Heterosexist Discrimination, Sexual Identity, and

Conflicts in Allegiances among Latinx Sexual Minority Adults

by

Roberto Rentería

A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Arts

Approved April 2018 by the

Graduate Supervisory Committee:

Cristalís Capielo, Chair

Carlos Santos
Alisia Tran

ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY

May 2018
 ABSTRACT

Empirical research has supported that higher behavioral engagement with and

higher affective pride toward the LGBTQ+ community are associated with greater

psychological well-being among Latinx sexual minorities (e.g., lesbian, gay, bisexual,

queer, etc.). Less is known, however, about predictors of sexual identity development

among Latinx sexual minorities. This study explores how heterosexist discrimination

may be related to the exploration and affirmation of one’s sexual minority identity.

Conversely, conflicts in allegiance (CIA), that is, the experience of perceived

incompatibility Latinx sexual minorities may experience between their racial-ethnic and

sexual minority identities, was examined as a potential negative correlate. This study

applies a rejection-identification model and identity development theories to test the

associations between heterosexist discrimination, conflicts in allegiances and sexual

identity constructs (LGBTQ+ behavioral engagement and affective pride). Among a

sample of 366 Latinx sexual minorities, this study found both heterosexist discrimination

and conflicts in allegiances were significant predictors of LGBTQ+ behavioral

engagement and affective pride. Additionally, data supported two mediational models

that tested relations between heterosexist discrimination, LGBTQ+ behavioral

engagement, and affective pride. This study contributes to our understanding of sexual

minority identity among Latinx individuals. These findings can assist helping

professionals and community centers in promoting psychological well-being among

Latinx sexual minority individuals by informing identity-affirming practices and

interventions.

i
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was supported by the Graduate and Professional Student

Association Graduate Research Support Program at Arizona State University.

ii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................iv

LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................. v

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1

Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................ 3

Sexual Minority Identity: Behavioral Engagement & Affective Pride .................. 6

Heterosexist Discrimination and Sexual Minority Identity .................................... 9

Conflicts in Allegiances and Sexual Minority Identity......................................... 11

The Current Study .................................................................................................. 13

2 METHOD ................................................................................................................. 16

Participants ............................................................................................................. 16

Procedures .............................................................................................................. 17

Measures ................................................................................................................. 18

3 RESULTS ................................................................................................................. 21

Preliminary Analyses and Descriptive Data.......................................................... 21

Predictors of LGBTQ+ Behavioral Engagement & Affective Pride .................... 21

Mediation Analyses................................................................................................ 22

4 DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................... 24

Limitations and Conclusions ................................................................................. 25

REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 32

iii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations................................................................... 39

2. Predictors of LGBTQ+ Behavioral Engagement & Affective Pride .................... 40

iv
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Proposed Mediation Model Predicting LGBTQ+ Affective Pride ...................... 41

2. Proposed Alternate Mediation Model Predicting

LGBTQ+ Behavioral Engagement ........................................................................ 42

3. Mediation Model Predicting LGBTQ+ Affective Pride ........................................ 43

4. Mediation Model Predicting LGBTQ+ Behavioral Engagement ......................... 44

v
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Recent research has suggested that a stronger involvement and identification with

one’s sexual minority identity (e.g., lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, etc.) may be associated

with better psychological well-being (Ghavami, Fingerhut, Peplau, Grant, & Wittig,

2011; Pastrana, 2015; Riggle, Mohr, Rostosky, Fingerhut, & Balsam, 2014). Similar

results have been observed among Latinx sexual minority populations (Kertzner, Meyer,

Frost, Stirratt, 2009; Zea, Reisen, & Poppen, 1999). However, less is known about

psychosocial constructs associated with sexual minority identity (SMI) development

among Latinx individuals. While research on SMI development has expanded

significantly in recent years, much of this empirical body has focused on primarily White

samples (Calzo, Antonucci, Mays, & Cochran, 2011; Riggle et al., 2014; Szymanski,

Mikorski, & Carretta, 2017) or on comparisons in sexual identity development across

ethnic-racial groups (Dubé & Savin-Williams, 1999; Jamil, Harper, Fernandez, 2009;

Martos, Nezhad, Meyer, 2015; Moreira, Halkitis, & Kapadia, 2015; Rosario,

Schrimshaw, Hunter, 2004; Rosario, Schrimshaw, Hunter, & Braun, 2006). Less research

has focused exclusively on Latinx samples of sexual minorities. Research that has

explored sexual identity processes using exclusively Latinx sexual minority samples have

found support for the role of sexual identity processes as protective against prejudice and

associated with positive mental health outcomes (Reisen, Brooks, Zea, Poppen, Bianchi,

2013; Shramko, Toomey, Anhalt, 2018; Toomey, Anhalt, & Shramko, 2016). Given the

evidence supporting the importance of sexual identity development, there is a need to

1
expand empirical research on Latinx sexual minority communities that explores positive

and negative correlates of sexual minority identity achievement.

Identity research among marginalized groups has proposed various theories to

attempt to explain the relations between experiences of prejudice and the relationship

towards one’s group. Branscombe, Schmitt, and Harvey (1999) proposed the rejection-

identification model (RIM), which posits that among individuals from marginalized

groups, a willingness to attribute experiences to prejudice would influence further group

identification as a way of protecting psychological well-being. For example, Branscombe

et al. (1999) observed in an African American sample that higher willingness attribute

negative experiences to racial prejudice predicted higher racial group identification and

this in turn predicted higher personal well-being. The present study draws from the first

proposition of RIM to tests correlates of SMI, specifically examining if higher

perceptions of heterosexist discrimination are associated with higher behavioral

engagement in and affective pride to one’s SMI group. Conversely, Latinx sexual

minorities have reported experiencing overlapping forms of prejudice and rejection such

as racism within the LGBTQ+ and heterosexism within their own ethnic-racial

community (Balsam, Molina, Beadnell, Simoni, & Walters, 2011; Eaton & Rios, 2017),

which may be associated with a perceived difficulty in navigating and integrating

multiple minority identities. The present study also tests the association between conflicts

in allegiances (CIA; perceived conflict and incompatibility one may feel between their

ethnic-racial and sexual identity) and behavioral engagement in and affective pride

towards one’s SMI group.

2
 The purpose of this study was to test heterosexist discrimination and CIA as

predictors of two sexual minority identity constructs, LGBTQ+ behavioral engagement

and LGBTQ+ affective pride. Additionally, this study tested two mediations: (a) a

theoretically-based mediation model in which LGBTQ+ behavioral engagement was

predicted to mediate the relations between heterosexist discrimination and LGBTQ+

affective pride and (b) an alternate model in which LGBTQ+ affective pride was tested as

a mediator between heterosexist discrimination and LGBTQ+ behavioral engagement.

The aim of this study was to clarify the correlates of SMI processes among Latinx

individuals. Understanding these factors could help inform sexual identity-affirming

practices in counseling, clinical, and community-based interventions. Psychological

science needs to explore how sexual minority identities are achieved in the context of

heterosexism and identity conflicts, especially given the empirical evidence supporting

the association between heterosexist discrimination and negative mental and physical

health outcomes among Latinx sexual minority populations (Bruce, Ramirez-Valles, &

Campbell, 2008; Choi, Paul, Ayala, Boylan, & Gregorich, 2013; Diaz, Ayala, Bein,

Henne, & Martin, 2001; Shramko et al., 2018; Velez, Moradi, & Deblaere, 2015; Zea et

al., 1999).

