LGBT Community Research Paper

Abstract

The older LGBT community is an extremely resilient group that faces additional unique intersectional stressors as they anticipate expected mental and physical health decline. Despite the advances (i.e., marriage equality) made worldwide towards positively evaluating the LGBT community as a whole, there is still a great need in educating service providers, the general public, and very importantly, healthcare providers, to address these diverse issues and enhance adequate care. The purpose of this experiment is to better understand attitudes towards this specific group of LGBT people and investigate whether people’s perceptions towards the LGBT community are influenced by the LGBT person’s age and level of outness (i.e., openly or not openly gay). Experiment 1 would consist of surveying 200 participants from Texas A&M University–Corpus Christi to explore if the participant’s age, the evaluated LGBT person’s age, and the evaluated target’s level of outness influence attitudes towards the target. Expected results are that the openly gay younger targets will be perceived the most positively, followed by the not openly gay young targets, openly gay older targets, and then the not openly gay older targets. If true, these results will illustrate that social prejudice in the form of homophobia and ageism influences evaluations of older LGBT people.

Measuring Attitudes Towards the Older LGBT Community and Their Levels of Outness

Historically, LGBT people have faced more negative evaluations as well as prejudice and violence than compared to heterosexual people. Blashill and Powlishta (2009) note specifically that gay men and lesbians are disliked more than non-gay individuals and are more likely to be avoided by others. In addition, LGBT individuals are more likely to be discriminated against in their workplace (Badgett, Lau, Sears, & Ho, 2007). As a result of these social prejudices and discriminations, some LGBT people are uncomfortable with disclosing their identities and relationships. This has negative implications, especially for members of the LGBT community that are older, as they will be less likely to disclose pertinent medical health information to their providers for fear of being ostracized, which may result in detrimental incompetent care.

With the advances made in technology and health care over the last few decades, the population of individuals aged 65 and older is rising steadily and is estimated to double by 2050, as compared to 2012 (Ortman, Velkoff, & Hogan, 2014). Although difficult to obtain an accurate census data report on the number of older LGBT individuals, it is generally estimated that there are currently up to 4 million LGBT individuals over the age of 65 (Fredriksen-Goldsen, K.I., & Kim, 2017). They note that like the general older population, the LGBT older community population is also expected to double by 2060. In addition to foreseeing the expected health decline that comes with aging, older LGBT adults also face social, legal, economic, and healthcare-related stressors across their lifetime. Research has shown specifically that older LGBT adults are much more likely to live alone and less likely to bear children, leading them into social isolation (Fredriksen-Goldsen, Kim, Shui, Golsen, & Emlet, 2015; Cahill et al., 2000). Legally, there are still many institutional discriminatory laws that prevent LGBT adults from accessing the same benefits that heterosexual people do (Addis et al., 2009). Badgett, Durso, and Schneebaum (2013) found that older LGBT adults are more likely to be financially unstable and insecure as well as earn lower wages throughout their lifetime than compared to their heterosexual counterparts. Finally, older LGBT adults are much less likely to receive appropriate, adequate, and timely healthcare due to either perceived discrimination that they fear from healthcare providers and medical professionals or actual discrimination from service providers that refuse to treat LGBT patients (Hash & Rogers, 2013).

The purpose of this paper is to propose an experiment that investigates the perceptions of the older LGBT community and determine whether those evaluations are influenced by the participant’s age, the older LGBT person’s age, and the older LGBT person’s level of outness. This study would add to the minimally existing literature about the unique concerns and needs of LGBT adults as they age through life. These findings would illustrate the potential intersectional discriminatory factors such as homophobia and ageism that can then be addressed to provide for effective education and training to raise empathy and accommodations of the general community.

Perceptions of Homosexuality

It is only recently that the majority of the public population’s evaluations of LGBT people have changed for the better. Flores (2014) notes that people perceive and express positive attitudes and general acceptance of the LGBT community as compared to thirty years ago. Unfortunately, however, LGBT individuals still continue to be prejudiced and discriminated against, emphasizing the necessity of research that focuses on how and why people evaluate LGBT people (Blashill and Powlishta, 2009). Even further, perceptions of the older, aging community remain relatively negative in comparison to perceptions of the youth (Cottle & Glover, 2007). There is minimal, if any, research specifically on the perceptions of older LGBT individuals, though it can be assumed that they would be in line with the perceptions of the LGBT community and of the older adult community.

