and child custody, the degree of perceived
oppression is greater for lesbian mothers” (p. 189). Lesbian mothers also re-
ported the need to “pass” as straight in order to avoid negative consequences
related to employment, housing, and custody.
Another early study (Gillow & Davis, 1987) examined stressors and cop-
ing in lesbians, focusing on implications for nursing practice. Participants
were asked to report “what they considered to be the primary stressor in
their lives” (p. 29). Content analysis revealed that stressors were related to
employment (27%), relationship issues (25%), family of origin conflict (11%),
 Still Stressful After All These Years 33

financial problems (10%), and children/child-care (8%). Often the narrative

responses reflected unique sexual minority stressors such as harassment and
discrimination at work, concerns about losing custody based on sexual ori-
entation, and alienation from family of origin.
Beginning in the mid-1990s, researchers examined the relationship of
minority stress and health outcomes for gay men. For example, Rotheram-
Borus, Hunter, and Rosario (1994) found that sexual minority stressors, but
not general life stressors, were associated with suicide attempt history among
young gay and bisexual male adolescents. Also, Meyer (1995) defined sexual
minority stress as chronic stress resulting from stigmatization in a heterosexist
society. His model included internalized homophobia, stigma (expectations
of rejection/discrimination), and actual experiences of violence and discrim-
ination. Each of these stressors was independently associated with negative
health outcomes, leading Meyer to conclude, “. . . men who had high levels
of minority stress were twice to three times as likely to suffer also from high
levels of distress” (p. 38).
Extending the concept of minority stress to women, DiPlacido (1998)
stated that, “Unlike research on stress among gay men and sexual minority
youth, empirical research on stress and health among lesbians and bisexual
women has been virtually non-existent” (p. 143). Importantly, she reported
data from a pilot study in which lesbians identified internal stressors such
as self-concealment, emotional inhibition, and internalized homophobia and
external “gay-related life events” (e.g., disruption with their families of origin,
verbal harassment, interacting with heterosexist individuals). Frequency of
concealing one’s sexual orientation and internalized homophobia were both
associated with negative affect. External stressors, however, were not related
to well-being, perhaps due to the small sample size or the relatively low
number of overall life events endorsed. (DiPlacido, 1998). Albeit a pilot
study, DiPlacido’s work was instrumental in providing new insight on unique
lesbian stressors and highlighting components of Meyer’s model among the
experiences of women.
Review of these early studies reveals that more was known about stres-
sors for gay/bisexual men than for lesbian/bisexual women and highlighted
the need to consider sex differences in sexual minority stress. For example,
perceived external stress was associated with depression for lesbians but
not for gay men. This finding might be explained by the way that stress was
assessed in their study, “captur[ing] the stress associated with an inability to
control and manage situations in one’s life” (Otis & Skinner, 1996, p. 111).
Otis and Skinner also found that internalized homophobia was associated
with depression for men for not for women, perhaps due to a more negative
societal reaction for gay men compared to lesbian/bisexual women. Further-
more, consistent with previous research, gay men experienced more hate-
related victimization than women. In sum, Otis and Skinner (1996) reminded
us that, “While being gay/lesbian in our society carries with it some shared
34 R. J. Lewis et al.

