Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Drawing from minority stress theory, research on ostracism, and the communication of exclusion, this study had two goals. First, we aimed to test how perceptions of early relational exclusion relate to current-day minority stress, coping strategies, and social anxiety among young sexual minority men. Second, we aimed to test the reciprocal within-person associations between present-day minority stress, coping strategies, and social anxiety over a three-month period. Based on a three-wave longitudinal dataset of sexual minority men (N = 254), we tested the hypotheses using a random-intercept cross-lagged panel model (RI-CLPM). RI-CLPMs partition variance at the between-person (i.e., mean level differences across participants) and within-person (i.e., intra-individual change from typical levels over time) levels, while also allowing for associations between current and past experiences through the inclusion of a person-level (time-invariant) predictor. Findings indicated that perception of early relational exclusion (at the between-person level) is positively associated with present-day reports of minority stress, maladaptive coping, and social anxiety. Further, in addition to between-person associations among minority stress, maladaptive coping, and social anxiety, model results indicated a within-person longitudinal association between maladaptive coping and social anxiety. As discussed, this study advances theory on minority stress from a relational communication lens, and has implications for practitioners working with sexual minority youth.

Keywords

communication minority stress memorable messages relational exclusion random intercept-cross lagged panel model sexual minority men social anxiety social ostracism

Introduction

Nearly half of sexual minority youth reported poor mental health during the past year, and close to 70% indicated they felt an overwhelming sense of hopelessness (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2023). Research suggests that this may be due to unique stressors in the day-to-day lives of individuals with minoritized sexual identities—ranging from explicit episodes of violence to subtle acts of interpersonal discrimination (Hoy-Ellis, 2021). Minority stress, or stigma-related stressors, can heighten feelings of self-stigmatization and amplify sensitivity to rejection over time (Meyer, 1995).

One of the consequences of minority stress is experiencing persistent social anxiety (Burns et al., 2012), which is defined as anxiety resulting from the prospect or presence of interpersonal evaluation (Schlenker & Leary, 1982). Decades of research has demonstrated that young sexual minority men are at higher risk of social anxiety symptoms than their heterosexual counterparts (Akibar et al., 2019; Pachankis & Goldfried, 2006). Contemporary theorizing on minority stress and social anxiety often highlights how present-day stressors contribute to poor mental health. Yet, present-day experiences can also be linked to early relational experiences for young sexual minority men (Perales et al., 2020). As Savin-Williams and Diamond (2000) found, “feelings of difference” start well before full recognition of sexual identity. And many young sexual minority men recall explicit and implicit messages of ostracism from their peers (Rivers, 2010). This is true for both gay and bisexual men (Balsam et al., 2005), although significantly less research has been done on experiences of ostracism in childhood among bi+ men (e.g., bisexual, queer, pansexual; Nakamura et al., 2022). These experiences of relational exclusion from peers may continually shape how young sexual minority men make sense of and cope with stressors in their daily life.

Drawing from minority stress theory, research on ostracism, the communication of exclusion, and memorable messages, the present study has two overarching goals. First, we aim to test how perceptions of early relational experiences concerning exclusion relate to current-day minority stress, coping strategies, and social anxiety among young sexual minority men. Second, we aim to test the reciprocal within-person associations between present-day minority stress, coping strategies, and social anxiety over a three-month period. Based on a three-wave longitudinal dataset of sexual minority men, we test hypotheses regarding the influence of past exclusion and reciprocal contemporaneous experiences, using a random-intercept cross-lagged panel model (RI-CLPM). Random-intercept cross-lagged panel models (RI-CLPMs) partition variance at the between-person (i.e., mean level differences across participants) and within-person (i.e., intra-individual change from typical levels over time) levels, while also allowing for associations between current experiences and past experience through the inclusion of a person-level (time-invariant) predictor (Mulder & Hamaker, 2021).

Early relational exclusion

Humans have an incredibly sensitive monitoring system for detecting cues of social exclusion. Feeling excluded can thwart an individual’s need to belong and limit access to vital interpersonal resources (e.g., support, inclusion, affection). Williams and Nida (2022) noted that ostracism could also have detrimental effects on an individual’s need for control, self-esteem, and meaningful existence. Research has also suggested it can impair people’s ability to self-regulate because additional cognitive resources are being used to assimilate (Brewer & Pickett, 1999). The years spanning childhood to early adolescence are an especially sensitive time in people’s lives, because it is during these years that they learn about themselves and group social dynamics (Berndt, 2002). Early adolescence is one of the first opportunities to form and maintain personal relationships with limited facilitation from parental figures. Ostracism deprives adolescents of significant cognitive and social resources necessary for optimal development. Unfortunately, there is consistent evidence that sexual minority youth spend more time alone and are often excluded from key social activities with their peers (e.g., Perales et al., 2020). Research on adverse childhood experiences suggest that this type of exclusion early in life has implications for psychological and relational well-being in adulthood (Hart et al., 2018). In a recent study, Schnarrs et al. (in press) found that negative peer experiences were the most commonly reported identity-based adversity that sexual minority populations faced in childhood.

In-depth interviews with sexual minority men also suggest that sexual identity formation often occurs in early adolescence, yet many recall feeling different long before this identity begins to surface (Flowers & Buston, 2001). These feelings of difference can also be from explicit nonverbal cues and verbal remarks communicated by peers that alert the ostracized that they are different (Kerr et al., 2008). If these episodes of ostracism persist over time, resignation to the exclusion occurs, leading to ongoing feelings of alienation, unworthiness in social interactions, and relational difficulty (Williams, 2009).

Although humans receive a staggering number of messages throughout the course of their daily lives, most of which have a limited “shelf life,” some messages “stick” and continue to influence how individuals understand themselves in relation to others (Knapp et al., 1981). Because the process of being excluded is highly aversive, these painful moments are likely especially memorable to young sexual minority men. Early relational exclusion from peers, then, may operate as an aversive memorable message, which is later reinforced after the formation of sexual identity (e.g., “I have always been different from other boys”). Kerr and Levine (2008) outlined several communication behaviors that help humans detect that they are being excluded. These communication behaviors range from verbal messages, such as differentiating (e.g., “you’re not like us”) and avoiding (e.g., “we don’t want you on the team”) to nonverbal messages, such as ignoring norms governing social interactions (e.g., extended staring) and slandering (e.g., rolling one’s eyes in response to behavior). Receiving these verbal and nonverbal messages in the formative time of adolescence could leave a lasting impression, not just on self-esteem, but also on how the self “ought” to act during future social interactions.

Communication researchers contend that past relational experiences get reified in everyday interactions, such as by shaping how we perceive moments of everyday interaction and its potential for threat and reward (Merolla et al., 2022). Being ostracized due to stigmatized identity indicates an unsafe social environment for sexual minorities (Diamond & Alley, 2022). This alerts ostracized individuals that there are insufficient resources for social connection and inclusion in the future. When belongingness is threatened, individuals become motivated to attend to social cues to achieve relational success in subsequent social interactions. This motivation likely results in high self-monitoring and an overall hypervigilance during social encounters. In other words, early relational exclusion can prompt self-protection motives and ongoing hypervigilance during interactions in manner consistent with heightened social anxiety. In the following three sections, we discuss how early relational exclusion is linked to present-day (a) minority stress, (b) maladaptive coping, and (c) social anxiety.

