Next Article in Journal / Special Issue
Sex and Relationship Education for Individuals with Disabilities: A Review of the Literature Through an Ecological Systems Lens
Previous Article in Journal
Healthcare Access for Transgender Women in Malaysia: A Narrative Review of Barriers and Enabling Factors
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sexes
Volume 6
Issue 3
10.3390/sexes6030051
sexes-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
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Examining the Most Insidious Stressor: Systemic Protective Factors and Mental Health Outcomes for Latina/e/x Sexually Expansive Women

by
Dumayi Gutierrez
Couple and Family Therapy, University of Colorado-Denver, 1380 Lawrence Street, Denver, CO 80204, USA
Sexes 2025, 6(3), 51; https://doi.org/10.3390/sexes6030051
Submission received: 2 May 2025 / Revised: 21 August 2025 / Accepted: 27 August 2025 / Published: 10 September 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Addressing Health Disparities in Sexual and Gender Minority Populations: A Call for Inclusive and Trauma Informed Care Approaches)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

Background: Sexually expansive (sexual identities beyond traditional monosexual categories) Latina/e/x women navigate intersecting systems of oppression shaped by cultural expectations, gender norms, and heterosexism. Despite their resilience, they remain underrepresented in minority stress research. This study examines how individual (sexual and ethnic identity centrality), relational (social support from family, partners, and friends), and communal (community connectedness) protective factors relate to internalized heterosexism and improved or diminished mental health factors (life satisfaction and psychological distress). Methods: Grounded in an intersectional ecological systems and minority stress framework, this study uses secondary data from the Generations Study, a national longitudinal investigation of sexually expansive adults in the U.S. from 2016 to 2019. A subsample of sexually expansive Latina/e/x women (n = 120) was analyzed using one-way ANOVA, multiple regression, and moderation analyses. Results: Sexual and ethnic identity centrality was independently associated with lower internalized heterosexism. Family, friend, and significant other social support were significantly associated with improved and diminished mental health factors, as was community connectedness with sexual identity centrality. ANOVAs and moderation results were non-significant. Conclusions: These findings highlight the protective impact of identity affirmation and social support on mental health, offering valuable insights for clinicians, researchers, and community leaders supporting a strong yet underrepresented group.

1. Introduction

Sexually expansive people (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Queer, Asexual, etc.) face a range of stressors, including discrimination, internalized stigma, and expectations of rejection, that contribute to harmful mental health outcomes such as depression, anxiety, substance use, and suicidal ideation [1,2,3,4,5,6,7] (Brooks, 1981). However, much of this research has centered on white gay cismen, often overlooking the distinct and intersecting oppressions of sexism, racism, and heterosexism faced by sexually expansive Latine women [8,9,10]. Internalized stigma also known as internalized heterosexism, absorbing negative societal beliefs about one’s sexual identity, remains particularly insidious and overlooked [11,12].
Drawing on an intersectional ecological systems framework [13,14] alongside minority stress theory [1,6], this paper examines how internalized heterosexism operates across multiple intersectional systemic levels. In particular, it examines whether ameliorative factors (e.g., sexual and ethnic identity centrality, social support, and community connectedness), buffer against internalized heterosexism, enhance life satisfaction, and reduce psychological distress. This study addresses a gap by centering the experiences of sexually expansive Latine women, an underrepresented population in both LGBTQIA+ and minority stress research. In doing so, this study contributes to a more nuanced understanding of the mental health and role of intra and interpersonal relationships of sexually expansive Latine women.
Note: Latine will be used in this paper to encompass individuals who identity as Latina/e/x and Hispanic. In definition Latine, “…is used as a gender-neutral alternative to Latino/a and while this term is increasingly recognized, it may not be universally adopted across all Spanish-speaking regions. For example, some regions use ‘Latinx’ while others may prefer more ‘Latino/a’ or ‘Hispanic’ [15]” [16] (p. 2).

1.1. Cultural Processes Within Latine Communities

Understanding internalized heterosexism among sexually expansive Latine women requires attention to cultural values shaping identity and family relationships. For example, familismo emphasizes loyalty, interconnectedness, and collective responsibility within Hispanic/Latine culture [17,18]. Maintaining familismo values also contributes to ethnic identity belonging [19]. However, while familismo can foster emotional resilience and be protective of mental health [20,21], it may also reinforce heteronormative expectations and traditional gender roles, compelling individuals to hide aspects of their sexual identity in service of family loyalty [22].
Acculturation and gender norms influence these dynamics as Latine families navigate U.S. cultural norms while maintaining ties to cultural values. Acculturation can expose individuals to more affirming attitudes around identity orientations, but may generate cultural dissonance when families uphold rigid sexual and gender expectations [23]. Cultural scripts, such as marianismo and machismo, emphasize gendered behaviors that may constrain women’s autonomy [17] and have been linked to adverse mental health outcomes such as anxiety, depression, and hostility [24]. Sexually expansive Latine women may internalize constructs from both Latine and U.S. sexual and gender discourses, creating a dual burden of oppression [17].
Lastly, religiosity is deeply embedded in Latine family life and can function as a source of community and healing for LGBTQIA+ communities [25]. However, traditional religious teachings may stigmatize same-sex attraction, contributing to identity conflict and internalized heterosexism [26,27,28]. Higher adherence to non-affirming religiosity correlates with increased internalized heterosexism and shame [26,29]. These cultural processes offer crucial insight into the internal and interpersonal conflicts sexually expansive Latine women face compounded by minority stressors.

1.2. Minority Stress Model

The minority stress model examines unique stressors experienced by sexually expansive populations [1,6], explicitly connecting external and internal stressors to mental health outcomes. Distal stressors include discrimination and prejudice; proximal stressors include expectations of rejection, concealment, and internalized heterosexism [6]. Among racially and ethnically diverse sexually expansive individuals, these stressors are intensified by conflicts between marginalized identities and dominant norms such as heteronormativity and whiteness [30]. Despite NIH calls to apply this model to racial and ethnic disparities [31], research has only recently begun to meaningfully incorporate intersectional experiences of sexually expansive Latine communities [8,32,33,34,35].
Internalized heterosexism is a deeply ingrained proximal stressor within this model, operating closest to the self and leading to chronic self-deprecation, emotional distress, and impaired mental health [4,36]. Among sexually expansive Latine individuals, internalized heterosexism may be intensified by intersecting racial, cultural, and gender norms. Connecting back to cultural constructs, familismo and marianismo can buffer or exacerbate internalized oppression depending on acceptance or rejection within key relationships [34,37].
Among sexually expansive Latine women, internalized heterosexism links to depression, somatic symptoms, and disrupted self-development [9]. Further, exposure to racial and gender discrimination elevates internalized heterosexism [38]. However, protective factors buffering internalized heterosexism remain underexplored, partly due to its subjectivity and confusion with outness [4]. There is a critical need to investigate cultural mechanisms shaping internalized heterosexism and pathways mitigating it.

