The Minority Stress Model Deserves Reconsideration, Not Just Extension
- PDF / 526,499 Bytes
- 4 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 14 Downloads / 193 Views
COMMENTARY
The Minority Stress Model Deserves Reconsideration, Not Just Extension J. Michael Bailey1 Received: 22 November 2019 / Revised: 2 December 2019 / Accepted: 3 December 2019 © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019
Feinstein’s (2019) extension of the minority stress model invokes the concept of rejection sensitivity (RS) to provide a more detailed explanation of the psychiatric vulnerabilities of nonheterosexual men and women. The original minority stress model proposed that persons with observable signs of probable nonheterosexual orientation (i.e., stigmata) experience microaggressions or overt rejection or discrimination (stigmatization), and that this leads to cognitive–affective changes that increase susceptibility to mental health problems. Feinstein’s extension of the model proposes that in nonheterosexual men and women, early experiences of rejection are associated with increases in RS, and this confers increased susceptibility to both experiences of stigmatization and the negative mental health consequences of such stigmatization. Although the minority stress model has accumulated substantial empirical support, this has been exclusively in the form of associations. The model has not yet advanced from the “accumulating empirical associations” stage of empirical inquiry to the “eliminating rival hypotheses” stage. And at least one obvious rival hypothesis exists: That the increased prevalence of mental health problems in nonhomosexual persons is, at least in part, the cause, rather than the effect, of increased self-reported experiences of stigmatization, prejudice, and discrimination. This explanation stands in contrast to Meyer’s (2003) formulation, which argued that the increased psychiatric vulnerability of nonheterosexual individuals “stems from social processes, institutions, and structures beyond the individual rather than…biological, genetic, or other nonsocial characteristics of the person or group” (p. 676). In this Commentary, I will review the evidence for an increased prevalence of neuroticism (depression, anxiety, and This Commentary refers to the article available at https://doi. org/10.1007/s10508-019-1428-3. * J. Michael Bailey jm‑[email protected] 1
Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208, USA
related traits) in gay men, and I will summarize the data showing that genetic factors appreciably account for the increased prevalence of these negative emotions in gay men and in nonheterosexual women. I will then outline some of the limitations of the minority stress model and describe an alternative model that has received only limited attention.
Neuroticism in Gay Men Homosexual men have higher scores on trait neuroticism compared with heterosexual men (Lippa, 2005). Although this difference is likely small, with Cohen’s d estimated as .20, it is potentially important, for the three reasons: First, trait neuroticism is strongly associated with depressive and anxiety disorders (Mineka, Watson, & Clark, 1998). Secon
Data Loading...
