Otis 1996

This article was downloaded by: [Carnegie Mellon University]
On: 15 January 2015, At: 00:57

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Homosexuality
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjhm20
The Prevalence of Victimization and Its Effect on

Mental Well-Being Among Lesbian and Gay People
a b
Melanie D. Otis MSW & William F. Skinner PhD
a
research associate currently working on a PhD, Department of Sociology, University of
Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506-0027
b
Associate Professor in the Department of Sociology, University of Kentucky
Published online: 18 Oct 2010.
To cite this article: Melanie D. Otis MSW & William F. Skinner PhD (1996) The Prevalence of Victimization and Its Effect on
Mental Well-Being Among Lesbian and Gay People, Journal of Homosexuality, 30:3, 93-121, DOI: 10.1300/J082v30n03_05
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J082v30n03_05
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
The Prevalence of Victimization
and Its Effect on Mental Well-Being
Among Lesbian and Gay People
Melanie D. Otis, MSW
University of Kentucky
William F. Skinner, PhD

University of Kentucky
Downloaded by [Carnegie Mellon University] at 00:57 15 January 2015
ABSTRACT. Research on victimization among oppressed groups such

as lesbian and gay people has provided limited insight into its impact
on the lives of those who are frequently targeted. This is due in part
to small sample sizes and the absence of significant variables known
to influence mental well-being. This analysis examines the preva-
lence and effects of victimization on a large sample (N = 1067) of
lesbians and gay men living in a southern state. Multiple regression
is used to determine the psychological consequences of victimiza-
tion as measured by depression. Additional factors thought to con-
tribute, either positively or negatively, to the effect of victimization
on mental well-being, i.e., social support, self-esteem, external stress,
and internalized homophobia, are also included in the analysis. Re-
sults indicate that victimization has a significant positive effect on
depression for both lesbians and gay men when controlling for other
variables. Self-esteem was found to be the strongest predictor of
Melanie D. Otis is a research associate currently working on a PhD in the

Department of Sociology, University of Kentucky. William F. Skinner is
Associate Professor in the Department of Sociology at the University of Ken-
tucky.
This study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, grant no.
R29-DA058321.
Correspondence may be addressed: Department of Sociology, University of
Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506-0027.
Journal of Homosexuality, Vol. 30(3) 1996
E 1996 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. 93
94 JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY
depression for the entire sample. Social support was found to have a
similar effect for lesbians and gay men with partner support and
having no support being significant. Gender differences were found
for measures of external stress, internalized homophobia, and age. [Article
copies available from The Haworth Document Delivery Service:
1-800-342-9678.]
On April 23, 1990, the Hate Crime Statistics Act, a bill that
requires all states to keep statistical data on the nature and preva-
lence of hate-motivated crimes, was enacted (Hate Crimes Statistics
Act, 1990). This bill was enacted, in part, through the efforts of the
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) and a number of
state organizations that began collecting data on crimes against gay
men and lesbians in the mid-1980s in hope that concrete documen-
tation would initiate action on the part of the federal government
(e.g., McKirnan & Peterson, 1987; National Gay and Lesbian Task
Force, 1984, 1986, 1989; New York State Lesbian & Gay Lobby,
1985). From the introduction of the first bill in 1986 until its pas-
sage in 1990, the Senate and House heard testimony from numerous
individuals who indicated that sexual orientation was not only a
legitimate category to be included in the bill, but lesbians and gay
men were victims of crimes more frequently than any other minor-
ity group. Unfortunately, the passage of the Hate Crimes Statistics
Act provided no guarantee that data would be collected. It did,
however, bring the issue into the larger public eye by underscoring
the nature and extent of anti-gay and lesbian violence and harass-
ment. In the absence of nationwide data collection, self-report sur-
veys have become increasingly important for documenting the
prevalence of hate-motivated crime and victimization in general
among this group.1
While there is strong evidence that gay men and lesbians are
increasingly becoming victims of personal and property crimes (see
Herek & Berrill, 1990), the consequences of victimization for this
group are less apparent. In particular, the effects that specific types
of victimization have on the mental well-being of gay men and
lesbians have not been systematically examined. Previous research
on the consequences of victimization for gay men and lesbians
typically fails to ground the analysis within a conceptual framework
and has relied on small samples, making multivariate analysis diffi-
Melanie D. Otis and William F. Skinner 95
cult. The purpose of this paper is to examine the effects on mental

health of victimization and those factors known to have a signifi-
cant relationship to the management of a crisis and subsequent
mental health outcomes in the general population and the gay and
lesbian population. Factors include social support, stress, self-es-
teem, gender, age, and internalized homophobia. Using data from a
large sample (N = 1067) of self-defined lesbians and gay men living
in and around two metropolitan areas in a southern state, multiple
regression procedures will be used to assess the effects of these
variables on mental well-being as measured by depression. Our
major hypothesis is that while controlling for those factors men-
tioned above, victimization will increase levels of depression.2
PREVALENCE AND TRENDS IN LESBIAN/GAY

VICTIMIZATION
Through the efforts of research conducted within the last decade,

a disturbing picture of the prevalence of lesbian/gay victimization
has emerged (Berrill, 1990; Dean, Wu, & Martin, 1992; Herek &
Berrill, 1990; Herek, 1989; National Gay and Lesbian Task Force,
1984, 1986, 1989). It is generally felt, however, that findings from
these studies represent a conservative estimate of the true extent of
lesbian/gay victimization since many acts go unreported (Berrill,
1990; National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, 1989).
Findings from the first national study of anti-lesbian/gay victim-
ization conducted by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
(1984) in eight U.S. cities indicated that 94% of the sample had
experienced some type of victimization, including verbal and physi-
cal abuse, vandalism, and being chased, followed, spat upon, and
hit with objects. Other studies conducted in various geographical
locations have found that the prevalence of acts such as verbal
harassment ranged from 52% to 87%, physical assault ranged from
9% to 24%, vandalism ranged from 10% to 20%, and assault with a
weapon or object ranged from 4% to 10% (see Berrill, 1990, for
more detail on these studies). In addition, gender and racial differ-
ences have been reported in some studies of lesbian/gay victimiza-
tion. In general, gay men have experienced higher levels of verbal
and physical abuse and lower levels of familial abuse than lesbians
(Philadelphia Lesbian Gay Task Force, 1985, 1988; NGLTF, 1984).