There are a number of factors that may contribute to how people perceive and evaluate the LGBT community, such as the evaluator’s characteristics (i.e., gender, age, attitudes towards homosexuality) and information that is provided by the LGBT person (i.e., target person’s gender, age, level of outness). In general, those with prejudiced negative attitudes towards the LGBT community are more likely to prefer to interact with heterosexual individuals (Lehavot & Lambert, 2007). In addition, they found that men more than women, are more likely to possess and publicly exhibit negative attitudes towards LGBT individuals. Herek (2000) and Diamond (2005) found that the characteristics of the target LGBT individual also plays a part in forming the evaluations from others. Specifically, they note that gender plays a part in that lesbians are viewed more positively than homosexual men are viewed.

There are also a number of potential factors that contribute to the perceptions of the older adult population, namely ageist stereotypes and the correlation between declining mental and physical health that occurs in old age (Nosek et al., 2002). Further, they found that implicit negative perceptions of the older community in comparison to young people, were the strongest of any negative attitudes, including those of race and gender.

Level of Outness

Generally, being out is defined as the disclosure of one’s LGBT identity (Frost & Meyer, 2009). This level of outness mediates LGBT individuals in how they express themselves and socially interact with others. The differing levels of outness may depend on the number of people that an LGBT individual has disclosed their identity. Their outness is continual and can therefore be thought of as existing on a spectrum, normally ranging from not out at all, to being completely out to everyone that they know. Troiden (1979) reports that coming out or being out is a hard process that requires LGBT individuals to self-accept their identity and understand and combat the societal prejudice that exists in their world. If they can do that then higher levels of outness are said to reflect higher levels of self-esteem, confidence, and overall better mental health. As a result, openly out individuals may have a higher level of satisfaction in their lives, leading them to interact more socially and maintain more positive relationships, which may then increase positive attitudes towards them.

The Minority Stress Model and the Life-Course Perspective

The minority stress model as explained by Meyer (2003) and the life-course perspective as detailed by Cohler and Hammack (2007) provide two essential theoretical concepts that support this study. The minority stress model proposes that the stress experienced by minority groups, namely gender and sexual minority, leads to a unique divergent of chronic stress that may spread to their mental and physical well-being. The life-course perspective proposes that an individual’s well-being and general development can be explained at least in part by interactions with social others during times of changing political and societal climates. This adaptive skill to interact with various others even through major historical change may contribute to the individual’s health needs and outcomes. An example of this specific to this study is the prejudice and discrimination against LGBT people contributing to their avoidance of actively seeking out competent and supportive care and services that they need (Croghan, Moone, & Olson, 2014). Combining these two perspectives will hopefully be able to provide a more integrative viewpoint into understanding the fears of older LGBT adults.

This study hopes to add to the limited literature on the older LGBT community. Further education and understanding of the unique issues of this community have large implications that for social organizations and assisted living homes, economic and government programs, and healthcare providers. A recent survey has noted that a majority of older LGBT adults have expressed worries and concerns about neglect, abuse, and inadequate or limited access to long-term care and healthcare (AARP, 2018). In addition, these older LGBT individuals have mentioned actual verbal and physical discriminatory events that have happened to them not only throughout their lifetime but in their recent old age as well. This community of people that have faced a lifetime of inequality should not also have to spend their remaining years in fear.

Based on the previous research on perceptions of LGBT people and perceptions of older, aging adults, it can be hypothesized that there will be a main effect for participant age. Specifically, younger participants, more than older participants, will have more negative attitudes toward older LGBT adults. In addition, based on the studies about the correlation between the LGBT community and higher levels of outness leading to the overcoming of shame, then it can be hypothesized that higher levels of outness will lead to more positive attitudes towards the LGBT individual (Eliason & Schope, 2007). Specifically, it can be predicted that older LGBT adults that are openly out will be perceived more positively than older LGBT individuals that are not openly out.

Method

Participants and Design

The ideal number of participants to recruit for this study is roughly a total of 300. About 50 participants can be accounted for to be removed for any number of reasons (ie., failing to complete the survey, misrepresentation of personal characteristics). These participants and their collected data will come from Texas A&M University–Corpus Christi in 2019. The majority of participants in this experiment will most likely be recruited through the Psychology department, mainly through professors to their students in current courses, perhaps for extra credit. Other participants may come from the general university community. The ideal average age of the participants to be recruited in this study is roughly 30 – 40, to represent the perceptions of the general population of people rather than just the attitudes of young people or the attitudes of older adults. This is to avoid the intergroup biases that occur when individuals are a part of the same social group as shown in previous social psychology research (e.g., younger participants viewing younger LGBT people more positively than they view older LGBT people; Aboud 2003).