Early relational exclusion and present-day minority stress

Minority stress theory proposes that increased exposure to stigma-related stressors, combined with limited access to stress-ameliorating resources, accounts for the mental health disparities between sexual minorities and their heterosexual peers (Meyer, 2003). There are two distinct forms of minority stressors: distal and proximal. Distal stressors are objective events or conditions that result in acts of victimization or discrimination. Proximal stressors are rooted in identity and are based on subjective appraisals and individual perceptions. Consider, for instance, concealment behavior. A lack of open behaviors related to stigmatized identity is a proximal stressor that may stem from exposure to distal minority stress (Riggle et al., 2017). Individuals conceal their stigma to protect themselves from scrutiny or harm in social encounters, but this has also been linked to poor mental health outcomes and hypervigilance while communicating with others (see Pachankis et al., 2020). We consider both proximal and distal minority stress in this study.

Ostracism based on sexual identity is exceptionally harmful because it is often enacted in places where social support is provisioned. Many sexual minority youth, for instance, experience early rejection from family members, making the home a site of hostile interactions instead of a place of refuge (Frost & Svensson, 2018). These experiences can result in identity struggles (Taylor & Neppl, 2023), and many young people are forced to leave their home due to this parental rejection (Scharp et al., 2023). Along with familial rejection, sexual minority youth also experience exclusion from peers (Earnshaw et al., 2020). This pain is magnified when victims are not aware of why they are being excluded. Indeed, Sommer et al. (2001) reported that when an individual does not know why a group is rejecting them, the threat to self-esteem and meaningful existence is exacerbated. Past experiences with exclusion can resonate over time, leading to future experiences of minority stress.

H1a

Perception of early relational exclusion is positively associated with present-day minority stress for young sexual minority men.

Early relational exclusion and present-day maladaptive coping

Past threats to belonging and peer rejection are likely linked to contemporary deficits in adaptive coping behaviors. Maladaptive coping strategies are harmful reactions to distress, such as rumination, suppression, and avoidance (Aldao et al., 2010). Research supports the notion that present-day responses to stress are rooted in how emotional states were regulated in the past (Compas, 1987). Skinner and Wellborn (1994) also noted that our interpersonal relationships “are seen as critical to whether children’s needs are met and hence to the development of their coping” (p. 91). Because ostracism impairs the ability to self-regulate (Baumeister et al., 2005), early experiences of relational exclusion may shape how individuals react to stress into adulthood. Within the context of sexual minority populations, there is some evidence that a lifetime of ostracism is linked to maladaptive coping behaviors, such as alcohol dependencies, in later life (Morrow, 2001). Limited research, however, has explored if such coping behavior is also present in the day-to-day lives of young sexual minority men that experienced relational exclusion early in life. Thus, we explore if receiving early messages of exclusion is linked to young sexual minority men’s ability to regulate their emotions in day-to-day life.

H1b

Perception of early relational exclusion is positively associated with present-day maladaptive coping for young sexual minority men.

Early relational exclusion and present-day social anxiety

Social anxiety is a stress response arising from a fear of interpersonal evaluation in social settings (Schlenker & Leary, 1982). This form of anxiety can manifest as cognitive fear and behavioral avoidance of social encounters (Connor et al., 2001) and is often accompanied by potent cycles of perseverative cognition (i.e., worry and rumination; Bailey et al., 2019). Researchers have traced the heightened level of social anxiety among sexual minority men (compared to their heterosexual counterparts) back to concealment behavior and expectation of rejection in social interactions. Young sexual minority men (ages 18–35) may be at a higher risk for social anxiety (Bostwick et al., 2010) based on findings that adolescents and young adults report elevated symptoms of social anxiety compared to older adults (see Hur et al., 2020). This is likely due to the challenges stemming from the transition to adulthood. Receiving high-quality social support can aid in the transition into adulthood (Leipold et al., 2019). Yet, many young sexual minority men lack a dense interpersonal network to draw upon on in times of distress (McDonald, 2018). This risk may be even more significant for men that identify as bisexual because of bi-erasure within the LGBTQIA+ community (Mahon et al., 2022). Bi+ men are also at an increased risk for anxiety disorders compared to their monosex counterparts (Feinstein & Dyar, 2017). A recent daily diary study, for example, found a link between bi+ minority stress and same-day anxious mood (Feinstein et al., 2022).

Behavioral correlates of social anxiety echo those of social ostracism and relational exclusion. Being ostracized biases how individuals interpret ambiguous social situations (Bar-Sella et al., 2022). This suggests that the process of exclusion causes individuals to perceive ambiguous social cues as threatening. Individuals with social anxiety also have increased cognitive biases resulting in decoding ambiguous social cues as hostile. Zadro et al. (2006) reported that individuals with chronic social anxiety took longer to recover from ostracism than individuals with low social anxiety. Similarly, Oaten et al. (2008) found that ostracism resulted in immediate maladaptive coping behaviors (e.g., excessive eating), regardless of social anxiety level. But this deleterious effect of ostracism only persisted over time for those with social anxiety, suggesting that when ostracized, those with social anxiety have prolonged impairment. We test herein if memories of relational exclusion have similar long-term harmful effects on sexual minority men in the form of increased social anxiety over time.

H1c

Perception of early relational exclusion is positively associated with present-day social anxiety for young sexual minority men.

Reciprocal within-person associations

We now transition to the second focus of this study, which is present-day reciprocal relationships between minority stress, social anxiety, and coping. Specifically, we consider how these current-day experiences are linked at the within-person level over a three-month period. The literature on minority stress theory, including important extensions of the theory, such as Hatzenbuehler’s (2009) psychological mediation framework, explain the mechanisms and downstream consequences that stigma-related stressors can have on sexual minority populations. Hatzenbuehler (2009) contended that stigma-related stress depletes individuals of coping resources, which, over time, heightens emotion dysregulation, interpersonal problems, and cognitive processes, contributing to poor mental health outcomes. Through these psychological processes, minority stress results in health risks for sexual minority populations. There has been consistent support for the psychological mediation framework in various sexual minority populations (Lattanner et al., 2022; Schwartz et al., 2016).

Based on this model, we identified maladaptive coping in daily life as one pathway through which stigma-related stressors affect social anxiety for young sexual minority men. According to Hatzenbuehler (2009), stigma communicates a devalued social identity, which, in turn, promotes negative affect. Management of this negative affect may include feelings of self-blame, substance dependency, and disengagement strategies (e.g., avoidance, denial), which could culminate in symptoms of social anxiety. Supporting this explanation, one cross-sectional study found that maladaptive coping of minority stress fully mediated the relationship between stigma and mental distress for sexual minority women (Szymanski et al., 2014).

Few studies have investigated the mediation effects of maladaptive coping between minority stressors and mental health outcomes over time, though. One notable exception is a yearlong longitudinal study conducted by Lattanner et al. (2022) on sexual minority men. They reported that rumination, emotion dysregulation, and low-quality social support at Wave 2 fully mediated the relationship between discrimination at Wave 1 and depression at Wave 3. Such longitudinal effects could potentially emerge in this study. But additional within-person reciprocal associations are also plausible. Although minority stress research has provided critical insight into how stigma negatively impacts sexual minority communities, scholars have recently noted the importance of understanding the temporal sensitivity of these patterns (Livingston, 2017). Much of the research on minority stress utilizes cross-sectional data and tests associations at the between-person level. Yet, the few studies on minority stress that have utilized longitudinal analyses contributed important findings on how daily stressors experienced by LGBTQIA+ communities shape well-being over time. Swim et al. (2009), for instance, reported that daily exposure to minority stress positively predicted levels of anxiety at the end of the day. Mohr and Sarno (2016), moreover, found a significant portion of the variance in internalized stigma stemmed from within-person changes in exposure to identity-salient experiences (i.e., events that cause a heightened awareness of sexual identity) that day.