Comstock (1989) found that lesbians and gay men of color were
more likely to experience being chased or followed, hit with ob-
jects, and physically assaulted than whites, while no racial differ-
ences were found for vandalism, arson, and being spat upon.
The trends in victimization only clarify the severity of the situa-
tion faced by gay men and lesbians in our society. From 1984, when
data was first collected, through 1988, the National Gay and Les-
bian Task Force documented a rise in hate crimes of over 300%
(NGLTF, 1989). Findings from a survey conducted by the Southern
Poverty Law Center of law enforcement agencies and civil rights
organizations working with survivors of anti-gay/lesbian victimiza-
tion indicated that, on average, victimization increased 42% from
1989 to 1990 (Southern Poverty Law Center, 1991). And a series of
studies conducted in Philadelphia found that, compared to 1983-84,
victimization rates for lesbians and gay men during 1986-87 doubled
(Philadelphia Lesbian and Gay Task Force, 1988). Finally, as Berrill

(1990, p. 289) notes, there is some evidence to suggest that AIDS
has contributed to lesbian/gay victimization and that ‘‘AIDS-related
violence against gay people is driven, at least in part, by pre-exist-
ing anti-gay bias.’’
CONSEQUENCES OF LESBIAN/GAY VICTIMIZATION

The consequences of being victimized are as varied as the act
itself. They can range from short-term and relatively minor behav-
ioral and psychological reactions such as headaches, increased
agitation, and sleep disturbances to long-term and more severe reac-
tions such as depression, increased drug use, uncontrollable crying,
and post-traumatic stress disorder (Anderson, 1982; Bard & San-
grey, 1979; Garnets, Herek, & Levy, 1990; Janoff-Bulman, 1985;
Kilpatrick et al., 1985). While behavioral consequences of victim-
ization have not and should not be ignored, our focus is on the
psychological consequences of victimization as measured by de-
pression.
Janoff-Bulman and Frieze (1983) offer a theoretical perspective
for understanding why victimization creates psychological distress.
They argue that victimization can shatter at least three major as-
sumptions held by most individuals. First, victimization strikes at

the very heart of the ‘‘self-perception of invulnerability’’ (Janoff-
Bulman & Frieze, 1983, p. 4). They stated that ‘‘the illusion of
invulnerability protects us from the stress and anxiety associated
with the perceived threat of misfortune’’ (Janoff-Bulman & Frieze,
1983, p. 5). Being a victim of crime calls this self-perception into
question and requires people to cope with the event, if possible. The
second assumption that is threatened by victimization is the basic
belief that the world is meaningful, comprehensible, and orderly.
Depending on the severity of victimization and occurrence of other
stressful and negative events in a person’s life, being a victim can
destroy this ‘‘orderliness’’ and perpetuate the feeling that one has
lost control of their life.
The third assumption that is challenged by victimization is the
victim’s positive self-perception. To the extent that a person views
himself/herself as having worth, becoming a victim can act to chal-

lenge that self-perception. They may view themselves as being
weak and helpless. Coates and Winston (1983) also mention that
victimization can affect one’s self-perception by causing the person
to view themselves as deviant, which helps to reinforce negative
self-images.
It is clear that the challenges to invulnerability, meaningfulness,
and positive self-perception which are created by victimization will
produce psychological distress in one’s life. For gay men and
lesbians, however, one other condition is operating--heterosexism.
Herek (1990, p. 316) defines heterosexism as an ‘‘ideological sys-
tem that denies, denigrates, and stigmatizes any nonheterosexual
form of behavior, identity, relationship, and community.’’ Cultural
heterosexism is pervasive in our social institutions (i.e., organized
religion, law, media, the military) and operates to deny the legitima-
cy of alternative sexual orientations. At the same time, psychologi-
cal heterosexism is part of the set of values and beliefs imparted to
us through socialization that stigmatizes and denigrates alternative
sexual orientations. It is through heterosexism operating at both the
macro- and micro-level that denial and stigmatization of homosexu-
ality occur. Thus, as Herek states (1990, p. 329), ‘‘this ideology
fosters the individual anti-gay prejudice that makes victimization of
lesbians and gay men possible.’’ For gay men and lesbians, being a
victim of bias-motivated crimes serves to reify these conditions.
CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO MENTAL WELL-BEING
While deleterious psychological consequences can occur as a

result of victimization, other factors present in the lives of lesbian
and gay people also influence mental well-being. Some factors may
contribute to elevating psychological problems while others can
reduce the extent of these problems. These factors are important to
examine in their own right, since assessing their effects can lead to a
greater understanding of why a psychological condition such as
depression occurs. Moreover, these factors need to be included in
the present analysis in order to determine the ‘‘net effect’’ that
victimization has on mental well-being.
One key factor in determining how an individual reacts to victim-

ization is the nature of social support that may be available to
her/him. Numerous studies have found that the existence and quali-
ty of social support available to an individual in times of crisis is
related to the psychological and physical consequences of the
stressful events (Cohen & Willis, 1985; Cobb, 1976; Dohrenwend
et al., 1978; House & Kahn, 1985; LaRocco, House, & French,
1980; Lin et al., 1979; Lin & Ensel, 1989; Kessler, Price, & Wort-
man, 1985). Some have also suggested that when the individual is
seen to be somehow at fault for their victimization, social support
may often be denied at the time when it is most needed (Coates &
Winston, 1983; Janoff-Bulman, 1985). Such reactions can have a
devastating effect on the individual. Since social support is some-
thing that is generally in place prior to the negative experience, the
question becomes one of whether that support can be counted on in
times of crisis.
An individual’s perception of themselves, self-esteem, is another
factor that influences mental well-being. As noted above, Janoff-
Bulman and Frieze (1983) describe victimization as an assault on
the victims’ ‘‘positive self-perceptions.’’ The victims may be led to
see themselves as having been singled out and therefore somehow
different from those who have not experienced victimization. This
concept is echoed by other researchers who view self-esteem as a
coping resource (Pearlin & Schooler, 1978; Gore & Mangione, 1983).
As such, self-esteem can serve to reduce the vulnerability of people
to the negative consequences of stressful life events such as victim-
ization.
For lesbians and gay men, sexual orientation has an additional
impact on depression. The pervasiveness of heterosexism results in
the conveying of negative stereotypes and attitudes about homo-
sexuality to all individuals through the process of socialization (He-
trick & Martin, 1987). For lesbians and gay men this shared social-
ization can result in internalization of these negative attitudes and
beliefs--internalized homophobia (Smith, 1988; Stein, 1988). Re-
search on the ‘coming out’ process indicates that overcoming the
effects of internalized homophobia on the mental well-being of
lesbians and gay men is a critical step in the process of ‘identity
synthesis’ (Cass, 1979, 1984) or the development of a positive
lesbian/gay identity (Berzon, 1979; Coleman, 1982; Heyward,
1989; Minton & McDonald, 1984; Sophie, 1987; Troiden, 1988,

