Next Article in Journal
Impact of the Rise of Artificial Intelligence in Radiology: What Do Students Think?
Next Article in Special Issue
Stress and Resilience Experiences during the Transition to Parenthood among Belgian Lesbian Mothers through Donor Insemination
Previous Article in Journal
Trust and Biomedical Research Engagement of Minority and Under-Represented Communities in Mississippi, USA
Previous Article in Special Issue
Masculinity and Leadership Effectiveness (Self-)Perceptions: The Case of Lesbian Leaders
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 20
Issue 2
10.3390/ijerph20021593
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Internalized Homonegativity, Emotion Dysregulation, and Isolating Behaviors Perpetration among Gay and Lesbian Couples

by
Tommaso Trombetta
,
Virginia Balocco
,
Fabrizio Santoniccolo
*,
Maria Noemi Paradiso
and
Luca Rollè
Department of Psychology, University of Turin, via Verdi 10, 10124 Turin, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20(2), 1593; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20021593
Submission received: 24 December 2022 / Revised: 11 January 2023 / Accepted: 12 January 2023 / Published: 16 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Improving Health Outcomes for Sexual and Gender Minority Populations)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Same-sex intimate partner violence (SSIPV) is a serious health concern and may manifest in various forms. Nevertheless, controlling behaviors of isolation are still poorly investigated. Due to their marginalized status, sexual minorities can face SSIPV-specific risk factors, such as internalized homonegativity, as well as general psychological stress factors, such as emotion dysregulation. While the literature is growing, there is still a lack of understanding of the complex pathways linking sexual minorities and minority stress to IPV and isolating controlling behavior. To fill this gap, we explored the relation between internalized homonegativity and controlling behaviors of isolation, assessing the mediating role of emotion dysregulation. In total, 120 gay and lesbian people (mean age = 33.8, SD = 11.5) involved in a same-sex relationship participated in the study. Results showed a direct and positive association between internalized homonegativity and difficulties in emotion regulation and a direct and positive association between emotion dysregulation and controlling behaviors of isolation; the mediating role of emotion dysregulation in the relation between internalized homonegativity and isolating controlling behaviors was supported as well. Emerging results can provide valuable information at the clinical level, although further studies are needed to confirm these preliminary findings.

1. Introduction

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a serious public health concern affecting sexual minorities to the same extent as heterosexual people, if not even more [1,2,3]. Only in the past few decades researchers turned their attention to same-sex intimate partner violence (SSIPV; [4]). Nevertheless, IPV among same-sex couples remains poorly discussed on a public level and bias in media representations have been documented, which contribute to the poor understanding of the phenomena [5,6]. The lack of research on SSIPV may also have perpetuated the marginalization of sexual minorities resulting in a shortage of service provision, public agendas, and funding, especially when compared to the response dedicated to heterosexual IPV [1]. Moreover, even if theories developed by research with heterosexual couples can often be applicable to LGB couples, they fail to represent sexual minorities’ unique experience [7]. Intervention and prevention programs for IPV in same-sex couples frequently refer to data collected on the heterosexual population. Due to this heteronormative bias, prevention and intervention programs are often not effective in capturing the needs of sexual minority people [8]. Abusive dynamics within same-sex couples can be fueled by the heterosexist context and internalized stigma [9]. When analyzing SSIPV, some specific violent tactics may be involved, such as threatening to disclose a partner’s sexual identity (outing), undermining a partner’s identity as an LGBTQ person [10], or isolating the partner from specific sources of support such as the LGBTQ communities [9,11]. These modalities are closely linked to the minority status and marginalized conditions of the victims which can be used by the abuser to gain control or elicit feelings of shame [12,13]. Sexual minorities also face several help seeking barriers making them less likely to seek help [14,15]. Stereotypes and discrimination against the LGBTQ community can spread not only on a social level but also among mental health, legal and medical professionals [16,17]. As a result, members of sexual minorities who experience violence may fall back on informal sources of help and avoid services for fear of encountering a hostile, unprepared, and retraumatizing environment [15,18].
Beyond similarities between IPV in sexual minorities and heterosexual people, due to their marginalized status, sexual minorities can also face SSIPV-specific risk factors such as minority stress [19]. Minority stress refers to an additional stress factor, given by the minority status, that is chronical and deeply rooted in the heterosexist context [20,21]. Among the dimensions comprised in the minority stress model (i.e., experiences of discrimination, perceived stigma, internalized homonegativity, sexual identity concealment), internalized homonegativity can influence IPV perpetration in sexual minorities [22,23,24,25]. Internalized homonegativity refers to the negative affect and attitudes directed toward the self and one’s personal sexual orientation [20,26]. Several studies identified a positive association between higher levels of internalized homonegativity and SSIPV perpetration [24,27,28,29,30,31]. However, the mechanisms by which this happens are not fully understood yet.
A recent contribution to the minority stress theory comes from Hatzenbuehler [32]. The author proposed the Psychological Mediation Framework (PMF) with the aim of expanding Meyer’s original model [20,26] and taking into consideration both group-specific stressors, general psychological processes, and their interdependence. The PMF gives focus not only on unique stress factors that sexual minorities may encounter, but also on more general risk factors that may represent psychological and social challenges. Specifically, the model suggests that stigma-related stressors make sexual minorities more vulnerable to general risk factors such as emotion dysregulation [32]. The PMF has until now been applied to the study of LGBTQ health inequalities, by postulating that both general stressors and minority specific factors contribute to health inequality in this population and that the effect of minority stress on well-being is mediated by psychosocial variables such as feelings of hopelessness, low self-esteem, social isolation and emotion dysregulation [33,34,35,36,37,38]. So far, a body of research has focused particularly on emotion dysregulation, which has been reported to mediate the relationship between minority stress, and in particular internalized homonegativity, and psychological distress [37,39,40,41,42]. Minority stress, conceived as a chronic stressor that contributes to ego depletion [43], can undermine functional emotion regulation strategies, promoting maladaptive emotion regulation strategies used to relieve the conflict between one’s perceived sexual orientation and discrimination [44,45]. Emotion dysregulation has, in turn, been associated with higher levels of psychological distress and depression [39,46,47]. In addition, emotion dysregulation has been found to be related to IPV perpetration in several studies [48,49]. However, as stated by the World Health Organization [50], IPV refers not only to acts of physical, psychological, and sexual violence but also to controlling behaviors, including isolation, stalking, and restricting access to health care, education, employment, or financial resources. Among these, controlling behaviors of isolation are still poorly investigated [51,52] and different kinds of intimate partner violence are frequently mixed together by scholars [53]. While controlling behaviors of isolation certainly take place within heterosexual relationships too, they can be particularly detrimental and underreported when involved people are members of a marginalized minority [13,17,54,55]. Sexual minorities already face heightened risk of experiencing rejection from their close backgrounds and families of origin [9,56], of living alone without immediate family system in midlife and older age [57], and are more likely to report low levels of social support in both their peer and family contexts [58,59]. Controlling behaviors of isolation are especially concerning given their deleterious effect of increasing victim’s dependence on the abuser and thus heightening the risk of further violence exposure [1].
In addition, to what we know, except for one recent study on IPV victimization among sexual minority men, which highlighted associations between childhood sexual abuse, intimate partner violence victimization, internalized homophobia and emotion regulation difficulties [60], no studies have assessed the application of the PMF to SSIPV perpetration. In particular, the mediating role of emotion dysregulation in the association between internalized homonegativity and controlling violence has not been tested yet.
To address this research gap, the present study aims to evaluate the application of the PMF to the SSIPV context, with a particular focus on controlling behaviors of isolation. We therefore tested whether emotion dysregulation can be a significant mediator in the relationship between internalized homonegativity and SSIPV. Emerging results can provide valuable information at a clinical level, with the aim to tackle SSIPV perpetration and reduce relapses as well as increase individual and relational well-being among sexual minority people.

