|
|
Issue 1, January 2004
Psychological & Social Sciences
Effects of Age of Self-Identification, Age of Disclosure of
Sexual Orientation, and Perceived Social Support on Self-Esteem in
Gay and Lesbian Youth
Kimberly Cruise
York University
Advisor:
Ed Haltrecht, Ph.D.
York University
Abstract
The relationships between age of self-identification as gay or
lesbian, age of disclosure of sexual orientation, perceived social
support, and self-esteem were investigated in this study. Fifty
participants under the age of 25 from various venues were recruited
and surveyed. Four instruments were used, including the Rosenberg
Self-Esteem (RSE) measure, Perceived Social Support (PSS)-Friends
and Perceived Social Support-Family scales, as well as a questionnaire
addressing coming out milestones. Significant correlations were
found between self-esteem and the number of years a person has been
out, age of self-identification as gay or lesbian, and age of first
disclosure of sexual orientation. Results also suggest that PSS-friends
has greater predictive value than PSS-family with regard to RSE
scores in gay and lesbian youth.
Introduction
Research indicates that many children who later identify as gay,
lesbian, or bisexual experience a vague sense of being “different”
as a child, but are unable to clearly label this difference (Bell
et al. 1981). Indeed, children can recognize attractions
at young ages, but self-labels do not become solidified until adolescence
(Remafedi et al. 1992). It is during this period of adolescence
that gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, queer (GLBTQ) youth
are most vulnerable to damage to their emerging self-identity. Societal
intolerance of non-heterosexual feelings and behaviors can and usually
does bring stress and conflict to these youths. Stress arises when
individuals recognize that an integral aspect of who they are is
the basis for being treated differently (Carrion and Lock 1997).
Isolation, ridicule, and humiliation that stem from societal intolerance
may affect identity formation, which in turn may lead to self-loathing.
Overt homophobia may become internalized as self-awareness develops.
It is during this developmental period that GLBTQ youth can begin
to view themselves through the eyes of their peers. Unfortunately,
it is not uncommon for youth in the sexual minority to experience
family and peer rejection, marginalization, and victimization (Carrion
and Lock 1997).
The stress-coping model of psychological illness suggests that environmental
stressors interact with the individual and can result in a variety
of situations and symptoms observed in many GLBTQ youth (Moos 1992).
In this case, environmental stressors take the form of social intolerance
and perhaps even ostracism from mainstream peer groups or isolation
from their families. Remafedi reported that 26% of gay and lesbian
youth leave home due to conflicts over sexual identity (1994), and
an estimated 60% are verbally or physically assaulted by family
members, most often by their mothers (Pilkington and D’Augelli
1995). Gay and lesbian youth must develop a “strategy of deception”
to avoid the overt manifestations of homophobia in the form of verbal
and physical assaults. Research shows that 45% of gay and 20% of
lesbian youth experience verbal or physical assault in high school
(Remafedi 1994). In the educational setting, being called “homosexual”
or “lesbian” (or pejorative variations) is reported
to be the worst type of harassment among high schoolers, even worse
than physical abuse (Remafedi 1994). Attempts to avoid violence
may lead to truancy and its ramifications, including leaving school
before graduation. Studies estimate that up to 28% of GLBTQ youth
drop out of high school because of harassment (Remafedi 1994). Peer
harassment can also result in a delay in acceptance of sexual orientation,
which can increase the likelihood of poor self-image (Isay 1991).
The development of poor self-image can in turn increase the risk
for depression, suicide, addictive disorders, substance abuse, and
anxiety disorders (Lock and Kleis 1996).
All
these factors must be considered to assess why gay and lesbian youth
are two to three times more likely to attempt suicide than are their
heterosexual peers. Victimization by their peers may account for
the fact that 30% of gay and lesbian adolescents have substance
abuse problems, while only 3% of the adolescent population in general
are affected by the same problem (USDHSS 1989).
It
has been shown that high self-esteem and satisfaction with social
supports may moderate gay-identified stressors (Grossman and Kerner
1998). Therefore, research aimed at identifying factors relating
to self-esteem and developing programs to optimize these factors
for at-risk gay and lesbian youth is vital. This study will address
such issues as how perceived social support, age of self-identification
as a sexual minority, age at first disclosure of sexual orientation
to another person, and number of years “out” affect
self-esteem.