1989). As Coates and Winston (1983) indicate, self-perception
plays a critical role in the interpretation of victimization. Thus,
internalized homophobia can be expected to have a positive effect
on depression.
While social support and high self-esteem act to reduce the likeli-
hood of an unhealthy psychological state such as depression, inter-
nalized homophobia and another important factor--generalized per-
ceived stress--are hypothesized to have a positive effect. Gay men
and lesbians encounter the same everyday problems and dilemmas
as heterosexuals (Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983). In addition, indi-
viduals must cope with the ongoing stress associated with a stigma-
tized lifestyle. Nardi (1982, p. 20) makes explicit references to the
‘‘stigma, oppression, individual rage, and anxiety’’ that define the
social context of lesbians and gay men. Stress associated with loss
of employment, problems in locating housing, discrimination in
medical services and counseling, and managing personal relation-
ships all translate into a generalized level of perceived stress. Such
stress has been identified in some studies as contributing to psycho-
logical distress (Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983).
Finally, the effects of victimization and even fear of crime may
be increased by the reality of being a man or woman in our society.
Research in the area of fear of crime and perceived risk of crime

indicates that gender has an effect on the psychological impact of
crime. Women are more likely to fear victimization, in spite of the
relative similarity in degrees of victimization experienced by men
and women (Smith & Hill, 1991). For women, fear of crime may
often translate to fear of sexual assault (LaGrange & Ferraro, 1989).
Thus, it seems appropriate that separate analyses be performed for
gay men and lesbians, in order to identify how gender conditions
the effect that victimization has on mental well-being.
SAMPLE PROCEDURES AND CHARACTERISTICS

Respondents for this study were self-defined gay men and les-
bians residing in households located in and around two metropoli-
tan cities located in a southern state (1985 county population sizes
were 212,000 and 683,000). These two cities are the largest in the
state and contain well-organized gay and lesbian communities. Par-
ticipants in the study completed a self-report survey and were of-
fered no monetary remuneration. Three different sampling strate-
gies were used.
Organization mailing lists were used as a sampling frame to
recruit respondents. Organizations in each community ran an an-
nouncement of the project in newsletters and included a negative
consent form. If a person did not want to participate in the study,
(s)he could return the form to the organization. In total, only 6
negative consent forms were returned. Organizations were then
provided research packets to send to members. A total of 455
(51.9%) surveys mailed to members of organizations were returned.
Chain referral sampling using indigenous researchers was used to
recruit participants who were not on organizational mailing lists.
Use of this procedure allowed for a more diverse sample and was
employed under the assumption that people who were less open
about their lifestyle would be less likely to be on mailing lists.
Twenty-four indigenous researchers (10 gay men and 14 lesbians)
were hired in community 1 and 26 in community 2 (12 gay men and
14 lesbians). Four of the researchers were African-American. All
attended training sessions where the specifics of the project and
their duties were discussed. Each indigenous researcher had an
opportunity to pretest the instrument and suggest revisions. Re-

searchers were paid $200 to distribute a minimum of 20 question-
naires to people in the gay and lesbian communities. A total of 547
(54.0%) surveys distributed by indigenous researchers were re-
turned. Convenience sampling of respondents occurred during a
Gay Pride Week picnic in community 2. An information booth was
set up where people attending the picnic could request information
about the study. If someone wanted to participate, they completed a
mailing label that was not seen by the staff and affixed it to a
research packet. The packet was then placed in a mail bag. A total
of 65 (58.0%) surveys distributed to respondents were returned.
Overall, 1067 surveys were returned, resulting in a return rate of
53.3%. Of these respondents, 53.1% are gay and 46.9% lesbian,
93.3% are white, 61.8% are currently in a same-sex relationship
(44.6% cohabitating), 78.9% are currently employed full-time, and
80.2% live in a city or suburb. The average age of respondents is
34.4 and average years of education is 15.1. These characteristics

are similar to those found in other studies and suggest that gay men
and lesbians who are accessible to researchers tend to be primarily
urban, well-educated, and young to middle age. Yet, the sampling
techniques used were somewhat effective in reaching older people
(6% of the sample is over 50) and those living in rural areas (7.4%).
There is very little difference in the demographic composition of
the sample for each community.
MEASUREMENT OF VARIABLES
Victimization was measured using fifteen questions that asked
about the type of victimization experienced by the respondent with-
in the past 2 years. Each act was coded (0) no and (1) yes. A
typology was created by summing responses to acts that could be
categorized into one of 6 types of victimization. These categories
include threats/verbal abuse (4 questions, range 0-4), physical as-
sault (2 questions, range 0-2), sexual assault by opposite sex (2 ques-
tions, range 0-2), sexual assault by same sex (2 questions, range
0-2), robbery (2 questions, range 0-2) and theft/vandalism (3 ques-
tions, range 0-3). In addition, a multiple victimization variable was
created by summing across all acts (range 0-15).
Three measures of social support were used in the analysis. Each

was measured by the respondent’s answers to questions asking
whether friends, partners, or no one could be relied on for support in
14 different situations (Saranson et al., 1983). Friends social sup-
port was created by summing across all situations in which friends
would provide support. A similar procedure was used for partners
and having no one to provide support. For the category of no social
support, a high score indicates the absence of social support of any
type. Low scores are indicative of individuals who have access to
some type of support in some or most situations. This could include
support from partners and friends, but it is not confined to just these
people. Thus, there is some conceptual overlap between no social
support and friends and partners social support. However, on an
empirical level, each social support variable is relatively distinct as
demonstrated by the low correlation among them (see Appendix A).
Internalized homophobia was measured using responses to the
question ‘‘I feel stress or conflict with myself because of my sexual

orientation.’’ Responses ranged from strongly agree to strongly
disagree. Similar conceptual definitions can be found throughout
the literature on homophobia and lesbian/gay identity formation.
Margolies, Becker, and Jackson-Brewer (1987, p. 233) describe
internalized homophobia as being driven by two forces: ‘‘erotopho-
bia (fear of or discomfort with one’s own sexuality) and xenophobia
(discomfort with one’s strangeness).’’ Xenophobia can be mani-
fested in feelings of anxiety, guilt, fear, and shame generally
associated with family and societal expectations and attitudes. Both
characterizations point to internal conflicts and stresses experienced
by the individual due to sexual orientation.
Self-esteem was measured using Rosenberg’s (1965) self-esteem
scale. Questions consist of positive and negative self-statements
with a 4-point response format ranging from strongly disagree to
strongly agree. Cronbach’s alphas for lesbians and gay men on this
measure were .88 and .90, respectively.
Generalized perceived stress was based on questions from Cohen
et al. (1983) Perceived Stress Scale. Respondents used a 6-point
scale ranging from never to about every week to answer questions
concerning frequency of stressful events in the past year. Principal
component factor analysis of these questions indicated two major
dimensions to perceived stress. An internal stress index was created