Theoretical Framework

This study draws from the RIM (Branscombe et al. 1999) and identity

development theory (Erikson, 1968; Marcia, 1966; Phinney, 1992) to propose

associations between heterosexist discrimination and CIA constructs and SMI. The RIM,

a theoretical expansion to Tajfel and Turner’ (2001) social identity theory (SIT), was

3
used to explain lived experiences among marginalized racial minorities. In conjunction,

SIT and RIM posited that individuals from socially devalued groups—underprivileged or

oppressed through structural, financial, or social forms—may respond to this devaluation

with stronger identification with the devalued group. A potential mechanism explaining

higher group identification is the human need to belong and to be accepted by others to

protect individual self-esteem, therefore in the face of oppression and rejection from the

dominant group one may seek affirmation and acceptance in one’s own group (Crocker &

Major, 1989; Greenberg, 2008; Schmitt, Spears, & Branscombe, 2003). An experiment

conducted by Jetten, Branscombe, Schmitt, and Spears (2001) provides supports this

mechanism. After giving customers in a piercing salon either a text stating that prejudice

against body piercers existed or a text indicating that no such prejudice existed, they

found that customers who read about prejudice against body piercers subsequently

identified more strongly with that group in comparison to customers who read the

opposite. In a review on new perspectives on stigma and prejudice, Major (2006) further

discussed that turning toward one’s group after experiences with prejudice can provide

informational, emotional, and instrumental supports for one’s self-perception. Given the

substantial line of empirical support, this study proposes applying SIT on sexual minority

identity in a Latinx sample.

In this study, we test predictors of two sexual identity constructs: LGBTQ+

behavioral engagement (exploration) and affective pride (commitment) and draw from

sexual identity development theories to propose a mediation model. In the past few

decades, many researchers have proposed models to explain and describe SMI

4
development (Cass, 1979; Dillon, Worthington, & Moradi, 2011; Fassinger & Miller,

1996). Current research supports the conceptualization of identity as a multidimensional

construct (Ashmore, Deaux, & McLaughlin-Volpe, 2004; Riggle et al., 2014; Toomey et

al., 2016). This study focuses on two key constructs within identity, behavioral

engagement in and affective pride to one’s sexual identity group. Based on Erikson’s

(1968) and Marcia’s (1966) models of development, identity exploration refers to the

exploratory behaviors and involvement in one’s group with the purpose of learning more

about that group. Identity commitment, on the other hand, refers to one’s affective pride

and sense of belonging to their identity group. Theoretically, these two constructs are

highly correlated with each other, as higher involvement in one’s identity group is

expected to influence one’s sense of belonging of pride towards that group. Phinney

(1992) developed and supported these factors as important identity constructs in the study

of ethnic identity. Additionally, several sexual identity development models included

aspects of exploration and commitment in conceptualizing this identity process (Cass,

1979; Dillon et al., 2011; Fassinger & Miller, 1996; Troiden, 1979). Furthermore, various

quantitative studies have developed sexual identity scales and supported similar factor

structures (Sarno & Mohr, 2016; Toomey, 2016; Worthington, Navarro, Savoy, &

Hampton, 2008).

Research among Latinx sexual minorities has provided evidence for experiences

of CIA (identity conflict and perceived incompatibility between one’s sexual and ethnic

identity; Eaton & Rios, 2017). These experiences of conflict may be related to

experiences of heterosexism within the Latinx community and racism within the

5
LGBTQ+ community (Balsam et al., 2011; Velez et al., 2015). Research on Latinx sexual

identity development is scarce, especially quantitative research that examines how

internal identity conflicts may influence the achievement of a positive sexual identity.

Incorporating the study of conflicts in allegiance is significant in informing the scientific

understanding of the relations between sexual minority discrimination, internal identity

conflicts, and sexual identity constructs.

Sexual Minority Identity: Behavioral Engagement & Affective Pride

In the past few decades, researchers have proposed and explored various models

of SMI development (e.g., Cass, 1979; Dillon et al., 2011; Fassinger & Miller, 1996;

Troiden, 1979). These models consider the process of developing a sexual identity in a

heteronormative society, that is, a context in which this identity is invisible, devalued,

and even rejected. Generally, these models propose sexual identity development includes

processes of initial awareness, exploration, commitment, and synthesis. For example,

Cass (1979) proposed a process beginning with one’s initial questioning of a possible gay

identity, followed by an exploratory process of what this identity means, and eventually

obtaining a sense of pride and integration between one’s identities. McCarn and

Fassinger (1996) proposed a four-phase model based on Marcia’s (1966) model of

identity development (awareness, exploration, deepening/commitment,

internalization/synthesis) that similarly paralleled processes of beginning awareness,

exploration of identity, establishment of identity, and finalizing with an internalization of

one’s sexual identity. More recently, Dillon et al. (2011) proposed a more universal

6
sexual identity model expanded to include sexual identities often overlooked in initial

theoretical propositions (e.g., heterosexual, asexual, etc.).

Ashmore et al. (2004) urged for the consideration of identity as a

multidimensional construct and for researchers to be precise and intentional in the

measurement and theoretical interpretation of empirical findings. Based on these

recommendations, in this study we are primarily interested in examining two identity

constructs: (a) the behavioral exploration of and involvement in the LGBTQ+

community, (b) the sense of belonging and affective pride towards the LGBTQ+

community. After adapting Phinney’s (1992) Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure

(MEIM) to measure of SMI identity, Sarno and Mohr (2016) found statistical support for

a two-factor solution, LGBTQ+ behavioral engagement and LGBTQ+ affective, which

paralleled the exploration and commitment factors from the MEIM.

Based on identity development models, behavioral engagement in the LGBTQ+

community and affective pride are expected to be positively correlated. Sexual identity

development models have posited that awareness of one’s sexual minority identity may

lead to exploration and behavioral involvement in the LGBTQ+ community to learn more

and understand that identity. After this exploration and involvement, one may begin to

develop a sense of belonging and pride towards that identity group (Erikson, 1968;

Marcia, 1966). In a retrospective study examining developmental milestones among gay

males, the general trend began with initial awareness of gay attraction, initial sexual

contact with another man, recognition of gay identity, and then the process of coming out

to others (Drasin, Beals, Elliott, Lever, Klein, & Schuster, 2008). Similarly, in a

7
phenomenological study exploring adolescents’ sexual orientation development, youth

reported that the internet provided a venue to explore and accept their sexual identity.

Specifically, youth reported that the internet allowed them to learn about gay/bisexual

communities, provided an avenue to meet other gay/bisexual people, and facilitated the

process of acceptance of their sexual orientation (Harper, Serrano, Bruce, &

Bauermeister, 2016). Based on these identity development models, this study

hypothesizes that higher levels of LGBTQ+ behavioral engagement will predict higher

affective pride. Specifically, this study proposed LGBTQ+ behavioral engagement as a

mediator between heterosexist discrimination and LGBTQ+ affective pride. On the other

hand, many sexual identity development scholars have also called for the consideration of

diverse sexual identity development trajectories and sexual identity fluidity (Diamond,

2000; Mustanski, Kuper, & Greene, 2014). That is, sexual identity development

processes may not necessarily occur sequentially from behavioral involvement to the

development of affective belonging, but instead it may be that sexual minority

individuals develop a sense of pride towards their identity as a protective reaction to

heterosexism and then proceed to become involved in the LGBTQ+ community. Thus, an

alternative model was proposed in which LGBTQ+ affective pride is hypothesized to

mediate the relation between heterosexist discrimination and LGBTQ+ behavioral

engagement.

Scientific exploration of these identity processes among Latinx sexual minorities

is important given the emerging research supporting the role of behavioral and affective

links with the LGBTQ+ community and psychological well-being. For example,

8
Ghavami et al. (2011) found that affective affirmation of one’s SMI mediated the relation

between cognitive/behavioral exploration and psychological well-being. That is,

cognitive and behavioral exploration of one’s sexual identity group was positively related

to emotional affirmation of one’s SMI, which in turn predicted psychological well-being.

Additionally, Kertzner et al. (2009) found that a higher sense of connectedness with the

LGBTQ+ community and higher sexual identity valence (defined as proportion of

positive attributes to one’s sexual identity) were both associated with greater

psychological and social well-being, also predicting less depressive symptoms. Given this

empirical evidence, there is a need for research that explores positive SMI development

in the context of heterosexist discrimination. A better understanding of factors associated

with SMI development would inform helping professionals serving Latinx sexual

minorities.