Self-Esteem
in Queer Youths
Past
studies have shown that increased self-esteem and social supports
may moderate gay-identified stressors, and that increased self-esteem
led to decreased levels of emotional distress (Rosario et al.
1995). Grossman and Kerner (1998) hypothesized that gay and lesbian
youths with high self-esteem and high satisfaction with support
systems would have lower emotional distress scores; however, this
hypothesis was not supported. Emotional distress scores related
to alcohol and substance abuse, suicide, prostitution, running away,
and school problems were not lower in these youths. High scores
on the Rosenberg self-esteem (RSE) questionnaire were predictive
of emotional distress, while high scores on the Support Network
Survey (used to measure perceived social support) were not.
A study
by Carrion and Lock (1997) determined that societal intolerance
could be detrimental to healthy identity formation. They proposed
a stage model of coming-out milestone events. Eight serial stages
were delineated: progression from internal discovery to inner exploration
of attraction to a same-sex sexual object, early acceptance of an
integrated sexual self, congruence probing, further acceptance of
an integrated sexual self, self-esteem consolidation, mature formation
of an integrated self-identity, and finally, an integrated self-identity
within a social context. The researchers describe how identity formation
is affected by societal intolerance during the coming-out process
and how its impairment may increase the risk for mental health problems
in the gay and lesbian community.
A study
by Maguen (2002) also discussed developmental milestones of gay
and lesbian youth. Of interest in this study was the hypothesis
that completion of identity development milestones would be associated
with self-esteem for this population, specifically, that early completion
of milestones leads to increased self-esteem. The findings of this
study were that self-esteem was not associated with any specific
milestone age. Among the milestones discussed were awareness of
same-sex attraction, first same-sex sexual experience, self-labeling,
and, finally, disclosure of sexual orientation to another person.
They found that achievement of these milestones is a unique experience,
and that individuals take diverse trajectories, as opposed to accomplishing
these milestones in an invariable sequence.
Savin-Williams
(1989) proposed that the importance of people to the subject determines
the saliency of their relationship, and that their self-esteem was
most affected by perceived social support provided to the adolescents
by their parents. The Gay and Lesbian Questionnaire (GLQ) was administered
to determine degree of comfort with being gay or lesbian, and self-esteem
was estimated from this measure. This study showed that, for only
lesbians (not gay males), perceived social support of their parents
was correlated with degree of comfort with being lesbian. The study
also showed that, for only gay males (not lesbians), degree of comfort
with being gay was predictive of self-esteem. In other words, the
perceived social support of these youths’ parents could not
predict self-esteem for females, only for males, and not as well
as comfort-level with sexual orientation predicted self-esteem scores.
A second
study by Savin-Williams (1990) proposed that satisfaction with parental
relationships, along with contact with parents, marital status of
parents, and age of parents, would be better predictors of self-esteem
than the amount of perceived social support provided by these parents.
For women, a satisfying relationship with their mother led to the
highest self-esteem scores. For gay males, a satisfying relationship
with their mothers and a satisfying (but infrequent) relationship
with their fathers led to the highest self-esteem scores. A notable
exception was that for all adolescents, regardless of gender, an
infrequent relationship with mothers led to the highest self-esteem.
In this instance, “infrequent” may be defined as interpersonal
interactions that do not take place on a regular basis, and may
in fact take place only once or twice each year or less. The author
suggests this is the result of a striving for independence on the
part of the adolescent. Savin-Williams also found in the study discussed
above that contact with parents is not predictive of self-esteem,
citing the 1989 finding that the importance of a relationship, or
its saliency, is most influential regarding the correlation between
social support and self-esteem.
These
new findings in the study of self-esteem in GLBTQ youth present
new challenges. Grossman and Kerner (1998) found that perceived
social support (as measured by the Support Network Scale) was not
correlated with self-esteem. It begs the question though: If levels
of emotional distress were predictive of RSE scores (Grossman and
Kerner 1989), and behavior resulting from homophobia has been shown
to produce substantial emotional distress in gay and lesbian youth,
then perhaps measuring the perceived social support of a specific
group (one that does not produce homophobic stressors) using an
instrument targeting that group, would be a better predictor of
self-esteem. The stages proposed by Carrion and Lock (1998) suggest
a serial progression of self-acceptance. Progression through these
stages (and subsequent increases in self-acceptance) should lead
to increased self-esteem. Perhaps this is because parental intolerance
and fear of verbal and/or physical assault, coupled with the inherent
dependent nature of these relationships, creates homophobic tension
in these dyads. Would perceived social support of others (those
GLBTQ youth were not dependent on) be better predictors of self-esteem?
The Savin-Williams (1990) study suggested that adolescents with
an infrequent relationship with their mothers showed a high score
of self-esteem as measured by the RSE scale. The present study will
consider the possibility that this instead is a reflection of the
increased importance of peers at this developmental stage. The same
Savin-Williams study also suggests that limited parental contact
was not found to be predictive of self-esteem. The current study
explores the possibility that a limited amount of contact with parents
is reflective of the decreased importance of the parental relationship
in the lives of GLBTQ youth (Ambert 2001). Finally, regarding milestone
achievement (Maguen 2002), this study suggests that instead of early
completion of milestones, the number of years out is correlated
with self-esteem.
In
this study, three specific assertions will be explored. Savin–Williams
(1989) found that perceived social support of parents is a poor
predictor of self-esteem. This study expects to find that the score
on a perceived social support of friends instrument will prove more
predictive of self-esteem than the score on a perceived social support
of family instrument. Second, this study holds the expectation that,
as young adults, those who self-identify as a sexual minority (defined
in this study as gay or lesbian) at younger ages will have higher
self-esteem scores than those who self-identify at older ages. Finally,
the current study predicts that those who disclose their sexual
orientation to others at younger ages will have higher self-esteem
scores than those who first disclose this information at older ages.
Materials
and Methods
Subjects
A
cross-sectional sample of self-identified gay and lesbian youth
consisting of 50 subjects between the ages of 15 and 25 served as
the participants for this study. The mean age of the study group
recruited was 20.06 years. The gender distribution of the participants
was 27 (54%) male and 23 (46%) female. The higher number of men
in the study may be indicative of the trend for women to come out
later in life (Monteflores and Schultz 1978). The mean number of
years out was 5.43 years. Number of years out was calculated by
subtracting the subject’s age when he or she first self-identified
as a sexual minority from the reported age at the time of participation
in the study. The mean number of years between self-identification
and first disclosure was 2.53 years and may be referred to as “lag”
time in the remainder of this study.
Subjects
were recruited from a variety of locations in the southern Ontario,
Canada, region. Approximately half of the subjects are representative
of rural areas, while the remainder are from urban areas. Eighteen
of the 50 participants, or 36%, were undergraduates at local universities.
Twenty-seven of the participants, 54%, were high school students.
The remaining five participants, 10%, were recruited from within
the gay community.
In
past research, “out” has been defined in various ways,
ranging from the outward expression of one’s sexuality to
the process by which sexual orientation is incorporated into identity
(Carrion and Lock 1997). Sengers (1969) defined the concept as “self-acceptance.”
Cass (1979) emphasized the cognitive aspects of coming out, and
cited cognitive dissonance as a motivator while others have emphasized
behavioral aspects of coming out including self-disclosure and involvement
in the homosexual community (Sullivan and Schneider 1987). Homosexuality
is defined here as simply self-attribution as a gay male or lesbian
individual. Berger (1984) cites this as the most valid definition.
Measures
Instruments
used include the RSE questionnaire, Perceived Social Support-Friends
(PSS-Friends), Perceived Social Support-Family (PSS-Family), and
a seven- item researcher-designed questionnaire.
The
RSE (Rosenberg 1965) is a 10-item Likert-type questionnaire addressing
global self-esteem. Appropriate items were reverse-scored as indicated,
and resulting scores of 10 to 40 were obtained. Inter-item reliability
and the RSE’s correlation with other self-report, self-esteem
scales are consistently high (Demo 1985).
The
PSS-Friends and PSS-Family (Procidano and Heller 1983) each “measure
the degree one perceives his/her needs for support is fulfilled
by friends and family” (Demo 1985). A factor analysis of these
instruments indicates that each measures a single specific domain,
perceived social support of either friends or family independent
of each other. Initial “norms” were determined by testing
subjects with a mean age of 19. Appropriate items were reverse-scored
as indicated, and resulting scores of 0 to 20 were obtained. Both
the PSS-Friends and the PSS-Family have excellent internal consistency
and good concurrent validity with other perceived support measures
(Demo 1985).
The
final instrument utilized in this study was a seven-item questionnaire
designed by the author (Appendix A). The measure consisted of items
addressing age, gender, age of self-identification as gay or lesbian,
age of first disclosure of sexual orientation, extent of disclosure
to family, and extent of disclosure to friends. From these items,
number of years out, lag time between self-identification and first
disclosure, and scores for extent of disclosure (based on the number
of categories of family and friends who were aware of the subject’s
sexual orientation) were calculated. The GLQ designed by Blumstein-Schwartz
(1983) was not utilized because of its length, and because many
of the items addressed issues inconsequential to the current study.
Procedure
Subjects
were recruited from various locations around the greater-Toronto
area. Five subjects were acquired from a local gay club, four were
from a queer youth support network in Peterborough (two youth members
and two counselors), 16 subjects came from the York University GLBTQ
association on campus, and 25 subjects came from local high school
gay-straight alliances, for a total of 50 subjects. Participation
was taken as implied consent. Adults at youth groups acted in
loco parentis for participants under 18. Many youths were not
out to their parents; therefore, obtaining their consent would not
be in the subject’s best interest. All subjects were informed
that the study was about GLBTQ youth only, and no mention of the
other variables was made. They were informed of the voluntary nature
of the study, ensured of confidentiality, and given the opportunity
to leave a contact e-mail address (separate from their questionnaire
packet) for debriefing after the study had been completed.
The
RSE, PSS-Friends, and PSS-Family were presented in a counterbalanced
fashion. The researcher-developed questionnaire was always presented
last in order to control for inter-instrumental influences. The
inclusion of questions pertaining to specific milestones of sexual
orientation in the latter measure could present possible opportunities
for identification of demand characteristics. The measures were
distributed, administered, collected, and scored by the researcher
to ensure reliability. Any questionnaire packet considered “incomplete,”
that is, with one or more skipped questions or pages, was discarded.
Data was compiled and computed using the SPSS program of statistical
analysis and included descriptive accounts of variables, inter-correlations
among variables, and regression analysis of variables on self-esteem.
Results
Selected factors
affecting self-esteem in GLBTQ youth are described. Descriptive
statistics are used to present findings of means of such elements
as self-esteem, PSS of friends, PSS of family, number of years out,
age of self-identification as gay or lesbian, age of disclosure
of sexual orientation, and lag time between the two. Table 1 presents
the descriptive statistics for all study variables. Bivariate correlations
were considered between self-esteem and all of the above-mentioned
study variables. Table
2 presents these inter-correlated results. The results of a
multiple regression analysis are used to explain the degree to which
perceived social support of friends and of family, number of years
out, and both age of self-identification and age of first disclosure
contribute to the variance of self-esteem. The results of the regression
analysis can be found in Table
3.
| |
Mean |
Standard Deviation |
N |
| Rosenberg self esteem |
18.9600 |
7.33168 |
50 |
| Perceived social support, family |
7.4800 |
5.15570 |
50 |
| Perceived social support, friends |
16.2600 |
4.25134 |
50 |
| Age of orientation identification (years) |
14.6300 |
4.14139 |
50 |
| Age of orientation disclosure (years) |
17.1600 |
2.59009 |
50 |
| Time out (years) |
5.43 |
4.371 |
50 |
| Time taken to come out (years) |
2.5300 |
3.03787 |
50 |
|
Table
1. Descriptive Statistics |
It was expected that the age one identifies as gay or lesbian would
be associated with self-esteem. Specifically, that the younger one
identifies as a sexual minority, the higher one’s self-esteem
would be. This expectation was confirmed. The relationship between
self-esteem as measured by the RSE scale and age of self-identification
as homosexual was significant at the p < .01 level with
r = -.469. Self-esteem increases as age of self-identification decreases.
Mean age of self-identification was 14.6 years (SD = 4.14).
The
second expectation was that the age at which one discloses their
sexual orientation would be related to self-esteem. Again, it was
proposed that the younger one discloses this information, the higher
his or her self-esteem would be. This expectation was also confirmed.
The relationship between self-esteem as measured by the RSE scale
and age of first disclosure was significant at the p <
.01 level with r = -.387. Self-esteem increases as age of first
disclosure decreases. Mean age of first disclosure was 17.2 years
(SD = 2.59).
The
third expectation of this study, that perceived social support of
friends would be a greater predictor of self-esteem than perceived
social support of family, was likewise confirmed. The correlation
between PSS of friends and self-esteem scores was not significant;
however, it approached significance at the p < .05 level
with r = .287. The correlation between PSS of family and self-esteem
scores was not found to be significant either. Unlike that of PSS
of friends however, this relationship in no way approached significance
with a correlation of only r = .018. Therefore, although not a significant
relationship, the relationship between PSS of friends is a much
greater predictor of self-esteem scores than PSS of family. Mean
score on the PSS-Friends measure was 16.26 (SD = 4.25),
and the mean score on the PSS-Family measure was 7.48 (SD
= 5.16).
Two
relationships that were not expected were also found. Self-esteem
as measured by the RSE scale and the number of years out were found
to have a significant relationship at the p < .01 level
with r = .478. Self-esteem increases as the number of years out
increases. Mean number of years out was 5.4 years (SD =
4.37). A second unexpected finding was that the relationship between
self-esteem as measured by the RSE scale and lag time (the temporal
duration between self-identification and self-disclosure) was significant
at the p < 0.05 level with r = .309. Self-esteem increases
as number of years between self-identification and disclosure increases.
Mean lag time was 2.5 years (SD = 3.04).
Regression
analysis showed the variable most predictive of self-esteem was
number of years out, followed by age of first disclosure, perceived
social support of friends, and age of self identification. Lag time
was not considered in this model because it is a computation of
the last two variables. With regard to self-esteem, the number of
years out was calculated to have a partial correlation of 0.277
(p = .030). Age of first disclosure showed a partial correlation
of –0.241 (p = .057). A partial correlation of 0.133
(p = .287) was calculated for perceived social support
of friends with regard to RSE. Finally, age of self-identification
showed a partial correlation of 0.102 (p = .415) with self-esteem.
Perceived social support of family accounted for only 0.03% of the
total self-esteem score with a partial correlation of –0.046
(p = .709).
Discussion
Friends
(peers) are more influential during adolescence than family; therefore,
their perceived support is more influential on self-esteem than
that of parents for these youth. This finding is in accordance with
the first hypothesis that scores on the PSS-Friends measure would
be more predictive of self-esteem than those of the PSS-Family measure.
Peers have more cohesive subgroups than parents do (Hewitt 2002)
and may quickly replace family as the most salient group when it
comes to importance in a young person’s life: “Mainstream
American society values development of self-esteem. These outcomes
are, to some extent, affected by parents, but the outcomes are particularly
influenced by peer-interaction and the school system” (Ambert
2001). Savin-Williams (1998) noted that the importance of the relationship,
not the relationship itself (referring to parent-child relationships),
is most predictive of self-esteem. Adolescents simply tend to value
their peer relationships more, and this may be particularly true
of gay and lesbian teens, who may face discrimination and abuse
by their parents because of their sexual orientation.
The second hypothesis, that early self-identification as gay or
lesbian is predictive of self-esteem (as is the number of years
out) is also supported. Self-esteem increases with the number of
years out; those who self-identify younger therefore benefit from
a higher self-esteem. This may be due to the greater ability of
these youth to progress through the eight stages of identity development
proposed by Carrion and Lock (1997). The greater amount of time
afforded these youth by early self-identification may provide the
opportunity for deeper progression through these stages. Advancement
through the stages of identity development by GLBTQ youth necessitates
a progressive increase in self-acceptance (Carrion and Lock 1997),
and it is this increase in acceptance of one’s self as a sexual
minority that may result in a concurrent increase in self-esteem.
Of interest when considering this finding is that no significant
correlation between age and self-esteem was identified. In other
words, maturity is not responsible for increasing self-esteem in
these gay and lesbian youth; rather, the length of time they have
self-identified as gay or lesbian is the controlling factor.
The
hypothesis that disclosure of sexual orientation at a younger age
is predictive of higher self-esteem was supported in this study
as well. This may again be a reflection of progression through Carrion
and Lock’s stages of identity development. Disclosure almost
always follows self-identification and first same-sex sexual experience
(Carrion and Lock 1997), indicating that several milestones of sexual
orientation development must be attained prior to disclosure in
most instances. Accordingly, greater self-acceptance manifested
overtly by choosing to disclose may be indicative of higher self-esteem.
An unexpected finding in this study was that temporal duration between
age of self-identification as gay or lesbian and age of first disclosure
was also shown to be correlated with self-esteem. Longer lag times
seem to be related to higher self-esteem: “Disclosure is a
way of solidifying a public identity once a personal identity is
established” (Minton and McDonald 1984). Perhaps those who
wait longer to disclose have more of an opportunity to come to terms
with their own sexuality, and only when completely comfortable with
their sexual orientation, choose to disclose. It may be that, for
some individuals, disclosure is more closely linked to the process
of identity exploration, or formulating a personal understanding
of sexual orientation, than it is a way of merely informing others
of their developing identity (Maguen 2002). For others, however,
it may be a concrete proclamation of their self-acceptance. Those
who have waited to disclose may benefit from a greater amount of
time between self-identification and disclosure because they have
had more time to become comfortable with their sexuality. Level
of comfort with one’s sexuality has been shown to be positively
correlated with self-esteem (Savin-Williams 1998).
Certain
possible confounders in this study can be attributed to its correlational
nature. It is possible that increased self-esteem leads people to
come out and disclose earlier, rather than increased self-esteem
being a byproduct of early coming-out and disclosure. A second possible
confounder lies in the subjects themselves. Subjects recruited may
have been in later “stages” of coming out since they
were already affiliated with various gay and lesbian groups. The
supportive nature of these affiliations may be responsible for higher
self-esteem scores. A final consideration concerns the ability of
PSS-Friends to predict self-esteem. The correlational relationship
between the two, while not reaching significance, came very close
to that level. Perhaps with higher power, the study would have indeed
found significance regarding these variables.
Conclusion
Savin-Williams
(1994) encourages researchers to “support the well-being of
gay male, lesbian, and bisexual youths by conducting research, enacting
policies, and encouraging behaviors that will help minimize the
internalized homophobia, self-destructive behaviors and homicide
of our youths.” This study endeavors to do just that. By demonstrating
the association between self-esteem and the act of coming to terms
with and disclosing one’s sexual orientation to others, a
strong case can be made for the necessity of adequate support programs
for adolescents in high schools. It is there, in the school setting,
that gay and lesbian youth encounter the strongest impact on their
self-esteem in the form of their peers. Savin-Williams (1994) asserts
that it is the strength of the relationship that determines the
impact of perceived social support on self-esteem. In adolescence,
the importance of familial relationships fade and relationships
with friends and peers take its place (Ambert 2001). This, therefore,
is the venue in which intervention must take place to ensure the
safety and healthy development of these at-risk youth. This study
has shown the relationship between age of self-identification and
self-esteem, as well as the effect that the length of time one has
been out has on self-esteem. In addition, it has shown that the
perceived social support offered by friends is more predictive of
RSE scores than the perceived social support offered by family.
People
may argue that support programs for gay and lesbian youth do not
belong in the school system. They may feel that, by offering such
services as GLBTQ clubs or gay-straight alliances, the school system
is in effect promoting homosexuality as a lifestyle to its students.
However, by providing an atmosphere free of harassment and by encouraging
understanding of these high-risk youths’ special needs in
regard to self-acceptance, these programs can provide a vehicle
by which the self-esteem of these adolescents can be increased.
Many of the risk factors associated with gay and lesbian youths
may then be subsequently reduced, including suicide and attempted-suicide
rates, substance abuse, and high-risk sexual behaviors. Further
investigation comparing self-esteem scores of gay and lesbian youth
in high schools with GLBTQ support programs with those of gay and
lesbian youth in high schools without such programs would be invaluable.
Data regarding gay and lesbian youth are alarmingly absent and research
into factors affecting their mental health is of vital importance.
Appendix
A. Disclosure Questionaire
1. AGE _____
2. GENDER _____
3. DO YOU CONSIDER
YOURSELF TO BE “OUT”? YES NO
4. AT WHAT AGE
DID YOU REALIZE YOUR SEXUAL
ORIENTATION? _____
5. AT WHAT AGE
DID YOU DISCLOSE YOUR SEXUAL
ORIENTATION TO ANOTHER PERSON FOR THE FIRST
TIME? _____
(CIRCLE
ALL THAT APPLY)
6. ARE YOU OUT
TO YOUR FAMILY?
A. MOTHER
B. FATHER
C. GRANDPARENTS
D. SIBLINGS
7. ARE YOU OUT
TO YOUR FRIENDS?
A. PERSONAL FRIENDS
B. SCHOOL ACQUAINTANCES
C. CO-WORKERS
D. NEIGHBORS
References
Ambert
A. (2001) Families in the new millenium. Allyn and Bacon: Boston.
Bell AP et al. (1982) Sexual preference: Its development in men
and women. Indiana University Press: Indianapolis.
Berger RM. (1984) Realities of gay and lesbian aging. Social Work.
29(1):57-62.
Blumstein P, Schwartz P. (1983) American couples: Money, work,
sex. William Morrow: New York.
Carrion V, Lock J. (1997) The coming out process: Developmental
stages for sexual minority youth. Clinical Child Psychology and
Psychiatry. 2(3):369-377.
Cass VS. (1979) Homosexual identity formation: A theoretical model.
Journal of Homosexuality. 4:219-235.
Demo DH. (1985) The measurement of self-esteem: Refining our methods.
Journal of Personality & Social Psychology. 48:1490-1515.
Gonsiorek JC, Rudolph JR. (1991) Homosexual identity: Coming out
and other developmental events. In: Homosexuality: Research implications
for public policy. J Gonsiorek, J Weinrich (Eds). Sage: Newbury
Park, CA.
Grossman A, Kerner M. (1998) Self-esteem and supportiveness as predictors
of emotional distress in gay male and lesbian youth. Journal of
Homosexuality. 35(2):25-37.
Hewitt E. (2002) Personal Communication. York University.
Issay R. (1991) Developmental issues in dynamic psychotherapy in
gay men. Directions in Psychiatry. 11:12.
Kleis BN, Lock J. (1995) The public discussion of homosexuality
(letter). Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry. 34:6.
Maguen S. (2002) Developmental milestones and disclosure of sexual
orientation among gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth. Applied Developmental
Psychology. 23:219-233.
Minton HL, McDonald GJ. (1984) Homosexual identity formation as
a developmental process. Journal of Homosexuality. 9:91-104.
Monteflores C, Schultz SJ. (1978) Coming out: Similarities and differences
for lesbians and gay men. Journal of Social Issues. 34:59-72.
Moos RH. (1992) Understanding individuals’ life contexts:
Implications for stress reduction and prevention. The Present and
Future of Prevention Research. Sage: Newbury Park, CA.
Pilkington N, D’Augelli R. (1995) Victimization of lesbian,
gay, and bisexual youth in community settings. Journal of Community
Psychology. 23(1):34-56.
Procidano M, Heller K. (1983) Measures of perceived social support
from friends and family: Three validation studies. American Journal
of American Psychology. 11(1):1-24.
Remafedi G. (1994) Death by denial – Studies of suicide in
gay and lesbian teenagers. Alyson Publications: Boston.
Remafedi G et al. (1992) Demography of sexual orientation in adolescents.
Pediatrics. 89:714-721.
Rosario M et al. (1995) Emotional distress, multiple problem behaviors,
stress, and self-esteem among gay and bisexual male adolescents.
HIV Center for Clinical and Behavioral Studies, Columbia University.
Rosenberg M. (1965) Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton
University Press: Princeton.
Savin-Williams RC. (1989) Coming out to parents and self-esteem
among gay and lesbian youths. Journal of Homosexuality. 17(3):1-35.
Savin-Williams RC. (1989) Parental influences on the self-esteem
of gay and lesbian youths: A reflected appraisals model. Journal
of Homosexuality. 17:93-109.
Savin-Williams RC. (1990) Gay and lesbian youth: Expressions of
identity. Hemisphere: New York.
Savin-Williams RC. (1994) Verbal and physical abuse as stressors
in the lives of lesbian, gay male, and bisexual youths: Associations
with school problems, running away, substance abuse, prostitution,
suicide. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 62(2):261-269.
Sengers W. (1967) Observations on the prevention of homosexual difficulties.
Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics. 15(1):62.
Sullivan T, Schneider M. (1987) Development and identity issues
in adolescent homosexuality. Child and Adolescent Social Work. 4:13-24.
United States Department of Health and Human Services. (1989) Report
of the secretary’s task force on youth suicide. Public Health
Service, Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration:
Rockville, MD.
Weinberg TS. (1983) Gay men, gay selves. Irvington: New York.
Journal of Young
Investigators. 2004. Volume Ten.
Copyright © 2004 by Kimberly Cruise and JYI. All rights reserved.
|
|