Measures

Attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. To account for any possible biases in participants’ responses to the survey, they will complete the Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men scale (ATLG) as developed by Herek (1994). This Likert scale includes 20 items rated from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). An example item includes “Female homosexuality is a sin.” Higher scores represent more negative than positive values toward homosexuality. This scale is reported to have had high internal reliability (α = .97).

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place Order

Perceptions of the target person. Participants' attitudes toward the target LGBT individual will be measured using the Perceptions of the Target Person Scale (PTPS), developed by Marks and Fraley (2005). This Likert scale includes 36 items rated from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). An example item includes “This person is successful.” Higher scores will indicate more positive evaluations about the target LGBT individual. Participants will complete this scale using the information on characteristics obtained from the vignette. This scale is also reported to have had high internal reliability (α = .94).

Balanced inventory of desirable responding. With this new wave of acceptance towards minority groups, the LGBT community, in particular, participants may feel the urge to give socially desirable responses to the survey. To attempt to control for this potential bias, participants will complete the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR), developed by Bobbio and Mangenelli (2011). This Likert scale includes 16 items rated from 1 (not true) to 7 (very true). An example item includes “I never regret my decisions.” Higher scores will indicate higher social desirability when answering. This scale is also reported to have had high internal reliability (α = .80).

Procedure

Participants, after being recruited to the experiment and agreeing with informed consent to participate, will be asked to complete the BIDR and the ATLG scales, in that order. They will then be assigned at random to read one of four short story vignettes. The information contained in all of the vignettes will be identical, except for the target LGBT person’s age (older or younger) and their level of openness (openly out or not openly out). After the participants finish reading their assigned vignettes, they will be asked to complete the PTPS. Lastly for the experiment, participants will answer some demographic questions for quantitative statistical use. After the experiment is finished, the participants will be thanked for their time and effort and properly debriefed before leaving.

Results

For this experiment, a hierarchical regression will be conducted to analyze the results and determine if there are any effects in relation to the hypotheses. The hierarchical regression will be completed to examine the dependent variable as being the attitudes towards the target LGBT person. In the first step of the hierarchical regression, the participant’s age, the target LGBT person’s age, and the target LGBT person’s level of outness will be coded for. In addition, the Likert scale averages for the ATLG and the BIDR will be entered in the first step as well. For the second step, potential two-way interactions of the variables will be coded for, including participant age x target age, participant age x target level of outness, participant age x ATLG, ATLG x target age, ATLG x target level of outness, and target age x target level of outness. In the third step of the hierarchical regression, potential three-way interactions of the variables will be coded for, including participant age x target age x target level of outness, ATLG x target age x target level of outness, ATLG x participant age x target level of outness, and ATLG x target age x participant age. Multicollinearity violations are not expected to occur with any of the results.

I expect to find that the step one model will be significant in terms of the attitudes scale, in that there will be a main effect on the target LGBT person’s level of outness. Specifically, more openly gay individuals will be viewed more positively than those that are not openly gay. In addition, I also expect to find a significant main effect for ATLG in that participants will score on the ATLG Likert scale higher than those that don’t, will have more negative attitudes towards the target LGBT people (see Figure 1). For steps two and three, I expect to find that the participant age x target age and the participant age x target age x target level of outness will be significant. Further analyses will include a simple slope analysis in relation to the ATLG scale scores and differentiation between participant ages.

Overall, I expect to find that individuals that score higher on the ATLG scale, or in other words, harbor more homophobic attitudes, will evaluate the target LGBT individuals more negatively, regardless of age. I also expect to find that younger participants will view older target LGBT individuals more negatively than they would the younger target LGBT individuals. Lastly, participants will view the target older LGBT individuals that are openly out more positively than those target individuals that are not openly out, regardless of participants’ age.

