University of Massachusetts Boston
ScholarWorks at UMass Boston
Graduate Masters Theses
Doctoral Dissertations and Masters Theses
12-31-2017
Whether or not ‘It Gets Better’…Coping with
Parental Heterosexist Rejection
Cara Herbitter
University of Massachusetts Boston
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umb.edu/masters_theses
Part of the Clinical Psychology Commons, Family, Life Course, and Society Commons, and the
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Studies Commons
This Open Access Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Doctoral Dissertations and Masters Theses at ScholarWorks at UMass
Boston. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at UMass Boston. For more
information, please contact library.uasc@umb.edu.
Recommended Citation
Herbitter, Cara, “Whether or not ‘It Gets Better’…Coping with Parental Heterosexist Rejection” (2017). Graduate Masters Theses. 474.
https://scholarworks.umb.edu/masters_theses/474
WHETHER OR NOT “IT GETS BETTER”…
COPING WITH PARENTAL HETEROSEXIST REJECTION
A Thesis Presented
by
CARA HERBITTER
Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies,
University of Massachusetts Boston,
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
December 2017
Clinical Psychology Program
© 2017 by Cara Herbitter
All rights reserved
WHETHER OR NOT “IT GETS BETTER”…
COPING WITH PARENTAL HETEROSEXIST REJECTION
A Thesis Presented
by
CARA HERBITTER
Approved as to style and content by:
________________________________________________
Heidi M. Levitt, Professor
Chairperson of Committee
________________________________________________
David W. Pantalone, Associate Professor
Member
________________________________________________
Laurel Wainwright, Senior Lecturer II
Member
_________________________________________
David Pantalone, Program Director
Clinical Psychology Program
_________________________________________
Laurel Wainwright, Acting Chair
Psychology Department
iv
ABSTRACT
WHETHER OR NOT “IT GETS BETTER”…
COPING WITH PARENTAL HETEROSEXIST REJECTION
December 2017
Cara Herbitter, B.A., Wesleyan University
M.P.H., Columbia University
M.A., University of Massachusetts Boston
Directed by Professor Heidi M. Levitt
Lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) people face the burden of additional stressors as
a result of their experiences of stigma and discrimination regarding their sexual minority
status. Parental rejection of LGB people in the context of heterosexism serves as a
powerful minority stressor associated with poorer mental health (e.g., Bouris et al., 2010;
Ryan, Huebner, Diaz, & Sanchez, 2009). Few contemporary theories exist to describe
the experience of parental rejection. In addition, the extant empirical research has
focused primarily on youth experiences among White and urban LGB samples, signaling
the need for research across the lifespan investigating more diverse samples. Moreover,
prior published studies have not focused directly on how LGB people cope with parental
v
rejection, but rather on the negative consequences associated with the rejection more
generally. For the current study, I conducted semi-structured interviews with 15 LGB
and queer (LGBQ) people about their experiences coping with parental rejection using
retrospective recall questions. I sought to maximize diversity in the realms of
experiences of parental rejection, race, ethnicity, class, sexual orientation, gender, age,
and U.S. regions. I analyzed the data using an adaptation of grounded theory
methodology based upon the work of psychologist David Rennie (e.g., Rennie, Phillips,
& Quartaro, 1988). The core category that emerged was: Parental rejection was
experienced as harmfully corrective and then internalized; reframing the rejection as
heterosexism mitigated internalized heterosexism and enabled adaptive acceptance
strategies. The findings documented the common experiences shared by participants,
which led to an original stage model of coping with heterosexism parental rejection, a
central contribution of this study. In addition to contributing to the empirical
understanding of how LGBQ people cope with parental rejection related to their sexual
orientation, my findings can guide clinicians working with this population to maximize
their clients’ adaptive coping. Parental rejection is a complex process that impacts
LGBQ people in a wide range of arenas and requires a multi-dimensional coping
approach, drawing upon both internal resources and reliance on community supports.
vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank my mentor and thesis chairperson, Dr. Heidi Levitt, who
carefully guided me through this complex project and shared her remarkable wisdom and
wit. I am grateful for her time and dedication, and all of the thoughtful comments and
track changes.
I would also like to express my gratitude toward my thesis committee members,
Dr. David Pantalone and Dr. Laurel Wainwright, for their time and valuable comments
along the way. Thank you to Linda Curreri for her guidance and humor.
I am grateful to the late Dr. Hope Weissman, who continues to inspire me.
Thank you so much to Dianna Sawyer for her generous help and skill with
proofreading. Thank you to Lucas Dangler, Ruby Stardrum, and the professional
transcribers for their careful work on transcription.
I am especially grateful toward my friends and colleagues at the University of
Massachusetts Boston, both for their guidance and encouragement, in particular Meredith
Maroney, Lauren Grabowski, Juliana Neuspiel, Tangela Roberts, Darren Freeman-
Coppadge, Ivy Giserman-Kiss, Dr. Jae Puckett, and Dr. Francisco Surace. I’m also very
thankful for my virtual colleagues from “Let Us Do Some Things.”
Words cannot fully express my gratitude toward my friends and family for their
support during this process, in particular my wife, Xiomara Lorenzo, and my mother,
Francine Herbitter, who got into the trenches with me. I could not have done it without
you.
vii
Finally, I wish to express my profound appreciation for the participants who
bravely and generously shared their stories of pain and resilience with me.
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
……………………………………………………………………………..
ix
CHAPTER Page
1. INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………….
1
Specific Aims
……………………………………………………………….
1
Background and Significance …………………………………………
3
2. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS ……………………………….
30
Participants
………………………………………………………………….
30
Procedure ……………………………………………………………………
33
Grounded Theory Analysis ……………………………………………
36
3. RESULTS …………………………………………………………………………
40
Cluster 1 ………………………………………………………………………
41
Cluster 2 ………………………………………………………………………
45
Cluster 3 ………………………………………………………………………
52
Cluster 4 ………………………………………………………………………
60
Cluster 5 ………………………………………………………………………
66
Cluster 6 ………………………………………………………………………
71
Core Category ………………………………………………………………
75
4. DISCUSSION ……………………………………………………………………..
78
Discipline and Control …………………………………………………..
79
A Sense of Brokenness ………………………………………………….
81
Cultivating Acceptance
………………………………………………….
85
Implications for Clinical Practice ……………………………………
87
Limitations …………………………………………………………………..
91
Future Research ……………………………………………………………
91
Conclusion …………………………………………………………………..
92
APPENDIX
A. DEMOGRAPHICS QUESTIONNAIRE
………………………………..
106
B. INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
…………………………………………………..
111
REFERENCES
………………………………………………………………………………
116
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Tables
Page
1. Participant Demographics
……………………………………………………..
93
2. Cluster, Category, and Subcategory Titles Including Number of
Contributing Interviewees
………………………………………………
94
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Specific Aims
General Aim: This project responds to the call for additional research on
resilience among LGB people (e.g., Kwon, 2013; National Research Council, 2011) by
focusing on adaptive coping strategies used in the face of heterosexism. In particular,
this project will explore the experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and other queer
(LGBQ) people who have encountered parental rejection. Note that, when I describe my
intended research, I will use the phrase “LGBQ,” as I plan to interview LGBQ people. In
describing past studies or literature, however, I will use the language used in those studies
or that literature. Parental rejection has been tied to a number of mental health issues
among LGB people, including depression and suicidal ideation (e.g., Bouris et al., 2010;
Ryan et al., 2009). LGBQ people’s parental reactions may change over time, especially
as public attitudes toward LGB people are rapidly evolving (Pew Research Center, 2013).
With these shifts, LGBQ people’s coping strategies may evolve as well. As I will
describe, these potentially changing parental reactions and LGBQ people’s coping
strategies have not been adequately explored in the research literature.
As a preliminary means of addressing this gap, I conducted a qualitative analysis
of semi-structured interviews with LGBQ people about their experiences coping with
2
parental rejection. I asked respondents to reflect on both past and current experiences.
Specifically, I was interested in investigating the complexity of rejection experiences, in
order to develop an understanding of the experience of rejection and to explore the wide
array of coping strategies used by LGBQ people. For instance, I explored how LGBQ
people cope with parental rejection that gradually shifts over time as well as rejection that
remains constant. The limited extant research that has assessed the change over time
suggested that many parents who initially react negatively may ultimately become more
accepting (e.g., Samarova, Shilo, & Diamond, 2014). As such, I hoped that documenting
LGBQ peoples’ experiences of their parents’ responses changing would provide insight
into how LGBQ people can cope with varied responses by parents. I anticipated that
these findings would be useful to inform future interventions aimed at fostering resilience
and coping among LGBQ people who face family rejection.
The specific aims of this qualitative study were as follows:
Aim #1: Describe LGBQ people’s experiences of heterosexist parental rejection and
acceptance, addressing the complexity of parental rejection/acceptance, which may
evolve over time, vary depending on context, or differ between parents.
Specific research questions include: (a) Precipitants of rejection: What events
immediately preceded heterosexist parental rejection (e.g., coming out to parents,
bringing home a partner, etc.)? (b) Rejection experience: How is rejection expressed?
What is the impact of both sexuality specific and general parental rejection/support on
LGBQ people? How do experiences of parental rejection relate to processes of
internalized heterosexism among LGBQ people? How might intersecting sociocultural
3
identities impact LGBQ people’s experiences of parental rejection? (c) Change over
time: How do parental responses change over time, in different contexts, and within sets
of parents? What factors influence these shifts and how do these changes impact LGBQ
people?
Aim #2: Identify methods of coping used by LGBQ people who experience parental
rejection.
Specific research questions include: (a) Use of coping: How did participants respond
to, or cope with, parental rejection (e.g., seeking social support, psychotherapy, and
LGBQ community, engaging in advocacy, or using emotional/cognitive strategies)? (b)
Understanding of coping: How helpful or detrimental were these different methods of
coping with parental rejection? How do LGBQ people understand their practice of
coping with parental rejection? How might intersecting sociocultural identities impact
LGBQ people’s experiences of coping with parental rejection? (c) Changes over time:
Over time, and as parental reactions change, how do LGBQ people’s coping methods
change?
Background and Significance
LGB Minority Stress
Compounding typical life stressors, LGB people experience the burden of
additional stressors as a result of their experiences of stigma and discrimination regarding
their sexual minority status. Based upon research on racial minority stress (for a recent
review of this literature, see Carter, 2007), Meyer (2003) developed a model of LGB
4
minority stress as a framework for understanding the higher prevalence of mental health
issues among LGB people. He wrote:
The concept of social stress extends stress theory by suggesting that conditions in
the social environment, not only personal events, are sources of stress that may
lead to mental and physical ill effects. Social stress might therefore be expected
to have a strong impact in the lives of people belonging to stigmatized social
categories, including categories related to socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity,
gender, or sexuality. (p. 675)
Meyer described the following stress processes: external stressful factors, the impact of
expecting negative experiences, internalizing societal stigma, and hiding of one’s
identity. He highlighted the importance of addressing both structural and individual
factors to reduce minority stress. He suggested this could be accomplished via
interventions aimed at changing the environment, to reduce exposure to stressors, as well
as those aimed at helping LGB people cope more successfully. Rejection of LGB people
by their parents occurs within this larger context of sexual minority stressors, and so must
be understood as being embedded in socio-political systems, in addition to potentially
being interpersonally stressful. Sexual minority stress theory provides a framework for
understanding both parents’ reactions and their effects upon mental health, as well as the
potential limits on coping resources available to LGB people within the larger context of
heterosexism. The purpose of the current study was to examine the experience of LGBQ
individuals’ coping with parental rejection related to their sexual orientation.
5
Minority stress negatively impacts health. The detrimental effects of minority
stress processes on the physical and mental health of LGB people have been well
documented (Cochran, Sullivan, & Mays, 2003; King et al., 2008; Lehavot & Simoni,
2011; Lick, Durso, & Johnson, 2013; Meyer, 2003; National Research Council, 2011).
