512
Views
0
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Research Article

Age and Gender Identity in the Relationship Between Minority Stress and Loneliness: A Global Sample of Sexual and Gender Minority Adults

ORCID Icon, ORCID Icon & ORCID Icon

Figures & data

Figure 1. Theoretical model linking marginalization and loneliness.

Notes: Daily Discrim/Harass = everyday discrimination and harassment; Family Reject = family rejection; Comm Involvement = community involvement; IH = internalized homonegativity; Conceal = concealment; Stigma Preocc = stigma preoccupation; Social Inhib = social inhibition; Social Lonely = social loneliness; Emo Lonely = emotional loneliness. For ease of presentation, this figure does not show the paths from community involvement/proximal stress to social/emotional loneliness, or the paths from marginalization/community involvement to social anxiety/inhibition. Also not shown are the bidirectional associations between the three proximal stress factors; between social anxiety and inhibition; and between social and emotional loneliness.
Figure 1. Theoretical model linking marginalization and loneliness.

Table 1. Demographic characteristics.

Figure 2. Age differences in adjusted means with robust 95% confidence intervals. Note: For everyday discrimination/harassment, microaggressions, family rejection, and internalized homonegativity, 95% CIs may not be symmetric around the mean because they were back-transformed from log-10 values. All group means were adjusted for gender identity, sexual orientation, ethnoracial identity, geographic region, and urbanicity.

Figure 2. Age differences in adjusted means with robust 95% confidence intervals. Note: For everyday discrimination/harassment, microaggressions, family rejection, and internalized homonegativity, 95% CIs may not be symmetric around the mean because they were back-transformed from log-10 values. All group means were adjusted for gender identity, sexual orientation, ethnoracial identity, geographic region, and urbanicity.

Table 2. Total and direct associations from final partially invariant multigroup Model G.

Figure 3. Gender differences in adjusted means with robust 95% confidence intervals. Notes: CG = cisgender. For everyday discrimination/harassment, microaggressions, family rejection, and internalized homonegativity, confidence intervals may not be symmetric around the mean because they were back-transformed from log-10 values. All group means were adjusted for age (continuous), sexual orientation, ethnoracial identity, geographic region, and urbanicity.

Figure 3. Gender differences in adjusted means with robust 95% confidence intervals. Notes: CG = cisgender. For everyday discrimination/harassment, microaggressions, family rejection, and internalized homonegativity, confidence intervals may not be symmetric around the mean because they were back-transformed from log-10 values. All group means were adjusted for age (continuous), sexual orientation, ethnoracial identity, geographic region, and urbanicity.
Supplemental material

Supplemental Material

Download PDF (270.8 KB)