by summing those variables that loaded .40 or above on one factor.
The interpretation of this factor was based on what appeared to be a
common theme in the questions of emotional reactions to life events
and situations (i.e., become upset because something happened un-
expectedly, felt nervous or stressed, been angered because of things
that were outside of your control). An external stress index was
similarly created using variables that appeared to have as a common
theme being able to control and handle life events (i.e., been able to
control the way you spend your time; dealt successfully with life
hassles; felt things were going your way). A correlational analysis
indicated that internal stress was highly correlated with depression
(r = .71 for gay men and .70 for lesbians), whereas there was a
moderate correlation between external stress and depression (r = .31
for gay men and .39 for lesbians). To avoid the problem of includ-
ing an independent variable in a regression equation that appears to
have high degree of conceptual and empirical overlap with the

dependent variable (depression), internal stress was dropped from
the analysis. Cronbach’s alphas for external stress for lesbians and
gay men were .86 and .84 respectively.
Mental well-being was measured using a random sample of ten
questions taken from the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depres-
sion Scale (CES-D). The full instrument consists of twenty items
taken from existing depression scales and measures the major di-
mensions of clinical depression.3 Respondents were asked to indi-
cate on a scale from never to about every week how often they had
felt a certain way in the past year. Previous studies on samples taken
from the general population have shown the CES-D scale to have
high levels of internal consistency and discriminant validity (Rad-
loff, 1977). Cronbach’s alphas for depression for lesbians and gay
men were .83 and .84 respectively.
RESULTS
The prevalence of victimization within the last two years among
lesbians and gay men in the sample is reported in Table 1. Each act
is grouped under the victimization category used in subsequent
analyses. In general, the percent of gay men who have been victims
104
JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY
Melanie D. Otis and William F. Skinner

105
of these acts is somewhat higher than that of lesbians. The most

prevalent type of victimization is threat/verbal abuse followed by
theft/vandalism. The multiple victimization category indicates that,
overall, more than 50% of gay men and lesbians have experienced
at least one of these acts. While it is difficult to make strict compari-
sons between these findings and those reported elsewhere, it ap-
pears that the prevalence of victimization among lesbian and gay
men in this study falls in the lower end of the range of percents
reported by Berrill (1990).
Table 1 also shows the prevalence of victimization that respon-
dents attributed to their sexual orientation, or hate-motivated
crimes. For instance, of the 203 lesbians who indicated they had
been victims of at least one crime under the category of threats/ver-
bal abuse, 116 or 57.1% attributed the act(s) to their sexual orienta-
tion. Similarly, of the 248 gay men who indicated they had been
victims of threats/verbal abuse, 201 or 81.0% attributed the act(s) to
their sexual orientation. Two themes are noteworthy from these

figures. First, of the fifteen different crimes, there are 8 crimes for
lesbians and 11 crimes for gay men where the prevalence of hate-
motivation is over 50%. Most of the crimes are those that involve
some sort of contact with the perpetrator (e.g., threats/verbal abuse,
physical assault). This suggests that in many instances when a les-
bian or gay man is victimized, that victimization is perceived by the
person to be hate-motivated. Second, in every instance (except
being knifed, shot at, or attacked with some other weapon) where
the prevalence of hate-motivated crime is over 50%, gay men have
a higher prevalence rate than lesbians. This corresponds with the
general finding that gay men experience higher levels of victimiza-
tion than lesbians. Given the considerable overlap between the oc-
currence of overall victimization and hate-motivated victimization,
the overall victimization variables were used in the multivariate
analyses. Also, no significant differences in the mean level of de-
pression were found between respondents who had been victimized
and did not attribute the act to sexual orientation, and those who did
attribute the act to sexual orientation.
Multivariate regression analysis was used to determine the ef-
fects that overall victimization, social support, internalized homo-
phobia, self-esteem, external stress, and age have on mental well-
being. The analysis involved regressing depression on each category

of victimization and the other variables. Because the distributions
on same and opposite sexual assault, robbery, and physical assault
were highly skewed, dummy variables were created for these cate-
gories of victimization with one (1) representing that one or more
acts had occurred in the past two years. When each analysis was
run, some categories of victimization did not have a significant
affect on depression. For gay men, these included theft, robbery,
physical assaults, and opposite sex assault. For lesbians, theft, rob-
bery, and same sex assault did not significantly affect depression.
These findings are not reported. It should be mentioned, however,
that the effects of the other variables were very similar to those
found in the equations where victimization did have a significant
effect.
Table 2 contains the results from the regression analysis for gay
men when victimization did significantly affect depression. These
victimization categories include same sex assault, threats and verbal

abuse, and multiple victimization. While self-esteem is consistently
the strongest predictor of depression among gay men, it is clear that
each type of victimization does significantly and consistently in-
crease levels of depression while controlling for other variables.
Significant and consistent effects in the predicted direction also occur
for internalized homophobia, social support from partners, and hav-
ing no support. However, contrary to what was expected, as the
number of situations in which friends can be relied upon for social
support increases, so too does depression. Finally, perceived exter-
nal stress has little predictive value for depression among gay men
while age negatively influences this condition.
Table 3 contains the results of a similar analysis for lesbians.
Four categories of victimization significantly affect depression for
this group: opposite sex assault, physical attack, threats and verbal
abuse, and multiple victimization. As with gay men, these variables
are not the strongest predictors of depression. However, these re-
sults do suggest that the effects of victimization on depression occur
regardless of gender. Moreover, as found in the analysis for gay
men, self-esteem continues to have the strongest influence on de-
pression for lesbians and the pattern of effects for the social support
variables for lesbians are also similar to that of gay men. On the
108
JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY
Melanie D. Otis and William F. Skinner

