1

Allison Qualls
SW 962.01
Professor Anita Tucker
December 7, 2023
 2

Abstract

Social wellbeing is important to every type of identity, it has been researched that individuals in

the LGBTQIA community can have a lower social wellbeing if they access to LGBTQIA health

centers. Social wellbeing can also be impacted by alcohol use disorders and everyday

discrimination. This study hopes to look at these factors and understand how they impact social

wellbeing. Findings suggest that everyday discrimination and alcohol use disorders affect social

wellbeing. However, the relationships are weak, and more research is needed to explore what

type of factors impact the social wellbeing of this group.

Keywords: social wellbeing, everyday discrimination, alcohol use disorder, distance from

health centers
 3

LGBTQIA Social Wellbeing: A Statistical Analysis

Throughout several studies it has been shown that individuals who are apart of the

LGBTQIA community have a higher mortality rate compared to heterosexual individuals

(Kertzner, R.M. & Meyer, I.H., 2009). Even within the LGBTQIA community there be certain

identities that have a lower social well being as seen in Kertzner and Meyer’s article “Social and

Psychological Well-Being in Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexuals: The Effects of Race, Gender,

Age, and Sexual Identity” (2009). This study looked at individuals from ages 18 to 59, lived in

New York for the past two years or more and self-identified as lesbian, gay or bisexual. What

this study found was that individuals who identified as bisexual and being between the ages of 18

to 29 resulted in lower social wellbeing (2009).

Having access to health resources for under served communities is an important topic to

discuss that authors Christopher M. Fisher, Jay A. Irwin and Jason D. Coleman did well in their

article “LGBT Health in the Midlands: A Rural/Urban Comparison of Basic Health Indicators”

(2014). They found that individuals that lived in more rural areas identified more as bisexual,

and had more binge behaviors towards alcohol and tobacco products compared to individuals

who are more Urban (2014). They also saw a significant difference between rural and urban

participants when it came to social engagement, being out, and self-acceptance being lower for

rural individuals.

The article “Socioeconomic resources and quality of life in alcohol use disorder patients:

the mediating effects of social support and depression” by Lee, S.B et. al (2020). Mentions that

harm from alcohol precedes just physical health like liver disease, diabetes, high blood pressure,

cardiovascular disorders, and mental health disorders. It can also affect social roles which can

affect recovery for the individual (2020). Because alcohol use disorder can be difficult to recover
 4

from and being a lifelong recovery for individuals who struggle with alcohol use disorder this

severely impacts their relationships and quality of life.

Everyday discrimination can affect several different minority groups and being cognizant

of how discrimination these groups is important. Thurber, K.A., et. al (2021) explored this in

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Adults in Australia. They found that everyday

discrimination can lead to more alcohol use compared ton non-Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander groups (2021). Everyday discrimination also affected life satisfaction and happiness,

with these results in mind and applying this to other minority groups is important to recognize as

researchers and practitioners (2020).

In order to provide this community with resources it is important that we explore what

can specifically affect them. This study aims to understand what can affect social wellbeing

through specific characteristics. The goal is to better understand what affects the community and

what resources are important to provide in our practices. Three research questions will be looked

at in this study.

1. Is there a significant difference between the respondent’s sexual identity and social

wellbeing?

2. Is there a relationship between the respondent’s age and social wellbeing?

3. Are miles away from nearest LGBT health center, Alcohol Use Disorder, Everyday

Discrimination predictors of Social wellbeing?

The Sample

In this analysis the data was taken from the Trans Population Survey (TransPop) from the years

2016 to 2018. Data was collected through a probability sample by using the random digit dialing

(RDD) to contact cellphone and landline users. The researchers also used address-based
 5

sampling (ABS) which is a mailed survey that provided respondents with a web link so that they

can take the questionnaire either online or on paper. This was a probability sample of 1,436

which included both transgender and cisgender respondents in the Census Region of the United

States. The dependent variable for this study is a scale variable that measured respondents

through a series of questions that used a likert scale of 7 to measure the social wellbeing of the

respondent. A 1 is considered poor social wellbeing and a 7 is considered a greater social

wellbeing. All 1,436 respondents responded to the social wellbeing scale. The categorical

independent variables are race and sexual identity the separate categories can be seen in Table 1.