Heterosexist Discrimination and Sexual Minority Identity

A factor thought to influence SMI is heterosexist discrimination. Heterosexist

discrimination refers to the harassment, rejection, and discrimination one experiences

because of one’s non-heterosexual identity (Szymanski, 2006). Branscombe et al. (1999)

proposed a model (RIM) indicating that higher experiences of discrimination and

attributions to prejudice would lead to higher identification with one’s in-group which in

turn would lead to better psychological outcomes. Based on Tajfel & Turner’s (2001)

SIT, RIM proposed that members of a marginalized group that experience prejudice and

devaluation from the dominant group may react with higher identification with the

devalued group to protect one’s self-esteem. In the context of sexual minorities, it is

9
proposed that higher experiences of harassment, rejection, and devaluation in a

heterosexist society would relate to higher involvement and identification with the

LGBTQ+ community. Empirical research among ethnic-racial minorities has found

support for RIM, particularly in that higher experiences of discrimination predict higher

racial group identification (Ai, Aisenberg, Weiss, & Salazar, 2014, Armenta & Hunt,

2009; Giamo, Schmitt, & Outten, 2012). The present study intended to expand this

theoretical model to sexual identity among a Latinx sample.

Sexual minority individuals experience heterosexist discrimination that can result

in exclusion, loss of support, and isolation. For example, among bisexual individuals,

feelings of loneliness mediated the relationship between bisexual-specific stressors (i.e.,

internalized heterosexism and anti-bisexual prejudice) and negative mental health

outcomes (Mereish, Katz-Wise, & Woulfe, 2017). It is possible that in the face of social

exclusion and heterosexist rejection, some individuals may instead seek acceptance and

belonging in communities like themselves to cope with rejection. For example,

Zimmerman, Darnell, Rhew, Lee, & Kaysen (2015) longitudinally measured outness,

connectedness to sexual minority communities, and collective self-esteem among sexual

minority women over a 12-month period. They found evidence that sexual minority

women who experienced higher heterosexist rejection from their family after disclosing

their sexual identity were more likely to search connections and esteem with sexual

minority communities. Authors of this study suggested this to be a resilience process in

which heterosexist rejection led to search for connectedness with a SMI community. In

another study, Reisen et al. (2013) found that among 301 HIV-positive Latino gay men,

10
higher gay discrimination predicted higher levels of gay collective identity, even when

controlling for age, education, region of birth, and gender conformity. Additionally,

recent studies have pointed out that higher experiences of heterosexist discrimination also

predict higher LGBTQ+ activism and community involvement (Dunn & Szymanski,

2017; Friedman & Leaper, 2010; Szymanski et al., 2017), supporting another form of

LGBTQ+ behavioral engagement related to heterosexism. Empirical evidence seems to

support the relation between heterosexist discrimination and LGBTQ+ identity and

involvement. Based on this prior research, it is hypothesized that higher heterosexist

discrimination will positively predict LGBTQ+ behavioral engagement and affective

pride.

Significant theory (e.g., Meyer, 2003) and empirical research have supported the

association between heterosexist discrimination and negative mental and physical health

outcomes among sexual minorities (Choi et al., 2013; Diaz et al., 2001; Herek, Cogan, &

Hillis, 2009; Velez et al., 2015). Conversely, resilience-based empirical research has

suggested that stronger identification with one’s sexual identity can be protective against

the deleterious impacts of heterosexist discrimination and lead to psychological well-

being (Lambe, Cerezo, & O’Shaughnessy, 2017). Given the role of LGBTQ+ identity, a

better understanding of the relations between heterosexist discrimination and this identity

development process is needed. This study explores the associations between heterosexist

discrimination and sexual minority identity constructs (i.e., behavioral engagement and

affective pride) with the purpose of informing helping professionals and researchers in

promoting psychological well-being among Latinx sexual minorities.

11
Conflicts in Allegiances and Sexual Minority Identity

Latinx sexual minority individuals may experience internal conflicts between

their sexual minority identity and Latinx identity, which may predict less pride and sense

of belonging to their sexual identity group. Morales’ (1989) model of identity

development among ethnic-racial and sexual minorities proposed that when individuals

become aware of their membership in multiple minority groups (i.e., ethnic-racial and

sexual orientation), they may also experience anxiety based on perceived incompatibility

between those identities, thus a need to maintain those two identities separate may

emerge. This perceived incompatibility between two identities may be due to a variety of

factors, among them the experiences of stigma experienced within one’s marginalized

communities. For example, Logie and Rwigema (2014) analyzed qualitative data from

two focus groups comprised of lesbian, bisexual, and queer women in which participants

discussed how daily experiences of intersectional stigma—particularly the Whiteness in

queer communities and homophobia within one’s racial communities—was linked to

experiences of perceived invisibility within each of those. Balsam et al. (2011) provided

further quantitative evidence of the perceived racism in the LGBT community and

perceived heterosexism among LGBTQ people of color. Among Latinx sexual minorities,

experiences of racism within the LGBTQ+ may deter the development of a sense of

belonging and pride. Similarly, experiences of racial discrimination may deter Latinx

individuals from being involved in LGBTQ+ community. Qualitative research supports

these intersecting experiences of prejudice (i.e., racism within the LGBTQ+ and

heterosexism within one’s ethnic-racial communities) among LGBTQ+ POC (Eaton &

12
Rios, 2012; Ghabrial, 2017; Giwa & Greensmith, 2012). Sarno, Mohr, Jackson, &

Fassinger (2015) developed and validated a scale to measure CIA among sexual and

racial-ethnic minority communities, supporting this construct to be positively correlated

with experiences of racism within the LGBTQ+ and heterosexism from one’s own

parents. It would then make sense that such conflicts between one’s Latinx and sexual

minority identities may hinder committing to a sexual identity.

With the purpose of evaluating sexual identity dynamics among Latinx

individuals and applying an intersectional approach that considers their unique

experience of potentially conflicting identities, this study tests CIA as a predictor of

LGBTQ+ behavioral engagement and affective pride. Additionally, interactions between

CIA and heterosexist discrimination will be explored. Testing as two separate outcomes,

it is hypothesized that experiencing higher CIA will be associated with lower levels of

LGBTQ+ behavioral engagement and affective pride. Quantitative empirical research on

CIA is extremely recent, therefore little research exists that explores CIA. The proposed

relations between CIA and SMI in this study are exploratory. Current existing research on

CIA has supported a positive correlation with depression among LGB ethnic-racial

minority sample, also supporting an interaction between CIA and SMI commitment

where higher levels of SMI commitment buffered the impacts of CIA on depression

(Santos & VanDaalen, 2016). These findings further support the importance of studying

CIA in the context of heterosexist discrimination and SMI among Latinx communities to

better inform sexual identity-affirming practices.

The Current Study

13
 This study applies social and development theories of identity (i.e., Branscombe

et al., 1999; Marcia, 1966; Tajfel & Turner, 2001) to test the influence of heterosexist

discrimination and CIA on LGBTQ+ behavioral engagement and affective pride among

Latinx sexual minority individuals. An interaction between heterosexist discrimination

and CIA was also tested. Furthermore, this study examined the direct effect of

heterosexist discrimination on LGBTQ+ affective pride and its indirect effects via

LGBTQ+ behavioral engagement among Latinx sexual minorities. Given the behavioral

engagement may not necessarily be a precursor to affective pride, an alternative

mediational model tested LGBTQ+ affective pride as a mediator between heterosexist

discrimination and LGBTQ+ behavioral engagement. Based on theories that outline the

relation between experiences of prejudice and higher group identification (Branscombe et

al., 1999; Tajfel & Turner, 2001), Hypothesis 1 states that higher heterosexist

discrimination will predict higher LGBTQ+ behavioral engagement and affective pride.