Hypotheses

The hypotheses for the present study are the following and are presented in Figure 1:
Hypothesis 1 (H1):
Internalized homonegativity is expected to be directly and positively associated to isolating behaviors perpetration.
Hypothesis 2 (H2):
Internalized homonegativity is expected to be directly and positively associated to emotion dysregulation.
Hypothesis 3 (H3):
Emotion dysregulation is expected to be directly and positively associated to isolating behaviors perpetration.
Hypothesis 4 (H4):
Emotion dysregulation is expected to mediate the association between internalized homonegativity and isolating behaviors perpetration.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

A total of 141 participants completed the questionnaire. Twenty-one participants were not involved in a same-sex couple relationship and were excluded. The final sample included 120 participants involved in a same-sex couple relationship (62% males) between the ages of 20 and 76 (Mean age = 33.8, SD = 11.5). The respondents′ sociodemographic characteristics are presented in Table 1.

2.2. Procedure

Study procedures are in accordance with the ethical standards of the APA and the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki. The questionnaire was prepared by the research team, using validated scales whenever possible, and translated into Italian. Data were collected from July 2021 to April 2022 through an online survey conducted on LimeSurvey. The questionnaire contained general information about the study and an invitation to participate, which was distributed by the research team members to their personal, professional, and social networks through email and word of mouth. Participation was voluntary and anonymous. Before beginning the questionnaire, participants received an informed consent form describing the aims of the study and the content of the survey, risks, benefits, privacy, names of research institutions, and contact information for the study team head. Completion of the questionnaire took approximately 15 min. The study was approved by the Bioethical Committee of the University of Turin.

2.3. Instruments

Internalized Homonegativity: The Internalized Sexual Stigma for Lesbian and Gay Men (MISS-LG; [61]) was used to assess internalized homonegativity in our study. Each item is rated using a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from “Totally disagree” to “Totally agree”. In accordance with Lingiardi and colleagues’ specifications [61], we obtained the total score by adding all the items. In our sample, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the total score was 0.72.
Emotion Dysregulation: The Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS; [62]) in its Italian version [63,64] was used to assess emotion dysregulation. The DERS is composed of six subscales: non-acceptance of emotional responses (Nonacceptance), difficulties engaging in goal-directed behavior, impulse control difficulties (Impulse), lack of emotional awareness (Awareness), limited access to emotion regulation strategies (Strategies), and lack of emotional clarity (Clarity). Participants rated each item on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“Almost never”) to 5 (“Almost always”). For the current study, the total score was considered, and Cronbach’s alpha was excellent (0.94).
Controlling Behavior Perpetration: To assess controlling behavior perpetration, the Controlling Behavior Scale (CBS-R; [65,66]) was used. It consists of five subscales (economic, threats, intimidation, emotional, and isolation), which participants responded to considering both victimization and perpetration. For the current study, only perpetrated isolating behaviors were considered. Participants rated each item on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (“Never”) to 4 (“Always”). The Cronbach’s alpha was good (0.71).
The items in each scale were all treated as continuous variables and were summed to obtain a total mean score.
The following sociodemographic variables were included as control variables according with the literature on IPV perpetration: sex, educational level, economic condition.

