» Articles » PMID: 34839733

Latent Classes of Bidirectional Face-to-Face and Cyber Intimate Partner Violence Among Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Emerging Adults: The Role of Minority Stressors

Overview
Publisher Sage Publications
Date 2021 Nov 29
PMID 34839733
Citations 1
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The rates of intimate partner violence have been found to be higher among lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) individuals when compared with heterosexual populations. However, lesser is known about the impact of specific minority stressors experienced by LGB populations on their face-to-face intimate partner violence (IPV) and cyber IPV experiences. Using a three-step latent class approach, the present study investigated (i) the latent classes of self-reported types of face-to-face IPV and cyber IPV perpetration and victimization and (ii) their associations with LGB distal and proximal minority stressors (i.e., vicarious trauma, discrimination, family rejection, and LGB-identity disclosure). Participants were 288 LGB emerging adults in the age range of 18-29 years (bisexual: = 168, gay: = 72, and lesbian: = 48). Findings showed the presence of four latent classes, namely, face-to-face IPV ( = 32; 37.5% gay, 18.8% lesbian, and 43.8% bisexual individuals), cyber IPV ( 66; 33.3% gay, 12.1% lesbian, and 54.5% bisexual individuals), psychological and stalking cyber IPV ( 89; 15.7% gay, 15.7% lesbian, and 68.5% bisexual individuals), and low IPV ( = 101; 23.8% gay, 19.8% lesbian, and 56.4% bisexual individuals). Furthermore, multinomial logistic regressions indicated that greater exposure to the minority stressors such as exposure to heterosexism, namely, discrimination and harassment, rejection from one's family of origin, and exposure to vicarious trauma, as well as a lower degree of LGB-identity disclosure, largely predicted latent classes with greater probabilities of IPV exposure, namely, cyber IPV, face-to-face IPV classes, and psychological and stalking cyber IPV. Findings suggest the importance of addressing the role of minority stressors in IPV interventions and the creation of competent LGB-related services and training modules for clinicians.

Citing Articles

Experiences and Correlates of Cyber Dating Abuse in Sexual and Gender Minority Adolescent Girls and Feminine Teens: Implications for Psychological Wellbeing.

Wongsomboon V, Veldhuis C, Gordon J, Macapagal K Psychol Sex. 2025; 16(1):297-313.

PMID: 40041692 PMC: 11875517. DOI: 10.1080/19419899.2024.2387639.


Daily Heterosexist Experiences in LGBTQ+ Adults from Spain: Measurement, Prevalence, and Clinical Implications.

Ronzon-Tirado R, Charak R, Cano-Gonzalez I Psychosoc Interv. 2023; 32(1):1-10.

PMID: 37361633 PMC: 10268542. DOI: 10.5093/pi2022a15.

References
1.
Rajah V, Osborn M . Understanding Women's Resistance to Intimate Partner Violence: A Scoping Review. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2020; 23(5):1373-1387. DOI: 10.1177/1524838019897345. View

2.
Messinger A, Birmingham R, DeKeseredy W . Perceptions of Same-Gender and Different-Gender Intimate Partner Cyber-Monitoring. J Interpers Violence. 2018; 36(7-8):NP4315-NP4335. DOI: 10.1177/0886260518787814. View

3.
Brem M, Stuart G, Cornelius T, Shorey R . A Longitudinal Examination of Alcohol Problems and Cyber, Psychological, and Physical Dating Abuse: The Moderating Role of Emotion Dysregulation. J Interpers Violence. 2019; 36(19-20):NP10499-NP10519. PMC: 7383942. DOI: 10.1177/0886260519876029. View

4.
Lindsay M, Booth J, Messing J, Thaller J . Experiences of Online Harassment Among Emerging Adults: Emotional Reactions and the Mediating Role of Fear. J Interpers Violence. 2015; 31(19):3174-3195. DOI: 10.1177/0886260515584344. View

5.
Archer J . Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: a meta-analytic review. Psychol Bull. 2000; 126(5):651-680. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.126.5.651. View