That is, higher frequency of perceived heterosexist discrimination is expected to be

associated with higher involvement, identification, and commitment to the SMI group

(i.e., LGBTQ+ community). A potential mechanism to explain this association may be

that upon experiencing rejection and discrimination based on a SMI, Latinx sexual

minorities may begin a process of self-evaluation and exploration of that sexual identity

group to develop a commitment and sense of belonging that can help one cope with that

prejudice and protect one’s self esteem (Greenberg, 2008). As previously mentioned,

experimental data has supported that perceived prejudice seems to increase in-group

identification (Jetten et al., 2001). In a study of Latinx men, higher experiences of gay-

14
related discrimination also predicted higher collective gay identity, providing further

support for this hypothesis Reisen et al. (2013).

Based on theory and empirical evidence that suggests difficulties in sexual

identity development among Latinx sexual minority individuals due to potential

perceived incompatibility between identities (Morales, 1989; Sarno et al., 2015),

Hypothesis 2 states that CIA between one’s sexual minority identity and Latinx identity

will be negatively related to LGBTQ+ behavioral engagement and LGBTQ+ affective

pride. That is, it is expected that individuals indicating higher levels of perceived

incompatibility between their sexual and ethnic identities will report less behavioral

involvement with the LGBTQ+ community and less affective pride.

Theories on identity development (Marcia, 1966; Phinney, 1992; Dillon et al.,

2011) propose exploration and involvement in one’s identity group facilitates the

development of sense of belonging and pride. Hypothesis 3 states that behavioral

engagement in the LGBTQ+ will mediate the relationship between heterosexist

discrimination and affective pride (see Figure 1). That is, we expect experiences of

heterosexist discrimination would lead individuals to behaviorally explore and become

involved in the LGBTQ+ community as a reaction to that prejudice and in turn this would

contribute to a sense of belonging and pride towards their identity. However, given the

cross-sectional nature of this study, an alternative model will also be tested in which

LGBTQ+ affective pride is the mediator between heterosexist discrimination and

behavioral (see Figure 2).

15
 CHAPTER 2

METHOD

Participants

A total of 654 participants met the study eligibility criteria and signed the

informed consent. Among these, 71 participants were removed for responding incorrectly

to any of the survey validity checks. Due to lack of responses to all items on at least one

measure of interest, 217 participants were removed (e.g., 8 participants did not respond

any items in the Conflicts in Allegiances scale). Data analyses were carried out on the

remaining sample of 366 participants. Of these 366 participants, there was no missing

data on the CIA measure, only 1 item was missing on the entire SMI measure across all

participants, and the heterosexist discrimination measure had only 9 items across all

participants. Mean calculation for measures was set so each score would only be

calculated when at least 80% of items were answered and mean was calculated based on

number of items answered.

Among the final sample, participants identified as cisgender male (33.3%),

cisgender female (32.8%), transgender male (6.3%), transgender female (1.9%),

genderqueer/non-binary (17.8%), other (5.2%), and 2.7% did not respond. Participants

identified as gay or lesbian (48.1%), bisexual (28.1%), asexual (5.2%), other (15.8%),

and 2.7% non-responders. The age of participants ranged from 18-63, (M = 24.3, SD =

6.6). Among the participants, 81.1% were born in the US. Participants were asked about

their family origin, 56% indicating Mexico, 12% Puerto Rico, 4% Cuba, 3% Colombia,

9% indicated multiple countries, and remaining 16% indicated various Latin-American

16
countries (each less than 2% of participants). In terms of educational attainment, 2.5%

indicated having less than high school, 23.7% had a high school diploma or equivalent,

39.1% indicated an associate’s degree or some college, 20.2% indicated a bachelor’s

degree, 10.8% indicated a graduate/professional degree, and 3.4% selected the options

“Other”. The median income for the sample was $32,500. Most participants indicated

they were single (54%), followed by being in a committed relationship (32.1%), married

(8.1%), divorced (1.1%), and 4.7% indicated other/rather not respond. Regarding

religious affiliation, 26.4% identified as atheist, 26.2% agnostic, 19.8% Catholic, 12%

Christian, and 15.6% selected “Other”.

Procedure

After receiving IRB approval, participants were recruited through Facebook

groups and purchased advertisements on Facebook and Reddit. Previous research has

supported benefits in using online recruitment over in-person sampling (e.g., at LGBT

Pride events; bars/nightclubs) as in-person recruitment at these events may be biased in

including mostly individuals who are more comfortable being “out” in public and who

are highly involved in sexual minority communities (Moradi, Mohr, Worthington, &

Fassinger, 2009). Research supports that internet studies can provide findings that are

consistent with those obtained from traditional interviewing methods (Bowen, Williams,

Daniel, & Clayton, 2008; Gosling, Vazire, Srivastava, & John, 2004; Miner, Bockting,

Swinburne, Sivakumaran, 2012; Pequegnat, Rosser, Bowen, Bull, DiClemente, Bockting,

& Zimmerman, 2007). Recruitment flyers were shared on Facebook groups and

Facebook pages that included a majority of Latinx and/or LGBTQ+ in membership.

17
Additionally, community centers, organizations, and other institutions that serve Latinx

and/or LGBTQ+ communities were contacted and asked if they could share recruitment

materials in their communities via social media or email.

Participants were asked to confirm participation eligibility before giving informed

consent: identify as Latinx/Hispanic, identify as a sexual minority (non-heterosexual),

and be at least 18 years old. Participants were given definitions for Latinx and sexual

minority. After participants affirmed each eligible criteria question and consented to the

informed consent they were asked to complete a 30-minte online survey. After

completing the study, participants had the option to enter a drawing to win one of forty

$25 Amazon gift cards. To address issues with random responding, four validity check

items (e.g. “Select the option ‘Strongly Agree’”) were placed throughout the survey. To

address potential order effects, the order in which measures appeared was randomized for

each participant. Qualtrics was used as the online survey platform for this study.

Measures

Heterosexist Discrimination. The Heterosexist Harassment, Rejection, &

Discrimination Scale (HHRSD; Szymanski, 2006), a 14-item scale, was used to measure

the frequency participants experienced heterosexist discrimination, harassment, and

rejection during the previous year for being a sexual minority. The original HHRSD scale

was constructed for a lesbian population, so items were worded to apply to a sexual

minority population, such as “How many times have you been verbally insulted because

you are a sexual minority?” and “How many times have you been rejected by friends

because you are a sexual minority?”. Responses were rated on a 6-point Likert scale

18
ranging from 1 (This event has never happened to you) to 6 (This event happened almost

all of the time [more than 70% of the time]). An average score was calculated for all

responders, with higher scores indicating a higher frequency of heterosexist

discrimination, harassment, and rejection for being a sexual minority. In a sample of

sexual minority Latinx individuals, HHRDS items had a Cronbach’s alpha of .90 (Velez,

2015). The present sample had an internal reliability coefficient of .87.

Sexual Minority Identity Behavioral Engagement & Affective Pride.

Behavioral engagement and affective pride were measured using subscales from the

Lesbian, Gay, & Bisexual Group Identity Measure (LGB-GIM; Sarno & Mohr, 2016).

Behavioral engagement measures exploratory and behavioral participation in the

LGBTQ+ community, containing items such as “I have spent time trying to find out more

about the LGBTQ+ community” and “In order to learn more about the LGBTQ+ culture,

I have often talked to other people about LGBTQ+ culture”. Affective pride measures a

sense of pride and commitment to an LBGTQ+ identity, containing items such as “I am

happy that I am a member of the LGBTQ+ community” and “I feel a strong attachment

towards the LGBTQ+ community.” Participants responded using a 6-point Likert scale

that ranged from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 6 (Strongly agree). The mean scores were used,

where higher scores on each of these subscales indicated higher behavioral engagement

and higher affective pride. In its original validation, affective pride (α = .90) and

behavioral engagement (α = .83) demonstrated appropriate internal reliability (Sarno &

Mohr, 2016). In this study, affective pride (α = .90) behavioral engagement (α = .80) had

adequate internal reliability.