109
other hand, differences do occur in the analysis between lesbians

and gay men for internalized homophobia, external stress, and age.
Elevated levels of perceived external stress significantly increase
levels of depression for lesbians whereas it had little effect for gay
men. The opposite occurs for internalized homophobia in that this
variable significantly increases the levels of depression for gay men
but it is not significant for lesbians. And finally, while age negative-
ly influenced depression for gay men, it did not significantly affect
depression for lesbians.4
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of this study was to examine the mental health conse-
quences of victimization experienced by a segment of the population
that has increasingly been targets for such acts--lesbians and gay men.
The major hypothesis examined in this paper was that while control-
ling for other variables known to influence mental health, victimization
would positively influence mental health as measured by depression.
The multivariate analyses conducted on lesbians and gay men sepa-
rately provided modest, yet consistent, support for the hypothesis.
Additional information on important predictors of depression among
lesbians and gay men was also evident from the analysis.
While six different categories of victimization were examined,
only those crimes that involved physical harm, threat of harm and
verbal abuse, male sexual assault, and multiple victimization
proved to significantly affect depression for both gay men and
lesbians. This is not particularly surprising since these acts, more
than theft and robbery, strike at the very heart of one’s psychologi-
cal state. As Garnets, Herek, and Levy (1990, p. 371) state, attacks
on lesbians by male perpetrators constitute ‘‘a major assault upon
their general sense of safety, independence and well-being.’’ Simi-
larly, attacks on gay men, particularly sexual assault by other men,
result in multiple levels of trauma for the victim (Anderson, 1982).
And while threats and verbal abuse may be viewed by some as less
severe than physical assaults, Garnets et al. (1990, p. 373) suggest
that their consequences are just as severe and ‘‘more insidious be-
cause victims of verbal abuse may find its ‘psychic scars’ more
difficult to identify than physical wounds.’’
Self-esteem was found to be the most important variable affect-

ing depression. One possible reason for this is the conceptual over-
lap between self-esteem and depression. Indeed, the zero order
correlation for these variables is approximately .60. However,
there is a substantive interpretation associated with the fact that
self-esteem is consistently the strongest predictor of depression. As
Janoff-Bulman and Frieze (1983) argue, it is the impact of victim-
ization on an individual’s self-perception that results in psychologi-
cal distress. Thus, self-esteem is a more proximate variable to de-
pression than probably most other variables.
The effects of social support on mental well-being both support
and contradict our expectations. Partner support reduced levels of
depression and having no support increased levels. However, the
more situations in which friends can be relied upon for support, the
higher the levels of depression.5 One possible explanation for why
friends’ social support positively affects depression is what we call
the ‘‘commiseration’’ hypothesis. Ross and Mirowsky (1989, p. 216)

report from their analysis that, ‘‘High levels of support increase the
likelihood of talking to others, but talking to others when faced with
a problem increases depression. The sense of support--of having
someone who cares--decreases depression.’’ Thus, while talking
with others is an indication of support it is not necessarily an indica-
tion of problem solving.
While being gay/lesbian in our society carries with it some shared
experiences, the findings seem to support the need to recognize
gender differences in the effects of some variables in the analysis.
For instance, perceived external stress positively influenced depres-
sion for lesbians but was not important for gay men. Our measure of
external stress primarily captured the stress associated with an in-
ability to control and manage situations in one’s life. Women, espe-
cially single and divorced women, tend to have fewer resources
(e.g., income) to deal with unexpected problems and changes in
their lives than men. In addition, in their role as caretakers, women
have to deal with the many and varied problems of others (e.g.,
children, parents). When present, these conditions can contribute to
the perception that they are losing control of their life, the result of
which is psychological distress (Gore & Mangione, 1983). Ross
and Mirowsky (1989, p. 207) state that noted gender differences
concerning perceived control reflect ‘‘awareness of objective condi-

tions.’’ This same loss of control and imposition of constraints was
suggested in the NGLTF (1984) study of victimization. In that
study, it was reported that lesbians were significantly more likely
than gay men to modify their behavior because of victimization.
This would suggest that victimization may, indeed, contribute to the
perception among lesbians that they have lost control of their life
whereas such is not the case for gay men.
A gender-related explanation can also be made for the differen-
tial effect of internalized homophobia on the mental well-being of
lesbians and gay men. Research indicates that the general popula-
tion tends to have a stronger negative reaction to gay men than to
lesbians, possibly due to the feeling that male homosexuality is a
greater violation of gender-role expectations (Britton, 1990; Lip-
man-Blumen, 1976). These attitudes are transmitted to gay men
through socialization via family, peers, the media, etc. and often
internalized by the individual. Lesbianism, like female sexuality in

general, is often discounted and translates to invisibility rather than
strong negative sanctions.
Finally, the unstandardized regression coefficients for partner
support and having no one to rely on for social support for lesbians
are almost twice that for gay men. Research on the nature of lesbian
relationships supports the idea that lesbian couples tend to fuse in
such a way that encourages reliance on one another for the majority
of emotional support more so than gay men (Mencher, 1990). It is
not surprising, then, that support of a partner has a strong effect on
depression for lesbians. This difference between lesbians and gay
men is supported by past research which indicates that gender, more
than sexual orientation, determines modes of relating in intimate
relationships. Research on sex-role socialization highlights our cul-
tural expectation that women are more affiliative and place greater
importance on emotional intimacy than men. Clunis and Green
(1988, p. 15) note that ‘‘women are encouraged to involve them-
selves fully in their relationships--i.e., to merge’’ while ‘‘men are
trained to have lives independent and separate from their relation-
ships--at least, more so than women.’’
Finally, while an individual’s perception that a crime might be
hate-motivated failed to figure significantly in this analysis, this
issue warrants further discussion. The National Gay Task Force’s

1984 report on ‘‘Anti-Gay/Lesbian Victimization’’ provides one
explanation for seemingly contradictory facts by stating, ‘‘While
greater visibility has helped to strengthen gay/lesbian self-respect
and community, for many it has resulted in greater vulnerability to
violence and crime’’ (NGTF, 1984, p. 1). This would seem to fit
well with what we know about those individuals who are most
available for social research. Indeed, the majority of participants in
this study demographically mirror those individuals who are found
to be most active in the lesbian and gay community and most
comfortable with their sexual orientation. While such openness
makes them more vulnerable to crime due to increased visibility,
these individuals may also possess a sense that anti-lesbian/gay
crime is the result of societal prejudices, rather than individual
‘shortcomings.’ As a lesbian or gay man who has been targeted for
victimization because of their sexual orientation, these individuals
may well see themselves as survivors in an unfair and hostile world