2.4. Data Analysis

Statistical analyses were performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS 28.0) and a mediation analysis was tested using Hayes’ [67] PROCESS (Version 4.1, Model 4) to test direct and indirect effects. Frequencies, means, and standard deviations were calculated to summarize the variables included in this study. Pearson′s correlation (r) was used to test the relationship between variables, and results were interpreted according to Cohen’s [68] conventions. T-tests were used to assess gender differences in controlling behaviors perpetration. The reliability of each scale was determined using the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient.
Sex, sexual orientation, educational level, and economic condition were used in the model as control variables.
As recommended by Tabachnick and Fidell [69], the studied variables were tested for the assumptions of normality and multicollinearity. Since the data violated the multinormality condition we used a robust estimator to test the significance of the model. To assess the mediation model according to our hypotheses we used bootstrap estimation to test the significance of the indirect effects [67] with 5000 samples, and we computed the bias-corrected 95% confidence interval (CI) by determining the effects at the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles; when 0 was not included in the CI, the indirect effects were significant.

3. Results

Frequencies and mean scores of scale study variables are reported in Table 2. No significant differences emerged between female and male participants in isolating behaviors perpetration.
Table 3 reports bivariate correlations among scale scores. The results showed a positive correlation between internalized homonegativity and emotion dysregulation (r: 0.46, p < 0.01) and between emotion dysregulation and isolating behavior perpetration (r: 0.23, p < 0.05).
To test our hypotheses, we conducted a mediation model. Internalized homonegativity was the independent variable, emotion dysregulation the mediators and isolating behavior perpetration the dependent variable.
After we checked for control variables and according to the literature on this field, we included in the final model: sex, sexual orientation, educational level, and economic condition as covariates.
The hypotheses in the current study were partially confirmed. In contrast to H1, no significant direct association emerged between internalized homonegativity and isolating behavior perpetration (b: 0.06; se: 0.45; p: 0.564). Instead, a direct and positive association emerged between internalized homonegativity and emotion dysregulation (b: 0.44; se: 0.07; p < 0.001) in accordance with H2, and a direct and positive association emerged between emotion dysregulation and isolating behavior perpetration (b: 0.21; se: 0.42; p < 0.05) in accordance with H3. There were no significant associations between the sociodemographic variables (sex, sexual orientation, educational level, and economic conditions) and emotion dysregulation or isolating behavior perpetration. The model explained 6.4% of the variance for isolating behavior perpetration (F(6, 113) = 17.72; p < 0.001).
The indirect effect was also significant in accordance with H4. In detail, a positive indirect effect emerged between internalized homonegativity and isolating behavior perpetration through the mediation of emotion dysregulation (b: 0.10; Bootstrap se: 0.05; CI: 0.006; 0.19). Finally, neither direct (b: 0.68; se: 0.47; p 0.146) nor total (b: 0.26; se: 0.45; p 0.563) effects of internalized homonegativity and controlling behavior perpetration were significant.

4. Discussion

The current study assessed the application of the PMF [32] to SSIPV, focusing on controlling behaviors of isolation perpetration, which are still poorly investigated and can be particularly detrimental to members of a marginalized minority [17,54]. For this purpose, we explored the role of internalized homonegativity and emotion dysregulation in SSIPV perpetration, among a sample of 120 people involved in a same-sex relationship. Our first hypothesis (H1) was not confirmed and no significant direct association between internalized homonegativity and isolating behavior perpetration was found. This might be due to several reasons. First, the lack of significance at a direct level could be motivated by sampling bias. On average, participants reported a high educational level and a high socioeconomic status. Together with low levels of internalized homonegativity, this may have accounted for the non-significance of the data. Second, it is also possible that, as observed in the mediation model, emotion dysregulation nullified the effect of internalized homonegativity, which was, however, not found also at the bivariate level. Third, according to existing literature, internalized homonegativity was generally found to be associated with IPV [19]. However, when considering specific types of violence, results have shown to be more inconsistent. In line with these considerations, it is worth noting that few, if any, data regarding the association between internalized homonegativity and controlling behaviors of isolation exist in the literature, and further studies are needed to deepen these preliminary findings.
A direct and positive association between internalized homonegativity and difficulties in emotion regulation was observed in accordance with H2. The result is in line with current literature [33,35,70,71] and supports the observation that the experience of minority stress, and specifically of internalized homonegativity, may limit one’s access to emotional regulation strategies (such as emotions awareness, emotions acceptance, and cognitive reappraisal). These data are in line with Hatzenbuehler′s Psychological Mediation Framework [32]. One possible explanation for these results may be found within negative affect and attitudes directed toward the self. The adoption of society-negative beliefs and preconceptions may elicit strong emotional responses, which can make it more difficult for people experiencing minority stress to access effective emotion regulation strategies [72]. Consistently, internalized homonegativity has been theorized by Meyer [20] to be a proximal minority stressor involving individual perceptions, appraisals, and emotions. In addition, a greater tendency to use ineffective regulation strategies has been reported in sexual minorities, especially on those days when they encounter minority-stress-related adversities [73]. Further understanding of the relationship between internalized homonegativity and emotional dysregulation may also come from neurophysiological studies. The effect of minority stress on emotion dysregulation could occur through the impact that stress has on the GABAergic system, with an inhibitory effect on the prefrontal cortex, which, in turn, alters the limbic system functions that are in charge of emotion control [74]. The prefrontal cortex is an area that has attracted research interest in relation to minority stress, and there is some agreement that this area is involved in emotion regulation and stress during social rejection [75,76].
Furthermore, a direct and positive association between emotion dysregulation and controlling behaviors of isolation was found in accordance with H3, and the mediating role of emotion dysregulation in the relation between internalized homonegativity and isolating controlling behaviors was confirmed as well (H4). These findings confirm previous literature that found emotion dysregulation to be associated with IPV [77,78,79,80], supporting this relation in regard to isolating behaviors as well. In addition, our data support the application of the PMF [32] to SSIPV perpetration. According to the PMF, people with higher levels of internalized homonegativity have shown higher emotion dysregulation, which, in turn, increased the risk of isolating behaviors’ perpetration. A mutual influence between couple relationship dynamics and individual emotion regulation has been documented by several scholars [81,82,83]. Violent behaviors may be seen as a way of avoiding taking contact with uncomfortable emotions regarding one’s intimate relationship and as a distance-regulating mechanism [84,85]. In this sense, isolating behaviors can be seen as a dysfunctional strategy used to control the degree of closeness within the couple′s relationship and thus regulate negative affect that can result from an imbalance between closeness and separation, to which people with low levels of emotional dysregulation can be more vulnerable.