experiences, the findings seem to support the need to recognize gender

differences in the effects of some variables . . .” (p. 111). Additional evidence
for considering the minority stress experiences men and women differently
was presented by Williamson (2000) who emphasized that, “From a minority
stress perspective, lesbians are seen to experience a dual (or multiple for
lesbians from minority ethnic groups) stigmatization (i.e., as women and
as homosexuals) with potentially greater effects of internalized oppression”
(p. 101).
In an attempt to facilitate understanding of, and research about, sex-
ual minority stress, our research group developed a measure of gay/lesbian
stressors. Items were generated based on responses from a small sample
of sexual minority men and women who responded to open-ended ques-
tions about stressors they experienced related to their sexual orientation.
The initial version of our measure asked respondents to indicate how much
stress they experienced as a result of 70 possible situations related to their
sexual orientation (Lewis et al., 2001). Results from this early study high-
lighted the importance of precision in language regarding assessing “stress”
and “stressors.” Sometimes these words are used interchangeably, and other
times “stressor” is used to describe an event that occurs and “stress” is used
to describe one’s reaction to an event. As a result of item wording, we ob-
tained information about respondents’ perception of how stressful certain
events were. Additional work by our group attempted to disentangle the
occurrence of sexual minority stressors and the appraisal of the impact of
these events. We also validated the distinction between minority stress (in
this study including both the occurrence of a stressor as well as the impact of
the stressor) and generic life-events and demonstrated that sexual minority
stress and generic life stress were independently associated with increased
dysphoria (Lewis et al., 2003).
Some important sex differences also emerged from our work. Specif-
ically, women reported more minority stress related to family issues (e.g.,
family members reaction to their sexual orientation) and men reported more
minority stressors related to violence and HIV/AIDS (Lewis et al., 2001). In
contrast, in another study we found no sex differences in terms of internal-
ized homophobia, openness, dysphoria, minority stress, and life stress (Lewis
et al., 2003).
Based on theoretical and empirical evidence from these early studies,
it was clear that any model of sexual minority stress should consider both
men’s and women’s experiences. We also recognized the difference between
the occurrence of a stressful event and the individual’s appraisal of how
stressful the event was. Further, research was typically limited to assess-
ing stressors and outcomes without considering potential moderators and
mediators (e.g., social constraints and social support). Clearly, more com-
prehensive models of sexual minority stress needed to be developed and
evaluated.
 Still Stressful After All These Years 35

TOWARD MORE COMPREHENSIVE MODELS OF LESBIANS’

AND BISEXUAL WOMEN’S MINORITY STRESS

In an important review article, Meyer (2003) extended his earlier work

(Meyer, 1995) and proposed a theoretical model of minority stress processes.
He also reviewed existing literature in support of this model. Meyer sug-
gested that minority stress processes for sexual minority individuals included
distal stressors (e.g., actual external experiences of discrimination and vi-
olence) as well as proximal stressors (e.g., internally based stressors such
as expectations of rejection, concealment, and internalized homophobia).
Meyer (2007) later cautioned that “The model is not meant to be finite or
all-inclusive. Other stress and ameliorative processes could be added, de-
pending on particular issues of the population being studied” (p. 257). This
raises the question of what components of sexual minority stress may apply
to both men and women and that may be particularly salient for women.
One important consideration is the “dual-identity” of sexual minority
women in both mainstream and sexual minority culture. Stressors associated
with both identities are associated with mental health outcomes (Finger-
hut, Peplau, & Ghavami, 2005). In terms of minority stress, lesbian/bisexual
women may experience felt stigma and discrimination both as a sexual mi-
nority and as a woman. For instance, Szymanski (2005) found that the com-
bination of sexist and heterosexist experiences was particularly harmful for
lesbian/bisexual women and later replications suggest that sexism and het-
erosexism are uniquely associated with psychological distress (Szymanski &
Owens, 2009).
Although the unique experiences of women may be important to con-
sider in models of minority stress, men and women have some similar expe-
riences. For example, Rostosky, Riggle, Gray, and Hatton (2007) interviewed
female and male same-sex couples and found similar stressors. Qualitative
analyses indicated that these couples experienced minority stress in their
interactions with family, co-workers, and their communities. Similarly, Fin-
gerhut, Peplau, and Gable (2010) found no sex differences in sexual minority
identity, self-reported discrimination, perceived stigma, or depressive symp-
toms. Also, some differences between men and women may be subtle. For
example, although both men and women reported threatening behavior from
heterosexual men, these threats tended to be physically confrontational for
men and sexual in nature for women (Hequembourg & Braillier, 2009). It is
still unclear the degree to which the experiences of men and women should
be considered separately in models of minority stress.
Sexual minority stress has also been conceptualized and operational-
ized in many ways, including: appraisal of stressful events related to sexual
minority status (e.g., Lewis et al., 2001, 2003, 2006); frequency of occur-
rence of sexual minority “distal stressors” such as discrimination and re-
jection (e.g., Meyer, 2003; Szymanski, 2006); expectations of rejection and
discrimination (e.g., Lewis et al., 2003, 2006; Meyer, 2003) and internalization
36 R. J. Lewis et al.