due to the empowering affect of a strong support system and les-
bian/gay identity.
Our analysis has focused on one of many psychological conse-
quences of victimization, and there is a clear need for further studies
into other psychological as well as behavioral consequences of
being victimized. For instance, victimization and its relationship to
substance abuse, interactions in personal relationships, and open-
ness about sexual orientation are all areas for further exploration. In
addition, other than knowing some of the demographic correlates of
gay/lesbian victimization, little research has been conducted on the
etiology of victimization among this group. Future study needs to
address these issues using a research design that affords large repre-
sentative samples and variables that measure theoretically grounded
concepts.
NOTES
1. The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) has been at the fore-
front in compiling data on anti-gay/lesbian victimization. In 1984, NGLTF (then
known as National Gay Task Force) put out the findings of an 8-city study of les-
bian and gay victimization (N = 2074). The participating cities were Atlanta, Dal-
las, Denver, Los Angeles, New York, St. Louis, and Seattle. Lesbian and gay orga-
nizations in these cities were asked to distribute 500 copies of a survey created by
NGLTF to individuals in their communities. (Due to time limitations, many of the
cities failed to distribute the full 500 surveys.) Most of the surveys were distrib-
uted at Gay Pride events. Since that time, NGLTF has continued to conduct sur-
veys and provide a hotline for the reporting of anti-lesbian/gay crime. Additional-
ly, organizations around the country are conducting violence projects in their
communities in an effort to document the prevalence of such crimes. This data
figured prominently in testimony before the legislature concerning the Hate
Crimes Act.
2. Much debate has centered around the use of the words victim and victimiza-
tion. In particular, literature on rape and incest survivors has pointed to the disem-
powering nature of referring to individuals as victims. However, we agree with
Janoff-Bulman and Frieze’s (1983, p. 13) statement that these words ‘‘provide
useful labels, for [they serve] to relieve victims of responsibility for their victim-
ization . . . responsibility for the onset of victimization (i.e., the problem) differs
from responsibility for recovery from it (i.e., the solution).’’ Indeed, it is true that
many victims of crime become survivors through their reaction to the experience.
3. One of the items used to measure depression was excluded since it was very
similar to an item in the self-esteem scale. That item had to do with whether a
person felt like a failure.

4. In order to examine the ‘‘buffering’’ effect that social and psychological re-
sources may have on reducing the impact of victimization, a series of analyses
was conducted where separate interaction terms were created using the proce-
dures suggested by Smith and Sasaki (1979) between the types of victimization
and other variables examined in the model (e.g., threats and verbal abuse partner
support, multiple victimization self-esteem, etc.). Only one interaction term was
found to have a significant effect on depression: threats and verbal abuse partner
support. However, while significant, the standardized regression coefficients for
this interaction were below .10 for both gay men and lesbians and it explained less
than .1 percent of the variance in depression. From a substantive point of view,
such a contribution warrants little attention.
5. We examined this finding further through a series of stepwise regression
analyses. The zero-order correlations between friend’s support and depression for
lesbians and gay men were negative, but low. As other variables were stepped into
the analysis, the direction of the effect of friend’s support ‘‘flipped’’ to positive.
No one variable was more instrumental in producing this change than any other.
REFERENCES
Anderson, C. L. (1982). Males as sexual assault victims: Multiple levels of trauma
Journal of Homosexuality, 7(2/3), 145-162.
Bard, M., & Sangrey, D. (1979). The crime victim’s book. New York: Basic
Books.
Berrill, K. T. (1990). Anti-gay violence and victimization in the United States: An
overview. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5(3), 274-294.
Blumstein, P. E., & Schwartz, P. (1983). American couples. New York: Morrow.
Britton, D. M. (1990). Homophobia and homosociality: An analysis of boundary
maintenance. The Sociological Quarterly, 31(3), 423-439.
Cass, V. C. (1984). Homosexual identity: A concept in need of definition. Journal
of Homosexuality, 9(2/3), 105-126.
Clunis, D. M., & Green, G. D. (1988). Lesbian couples. Seattle: Seal Press.
Coates, D., & Winston, T. (1983). Counteracting the deviance of depression: Peer
support groups for victims. Journal of Social Issues, 39(2), 171-196.
Cobb, S. (1976). Social support as a moderator of life stress. Psychosomatic
Medicine, 38, 300-314.
Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of per-
ceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24, 385-396.
Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypoth-
esis. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310-357.
Coleman, E. (1982). Developmental stages of the coming out process. Journal of
Homosexuality, 7(2/3), 31-43.
Comstock, G. D. (1989). Victims of anti-gay/lesbian violence. Journal of Inter-
personal Violence, 4(1), 101-106.
Dean, L., Wu, S., & Martin, J. L. (1992). Trends in violence and discrimination
against gay men in New York City: 1984-1990. In G. M. Herek & K. T. Berrill
(Eds.), Hate crimes: Confronting violence against lesbians and gay men
(pp. 46-64). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Dohrenwend, B. S., Krasnoff, L., Askenasy, A. R., & Dohrenwend, B. P. (1978).
Exemplification of a method for scaling life events: The PERI Life Events
Scale. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 19, 205-229.
Garnets, L., Herek, G. M., & Levy, B. (1990). Violence and victimization of
lesbians and gay men: Mental health consequences. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 5(3), 366-383.
Gore, S., & Mangione, T. W. (1983). Social roles, sex roles and psychological
distress: Additive and interactive models of sex differences. Journal of Health
and Social Behavior, 24, 300-312.
Hate Crimes Statistics Act. (1990). Congressional Record, February 8, 1067-1092.
Herek, G. M. (1989). Hate crimes against lesbians and gay men: Issues for re-
search and policy. American Psychologist, 44(6), 948-955.
Herek, G. M. (1990). The context of anti-gay violence: Notes on cultural and
psychological heterosexism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5(3), 316-333.
Herek, G. M., & Berrill, K. T. (1990). Documenting the victimization of lesbians
and gay men: Methodological issues. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5(3),
301-315.
Hetrick, E. S., & Martin, A. D. (1987). Developmental issues and their resolution
for gay and lesbian adolescents. Journal of Homosexuality, 14(1/2), 25-43.
Heyward, C. (1989). Coming out and relational empowerment: A lesbian feminist
theological perspective. Paper presented in the Stone Center Colloquium Se-
ries.
House, J. S., & Kahn, R. L. (1985). Measures and concepts of social support. In S.
Cohen & S. L. Syme (Eds.), Social support and health (pp. 83-108). New
York: Academic Press.
Janoff-Bulman, R. (1985). Criminal vs. non-criminal victimization: Victim’s reac-
tions. Victimology: An International Journal, 10, 498-511.
Janoff-Bulman, R., & Frieze, I. H. (1983). Theoretical perspective for understand-
ing reactions to victimization. Journal of Social Issues, 39(2),1-17.
Kessler, R. C., Price, R. H., & Wortman, C. B. (1985). Social factors in psycho-
pathology: Stress, social support and coping processes. Annual Review of
Psychology, 36, 531-572.
Kilpatrick, D. G., Best, C. L., Veronen, L. J., Amick, A. E., Villeponteaux, L. A., &
Ruff, G. A. (1985). Mental health correlates of criminal victimization: A
random community survey. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
53(6), 866-873.
LaGrange, R. L., & Ferraro, K. F. (1989). Assessing age and gender differences in
perceived risk and fear of crime. Criminology, 27(4), 697-719.
LaRocco, J. M., House, J. S., & French, J. R. (1980). Social support, occupational
stress, and health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 21(3), 202-218.
Lin, N., & Ensel, W. M. (1989). Life stress and health. American Sociological
Review, 54(3), 382-389.