5. Limitations and Future Directions

Alongside the results emerging from this study, there are also some limitations, such as the low sample size and a higher percentage of men, which limits the generalizability of our findings. For example, our findings revealed no significant differences between female and male participants in isolating behaviors perpetration. To investigate this issue more reliably, larger samples are needed.
Furthermore, since this is a cross-sectional study, we cannot draw firm conclusions on the actual causal relationships between the variables included in the model and longitudinal data are needed to confirm these preliminary findings.
Our study was only focused on isolating behaviors’ perpetration, future research should also consider other forms of IPV (e.g., physical, psychological, and sexual violence) and controlling violence (e.g., economic control, threatening control), considering them distinctly rather than as a single phenomenon, as preliminarily introduced in the present work.
Moreover, our study only included gay and lesbian people, while other sexual identities were not included. Bisexual people, for example, have been reported to be the population at greater risk of engaging in IPV by several authors [86,87,88]. Future studies on bisexual people, as well as other sexual and gender minorities, are needed.
Finally, the tested model only explained a low percentage of the variance for isolating controlling behavior (R2: 0.64). To better understand predictors of SSIPV and controlling behaviors, future studies should also include other minority stressors (i.e., experiences of discrimination, perceived stigma, and outness) as well as the role of psychological processes and personality dimensions (e.g., adult attachment, identity development, and rejection sensitivity).

