Social Climate for Sexual Minorities Predicts Well-Being Among Heterosexual Offspring of Lesbian and Gay Parents

Lick, David J.; Tornello, Samantha L.; Riskind, Rachel G.; Schmidt, K; Patterson, Charlotte J.

doi:10.1007/s13178-012-0081-6

Cited by 56 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…signals of a welcoming environment for Christians; Schmitt, Davies, Hung, & Wright, 2010). And, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer people felt like they belonged less in states with legislation banning same-sex marriage and in states with legislation that did not include sexual orientation among protected groups in hate crimes legislation (Lick, Tornello, Riskind, Schmidt, & Patterson, 2012). Taken together, various ideological cues in the physical environment play a significant role in whether inhabitants of those environments feel like they belong.…”

Section: People Have An Intuitive Understanding Of the Moral Values Omentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Similarly, 50% of residents in Red America own guns, but only 19% of residents in Blue America own guns. Moreover, recent survey data suggests that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals report feeling stigmatized and they do not belong in red states where the majority of the population has supported banning same-sex marriage and forbidding non-heterosexuals from teaching in public schools (Lick, Tornello, Riskind, Schmidt, & Patterson, 2012). This sense of not belonging triggers selective migration to places where people feel that they are accepted and that they do belong (Motyl, 2014;Motyl et al, 2014).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Liberals and conservatives are (geographically) dividing

Motyl¹

2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Liberals and conservatives are (geographically) dividingConservatives may not be from Mars and liberals may not be from Venus, but they are dividing into Red and Blue worlds. And this is increasingly so in recent decades. Despite the fact that most national elections are relatively close, where the winner prevails by a couple of percentage points, the United States of America is becoming increasingly the (not so) United Red and Blue States of America. This is most pronounced in smaller, more localized geographic units like neighborhoods and census tracts, where one party wins elections in a landslide and residents rarely communicate with people who hold differing political values (Bishop, 2009;Mutz, 2006). Blue communities are home to disproportionately many Democrats and Red communities are home to disproportionately many Republicans, and both these communities and the residents of these communities differ in many ways beyond simple partisan identification. For example, residents of blue communities are more likely to identify as "spiritual, but not religious," while residents of red communities are much more likely to identify as religious (Abramowitz, 2012). Similarly, 50% of residents in Red America own guns, but only 19% of residents in Blue America own guns. Moreover, recent survey data suggests that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals report feeling stigmatized and they do not belong in red states where the majority of the population has supported banning same-sex marriage and forbidding non-heterosexuals from teaching in public schools (Lick, Tornello, Riskind, Schmidt, & Patterson, 2012). This sense of not belonging triggers selective migration to places where people feel that they are accepted and that they do belong (Motyl, 2014;Motyl et al., 2014). Some evidence even suggests that LGBT individuals may be fleeing red communities and heading for greener (or, more rainbow-patterned) pastures Smart & Klein, 2013). With LGBT individuals emigrating from red communities, there are fewer opportunities for people in red communities to befriend LGBT individuals. These are just a few instances of a broader phenomenon of ideological migration that has resulted in the growing segregation of Red America and Blue America.In this chapter, I propose Ideological Enclavement Theory to explain how Red and Blue America emerged and what the consequences of living in these ideologically-segregated enclaves are. This theory identifies two primary antecedent causes. First, people have gut-level intuitions about the ideology of different enclaves, and when the ideology of a community matches people's personal ideology, people infer that they would fit in that community. Second, when people have the opportunity to do so, they will selectively migrate into enclaves that share their ideology. This ideological migration process operates to satisfy basic psychological needs, like the need to belong and a sense of physical security, and to pursue higher-level psychological goals, like self-transcendence. Thes...

show abstract

Section: People Have An Intuitive Understanding Of the Moral Values Omentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Liberals and conservatives are (geographically) dividing