of societal messages such as internalized homophobia or internalized het-

erosexism (e.g., Szymanski, Kashubeck-West, & Meyer, 2008). Recently, Mc-
Cabe, Bostwick, Hughes, West, and Boyd (2010) operationalized discrimina-
tion to include difficulty obtaining health care coverage and treatment, public
discrimination, employment or academic discrimination, verbal harassment,
and physical assault.
When we consider the best model to understand the experiences of sex-
ual minority women, it appears that a comprehensive model should include
these four key components (Meyer, 2003) associated with sexual minority
status: (1) violence/discrimination; (2) expected/actual rejection; (3) conceal-
ment; and (4) internalized homophobia. In addition, it is important to include
an additional factor, ameliorating processes (e.g., personal resources such as
resilience/hardiness and group-level resources such as support from a sexual
minority community; Meyer, 2007). Ameliorating processes may also include
support from intimate partners, friends, and family.
Hatzenbuehler (2009) cogently argues that accurate understanding of
sexual minorities’ psychological outcomes requires consideration of both the
unique experiences of sexual minorities (e.g., minority stressors) as well
as general psychological processes such as emotion regulation and coping.
Hatzenbuehler (2009) distinguishes between “group-specific” versus “gen-
eral” processes. Group-specific stressors include both Meyer’s (2003) distal
stressors such as discrimination and victimization as well as proximal stres-
sors such as concealment, expectations of rejection, and internalized stigma.
General processes include characteristics that sexual minorities share with
heterosexuals, such as emotional regulation, coping, and social support. The
psychological mediation framework describes how distal stressors, such as
discrimination experiences and expectations of rejection, may be mediated
by emotional, social, and cognitive factors, in turn, leading to psychopathol-
ogy (e.g., anxiety, depression, and substance use disorders).
It is clear that the relationship between stressors and outcomes is com-
plex. Although it is desirable to examine multiple minority stress predictors
and outcomes, most research to date focuses on individual components of
the minority stress model.

MORE RECENT APPLICATIONS OF THE MINORITY STRESS MODEL

TO LESBIANS AND BISEXUAL WOMEN
Mental Health and Substance Use Outcomes
Regardless of the specific measure or conceptualization, ample evidence
exists that both distal and proximal sexual minority stressors are related
to negative mental health outcomes (see Herek & Garnets, 2007 for a re-
view). For example, appraisal of sexual minority stress (i.e., reported stress
regarding concealment, family conflict, and discrimination, and internalized
 Still Stressful After All These Years 37