The present study aims to extend the previous findings linking minority stress and social anxiety for young sexual minority men by assessing within-person associations over a three-month period. This will enable us to test how minority stress, social anxiety, and coping are dynamically linked to one another over time, and how within-person change in one variable manifests in within-person change in another variable 30 days later. To this end, we propose the following hypothesis.

Minority stress, social anxiety, and maladaptive coping are reciprocally associated at the within-person level over a three-month period.

Method

Participants (N = 254) completed a multi-wave survey study over the course of three months. Wave 1 took place in August 2022, Wave 2 in September 2022, and Wave 3 in October 2022. Each wave was completed in approximately 30-day intervals, and participants were asked to recount their experiences over the past seven days. This allowed us to capture a “snapshot” of their day-to-day relational lives. Our selection of one month between waves aligns with theories that suggest maladaptive coping strategies can lead to a cascade of negative consequences (Selby & Joiner, 2009), gradually intensifying social anxiety through reinforcing negative thought patterns and maladaptive behaviors. Thus, we wanted to ensure that the time period was long enough that effects had time to emerge and that any emergent effects would be practically significant (Little, 2013). Extending the interval too long, however, runs the risk of meaningful effects going underestimated or undetected given that longitudinal effects typically lessen in size over time (Timmons & Preacher, 2015). We reasoned that a one-month interval nicely balanced these factors.

Participants were recruited through Prolific Academic. Compensation for Wave 1 was $4.00US, and compensation for the two subsequent waves was $2.67US. Compensation was determined based on an hourly rate of $16.00US and the expected time to complete each questionnaire. Wave 1 asked questions related to demographic and baseline personality traits and about day-to-day experiences. Wave 2 and Wave 3 just asked about the day-to-day experiences. The questionnaire was hosted on Qualtrics, and each participant submitted their responses electronically.

To qualify for the study, participants had to be currently living in the United States, be between the ages of 18–35, and self-identify as a sexual minority man. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 35 at the start of the study (M_age = 26.8, SD_age = 4.6). With regard to sexual orientation, 50.8% (n = 129) identified as bisexual, 29.9% (n = 76) as gay, 10.2% (n = 26) as pansexual, 5.1% (n = 13) as asexual, 2% (n = 5) as queer, and 2% (n = 5) as fluid/questioning. Participants described their race/ethnicity as White/Caucasian (54%), African American/Black (14%), Laintx (9%), Asian/Pacific Islander (8%), Native American (1%), and bi/multiracial (12%). Participations came from diverse educational backgrounds, with 53% having an associate degree or less, 32% with a bachelor’s degree, and 12% with an advanced degree (i.e., master’s, professional doctorate, or academic doctorate). In terms of relational status, approximately half the sample was single (54.7%).

Perceptions of early relational exclusion

Perceptions of early relational exclusion was assessed with five items from the Ostracism Experience Scale for Adolescents (Gilman et al., 2013). Participants were asked, “Please indicate how often others generally treated you during childhood and adolescence (ages 5–17).” The items focused on the individual’s recollection of how they were treated in social situations by their peers growing up. Specifically, items focused on the verbal and nonverbal cues of social ostracism outlined by Kerr et al. (2008), such as avoiding (e.g., “others ignored me during conversation”), differentiating (e.g., “others picked me to be on their team”), and slandering (e.g., “others spread rumors about me”). Responses were on a 5-point scale anchored at 1 (never) and 5 (always). The positively-valenced items (e.g., “others invite me to go out to eat with them”) were reversed scored and averaged with the negatively-valenced items such that high scores indicate greater early social ostracism in adolescence (McDonald’s ω = .82, M = 2.98, SD = .88).

Minority stress

We used four items to measure minority stress. Although minority stress is a widely-studied topic in public health and clinical psychology, there is not a uniform way to measure it (see Bauerband et al., 2019). To capture the breadth of minority stress experiences, items were derived from existing scales on distal and proximal minority stressors (Herek et al., 2015; Jackson & Mohr, 2016; Pachankis et al., 2008; Williams et al., 1997). The stressors and corresponding items are as follows: interpersonal discrimination (“I was treated with less courtesy or respect than other people because of my sexual orientation this week”), internalized stigma (“my difficulties this week stemmed from my sexual orientation”), concealment behavior (“in certain social situations this week, I concealed my sexual orientation”), and finally, rejection sensitivity (“I was worried others would reject me because of my sexual orientation this week”). Note, the focus was on the past week in the items to provide a clear and consistent period for the respondents. We deemed this easier to than items asking about behavior since the last survey occasion. Responses were on a 5-point scale anchored at 1 (strongly disagree) and 5 (strongly agree) (Wave 1: ω = .81, M = 1.89, SD = .89; Wave 2: ω = .83, M = 1.98, SD = .91; and Wave 3: ω = .84, M = 1.87, SD = .89).

Maladaptive coping

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). Responses were on a 4-point scale anchored at 1 (I haven’t been doing this at all in the past seven days) and 4 (I’ve been doing this a lot in the past seven days) (Wave 1: ω = 72, M = 1.96, SD = .63; Wave 2: ω = .76, M = 2.02, SD = .66; and Wave 3: ω = .71, M = 1.96, SD = .59).

Social anxiety

Participants’ weekly social anxiety was measured using a modified version of Kashdan and Steger’s (2006) daily social anxiety scale. Derived from existing measures on social anxiety, this measure captures how experiences of social anxiety change over time (as opposed to trait social anxiety). Three of the seven items were used to reduce participant fatigue (e.g., “I was afraid that others did not approve of me,” “When I was talking to someone, I was worried about what they were thinking of me,” “I found it hard to interact with people”). Participants were asked, “thinking about your social interactions this past week, please indicate the degree to which you agree with the following statements,” and responses were on a 5-point scale anchored at 1 (not at all) and 5 (extremely) (Wave 1: ω = 89, M = 2.41, SD = 1.16; Wave 2: ω = .87, M = 2.26, SD = 1.12; and Wave 3: ω = .85, M = 2.39, SD = 1.06).

Model set-up

To test this study’s hypotheses, we ran a RI-CLPM in Mplus 8.8 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2017). This model is depicted in Figure 1. We set up the model in the following way. Latent random intercepts were created for each variable being assessed longitudinally to account for between-person stability. This provides a unique average score for each participant on the three variables. Within-person estimates (i.e., person-centered) were created to allow us to assess how each participant deviated from their average score over time. All factors were fixed to 1. Therefore, the variance in the observed variables is represented in two distinct parts: the random intercepts for the between-person estimates and latent deviation scores for the within-person estimates. We then regressed each latent deviation score at the subsequent wave on the latent deviation score calculated at the preceding wave (e.g., W3 social anxiety was regressed on W2 social anxiety). In addition, we added relational exclusion as a time-invariant between-person predictor. A time-invariant predictor changes the covariance structure of the model by accounting for person characteristics, such as age, personality, and education (Mulder & Hamaker, 2021). We conceptualized early relational exclusion as an amalgamation of previous messages of ostracism from peers during adolescence; therefore, this variable conceptually precedes the events of the repeated measures even though it was assessed in Wave 1. This modeling strategy is advantageous because including early relational exclusion as a time-invariant predictor in the RI-CLPM allowed us to test the complete model of our predictions simultaneously.