Motyl¹

2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Study findings have already provided evidence that school- and broader societal-level factors, such as the presence of LGB support groups at school, the density of same-sex couples in a given geographic area, and the presence of non-discrimination laws protecting individuals on the basis of sexual orientation, relate to health outcomes for LGB people and their families in those settings (Goodenow, Szalacha, & Westheimer, 2006; Hatzenbuehler, 2011; Hatzenbuehler, Keyes, & Hasin, 2009; Lick, Tornello, Riskind, Schmidt, & Patterson, 2012). However, evidence to connect those factors to health outcomes for LGB people through the attitudes and behaviors of heterosexual adolescents and adults is lacking.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gays Among American and Dutch Adolescents

Collier

Horn

Bos

et al. 2014

The Journal of Sex Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Attitudes toward lesbians and gays vary across national populations, and previous research has found relatively more accepting attitudes in the Netherlands as compared to the U.S. In this study, we compared beliefs about and attitudes toward lesbians and gays in samples of Dutch and American heterosexual adolescents, utilizing survey data from 1,080 American adolescents (mean age = 15.86 years) attending two schools and from 1,391 Dutch adolescents (mean age = 16.27 years) attending eight schools. Findings indicated the Dutch participants were more tolerant of lesbians and gays, after adjusting for the gender, age, and racial/ethnic minority status of the participants. However, between-country differences were attenuated by accounting for the beliefs about lesbians and gays that participants used to justify their attitudes. American participants were more likely to justify their attitudes using beliefs related to social norms and religious opposition, while the Dutch participants were more likely to justify their attitudes using beliefs related to individual rights and the biological/genetic basis of homosexuality. The results suggest that the relative importance of particular beliefs about lesbians and gays to attitudes at the group level may be context-dependent but also that certain beliefs are salient to attitudes across national contexts.

show abstract

“…Experiencing this stress and marginalization is known to contribute to fears about parenting among LGB people and increase dissolution rates among LGB couples (Peplau 2007). These issues reflect claims that LGB family membership and strength can be mediated or constrained by structural and institutional factors (Berkowitz and Marsiglio 2007), and suggest that improving how policies such as PREP address LGB populations could help fortify the stability of LGB families (Bos and Gartrell 2010;Lick et al 2012).…”

Section: Principle 2: Family Membership and Stabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This approach to sex and sexuality dominates school-based sex education curricula but is insufficient for addressing complex and important aspects of adolescent sexual health that go beyond an individualistic focus, such as how institutional or familial factors play a pivotal role in the healthy development of young people. For example, literature suggests that institutional discrimination can exacerbate sexual health risks among sexual minority youth (Bos and Gartrell 2010;Kosciw et al 2012) or youth with LGB parents (Lick et al 2012), and parental support is a significant protective factor to the physical and psychological well-being of LGB youth (Bregman et al 2013). Yet sex education's avoidance of support for LGB people, and focus on individual behavior and responsibility obfuscate how this education might be utilized to strengthen LGB youth and families.…”

Section: Why Focus On Lgb Families?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Sex Education and Support of LGB Families: a Family Impact Analysis of the Personal Responsibility Education Program

McCarty-Caplan

2015

Sex Res Soc Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authorization of the Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP) represents a significant legislative shift in how social policy in the United States implements school-based sexual health education to address concerns for youth health. In contrast to its abstinence-based predecessors, this federally funded program provides a more comprehensive approach to sex education that includes content on contraception, is evidence-based, and emphasizes diversity and service to vulnerable populations. Yet, despite these improvements to how sex education policy facilitates the healthy development of youth, the design and implementation of PREP do not provide substantial support of lesbian, bisexual, and gay (LGB) populations. This paper applies a family impact analysis framework to further explore this policy limitation and demonstrates how PREP perpetuates the heteronormative legacy of sex education in a way that continues to marginalize and harm LGB families.

show abstract

Social Climate for Sexual Minorities Predicts Well-Being Among Heterosexual Offspring of Lesbian and Gay Parents

Cited by 56 publications

References 37 publications

Liberals and conservatives are (geographically) dividing

Liberals and conservatives are (geographically) dividing

Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gays Among American and Dutch Adolescents

Sex Education and Support of LGB Families: a Family Impact Analysis of the Personal Responsibility Education Program

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About