Lin, N., Ensel, W. M., Simeone, R. S., & Kuo, W. (1979). Social support, stressful
life events, and illness: A model and an empirical test. Journal of Health and
Social Behavior, 20, 108-119.
Lipman-Blumen, J. (1976). Toward a homosocial theory of sex roles: An explana-
tion of the sex segregation of social institutions. Signs, 1, 15-31.
Margolies, L., Becker, M., & Jackson-Brewer, K. (1987). Internalized homopho-
bia: Identifying and treating the oppressor within. In the Boston Lesbian
Psychologies Collective (Eds.), Lesbian psychologies: Explorations & chal-
lenges (pp. 229-241). Urbana and Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press.
McKirnan, D. J., & Peterson, P. L. (1987, March 12). Social indicators: Psycho-
logical attitudes, and discrimination and anti-gay violence. Windy City Times, p. 2.
Mencher, J. (1990). Intimacy in lesbian relationships: A critical re-examination of
fusion. Presented at the Stone Center Colloquium, February 7, 1990.
Minton, H. L., & McDonald, G. J. (1984). Homosexual identity formation as a
developmental process. Journal of Homosexuality, 9(2/3), 91-104.
Nardi, P. M. (1982). Alcoholism and homosexuality: A theoretical perspective.
Journal of Homosexuality, 7(4), 9-26.
National Gay Task Force. (1984). Anti-gay/lesbian: A study by the National Gay
Task Force in cooperation with lesbian organizations in eight U.S. Cities.
Washington, DC: National Gay Task Force.
National Gay & Lesbian Task Force. (1986). Anti-gay violence: Causes, conse-
quences, responses. Washington, DC: National Gay & Lesbian Task Force.
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. (1989). Anti-gay violence, victimization,
and defamation in 1988. Washington, DC: National Gay & Lesbian Task
Force.
New York State Lesbian & Gay Lobby. (1985). Information collected from ques-
tionnaire ‘‘16 Questions.’’
Pearlin, L. I., & Schooler, C. (1978). The structure of coping. Journal of Health
and Social Behavior, 19, 2-21.
Philadelphia Lesbian and Gay Task Force. (1985). Violence and discrimination
against Philadelphia lesbian & gay people. Available from Philadelphia Les-
bian & Gay Task Force, 1501 Cherry Street, Philadelphia, PA 19102.
Philadelphia Lesbian and Gay Task Force. (1988). Violence and discrimination
against lesbians and gay people in Philadelphia and the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. Available from Philadelphia Lesbian & Gay Task Force, 1501
Cherry Street, Philadelphia, PA 19102.
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D Scale: A self-report depression scale for re-
search in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1,
385-401.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton: Prince-
ton University Press.
Ross, C. E., & Mirowsky, J. (1989). Explaining the social patterns of depression:
Control and problem solving--or support and talking? Journal of Health and
Social Behavior, 30(2), 206-219.
Sarason, I. G., Levine, H. H., Basham, R. B., & Sarason, B. R. (1983). Assessing
social support: The Social Support Questionnaire. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 44, 127-139.
Smith, J. (1988). Psychopathology, homosexuality, and homophobia. Journal of
Homosexuality, 15(1/2), 59-73.
Smith, L. N., & Hill, G. D. (1991). Perceptions of crime seriousness and fear of
crime. Sociological Focus, 24(4), 315-327.
Sophie, J. (1987). Internalized homophobia and lesbian identity. Journal of Ho-
mosexuality, 14(1/2), 53-65.
Southern Poverty Law Center. (1991). Gays: Most frequent hate crime victims.
Klanwatch Intelligence Report, 56, 10-11.
Stein, T. S. (1988). Theoretical considerations in psychotherapy with gay men and
lesbians. Journal of Homosexuality, 15(1/2), 75-95.
Troiden, R. R. (1988). Gay and lesbian identity: A sociological analysis. New
York: General Hall, Inc.
Troiden, R. R. (1989). The formation of homosexual identities. Journal of Homo-
sexuality, 17(1/2), 43-74.
APPENDIX A. Correlation Coefficients, Means, and Standard Devi-

ations of Variables for Lesbians (N = 440) (above diagonal) and Gay
Men (N = 473) (below diagonal)
Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6
(1) Depression --- .58* .39* .22* .37* .09*

(2) Self-Esteem .60* --- .49* .29* .27* .23*
(3) External Stress .31* .49* --- .22* .26* .26*
(4) Internalized
Homophobia .33* .40* .20* --- .12* .07*
(5) Partner Support .25* .19* .09* .09* --- .03

(6) Friends Support .07* .27* .24* .13* .15* ---
(7) No Support .22* .26* .19* .09* .24* .42*
(8) Opposite Sex

Assault .04 .02 .06 .04 .04 .06
(9) Same Sex Assault .19* .11* .01 .04 .08* .04
(10) Theft/Vandalism .11* .07 .02 .04 .01 .02
(11) Robbery .03 .02 .06 .04 .07 .05
(12) Threats/Verbal
Abuse .18* .07* .00 .01 .07 .05
(13) Physical Assault .10* .05 .04 .06 .01 .01
(14) Multiple
Victimization .19* .10* .01 .05 .06 .04
(15) Age .11* .04 .03 .04 .01 .10*
Lesbians Mean 23.32 32.03 16.89 1.84 9.26 6.80

SD (8.63) (5.16) (7.24) ( .88) (5.91) (4.11)
Gay Men Mean 22.8 32.30 17.46 1.92 6.59 7.15

SD (8.85) (5.47) (7.44) ( .92) (6.37) (4.23)
* significant at .05 level

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
.37* .10* .06 .04 .11* .19* .13* .17* .15*

.32* .01 .07 .00 .10* .08* .04 .07 .13*
.29* .03 .02 .01 .02 .02 .01 .03 .16*
.12* .05 .01 .05 .06* .04 .06 .05 .15*
.40* .09* .03 .11* .06 .11* .13* .14* .12*

.33* .02 .06 .12* .00 .04 .03 .08* .01
--- .00 .01 .03 .06 .08* .04 .07 .04
.06* --- .31* .29* .30* .45* .45* .61* .23*

.01 .33* --- .20* .25* .23* .16* .37* .08*
.08* .08* .20* --- .18* .38* .30* .71* .01
.07 .05 .15* .21* --- .36* .32* .51* .08*
.07 .11* .28* .35* .24* --- .39* .87* .20*

.03 .19* .19* .20* .32* .32* --- .57* .24*
.09* .27* .46* .72* .48* .82* .53* --- .19*
.15* .01 .12* .01 .06 .17* .09* .14*
.61 .08 .03 .44 .05 .73 .06 1.38 33.8

