Few studies have examined how the amalgamation of minority stressors for youth with multiple marginalized identities is associated with well-being. Additionally, among youth with multiple marginalized identities, identity centrality may clarify the associations between specific types of minority stressors (i.e., bias-based peer victimization, perceived discrimination) and adjustment. This study sought to identify intersectional profiles of perceived peer victimization, perceived discrimination, and identity centrality, specific to either Latinx ethnicity or sexual minority identity in the United States. Demographic characteristics associated with each profile (i.e., age, socioeconomic status, gender nonconformity, survey language, gender, rurality) were examined, as well as associations between profiles and grade point average, self-esteem, and depression. In a sample of 219 in-school Latinx sexual minority youth (47% secondary, 53% postsecondary;Mage =19 years, SD= 2.3), four profiles of intersectional minority stress (perceived victimization, discrimination) and identity centrality were identified: (a) low stress, low centrality; (b) low stress, high centrality; (c) moderate stress, moderate centrality, and (d) high stress, moderate centrality. Men, youth who were relatively older, socioeconomically advantaged, gender nonconforming, and those living in urban areas had higher probabilities of membership in profiles with moderate and high stress. Compared to the low stress, low centrality profile, profiles with higher levels of intersectional stress were associated with maladjustment, whereas the profile characterized by low stress, high centrality had higher levels of self-esteem.
Bibliographical noteFunding Information:
Support for this project was provided by a National Institute of Minority Health and Health Disparities Loan Repayment Award L60 MD008862 to Russell B. Toomey. We thank the young people who participated in the study. We also thank the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network (GLSEN) for their assistance with participant recruitment. The study was approved by GLSEN's Research Ethics Review Committee for promotion by GLSEN
© 2017 Global Alliance for Behavioral Health and Social Justice.