Other independent variables are scale variables including, age, miles away from nearest LGBT

health center, Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test, and Everyday Discrimination.

In this sample of 1,436 respondents ranged in age from 18 to 72 years of age with a mean

age of 53.1 (SD = 16.9). For miles away from nearest LGBT Health Center it ranged from 0 to

2715 with a mean of 79.4 miles (SD = 234.0). The Social Wellbeing Scale with Imputations had

a range of 2 to 7 with a mean of 4.7 (SD = 0.9), meaning that most of the respondents were in the

middle on how their social wellbeing was going. The Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test

had a range of 0 to 12 with a score of 12 being that respondent would have an Alcohol Use

Disorder. If men rated over a 4 or women over a 3, they would be classified as having an

Alcohol Use Disorder or Risky Behavior. The mean in this sample was 2.3 (SD= 2.1). Finally,

there is the Everyday Discrimination was on a 4-point Likert scale with the range being 1 to 4

with a mean of 1.7 (SD=0.7) this means that the mean of respondents faced less everyday

discrimination. Table 1 shows additional descriptive statistics of the sample of race, and sexual

identity. For race the majority of the respondents where White (79.9%) with the second largest
 6

group being Multirace (8.7%). For Sexual Identity the majority of the respondents

Straight/Heterosexual (77.0%) and the second largest group being Bisexual (5.4%).

Data Analysis

The one-way ANOVA was run to determine whether there was a significant difference between

the respondent’s sexual identity and social wellbeing. A correlation was ran to determine and

review the relationship between the respondent’s age and social wellbeing. A multiple regression

was run to see what the relationship was between miles away from the nearest LGBT health

center, Alcohol Use Disorder, Everyday Discrimination and Social Wellbeing. In all statistical

tests assumptions were met and the alpha levels were set at 0.05 for all analyses in this sample.

Results

In the first research question, there was a statistically significant difference between

sexual identity and social well being [Welch’s F (8, 93.92) = 4.101, p < .001]. Post hoc Tamhane

analyses saw a statistically significant difference between straight/heterosexual and bisexual

groups. Straight/heterosexual people averaged 4.80 on the social wellbeing scale (SD = 0.87)

while bisexual people averaged 4.43 on social wellbeing scale (SD = 0.87) (See Table 2). There

was a mean difference .362 (p =.025). This relationship is weak as only two point five percent of

the variance in the social wellbeing scale is accounted for in sexual identity (eta2 = .030).

The second research question, a correlation analysis found a statistically significant

relationship between age and social wellbeing (Pearson’s r = .090, df = 1342, p < .001). As the

respondent’s age increases so does their social wellbeing. However, this correlation has no or

negligible correlation. Age can only explain 0.081% of the variance between the variables with

99.919% of the differences being contributed to other factors (r2 = .0081).

 7

In the third research question, correlation analyses looked at the relationships between the

independent variables and the dependent and found statistically significant relationships between

Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test, Everyday Discrimination, and Social Wellbeing (See

Table 3). The regression analysis also showed a significant relationship between miles away

from nearest LGBT health center, Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test, Everyday

Discrimination and social wellbeing [F (3, 1250) = 41.411, p < .001]. The independent variables

everyday discrimination (t = -10.833, p < .001) and alcohol use disorder identification test (t =

2.816, p = .005); were significant data in predicting social wellbeing. Everyday discrimination

was negatively correlated with social wellbeing (β = -.292) and alcohol use disorder

identification test was positively correlated (β = .076); however, miles away from nearest LGBT

health center was not significant in predicting social wellbeing. The relationships were weak

with only 9% of the variance in social wellbeing being accounted for by miles away from nearest

LGBT health center, alcohol use disorder identification test, and everyday discrimination (R2

= .090, adjusted R2 = .088).