Figure 1.

Conceptual model of hypothesized relationships. Note. W indicates within-person effects; subscript indicates time; M indicates minority stress; C indicates maladaptive coping; S indicates social anxiety.

Hamaker et al. (2015) recommend constraining the within-person regression paths if the cross-time lags between waves are equal. This allows the model to gain additional degrees of freedom to estimate the parameters. We compared the fit of models with and without these paths to be equal across waves using a χ² difference test. Results revealed that the model fit for the constrained model was good and equivalent to the unconstrained model, χ² = 9.984, df = 9, p = .35, AIC = 3896.46, BIC = 4086.529, CFI = .99, TLI = .99, RMSEA = .02 (90% CI: .00, .07); Δχ² (9) = 9.77, p = .36. Cross-time constraints were therefore retained. The full model fit the data well, χ² = 19.758, df = 18, p = .34, AIC = 3888.24, BIC = 4046.529, CFI = .99, TLI = .99, RMSEA = .02 (90% CI: .00, .061).

Results

Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations among measured variables are displayed in Table 1. Zero-order correlations indicated that minority stress, maladaptive coping, and social anxiety were relatively stable between participants across the duration of the study. Tables 2 and 3 report that unstandardized and standardized estimates of the RI-CLPM we tested. Additionally, Figure 2 illustrates the associations between variables at the between-person and within-person levels.

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations.

		M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1	Early relational exclusion	2.98	.88	—
2	Minority stress W1	1.90	.90	.34
3	Minority stress W2	1.98	.92	.32	.61
4	Minority stress W3	1.88	.90	.34	.59	.70
5	Maladaptive coping W1	1.96	.63	.30	.30	.37	.32
6	Maladaptive coping W2	2.02	.67	.39	.34	.48	.34	.71
7	Maladaptive coping W3	1.97	.60	.36	.27	.33	.36	.60	.71
8	Social anxiety W1	2.41	1.17	.49	.52	.41	.41	.53	.50	.44
9	Social anxiety W2	2.26	1.11	.44	.41	.55	.40	.45	.61	.49	.66
10	Social anxiety W3	2.40	1.07	.47	.42	.52	.53	.45	.54	.53	.66	.73

Note. W1 = wave 1, W2 = wave 2, W3 = wave 3; all correlations are significant at the .01 level.

Table 2.

Unstandardized results for time-invariant predictor, autoregressive and cross-lagged effects, and within-wave associations.

Time-invariant predictor		Latent random intercept	B	SE B	p	95% CI
Early relational exclusion	→	Minority stress	.32	.05	.00	[.31, .53]
Early relational exclusion	→	Maladaptive coping	.24	.04	.00	[.34, .58]
Early relational exclusion	→	Social anxiety	.58	.06	.00	[.51, .69]

Predictor		Outcome	B	SE B	p	95% CI
Minority stress W1	→	Minority stress W2	.20	.17	.22	[−.04, .43]
Maladaptive coping W1	→	Minority stress W2	.09	.18	.60	[−.14, .27]
Social anxiety W1	→	Minority stress W2	−.08	.09	.35	[−.28, .08]
Minority stress W1	→	Maladaptive coping W2	−.09	.07	.22	[−.26, .03]
Maladaptive coping W1	→	Maladaptive coping W2	.36	.11	.00	[.17, .50]
Social anxiety W1	→	Maladaptive coping W2	.09	.05	.08	[.01, .29]
Minority stress W1	→	Social anxiety W2	−.02	.12	.87	[−.18, .14]
Maladaptive coping W1	→	Social anxiety W2	.33	.16	.03	[.04, .35]
Social anxiety W1	→	Social anxiety W2	.17	.12	.15	[−.02, .35]
Minority stress W2	→	Minority stress W3	.20	.17	.22	[−.09, .53]
Maladaptive coping W2	→	Minority stress W3	.09	.18	.60	[−.16, .31]
Social anxiety W2	→	Minority stress W3	−.08	.09	.35	[−.30, .08]
Minority stress W2	→	Maladaptive coping W3	−.09	.07	.22	[−.30, .04]
Maladaptive coping W2	→	Maladaptive coping W3	.36	.11	.00	[.186, .61]
Social anxiety W2	→	Maladaptive coping W3	.09	.05	.08	[.01, .32]
Minority stress W2	→	Social anxiety W3	−.02	.12	.87	[−.22, .17]
Maladaptive coping W2	→	Social anxiety W3	.33	.16	.03	[.05, .44]
Social anxiety W2	→	Social anxiety W3	.17	.12	.15	[−.03, .42]

Within-wave associations			B	SE B	p	95% CI
Minority stress W1	⟷	Maladaptive coping W1	−.03	.03	.36	[−.31, .08]
Minority stress W1	⟷	Social anxiety W1	.12	.05	.02	[.09, .44]
Minority stress W2	⟷	Maladaptive coping W2	.08	.03	.01	[.11, .55]
Minority stress W2	⟷	Social anxiety W2	.15	.06	.02	[.17, .55]
Minority stress W3	⟷	Maladaptive coping W3	.04	.02	.07	[.03, .36]
Minority stress W3	⟷	Social anxiety W3	.07	.04	.03	[.07, .40]
Maladaptive coping W1	⟷	Social anxiety W1	.10	.04	.02	[.14, .49]
Maladaptive coping W2	⟷	Social anxiety W2	.14	.03	.00	[.31, .61]
Maladaptive coping W3	⟷	Social anxiety W3	.05	.02	.04	[.06, .37]

Bold indicates p < .05.

Table 3.

Standardized results for time-invariant predictor, autoregressive and cross-lagged effects, and within-wave associations.

Time-invariant predictor		Latent random intercept	β	SE β	p	95% CI
Early relational exclusion	→	Minority stress	.42	.068	.00	[.31, .53]
Early relational exclusion	→	Maladaptive coping	.46	.07	.00	[.34, .58]
Early relational exclusion	→	Social anxiety	.60	.06	.00	[.51, .69]

Predictor		Outcome	β	SE β	p	95% CI
Minority stress W1	→	Minority stress W2	.19	.14	.17	[−.04, .43]
Maladaptive coping W1	→	Minority stress W2	.07	.13	.60	[−.14, .27]
Social anxiety W1	→	Minority stress W2	−.10	.11	.36	[−.28, .08]
Minority stress W1	→	Maladaptive coping W2	−.11	.09	.20	[−.26, .03]
Maladaptive coping W1	→	Maladaptive coping W2	.33	.10	.00	[.17, .50]
Social anxiety W1	→	Maladaptive coping W2	.15	.09	.09	[.01, .29]
Minority stress W1	→	Social anxiety W2	−.02	.10	.87	[−.18, .14]
Maladaptive coping W1	→	Social anxiety W2	.19	.10	.04	[.04, .35]
Social anxiety W1	→	Social anxiety W2	.17	.11	.13	[−.02, .35]
Minority stress W2	→	Minority stress W3	.22	.19	.25	[−.09, .53]
Maladaptive coping W2	→	Minority stress W3	.08	.14	.60	[−.16, .31]
Social anxiety W2	→	Minority stress W3	−.11	.12	.34	[−.30, .08]
Minority stress W2	→	Maladaptive coping W3	−.13	.10	.21	[−.30, .04]
Maladaptive coping W2	→	Maladaptive coping W3	.40	.13	.00	[.186, .61]
Social anxiety W2	→	Maladaptive coping W3	.16	.10	.09	[.01, .32]
Minority stress W2	→	Social anxiety W3	−.02	.12	.87	[−.22, .17]
Maladaptive coping W2	→	Social anxiety W3	.25	.12	.04	[.05, .44]
Social anxiety W2	→	Social anxiety W3	.20	.14	.16	[−.03, .42]