6. Conclusions

Intimate partner violence is a social concern involving people from different social backgrounds, ethnicities, genders, and sexual orientations. Despite similarities in heterosexual and same-sex couples’ IPV prevalence, SSIPV often remains poorly discussed and represented at the social level. While the literature is growing, there is still a lack of understanding of the complex pathways linking sexual minorities and minority stress to IPV. Our study was one of the first attempts to fill this gap. The emerging results support the extension of PMF to the SSIPV context, although future studies are needed to confirm these data and better understand predictors and mechanisms of IPV perpetration in same-sex couples. The gathered data can also provide useful information at the clinical level and inform services addressing IPV, which nowadays seem poorly sensitive to LGBT+-related issues [15,89]. When dealing with SSIPV, clinicians should avoid erroneously reinforcing the attribution of internal blame and feelings of shame entailed by internalized homonegativity [90]. Instead, while helping sexual minorities facing the impact of minority stress and IPV, mediating psychological variables such as emotion dysregulation may be specifically targeted [90,91]. Treatment and therapeutic process may help identify, learn, and practice coping capacities by increasing emotional regulation strategies, such as cognitive reappraisal, and one’s ability to effectively regulate IPV-involved emotions such as anger [90,92,93]. Considering the indirect impact of internalized homonegativity on SSIPV perpetration, prevention programs aimed at reducing sexual discrimination and social homonegativity are needed to promote both individual and relational well-being in sexual minorities.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.T. and L.R.; methodology, T.T. and F.S.; formal analysis, F.S. and M.N.P.; data curation V.B., F.S. and M.N.P.; writing—original draft preparation, T.T. and V.B.; writing—review and editing, F.S., M.N.P. and L.R.; supervision, L.R.; project administration, T.T. and L.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Bioethical Committee of the University of Turin, prot. n° 0429348.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Callan, A.; Corbally, M.; McElvaney, R. A Scoping Review of Intimate Partner Violence as It Relates to the Experiences of Gay and Bisexual Men. Trauma, Violence, Abus. 2020, 22, 233–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Rollè, L.; Giardina, G.; Caldarera, A.M.; Gerino, E.; Brustia, P. When Intimate Partner Violence Meets Same Sex Couples: A Review of Same Sex Intimate Partner Violence. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 1056, Erratum in Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 1706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Russell, B. Intimate Partner Violence and the LGBT+ Community: Understanding Power Dynamics; Springer Nature: Berlin, Germany, 2020; Available online: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-44762-5 (accessed on 14 November 2022).
  4. Stephenson, R.; Darbes, L.A.; Rosso, M.T.; Washington, C.; Hightow-Weidman, L.; Sullivan, P.; Gamarel, K.E. Perceptions of Contexts of Intimate Partner Violence Among Young, Partnered Gay, Bisexual and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men in the United States. J. Interpers. Violence 2022, 37, NP12881–NP12900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Estes, M.L.; Webber, G.R. “More Closeted Than Gayness Itself”: The Depiction of Same-Sex Couple Violence in Newspaper Media. J. Interpers. Violence 2017, 36, NP712–NP734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Rollè, L.; Santoniccolo, F.; D′Amico, D.; Trombetta, T. News Media Representation of Domestic Violence Victims and Perpetrators: Focus on Gender and Sexual Orientation in International Literature. In Gendered Domestic Violence and Abuse in Popular Culture (Emerald Studies in Popular Culture and Gender); Ramon, S., Lloyd, M., Penhale, B., Eds.; Emerald Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2020; pp. 149–169. [Google Scholar]
  7. Longobardi, C.; Badenes-Ribera, L. Intimate Partner Violence in Same-Sex Relationships and The Role of Sexual Minority Stressors: A Systematic Review of the Past 10 Years. J. Child Fam. Stud. 2017, 26, 2039–2049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Shorey, R.C.; Stuart, G.L.; Brem, M.J.; Parrott, D.J. Advancing an Integrated Theory of Sexual Minority Alcohol-Related Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration. J. Fam. Violence 2019, 34, 357–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Woulfe, J.M.; Goodman, L.A. Identity Abuse as a Tactic of Violence in LGBTQ Communities: Initial Validation of the Identity Abuse Measure. J. Interpers. Violence 2018, 36, 2656–2676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Guadalupe-Diaz, X.L.; Anthony, A.K. Discrediting Identity Work: Understandings of Intimate Partner Violence by Transgender Survivors. Deviant Behav. 2017, 38, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Smith, E.R.; Perrin, P.B.; Sutter, M. Factor analysis of the heterosexist harassment, rejection, and discrimination scale in lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer people of colour. Int. J. Psychol. 2020, 55, 405–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Messinger, A.M. LGBTQ Intimate Partner Violence: Lessons for Policy, Practice, and Research; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  13. Scheer, J.R.; Woulfe, J.M.; Goodman, L.A. Psychometric validation of the identity abuse scale among LGBTQ individuals. J. Community Psychol. 2018, 47, 371–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Martin, T.E.; Gover, A.R.; Langton, L. The Relationship Between Formal Help-Seeking and Sexual Orientation Among Victims of Domestic Violence. J. Interpers. Violence 2022, 38, 156–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Santoniccolo, F.; Trombetta, T.; Rollè, L. The Help-Seeking Process in Same-Sex Intimate Partner Violence: A Systematic Review. Sex. Res. Soc. Policy 2021, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Freeland, R.; Goldenberg, T.; Stephenson, R. Perceptions of Informal and Formal Coping Strategies for Intimate Partner Violence Among Gay and Bisexual Men. Am. J. Men′s Health 2016, 12, 302–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Messing, J.T.; Thomas, K.; Ward-Lasher, A.L.; Brewer, N. A Comparison of Intimate Partner Violence Strangulation Between Same-Sex and Different-Sex Couples. J. Interpers. Violence 2021, 36, 2887–2905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Scheer, J.R.; Martin-Storey, A.; Baams, L. Help-Seeking Barriers Among Sexual and Gender Minority Individuals Who Experience Intimate Partner Violence Victimization. In Intimate Partner Violence and the LGBT+ Community: Understanding Power Dynamics; Russell, B., Ed.; Springer Nature: Berlin, Germany, 2020; pp. 139–158. [Google Scholar]