stigma) was associated with increased dysphoria (Lewis et al., 2001). The
self-reported frequency of discrimination and victimization was associated
with negative affect (anger, depression, and tension), perceived stress, and
physical symptoms in a sample of lesbians (Lewis, 2010). Frequency of stres-
sors related to concealment was also associated with anger (Lewis, 2010).
The relationship between minority stress and alcohol use is another im-
portant area of investigation. In order to understand this relationship, one
must consider the role of the “lesbian bar” in the experiences of sexual mi-
nority women. Gruskin, Byrne, Kools, and Altschuler (2007) found that les-
bian/bisexual women’s bar attendance and alcohol use was related to several
components of Meyer’s (2003) model, including expectations of discrimina-
tion, internalized homophobia, and attempts to cope with discrimination.
They concluded, “If health care providers or educators are able to under-
stand the link between alcohol abuse and the high level of stress caused by
discrimination/marginalization in society, they may be able better to design
interventions within the psychosocial context of the lesbian bar” (p. 118).
In a review of substance use among sexual minorities, problematic
drinking was associated with a number of cultural and environmental factors
related to marginalized status rather than sexual orientation itself (Hughes,
2005). Consistent with Meyer’s (2003) minority stress model, these factors in-
cluded experiences of discrimination, family rejection, lack of social support,
and lack of traditionally accepted societal roles such as motherhood. Further,
lesbians’ and bisexual women’s perceived stigma predicted problematic alco-
hol use among women 30 and older, and internalized homophobia predicted
problematic alcohol use among women younger than 50 (Austin & Irwin,
2010). Thus, application of the minority stress model for lesbian/bisexual
women’s alcohol use is a promising area for future research.
Although much of the research on minority stress has focused on neg-
ative outcomes, experiences of minority stress may also be associated with
positive growth. For example, Vaughan and Waehler (2010) found that
coming out was associated with stress-related growth and improved self-
perception and relationships with other sexual minority individuals. In our
own future research, we want to focus more on how challenges posed by
sexual minority stress may promote physical and mental health. For exam-
ple, we know that that social constraints (i.e., difficulty talking with others
about issues related to sexual orientation) is associated with more distress
for lesbians (Lewis et al, 2006); conversely, to the degree that one has so-
cial relationships that are supportive of one’s sexual orientation, perhaps this
will facilitate effective coping. Furthermore, there may be particular types
of support that are especially important for sexual minority women, such as
support for one’s sexual identity, which are related to psychological well-
being (Peplau & Fingerhut, 2007). Models of minority stress will benefit from
increased focus on the positive aspects of coping with adversity as well as
the buffering effects of supportive relationships.
38 R. J. Lewis et al.

Minority Stress and Work

Sinclair (2009) highlighted the “catch-22” of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”
policy1. If one stays in the closet and does not disclose, one may benefit
by staying in the military and not losing one’s career. On the other hand,
remaining in the military with a hidden identity means forfeiting normal
self-disclosure and living a secret life (Sinclair, 2009). An earlier review of
the effects of military policy on sexual minorities concluded that being les-
bian/gay/bisexual in the military, and associated concealment of both iden-
tity and sexual behavior, leads to a fear of intimacy and social isolation
(Kavanagh, 1995). Contrasting the military view that disclosure of sexual
minority status negatively impacts unit cohesion, LESBIAN/GAY/BISEXUAL
veterans believed that their disclosure would have enhanced social cohesion,
thereby improving task cohesion (Moradi, 2009).
In other work environments, lesbians report stress associated with dis-
closure of sexual orientation. Croteau (1996) found that both formal (e.g.,
firing, not hiring, promotions, and raise limitation) and informal (e.g., ver-
bal comments) minority stress occurred in the workplace. Waldo (1999)
found that heterosexism experiences at work predicted psychological dis-
tress, poorer health outcomes, and negative job outcomes. Smith and In-
gram (2004) noted that heterosexism and unsupportive social interactions
were each related to greater psychological distress. Future research investi-
gating the relationship among sexual minority stressors, work environment,
and health outcomes is certainly warranted.

Minority Stress and Relationships

Minority stress additionally impacts romantic relationships. For example, les-
bian partners’ conflicts about whether to disclose, to whom to disclose, and
when to disclose places stress on an individual, and also potentially on a
relationship (e.g., Suter, Bergen, Daas, & Durham, 2006). Lesbians report
that their relations are often misperceived, particularly by heterosexual in-
dividuals, resulting in uncomfortable situations such as unwanted pursuit
by heterosexual men and interfering/flirting with their dates (Hequembourg
& Brallier, 2009). Greater relationship satisfaction for women in same-sex
relationships was found for relationships of longer duration, less internal-
ized homophobia, less discrepancy in outness between partners, and greater
partner support. Importantly, women in their first same-sex relationship re-
ported more stress compared to those with previous experiences in same-sex
relationships.
Sexual minority stressors are also associated with relationship dissatisfac-
tion and higher rates of intimate partner violence (IPV; Balsam & Szymanski,
2005; Frost & Meyer, 2009; Otis, Riggle, & Rostosky, 2006; Otis, Rostosky,
 Still Stressful After All These Years 39