19
 Conflicts in Allegiances. CIA refers to the perceived conflict and incompatibility

between one’s racial-ethnic and sexual orientation identities. Sarno et al., (2015)

developed a 6-item scale to measure CIA. For this study, items were reworded to refer

specifically to a sexual minority identity and a Latinx identity. This scale contains items

such as “I have not yet found a way to integrate being a sexual minority with being a

member of the Latinx community” and “I separate my sexual minority and Latinx

identities.” Participants responded using a 7-point Likert scale that ranged from 1

(Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree). The mean scores for scale were calculated,

where a higher mean score indicated higher CIA between identities. In its original

validation, the scale demonstrated an α = .86 among a sample of 124 LGB people of

color. The sample in the present study demonstrated an adequate internal reliability (α =

.81).

20
 CHAPTER 3

RESULTS

Preliminary Analyses and Descriptive Data

Statistical analyses were carried out using SPSS 25. Descriptive statistics,

Cronbach’s alpha, and bivariate correlations among all variables are shown in Table 1.

Absolute skewness (range = .14-1.18) and kurtosis (range = .40-1.75) among all variables

did not violate normality assumptions, based on suggested cut-off of skewness < 3,

kurtosis <10 (Weston & Gore, 2006). Preliminary analyses showed that all variables in

this study were significantly correlated with each other. Heterosexist discrimination was

positively correlated to both LGBTQ+ behavioral engagement and affective pride,

providing initial support for Hypothesis 1.

Predictors of LGBTQ+ Behavioral Engagement & Affective Pride

To test Hypothesis 2, two linear regression models were tested with behavioral

engagement and affective pride as outcomes. In both regressions models, heterosexist

discrimination and CIA were included simultaneously as predictors (shown in Table 2).

Based on these regression analyses, both heterosexist discrimination and CIA were

significant predictors of behavioral engagement (R2 = .05, F (2, 363) = 8.96, p < .001)

and affective pride (R2 = .05, F (2, 363) = 9.05, p < .001). Heterosexist discrimination

was positively related to both behavioral engagement and affective pride, supporting

Hypothesis 1. CIA was negatively related to both behavioral engagement and affective

pride, providing support for Hypothesis 2. To test interaction between heterosexist

discrimination and CIA, both predictors were centered and an interaction term was

21
constructed by multiplying the new heterosexist discrimination and CIA centered

variables (Frazier, Tix, & Barron, 2004). No interaction was found with either behavioral

engagement nor affective pride as outcomes.

Mediation Analyses

Mediational analyses were carried out using the PROCESS dialogue for SPSS 25

(Model 4; Hayes, 2013) to test the hypothesized and alternate mediation models.

Bootstrapping analysis was done with 5,000 resamples to produce 95% confidence

intervals (CIs) for the indirect effects. Using the output, indirect effects where the CI did

not contain zero were concluded to be significant and meaningful (Preacher & Hayes,

2008). Unstandardized beta coefficients from the hypothesized mediation analysis are

shown on Figure 3. For the hypothesized model, the indirect effect of heterosexist

discrimination on LGBTQ+ affective pride, mediated by LGBTQ+ behavioral

engagement, was significant (B = 0.15, SE = .05, 95% CI [.05, .25]). Upon adding

LGBTQ+ behavioral engagement as a mediator, the direct effect of heterosexist

discrimination on LGBTQ+ affective pride became non-significant (B = 0.00, SE = .05,

95% CI [-.10, .11]). These results provided support for Hypothesis 3, that is, heterosexist

discrimination was positively correlated with LGBTQ+ affective pride, fully mediated by

LGBTQ+ behavioral engagement. The model explained 48% of the variance (R2 = .48, F

= 169.78, p < .001) in LGBTQ+ affective pride. An alternate mediation model was also

tested with heterosexist discrimination predicting LGBTQ+ behavioral engagement,

mediated by LGBTQ+ affective pride. Unstandardized beta coefficients are shown in

Figure 4. The indirect effect for this mediation was significant (B = 0.12, SE = .06, 95%

22
CI [.01, .23]). Upon adding LGBTQ+ affective pride as a mediator, the direct effect of

heterosexist discrimination remained significant in predicting LGBTQ+ behavioral

engagement, (B = 0.13, SE = .06, 95% CI [.01, .25]), providing evidence for a partial

mediation. The variables in the model accounted for 49% of the variance (R2 = .49, F =

174.20, p < .001) in LGBTQ+ behavioral engagement. Overall, findings supported

hypotheses drawn from SIT, in that higher levels of perceived heterosexist discrimination

were related to higher levels of LGBTQ+ behavioral engagement and affective pride.

Hypotheses drawn from both SIT and identity development models were partially

supported, given that both the hypothesized and the alternative mediation models were

statistically valid.

23
 CHAPTER 4

DISCUSSION

The purpose of the present study was to explore factors associated with sexual

identity constructs among Latinx sexual minorities. Higher achievement of a positive

sexual identity, such as higher behavioral involvement in and affective pride towards

one’s sexual identity group, has been associated with psychological well-being. Given

this evidence, it would be beneficial for psychologists and other helping professionals to

understand how to affirm and support a positive SMI development among Latinx

communities. This study specifically applied the RIM (Branscombe et al., 1999; Tajfel &

Turner, 2001) and identity development theory (Marcia, 1966; Dillon et al., 2011) to test

heterosexist discrimination and CIA as predictors of two SMI constructs: LGBTQ+

behavioral engagement and affective pride. This study contributes to the empirical body

on SMI among the Latinx population, an understudied population in psychological

science (Huang, Brewster, Moradi, Goodman, Wiseman, & Martin, 2009). Importantly,

this research adds to theoretical frameworks of sexual identity among this population of

interest by providing exploratory empirical support for the RIM (Branscombe et al.,

1999; Tajfel & Turner, 2001) and the role of CIA on identity (Morales, 1989; Sarno et al.,

2015). Furthermore, recent intersectionality scholarship clarifies that research is not

“intersectional” by the simple study of populations with multiple identities. Instead, it is

research that contextualizes those identities and experiences and explores the meaning

and impacts on individuals in the context of privilege, power, and oppression (Grzanka,

Santos, & Moradi, 2017; Warner & Shields; 2013). This study provides empirical

24
findings using this intersectional approach by considering the contexts of Latinx sexual

minorities, particularly by exploring how forms of prejudice and unique experience of

identity conflicts (i.e., Latinx and sexual minority identities) are associated with the

process of affirming one’s sexual minority identity (Eaton & Rios, 2017; Giwa &

Greensmith, 2012).

Based on bivariate correlations and regression analyses, heterosexist

discrimination positively correlated with both LGBTQ+ behavioral engagement and with

LGBTQ+ affective pride. That is, higher experiences of heterosexist discrimination

predicted higher LGBTQ+ behavioral engagement and higher LGBTQ+ affective pride,

supporting Hypothesis 1. This evidence is congruent with propositions from the RIM

(Branscombe et al., 1999; Tajfel & Turner, 2001) that state that higher experiences of

perceived heterosexist discrimination are related to higher sexual minority group

identification. This provides quantitative evidence that this relation seems to occur across

both group identity constructs. That is, higher experiences of heterosexist discrimination

predicted both a higher involvement and exploration of one’s membership in the

LGBTQ+ community as well as predicted higher sense of belonging and pride towards

this community. These findings are congruent with previous research which found that

associations between heterosexist discrimination and variations of sexual identity

constructs (Friedman & Leaper, 2010; Reisen et al., 2013). These finding are valuable in

informing our understanding of sexual identity among Latinx sexual minorities, as these

suggest that in the context of counseling practices it is important to discuss experiences of

heterosexist discrimination among Latinx who may be exploring their sexual identity.

25
Particularly, it may benefit clinicians to consider the role heterosexist discrimination, not

only as predictive of significant psychological issues, but also as a possible catalyst in the

exploration and affirmation of an SMI. It is important to note that empirical research has

typically examined sexual identity achievement as a moderator in the relationship

between heterosexist discrimination and psychological well-being. While this study

supported positive correlations between heterosexist discrimination and SMI constructs,

future research could further clarify what factors moderate that association and

potentially negate the protective factors of sexual identity affirmation.

CIA was found to be negatively related to both SMI constructs, providing support

for Hypothesis 2. That is, higher perceived incompatibility between one’s Latinx and

sexual identities seemed to be associated with less involvement in the LGBTQ+

community and less sense of belonging and pride. These findings are congruent with

Morales’ (1989) theoretical propositions on identity development among sexual

minorities of color. Morales proposed that CIA is a normative state in the identity

development process, a state marked by anxiety as a sexual minority person of color

becomes aware of their multiple identities and potential constraints that makes integration

of those identities difficult (such as heterosexism in one’s ethnic-racial community or

racism in the LGBTQ+ community). Findings from this study provide initial evidence to

support the negative association between CIA and SMI constructs. The extant empirical

research on CIA supports its positive association with perceived racism in the LGBTQ+

community, perceived heterosexism in mothers, and negative correlation with outness to

family (Sarno et al., 2015). In a sample of LGB people of color, Santos and VanDaalen

26
(2016) found that higher CIA is predictive of higher depressive symptoms when LGB

identity commitment is low. Given these initial findings for CIA, future research should

further explore the role of CIA in psychological well-being among Latinx sexual

minorities, particularly exploring its association with individual forms of prejudice (e.g.,

heterosexism in the Latinx community and racism in the LGBTQ+).

For Hypothesis 3, results supported both they hypothesized and the alternate

mediational models. LGBTQ+ behavioral engagement emerged as a mediator between

heterosexist discrimination and LGBTQ+ affective pride. In testing the alternate model,

LGBTQ+ affective pride was also found to be a significant mediator between heterosexist

discrimination and LGBTQ+ behavioral engagement. These findings provide a

significant contribution to our understanding of heterosexist discrimination and behavior

and affective sexual identity processes. Overall, findings appear to support SIT

propositions and partially support sexual identity development theories in that

heterosexist discrimination predicted higher identification with one’s sexual identity

group and supported mediational relations between both behavioral engagement and

affective pride. Many sexual identity development models (e.g. Dillon et al., 2011; Cass,

1979; Marcia, 1966) propose the trajectory beginning with exploration and then

continuing into commitment and pride, a theoretical proposition supported by the

hypothesized mediational model tested in this study. Savin-Williams and Cohen (2015),

however, argued that this sequential-stage framework of sexual identity development

may be reductive and not truly reflective of sexual minorities’ experiences, and instead

called for a focus on the diverse styles of development trajectories. Longitudinal studies

27
that examine sexual identity milestones support the diversity in identity development

trajectories (Calzo et al., 2011; Martos et al., 2015; Moreira, 2015; Rosario et al., 2006).

Conceptually, it makes sense to state that sexual identity development may begin with

initial awareness, continues into behavioral exploration and involvement, and then leads

to a development of a sense of belonging. Alternatively, it may be possible that among

some Latinx sexual minorities, there may be less access behaviorally engagement and

exploration of the LGBTQ+ community and so may need to form a sense of pride

through internal introspection that may later lead to active and behavioral involvement

with the LGBTQ+ community. The latter descriptions may explain the results found in

the alternate mediation model. Future longitudinal research could explore these identity

constructs to clarify the directionality between behavioral engagement and affective pride

among Latinx communities.

Limitations and Conclusions

This study has important limitations that need to be considered. A significant

limitation of this study is its cross-sectional nature. This study proposed a mediational

model in which behavioral engagement in the LGBTQ+ was hypothesized to mediate the

influence of heterosexist discrimination on LGBTQ+ affective pride. This order of

identity constructs was based on sexual identity development theories (e.g., Cass, 1979;

Dillon et al., 2011; Troiden, 1979) that propose this sequential development. An alternate

model in which affective pride mediated the relation between heterosexist discrimination

and behavioral engagement was also tested. Both the proposed model and the alternate

model were significant, supporting both as valid models in explaining the data from this

28
sample. Given these results, it is not possible to conclude causation or directionality

between behavioral engagement and affective pride. Furthermore, mediation analyses

argue for causality, however, given the cross-sectional nature of this study, causal claims

are not possible. Despite this limitation, this study makes significant contributions in

empirically supporting the relations between heterosexist discrimination and LGBTQ+

identity constructs among Latinx sexual minorities, a severely understudied population in

psychological research (Huang et al., 2009). These findings can inform mental health

professionals, other helping professionals, and LGBTQ+ community advocates in

supporting and affirming Latinx sexual minorities in the context of heterosexist

discrimination. Findings from this study can also guide future research on Latinx sexual

identity development, especially longitudinal research that aims to elucidate the

directionality of behavioral and affective processes in the identity development process.

Another limitation of this study is the data recruitment method, being an online

convenient sample, makes generalization and external validity claims more difficulty.

Recruitment for this data occurred through sharing study information on various

LGBTQ+ and Latinx oriented Facebook groups, community centers, and through

Facebook/Reddit advertisements. Many of the participants in this study self-affiliated

with LGBTQ+ communities and groups, which may not be representative of the overall

Latinx sexual minority population. Nonetheless, research that focuses specifically on

Latinx sexual minorities is scarce or often aggregated with other ethnic-racial groups.

This study contributes significant empirical findings that expand our understanding of

SMI in the Latinx community, providing invaluable information for helping professionals

29
and community centers that are working specifically with Latinx sexual minorities.

Future research should continue to explore the intricacies and experiences of the Latinx

LGBTQ+ community by exploring sexual identity constructs and mental health in groups

that are not aggregated across racial-ethnic groups. Additionally, Latinx sexual identity

research needs to further parse out the letters in LGBTQ+ among the Latinx community,

to understand the different experiences across various gender and sexual orientation

identities (e.g., cisgender vs non-cisgender, monosexual vs polysexual, etc.).

This study applied an intersectional approach by incorporating a measure of

minority identity conflicts. This is considered both a limitation and a strength of this

study. It is a limitation, because true intersectional framework was not applied as this

study did not measure overlapping forms of power, privilege, and oppression that impact

this community. Despite that limitation, this study provides a significant contribution in

measuring and analyzing the relation between identity conflicts and sexual identity,

especially given that this study supported that higher identity conflicts leads to less

LGBTQ+ behavioral engagement and affective pride. This construct of identity conflicts

seems to be an important line of investigation among ethnic-racial and sexual minorities.

Further research among Latinx sexual minorities should explore the relations of CIA on

mental health outcomes. Furthermore, to apply a true intersectional framework, future

research should measure the associations between experiences of heterosexism within the

Latinx community and racism within the LGBTQ+ community and how these influence

Latinx and sexual identity.

30
 The aim of this study was to explore factors that predict sexual identity constructs

among Latinx sexual minorities. The main strengths of this study were in providing

quantitative support for heterosexist discrimination and CIA two LGBTQ+ identity

constructs. Furthermore, analyses supported mediational pathways between heterosexist

discrimination and those two LGBTQ+ identity constructs. Though directionally or

causal claims cannot be made, helping professionals can use these findings to consider

how a client’s involvement in the LGBTQ+ community may be influencing their sense of

belonging and identity-affirmation process, especially among client’s who may be

experiencing high levels of heterosexist discrimination. Clinicians and other helping

professionals working with Latinx sexual minorities may benefit in considering and

exploring dynamics and relations between the behavioral and affective dimensions of

SMI. Especially for clients who may be experiencing higher isolation or psychological

stress related to heterosexism, exploration of these behavioral and affective dimensions of

SMI may help in providing these clients community and emotional resources to buffer

the effects of heterosexism. Furthermore, these findings support the importance of

discussing potential identity conflicts among Latinx sexual minorities. A culturally-

informed counseling practice would incorporate discussions around perceived identity

incompatibility among clients who may be struggling in achieving a positive sense of

sexual minority identity.