  19. Trombetta, T.; Rollè, L. Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration Among Sexual Minority People and Associated Factors: A Systematic Review of Quantitative Studies. Sex. Res. Soc. Policy 2022, 1–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Meyer, I.H. Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychol. Bull. 2003, 129, 674–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Meyer, I.H.; Russell, S.T.; Hammack, P.L.; Frost, D.M.; Wilson, B.D.M. Minority stress, distress, and suicide attempts in three cohorts of sexual minority adults: A U.S. probability sample. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0246827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Edwards, K.M.; Sylaska, K.M.; Neal, A.M. Intimate partner violence among sexual minority populations: A critical review of the literature and agenda for future research. Psychol. Violence 2015, 5, 112–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Islam, S. Perceptions of Psychological Intimate Partner Violence: The Influence of Sexual Minority Stigma and Childhood Exposure to Domestic Violence among Bisexual and Lesbian Women. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 5356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Suarez, N.A.; Mimiaga, M.J.; Garofalo, R.; Brown, E.; Bratcher, A.; Wimbly, T.; Hidalgo, M.A.; Hoehnle, S.; Thai, J.; Kahle, E.; et al. Dyadic Reporting of Intimate Partner Violence Among Male Couples in Three U.S. Cities. Am. J. Men′s Health 2018, 12, 1039–1047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Tognasso, G.; Trombetta, T.; Gorla, L.; Ramon, S.; Santona, A.; Rollè, L. Romantic Attachment, Internalized Homonegativity, and Same-Sex Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration Among Lesbian Women in Italy. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 870921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Meyer, I.H. Minority stress and mental health in gay men. J. Health Soc. Behav. 1995, 36, 38–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Balik, C.H.A.; Bilgin, H. Experiences of Minority Stress and Intimate Partner Violence Among Homosexual Women in Turkey. J. Interpers. Violence 2019, 36, 8984–9007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Balsam, K.F.; Szymanski, D.M. Relationship Quality and Domestic Violence in Women′s Same-Sex Relationships: The Role of Minority Stress. Psychol. Women Q. 2005, 29, 258–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Edwards, K.M.; Sylaska, K.M. The Perpetration of Intimate Partner Violence among LGBTQ College Youth: The Role of Minority Stress. J. Youth Adolesc. 2012, 42, 1721–1731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Stephenson, R.; Finneran, C. Minority Stress and Intimate Partner Violence Among Gay and Bisexual Men in Atlanta. Am. J. Men′s Health 2016, 11, 952–961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  31. Miltz, A.R.; Lampe, F.C.; Bacchus, L.J.; McCormack, S.; Dunn, D.; White, E.; Rodger, A.; Phillips, A.N.; Sherr, L.; Clarke, A.; et al. Intimate partner violence, depression, and sexual behaviour among gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men in the PROUD trial. BMC Public Health 2019, 19, 431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Hatzenbuehler, M.L. How does sexual minority stigma “get under the skin”? A psychological mediation framework. Psychol. Bull. 2009, 135, 707–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Fitzpatrick, S.; Dworkin, E.R.; Zimmerman, L.; Javorka, M.; Kaysen, D. Stressors and drinking in sexual minority women: The mediating role of emotion dysregulation. Psychol. Sex. Orientat. Gend. Divers. 2020, 7, 46–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Barnett, A.P.; Houck, C.D.; Barker, D.; Rizzo, C.J. Sexual Minority Status, Bullying Exposure, Emotion Regulation Difficulties, and Delinquency Among Court-Involved Adolescent Girls. J. Youth Adolesc. 2021, 51, 471–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Chang, C.J.; Fehling, K.B.; Selby, E.A. Sexual Minority Status and Psychological Risk for Suicide Attempt: A Serial Multiple Mediation Model of Social Support and Emotion Regulation. Front. Psychiatry 2020, 11, 385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Kiekens, W.; la Roi, C.; Bos, H.M.W.; Kretschmer, T.; van Bergen, D.D.; Veenstra, R. Explaining Health Disparities between Heterosexual and LGB Adolescents by Integrating the Minority Stress and Psychological Mediation Frameworks: Findings from the TRAILS Study. J. Youth Adolesc. 2020, 49, 1767–1782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  37. Hatzenbuehler, M.L.; McLaughlin, K.A.; Nolen-Hoeksema, S. Emotion regulation and internalizing symptoms in a longitudinal study of sexual minority and heterosexual adolescents. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 2008, 49, 1270–1278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. Hatzenbuehler, M.L.; Nolen-Hoeksema, S.; Erickson, S.J. Minority stress predictors of HIV risk behavior, substance use, and depressive symptoms: Results from a prospective study of bereaved gay men. Health Psychol. 2008, 27, 455–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Lewis, R.J.; Milletich, R.J.; Derlega, V.J.; Padilla, M.A. Sexual Minority Stressors and Psychological Aggression in Lesbian Women’s Intimate Relationships: The mediating roles of rumination and relationship satisfaction. Psychol. Women Q. 2014, 38, 535–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Mann, A.M.; Naugle, A.E.; Lieberman, E. Experiential Avoidance and Emotion Dysregulation as Mediators in the LGBTQ Minority Stress Model. Arch. Sex. Behav. 2022, 51, 3443–3456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Pachankis, J.E.; Rendina, H.J.; Restar, A.; Ventuneac, A.; Grov, C.; Parsons, J.T. A minority stress—Emotion regulation model of sexual compulsivity among highly sexually active gay and bisexual men. Health Psychol. 2015, 34, 829–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Rendina, H.J.; Millar, B.; Parsons, J.T. The critical role of internalized HIV-related stigma in the daily negative affective experiences of HIV-positive gay and bisexual men. J. Affect. Disord. 2018, 227, 289–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Inzlicht, M.; McKay, L.; Aronson, J. Stigma as Ego Depletion: How being the target of prejudice affects self-control. Psychol. Sci. 2006, 17, 262–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Li, F.; Wang, Y.; Xing, J. Two sources of autonomy support and depressive symptoms among Chinese gay men: The sequential mediating effect of internalized homonegativity and rumination. J. Affect. Disord. 2021, 280, 373–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Szymanski, D.M.; Dunn, T.L.; Ikizler, A.S. Multiple minority stressors and psychological distress among sexual minority women: The roles of rumination and maladaptive coping. Psychol. Sex. Orientat. Gend. Divers. 2014, 1, 412–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Liang, H.; Chen, C.; Li, F.; Wu, S.; Wang, L.; Zheng, X.; Zeng, B. Mediating effects of peace of mind and rumination on the relationship between gratitude and depression among Chinese university students. Curr. Psychol. 2018, 39, 1430–1437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Michl, L.C.; McLaughlin, K.A.; Shepherd, K.; Nolen-Hoeksema, S. Rumination as a mechanism linking stressful life events to symptoms of depression and anxiety: Longitudinal evidence in early adolescents and adults. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 2013, 122, 339–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Audet, A.; Brassard, A.; Dugal, C.; Claing, A.; Daspe, M.; Savard, C.; Lafontaine, M.-F.; Péloquin, K.; Godbout, N. Intimate Partner Violence Perpetrated by Men Seeking Help: The Explanatory Roles of Psychological Distress and Affect Dysregulation. J. Interpers. Violence 2022, 37, NP22578–NP22599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Velotti, P.; Garofalo, C.; Callea, A.; Bucks, R.; Roberton, T.; Daffern, M. Exploring Anger Among Offenders: The Role of Emotion Dysregulation and Alexithymia. Psychiatry, Psychol. Law 2017, 24, 128–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. World Health Organization; Pan American Health Organization. Understanding and Addressing Violence Against Women: Intimate Partner Violence. World Health Organization. 2012. Available online: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/77432/WHO_RHR_12.36_eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed on 14 November 2022).