Discussion

Many older adults share core, universal themes of what they are concerned and worried about as they age: adequate residential and healthcare, financial stability, and low quality of social life. In addition to these general fears, older LGBT individuals experience additional unique stressors that may lead to detrimental mental and physical health outcomes. Some of these additional unique stressors include either perceived or actual prejudice and discrimination in social or professional settings, based on their LGBT identity, finding competent health care that addresses their distinctive gender and LGBT needs (i.e., transgender, HIV), and the stress of concealing their LGBT identity for fear of rejection (Fredriksen-Goldsen et al., 2014).

Further, research involving the disclosure of an individual’s LGBT identity to others has demonstrated that higher levels of outness, or being openly out, are related to high levels of life satisfaction and overall positive mental health (Clausell & Roisman, 2009). Unfortunately, there is not a lot of research, if any, on the general majority population’s (heterosexual) perceptions of the older LGBT community or on the LGBT community in terms of their level of outness. The purpose of this study then, was to analyze if a general individual’s attitude towards the LGBT community is influenced by the LGBT person’s age and level of outness. In identifying these relationships, education, and training may be implemented to promote awareness and empathy for this growing unique community.

Results of this study will hopefully show that younger individuals perceive older LGBT people more negatively than they would younger LGBT people, then it may be beneficial to address the stereotypes regarding the elderly population and ageism. In addition, if results show that higher levels of outness may lead to more positive attitudes from individuals, compared to those that have lower levels of outness, then it could be stated that perhaps being more open about an LGBT identity will be helpful to that individual instead of attempting to hide.

Implications

Many older LGBT adults face multiple social and economic stresses as they age, in addition to the natural mental and physical health decline. The results of this study may illustrate the importance and benefit of implementing LGBT-competent treatment and care in provider facilities that would address the fears and stressors of the older LGBT community. An example is that perhaps in older residential care facilities, LGBT-affirming psychosocial care could be included to identify and provide support for those individuals in need to maximize their quality of life (Porter et al., 2016).

Further, many LGBT individuals of all ages contemplate being out and consider factors of social support, validation, and discrimination in their decision. Research on LGBT outness has pointed to an incongruent relationship between LGBT people’s anticipated fears of treatment from others compared to general people’s actual attitudes towards the LGBT community. This research could make a suggestion that it would be more beneficial for LGBT individuals to be open about their identity than not, providing opportunities for open discussions and integrative pieces of training for all service providers and the general public.

Limitations

This proposal’s study comes with a few limitations. Predetermined Likert scales must be used to examine people’s attitudes toward the LGBT community. Previous research has dictated that usage of these scales has been successful but these scales in general may be limiting in addressing a wider range of perceptions, which might force participants to make choices that do not accurately represent their feelings. It would be helpful for future studies to include qualitative analyses of interviews, etc., to finely examine deeper meanings of participants’ attitudes towards the LGBT community.

Another limitation is that only LGBT people’s current identity status in terms of the level of outness was analyzed. An important influential factor in that identity status is the coming out process for LGBT individuals. It might be helpful for future studies to analyze participants’ attitudes toward the LGBT person’s coming out process and their justifications for coming out. Specific reasons may appeal to participants’ sense of empathy or even on the reverse, may trigger annoyance, but overall should be examined for further understanding.