31
 REFERENCES

Ai A. L., Aisenber, E., Weiss, S. I., & Salazar, D. (2014). Racial/ethnic identity and
subjective physical and mental health of Latino Americans: An asset within?
American Journal of Community Psychology, 56, 173-184

Armenta B. E., & Hunt, J. S. (2009). Responding to societal devaluation: Effects of

perceived personal and group discrimination on the ethnic group identification
and personal self-esteem of Latino/Latina adolescents. Group Processes &
Intergroup Relations, 12, 23-29.

Ashmore, R. D., Deaux, K., & McLaughlin-Volpe, T. (2004). An organizing framework

for collective identity: Articulation and significance of multidimensionality.
Psychological Bulletin, 130, 80–114.

Balsam, K. F., Molina, Y., Beadnell, B., Simoni, J., & Walters, K. (2011). Measuring
multiple minority stress: The LGBT people of color microaggressions scale.
Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 17, 163-174.

Branscombe, N. R., Schmitt, M. T., & Harvey, R. D. (1999). Perceiving pervasive

discrimination among african americans: Implications for group identification and
well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 135-149.

Bowen, A. M., Williams, M. L., Daniel, C. M., & Clayton, S. (2008). Internet based HIV
prevention research targeting rural MSM: Feasibility, acceptability, and
preliminary efficacy. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 31, 463-477. PMCID:
PMC2614302

Bruce, D., Ramirez-Valles, J., & Campbell, R. T. (2008). Stigmatization, substance use,
and sexual risk behavior among Latino gay and bisexual men and transgender
persons. Journal of Drug Issues, 235-260

Calzo, J. P., Antonucci, T. C., Mays, V. M., & Cochran, S. D. (2011). Retrospective
recall of sexual orientation identity development among gay, lesbian, and bisexual
adults. Developmental Psychology, 47, 1658-1673.

Cass, V. C. (1979). Homosexual identity formation: A theoretical model. Journal of

Homosexuality, 4, 219–235.

Choi, K. H., Paul, J., Ayala, G., Boylan, R., & Gregorich, S. E. (2013). Experiences of
discrimination and their impact on the mental health among African American,
Asian and Pacific Islander, and Latino men who have sex with men. American
Journal of Public Health, 103, 868–874.

32
Cole, E. R. (2009). Intersectionality and research in psychology. American Psychologist,
64, 170–180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0014564.

Crocker, J., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective
properties of stigma. Psychological Review, 96, 608-630.

Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist
critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics.
University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989, 139–168.

Diamond, L. M. (2000). Sexual identity, attractions, and behavior among young sexual-
minority women over a 2-year period. Developmental Psychology, 36, 241-250.

Diaz, R. M., Ayala, G., Bein, E., Henne, J., & Martin, B. V. (2001). The impact of
homophobia, poverty, and racism on the mental health of gay and bisexual Latino
men: Findings from 3 to US cities. American Journal of Public Health, 91, 927–
932.

Dillon, F. R., Worthington, R. L., & Moradi, B. (2011). Sexual identity as a universal
process. In S. J. Schwartz, K. Luyckx, & V. L. Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook of
identity theory and research (pp. 649–670). New York, NY, US: Springer Science
+ Business Media, New York, NY.

Drasin, H., Beals, K. P., Elliott, M. N., Lever, J., Klein, D. J., & Schuster, M. A. (2008).
Age cohort differences in the developmental milestones of gay men. Journal of
Homosexuality, 54, 381-399.

Dubé, E. M., & Savin-Williams, R. (1999). Sexual identity development among ethnic
sexual-minority male youths. Developmental Psychology, 35, 1389-1398.

Dunn, T. L., & Szymanski, D. M. (2017). Heterosexist discrimination and LGBQ

activism: Examining a moderated mediation model. Psychology of Sexual
Orientation and Gender Diversity, 5, 13-24.

Eaton, A. A., & Rios, D. (2017). Social challenges faced by queer latino college men:
Navigating negative responses to coming out in a double minority sample of
emerging adults. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 23, 457-
467.

Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity, youth and crisis. New York, NY: Norton.

Fassinger, R. E., & Miller, B. A. (1996). Validation of an inclusive model of sexual

minority identity formation on a sample of gay men. Journal of Homosexuality,
32, 53–78. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v32n02_04

33
Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Testing moderator and mediator effects
in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 115–
134.

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.

Ghabrial, M. A. (2017). “Trying to figure out where we belong”: Narratives of racialized

sexual minorities on community, identity, discrimination, and health. Sexuality
Research and Social Policy, 14, 42–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-016-0229-
x

Ghavami, N., Fingerhut, A., Peplau, L. A., Grant, S. K., & Wittig, M. A. (2011). Testing
a model of minority identity achievement, identity affirmation, and psychological
well-being among ethnic minority and sexual minority individuals. Cultural
Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 17, 79-88.

Giamo, L. S., Schmitt, M. T., & Outten R. H. (2012). Perceived discrimination, group
identification, and life satisfaction among multiracial people: A test of the
rejection-identification model. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority
Psychology, 18, 319-328.

Giwa, S., & Greensmith, C. (2012). Race relations and racism in the LGBTQ community
of toronto: Perceptions of gay and queer social service providers of color. Journal
of Homosexuality, 59, 149-185.

Gosling, S. D., Vazire, S., Srivastava, S., & John, O. P. (2004). Should we trust web-
based studies? American Psychologist, 59, 93-104. PMID: 14992636

Grzanka, P. R., Santos, C. E., & Moradi, B. (2017). Intersectionality research in

counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 64, 453-457.

Greenberg, J. (2008). Understanding the vital human quest for self-esteem. Perspectives
on Psychological Science, 3, 48-55.

Harper, G. W., Serrano, P. A., Bruce, D., & Bauermeister, J. A. (2016). The Internet’s
multiple roles in facilitating the sexual orientation identity development of gay
and bisexual male adolescents. American Journal of Men's Health, 10, 359-376.

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation and conditional process

analysis: A regression based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

34
Huang, Y. P., Brewster, M. E., Moradi, B., Goodman, M. B., Wiseman, M. C., & Martin,
A. (2009). Content analysis of literature about LGB people of color: 1998-2007.
The Counseling Psychologist, 38, 363-396, doi:10.1177/0011000009335255

Herek G. M., Gillis J. R., Cogan J. C. (2009). Internalized stigma among sexual minority
adults: Insights from a social psychological perspective. Journal of Counseling
Psychology. 56, 32–43

Jamil, O. B., Harper, G. W., & Fernandez, M. I. (2009). Sexual and ethnic identity
development among gay–bisexual–questioning (GBQ) male ethnic minority
adolescents. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 15, 203-214.

Jetten, J., Branscombe, N. R., Schmitt, M. T., & Spears, R. (2001). Rebels with a cause:
Group identification as a response to perceived discrimination from the
mainstream. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1204–1213.

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, 500–
510.

Lambe, J., Cerezo, A., & O'Shaughnessy, T. (2017). Minority stress, community
involvement, and mental health among bisexual women. Psychology of Sexual
Orientation and Gender Diversity, 4, 218-226.

Logie, C. H., & Rwigema, M. (2014). "The normative idea of queer is a white person":
Understanding perceptions of white privilege among lesbian, bisexual, and queer
women of color in Toronto, Canada. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 18, 174-191.

Major, B. (2006). New perspectives on stigma and psychological well-being. In S. Levin,

& C. van Laar (Eds.), Stigma and group inequality: Social psychological
perspectives; stigma and group inequality: Social psychological perspectives(pp.
193-210, Chapter xiii, 333 Pages) Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers,
Mahwah, NJ.

Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego-identity status. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 551-558.

Martos, A. J., Nezhad, S., & Meyer, I. H. (2015). Variations in sexual identity milestones
among lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. Sexuality Research & Social Policy: A
Journal of the NSRC, 12, 24-33.

McCarn, S. R., & Fassinger, R. E. (1996). Revisioning sexual minority identity

formation. The Counseling Psychologist, 24, 508–534.

35
Mereish, E. H., Katz-Wise, S., & Woulfe, J. (2017). Bisexual-specific minority stressors,
psychological distress, and suicidality in bisexual individuals: The mediating role
of loneliness. Prevention Science, 18, 716-725.