(1.6) (.26) (.15) (.75) (.27) (1.06) (.23) (1.93) ( 8.16)
.77 .02 .06 .51 .09 .77 .10 1.54 34.31

(1.8) (.17) (.29) (.85) (.36) (1.02) (.35) (1.98) (10.15)
APPENDIX B. Measures of Variables
EXTERNAL STRESS
In the last year, how often have you:
. . dealt successfully with irritating hassles?
. . felt that you were effectively coping with important changes that were occur-
ring in your life?
. . felt confident about your ability to handle your personal problems?
. . felt that things were going your way?
. . been able to control irritations in your life?
. . felt that your were on top of things?
. . been able to control the way you spend your time?
INTERNAL STRESS
. . been upset because of something that happened unexpectedly?
. . felt that you were unable to control the important things in your life?
. . felt nervous and ‘‘stressed’’?
. . found that you could not cope with all the things that you had to do?
. . been angered because of things that were outside of your control?
. . found yourself thinking about things that you have to accomplish?
SOCIAL SUPPORT
On whom can you really count to listen to you when you need to talk openly
and frankly about something?
On whom could you really count to help you if a person whom you thought
was a good friend insulted you and told you that he/she didn’t want to see
you again?
Whose lives do you feel that you are an important part of?
On whom could you really count to help you out in a crisis situation, even
though they would have to go out of their way to do so?
Who helps you feel that you truly have something positive to contribute to
others?
On whom could you really count for monetary help if you had just been fired
from your job or lost your ability to work?
With whom can you totally be yourself?
On whom can you count to listen openly and uncritically to your innermost
feelings?
Who will comfort you by holding you in their arms?
On whom can you really count to help you feel more relaxed when you are
under pressure or tense?
Whom do you feel would help if a family member very close to you died?
Whom can you really count on to care about you, regardless of what is
happening to you?
Whom can you really count on to help you feel better when you are feeling
generally down-in-the-dumps?
Whom do you feel truly loves you deeply?
DEPRESSION
I was bothered by things that usually don’t bother me.
I felt that I could not shake off the blues even with help from my family and
friends.
I felt lonely.
I felt depressed.
I had crying spells.
I felt that difficulties were piling up so I could not overcome them.
I felt blue.
I got in a state of tension or turmoil as I thought over my recent concerns and
interests.
SELF-ESTEEM
I feel I do not have much to be proud about.
I take a positive attitude toward myself.

I feel useless at times.
At times I think I am no good at all.
I feel that I’m a person of worth, at least on an equal basis with others.
Overall, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure.
I am able to do things as well as most other people.
On the whole, I am satisfied with myself.
I wish I could have more respect for myself.

Otis 1996

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Otis 1996

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [Carnegie Mellon University]

On: 15 January 2015, At: 00:57

The Prevalence of Victimization and Its Effect on

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J082v30n03_05

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

William F. Skinner, PhD

ABSTRACT. Research on victimization among oppressed groups such

Melanie D. Otis is a research associate currently working on a PhD in the

cult. The purpose of this paper is to examine the effects on mental

PREVALENCE AND TRENDS IN LESBIAN/GAY

Through the efforts of research conducted within the last decade,

(Philadelphia Lesbian Gay Task Force, 1985, 1988; NGLTF, 1984).

(Philadelphia Lesbian and Gay Task Force, 1988). Finally, as Berrill

CONSEQUENCES OF LESBIAN/GAY VICTIMIZATION

sumptions held by most individuals. First, victimization strikes at

himself/herself as having worth, becoming a victim can act to chal-

CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO MENTAL WELL-BEING

While deleterious psychological consequences can occur as a

One key factor in determining how an individual reacts to victim-

1989; Minton & McDonald, 1984; Sophie, 1987; Troiden, 1988,

Research in the area of fear of crime and perceived risk of crime

SAMPLE PROCEDURES AND CHARACTERISTICS

opportunity to pretest the instrument and suggest revisions. Re-

34.4 and average years of education is 15.1. These characteristics

Three measures of social support were used in the analysis. Each

question ‘‘I feel stress or conflict with myself because of my sexual

dimensions to perceived stress. An internal stress index was created

have high degree of conceptual and empirical overlap with the

Melanie D. Otis and William F. Skinner

of these acts is somewhat higher than that of lesbians. The most

their sexual orientation. Two themes are noteworthy from these

being. The analysis involved regressing depression on each category

victimization categories include same sex assault, threats and verbal

Melanie D. Otis and William F. Skinner

other hand, differences do occur in the analysis between lesbians

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Self-esteem was found to be the most important variable affect-

the ‘‘commiseration’’ hypothesis. Ross and Mirowsky (1989, p. 216)

concerning perceived control reflect ‘‘awareness of objective condi-

internalized by the individual. Lesbianism, like female sexuality in

issue warrants further discussion. The National Gay Task Force’s

may well see themselves as survivors in an unfair and hostile world

person felt like a failure.

Review, 54(3), 382-389.

APPENDIX A. Correlation Coefficients, Means, and Standard Devi-

(1) Depression --- .58* .39* .22* .37* .09*

(5) Partner Support .25* .19* .09* .09* --- .03

(8) Opposite Sex

(15) Age .11* .04 .03 .04 .01 .10*

Lesbians Mean 23.32 32.03 16.89 1.84 9.26 6.80

Gay Men Mean 22.8 32.30 17.46 1.92 6.59 7.15

* significant at .05 level

.37* .10* .06 .04 .11* .19* .13* .17* .15*

.12* .05 .01 .05 .06* .04 .06 .05 .15*

.40* .09* .03 .11* .06 .11* .13* .14* .12*

.06* --- .31* .29* .30* .45* .45* .61* .23*

.07 .11* .28* .35* .24* --- .39* .87* .20*

.09* .27* .46* .72* .48* .82* .53* --- .19*

.15* .01 .12* .01 .06 .17* .09* .14*

.61 .08 .03 .44 .05 .73 .06 1.38 33.8

.77 .02 .06 .51 .09 .77 .10 1.54 34.31

APPENDIX B. Measures of Variables

(1) Depression --- .58* .39* .22* .37* .09*

(5) Partner Support .25* .19* .09* .09* --- .03

(15) Age .11* .04 .03 .04 .01 .10*

.37* .10* .06 .04 .11* .19* .13* .17* .15*

.12* .05 .01 .05 .06* .04 .06 .05 .15*

.40* .09* .03 .11* .06 .11* .13* .14* .12*

.06* --- .31* .29* .30* .45* .45* .61* .23*

.07 .11* .28* .35* .24* --- .39* .87* .20*

.09* .27* .46* .72* .48* .82* .53* --- .19*

.15* .01 .12* .01 .06 .17* .09* .14*