  51. Johnson, M.P. Two Types of Violence Against Women in the American Family: Identifying Patriarchal Terrorism and Common Couple Violence. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Family Relations; Irvine, CA, USA, November 1999, Volume 318. Available online: https://safeguardingchildren.salford.gov.uk/media/1308/johnson-1999-two-types-of-violence-against-women-in-the-american-family.pdf (accessed on 23 November 2022).
  52. Love, H.A.; Spencer, C.M.; May, S.A.; Mendez, M.; Stith, S.M. Perpetrator Risk Markers for Intimate Terrorism and Situational Couple Violence: A Meta-Analysis. Trauma, Violence, Abus. 2018, 21, 922–931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Hamby, S. On defining violence, and why it matters. Psychol. Violence 2017, 7, 167–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Gerstenberger, C.; Stansfield, R.; Williams, K.R. Intimate Partner Violence in Same-Sex Relationships: An Analysis of Risk and Rearrest. Crim. Justice Behav. 2019, 46, 1515–1527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Raghavan, C.; Beck, C.J.; Menke, J.M.; Loveland, J.E. Coercive controlling behaviors in intimate partner violence in male same-sex relationships: A mixed-methods study. J. Gay Lesbian Soc. Serv. 2019, 31, 370–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. VanBergen, A.M.; Love, H.A. Family-of-origin rejection on suicidal ideation among a sexual minority sample. J. Marital. Fam. Ther. 2022, 48, 560–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Yang, J.; Chu, Y.; Salmon, M.A. Predicting Perceived Isolation Among Midlife and Older LGBT Adults: The Role of Welcoming Aging Service Providers. Gerontologist 2018, 58, 904–912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Hu, J.; Tan, L.; Huang, G.; Yu, W. Disparity in depressive symptoms between heterosexual and sexual minority men in China: The role of social support. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0226178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  59. Williams, T.; Connolly, J.; Pepler, D.; Craig, W. Peer Victimization, Social Support, and Psychosocial Adjustment of Sexual Minority Adolescents. J. Youth Adolesc. 2005, 34, 471–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Berke, D.S.; Moody, R.L.; Grov, C.; Rendina, H.J. Psychosocial Risk Pathways from Childhood Sexual Abuse to Intimate Partner Violence among Sexual Minority Men: A Test of the Psychological Mediation Framework of Minority Stress. J. Interpers. Violence 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Lingiardi, V.; Baiocco, R.; Nardelli, N. Measure of Internalized Sexual Stigma for Lesbians and Gay Men: A New Scale. J. Homosex. 2012, 59, 1191–1210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Gratz, K.L.; Roemer, L. Multidimensional Assessment of Emotion Regulation and Dysregulation: Development, Factor Structure, and Initial Validation of the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale. J. Psychopathol. Behav. Assess. 2004, 26, 41–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Giromini, L.; Velotti, P.; de Campora, G.; Bonalume, L.; Zavattini, G.C. Cultural Adaptation of the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale: Reliability and Validity of an Italian Version. J. Clin. Psychol. 2012, 68, 989–1007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Giromini, L.; Ales, F.; De Campora, G.; Zennaro, A.; Pignolo, C. Developing Age and Gender Adjusted Normative Reference Values for the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS). J. Psychopathol. Behav. Assess. 2017, 39, 705–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Graham-Kevan, N.; Archer, J. Investigating Three Explanations of Women’s Relationship Aggression. Psychol. Women Q. 2005, 29, 270–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Sleath, E.; Walker, K.; Tramontano, C. Factor Structure and Validation of the Controlling Behaviors Scale–Revised and Revised Conflict Tactics Scale. J. Fam. Issues 2018, 39, 1880–1903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Hayes, A.F. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression—Based Approach, 2nd ed.; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  68. Cohen, J. Set Correlation and Contingency Tables. Appl. Psychol. Meas. 1988, 12, 425–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Tabachnick, B.G.; Fidell, L.S. Multivariate Analysis of Variance and Covariance. In Using Multivariate Statistics; Pearson Education: London, UK, 2007; Volume 3, pp. 402–407. [Google Scholar]
  70. Keating, L.; Muller, R.T. LGBTQ+ based discrimination is associated with ptsd symptoms, dissociation, emotion dysregulation, and attachment insecurity among LGBTQ+ adults who have experienced Trauma. J. Trauma Dissociation 2020, 21, 124–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Rogers, A.H.; Seager, I.; Haines, N.; Hahn, H.; Aldao, A.; Ahn, W.-Y. The Indirect Effect of Emotion Regulation on Minority Stress and Problematic Substance Use in Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Individuals. Front. Psychol. 2017, 8, 1881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. McGarrity, L.A.; Huebner, D.M.; Smith, T.W.; Suchy, Y. Minority Stress, Emotion Regulation, and Executive Function: An Experimental Investigation of Gay and Lesbian Adults. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2020, 46, 365–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Hatzenbuehler, M.L.; Pachankis, J.E. Stigma and Minority Stress as Social Determinants of Health Among Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Youth: Research evidence and clinical implications. Pediatr. Clin. N. Am. 2016, 63, 985–997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Shepard, R.; Page, C.E.; Coutellier, L. Sensitivity of the prefrontal GABAergic system to chronic stress in male and female mice: Relevance for sex differences in stress-related disorders. Neuroscience 2016, 332, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Berger, M.; Sarnyai, Z. “More than skin deep”: Stress neurobiology and mental health consequences of racial discrimination. Stress 2015, 18, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Nicholson, A.A.; Siegel, M.; Wolf, J.; Narikuzhy, S.; Roth, S.L.; Hatchard, T.; Lanius, R.A.; Schneider, M.; Lloyd, C.S.; McKinnon, M.C.; et al. A systematic review of the neural correlates of sexual minority stress: Towards an intersectional minority mosaic framework with implications for a future research agenda. Eur. J. Psychotraumatol. 