With regard to physical health disparities, Lick et al. (2013) summarized prior research
comparing health status between LGB and heterosexual people, reporting that LGB
people have been found to experience poorer general health. In a meta-analysis of the
literature, LGB people were found to have higher rates of anxiety, depression, suicide
attempts, and substance use disorders when compared to heterosexual individuals (King
et al., 2008). By pooling prevalence data across studies, researchers determined that
LGB people had approximately twice the risk of depression and 1.5 times the risk of any
anxiety disorder than heterosexual individuals in the prior year.
In an effort to understand the causes of their poorer health, researchers have
identified specific stressors and assessed their effect on LGB people’s well-being. For
instance, researchers have documented the negative impacts of institutionalized and
legalized heterosexism, as enacted via anti-LGB legislation, on LGB people’s mental
health (Hatzenbuehler, McLaughlin, Keyes, & Hasin, 2010; Levitt et al., 2009; Rostosky,
Riggle, Horne, & Miller, 2009; Russell, 2000). Researchers also have reported on the
prevalence and negative mental health impacts of violence and overt discrimination on
LGB people (Button, O’Connell, & Gealt, 2012; Herek, Gillis, & Cogan, 1999; Herek,
2009). For example, Herek (2009) studied a national probability sample of LGB adults
and found that a substantial minority (13%) had experienced anti-LGB personal violence
6
at least once, with gay men faring the worst (25%). Similar numbers of LGB adults
(11.2%) reported experiencing discrimination related to housing and employment. In
earlier foundational studies, Herek and colleagues (1999) found that gay and lesbian
survivors of anti-gay crimes fared worse than survivors of other non-hate crimes in terms
of both mental health and crime-related fears. Specifically, those who survived hate
crimes displayed increased symptoms of depression, anxiety, and traumatic stress, as well
as greater feelings of vulnerability, fear of crime, and likelihood to attribute negative
experiences to heterosexism. Research on the negative impacts of external stressors on
LGB people has been particularly robust, perhaps because these instances of overt
heterosexism represent clearly measurable stressors.
In addition, researchers have described the role of the internalization of stigma,
specifically internalized heterosexism (Newcomb & Mustanski, 2010; Szymanski &
Kashubeck-West, 2008). Various synonyms are used to refer to internalized
heterosexism, including internalized homophobia, internalized biphobia, and internalized
homonegativity. I will use the phrase “internalized heterosexism” when describing
groups of studies or the concept more generally, but will defer to the language used by
authors when describing individual studies. I have chosen to use “internalized
heterosexism,” both to recognize the systemic nature of this form of oppression, as well
as to be more inclusive of bisexual individuals. To assess the impact of internalized
heterosexism, Newcomb and Mustanski (2010) conducted a meta-analytic review on
internalized homophobia and mental health problems, including symptoms of anxiety and
depression. They found that, overall, higher scores on measures of internalized
7
homophobia predicted higher scores on measures of psychological distress, especially
with regard to depressive symptoms. Also, internalized heterosexism has been found to
be associated with decreased relationship quality and increased relationship problems
among same-sex couples (Frost & Meyer, 2009; Otis, Rostosky, Riggle, & Hamrin, 2006;
Szymanski & Hilton, 2013). Recognizing the multiple forms of oppression experienced
by many sexual minorities, Szymanski and Kashubeck-West (2008) conducted a study of
304 lesbian and bisexual women and found that both internalized sexism and internalized
heterosexism were associated with greater psychological distress. Given the negative
impacts of minority stress, the experience of parental rejection must be understood as
occurring amidst this larger context of multiple external and internal stressors and so
there is reason to examine its influence on mental health. Similarly, understanding the
important role that social support plays in buffering these stressors suggests the multiple
negative consequences of parental rejection, as will be discussed.
