Trans Masculinity: Comparing Trans Masculine Individuals’ and Cisgender Men’s Conformity to Hegemonic Masculinity

Introduction Masculinity and masculine norms are still relevant in the current social context. Literature showed that some masculine norms could be considered protective health buffers, while traditional masculinity has negative consequences on men’s behaviors, relationships, and health. Methods In the present study, we aimed at investigating trans masculine and cisgender men’s levels of adherence to different dimensions of hegemonic masculinity. A total of 200 participants (100 trans masculine people and 100 cisgender men) took part in the study. Results Results exhibit that trans masculine individuals showed higher scores than cisgender men on the dimensions of emotional control and self-reliance, whereas cisgender men showed higher endorsement of norms such as heterosexual self-presentation and power over women. Conclusions Results are discussed in light of the minority stress model and masculinity threat theory. Policy Implications The present work should act as a reminder of the pressure that trans masculine people may feel to conform to certain aspects of hegemonic masculinity. This may have the adaptive function of protecting them from the discrimination and threats that they expect from others.

Minority Stress as a Multidimensional Predictor of LGB+ Adolescents’ Mental Health Outcomes

The minority stress model has been used to explain added daily stressors that non-heterosexual (LGB+) individuals experience. While the emphasis of minority stress research is frequently broad (global minority stress) or narrow (specific stressors) in focus, the literature often refers to specific stressors at the domain level as either distal (external) or proximal (internal). This study found that, compared with broad and narrow levels, a domain level approach may be best for understanding the predictive value of minority stress. Multiple regression analyses with a sample of 152 LGB+ adolescents found that distal stress predicted substance misuse (p < .001) and suicidality (p = .002) and was a stronger predicter than proximal stress for psychological inflexibility. This study might contribute to an evidence base that could guide measurement approaches for assessing minority stress and using related results to inform the prediction of—and, ultimately, intervention with—LGB+ adolescents’ mental health outcomes.

Mechanisms of Mental-Health Disparities Among Minoritized Groups: How Well Are the Top Journals in Clinical Psychology Representing This Work?

It has been known for decades that mental-health disparities exist among minoritized groups, including race, ethnicity, sexual identities, gender identity and expression, ability, and others. Theories and frameworks that incorporate stressors unique to the experiences of minoritized groups, such as the biopsychosocial model of racism and minority-stress model, offer testable mechanisms that may help explain, in part, mental-health disparities. However, research addressing mechanisms of these disparities is still scarce and is not well represented in top clinical psychology journals. In this review, we critically examine the extent to which top-tier clinical psychology journals publish work examining mechanisms of mental-health disparities among minoritized populations. We found that very few studies that address mechanisms of mental-health disparities have been published in top clinical psychology journals. We examine potential reasons for this and discuss recommendations for future research.

How Stigma Gets Under the Skin: Internalized Oppression and Dual Minority Stress Among Black Sexual Minorities

The purpose of this chapter is to examine the links between oppressive social conditions and psychological well-being among Black sexual minorities. In particular, we examine the nature and process by which members of marginalized groups may come to internalize the negative messages about their non-dominant social identity (i.e., internalized oppression). Given that Black sexual minorities are simultaneously subjugated to systems of oppression based on their race and their sexuality, they will experience what we have termed “dual minority stress”. By examining the narratives of 15 Black sexual minorities, we provide empirical support for the dual minority stress model and shed light on the characteristics of internalized oppression and the social conditions by which oppression is internalized. Specifically, our findings point to three important manifestations of internalized oppression: psychological maladjustment, acting-out mechanisms, and identity disintegration. We also identify three mechanisms by which oppression becomes internalized: notions of prototypicality, socio-political invisibility, and the absence of counterspaces. Overall, our findings highlight unique psychological experiences that exist where multiple subordinate-group identities interact and note the important links between social context and the self.

The CHLEW Couples Study: Protocol for a Study of Stress, Hazardous Drinking, and Intimate Partner Aggression among Sexual Minority Women and their Partners (Preprint)

BACKGROUND Large gaps exist in research on alcohol use and intimate partner aggression (IPA) among sexual minority women (SMW; e.g., lesbian, bisexual). Dyadic research with SMW and their partners can illuminate how couple-level factors operate in conjunction with individual-level factors to shape well-being in this understudied and vulnerable population. Given the traditionally gendered lens in which women are primarily viewed as victims and men as perpetrators, understanding the dynamics of IPA in same-sex female couples can also advance research and practice related to IPA more generally. OBJECTIVE Guided by a recent extension of the minority stress model that includes relational (couple-level) sexual minority stress, and by the I3 (I-Cubed) theoretical perspective on IPA, we will collect individual and dyadic data to better characterize the links between hazardous drinking (HD) and IPA among SMW and their partners. The study aims are to (1) Examine associations among minority stress, HD, and IPA in SMW and their partners. Minority stressors will be assessed as both individual and couple-level constructs, thus further extending the minority stress model; (2) Examine potential mediators and moderators of the associations among minority stress, HD, and IPA; and (3) Test models guided by the I3 theoretical perspective that include instigating (e.g., relationship conflict), impelling (e.g., negative affect, trait anger), and inhibiting (e.g., relationship commitment, emotion regulation) or dis-inhibiting (e.g., HD) influences on IPA perpetration. METHODS This United States National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded project will draw from a large and diverse cohort of SMW currently enrolled in the Chicago Health and Life Experiences of Women (CHLEW) study—a 21-year longitudinal study of risk factors and consequences associated with SMW’s HD. SMW currently enrolled in the CHLEW study, and their partners, will be invited to participate in the CHLEW Couples Study. Analyzing dyadic data using Actor Partner Interdependence Models (APIMs), we will examine how each partner’s minority stress, HD, and IPA experiences are associated with both her own and her partner’s minority stress, HD, and IPA perpetration. RESULTS Data collection began in February 2021 and will likely continue through 2023. Initial results should be available by mid-2024. CONCLUSIONS The CHLEW Couples Study will fill important gaps in knowledge and will provide the basis for future research aimed at clarifying the causal pathways linking HD and IPA among SMW. This will support the development of culturally appropriate targeted individual and dyadic prevention and intervention strategies.