A critical deconstructed quantitative analysis: Sexual and gender minority stress through an intersectional lens

Abstract

This study puts forth a critical deconstructed quantitative analysis process that systematically interrogated elements of a quantitative study (research questions/hypotheses, sample, measures, analysis, interpretation) in an effort to evaluate and improve intersectional research on sexual and gender minority stress and mental health. Our quantitative study used minority stress processes (anticipated discrimination, social support) as indirect explanations for mental health disparities found between: (1) sexual and gender minorities (n = 167), and (2) sexual minorities only (n = 148) and explored community connectedness as a moderator of these processes. We then applied Cole's (2009) intersectionality framework questions in our critical deconstructed analysis to evaluate our study. Our quantitative results revealed sexual and gender minorities (compared to sexual minorities only) were at risk for worse mental health due to increased exposure to minority stress processes. However, findings were tempered by limitations, which became evident when systematically evaluating our study using an intersectionality framework. We offer recommendations for future minority stress research and policy, including that researchers implement a critical deconstructed quantitative analysis a priori when designing quantitative studies, in order to better apply an intersectionality framework and improve research.

Temporal trends in rates of depression, anxiety, and suicidality among cisgender sexual minority and heterosexual college students.

“…The assessment of sexual orientation has changed significantly across the different NCHA surveys. In the original NCHA-I (Spring 2000–Spring 2008), participants were asked “Which of the following best describes you?” Response options included “heterosexual,” “gay/lesbian,” “bisexual,” “transgendered,” and “unsure.” Due to the conflation of sexual orientation and transgender identity in the sexual orientation item from the NCHA-I, as well as the unique experiences of structural stigma and minority stress among gender minorities compared with sexual minorities (Hendricks & Testa, 2012; Williams et al, 2020), participants who responded “transgendered” were excluded from all analyses. In the NCHA-IIa/IIb (Fall 2008–Spring 2015), participants were asked “What is your sexual orientation?” Response options included “heterosexual,” “gay/lesbian,” “bisexual,” and “unsure.” In the NCHA-IIc (Fall 2015–Spring 2019), participants were asked “Which term best describes your sexual orientation?” Response options included “asexual,” “bisexual,” “gay,” “lesbian,” “pansexual,” “queer,” “questioning,” “same gender loving,” “straight/heterosexual,” and “another identity (please specify).” Because a substantial proportion of those who identified as “another identity” provided nonserious, mocking, or prejudicial responses, these participants were excluded from all analyses.…”

“…Response options included "heterosexual," "gay/lesbian," "bisexual," "transgendered," and "unsure." Due to the conflation of sexual orientation and transgender identity in the sexual orientation item from the NCHA-I, as well as the unique experiences of structural stigma and minority stress among gender minorities compared with sexual minorities (Hendricks & Testa, 2012;Williams et al, 2020), participants who responded "transgendered" were excluded from all analyses. In the NCHA-IIa/IIb (Fall 2008-Spring 2015, participants were asked "What is your sexual orientation?"…”

Processes in international relationships: A critical review

“…To their credit, Overstreet et al recommended that psychologists draw upon intersectionality theory in linking intergroup relations with intra‐group relations. However, none of the articles in the 2020 JSI edition (which also included Bullock et al, 2020; Case et al, 2020; Cole, 2020; Ellison & Langhout, 2020; Hagai et al, 2020; Heberle et al, 2020; Nair & Vollhardt, 2020; Richter et al, 2020; Rosenthal et al, 2020; Settles et al, 2020; Williams et al, 2020; and Young, 2020) covered relationship processes (other than receipt of social support as reported by Williams et al).…”

Revealing the queer-spectrum in STEM through robust demographic data collection in undergraduate engineering and computer science courses at four institutions

“…ones not focused on gender and/or sexual, romantic, and related identities), these identities are often lumped together (e.g. with LGBT, or lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender), erroneously implying that all people with different queer and intersectional identities have similar needs and experience similar challenges [ 35 , 46 , 47 ]. To the contrary, because individuals with different identities face different structural and social barriers within society, it is vital to collect information on both general (e.g.…”

“…Collecting disaggregated queer-spectrum identity data along with a range of other social identities can provide valuable information about people’s experiences, as identity is not additive—i.e. the experiences of someone with both a queer gender and a queer sexual, romantic, and related orientation cannot be extrapolated by adding the experiences of those with only a queer gender or a queer sexual, romantic, and related orientation [ 47 ]. To effectively address the experiences of queer-spectrum individuals, it is vital to create space for each individual’s multiple and interacting social identities, including both their gender as well as their sexual, romantic, and related orientation identities.…”