Social support buffers minority stressors. Because decreased social support
generally is associated with increased psychological distress (Leavy, 1983), researchers
also have reported on the negative impacts on sexual minority individuals related to a
lack of social support from family and friends (e.g., Rothman, Sullivan, Keyes, &
Boehmer, 2012; Teasdale & Bradley-Engen, 2010; Williams, Connolly, Pepler, & Craig,
2005). Similarly, researchers have found evidence that the presence of social support
directly predicts well-being among LGB people and buffers the potential negative effects
of sexual minority stressors (e.g., Button et al., 2012; Eisenberg & Resnick, 2006;
Graham & Barnow, 2013). The relation between social support and internalized
8
heterosexism also has been assessed. Szymanski, Kashubeck-West, and Meyer (2008)
conducted a critical review on internalized heterosexism and its correlates and reported
that studies have generally found a relation between less social support and greater
internalized heterosexism. This overall relation is important to consider in understanding
the potentially devastating impact of parental rejection on internalized heterosexism and
related risks. In a study using ADD Health data and comparing social stressors, social
supports, and mental health outcomes among same-sex attracted (SSA) youth and non-
SSA youth (N = 11,911; including 784 SSA youth), SSA youth were found to be at
higher risk of depression and suicidal tendencies than non-SSA youth (Teasdale &
Bradley-Engen, 2010). In addition, among SSA youth, increased social stress and
decreased social support served as mediators between same-sex attraction and depressive
symptoms. Highlighting the importance of family support in particular, Eisenberg and
Resnick (2006) found that family connectedness and perceived adult caring were
significant protective factors against suicidal ideation and attempts in a study comparing
suicidal tendencies among 2,255 LGB and 19,672 non-LGB teens. Of note, while this
study yielded an impressive sample size, the researchers acknowledged that the LGB
label was applied to youth who reported same-gender sexual behavior, rather than based
upon self-identification with LGB identities. As such, findings should be cautiously
applied to LGB-identified youth. Nonetheless, these studies suggest that inadequate
levels of social support are likely a significant minority stressor, whereas adequate social
support can serve as a buffer against sexual minority stress. This understanding is crucial
as I explore the impact of parental rejection on LGB-identified people.
9
Parental Rejection
Parents and families of origin have been found to be an important potential source
of social support that influence people’s well-being, especially among youth (e.g., Viner
et al., 2012). In particular, much psychological research has focused on the negative
impacts of low social support from parents on development and mental health through
adulthood (e.g., Adam et al., 2011; Reed, Ferraro, Lucier-Greer, & Barber, 2014). While
many studies of mental health among LGB youth include a measure of family or parental
support (e.g., Espelage, Aragon, Birkett, & Koenig, 2008; Mustanski & Liu, 2013), fewer
studies have focused on parental rejection specifically. Those studies that have
specifically examined parental rejection have generally identified a lack of support as a
risk factor, and the presence of support as a protective factor (e.g., Needham & Austin,
2010; Ryan et al., 2009), in terms of mental health concerns.
The literature on parental support and rejection can be challenging to summarize,
as these constructs are not operationalized uniformly. As described in the previous
section, inadequate social support, such as parental support, may be understood as a
minority stressor in itself, whereas the presence of a type of social support has been
conceptualized as a protective factor that may serve to ameliorate other minority
stressors—and, thus, the absence of social support also may be seen as the lack of a
protective factor. In addition, different studies have assessed the direct effects (e.g., Ryan
et al., 2009; Ryan, Russell, Huebner, Diaz, & Sanchez, 2010), mediating effects (e.g.,
Needham & Austin, 2010), and moderating effects (e.g., Poteat, Mereish, DiGiovanni, &
Koenig, 2011) of parental support on mental health. To add to this complexity, some
10
studies have assessed for experiences of parental support and rejection as parts of the
same question, such as asking respondents to evaluate parental responses to their coming
out as either rejecting or accepting (e.g., D’Amico & Julien, 2012). This question format
does not allow for measuring concurrent rejection and acceptance, as the related concepts
of parental rejection and acceptance may not necessarily be simply opposite ends of a
continuum. Rather, it seems valuable to conceptualize them separately and, thus,
acknowledge that rejection and acceptance can occur simultaneously, as either or both
parents may demonstrate both rejecting and accepting actions (Perrin et al., 2004; Ryan et
al., 2010). A limited number of studies have focused specifically on the positive role of
parental support and acceptance (e.g., Ryan et al., 2010), but they have demonstrated the
potential to conceptualize rejection and acceptance as related but separate constructs. In
this literature review, I focused primarily on parental support/rejection related to sexual
orientation, but occasionally included studies from the broader family support/rejection
literature related to sexual orientation, if there were no relevant published studies focused
on parents explicitly.
