Coping styles used by sexual minority men who experience intimate partner violence

Abstract

Aims and objectives The current study examined the coping styles used by sexual minority men who have experienced intimate partner violence (IPV), including sexual, emotional, and physical victimization, as well as physical injury. Background While sexual minority men experience IPV at least as often as do heterosexuals, there is currently limited knowledge of IPV in this community or resources for sexual minority men who experience IPV. Design Cross-sectional design. Method Sexual minority men (N= 89) were recruited as part of a national online survey and completed questionnaires assessing lifetime experiences of IPV as well as various coping strategies. In terms of IPV, 34.8% of participants reported having been targets of sexual abuse, 38.2% targets of physical abuse, 69.7% targets of psychological abuse, and 28.1% had experienced an injury as a result of IPV during their lifetime. Results Canonical correlation analyses found that IPV victimization explained 32.5% of the variance in adaptive and 31.4% of the variance in maladaptive coping behaviors. In the adaptive coping canonical correlation, standardized loadings suggested that sexual minority men who experienced IPV resulting in injury were more likely to use religious coping, but less likely to use planning coping. In the maladaptive coping canonical correlation, sexual minority men who had been targets of intimate partner sexual victimization and IPV resulting in injury tended to engage in increased behavioral disengagement coping. Conclusion This study revealed several coping behaviors that are more or less likely as the severity of different forms of IPV increases. Relevance to Clinical Practice The identification of these coping styles could be applied to the development and modification of evidence-based interventions to foster effective and discourage ineffective coping styles, thereby improving outcomes for sexual minority men who experience IPV.

Intimate Partner Violence and Mental Health Among Transgender/Gender Nonconforming Adults

“…In the follow-up 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey ( N = 27,715), 10% had experienced family violence (this may include experiences of IPV), 47% had been sexually assaulted in their lifetime, 10% had been sexually assaulted in the past year, and 54% had experienced IPV (James et al, 2016). In comparison to non-TGNC sexual minorities, in a study of lifetime prevalence of IPV among non-TGNC sexual minority men, participants reported as follows: 34.8% sexual abuse, 38.2% physical abuse, 69.7% psychological abuse, and 28.1% suffered an IPV-related injury (Goldberg-Looney, Perrin, Snipes, & Calton, 2016). Among a sample of non-TGNC sexual minority women, the following lifetime prevalence of IPV was reported: 25.3% sexually victimized, 34% physically victimized, 76% psychologically victimized, and 29.3% injured because of IPV (Sutter et al, 2019).…”

Early relational exclusion and present-day minority stress, social anxiety, and coping responses among sexual minority men

“…We used six items from Carver’s (1997) Brief COPE instrument to assess weekly maladaptive coping behaviors. The Brief COPE has previously been used in research to understand how sexual minority men react to stress in daily life (e.g., Goldberg-Looney et al, 2016; Rood et al, 2015). The six items tap into several components of maladaptive coping (i.e., self-blame, substance use, venting, denial, self-distraction, and behavioral disengagement).…”

Intimate partner violence in the LGBTQ+ community: Implications for family court professionals

“…Research (e.g., Goldberg‐Looney et al, 2016; Langenderfer‐Magruder et al, 2016) indicates that simply identifying as a queer woman is a risk factor for IPV victimization. In a study of 150 sexual minority women (Sutter et al, 2019), 34% reported they had experienced physical IPV in their most recent relationship, 76% reported psychological IPV, 25% reported sexual IPV, and 29% reported experiencing an IPV‐related injury.…”

“…There is no reason to expect that these effects would not carry over to the LGBTQ+ population, and research would suggest that these health risks might actually be exacerbated by other minority stressors in this population. Research by Goldberg‐Looney et al (2016) suggests that when men experience injury as a result of same‐sex IPV, they are more likely to use religious coping (e.g., prayer) and less likely to use planning coping (e.g., plans to leave the relationship). Both religious coping and planning coping are considered adaptive forms of coping; however, Rostosky et al (2007) suggested that religious coping is not effective for LGBTQ+ people.…”