A Systematic and Meta-Analytic Review of Identity Centrality among LGBTQ Groups: An Assessment of Psychosocial Correlates

ABSTRACT

The degree to which an identity is an important aspect of one’s self-concept (i.e., identity centrality) relates to both health and prejudice experiences of minority groups. Individuals with greater levels of identity centrality view their world through the lens of that identity. This allows them to engage in more positive identity-relevant experiences. However, it could also heighten their perceptions of in-group threat. Among LGBTQ groups, the relationship between identity centrality and psychosocial outcomes is yet to be established. In this paper, we investigated the relationship between LGBTQ identity centrality and psychosocial outcomes via a comprehensive systematic (k = 89, N = 35,950) and meta-analytic (k = 57, N = 26,704) literature review. Results indicated that greater levels of LGBTQ centrality relates to more positive identity-relevant affirmations (.155 ≤ r’s ≤ .419), but also greater prejudice/discrimination perceptions and experiences (−.271 ≤ r’s ≤ −.128). We found no evidence of a relationship between LGBTQ centrality and health outcomes (−.052 ≤ r’s ≤ .040). Importantly, we found that these relationships are more beneficial for some LGBTQ groups (gay men), than for others (bisexual/transgender individuals). Findings from this review provide important and necessary insights on the role of LGBTQ identity centrality and identify crucial gaps in the literature that should be addressed.

Notes

¹ For discussion on the importance of differentiating between how dimensions of social identification are measured, see Ashmore et al., (2004), Deaux (1996), Ellemers et al., (1999), Ethier & Deaux (1994), Jackson & Smith (1999), McCoy & Major (2003) and Tropp and Wright (2001).

² The measures used to assess this construct were examined to determine if the items matched the construct of identity centrality as it has been defined by previous research (e.g., Leach et al., 2008; Stryker & Serpe, 1994). To be included in this review (regardless of how the authors conceptualized the construct, e.g., identity importance, identity salience, identity prominence), the items needed to measure the extent to which an identity is (a) important to the individual’s self-concept, and/or (b) chronically accessible/salient or frequently thought of. For studies that did not include survey items (e.g., qualitative interviews), and the construct was not clearly defined by the questions asked (e.g., some qualitative studies asked participants to elaborate on their LGBTIQ+ identity), then the participants’ responses were examined to determine the construct (e.g., participants discussed that their LGBTIQ+ identity was important to how they defined themselves).

³ Although outness and identity concealment are conceptually similar constructs (i.e., they both reflect the degree of identity disclosure), research suggests that they are differentially associated with health and well-being among LGBTIQ+ groups (e.g., Meidlinger & Hope, 2014; Riggle et al., 2017; see also Meyer, 2003). For this reason, it is suggested that they be assessed separately.

⁴ From here onwards, we use the acronym ‘LGBTQ’ to acknowledge the identities that were represented in our review (i.e., no studies reported data on central intersex (I) identities).

⁵ Given its association with negative health outcomes, we coded identity concealment as being a negative identity factor in line with previous research with LGBTQ individuals (e.g., Mohr & Kendra, 2011; Pachankis et al., 2020). However, we do acknowledge that concealment is not inherently negative, and indeed for some LGBTQ individuals, concealing their identity may be a protective factor against heterosexist societal conditions.