In the context of the current study, I focused on parental rejection primarily as a
minority stressor, as well as the absence of parental support as a “missing” protective
factor from other minority stressors—thereby recognizing that parental support may not
simply be an inverse of parental rejection. In using the phrase “parental rejection,” I
mean to encompass experiences among sexual minorities in which they received
inadequate parental support that negatively impacts development, as well as those who
experienced outright rejection. Given the importance of parental support to
11
developmental well-being within the general population (e.g., Viner et al., 2012),
researchers have noted the surprising lack of studies on the impact of parents/caregivers
on the well-being of LGB youth (e.g., Ryan et al., 2009). The extant research suggests
the negative impacts of low parental support and rejection on LGB people (e.g., Bouris et
al., 2010; Needham & Austin, 2010; Rothman et al., 2012; Ryan et al., 2009).
Parental rejection among youth. In recognition of this gap, and the importance
of understanding the state of research in order to develop an agenda, Bouris and
colleagues conducted a 2010 systematic literature review of articles about parental
influences on a range of adolescent and youth health variables. They focused on
quantitative articles with U.S. based samples published from 1980-2010, and identified
31 articles in total, of which the majority included a mental health outcome. Bouris et al.
reviewed a few studies suggesting that negative parental reactions to LGB youth’s sexual
orientation increased the youth’s risk of substance abuse and suicidal ideation and
attempts, with more studies demonstrating the inverse relation between parental rejection
and the overall mental health and well-being of LGB youth. The studies reviewed also
highlighted the role of parental support as a buffering factor from many health problems.
Finally, these authors noted two important limitations of the reviewed studies—the use of
convenience samples and a cross-sectional design—and, as such, these findings must be
interpreted cautiously. They also noted the need for more diverse samples and more
geographic diversity. In particular, samples including rural youth were absent.
Among the more recent articles reviewed, Ryan et al. (2009) conducted a
retrospective, cross-sectional study of a community sample of 224 White and Latino
12
LGB young adults (aged 21-25) and found that participants who described greater
parental rejection as adolescents were at 8.4 times increased risk for suicide attempts, 5.9
times increased risk for high levels of depression, and 3.4 times greater risk for illegal
drug use, when compared to those who experienced little or no parental rejection. It
should be noted that, while this study is frequently cited in the literature, the measure of
parental rejection is based upon a scale developed by the researchers, which is not
sufficiently described with regard to psychometric properties. This criticism has been
raised (e.g., Lai, 2011) regarding the authors’ related study on parental acceptance (Ryan
et al., 2010). Despite this potential weakness, I include this study because it is bolstered
by the use of qualitative research to develop a scale specific to the experiences of parental
rejection by LGB youth, whereas more established measures of family or parental
support may not fully capture these experiences. In addition, the negative impacts of
parental rejection on LGB youth are also evidenced by research relying on probability
sampling and previously used measures of parental support. Utilizing a subset of cross-
sectional data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health),
a national probability sample, Needham and Austin (2010) found that sexual minority
young adults fared worse on certain mental health indicators than heterosexual young
adults, and that these differences could at least partially be explained based on current
levels of parental support—suggesting the buffering role of parental support. For
instance, utilizing logistic regression, these authors found that bisexual women had 86%
greater odds of reporting symptoms signaling that they are at risk for major depressive
disorder compared to heterosexual women, a difference which was fully mediated by
13
differences in parental support. Similarly, lesbian and bisexual young women had two
times the odds of reporting suicidal thoughts than heterosexual women, which was
partially mediated by parental support. Among young men, the differences in mental
health outcomes between heterosexual and sexual minority youth were less pronounced,
and they did not differ significantly on many negative mental health factors; the
exception was that young gay men reported a significantly higher risk of suicidal
thoughts compared to heterosexual young men, which was partially mediated by parental
support.