Riggle, & Hamrin, 2006; Riggle, Rostosky, & Horne, 2010). There is also
evidence that psychological distress mediates the relationship between sex-
ual minority stressors and relationship satisfaction. For example, internal-
ized homophobia and discrimination were associated with more perceived
stress which, in turn, was related to poorer relationship quality (Otis et al.,
2006). Similarly, internalized homophobia was associated with more depres-
sive symptoms, leading to greater relationship strain (Frost & Meyer, 2009).
With regard to IPV, for lesbians, lifetime discrimination was associated with
lifetime IPV victimization; however, the relationship between internalized
homophobia and past year IPV was fully mediated by relationship quality
(Balsam & Szymanski, 2005). The role that minority stressors play in the de-
velopment and maintenance of intimate partner relationships is a promising
area for future research.

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

What have we learned about lesbians’ and bisexual women’s sexual minority
stress? First, men and women have both similar and different minority stress
experiences. Specifically, gender role socialization may be related to minority
stress. For example, women tend to come out later and do so in the context
of a relationship and women tend to value emotional expression and sexually
exclusive relationships more than men do (see Szymanski, Kashubeck-West,
& Meyer, 2008).
We also know that a “one size fits all” understanding of minority stress
does not work for all sexual minority women. For example, a lesbian/queer
(LQ) group experienced more heterosexism than bisexual women (Fried-
man & Leaper, 2010). Lesbians also reported more depression than bisex-
ual women in a sample of Dutch and American adults (Sandfort, Bakker,
Schellevis, & Vanwesenbeeck, 2009). Bisexual women may deal with sex-
ism, heterosexism, and bisexism, experiencing rejection from both the les-
bian community and the heterosexual community (Szymanski et al., 2008).
Thus, comprehensive sexual minority models must consider sexual identity.
Sexual minority stress is a multifaceted construct that includes experi-
ences specifically related to one’s sexual minority status such as: identity
concealment and confusion; experienced and anticipated rejection, victim-
ization, and discrimination; and internalized homophobia (Lewis et al., 2001;
Meyer, 2003). Both actual experiences and perceived stigma merit exam-
ination in lesbians’ and bisexual women’s sexual minority stress models.
Additionally, we must recognize the complex relationship between stressors
and outcomes, and the important role of mediators.
Although research in this area has advanced considerably since
DiPlacido’s (1998) statement that research on lesbian stress was “virtually
nonexistent” (p. 143), there is still much we have to learn about the unique
40 R. J. Lewis et al.

experiences of sexual minority women. Here is our abbreviated “wish list”

for future research: (1) develop and evaluate comprehensive models of les-
bians’ and bisexual women’s minority stress; (2) apply these models to both
psychological and physical health outcomes and include factors that promote
resilience, such as connection to others including family, friends, and inti-
mate partners as well as broader communities; (3) use longitudinal designs to
examine the cause and effect relationships among sexual minority stressors
and outcomes; (4) increase our understanding of the stressful experiences of
sexual minority women of color; and (5) examine how the experiences of
sexual minority stress impact on intimate partner relationships.

NOTE

1. President Barack Obama, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, and the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen certified to the U.S. Congress on July 22, 2011 that repeal of the
“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy would not harm military readiness. The policy ended on September 20,
2011 (Busmiller, 2011a, 2011b).

REFERENCES

Austin, E., & Irwin, J. (2010). Age differences in the correlates of problematic alcohol
use among Southern lesbians. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 71,
295–298.
Balsam, K. F., & Szymanski, D. (2005). Relationship quality and domestic violence
in women’s same-sex relationships: The role of minority stress. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 29, 258–269. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2005.00220.x.
Brooks, V. R. (1981). Minority stress and lesbian women. Lexington, MA: DC Heath.
Bumiller, E. (2011a, July 22). Obama ends ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy. The
New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/23/us/
23military.html
Bumiller, E. (2011b, September 20). Out and proud to serve. The New York Times. Re-
trieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/us/after-toiling-in-shadows-
to-end-dont-ask-dont-tell-1st-lt-josh-seefried-greets-a-new-era.html?hp
Croteau, J. (1996). Research on the work experiences of lesbian, gay, and bisexual
people: An integrative review of methodology and findings. Journal of Voca-
tional Behavior, 48, 195–209. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1996.0018.
DiPlacido, J. (1998). Minority stress among lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals: A con-
sequence of heterosexism, homophobia, and stigmatization. In G. M. Herek
(Ed.), Stigma and sexual orientation (pp. 138–159). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Fingerhut, A., Peplau, L., & Gable, S. (2010). Identity, minority stress and psycho-
logical well-being among gay men and lesbians. Psychology and Sexuality, 1,
101–114. doi:10.1080/19419899.2010.484592.
Fingerhut, A. W., Peplau, L. A., & Ghavami, N. (2005). A dual-identity framework
for understanding lesbian experience. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29,
129–139. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2005.00175.x.
 Still Stressful After All These Years 41

Fox, R. C. (2003). Bisexual identities. In L. D. Garnets & D. C. Kimmel (Eds.),

Psychological perspectives on lesbian, gay, and bisexual experiences (2nd ed.)
(pp. 86–129). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Friedman, C., & Leaper, C. (2010). Sexual-minority college women’s experiences
with discrimination: Relations with identity and collective action. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 34, 152–164. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2010.01558.x.
Frost, D., & Meyer, I. (2009). Internalized homophobia and relationship quality
among lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56,
97–109. doi:10.1037/a0012844.
Gillow, K. E., & Davis, L. L. (1987). Lesbian stress and coping methods. Journal of
Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services, 25(9), 28–32.
Gruskin, E., Byrne, K. Kools, S., & Altschuler, A. (2007). Consequences of frequenting
the lesbian bar. Women and Health, 44, 103–120. doi:10.1300/J013v44n02 06.
Hatzenbuehler, M. L. (2009). How does sexual minority stigma “Get under the skin”?
A psychological mediation framework. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 707–730.
doi:10.1037/a0016441.
Hequembourg, A. L., & Brallier, S. A. (2009). An exploration of sexual minority stress
across the lines of gender and sexual identity. Journal of Homosexuality, 56,
273–298. doi:10.1080/00918360902728517.
Herek, G., & Garnets, L. (2007). Sexual orientation and mental health. Annual Review
of Clinical Psychology, 3, 353–375.
Hughes, T. L. (2005). Alcohol use and alcohol-related problems among lesbians and
gay men. Annual Review of Nursing Research, 23, 283–325.
Institute of Medicine. (1999). Lesbian health: Current assessment and directions for
the future. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Kavanagh, K. (1995). Don’t ask, don’t tell: Deception required, disclosure denied.
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 1, 142–160.
Lewis, R. J. (2010). Different definitions of minority stress(ors), mediators, and emo-
tional outcomes. Unpublished data. Old Dominion University.
Lewis, R. J., Derlega, V. J., Berndt, A., Morris, L. M., & Rose, S. (2001). An empirical
analysis of stressors for gay men and lesbians. Journal of Homosexuality, 42,
63–88. doi:10.1300/J082v42n01 04.
Lewis, R. J., Derlega, V. J., Clarke, E. G., & Kuang, J. C. (2006). Stigma consciousness,
social constraints, and lesbian well-being. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53,
48–56.
Lewis, R. J., Derlega, V. J., Griffin, J. L., & Krowinski, A. C. (2003). Stressors for
gay men and lesbians: Life stress, gay-related stress, stigma consciousness, and
depressive symptoms. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 22, 716–729.
Lewis, R. J., Derlega, V. J., Brown, D., Rose, S., & Henson, J. (2009). Sexual mi-
nority stress, depressive symptoms, and sexual orientation conflict: Focus on
the experiences of bisexuals. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 28,
971–992.
Lindquist, N., & Hirabayashi, G. (1979). Coping with marginal situations: The case of
gay males. The Canadian Journal of Sociology/Cahiers canadiens de sociologie,
4, 87–104.
Mayer, K. H., Bradford, B., Makadon, H. J., Stall, R., Goldhammer, H., & Lan-
ders, S. (2008). Sexual and gender minority health: What we know and
42 R. J. Lewis et al.

what needs to be done. American Journal of Public Health, 98, 989–995.

doi:10.2105/AJPH.2007.127811.
McCabe, S., Bostwick, W., Hughes, T., West, B., & Boyd, C. (2010). The relationship
between discrimination and substance use disorders among lesbian, gay, and
bisexual adults in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 100,
1946–1952. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2009.163147.
Meyer, I. H. (1995). Minority stress and mental health in gay men. Journal of Health
and Social Behavior, 36, 38–56.
Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and
bisexual populations: conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological
Bulletin, 129, 674–697. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674.
Meyer, I. H. (2007). Prejudice and discrimination as social stressors. In I. H. Meyer
& M. E. Northridge (Eds.), The health of sexual minorities (pp. 242–267). New
York, NY: Springer.
Moradi, B. (2009). Sexual orientation disclosure, concealment, harassment, and mil-
itary cohesion: Perceptions of LGBT military veterans. Military Psychology, 21,
513–533. doi:10.1080/08995600903206453.
Moradi, B., Mohr, J., Worthington, R., & Fassinger, R. (2009). Counseling psychology
research on sexual (orientation) minority issues: Conceptual and methodolog-
ical challenges and opportunities. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56, 5–22.
doi:10.1037/a0014572.
Morris, J., & Rothblum, E. (1999). Who fills out a “lesbian” questionnaire? The
interrelationship of sexual orientation, years “out,” disclosure of sexual ori-
entation, sexual experience with women, and participation in the lesbian
community. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 537–557. doi:10.1111/j.1471-
6402.1999.tb00380.x.
O’Hanlan, K. A., & Isler, C. M. (2007). Health care of lesbians and bisexual women.
In I. H. Meyer & M. E. Northridge (Eds.), The health of sexual minorities (pp.
506–522). New York, NY: Springer.
Otis, M., Riggle, E., & Rostosky, S. (2006). Impact of mental health on perceptions of
relationship satisfaction and quality among female same-sex couples. Journal
of Lesbian Studies, 10, 267–283. doi:10.1300/J155v10n01 14.
Otis, M., Rostosky, S., Riggle, E., & Hamrin, R. (2006). Stress and relationship quality
in same-sex couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23, 81–99.
doi:10.1177/0265407506060179.
Otis, M. D., & Skinner, W. F. (1996). The prevalence of victimization and its effect on
mental well-being among lesbian and gay people. Journal of Homosexuality,
30, 93–121. doi:10.1300/J082v30n03 05.
Pagelow, M. (1980). Heterosexual and lesbian single mothers: A comparison
of problems, coping, and solutions. Journal of Homosexuality, 5, 189–204.
doi:10.1300/J082v05n03 03.
Peplau, L. A., & Fingerhut, A. W. (2007). The close relationships of lesbians and
gay men. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 405–424. doi:10.1146/annurev.
psych.58.110405.085701.
Riggle, E., Rostosky, S., & Horne, S. (2010). Psychological distress, well-being, and le-
gal recognition in same-sex couple relationships. Journal of Family Psychology,
24, 82–86. doi:10.1037/a0017942.
 Still Stressful After All These Years 43

Rostosky, S., Riggle, E., Gray, B., & Hatton, R. (2007). Minority stress experiences in
committed same-sex couple relationships. Professional Psychology: Research &
Practice, 38, 392–400. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.38.4.392.
Rotheram-Borus, M. J., Hunter, J. & Rosario, M. (1994). Suicidal behavior and gay-
related stress among gay and bisexual male adolescents. Journal of Adolescent
Research, 9, 498–508. doi:10.1177/074355489494007.
Sandfort, T. G. M., Bakker, F., Schellevis, F., & Vanwesenbeeck, I. (2009). Coping
styles as mediator of sexual orientation-related health differences. Archives of
Sexual Behavior, 38, 253–263. doi: 10.1007/s10508-007-9233-9.
Sinclair, G. (2009). Homosexuality and the military: A review of the literature. Journal
of Homosexuality, 56, 701–718. doi:10.1080/00918360903054137.
Smith, N., & Ingram, K. (2004). Workplace heterosexism and adjustment among
lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals: The role of unsupportive social inter-
actions. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 57–67. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.
51.1.57.
Suter, E., Bergen, K., Daas, K., & Durham, W. (2006). Lesbian couples’ manage-
ment of public-private dialectical contradictions. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 23, 349–365. doi:10.1177/0265407506064201.
Szymanski, D. M. (2005). Heterosexism and sexism as correlates of psychological
distress in lesbians. Journal of Counseling & Development, 83, 355–360.
Szymanski, D. M. (2006). Does internalized heterosexism moderate the link between
heterosexist events and lesbians’ psychological distress? Sex Roles, 54, 227–234.
doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9340-4.
Szymanski, D. M., Kashubeck-West, S., & Meyer, J. (2008). Internalized heterosexism:
A historical and theoretical overview. The Counseling Psychologist, 36, 510–524.
doi: 10.1177/0011000007309488.
Szymanski, D., & Owens, G. (2009). Group-level coping as a moderator be-
tween heterosexism and sexism and psychological distress in sexual minor-
ity women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33, 197–205. doi:10.1111/j.1471-
6402.2009.01489.x.
Vaughan, M., & Waehler, C. (2010). Coming out growth: Conceptualizing and mea-
suring stress-related growth associated with coming out to others as a sexual
minority. Journal of Adult Development, 17(2), 94–109. doi:10.1007/s10804-009-
9084-9.
Waldo, C. (1999). Working in a majority context: A structural model of heterosex-
ism as minority stress in the workplace. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46,
218–232. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.46.2.218.
Williamson, I. R. (2000). Internalized homophobia and health issues affecting les-
bians and gay men. Health Education Research, 15, 97–107. doi:10.1093/
her/15.1.97.

CONTRIBUTORS

Robin J. Lewis, Ph.D., is Professor of Psychology at Old Dominion University,

Norfolk, Virginia. Her research interests include health disparities and sexual
44 R. J. Lewis et al.

minority stress, with specific applications to alcohol use and intimate partner
violence.

Tatyana Kholodkov, M.S., is currently enrolled as a clinical psychology doc-

toral student at the University of Wyoming. Ms. Kholodkov co-authored this
article when she was a student in the psychology masters’ program at Old
Dominion University. Her research interests are health-related risk behaviors,
psychopathology, suicidology, and self-injurious behaviors.

Valerian J. Derlega, Ph.D., is Professor of Psychology at Old Dominion Uni-

versity. His research interests include stigma-related issues associated with
minority sexual identity, minority racial/ethnic identity, incarceration, and
HIV/AIDS. Dr. Derlega examines self-disclosure as a communication process
and its impact on coping with stigma. He is the co-author of Privacy and
disclosure of HIV in interpersonal relationships (Erlbaum, 2003).