Polyvictimization prevalence rates for sexual and gender minority adolescents: Breaking down the silos of victimization research.

Abstract

Objective: To identify lifetime polyvictimization rates by gender identity and sexual orientation, for a national sample of sexual and gender minority adolescents. Method: An anonymous, incentivized, online survey was completed by 1177 sexual and gender minority adolescents who were currently enrolled in middle or high school (14 to 19-years-old). Results: Most of the sample experienced some form of lifetime physical assault (81.3%), bullying victimization (88.8%), sexual victimization (80.6%), child maltreatment (78.8%), property victimization (80.1%), and indirect or witnessed forms of victimization (75.0%). The overall rate of polyvictimization for the sample was 41.3%. Genderqueer assigned male at birth (65.4%), transgender female (63.2%), transgender male (57.4%), genderqueer assigned female at birth (55.0%), and cisgender female (39.3%) adolescents were significantly more likely to be lifetime polyvictimized than their cisgender male counterparts (31.1%). Additionally, pansexual (56.8%), queer (52.0%), questioning (47.0%), and bisexual (45.8%) participants were significantly more likely to be lifetime polyvictimized than gay-identified peers (32.7%). Conclusions: This is the first study to identify lifetime polyvictimization rates for sexual and gender minority adolescents. These findings call into question the practice of studying single forms of victimization for this population as if they occur in isolation to one another. Future research is needed to identify the shared risk and protective factors across victimization subtypes to inform prevention and intervention strategies for this vulnerable adolescent population.

Patterns of childhood maltreatment and intimate partner violence, emotion dysregulation, and mental health symptoms among lesbian, gay, and bisexual emerging adults: A three-step latent class approach

“…Notably, we did not find any differences across LGB identities between the high victimization class, other classes with predominant IPV exposure (i.e., cybervictimization and adult face-to-face IPV), and the lower victimization class as found in prior studies on IPV (Goldberg & Meyer, 2013;Messinger, 2011). Nonetheless, our findings corroborate prior literature that bisexual women and men report higher childhood maltreatment (Sterzing et al, 2017(Sterzing et al, , 2016) when compared to lesbian women or gay men, respectively. The present findings suggest that clinicians working with LGB people of color, and bisexual individuals, particularly bisexual women, with experiences of victimization during childhood should be sensitive to the nuanced challenges faced by their clients.…”

“…Similarly in childhood maltreatment, bisexual adolescents were more likely to be exposed to any child maltreatment, and bisexuals and lesbians were more likely to be exposed to emotional abuse and physical neglect than their gay-identified counterparts (Sterzing et al, 2017). However, another study did not find any difference in childhood maltreatment types or in face-to-face IPV types between lesbian and gay individuals when compared with bisexual adults, although the latter were more likely to report a history of rape (non-intimate partner) than gay and lesbian individuals (Balsam et al, 2005).…”

“…First, the present study aimed to identify latent classes of victimization based on types of childhood abuse and neglect, namely, emotional, physical, and sexual abuse and emotional and physical neglect, adulthood face-to-face physical assault, sexual assault, psychological abuse, and injury, and three types of intimate partner psychological, sexual and stalking cybervictimization, among lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) emerging adults. It was hypothesized that there would be varying patterns of exposure to childhood maltreatment, face-to-face IPV and cyber IPV types among LGB individuals, in that at least one latent class would have higher probabilities of exposure to CAN and IPV types (hypothesis 1) (Sterzing et al, 2017;Walters et al, 2013). Second, we examined the association between LGB status and racial/ethnicity, and latent class-membership, and based on the minority stress theory (Meyer, 2003), hypothesized that bisexual men and women (Goldberg & Meyer, 2013;Messinger, 2011), and people of color, including White-Hispanics (Balsam et al, 2010;Reuter et al, 2017), would more likely be in classes with exposure to CAN and IPV (hypothesis 2).…”

A Systematic Review of Family Victimization Experiences Among Sexual Minority Youth

“…Utilizing these individual- and family-level interventions requires the development of assessment tools that screen for the full range of family victimization experiences and risk factors detailed in this review (Sterzing et al, 2017; Sterzing, Ratliff, Gartner, McGeough, & Johnson, 2017). Such an assessment tool could help to identify the most vulnerable individuals for targeted prevention efforts and interventions because experiencing multiple types of victimization is so strongly associated with negative health outcomes (Finkelhor et al, 2011) and serves as a risk factor for extrafamilial revictimization (Finkelhor et al, 2009).…”

“I Went into This as One Person, and Then Came Out a Totally Different Person”: Native LGBTQ2S+ Young Adults’ Conceptions of Trauma

“…An intersectional lens is necessary for understanding health disparities as people's multiple marginalized identities interact to create distinctively unequal experiences and individuals must often simultaneously manage numerous oppressions (Collins, 1990;Crenshaw, 1990;Meyer, 2010), as sexual and gender minority adolescents experience childhood adversities at higher rates than their heterosexual peers (Sterzing et al, 2017). LGBTQ2S+ YA of color often contend with both LGBT-related and racial-ethnic-related stressors on a regular basis, such as family rejection and police harassment (Kuper et al, 2014).…”