RESUMO
Background: Transgender and gender nonconforming (TGNC) individuals experience an increased prevalence of many psychological disorders, leading many to reach out for support from family, friends, mental health professionals, and religious or community networks. Nonetheless, experiences seeking support are often negative, and many psychotherapists report feeling underprepared to work with TGNC clients. To better understand the experiences of TGNC individuals and better equip psychotherapists in their work with TGNC clients, we investigate which sources of support most successfully buffer psychological distress among TGNC individuals. Aims: This study aims to identify differences in levels of various types of support (social, family, religious, and living-situation) between cisgender and TGNC individuals and examine how these types of support may or may not buffer psychological distress among TGNC individuals. Method: We used a United States national sample of 3,090 students (1,030 cisgender men; 1,030 cisgender women; 349 transgender; 681 endorsing another gender identity) from the Center for Collegiate Mental Health 2012-2015 database which provided basic demographic information through the Standardized Data Set. Psychological distress was measured through the Counseling Center Assessment of Psychological Symptoms 34-item questionnaire. Results: TGNC individuals reported more distress, less family support, more social support, and less frequent religious affiliation than cisgender men and women. Family and social support emerged as the strongest predictors of distress for both TGNC and cisgender individuals. Though religious affiliation and living on-campus buffered distress among cisgender students, they did not buffer distress among TGNC students. Conclusion: Our study highlights disparities in distress and support between TGNC and cisgender individuals. We found that although religious affiliation and on-campus living are beneficial for cisgender students, neither systematically buffers distress for TGNC students. These findings illustrate the impact minority stress and systemic discrimination may have on TGNC individuals and provide suggestions for therapeutic intervention in work with TGNC individuals.
RESUMO
[Correction Notice: An Erratum for this article was reported in Vol 147(7) of Psychological Bulletin (see record 2022-08521-004). In the article, there was an error in the calculation of the effect sizes from one study. The three effect sizes for Wolff et al. (2016) listed in Table B1 of the online supplemental materials should have been "r = .09, r = -.02, r = -.05," rather than "r = -.18, r = .53, r = -.35." We rechecked the calculations for other studies and effect sizes and found no additional errors. Further, analyses rerun with the revised data set resulted in no changes in significance for any analyses that included this study; hence, no conclusions were changed because of this error. In the article, the sentences in the final paragraph of the Statistical Analyses section that described this study as an outlier were deleted and replaced with "No such outliers were found." All versions of this article have been corrected.] Meta-analyses suggest that religiousness/spirituality (R/S) is consistently and positively associated with health (average r = .15); however, the strength and direction of this relationship is much less clear among sexual minorities, and many sexual minorities experience tension related to R/S. To address this, we present results from the first meta-analysis of the relationship between R/S and health among sexual minorities. Using 279 effect sizes nested within 73 studies, multilevel meta-analyses suggest a small but positive overall relationship between R/S and health among sexual minorities (r = .05), with a substantial amount of residual heterogeneity. Moderator analyses clarify that this relationship is particularly positive when R/S is conceptualized as spirituality (r = .14) or as religious cognition (e.g., belief; r = .10). The relationship between R/S and health disappears or becomes negative when participants are sampled from sexual minority venues (e.g., bars/clubs; r = .01). Minority stress, structural stigma, and causal pathways theories provide some structure to understand results; however, none of these theories is able to explain results fully. We synthesize these theories to provide an initial theoretical explanation: the degree to which R/S promotes or harms sexual minorities' health depends on (a) where the individual is in their sexual identity development/integration; (b) what their current R/S beliefs, practices, and motivations are; and (c) how well their environmental circumstances support their sexual and/or religious identities. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).