Within-wave associations			β	SE β	p	95% CI
Minority stress W1	⟷	Maladaptive coping W1	−.11	.12	.35	[−.31, .08]
Minority stress W1	⟷	Social anxiety W1	.27	.11	.01	[.09, .44]
Minority stress W2	⟷	Maladaptive coping W2	.33	.14	.02	[.11, .55]
Minority stress W2	⟷	Social anxiety W2	.36	.11	.00	[.17, .55]
Minority stress W3	⟷	Maladaptive coping W3	.20	.10	.06	[.03, .36]
Minority stress W3	⟷	Social anxiety W3	.24	.10	.02	[.07, .40]
Maladaptive coping W1	⟷	Social anxiety W1	.31	.11	.00	[.14, .49]
Maladaptive coping W2	⟷	Social anxiety W2	.46	.09	.00	[.31, .61]
Maladaptive coping W3	⟷	Social anxiety W3	.21	.10	.02	[.06, .37]

Bold indicates p < .05.

Figure 2.

Results for RI-CLPM. Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. RI indicates random intercept.

Time-invariant predictor and associations between random intercepts (H1)

The first hypothesis, which had two parts, predicted positive associations between early relational exclusion and present-day (a) minority stress, (b) social anxiety, and (c) coping. We tested this prediction by assessing the associations between early relation exclusion (as a time-invariant predictor) and the random intercepts of minority stress, social anxiety, and coping. The random intercepts, as noted earlier, reflect between-person estimates (i.e., average scores across the three waves of data). As shown in Figure 2, early relational exclusion positively associated with the random intercepts of minority stress (β = .42, p < .001), maladaptive coping (β = .46, p < .001), and social anxiety (β = .60, p < .001). This fully supported all three components of H1.

Within-person associations over a three-month period (H2)

The second hypothesis proposed longitudinal relationships between minority stress, social anxiety, and maladaptive coping at the within-person level over the course of a three-month period. Before discussing these results, it is worth reviewing the between-person associations of these variables. Figure 2 shows that these variables were all significantly related at the between-person level, suggesting that individuals who tend to be high, relative to the sample, on one variable also tend to be higher on the other two variables.

Results at the within-person level, which were the focus of H2, demonstrated one statistically significant cross-time effect, and that was between maladaptive coping and social anxiety. Maladaptive coping behaviors consistently predicted social anxiety at the next time point (Coping_W1 to Social Anxiety_W2: β = .19, p < .05; Coping_W2 to Social Anxiety_W3: β = .24, p < .05), suggesting that when individuals engage in more maladaptive coping than normal, they report more social anxiety than normal 30 days later. This is indicative of carryover effect. Maladaptive coping was not a significant cross-time predictor of minority stress. Maladaptive coping did, however, evidence significant autoregressive effects (Coping_W1 to Coping_W2: β = .33, p < .001; Coping_W2 to Coping_W3: β = .39, p < .001), suggesting negative coping behaviors are relatively stable over time.

Social anxiety did not significantly predict either minority stress or maladaptive coping (see Tables 2 and 3 and Figure 2). Likewise, minority stress did not significantly predict social anxiety nor coping (see Tables 2 and 3 and Figure 2). Therefore, H2 was only partially supported. Specifically, maladaptive coping had reciprocal cross-time effect to subsequent waves and to social anxiety, but we did not find evidence of this effect for minority stress. Finally, it is notable that minority stress, social anxiety, and maladaptive coping were significantly correlated at the within-person level within each wave (see within-wave correlations in Figure 2). This might suggest that cross-time association between these variables might only emerge in closer temporal proximity than 30 days, an issue we revisit in the Discussion.

Discussion

For sexual minority men, relational exclusion begins early and can ricochet into their lives as young adults. Minority stress theory has closely examined contemporaneous accounts of distal and proximal stressors, revealing important findings about the unique experiences of having a stigmatized sexual identity in today’s world. Yet, few studies have connected current feelings of minority stress, social anxiety, and coping to feelings of differences in adolescence. Additionally, this literature has yet to provide a clear picture of how these variables are linked over time at the within-person level. This, however, is critical for theory development, as well as designing interventions to help young sexual minority men who are at risk for social anxiety.

Supporting hypothesis one, early relational exclusion was strongly linked to contemporary experiences of stress, coping, and anxiety for young sexual minority men. This finding is consistent with the literature on “feelings of difference” emerging from social encounters with peers (Simon et al., 2020) and experiences of ostracism playing a prominent role in the lives of sexual minority populations (Hatchel, et al., 2019). Contrary to our prediction, minority stress was not linked to maladaptive coping and social anxiety over time at the within-person level.

Yet, this finding does not necessarily contradict the psychological mediation framework. Data were from three separate seven-day periods over three months. This approach was taken to get a “snapshot” of the relational lives of young sexual minority men (as opposed to month-long retrospectives). The effect of stigma-related stress on coping and social anxiety may be most potent at the trait-level or perhaps when the indicators are measured on a daily basis (e.g., with experience sampling). At the within-person level, minority stress did not have a carry-over effect, but was strongly linked to social anxiety that same week. This may suggest that exposure to minority stress in day-to-day life has a more immediate effect on young sexual minority men’s social anxiety. On the other hand, coping strategies such as self-blame, venting, and behavioral disengagement had a lingering effect on social anxiety, such that when an individual’s maladaptive coping was higher than usual, they reported higher social anxiety than usual at the following wave.

According to the psychological mediation framework, coping behaviors play a prominent role in mental health over time (Hatzenbuehler, 2009). The current study provides longitudinal evidence of a within-person effect described in this framework. Indeed, the framework’s emphasis on the interaction between the individual’s reaction to stress in the environment and subsequent health outcomes for sexual minority populations was demonstrated in the RI-CLPM. Furthermore, early experiences of young sexual minority men have previously focused on how individuals cope with stressors using achievement-related success (i.e., “the best little boy in the world hypothesis”; Pachankis & Hatzenbuehler, 2013). These studies emphasize how early stigma impacts self-worth and subsequent drive for others’ approval through achievement (e.g., academic competence, appearance). Our study provides an additional perspective to this research in that it highlights the relational elements of these early experiences and their subsequent effects on how young sexual minority men feel about current-day social interactions. Additionally, more recent tests of minority stress theory with sexual minority youth have started to untangle exposure to stigma-related stress throughout the day using intensive longitudinal analysis (e.g., Mereish et al., 2021). Therefore, the results of this study provide additional justification for researchers to examine how exposure to minority stress affects moment-to-moment well-being at the individual and relational levels.

Knapp et al. (1981) reported that people could recall specific features of messages that had a lasting impact on them. These memorable messages help individuals make sense of what is appropriate behavior within a particular social environment (Stohl, 1986). We conceptualized early relational exclusion as memorable moments of ostracism from peers, yet we know little about what makes these particular messages have such a long shelf life. Rubinsky and Cooke-Jackson (2017) suggest that memorable messages related to sexuality may serve “socializing functions, especially for a population whose members are marginalized by those aspects of their identity” (p. 1473). Future research should explore how verbal and nonverbal cues work together to generate feelings of relational exclusion and make them especially memorable to young sexual minority men. By examining the specific cues that have a lasting impact on those with a marginalized sexual identity, professionals working with sexual minority youth (e.g., teachers, counselors, school staff) can more readily detect exclusionary behavior and intervene accordingly (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2022).

