Since 1970, research on microaggressions has heavily focused on understanding its impact on ethnic minorities. However, in recent years, attention has been placed on exploring the types of microaggressions that target LGBT individuals. More often these specific messages, called sexual orientation microaggressions, can be communicated through anti-gay language. For example, the phrase “that’s so gay,” is commonly used by today’s youth as a way to express something stupid, weird, and undesirable [1]. This often comes across as an attack on the LGBT community, causing them to feel misunderstood, stereotyped, and put down. Dr. Kevin Nadal is one of several researchers demonstrating the negative impact microaggresions have on the physical and mental health of LGBT individuals. The constant stress experienced from feeling stigmatized leads to a variety of health problems that include lower functioning immune systems, high blood pressure, depression, and anxiety [2].

Given the harmful effects that microaggressions can have, mental health professionals are now stressing the importance of including gay-affirmative approaches in counseling services. Although there has been progress in this area, many LGBT clients still report facing discrimination and hostility from therapists. For this reason, Dr. Shelton and Delgado-Romero felt it was necessary to conduct a study exploring what microaggressions look like and the ways they affect LGBT clients throughout therapy. They presented some examples of microaggressions that they discovered during sessions, along with the therapists’ hidden messages:

Microaggression:  A therapist interrupts a client during a discussion about academic issues and says, “What do you think this issue has to do with your sexuality?”

Message: Your sexual orientation needs to be treated.

Microaggression:  A therapist tells a client, “You don’t have to worry about that [sexual orientation] right now. Let’s talk about this other issue.”

Message: You make me uncomfortable.

As a result, when LGBT clients experienced sexual orientation microaggressions, they were more likely to hold back information, avoid talking about sexual orientation or issues related to sexual orientation, and reduce self-help behaviors [3].

An upcoming workshop, co-sponsored by the LGBT Resource Center, will address the types of microagressions LGBT individuals encounter, ways to cope, and how others in the community can prevent them from occurring. The event, presented by Dr. Kevin Nadal, will be held on Wednesday, May 8, and Thursday, May 9, in multiple locations at both the Evanston and Chicago campuses. For registration and more information, visit the Northwestern University Women’s Center.

This article was written by Adriana Guerrero, IMPACT intern.

_________________________________________________________________________
References:

1. Woodford, M. R., Howell, M. L., Kulick, A., & Silverschanz, P. (2013). “That’s so Gay” Heterosexual Male Undergraduates and the Perpetuation of Sexual Orientation Microagressions on Campus. Journal of interpersonal violence,28(2), 416-435.

2. Nadal, K. L., Rivera, D. P., & Corpus, M. J. H. (2010). Sexual orientation and transgender microaggressions: Implications for mental health and counseling.Microaggressions and marginality: Manifestation, dynamics, and impact, 217-240.

3. Shelton, K. L., & Delgado-Romero, E. A. (2009). Sexual Orientation Microaggressions: The Experience of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Queer Clients in Psychotherapy (Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia).

Photo by Steve Garcia.

March 26, 2013, Charles Cooper argues that redefining marriage as a genderless institution might inflict harm by shifting its emphasis from child rearing to satisfying adults’ emotional needs. Research suggests this argument is specious; while same-sex marriage enhances the health of LGBT individuals [1,2], hostility toward same-sex marriage is a consequence of gender-nonconformity disapproval.

In the Journal of Health and Social Behavior, Denney, Gorman, and Barrera (2013) found that same-sex cohabitors were more likely to report poorer health than married adults, suggesting that marriage bolsters physical health. Liu, Reczek, and Brown (2013) found similar results, even when controlling for SES.  Moreover, same-sex cohabitors had better health than heterosexual (non-married) cohabitors, widowers, and single individuals.

Still, this this pattern did not hold for Black and Hispanic females [4].  Black, same-sex cohabitating females exhibit worse health than heterosexual cohabitors. Hispanic women report similar health as heterosexual cohabitors, but worse health than never-married Hispanic females [4].  The authors suggest that female, racial-ethnic minorities experience a triple jeopardy, which makes them more vulnerable to stigma, discrimination, and economic disadvantages.

Researchers know a lot about antigay prejudice 

Lehavot and Lambert (2007) suggest that sexual prejudice occurs because LGBT individuals violate heteronormative gender-role expectations, and that gender nonconforming gays and lesbians experience more disapproval [5].

Parrot (2009) found that anti-femininity norms in heterosexual men mediate the relationship between sexual prejudice and anger toward gay men. Heterosexual men who adhere strongly to “traditional” masculinity norms experience discomfort when perceiving gay men as “feminine”. This suggests that heterosexual men punish gay men not only for challenging masculine gender norms, but also to validate their own masculinity. Heterosexual males’ hostility toward gender nonconformity parallels their opposition to same-sex marriage.

While general U.S. attitudes favoring same-sex marriage have increased, Maskowitz, Rieger, and Roloff (2010) found that heterosexual men oppose same-sex marriage more than heterosexual women, and that they have a preference of “lesbian marriage” over “gay marriage.” Anti-femininity norms, and broader disapproval of gender nonconformity, contribute toward heterosexuals’ opposition of same-sex marriage. Opposition to same-sex marriage is sexual prejudice.

Columnist Tiffany Wayne argues that same-sex marriage threatens “traditional marriage” by challenging gender norms, and psychological research supports this claim.  On average, many LGB individuals are more gender nonconforming than heterosexuals [8], and they challenge societal norms of how women and men “should” behave. They do so through egalitarian division of labor, and by challenging stereotypes such as the “breadwinner” [9,10,11]. Sexual minorities are both masculine and feminine, and this is good.

Psychologist Marvin Goldfried [12] suggests that same-sex marriage has achieved what the feminist movement alone was unable to, a household where children endorse less stereotypic gender roles. Emotionally healthy parents engender well-adjusted children. One perspective is to fear same-sex marriage and to conclude that it will destabilize the institution. A more realistic appraisal—supported through psychological research—suggests that same-sex marriage will provide a more nuanced understanding of relationships and uncover how restrictive gender roles undermine our sense of self.

References:

1. Hatzenbuehler, O’Cleirigh, Grasso, Mayer, Safren, & Bradford. (2011). Effect of Same-Sex Marriage Laws on Health Care Use and Expenditures in Sexual Minority Men: A Quasi-Natural Experiment. American Journal of Public Health, 102(2), 285-291. doi: 10.2105/ajph.2011.300382

2. Wight, R. G., LeBlanc, A. J., & Lee Badgett, M. V. (2012). Same-Sex Legal Marriage and Psychological Well-Being: Findings From the California Health Interview Survey. American Journal of Public Health, 103(2), 339-346. doi: 10.2105/ajph.2012.301113

3. Denney, J. T., Gorman, B. K., & Barrera, C. B. (2013). Families, Resources, and Adult Health: Where Do Sexual Minorities Fit? Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 54(1), 46-63. doi: 10.1177/0022146512469629

4. Liu, H., Reczek, C., & Brown, D. (2013). Same-Sex Cohabitors and Health: The Role of Race- Ethnicity, Gender, and Socioeconomic Status. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 54(1), 25-45. doi: 10.1177/0022146512468280

5. Lehavot, K., & Lambert, A. J. (2007). Toward a greater understanding of antigay prejudice: On the role of sexual orientation and gender role violation. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29(3), 279-292. doi: 10.1080/01973530701503390

6. Parrott, D. (2009). Aggression toward gay men as gender role enforcement: Effects of male role norms, sexual prejudice, and masculine gender role stress. Journal of Personality, 77(4), 1137-1166. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00577.x

7. Moskowitz, D. A., Rieger, G., & Roloff, M. E. (2010). Heterosexual Attitudes Toward Same-Sex Marriage. Journal of Homosexuality, 57(2), 325-336. doi: 10.1080/00918360903489176

8. Rieger, G., Linsenmeier, J. A. W., Gygax, L., Garcia, S., & Bailey, J. M. (2010). Dissecting “gaydar”: Accuracy and the role of masculinity-femininity. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39(1), 124-140. doi: 10.1007/s10508-008-9405-2

9. Jaspers, E., & Verbakel, E. (2013). The Division of Paid Labor in Same-Sex Couples in the Netherlands. Sex Roles, 68(5-6), 335-348. doi: 10.1007/s11199-012-0235-2

10. Patterson, C. J. (2009). Lesbian and Gay Parents and their Children: A Social Science Perspective. In D. A. Hope (Ed.), Contemporary Perspectives on Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Identities (Vol. 54, pp. 141-182): Springer New York.

11. Rothblum, E. (2009). An Overview of Same-Sex Couples in Relation Ships: A Research Area Still at Sea. In D. Hope (Ed.), Contemporary Perspectives on Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Identities (Vol. 54, pp. 113-139): Springer New York.

12. Goldfried, M. R. (2009). Love, Marriage, and Baby Carriage Among Sexual Minorities- and Bias: Discussion of the 54th Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. In D. A. Hope (Ed.), Contemporary Perspectives on Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Identities (Vol. 54, pp. 183-195). New York: Springer.

One stereotype of gay men is that they are all fit, well dressed, good looking, and rich. Of course this isn’t true of all gay men, but the stereotype does emerge from the many gay men that seem to put inordinate effort into making themselves perfect in every achievable way—spending a lot of time at the gym, at work, or striving for the best grades in school. I have often wondered what drives these ambitions and what are the psychological costs of striving for perfection?  Two of my colleagues recently published a paper exploring these questions and I asked them to write a guest blog explaining their study. What follows is a guest blog by Dr. John Pachankis of Yeshiva University and Dr. Mark Hatzenbuehler of Columbia University.     

Recent research reveals why the phrase “the best little boy in the world” aptly describes so many young gay and bisexual men.  The phrase derives from the eponymous novel published in 1973 by Andrew Tobias, a classic coming out narrative, in which the author recounts his efforts to overcompensate for and evade detection of his nascent sexual orientation by excelling at seemingly everything.  Since the publication of Tobias’ memoir, numerous gay authors, therapists, and public figures have harnessed the “best little boy in the world” theme to describe their own formative experiences of presenting an infallible facade to guard the personal secret of their sexual orientation.

For example, former New Jersey governor Jim McGreevy in his memoir, The Confession, writes about how the hostilities of his childhood environment forced him to conceal his sexual orientation and avidly seek status and achievement instead of same-sex love. He writes, “I think I decided that my ambition would give me more pleasure…than true love.”  Author Paul Monette in his autobiographic account, Becoming a Man, describes submerging his gay identity through excelling at school work.  Journalist Andrew Sullivan in his cultural commentary, Love Undetectable, similarly describes “appeasing my anxiety by perfecting every nook and cranny of my academic requirements.”  All describe their personal striving to be “the best” in order to cope with their perception of the identity-tarnishing stigma of being gay.  The evidence for this phenomenon extends to clinical accounts of gay male development as well.  Psychiatrist Richard Isay writes in Becoming Gay that young gay men are forced to become reliant on their own internal resources because approval from others is not guaranteed.  Clinical psychologist Alan Downs poignantly discusses the phenomenon of gay men going to great lengths to present an infallible facade to mask their secrets in his clinical account, The Velvet Rage.  For example, he notes, “We survived by learning to conform to the expectations of others…  How would we love ourselves when everything around us told us that we were unlovable?  Instead, we chased the affection, approval, and attention doled out by others.”  Finally, in the Best Little Boy in the World, Andrew Tobias notes his early tendency to stave off rejection of his sexual orientation through his academic accomplishments, “Another important line of defense, the most important on a practical day-to-day basis, was my prodigious list of activities…No one could expect me to be out dating…when I had a list of 17 urgent projects to complete.”

As clinical psychologists and public health researchers, we too noticed that “the best little boy in the world” phenomenon seemed to elegantly explain the strategies used by so many young gay men whom we encounter in our personal and professional lives.  Given all the theorizing, story-telling, and personal observations documenting this phenomenon, we were surprised that no one had ever empirically studied the supposed tendency of young gay men to cope with the early, isolating awareness of their sexual orientation by striving to be “the best” and the potential psychological costs of this striving.  We therefore set out to empirically document ”the best little boy in the world” phenomenon.

We wondered whether, consistent with “the best little boy in the world” narrative, young gay men would be particularly likely to invest their self-worth in those life domains in which they are particularly likely to succeed despite being stigmatized.  For example, since young gay men cannot be assured of family support, peer approval, or God’s love as long as they hide their sexual orientation from everyone, it may be wise for them not to invest their self-worth in those life domains.  Success in these domains cannot be controlled and guaranteed when one is gay, unlike success in academics, good looks, and being the best at competitive tasks, which are relatively more controllable and guaranteed, with at least some effort.  In fact, being good in academics, looking dapper, and attaining status may be one way to stave off detection of one’s sexual orientation or to compensate for any rejection if a young gay man’s sexual orientation gets discovered.

Rather than suggesting that gay men possess some innate tendency to be the best dressed and most accomplished, we proposed that these tendencies would be products of the social environment in which gay men are raised.  Even today, some early environments are so unwelcoming for gays and lesbians that adolescents who recognize that they have romantic or sexual feelings toward members of the same sex and who live in homophobic places may conceal their sexual orientation from everyone–parents, teachers, friends–for many years.  Growing up in unwelcoming places and hiding an essential part of oneself for an extended period of time is bound to come at a cost.  We proposed that this cost is having to invest one’s self-worth in life domains that can be controlled and guaranteed, at least more so than family support, peer approval, or God’s love.  We also proposed a further cost, namely that the greater the degree to which young gay men invest in these achievement-related domains, the greater the lengths they would go to assure success in them, even if in unhealthy ways, such as isolating oneself, eating too much or too little, or lying and getting into arguments with others.

To test “the best little boy in the world” theory, we asked 136 gay and 56 straight college students to indicate the degree to which they invested their self-worth in seven different life domains.  We asked the gay participants to indicate the age at which they first became aware that they were gay and the age at which they first told another person that they were gay, so that we could determine the length of time that each gay participant was completely closeted.  We also asked gay participants to indicate the state in which they attended high school so that we could calculate the degree of non-acceptance of lesbian and gay people in those states at the time that participants were initially forming a gay identity.  We then followed participants every day for nine consecutive days by asking them to indicate the degree to which they engaged in unhealthy habits each day, such as being socially isolated, eating too much or too little, lying to others, and getting into arguments.

Our research showed that young gay men strategically invest their self-worth in those areas in which they can succeed, namely academics, appearance, and competition, more so than straight men.  Essentially, it seems as if young gay men go to great lengths to prove their worth to others in those domains.  This is particularly likely for those who concealed their sexual orientation for long periods of time when growing up and for those who grew up in more stigmatizing states.  Our results also showed that being “the best little boy in the world” comes at a cost, as young gay men who invested in these status-related domains were more likely to spend more time alone, to report more daily eating problems, getting into arguments and lying to others, and to feel more stress each day.

Our research may help solve the puzzle of why several large studies have shown that, on average, gay men’s self-esteem is not any lower than straight men’s self-esteem, despite facing greater adversity.  Our findings uncover the strategies that young gay men might use to protect their self-esteem against threat.  Similar to African American college students who are particularly likely, for example, to base their self-esteem in God’s love and thereby protect their self-esteem, the young gay men in our study were particularly likely to base their self-esteem in status-related domains.  Importantly, like the authors of “best little boy in the world” narratives, the participants in our study were mostly white, middle class, college-educated men.  The extent to which possessing multiple stigmatized identities might shape self-worth remains to be seen, as does the extent to which this or a similar phenomenon applies to women.

Our research also reveals some important lessons for young gay men’s health and well-being.  The results of our research suggest that gay men take careful stock of the extent to which their self-worth derives from seeking status from domains like being the best, looking the best, or earning high grades or lots of money.  If gay men do recognize that their self-worth comes from those domains, they might consider the health costs of doing so.  Do they experience trouble in relationships with others, such as frequent arguing or spending lots of time alone?  Will they compromise personal values to attain status?  Are they chronically stressed or engaging in unhealthy habits, like going to the gym to an unhealthy degree or restricting their food intake?  If gay men answer “yes” to any of these questions, it will first be important to recognize that these difficulties are not personal failings and may have their source in stigma and the early lessons learned from growing up in a stigmatizing world.  Psychotherapy with a compassionate, gay-affirmative therapist can help gay men understand the legacy of experiencing early stressors like hiding one’s sexual orientation during adolescence or growing up in homophobic environments.  For many gay men, the negative effects of these early experiences may not be obvious at first, but can nonetheless be successfully addressed with supportive help from friends or professionals.

In conclusion, our recent research reveals the ways in which many young gay men display impressive resilience in the face of challenges inherent to managing a stigmatizing, personal secret in isolation from an early age.  Rather than being passive victims of stigma, young gay men show ingenious ways to preserve their self-esteem despite threats to it.  Seeking self-esteem through being “the best” represents a creative adaptation to stigma, albeit one that may eventually come at a personal cost, especially if the strategy has outlived its original usefulness.

Reference:

Pachankis, J. E., & Hatzenbuehler, M. L.  (2013). The social development of contingent self-worth among sexual minority young men: An empirical test of the “Best Little Boy in the World” hypothesis.  Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 35, 176-190.DOI:10.1080/01973533.2013.764304

About the Contributing Bloggers:

John Pachankis, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor of Psychology at Yeshiva University.  He received his Ph.D. in clinical psychology from the State University of New York at Stony Brook in 2008 and completed his clinical psychology internship at Harvard Medical School / McLean Hospital.  His research seeks to identify the ways in which stigma leads to poor mental health outcomes within lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) populations and to develop and disseminate effective health interventions to improve the health of the LGBT community.  His research is currently funded by the National Institute of Mental Health and the National Institute on Drug Abuse and has received several awards from the American Psychological Association.  In addition to his academic training and research experience, throughout his career John has been actively involved in the development and delivery of health initiatives within LGBT community-based settings.  In summer 2013, John will join the faculty of the Social and Behavioral Sciences division of the Yale School of Public Health where he will continue his research on LGBT health interventions.

Mark L. Hatzenbuehler, PhD, is Assistant Professor of Sociomedical Sciences at Columbia University. He completed his doctoral degree in clinical psychology at Yale University and was a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Health & Society Scholar at Columbia.  Dr. Hatzenbuehler’s research examines how structural forms of stigma increase risk for adverse health outcomes among members of socially disadvantaged populations, with a particular focus on lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals. His research has been published in several leading journals, including the American Journal of Public Health, Psychological Bulletin, and Pediatrics. Dr. Hatzenbuehler’s research has received multiple awards from the American Public Health Association and the American Psychological Association, has been widely covered in the media, including television, radio, and print interviews, and has been cited in court cases on sexual orientation-related discrimination.  Dr. Hatzenbuehler is currently being funded on a K01 award from the National Institute on Drug Abuse to study social determinants of substance use and other health outcomes among sexual minority youth.

Image courtesy of We Are the Youth.