Discussion

Statistically significant difference in social wellbeing was found between

straight/heterosexual and bisexual respondents. The correlation is statistically significant for

alcohol use disorder identification test and everyday discrimination with social wellbeing. Those

who were closer to an LGBT health center, did not have an alcohol use disorder, and had less

everyday discrimination had a better social wellbeing. These relationships, however, had either

no or negligible correlation or a weak relationship. Using miles away from an LGBT health

center, alcohol use disorder identification test, and everyday discrimination to determine social

wellbeing is not a reliable model to use. In this analysis two out of three independent variables
 8

were significantly correlated, which could have affected the strength of the predictive model;

however, none of correlations were above a .7 which can cause multicollinearity. There could be

other factors that were not measured in this study that could be used to predict social wellbeing

such as social support from family or friends, community connectedness, satisfaction with life, or

internalized homophobia.

The analyses that were run in this study cannot provide practitioners enough information

to determine next steps in improving social wellbeing in the LGBTQIA community. Social

wellbeing can be impacted by a number of different things and it is important to collect data on

it, especially in minority groups like those who identify as LGBTQIA. The data that was

collected from TransPop Survey leaves it unclear what has a strong relationship in affecting the

respondent’s social wellbeing. Further research will be needed to identify other areas that may

affect social wellbeing and continuous research on this community as topics surrounding the

community become more common in the media that we consume.

 9

References

Fisher, C. M., Irwin, J. A., & Coleman, J. D. (2014). LGBT health in the Midlands: A
Rural/urban comparison of basic health indicators. Journal of Homosexuality, 61(8), 1062–
1090. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2014.872487

Kertzner, R. M., Meyer, I. H., Frost, D. M., & Stirratt, M. J. (2009). Social and psychological
well-being in lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals: The effects of race, gender, age, and sexual
identity. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 79(4), 500–510.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016848

Lee, S. B., Chung, S., Seo, J. S., Jung, W. M., & Park, I. H. (2020). Socioeconomic Resources
and quality of life in alcohol use disorder patients: The mediating effects of social support
and depression. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, 15(1), 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13011-020-00258-6

Thurber, K., Colonna, E., Jones, R., Gee, G., Priest, N., Cohen, R., Williams, D., Thandrayen, J.,
Calma, T., & Lovett, R. (2021). Prevalence of everyday discrimination and relation with
wellbeing among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adults in Australia. International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(12), 6577.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18126577
 10

Table 1

Gender, Race and Marital Status of Respondents (N = 994)

n %
Race (N = 1436)

White 1148 79.9

Multirace 125 8.7

Black/AA 79 5.5

Hispanic/Latino 37 2.6

Asian 29 2.0
American Indian 7 0.5
Middle Eastern 5 0.3
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 5 0.3
Other 1 0.1

Sexual Identity

Straight/Heterosexual 1106 77.0

Bisexual 78 5.4

Queer 53 3.7

Gay 40 2.8

Lesbian 39 2.7

Pansexual 25 1.7
Other 24 1.7
Same-gender loving 21 1.5
Asexual Spectrum 16 1.1
Missing 34 2.4
Age of Respondents M = 53.1 (SD = 16.9) Range 18 - 72
Miles Away from Nearest LGBT
Health Center M = 79.4 (SD = 234.0) Range 0 – 2715

Social Wellbeing Scale with M = 4.7 (SD = 0.9) Range 2 – 7

Imputations

Alcohol Use Disorder M = 2.3 (SD = 2.1) Range 0 - 12

 11

Identification Test (AUDIT-C)

Everyday Discrimination M =1.7 (SD =0.7) Range 1 - 4
 12

Table 2

Social Wellbeing by Sexual Identity (N = 1323)

Mean (in social

n wellbeing) SD

Sexual Identity

Straight/ 1035 4.80 0.87

heterosexual
Lesbian 39 4.64 0.79

Gay 38 4.57 0.79

Bisexual 76 4.43 0.87

Queer 52 4.46 0.89

Same-gender 19 4.46 0.71

loving
Other 23 4.58 1.16
Asexual 16 4.11 1.13
spectrum
Pansexual 25 4.17 1.25
 13

Table 3

Correlation between Miles Away from Nearest LGBT Health Center, Alcohol Use Disorder,

Everyday Discrimination and Social Wellbeing

Variables (1) (2) (3) (4)

Miles Away from Nearest -

LGBT Health Center (1)

Alcohol Use Disorder (2) .030 -

Everyday Discrimination (3) -.002 .033 -

Social Wellbeing (4) -.026 .065* -.285** -

* p < .05, ** p < .01