Notably, this study highlighted the experiences of young sexual minority men. Although this is an overlooked population in the close relationship literature (see Pollitt et al., 2022), these results should not be generalized to sexual minority women or trans and gender-diverse people (Nakamura et al., 2022). Future researchers are encouraged to examine how early relational exclusion uniquely affects other sexual and gender minority populations. Recent evidence suggests that sexual minority women are at higher risk for anxiety-related disorder than their male counterparts (Cohen et al., 2016). Additionally, recent extensions of minority stress theory (e.g., the gender minority stress framework) have reconceptualized how stigma-related stressors operate within an ideology of cisnormativity (Tan et al., 2020; Testa et al., 2015). The present study argued that feelings of difference begin before the formal recognition of sexual identity; trans and gender-diverse youth likely have similar experiences, which subsequently affect current-day social interactions and reactions to stress exposure. Provided the explicit acts of interpersonal violence (Austin et al., 2022) and discriminatory policies that uniquely affect trans and gender-diverse youth (Barbee et al., 2022), this is an important future step for researchers to explore.

It is also critical to consider strategies that help enact resilience. Meyer (2015) specifically outlines a reorientation of minority stress theory that emphasizes individual and community resilience in the face of stigma-related stressors. Fergus and Zimmerman (2005) present an ecological view of resilience that could inform LGBTQIA+ community resilience. Indeed, community resilience could act as a protective factor against adverse health outcomes and help maintain personal well-being in the face of risk (McConnell et al., 2018). In terms of the current study, it would be worthwhile for researchers to understand moments of early relational inclusion, just as much as exclusion. A focus on social encounters when a peer extended a helping hand may buffer the negative effects of memorable messages of exclusion.

The findings of this study have important implications for practitioners working with sexual minority men. In particular, the findings highlight the need to consider both present-day stressors and past relational experiences when working with this population. This research focused on retrospective accounts of early experiences, so it is critical to note that participants may not have fully realized their sexual identity or been “out” when they experienced this relational exclusion. This limits our ability to recommend interventions that directly address sexual identity. Yet, we believe our findings have implications for adults who work with youth in primary and middle-grade educational settings because early relational exclusion centered on peer relations.

Educators should make concerted efforts to avoid class-sanctioned activities with the potential for peers to isolate each other. Physical education instructors, for example, should determine the groups for team sport activities instead of allowing peers to select their teams. Doing so prevents students from being singled out as “the last one.” Educators should also be mindful that exclusionary communication may be modeled from parent behavior learned outside the classroom. One practical classroom intervention is to discourage parents from engaging in exclusionary communication while in the classroom (e.g., parents distributing invitations to a birthday party while in the classroom if not everyone in the class is invited). Early relational exclusion often stems from subtle messages of difference as opposed to explicit derogatory remarks. Actively avoiding opportunities for exclusionary communication is an integral part of building a socially-safe classroom environment for all students.

Overall, this study sheds light on the importance of early relational exclusion in shaping the day-to-day lives of young sexual minority men. By using a multi-wave study and a random-intercept cross-lagged panel model, this study demonstrates the dynamic interplay between stigma-related stressors, maladaptive coping, and social anxiety based on intraindividual differences.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Open research statement

This research was not pre-registered. The data used in the research cannot be publicly shared but are available upon reasonable request. The materials used in the research can be publicly shared and posted.

ORCID iDs

Christopher D. Otmar

Andy J. Merolla

References

Akibar

Niemann

Y. F.

Blumenthal

Vosvick

(2019). Dimensions of sexuality and social anxiety in emerging adulthood. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Mental Health, 23(2), 244–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/19359705.2019.1568945

Aldao

Nolen-Hoeksema

Schweizer

(2010). Emotion-regulation strategies across psychopathology: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(2), 217–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2009.11.004

Austin

Craig

S. L.

D’Souza

McInroy

L. B.

(2022). Suicidality among transgender youth: Elucidating the role of interpersonal risk factors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(5–6), NP2696–NP2718. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520915554

Bailey

Shahabi

Tarvainen

Shapiro

Ottaviani

(2019). Moderating effects of the valence of social interaction on the dysfunctional consequences of perseverative cognition: An ecological study in major depression and social anxiety disorder. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 32(2), 179–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2019.1570821

Balsam

K. F.

Rothblum

E. D.

Beauchaine

T. P.

(2005). Victimization over the life span: A comparison of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and heterosexual siblings. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73(3), 477–487. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.73.3.477

Barbee

Deal

Gonzales

(2022). Anti-transgender legislation—a public health concern for transgender youth. JAMA Pediatrics, 176(2), 125–126. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2021.4483

Bar-Sella

Richter

Zilcha-Mano

Okon-Singer

(2022). How social experiences affect interpretation bias among individuals with non-clinical depression: The role of ostracism. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 13, 819143. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.819143

Bauerband

L. A.

Teti

Velicer

W. F.

(2019). Measuring minority stress: Invariance of a discrimination and vigilance scale across transgender and cisgender LGBQ individuals. Psychology & Sexuality, 10(1), 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2018.1520143

Baumeister

R. F.

DeWall

C. N.

Ciarocco

N. J.

Twenge

J. M.

(2005). Social exclusion impairs self-regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(4), 589–604. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.4.589

10.

Berndt

T. J.

(2002). Friendship quality and social development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(1), 7–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00157

11.

Bostwick

W. B.

Boyd

C. J.

Hughes

T. L.

McCabe

S. E.

(2010). Dimensions of sexual orientation and the prevalence of mood and anxiety disorders in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 100(3), 468–475. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2008.152942

12.

Brewer

M. B.

Pickett

C. L.

(1999). Distinctiveness motives as a source of the social self. In Tyler

Kramer

John

(Eds.), The psychology of the social self (pp. 71–87). Lawrence Erlbaum.

13.

Burns

M. N.

Kamen

Lehman

K. A.

Beach

S. R.

(2012). Minority stress and attributions for discriminatory events predict social anxiety in gay men. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 36(1), 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-010-9302-6

14.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention . (2023). Youth risk behavior survey: Data summary and trends report, 2011-2021. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs/pdf/YRBS_Data-Summary-Trends_Report2023_508.pdf

15.

Cohen

J. M.

Blasey

Barr Taylor

Weiss

B. J.

Newman

M. G.

(2016). Anxiety and related disorders and concealment in sexual minority young adults. Behavior Therapy, 47(1), 91–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2015.09.006

16.

Compas

B. E.

(1987). Coping with stress during childhood and adolescence. Psychological Bulletin, 101(3), 393–403. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.101.3.393

17.

Connor

K. M.

Kobak

K. A.

Churchill

L. E.

Katzelnick

Davidson

J. R.

(2001). Mini‐SPIN: A brief screening assessment for generalized social anxiety disorder. Depression and Anxiety, 14(2), 137–140. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.1055

18.

Diamond

L. M.

Alley

(2022). Rethinking minority stress: A social safety perspective on the health effects of stigma in sexually-diverse and gender-diverse populations. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 138, 104720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2022.104720

19.

Earnshaw

V. A.

Menino

D. D.

Sava

L. M.

Perrotti

Barnes

T. N.

Humphrey

D. L.

Reisner

S. L.

(2020). LGBTQ bullying: A qualitative investigation of student and school health professional perspectives. Journal of LGBT Youth, 17(3), 280–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/19361653.2019.1653808

20.

Feinstein

B. A.

Dyar

(2017). Bisexuality, minority stress, and health. Current Sexual Health Reports, 9(1), 42–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11930-017-0096-3

21.

Feinstein

B. A.

Dyar

Poon

J. A.

Goodman

F. R.

Davila

(2022). The affective consequences of minority stress among bisexual, pansexual, and queer (bi+) adults: A daily diary study. Behavior Therapy, 53(4), 571–584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2022.01.013

22.

Fergus

Zimmerman

M. A.

(2005). Adolescent resilience: A framework for understanding healthy development in the face of risk. Annual Review of Public Health, 26(1), 399–419. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.26.021304.144357

23.

Flowers

Buston

(2001). “I was terrified of being different”: Exploring gay men’s accounts of growing-up in a heterosexist society. Journal of Adolescence, 24(1), 51–65. https://doi.org/10.1006/jado.2000.0362

24.

Frost

D. M.

Svensson

M. E.

(2018). Sexual minority health. In Revenson

R. A.

R Gurung

R. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of health psychology (pp. 315–326). Routledge.

25.

Gilman

Carter-Sowell

DeWall

R. E.

Carboni

, et al. (2013). Validation of the ostracism experience scale for adolescents. Psychological Assessment, 25(2), 319–330. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030913

26.

Goldberg-Looney

L. D.

Perrin

P. B.

Snipes

D. J.

Calton

J. M.

(2016). Coping styles used by sexual minority men who experience intimate partner violence. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 25(23–24), 3687–3696. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13388

27.

Hamaker

E. L.

Kuiper

R. M.

Grasman

R. P. P. P.

(2015). A critique of the cross-lagged panel model. Psychological Methods, 20(1), 102–116. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038889

28.

Hart

T. A.

Noor

S. W.

Vernon

J. R.

Kidwai

Roberts

Myers

Calzavara

(2018). Childhood maltreatment, bullying victimization, and psychological distress among gay and bisexual men. The Journal of Sex Research, 55(4–5), 604–616. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2017.1401972

29.

Hatchel

Merrin

G. J.

Espelage

A. D.

(2019). Peer victimization and suicidality among LGBTQ youth: The roles of school belonging, self-compassion, and parental support. Journal of LGBT Youth, 16(2), 134–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/19361653.2018.1543036

30.

Hatzenbuehler

M. L.

(2009). How does sexual minority stigma “get under the skin”? A psychological mediation framework. Psychological Bulletin, 135(5), 707–730. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016441

31.

Herek

G. M.

Gillis

J. R.

Cogan

J. C.

(2015). Internalized stigma among sexual minority adults: Insights from a social psychological perspective. Stigma and Health, 1(S), 18–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/2376-6972.1.S.18

32.

Hoy-Ellis

C. P.

(2021). Minority stress and mental health: A review of the literature. Journal of Homosexuality, 70(5), 806–830. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2021.2004794

33.

Hur

DeYoung

K. A.

Islam

Anderson

A. S.

Barstead

M. G.

Shackman

A. J.

(2020). Social context and the real-world consequences of social anxiety. Psychological Medicine, 50(12), 1989–2000. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291719002022

34.

Jackson

S. D.

Mohr

J. J.

(2016). Conceptualizing the closet: Differentiating stigma concealment and nondisclosure processes. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 3(1), 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000147

35.

Kashdan

T. B.

Steger

M. F.

(2006). Expanding the topography of social anxiety: An experience-sampling assessment of positive emotions, positive events, and emotion suppression. Psychological Science, 17(2), 120–128. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01674.x

36.

Kerr

N. L.

Levine

J. M.

(2008). The detection of social exclusion: Evolution and beyond. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 12(1), 39–52. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.12.1.39

37.

Kerr

N. L.

Seok

D. H.

Poulsen

J. R.

Harris

D. W.

Messe

L. A.

(2008). Social ostracism and group motivation gain. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(4), 736–746. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.499

38.

Knapp

M. L.

Stohl

Reardon

K. K.

(1981). “Memorable” messages. Journal of Communication, 31(4), 27–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1981.tb00448.x

39.

Lattanner

M. R.

Pachankis

J. E.

Hatzenbuehler

M. L.

(2022). Mechanisms linking distal minority stress and depressive symptoms in a longitudinal, population-based study of gay and bisexual men: A test and extension of the psychological mediation framework. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 90(8), 638–646. https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000749

40.

Leipold

Munz

Michéle-Malkowsky

(2019). Coping and resilience in the transition to adulthood. Emerging Adulthood, 7(1), 12–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696817752950

41.

Little

T. D.

(2013). Longitudinal structural equation modeling. The Guilford Press.

42.

Livingston

N. A.

(2017). Avenues for future minority stress and substance use research among sexual and gender minority populations. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 11(1), 52–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/15538605.2017.1273164

43.

Mahon

C. P.

Lombard-Vance

Kiernan

Pachankis

J. E.

Gallagher

(2022). Social anxiety among sexual minority individuals: A systematic review. Psychology & Sexuality, 13(4), 818–862. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2021.1936140

44.

McConnell

E. A.

Janulis

Phillips

II Truong

Birkett

(2018). Multiple minority stress and LGBT community resilience among sexual minority men. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 5(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000265

45.

McDonald

(2018). Social support and mental health in LGBTQ adolescents: A review of the literature. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 39(1), 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/01612840.2017.1398283

46.

Mereish

E. H.

Miranda

Jr. Liu

Hawthorne

D. J.

(2021). A daily diary study of minority stress and negative and positive affect among racially diverse sexual minority adolescents. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 68(6), 670–681. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000556

47.

Merolla

A. J.

Hansia

Hall

J. A.

Zhang

(2022). Moments of connection for the disconnected: People with negative relations with others experience less, but benefit more from, positive everyday interaction. Communication Research, 49(6), 838–862. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502211005890

48.

Meyer

I. H.

(1995). Minority stress and mental health in gay men. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 36(1), 38–56. https://doi.org/10.2307/2137286

49.

Meyer

I. H.

(2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5), 674–697. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674

50.

Meyer

I. H.

(2015). Resilience in the study of minority stress and health of sexual and gender minorities. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 2(3), 209–213. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000132

51.

Mohr

J. J.

Sarno

E. L.

(2016). The ups and downs of being lesbian, gay, and bisexual: A daily experience perspective on minority stress and support processes. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 63(1), 106–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000125

52.

Morrow

V. M.

(2001). Young people’s explanations and experiences of social exclusion: Retrieving Bourdieu’s concept of social capital. International Journal of Sociology & Social Policy, 21(4/5/6), 37–63. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443330110789439

53.

Mulder

J. D.

Hamaker

E. L.

(2021). Three extensions of the random intercept cross-lagged panel model. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 28(4), 638–648. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2020.1784738

54.

Muthén

B. O.

(1998-2017). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.). Muthén & Muthén.

55.

Nakamura

Dispenza

Abreu

R. L.

Ollen

E. W.

Pantalone

D. W.

Canillas

Gormley

Vencill

J. A.

(2022). The APA guidelines for psychological practice with sexual minority persons: An executive summary of the 2021 revision. American Psychologist, 77(8), 953–962. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000939

56.

National Academies of Sciences . (2022). Engineering, and medicine. Reducing inequalities between lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer adolescents and cisgender, heterosexual adolescents: Proceedings of a workshop. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26383

57.

Oaten

Williams

K. D.

Jones

Zadro

(2008). The effects of ostracism on self–regulation in the socially anxious. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 27(5), 471–504. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2008.27.5.471

58.

Pachankis

J. E.

Goldfried

M. R.

(2006). Social anxiety in young gay men. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 20(8), 996–1015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2006.01.001

59.

Pachankis

J. E.

Goldfried

M. R.

Ramrattan

M. E.

(2008). Extension of the rejection sensitivity construct to the interpersonal functioning of gay men. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76(2), 306–317. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.76.2.306

60.

Pachankis

J. E.

Hatzenbuehler

M. L.

(2013). The social development of contingent self-worth in sexual minority young men: An empirical investigation of the “Best little boy in the world” hypothesis. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 35(2), 176–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2013.764304

61.

Pachankis

J. E.

Mahon

C. P.

Jackson

S. D.

Fetzner

B. K.

Bränström

(2020). Sexual orientation concealment and mental health: A conceptual and meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 146(10), 831–871. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000271

62.

Perales

Campbell

O'Flaherty

(2020). Sexual orientation and adolescent time use: How sexual minority youth spend their time. Child Development, 91(3), 983–1000. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13245

63.

Pollitt

A. M.

Blair

K. L.

Lannutti

P. J.

(2022). A review of two decades of LGBTQ-inclusive research in JSPR and PR. Personal Relationships, 30(1), 144–173. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12432

64.

Riggle

E. D.

Rostosky

S. S.

Black

W. W.

Rosenkrantz

D. E.

(2017). Outness, concealment, and authenticity: Associations with LGB individuals’ psychological distress and well-being. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 4(1), 54–62. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000202

65.

Rivers

Gordon

(2010). ‘Coming out’, context and reason: First disclosure of sexual orientation and its consequences. Psychology and Sexuality, 1(1), 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419891003634398

66.

Rood

B. A.

McConnell

E. A.

Pantalone

D. W.

(2015). Distinct coping combinations are associated with depression and support service utilization in men who have sex with men living with HIV. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 2(1), 96–105. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000091

67.

Rubinsky

Cooke-Jackson

(2017). “Tell me something other than to use a condom and sex is scary”: Memorable messages women and gender minorities wish for and recall about sexual health. Women's Studies in Communication, 40(4), 379–400. https://doi.org/10.1080/07491409.2017.1368761

68.

Savin-Williams

R. C.

Diamond

L. M.

(2000). Sexual identity trajectories among sexual-minority youths: Gender comparisons. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29(6), 607–627. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1002058505138

69.

Scharp

K. M.

Alvarez

C. F.

Wolfe

B. H.

Lannutti

P. J.

Bryant

L. E.

(2023). Overcoming obstacles by enacting resilience: How queer adolescents respond to being estranged from their parents. Communication Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502221142

70.

Schlenker

B. R.

Leary

M. R.

(1982). Social anxiety and self-presentation: A conceptualization and model. Psychological Bulletin, 92(3), 641–669. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.92.3.641

71.

Schnarrs

P. W.

Dorri

A. A.

Yockey

R. A.

Stone

A. L.

Russell

S. T.

Rosenberger

J. G.

(in press). The sexual and gender minority adverse childhood experiences scale. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2023.08.006

72.

Schwartz

D. R.

Stratton

Hart

T. A.

, et al. (2016). Minority stress and mental and sexual health: Examining the psychological mediation framework among gay and bisexual men. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 3(3), 313–324. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000180

73.

Selby

E. A.

Joiner

T. E.

(2009). Cascades of emotion: The emergence of borderline personality disorder from emotional and behavioral dysregulation. Review of General Psychology: Journal of Division 1, of the American Psychological Association, 13(3), 219–229. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015687

74.

Simon

K. A.

Vazquez

C. P.

Bruun

S. T.

Farr

R. H.

, et al. (2020). Retrospective feelings of difference based on gender and sexuality among emerging adults. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 7(1), 26–39. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000349

75.

Skinner

E. A.

Wellborn

J. G.

(1994). Coping during childhood and adolescence: A motivational perspective. In Life-span development and behavior (12, pp. 91–133). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

76.

Sommer

K. L.

Williams

K. D.

Ciarocco

N. J.

Baumeister

R. F.

(2001). When silence speaks louder than words: Explorations into the intrapsychic and interpersonal consequences of social ostracism. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 23(4), 225–243. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324834BASP2304_1

77.

Stohl

(1986). The role of memorable messages in the process of organizational socialization. Communication Quarterly, 34(3), 231–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463378609369638

78.

Swim

J. K.

Johnston

Pearson

N. B.

(2009). Daily experiences with heterosexism: Relations between heterosexist hassles and psychological well being. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 28(5), 597–629. https://doi..org/10.1521/jscp.2009.28.5.597

79.

Szymanski

D. M.

Dunn

T. L.

Ikizler

A. S.

(2014). Multiple minority stressors and psychological distress among sexual minority women: The roles of rumination and maladaptive coping. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 1(4), 412–421. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000066

80.

Tan

K. K. H.

Treharne

G. J.

Ellis

S. J.

Schmidt

J. M.

Veale

J. F.

(2020). Gender minority stress: A critical review. Journal of Homosexuality, 67(10), 1471–1489. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2019.1591789

81.

Taylor

A. B.

Neppl

T. K.

(2023). Sexual identity in lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer or questioning emerging adults: The role of parental rejection, and sexuality specific family support. Journal of Family Issues, 44(2), 409–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513x211050063

82.

Testa

R. J.

Habarth

Peta

Balsam

Bockting

(2015). Development of the gender minority stress and resilience measure. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 2(1), 65–77. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000081

83.

Timmons

A. C.

Preacher

K. J.

(2015). The importance of temporal design: How do measurement intervals affect the accuracy and efficiency of parameter estimates in longitudinal research? Multivariate Behavioral Research, 50(1), 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2014.961056

84.

Williams

K. D.

Carter-Sowell

A. R.

(2009). Marginalization through social ostracism: Effects of being ignored and excluded. Coping with minority status: Responses to exclusion and inclusion (pp. 104–122). Cambridge University Press.

85.

Williams

K. D.

Nida

S. A.

(2022). Ostracism and social exclusion: Implications for separation, social isolation, and loss. Current Opinion in Psychology, 47, 101353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101353

86.

Williams

D. R.

Jackson

J. S.

Anderson

N. B.

, et al. (1997). Racial differences in physical and mental health. Socio-economic status, stress and discrimination. Journal of Health Psychology, 2(3), 335–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910539700200305

87.

Zadro

Boland

Richardson

(2006). How long does it last? The persistence of the effects of ostracism in the socially anxious. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(5), 692–697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.10.007

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

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Early relational exclusion

Early relational exclusion and present-day minority stress

Early relational exclusion and present-day maladaptive coping

Early relational exclusion and present-day social anxiety

Reciprocal within-person associations

Method

Perceptions of early relational exclusion

Minority stress

Maladaptive coping

Social anxiety

Model set-up

Results

Time-invariant predictor and associations between random intercepts (H1)

Within-person associations over a three-month period (H2)

Discussion

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

Open research statement

ORCID iDs

References