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.

Miner, M.H., Bockting, W.O., Swinburne R. R., Sivakumaran, R. (2012). Conducting

Internet research with the transgender population: Reaching broad samples and
collecting valid data. Social Science Computer Review, 30, 202-211.

Moradi, B., Mohr, J. J., Worthington, R. L., & Fassinger, R. E. (2009). Counseling
psychology research on sexual (orientation) minority issues: Conceptual and
methodological challenges and opportunities. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
56, 5-22. doi:10.1037/a0014572

Morales, E. S. (1989). Ethnic minority families and minority gays and lesbians. Marriage
& Family Review, 14, 217–239.

Moreira, A. D., Halkitis, P. N., & Kapadia, F. (2015). Sexual identity development of a
new generation of emerging adult men: The P18 cohort study. Psychology of
Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 2, 159-167.

Mustanski, B., Kuper, L., & Greene, G. J. (2014). Development of sexual orientation and
identity. In D. L. Tolman, L. M. Diamond, J. A. Bauermeister, W. H. George, J.
G. Pfaus & L. M. Ward (Eds.), APA handbook of sexuality and psychology, vol.
1: Person-based approaches; (pp. 597-628, Chapter xxviii, 804 Pages) American
Psychological Association, Washington, DC.

Pastrana, J. (2015). Being out to others: The relative importance of family support,
identity, and religion for LGBT Latina/os. Latino Studies 13, 88-112.

Pequegnat, W., Rosser, B.R.S., Bowen, A.M., Bull, S.S., DiClemente, R.J., Bockting,
W.O, & Zimmerman, R. (2007). Conducting Internet-based HIV/STD prevention
survey research: Considerations in design and evaluation. AIDS and Behavior, 11,
505-521.

Phinney, J. S. (1992). The multigroup ethnic identity measure: A new scale for use with
diverse groups. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7, 156–176.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for
assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior

36
 Research Methods, 40, 879–891.

Reisen, C. A., Brooks, K. D., Zea, M. C., Poppen, P. J., & Bianchi, F. T. (2013). Can
additive measures add to an intersectional understanding? Experiences of gay and
ethnic discrimination among HIV-positive latino gay men. Cultural Diversity and
Ethnic Minority Psychology, 19, 208-217.

Riggle, E. D. B., Mohr, J. J., Rostosky, S. S., Fingerhut, A. W., & Balsam, K. F. (2014).
A multifactor lesbian, gay, and bisexual positive identity measure (LGB-PIM).
Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 1, 398-411.

Rosario, M., Schrimshaw, E. W., & Hunter, J. (2004). Ethnic/racial differences in the
coming-out process of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths: A comparison of sexual
identity development over time. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority
Psychology, 10, 215-228.

Rosario, M., Schrimshaw, E. W., Hunter, J., & Braun, L. (2006). Sexual identity
development among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths: Consistency and change
over time. Journal of Sex Research, 43, 46-58.

Santos, C. E., & VanDaalen, R. A. (2016). The associations of sexual and ethnic–racial
identity commitment, conflicts in allegiances, and mental health among lesbian,
gay, and bisexual racial and ethnic minority adults. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 63, 668-676.

Sarno, E. L., & Mohr, J. J. (2016). Adapting the multigroup ethnic identity measure to
assess LGB group identity. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender
Diversity, 3, 293-303.

Sarno, E. L., Mohr, J. J., Jackson, S. D., & Fassinger, R. E. (2015). When identities
collide: Conflicts in allegiances among LGB people of color. Cultural Diversity
and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 21, 550-559.

Savin-Williams, R., & Cohen, K. M. (2015). Developmental trajectories and milestones

of lesbian, gay, and bisexual young people. International Review of
Psychiatry, 27, 357-366.

Schmitt, M. T., Spears, R., & Branscombe, N. R. (2003). Constructing a minority group
identity out of shared rejection: The case of international students. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 1-12.

Shramko, M., Toomey, R. B., & Anhalt, K. (2018). Profiles of minority stressors and
identity centrality among sexual minority Latinx youth. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry.

37
Szymanski, D. M. (2006). Does internalized heterosexism moderate the link between
heterosexist events and lesbians' psychological distress? Sex Roles, 54, 227-234.

Szymanski, D. M., Mikorski, R., & Carretta, R. F. (2017). Heterosexism and LGB
positive identity: Roles of coping and personal growth initiative. The Counseling
Psychologist, 45, 294-319.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (2001). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In M. A.

Hogg & D. Abrams (Eds.), Intergroup relations: Essential readings (pp. 94–109).
New York, Ny: Psychology Press.

Toomey, R. B., Anhalt, K., & Shramko, M. (2016). An examination of the validity and
reliability of a measure of sexual orientation identity exploration, resolution, and
affirmation. Self and Identity, 15, 488-504.

Troiden, R. R. (1979). Becoming homosexual: a model of gay identity acquisition.

Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1521/00332747.1979.11024039

Velez, B. L., Moradi, B., & DeBlaere, C. (2015). Multiple oppressions and the mental
health of sexual minority Latina/o individuals. The Counseling Psychologist, 43,
7–38.

Warner, L. R., & Shields, S. A. (2013). The intersections of sexuality, gender, and race:
Identity research at the crossroads. Sex Roles, 68, 803-810.

Weston, R., & Gore, P. A. (2006). A brief guide to structural equation modeling. The
Counseling Psychologist, 34, 719–751. doi:10.1177/0011000006286345

Worthington, R. L., Navarro, R. L., Savoy, H. B., & Hampton, D. (2008). Development,
reliability, and validity of the measure of sexual identity exploration and
commitment (MOSIEC). Developmental Psychology, 44, 22–33.

Zea, M. C., Reisen, C. A., & Poppen, P. J. (1999). Psychological well-being among latino
lesbians and gay men. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 5, 371-
379.

Zimmerman, L., Darnell, D. A., Rhew, I. C., Lee, C. M., & Kaysen, D. (2015). Resilience
in community: A social ecological development model for young adult sexual
minority women. American Journal of Community Psychology, 55, 179-190.

38
 TABLES

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Range M SD 1 2 3
1. Heterosexist Discrimination 1-5 1.96 0.70 ___

2. Conflicts in Allegiances 1-7 3.47 1.34 .11* ___

3. LGBTQ+ Behavioral
1-6 4.41 1.14 .16** -.13** ___
Engagement
4. LGBTQ+ Affective Pride 1-6 5.00 0.98 .11* -.17** .70**

Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, *** p < .001

39
Table 2

Predictors of LGBTQ+ Behavioral Engagement & Affective Pride

Criterion and Predictor variable B t R2 ∆R2 ∆F df

Step 1 Behavioral Engagement .05 .05 8.96*** 363

Heterosexist discrimination .28 3.38**

Conflicts in Allegiances -.13 -2.92**

Step 2 .05 .00 .150 362

Heterosexist discrimination × CIA -.02 -.39

Step 1 Affective Pride .05 .05 9.05*** 363

Heterosexist discrimination .18 2.58*

Conflicts in Allegiances -.14 -3.66***

Step 2 .05 .00 2.10 362

Heterosexist discrimination × CIA -.07 -1.45

Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, *** p < .001

40
 FIGURES

Figure 1

Proposed mediation model predicting LGBTQ+ affective pride

41
Figure 2

Proposed alternate mediation model predicting LGBTQ+ behavioral engagement

42
Figure 3

Mediation model of direct and indirect relations of heterosexist discrimination predicting

LGBTQ+ affective pride. Values reflect unstandardized beta coefficients. Predictor-

criterion direct effect included in parentheses.

*p < .05 *** p < .001

43
Figure 4

Alternate mediation model of direct and indirect relations of heterosexist discrimination

predicting LGBTQ+ behavioral engagement. Values reflect unstandardized beta

coefficients. Predictor-criterion direct effect included in parentheses.

*p < .05 *** p < .001

44