2022, 13, 2002572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Kaniuka, A.R.; Desmarais, S.L.; Cramer, R.J.; Stoner, J.E.; Veri, S.; Wright, S.; Gemberling, T.M.; Nobles, M.R.; Holley, S.R. Sexual violence victimization and suicide: Testing a coping-mental health framework. Aggress. Behav. 2021, 47, 343–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Ortiz, E.; Shorey, R.C.; Cornelius, T.L. An Examination of Emotion Regulation and Alcohol Use as Risk Factors for Female-Perpetrated Dating Violence. Violence Vict. 2015, 30, 417–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Stoner, J.E.; Cramer, R. Sexual Violence Victimization Among College Females: A Systematic Review of Rates, Barriers, and Facilitators of Health Service Utilization on Campus. Trauma Violence Abus. 2019, 20, 520–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Weiss, N.H.; Hogan, J.; Brem, M.; Massa, A.A.; Kirby, C.M.; Flanagan, J.C. Advancing our understanding of the intersection between emotion regulation and alcohol and drug use problems: Dyadic analysis in couples with intimate partner violence and alcohol use disorder. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2021, 228, 109066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Lindsey, E.W. Relationship context and emotion regulation across the life span. Emotion 2020, 20, 59–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Overall, N.C.; Simpson, J.A.; Struthers, H. Buffering attachment-related avoidance: Softening emotional and behavioral defenses during conflict discussions. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2013, 104, 854–871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. Powers, S.I.; Pietromonaco, P.R.; Gunlicks, M.; Sayer, A. Dating couples’ attachment styles and patterns of cortisol reactivity and recovery in response to a relationship conflict. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2006, 90, 613–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  84. Bartle, S.E.; Rosen, K. Individuation and relationship violence. Am. J. Fam. Ther. 1994, 22, 222–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Pollard, D.; Cantos, A. Attachment, Emotion Dysregulation, and Physical IPV in Predominantly Hispanic, Young Adult Couples. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 7241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. McLaughlin, K.A.; Hatzenbuehler, M.L.; Xuan, Z.; Conron, K.J. Disproportionate exposure to early-life adversity and sexual orientation disparities in psychiatric morbidity. Child Abus. Negl. 2012, 36, 645–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  87. Messinger, A. Invisible Victims: Same-Sex IPV in the National Violence Against Women Survey. J. Interpers. Violence 2011, 26, 2228–2243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Walters, M.L.; Chen, J.; Breiding, M.J. The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Findings on Victimization by Sexual Orientation. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2013. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_sofindings.pdf (accessed on 14 November 2022).
  89. Rollè, L.; Santoniccolo, F.; Trombetta, T. The Help-Seeking Process in Same-Sex Intimate Partner Violence. In The SAGE Handbook of Domestic Violence; Schackelford, T.K., Ed.; SAGE Publishing: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2020; Volume 1–2, pp. 333–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Velotti, P.; Zobel, S.B.; Rogier, G.; Tambelli, R. Exploring Relationships: A Systematic Review on Intimate Partner Violence and Attachment. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 1166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Yakeley, J. Treatment for perpetrators of intimate partner violence: What is the evidence? J. Clin. Psychol. 2022, 78, 5–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Scheer, J.R.; Mereish, E.H. Intimate Partner Violence and Illicit Substance Use Among Sexual and Gender Minority Youth: The Protective Role of Cognitive Reappraisal. J. Interpers. Violence 2021, 36, 9956–9976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Scheer, J.R.; Poteat, V.P. Trauma-Informed Care and Health Among LGBTQ Intimate Partner Violence Survivors. J. Interpers. Violence 2021, 36, 6670–6692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ijerph 20 01593 g001 550
Figure 1. Hypothesized model. Note: mediation model with emotion dysregulation as mediator and sex, sexual orientation, education level, and economic condition as controlling variables.
Figure 1. Hypothesized model. Note: mediation model with emotion dysregulation as mediator and sex, sexual orientation, education level, and economic condition as controlling variables.
Ijerph 20 01593 g001
Table
Table 1. Characteristics of the sample.
Table 1. Characteristics of the sample.
N%
Sex
Female4638.3
Male7461.7
Gender a
Woman4537.5
Man7159.2
Transgender21.7
Other21.7
Sexual Orientation
Lesbian4739.2
Gay7360.8
Relationship Duration
Less than 1 year1613.3
1–5 years5747.5
6–10 years2722.5
11–15 years75.8
More than 15 years86.7
Educational level
Middle school diploma or less43.3
High school diploma4134.2
Bachelor’s degree3932.5
Master’s degree or higher3630
Employment status b
Unemployed32.5
Freelancer2016.7
Employee4940.8
Student4335.8
Homemaker21.7
Retired32.5
Economic satisfaction
Unstable1310.8
Sufficient6554.2
Wealthy or higher4235
Note: N = 120. a 2 missing values. b 5 missing value.
Table
Table 2. Frequencies and mean scores of scales for study variables.
Table 2. Frequencies and mean scores of scales for study variables.
Isolating Behaviors PrevalenceN%
Perpetrators7865
Non-perpetrators4235
Study VariablesMeanSD
Isolating behaviors perpetration0.370.42
Internalized homonegativity1.500.57
Emotion dysregulation2.180.58
Note: N = 120.
Table
Table 3. Bivariate correlations between scale study variables.
Table 3. Bivariate correlations between scale study variables.
123
1. Internalized homonegativity—
2. Emotion dysregulation0.46 **—
3. Isolating behaviors0.160.22 *—
Note: N = 120. ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Trombetta, T.; Balocco, V.; Santoniccolo, F.; Paradiso, M.N.; Rollè, L. Internalized Homonegativity, Emotion Dysregulation, and Isolating Behaviors Perpetration among Gay and Lesbian Couples. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 1593. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20021593

AMA Style

Trombetta T, Balocco V, Santoniccolo F, Paradiso MN, Rollè L. Internalized Homonegativity, Emotion Dysregulation, and Isolating Behaviors Perpetration among Gay and Lesbian Couples. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2023; 20(2):1593. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20021593

Chicago/Turabian Style

Trombetta, Tommaso, Virginia Balocco, Fabrizio Santoniccolo, Maria Noemi Paradiso, and Luca Rollè. 2023. "Internalized Homonegativity, Emotion Dysregulation, and Isolating Behaviors Perpetration among Gay and Lesbian Couples" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20, no. 2: 1593. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20021593

APA Style

Trombetta, T., Balocco, V., Santoniccolo, F., Paradiso, M. N., & Rollè, L. (2023). Internalized Homonegativity, Emotion Dysregulation, and Isolating Behaviors Perpetration among Gay and Lesbian Couples. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(2), 1593. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20021593

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop