Sexual Minority Youth, Social Change, and Health: A Developmental Collision

Russell, Stephen T.; Fish, Jessica N.

doi:10.1080/15427609.2018.1537772

Cited by 143 publications

(134 citation statements)

References 82 publications

(70 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

120

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A second body of work moves beyond the nature of SGM adolescent family‐of‐origin ties to explore the implications of these ties on well‐being. Despite increased social acceptance, SGM youth still experience significant health disparities relative to their cisgender heterosexual peers (Russell & Fish, ), and numerous studies demonstrate that families are key in explaining SGM adolescents' worse health. High levels of parental strain and low levels of parental support are linked to a range of negative health outcomes for SGM youth (Bouris et al, ; D'Amico & Julien, ; Fredriksen‐Goldsen, Shiu, Bryan, Goldsen, & Kim, ; McConnell, Birkett, & Mustanski, ; Russell & Fish, ; Ryan, Russell, Huebner, Diaz, & Sanchez, ; Watson, Grossman, & Russell, ).…”

Section: Sgm Family‐of‐origin Relationshipsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sexual‐ and Gender‐Minority Families: A 2010 to 2020 Decade in Review

Reczek

2020

J of Marriage and Family

178

136

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper critically reviews research on sexual and gender minority (SGM) families, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, asexual, intersex, and other (LGBTQAI+) families, in the past decade (2010–2020). First, this paper details the three primary subareas that make up the majority of research on SGM families: (1) SGM family of origin relationships, (2) SGM intimate relationships, and (3) SGM‐parent families. Next, this paper highlights three main gaps in this decade's research: (1) a focus on gay, lesbian, and same‐sex families (and to a lesser extent bisexual and transgender families) and a lack of attention to the diverse family ties of single SGM people as well as intersex, asexual, queer, gender non‐binary/non‐conforming, polyamorous, and other SGM families; (2) an emphasis on white, socioeconomically advantaged SGM people and a failure to account for the significant racial‐ethnic and socioeconomic diversity in the SGM population; and (3) a lack of integration of SGM experiences across the life course, from childhood to old age. Future research should refine the measurement and analysis of SGM family ties with novel theory and data across the methodological spectrum.

show abstract

Section: Sgm Family‐of‐origin Relationshipsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sexual‐ and Gender‐Minority Families: A 2010 to 2020 Decade in Review

Reczek

2020

J of Marriage and Family

178

136

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Same‐sex marriage became legal in the United States in 2015 and was also recently legalized in many other countries (e.g., Argentina 2010, Australia 2017, Denmark 2012, Germany 2017, England 2013, New Zealand 2013, Taiwan 2019; Pew Research Center, ). Research has documented a general positive shift in attitudes toward sexual and gender minorities (Russell & Fish, ). At the same time, discrimination is persistent, and indeed, many legal protections for LGBTQ individuals have been removed (Veldhuis, Drabble, Riggle, Wootton, & Hughes, ).…”

Section: Family Forms and Demographic Trendsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Decade of Research on Intergenerational Ties: Technological, Economic, Political, and Demographic Changes

Fingerman

Huo

Birditt

2020

J of Marriage and Family

117

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Due to extended transitions to adulthood and declining marital rates, bonds between adults and parents have grown increasingly salient in individuals' lives. This review organizes research around these topics to address ties between parents and grown children in the context of broader societal changes over the past decade. Literature searches included tables of contents of premier journals (e.g., Journal of Marriage and Family), Psychological Info, and Google Scholar. The literature review revealed patterns of social and intergenerational changes. Technological advances (e.g., introduction of the smart phone) co‐occurred with more frequent contact and interdependence between generations. The Great Recession and financial strains altered the nature of many parent/child ties, including increased rates of intergenerational coresidence. Individual life problems such as divorce, addiction, and physical health problems were reflected in complex changes in positive and negative relationship qualities, ambivalence, and intergenerational support. Government policies reflect societal values and in turn, affected the distribution of parents' and grown children's resources. Political disruptions instigated migration, separating generations across large geographic regions. Political disruptions instigated migration, separating generations across large geographic regions. Demographic changes (e.g., constellation of family members, delayed marriage, same sex marriage) were also manifest in ties between adults and parents. Findings were consistent with the Intergenerational Systems in Context Model, which posits that societal transformations co‐occur with changes in intergenerational relationships via reciprocal influences.

show abstract

“…Might these early experiences of rejection become part of the learning history that sets an early precedent for elevated sexual orientation-specific RS across the life course? Further, considering the declining age of coming out for adolescents, experiences with rejection and internalization of negative messaging around sexual minority identity may come at a younger age than previous generations, when both mental health (Russell & Fish, 2019 ) and RS are more vulnerable to these unique social stressors.…”

Section: Critical Developmental Periods For Rejection Sensitivitymentioning

confidence: 99%