Given the negative impacts of parental rejection, and the protective effects of
parental acceptance, on LGB people, it is important to understand the frequency of these
experiences along with clarifying the wide range of experiences encompassed by the
constructs of support and rejection. Utilizing data from three years of the Delaware High
School Youth Risk Behavioral Survey, Button et al. (2012) found that sexual minority
youth were significantly less likely to endorse receiving parental support compared to
heterosexual youth, with 39% of sexual minority youth compared to 56% of heterosexual
youth reporting that their parents provided them with support and encouragement. At the
extreme, LGB youth may experience abuse by parents, as a recent meta-analysis
demonstrated that sexual minorities are approximately 1.2 times more likely than non-
sexual minorities to report having experienced parental physical abuse (Friedman et al.,
2011). Highlighting the multi-fold negative impacts of these experiences, McLaughlin,
Hatzenbuehler, Xuan, and Conron (2012) drew upon Add Health data to show that
greater exposure to any experiences of childhood adversity, including child abuse,
14
partially mediated the relations between sexual orientation and several negative mental
health outcomes, including suicidality, depression, smoking, and substance abuse. As
evidenced by these studies, LGB youth are at greater risk for a range of negative parental
experiences, which are associated with an increased risk of mental health problems,
warranting additional study of parental rejection of LGB people.
In trying to ascertain what types of support and rejection matter the most in terms
of well-being, some researchers have found that, for LGB youth, general support may not
be sufficient but, rather, sexuality specific support may be required to achieve the
protective benefit (Bregman, Malik, Page, Makynen, & Lindahl, 2013; Doty,
Willoughby, Lindahl, & Malik, 2010). In a study of 169 LGB youth, Bregman et al.
(2013) conducted a latent profile analysis and identified two identity patterns: affirmed
and struggling. These authors found that both parental rejection related to sexual
orientation and sexuality-specific family support were related to profile membership, but
that general family support was not related to profile membership. As described earlier,
defining parental support and rejection can be challenging; relatedly, quantitative studies
may be ill-equipped to capture the full complexity of parental reactions. In a qualitative
study of 24 LGBQ young adults (aged 18-28), participants described the varied reactions
of family to their coming out, which included overtly negative responses, disbelief,
silence, or seemingly affirming responses with negative undertones (Mena & Vaccaro,
2013). This rich range of responses suggests that there is a wide range of potential
reactions that may not be fully captured in quantitative findings, especially using existing
measures. There is also some evidence that family support may become less protective to
15
adolescents as they age (Mustanski, Newcomb, & Garofalo, 2011), which is in keeping
with adolescent development theory more broadly, as the role of parental influence
changes over adolescence (e.g., Collins & Laursen, 2004). In a community sample of
425 LGB youth aged 16-24, participants under age 21 benefited significantly more from
family support than those 21 and over. These results suggest both the potential for
gender and sexual orientation differences on these measures, and the importance of
exploring parental support at different developmental moments.
Parental rejection among adults. Although most studies of LGB people’s
experiences of parental support focus on its impact during youth (e.g., Bouris et al.,
2010), there is evidence that early experiences related to parental support may have
important effects across the lifespan. Utilizing Massachusetts-based data from the
Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), Rothman et al. (2012) reported on
the potentially long-term negative impacts of unsupportive reactions to sexual orientation
disclosure among LGB adults aged 18-60. Specifically, they found that gay or bisexual
(GB) men were significantly more likely to endorse experiencing depression over half of
the prior month, and currently engaging in binge drinking, if their parents had been
unsupportive when they came out, compared to those whose parents had responded
supportively. Similarly, lesbian or bisexual (LB) women were significantly more likely
to endorse experiencing depression for more than half of the previous month, and ever
engaging in illegal drug use, if their parents had responded unsupportively, compared to
those whose parents had responded supportively. Notably, the data from this study is