References

1. AARP. (2018). Maintaining dignity: Understanding and responding to the challenges facing older LGBT Americans. Retrieved from https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/research/ surveys_statistics/life-leisure/2018/maintaining-dignity-lgbt.doi.10.26419%252Fres.00217. 001.pdf
2. Aboud, F. E. (2003). The formation of in-group favoritism and out-group prejudice in young children: Are they distinct attitudes? Developmental Psychology, 39(1), 48-60.
3. Addis, S., Davies, M., Greene, G., MacBride-Stewart, S., & Shepherd, M. (2009). The health, social care and housing needs of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender older people: A review of the literature. Health & Social Care in the Community, 17, 647–658.
4. Badgett, M., Lau, H., Sears, B., & Ho, D. (2007). Bias in the Workplace: Consistent Evidence of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Discrimination. UCLA: The Williams Institute. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5h3731xr
5. Badgett, M. V. L., Durso, L. E., & Schneebaum, A. (2013). New patterns in poverty in the lesbian, gay, and bisexual community. Los Angeles, CA: The Williams Institute. Retrieved from https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/LGB-Poverty-Update-Jun- 2013.pdf
6. Blashill, A. J., & Powlishta, K. K. (2009). Gay stereotypes: The use of sexual orientation as a cue for gender-related attributes. Sex roles, 61(11-12), 783-793.
7. Bobbio, A., & Mangenelli, A.M. (2011). Measuring social desirability responding. A short version of Paulhus’ BIDR 6. Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 18(2), 117-135. doi: 10.1007/s12671-013-0270-2
8. Cahill, S., South, K., & Spade, J. (2000). Outing age: Public policy issues affecting gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender elders. New York, NY: Policy Institute of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Foundation.
9. Clausell, E., & Roisman, G. I. (2009). Outness, Big Five personality traits, and same-sex relationship quality. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26(2-3), 211-226.
10. Cohler, B. J., & Hammack, P. L. (2007). The psychological world of the gay teenager: Social change, narrative, and “normality”. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 36, 47–59.
11. Cottle, N.R. & Glover, R.J. (2007) Combating ageism: Change in student knowledge and attitudes regarding aging. Educational Gerontology, 33(6), 501-512.
12. Croghan, C. F., Moone, R. P., & Olson, A. M. (2014). Friends, family, and caregiving among midlife older lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender adults. Journal of Homosexuality, 61 (1), 79–102. doi:10.1080/00918369.2013.835238
13. Diamond, L. M. (2005). ‘I’m straight, but I kissed a girl’: The trouble with American media representations of female-female sexuality. Feminism & Psychology, 15(1), 104-110.
14. Eliason, M. J., & Schope, R. (2007). Shifting sands or solid foundation? Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender identity formation. In: The health of sexual minorities (pp. 3-26). Springer, Boston, MA.
15. Flores, A. (2014). National trends in public opinion on LGBT rights in the United States. The Williams Institute.
16. Fredriksen-Goldsen, K. I., Cook-Daniels, L., Kim, H.-J., Erosheva, E. A., Emlet, C. A., Hoy- Ellis, C. P., . . . Muraco, A. (2014). The physical and mental health of transgender older adults: An at-risk and underserved population. The Gerontologist, 54(3), 488–500.
17. Fredriksen-Goldsen, K. I., Kim, H.-J., Shui, C., Golsen, J., & Emlet, C. A. (2015). Successful aging among LGBT older adults: Physical and mental health-related quality of life by age group [Special issue: Successful aging]. The Gerontologist, 55(1), 154–168.
18. Fredriksen-Goldsen, K. I., & Kim, H.-J. (2017). The science of conducting research with LGBT older adults - an introduction to aging with pride: National health, aging, and sexuality/gender study (NHAS). The Gerontologist, 57(S1), S1–S14.
19. Frost, D. M., & Meyer, I. H. (2009). Internalized homophobia and relationship quality among lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56(1), 97-109. doi:10.1037/a0012844
20. Hash, K. M., & Rogers, A. (2013). Clinical practice with older LGBT clients: Overcoming lifelong stigma through strength and resilience. Clinical Social Work Journal, 43, 249–257.
21. Herek, G. M. (1994). Assessing heterosexuals' attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: A review of empirical research with the ATLG scale. In B. Greene & G. M. Herek (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on lesbian and gay issues, Vol. 1. Lesbian and gay psychology: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 206-228). Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.
22. Herek, G. M. (2000). Sexual Prejudice and Gender: Do Heterosexuals' Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men Differ? Journal of Social Issues, 56(2), 251-266.
23. Lehavot, K., & Lambert, A. J. (2007). Toward a greater understanding of antigay prejudice: On the role of sexual orientation and gender role violation. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29(3), 279-292.
24. Marks, M.J., & Fraley, R.C. (2005). The sexual double standard: Fact or fiction? Sex Roles, 52(3/4), 175-186. doi: 10.1007/s11199-005-1293-5
25. Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 674–697.
26. Nosek, B.A., Banaji, M.R. & Greenwald, A.G. (2002) Harvesting implicit group attitudes and beliefs from a demonstration web site. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, & Practice, 6(1), 101–115.
27. Ortman, J. M., Velkoff, V. A., & Hogan, H. (2014). An aging nation: The older population in the United States, current population reports, P25-1140. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau.
28. Porter, K. E., Brennan-Ing, M., Chang, S. C., Dickey, L. M., Singh, A. A., Bower, K. L., & Witten, T. M. (2016). Providing competent and affirming services for transgender and gender nonconforming older adults. Clinical Gerontologist, 39(5), 366–388.
29. Troiden, R. R. (1979). Becoming homosexual: A model of gay identity acquisition. Psychiatry, 42(4), 362-373.