1.3. Individual Ameliorative/Protective Factors

Meyer [6] identifies minority identity characteristics—prominence, valence, and integration—that shape experiences of minority stress and mental health. For sexually expansive Latine women, these intersect across ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, and cultural values. While negative societal attitudes can increase internalized heterosexism and stress [4,39], pride and affirmation can buffer psychological distress [40]. Integration of sexual, gender, and cultural identities involves reconciling collectivistic values, like familismo, with non-normative identities [37,41]. Together, sexual and ethnic identity centrality through characteristics of minority identity offer a framework for understanding how sexually expansive Latine women experience identity development, minority stress, and resilience.

1.4. Relational Ameliorative/Protective Factors

Flexible coping strategies, especially social support, buffer mental health impacts from stress [42]. Social support from family, romantic partners, and friends provides critical affirmation to reducing psychological distress [4,6]. For sexually expansive Latine women, these relationships offer vital emotional grounding and resilience. Familismo shapes relationships, but support quality determines buffering effects against internalized heterosexism. Affirming family relationships decrease distress and foster positive identity development [27,43]. However, familial rejection or conditional acceptance may intensify stigma [44].
Romantic partnerships, especially long-term, serve as protective factors when family rejection occurs [44]. Affirming relationships can especially help transcend stigma and foster resilience [45,46]. However, dyadic stress from minority stressors may also reduce relationship quality [47,48]. Further, friendships often serve as chosen family, offering safety and affirmation, particularly when biological families reject sexual identities [49,50]. For sexually expansive Latine women, culturally resonant relationships may provide spaces to affirm ethnic and sexual identities.

1.5. Communal Protective Factors

Broader community connections to Latine and LGBTQIA+ spaces cultivate psychological well-being by providing affirmation, collective resistance, and access to safe spaces [51]. Community belonging links with lower internalized stigma and higher self-esteem, particularly among LGBTQIA+ people of color [4,52]. For sexually expansive Latine women, strong social networks affirming cultural and sexual identities promote life satisfaction by mitigating internalized heterosexism and related stress [38]. Together, these layered sources of intra- and interpersonal support highlight influences on internalized heterosexism.

1.6. Theoretical Framework: Minority Stressors Within Intersectional Ecological Systems

An intersectional ecological systems framework draws from both intersectionality [14,53] and Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory [13]. With a history of centering Black women’s experiences, intersectionality emphasizes that individuals hold multiple, overlapping identities, such as race, gender, and sexual orientation, that shape lived experiences and interactions with systems of power. Rather than isolating identity categories, it considers how they are interwoven and shaped by structural forces of privilege and oppression. For sexually expansive Latine women, these intersections, alongside factors like immigration and acculturation status, inform nuanced lived realities [17,38]. Ecological systems theory offers a complementary lens by situating individuals within nested systems, from immediate contexts like family and peers (microsystem), to connections between different systems like home and school (mesosystem), to more communal factors such as schools, workplaces, and healthcare systems (exosystem), and even broader structures like cultural norms, societal values, and policies (macrosystem), all of which unfold over time through the chronosystem [13].
Together, these frameworks clarify how intersecting identities are shaped across relational and societal contexts. Integrating minority stressors deepens understanding of how and where these stressors operate within systems. For instance, Gutierrez et al. [12] found that cultural values at the microsystem level shaped identity authenticity and internalized heterosexism, while kinship networks served as buffers to minority stress and ambiguous loss during the COVID-19 pandemic. For sexually expansive Latine women, this lens reveals how internalized heterosexism, rooted in societal, cultural, and familial expectations, interacts with ethnic identity and gender norms to shape experiences of support, mental health, and resilience. It highlights navigating multiple social spheres while resisting marginalizing systems.
This study uses quantitative analysis to examine the relationships between minority stress (internalized heterosexism), protective factors (sexual and ethnic identity centrality, social support, and community connectedness), and mental health outcomes (life satisfaction and psychological distress), thereby offering insight into how these protective factors mitigate stress, enhance well-being, and support resilience among sexually expansive Latine women. The following three research questions and six hypotheses were addressed:
RQ1: 
Are there differences in internalized heterosexism across different sexual orientation identities and cultural factors among sexually expansive Latine women?
RQ2: 
Do personal and interpersonal ameliorative factors significantly affect internalized heterosexism among sexually expansive Latine women?
RQ3: 
To what extent do ameliorative factors moderate the relationship between internalized heterosexism and mental health among sexually expansive Latine women?
H1: 
Levels of internalized heterosexism will differ by sexual orientation among sexually expansive Latine women.
H2: 
Individual protective factors (i.e., sexual and ethnic identity centrality) will be inversely associated with in ternalized heterosexism.
H3: 
Relational protective factors (i.e., social support from family, friends, and significant others) will be inversely associated with internalized heterosexism.
H4: 
Familial relational protective factors will differentiate between levels of acculturation to the United States.
H5: 
Communal protective factors (i.e., community connection) will be inversely associated with internalized heterosexism.
H6: 
Individual, relational, and communal protective factors will moderate the association between internalized heterosexism and life satisfaction.

2. Materials and Methods

Secondary data from the Generations Study, a national longitudinal investigation of sexually expansive adults in the U.S. from 2016 to 2019, was used [54]. The study employed both qualitative and quantitative methods to explore how LGB individuals experience stress, resilience, and identity development over time. Participants were recruited through Gallup Inc.’s Daily Tracking Survey, which conducts daily telephone interviews with a national probability sample of adults. Eligible individuals identified as LGBQIA+, were within specified age ranges (18–25, 26–33, 34–41, or 52–59), and were proficient in English. Those who met the criteria were invited to complete self-administered surveys either online or via mail, with follow-up assessments conducted annually over three waves [54]. Notably, reports from this dataset have included LGB communities specifically.

2.1. Participants

A priori power analysis using GPower for linear multiple regression F-test indicated a sample size of 119 participants to detect a medium effect size. A subsample of sexually expansive Latine women (n) of 120 was identified from the full dataset (N = 1345). The original dataset included participants identifying as lesbian, bisexual, queer, pansexual, gay, same-gender loving, and other sexually expansive identities, all of whom were included in this study. Research utilized splitting the data to identify participants who identified as women, Hispanic or Latino, and sexually expansive (i.e., lesbian, bisexual, queer, etc.). On average, participants were in their early 30s (M = 30.4, SD = 12.9), ranging from 18 to 60 years. The sample was predominantly bisexual (49.2%) and lesbian (33.6%), with smaller groups identifying as queer (7.4%), pansexual (4.1%), and other sexual identities. Most participants (67.2%) were in romantic relationships. Educationally, many participants had some college experience (38.5%). Economically, (32%) earned less than $25 K, and (45.7%) were employed full-time.

2.2. Measures

2.2.1. Internalized Heterosexism

The five-item Internalized Homophobia—Revised (IH-R) assessed internalized heterosexism. Participants utilized a Likert-type scale rated from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). Questions in this scale involved, “If someone offered me the chance to be completely heterosexual, I would accept the chance” and “I wish I weren’t lesbian/bisexual LGB.”

2.2.2. Individual Protective Factors

Sexual and Ethnic Identity Centrality A five-item subscale was created for sexual identity centrality. Questions in this scale involved, “Being an LGB person is a very important aspect of my life” and “My sexual orientation is a central part of my identity.” The measure used a Likert-type scale rated from 1 (disagree strongly) to 6 (agree strongly) αw1 = 0.86. Regarding ethnic identity centrality, the Multi-Group Ethnic Identity Measure—Revised (MEIM-R), was utilized. Questions in this scale involved, “I have a strong sense of belonging to my own race/ethnic group” and “I have often done things that will help me understand my race/ethnic background better.” The measure used a Likert-type scale rated from 1 (disagree strongly) to 5 (agree strongly).

2.2.3. Relational Protective Factors

Social support (family, friends, significant other). The Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS), was utilized to assess various levels of social support for family, friends, and significant others. Questions in this scale involved, “There is a special person who is around when I am in need” and “I get the emotional help and support I need from my family” and “My friends really try to help me” The measure used a Likert-type scale rated from 1 (very strongly disagree) to 7 (very strongly agree).
Familial Acculturation. One item was used to assess for familial acculturation, “Were one or both of your parents born outside the United States?” Participants had the options of answering, “Yes, one parent was born outside the United States,” “Yes, both parents were born outside of the united states,” “No,” or “Don’t know.”

2.2.4. Communal Protective Factors

Community Connectedness. The Connectedness to the LGBT Community Scale [41] was used to assess want and alignment with sexually expansive communities. Questions in this scale involved, “I feel close to other people in my community” and “My community is a source of comfort” and “My friends really try to help me” The measure used a Likert-type scale rated from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

2.3. Mental Health

Life Satisfaction. A five-item measure to assess for satisfaction with life at the present time. Questions in this scale involved, “In most ways, my life is close to my ideal” and “The conditions to my life are excellent” The measure used a Likert-type scale rated from 0 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
Psychological Distress. A six-item measure, K6 scale [54], was used to assess frequency of nonspecific psychological distress during the past 30 days of taking the survey. Symptoms in this scale involved, “so depressed that nothing could cheer them up” and “restless or fidgety” The measure used a Likert-type scale rated from 0 (none of the time) to 4 (all the time).

2.4. Analytic Strategy

Data analysis in this study utilized Statistical Package for the Social Sciences v29 (SPSS) software and was conducted in various steps. First, data was split from the wave 1 (N = 1345) to those who identified as Hispanic or Latino and sexually expansive (lesbian, bisexual, queer, pansexual, gay, same-gender loving, or other sexually expansive identity), which resulted in a sample of n = 120. Second, descriptive data was cleaned and coded from descriptive demographic answers in the survey. Third, measures were created and existing measures from the dataset were evaluated for the sample using reliability statistics with all measures above Cronbach’s α = 0.80. Fourth, correlations were run between both independent and dependent variables (Table 1). Fifth, one-way ANOVAs were conducted to examine differences of sexual orientation (Table 2) and acculturation impact (Table 3). Sixth, linear regression models were run to examine relationships between sexual and ethnic identity centrality, community connection, and internalized heterosexism factors (Table 4, Table 5, Table 6 and Table 7). Seventh, hierarchal regression models were run to examine internalized heterosexism outcome regarding social support (Table 8). Lastly, a hierarchal regression model with sexual and ethnic identity centrality as a moderator of internalized heterosexism and life satisfaction and psychological distress was conducted (Table 9), controlling for age and socioeconomic status. Although sample weights were provided for analyses of the full LGB Generations dataset, they were not applied in the present study due to the focus on a specific subsample, sexually expansive Latine women. The existing weights were calibrated for the full sample and are not appropriate for subgroup analyses, as their application could introduce bias. Therefore, unweighted analyses were conducted to ensure accurate within-group interpretation of findings.

2.5. Results

Pearson correlation coefficients were used to examine associations between identity centrality, social supports, community connectedness, internalized heterosexism, and life satisfaction among Latine sexually expansive women. A significant negative correlation was found between sexual identity (r = −0.29, p > 0.01) and ethnic identity centrality (r = −0.19, p > 0.05), and internalized heterosexism, indicating that greater identity centrality is associated with lower levels of internalized heterosexism. In addition, identity centrality and community connectedness were significantly associated (r = 0.49, p < 0.01). Relationally, social support from family demonstrated a near-significant negative association with internalized heterosexism (r = −0.18, p = 0.053), suggesting that higher family social support could be related to slightly lower internalized heterosexism; however, this statistic was ultimately non-significant. A negative linkage was also found between community connectedness and internalized heterosexism (r = −0.14, p = 0.13), but this relationship was not statistically significant. Finally, life satisfaction showed significant relationships with family (r = 0.39, p < 0.001), friends (r = 0.36, p < 0.001), and significant other (r = 0.38, p < 0.001), and psychological distress showed an inverse significant relationship with family (r = −0.34 p < 0.01), friends (r = −0.26, p < 0.01), and significant other (r = −0.33, p < 0.001), but no significant relationship with internalized heterosexism or identity centralities.

2.6. Regressions

H1: 
Levels of internalized heterosexism will differ by sexual orientation identity among sexually expansive Latine women.
A one-way ANOVA was conducted to examine whether there were differences in internalized heterosexism scores across sexual orientation identity groups (lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, pansexual, same-gender loving, or other). The results indicated a non-significant effect of sexual orientation identity on internalized heterosexism, F(6, 115) = 0.89, p = 0.506, η2 = 0.044.
H2: 
Individual protective factors (i.e., sexual and ethnic identity centrality) will be inversely associated with internalized heterosexism.
A linear regression was conducted to examine the relationship between sexual and ethnic identity centrality and internalized heterosexism. The regression analysis revealed that sexual identity centrality had a significant negative association with internalized heterosexism, (β = −0.286, p < 0.05). For each one-unit increase in identity centrality, internalized heterosexism. decreased by 0.199 units. For ethnic identity, overall model was also statistically significant, F(1, 116) = 4.42, p = 0.038, indicating that ethnic identity had a significant association with internalized heterosexism. Results revealed that higher ethnic identity scores were associated with lower levels of internalized heterosexism, (β = −0.19, p = 0.038).
H3: 
Relational protective factors (i.e., social support from family, friends, and significant others) will be inversely associated with internalized heterosexism.
A hierarchical regression analysis was conducted to examine the contribution of various forms of social support (family, friends, and significant others) in association with internalized heterosexism. Model 1 examined the effect of family social support on internalized heterosexism. The model was not significant, F(1, 116) = 3.448, p = 0.066. Family social support was found to have a marginal negative association with internalized heterosexism, indicating that higher family social support was associated with lower levels of internalized heterosexism. However, the relationship was not statistically significant at the 0.05 level (β = −0.170, p = 0.066). Model 2 added friends’ social support as an association. The model was not significant, F(2, 115) = 1.810, p = 0.168. Family social support remained marginally negative, but friends’ social support was not significantly associated with internalized heterosexism (β = 0.044, p = 0.658). Model 3 added significant others’ social support to the model. The overall model was not significant, F(3, 114) = 1.259, p = 0.292. Neither family social support (β = −0.172, p = 0.099), friends’ social support (β = 0.064, t = 0.582, p = 0.562), nor significant others’ social support (β = −0.048, p = 0.670) were significantly associated with internalized heterosexism.
H4: 
Familial relational protective factors will differentiate between level of acculturation to the United States.
A one-way ANOVA was conducted to examine differences in internalized heterosexism across participants who identified as their parents being born outside of the United States. Results indicated no significant differences among the groups, F(2, 116) = 0.19, p = 0.828. The effect size was very small, η2 = 0.003, indicating that familial acculturation group membership accounted for less than 1% of the variance in internalized heterosexism.
H5: 
Communal protective factors (i.e., community connection) will be inversely associated with internalized heterosexism.
A linear regression analysis was conducted to examine the effect of community connectedness on internalized heterosexism. The regression coefficient for community connectedness was negative, suggesting that higher levels of community connectedness could be associated with slightly lower levels of internalized heterosexism, but the relationship was not statistically significant (β = −0.143, p = 0.125).
H6: 
Individual, relational, and communal protective factors will moderate the association between internalized heterosexism and mental health (psychological distress and life satisfaction).
As individual protective factors were solely significant variables, a series of hierarchical linear regressions were conducted to examine whether identity centrality and ethnic identity centrality moderated the relationship between internalized heterosexism and psychological distress and life satisfaction.
Psychological Distress. For sexual identity centrality, the overall model including the interaction term was not significant, F(3, 117) = 0.28, p = 0.839, R2 = 0.007. The interaction between internalized heterosexism and identity centrality was not significant, (β = –0.072, p = 0.823). For ethnic identity centrality, the overall model was also not significant, F(3, 116) = 1.72, p = 0.167, R2 = 0.043. Lastly, the interaction between internalized heterosexism and ethnic identity centrality was not significant, (β = 0.489, p = 0.290).
Life Satisfaction. For sexual identity centrality, the overall model including the interaction was not significant, F(3, 117) = 1.03, p = 0.382, R2 = 0.026. The interaction between internalized heterosexism and identity centrality was not significant, (β = 0.330, p = 0.301). For ethnic identity centrality, the final model was not significant, F(3, 116) = 0.63, p = 0.598, R2 = 0.016. The interaction between internalized heterosexism and ethnic identity centrality was also not significant, (β = –0.229, p = 0.662).
A final note, in the regression models associating internalized heterosexism, the covariate of age was a significant (β = −0.26, p < 0.05), indicating that older participants, even in Wave 1, tended to report lower levels of internalized heterosexism. Bivariate correlations indicated that variables were moderately inversely correlated (r = −0.286), suggesting no concerns with multicollinearity. This was further supported by collinearity diagnostics, with all variance inflation factor (VIF) values well below the commonly accepted threshold of 5.

3. Discussion

As discussed, research lacks in exploring sexually marginalized Latine women and experiences of internalized heterosexism (proximal stress), significant relationships within Latine culture, and mental health outcomes. Due to the life-long negative effects of internalized heterosexism, it is crucial to focus on potential protective factors and specific negative mental health outcomes that may arise [4]. This study fills this gap and supported two out of six hypotheses examined with findings that highlight several pathways for future research to incorporate an intersectional ecological systems approach with minority stressors.

3.1. Microsystem

The microsystem includes an individual’s immediate environment, such as family, friends, and romantic partners [13]. In this study, sexually expansive Latine women’s key microsystem interactions involved their relationships with others and themselves, particularly through internalized heterosexism and identity centrality.
Findings showed a significant inverse relationship between sexual and ethnic identity centrality and internalized heterosexism. Women who saw these identities as central to their self-concept reported lower internalized heterosexism. Age was also a significant covariate, with older participants showing lower internalized heterosexism, possibly due to increased identity integration or generational changes in cultural norms. However, other identity variables did not show significant buffering aspects, suggesting that simply identifying with a sexual minority identity may not protect against internalized stigma. Rather, there may be more importance in identity integration and salience as protective factors.
Although family, friends, and romantic partners were not significant buffers in our final model, their negative correlations with internalized heterosexism, especially family support, suggest variability in their roles. Familismo may offer protective benefits, contrary to narratives that frame it only as a stressor for LGBTQIA+ individuals [55]. Affirming family connectedness may help integrate ethnic and sexual identities, thereby reducing internalized stigma. Romantic relationships may also provide emotional and identity support, though in this study, the inverse relationship with internalized heterosexism was not significant. This contrasts with research highlighting relationship stress due to cultural and familial tensions [4,55].

3.2. Mesosystem

The mesosystem captures the interconnections among different microsystems, such as family, friendships, romantic partnerships, and community spaces, and how their interplay shapes development [13]. For sexually expansive Latine women, these intersections are pivotal in shaping identity integration, coping strategies, and overall well-being. In this study, higher levels of relational support, particularly when multiple microsystems provided affirmation, were associated with decreased psychological distress and greater life satisfaction. These patterns reflect how support across intersecting relationships can buffer minority stress and facilitate identity development within contexts where cultural values and sexually expansive identities must be negotiated simultaneously [48].
Rather than isolating the influence of any single relationship, the mesosystem lens foregrounds the relational ecology shaping mental health. Interactions between family and romantic partners, or between peer support and community belonging, can reinforce resilience or impact stress depending on their alignment. These findings center sexually expansive Latine women’s experiences within a multidimensional and dynamic network of support where affirmation across systems holds the potential to disrupt internalized heterosexism and promote resilience [17].

3.3. Exosystem

The exosystem encompasses settings that indirectly shape development, including institutional policies, neighborhood conditions, media portrayals, and broader community dynamics [13]. Although these environments may not involve an individual directly, they influence how sexually expansive Latine women experience identity, belonging, and stress. In this study, stronger community connectedness to the broader LGBTQIA+ community was significantly associated with higher identity centrality. This suggests that even when direct support from family or peers may be limited, a felt sense of LGBTQIA+ belonging can reinforce the salience and strength of one’s sexual identity. These findings align with research showing that community affiliation fosters resilience, self-acceptance, and identity integration among LGBTQIA+ individuals [4].
Viewed through an intersectional and cultural lens, the role of community becomes especially salient. Within Latine culture, collectivist values emphasize mutual support and interdependence, making community not just a buffer but a place of affirmation [17]. Even though the association between internalized heterosexism and community connectedness were non-significant, the negative linkage suggests that inclusive community environments may still help mitigate shame or invisibility. The dual importance of both sexual and cultural communities speaks to the need for identity-affirming spaces that do not force individuals to fragment themselves. Future research should continue to explore the quality, accessibility, and intersectional relevance of such spaces, especially for sexually expansive Latine women navigating multiple systems of marginalization.

3.4. Macrosystem

The macrosystem represents the broader sociocultural environment—including dominant values, ideologies, laws, and norms—that influence individual development [13]. For Latine communities in the U.S., this includes heteronormativity, rigid gender roles, religious conservatism, and acculturative pressures that shape how individuals make sense of their sexual and cultural identities. Acculturation is often cited as a key macrosystemic factor shaping mental health and identity development for Latine individuals who straddle multiple cultural worlds. Although acculturation is theorized to influence minority stress by shaping values, language, and gender/sexuality norms [56], these findings did not reveal significant group differences in internalized heterosexism or identity centrality. Instead, participants across acculturation levels may share common cultural and structural stressors—such as heteronormativity, racism, and familism—within both dominant and ethnic contexts. These findings show the need to move beyond linear models of acculturation and attend to intersectional and structural factors that shape psychological well-being among Latine sexual minorities [22].

3.5. Chronosystem

The chronosystem encompasses changes over time, including life course transitions (e.g., coming out, relationship formation) and broader sociohistorical shifts (e.g., LGBTQIA+ rights movements, immigration patterns, generational cultural attitudes) [13]. Data for the Generations Study was collected between 2016 and 2019, a period marked by increased LGBTQIA+ visibility, cultural advocacy movements (e.g., #BlackLivesMatter, immigration justice), rise of extremist sociopolitical power, and a growing public discourse around intersectional identity [57]. Given that minority stress is socially and temporally situated, the historical context in which sexually expansive Latine women are developing is essential to understanding their mental health and identity formation. Although increased visibility may offer affirmation and community, it is often accompanied by heightened exposure to discrimination, especially online, where ethnic, gendered, and sexual stigma proliferates [12].
One stark example is the 2016 Pulse nightclub massacre, one of the deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history, which specifically targeted the LGBTQIA+ Latine community. This tragedy left lasting psychological and cultural impacts on the community. While the aftermath could have contributed to greater proximal stress, it also spurred community activism, mobilization, and identity affirmation among survivors and the broader Latine LGBTQIA+ community [58]. Most participants in this study were in their twenties and thirties during this sociopolitical period; critical years for identity exploration, deepening relationships, and increasing visibility. These temporal factors may have facilitated more nuanced identity development, increased outness in personal relationships, and greater use of language that challenged internalized heterosexism, elements less accessible to prior generations. However, this dataset tested in Wave 1 was cross sectional and not longitudinal and does not directly address change over time, but future research warrants this action.

4. Limitations and Future Directions

Despite the significance of this study, several limitations warrant attention. The smaller sample size of sexually expansive Latine women likely reduced statistical power, potentially obscuring meaningful effects. Additionally, measures such as the Internalized Homophobia—Revised (IH-R) may not fully capture the unique experiences of internalized heterosexism within this group. Developing more representative measures could strengthen future research by examining not only the presence of internalized heterosexism, but also how and why it develops, and whether its pathways differ by gender or other intersecting identities. This line of inquiry may offer deeper insight into the mechanisms that drive internalization. Future work should consider relationship duration to clarify whether long-term partnerships differ from short-term ones in buffering internalized heterosexism and mental health. Further, alternative frameworks, such as social exchange theory or feminist theory, may also capture relational and systemic nuances beyond those addressed by minority stress theory. Incorporating these perspectives could illuminate different dimensions of identity development, stigma, and resilience.
This study’s eligibility criteria, requiring participants to identify as Hispanic/Latine, a woman, and sexually expansive, may have inadvertently excluded those with fluid identities, reinforcing binary categories and risking erasure. Further, the Generations Study provided opportunity for participants, regardless of sex or gender, to identify with a sexual identity, thus encompassing a broad spectrum of identities. While “gay” is often culturally associated with gay men, it is also a valid and affirming identity for some women. However, its inclusion may have led some participants to interpret the category as referring primarily to men, potentially influencing self-identification and representation in the sample. Future research should be mindful of how identity labels are presented and interpreted, ensuring inclusive and transparent language of identities.
Finally, quantitative methods alone cannot fully explain how these factors buffer internalized heterosexism and hold limitations of causal interpretation of cross-sectional data. Qualitative exploration from the Generations Study of relationship dynamics and resilience would enrich our understanding. Future research should use qualitative methods to explore how identity pride and conflict play out in relational contexts, especially among bisexual women who may face unique challenges like biphobia [59].

5. Conclusions

This study highlights the multidimensionality of identity, relationships, and community in shaping the mental health of sexually expansive Latine women. These findings center the protective role of identity centrality and social support while revealing areas where further research is needed to deepen understanding of experiences. Practically, those working with sexually expansive Latine women can better support them by moving beyond rigid categories and generic tools, embracing the nuance of their identities as essential for promoting justice, visibility, and meaningful transformation.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study due to data being secondary public data.

Data Availability Statement

The original data presented in the study are openly available at: https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/DSDR/studies/37166 (accessed on 6 May 2022).

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Brooks, V.R. Minority Stress and Lesbian Women; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1981. [Google Scholar]
  2. Canen, J.M.; Brausch, A.M. Minority stressors and suicidal ideation in sexual minority individuals across adulthood. Suicide Life-Threat. Behav. 2024, 54, 702–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. de Lange, J.; Baams, L.; van Bergen, D.D.; Bos, H.M.W.; Bosker, R.J. Minority stress and suicidal ideation and suicide attempts among LGBT adolescents and young adults: A meta-analysis. LGBT Health 2022, 9, 222–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Frost, D.M.; Meyer, I.H. Internalized homophobia and relationship quality among lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. J. Couns. Psychol. 2009, 56, 97–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Meyer, I.H. Minority stress and mental health in gay men. J. Health Soc. Behav. 1995, 36, 38–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. 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] [PubMed]
  7. Meyer, I.H.; Russell, S.T.; Hammack, P.L.; Frost, D.M.; Wilson, B.D. Minority stress, distress, and suicide attempts in three cohorts of sexual minority adults: A US probability sample. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0246827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Adames, H.Y.; Chavez-Dueñas, N.Y.; Sharma, S.; La Roche, M.J. Intersectionality in psychotherapy: The experiences of an AfroLatinx queer immigrant. Psychotherapy 2018, 55, 73–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Balsam, K.F.; Molina, Y.; Beadnell, B.; Simoni, J.; Walters, K. Measuring multiple minority stress: The LGBT People of Color Microaggressions Scale. Cult. Divers. Ethn. Minor. Psychol. 2011, 17, 163–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Cyrus, K. Multiple minorities as multiply marginalized: Applying the minority stress theory to LGBTQ people of color. J. Gay Lesbian Ment. Health 2017, 21, 194–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Brown, C.; Maragos, A.C. Internalized heterosexism and psychological distress: A relationship mediated by self-compassion. J. Gay Lesbian Soc. Serv. 2022, 35, 135–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Gutierrez, D.; Zeiger, K.D.; Rago, C.; Rodriguez Jimenez, K.; Schiff, B.; McGee, S. Loss of safe spaces: Ambiguous loss and minority stressors of BIPOC LGBTQ+ communities amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. Sex. Gend. Divers. Soc. Serv. 2024, 37, 337–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bronfenbrenner, U. Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research perspectives. Dev. Psychol. 1986, 22, 723–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Crenshaw, K. Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and the violence against Women of Color. Stanf. Law Rev. 1991, 43, 1241–1299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Klecko, M. Hispanic, Latino/a, Latinx or Latine? Find out How to Use These Terms; Temple University: Philadelphia, NY, USA, 8 October 2024; Available online: https://news.temple.edu/news/2024-10-08/hispanic-latinoa-latinx-or-latine-find-out-how-use-terms (accessed on 2 May 2022).
  16. Gutierrez, D.; Price, A.; Warner, J. Applying the Satir Growth Model with sexually and gender minority Latine communities and minority stress processes. Pers.-Centered Exp. Psychotherapy 2025, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Abreu, R.L.; Martin, J.A.; Badio, K.S. Latinx LGBTQ people and their families: The role of Latinx cultural values, beliefs, and traditions. In Identity as Resilience in Minoritized Communities: Strengths-Based Approaches to Research and Practice; Koch, J.M., Townsend-Bell, E.E., Hubach, R.D., Eds.; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 47–58. [Google Scholar]
  18. Sue, D.W.; Sue, D. Counseling the Culturally Diverse: Theory and Practice, 7th ed.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  19. Pastrana, A. Being out to others: The relative importance of family support, identity and religion for LGBT Latina/os. Lat. Stud. 2015, 13, 88–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Killoren, S.E.; Roos, J.; Bordere, T.; Randall, A.K.; Rivero Rodriguez, A.; Alfaro, E.C.; Campione-Barr, N.; Jones, S.K. Perceived discrimination and Latina college students’ depressive symptoms: The roles of dyadic coping with sisters and familism values. Fam. Process 2023, 62, 1176–1195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Walker, J.H.; Cuervo, M.; Venta, A. Familismo neutralizes the effects of discrimination on suicide-related thoughts and behaviors in Latinx young adults. J. Affect. Disord. 2022, 315, 57–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Muñoz-Laboy, M.; Leau, C.J.Y.; Sriram, V.; Weinstein, H.J.; del Aquila, E.V.; Parker, R. Bisexual desire and familism: Latino/a bisexual young men and women in New York City. Cult. Health Sex. 2009, 11, 331–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Corona, R.; Rodríguez, V.M.; McDonald, S.E.; Velazquez, E.; Rodríguez, A.; Fuentes, V.E. Associations between cultural stressors, cultural values, and Latina/o college students’ mental health. J. Youth Adolesc. 2017, 46, 63–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Nuñez, A.; González, P.; Talavera, G.A.; Sanchez-Johnsen, L.; Roesch, S.C.; Davis, S.M.; Arguelles, W.; Womack, V.Y.; Ostrovsky, N.W.; Ojeda, L.; et al. Machismo, marianismo, and negative cognitive-emotional factors: Findings from the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos Sociocultural Ancillary Study. J. Lat./O Psychol. 2016, 4, 202–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Rosenkrantz, D.E.; Rostosky, S.S.; Riggle, E.D.; Cook, J.R. The positive aspects of intersecting religious/spiritual and LGBTQ identities. Spiritual. Clin. Pract. 2016, 3, 127–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Barnes, D.M.; Meyer, I.H. Religious affiliation, internalized homophobia, and mental health in lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. Am. J. Orthopsychiatry 2012, 82, 505–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. García, D.I.; Gray-Stanley, J.; Ramirez-Valles, J. “The priest obviously doesn’t know that I’m gay”: The religious and spiritual journeys of Latino gay men. J. Homosex. 2008, 55, 411–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Page, M.J.; Lindahl, K.M.; Malik, N.M. The role of religion and stress in sexual identity and mental health among LGB youth. J. Res. Adolesc. 2013, 23, 665–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Severson, N.; Muñoz-Laboy, M.; Kaufman, R. ‘At times, I feel like I’m sinning’: The paradoxical role of non-LGBT-affirming religion in the lives of behaviourally bisexual Latino men. Cult. Health Sex. 2014, 16, 136–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Bowleg, L.; Huang, J.; Brooks, K.; Black, A.; Burkholder, G. Triple jeopardy and beyond: Multiple minority stress and resilience among Black lesbians. J. Lesbian Stud. 2003, 7, 87–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Institute of Medicine (IOM). The Health of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender People: Building a Foundation for Better Understanding; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2011. Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK64806/ (accessed on 30 May 2017).
  32. Muraco, A. Intentional families: Fictive kin ties between lesbian and gay friends. J. Marriage Fam. 2006, 68, 1313–1325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Noyola, N.; Sánchez, M.; Cardemil, E.V. Minority stress and coping among sexual diverse Latinxs. J. Latinx Psychol. 2020, 8, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Salerno, J.P.; Lea, C.H.; Alcántara, C. Effects of racist microaggressions and sexual and gender minority stress on mental health among Latinx lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer or questioning+ young adults. Health Educ. Behav. 2024, 51, 691–699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Zelaya, D.G.; DeBlaere, C. The minority stress psychological mediation framework and mental health of Latinx sexual minority men: Como se mete debajo de la piel (how it gets under the skin). Psychol. Sex. Orientat. Gend. Divers. 2024; Advance online publication. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Puckett, J.A.; Newcomb, M.E.; Ryan, D.T.; Swann, G.; Garofalo, R.; Mustanski, B. Internalized homophobia and perceived stigma: A validation study of stigma measures in a sample of young men who have sex with men. Sex. Res. Soc. Policy 2017, 14, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. McCandless-Chapman, O.; Ottaway, A.; Stone, A.L.; Robinson, B.A. Latinx LGBTQ+ youth and grandparents: Intergenerational solidarity, precarious familismo, and cisnormativity. J. Marriage Fam. 2024, 86, 614–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Velez, B.L.; Moradi, B.; DeBlaere, C. Multiple oppressions and the mental health of sexual minority Latina/o individuals. Couns. Psychol. 2015, 43, 7–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Otis, M.D.; Rostosky, S.S.; Riggle, E.D.; Hamrin, R. Stress and relationship quality in same-sex couples. J. Soc. Pers. Relatsh. 2006, 23, 81–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Riggle, E.D.; Gonzalez, K.A.; Rostosky, S.S.; Black, W.W. Cultivating positive LGBTQA identities: An intervention study with college students. J. LGBT Issues Couns. 2014, 8, 264–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Morales, E. Latino lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender immigrants in the United States. J. LGBT Issues Couns. 2013, 7, 172–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Thoits, P.A. Self, Identity, Stress, and Mental Health. In Handbook of the Sociology of Mental Health; Aneshensel, C.S., Phelan, J.C., Bierman, A., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ryan, C.; Russell, S.T.; Huebner, D.; Diaz, R.; Sanchez, J. Family acceptance in adolescence and the health of LGBT young adults. J. Child Adolesc. Psychiatr. Nurs. 2010, 23, 205–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Cohen, J.N.; Byers, E.S. Minority stress, protective factors, and sexual functioning of women in a same-sex relationship. Psychol. Sex. Orientat. Gend. Divers. 2015, 2, 391–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Hammack, P.L.; Frost, D.M.; Hughes, S.D. Queer intimacies: A new paradigm for the study of relationship diversity. J. Sex Res. 2019, 56, 556–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Frost, D.M. Similarities and differences in the pursuit of intimacy among sexual minority and heterosexual individuals: A personal projects analysis. J. Soc. Issues 2011, 67, 282–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Rostosky, S.S.; Riggle, E.D. Same-sex relationships and minority stress. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2017, 13, 29–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Song, C.; Buysse, A.; Zhang, W.; Lu, C.; Zhao, M.; Dewaele, A. Coping with minority stress in romantic relationships among lesbian, gay and bisexual people. Curr. Psychol. 2022, 41, 6922–6933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Matarese, M.; Greeno, E.; Weeks, A.; Lorthridge, J.; Hammond, P.; Deinhart, S. Building connections between chosen family and kin: A culturally adapted program for LGBTQ+ children, youth, and their families. Fam. Soc. 2023, 105, 81–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Muraco, A. Odd Couples: Friendships at the Intersection of Gender and Sexual Orientation; Duke University Press: Durham, NC, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  51. Gutierrez, D.; Nguyen, D. The greatest path to acceptance is to know we exist: Capturing narrative of sexually diverse Latinx in Nebraska Executive Summary. OLLAS 2022, 1–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Vaccaro, A.; Mena, J.A. It’s not burnout, it’s more: Queer college activists of color and mental health. J. Gay Lesbian Ment. Health 2011, 15, 339–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Combahee River Collective. The Combahee River Collective Statement; Combahee River Collective: Boston, MA, USA, 1977. Available online: https://www.loc.gov/item/lcwaN0028151/ (accessed on 23 June 2021).
  54. Meyer, I.H. Generations: A Study of the Life and Health of LGB People in a Changing Society, United States, 2016–2019; Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research: Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Acosta, K. “How could you do this to me?”: How lesbian, bisexual, and queer Latinas negotiate sexual identity with their families. Black Women Gend. + Fam. 2010, 4, 63–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Cox, N.; Vanden Berghe, W.; Dewaele, A.; Vincke, J. Acculturation strategies and mental health in gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth. J. Youth Adolesc. 2010, 39, 1199–1210. [Google Scholar]
  57. Gonzalez, K.A.; Abreu, R.L.; Arora, S.; Lockett, G.M.; Sostre, J. “Previous resilience has taught me that I can survive anything”: LGBTQ resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic. Psychol. Sex. Orientat. Gend. Divers. 2021, 8, 133–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Molina, O.; Yegidis, B.; Jacinto, G. The pulse nightclub mass shooting and factors affecting community resilience following the terrorist attack. Best Pract. Ment. Health 2019, 15, 1–15. [Google Scholar]
  59. Feinstein, B.A.; Dyar, C. Bisexuality, minority stress, and health. Curr. Sex. Health Rep. 2017, 9, 42–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Correlations between study variables.
Table 1. Correlations between study variables.
Variables123456789
1. SIC−
2. EIC0.21 *—
3. Internalized Heterosexism−0.29 **−0.19 *—
4. SS-FAM0.070.12−0.18—
5. SS-FR0.180.04−0.020.36 **—
6. SS-SO0.120.16−0.140.77 **0.77 **—
7. CC0.49 **0.08−0.14−0.110.20 *0.07—
8. Life Satisfaction 0.110.17−0.120.40 **0.36 **0.49 **0.04−
9. Psychological Distress−0.09−0.180.09−0.34 **−0.26 **−0.33 **0.13−0.50 **—
Note: SIC = Sexual Identity Centrality, EIC = Ethnic Identity Centrality, CC = Community Connectedness, SS-FAM = Social Support Family, SS-FR = Social Support Friends, SS-SO = Social Support Significant Other * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01.
Table 2. One-way ANOVA summary for sexual orientation identity and internalized heterosexism.
Table 2. One-way ANOVA summary for sexual orientation identity and internalized heterosexism.
MeasureMSDF(6, 115)η2
Sexual Orientation1.540.690.890.04
Table 3. One-way ANOVA summary for familial acculturation and internalized heterosexism.
Table 3. One-way ANOVA summary for familial acculturation and internalized heterosexism.
MeasureMSDF(2, 116)η2
Familial Acculturation1.530.680.190.03
Table 4. Linear regression analysis predicting internalized heterosexism from ethnic identity centrality.
Table 4. Linear regression analysis predicting internalized heterosexism from ethnic identity centrality.
Model 1
VariableBSE Bβ
Constant2.120.29
EIC−0.16 *0.08−0.19
R20.36
F4.42
Note: EIC = Ethnic Identity Centrality; * p < 0.05.
Table 5. Linear regression analysis predicting internalized heterosexism from sexual identity centrality.
Table 5. Linear regression analysis predicting internalized heterosexism from sexual identity centrality.
Model 1
VariableBSE Bβ
Constant2.300.24
SIC−0.19 *0.06−0.29
R20.82
F10.49
Note: SIC = Sexual Identity Centrality; * p < 0.05.
Table 6. Linear regression analysis predicting community connectedness on internalized heterosexism.
Table 6. Linear regression analysis predicting community connectedness on internalized heterosexism.
Model 1
VariableBSE Bβ
Constant2.160.41
CC−0.200.13−0.14
R20.20
F2.39
Note: CC = Community Connectedness.
Table 7. Hierarchical regression of social support on internalized heterosexism.
Table 7. Hierarchical regression of social support on internalized heterosexism.
Model 1Model 2Model 3
VariableBSE BβBSE BβBSE Bβ
SS-FAM−0.070.04−0.17−0.080.04−0.19−0.080.05−0.17
SS-FR 0.020.050.040.030.050.06
SS-SO −0.020.05−0.05
R20.290.300.30
F for change in R23.451.811.26
Note: SS-FAM = Social Support Family, SS-FR = Social Support Friends, SS-SO = Social Support Significant Other.
Table 8. Moderation analysis table of sexual and ethnic identity centrality on psychological distress.
Table 8. Moderation analysis table of sexual and ethnic identity centrality on psychological distress.
Model 1Model 2Model 3
VariableBSE BβBSE BβBSE Bβ
IH0.840.010.800.680.820.081.272.720.15
SIC −0.35−0.57−0.06−0.091.29−0.02
IH * SIC −0.180.78−0.07
R20.100.130.13
F for change in R21.150.760.52
IH0.770.790.090.520.790.06−3.433.08−0.40
EIC −1.610.65−0.17−2.771.65−0.39
IH * EIC 1.111.050.49
R20.010.040.04
F for change in R20.962.081.77
Same below
Note: IH = Internalized Heterosexism, SIC = Sexual Identity Centrality, EIC = Ethnic Identity Centrality. * = interaction term.
Table 9. Moderation analysis table of sexual and ethnic identity centrality on life satisfaction.
Table 9. Moderation analysis table of sexual and ethnic identity centrality on life satisfaction.
Model 1Model 2Model 3
VariableBSE BβBSE BβBSE Bβ
IH−0.280.21−0.12−0.230.82−0.10−0.940.72−0.41
SIC 0.120.16−0.06−0.190.34−0.12
IH * SIC 0.210.200.33
R20.020.020.03
F for change in R21.791.211.12
IH−0.260.21−0.12−0.200.21−0.090.311.170.14
EIC 0.300.190.150.050.500.25
IH * EIC −0.140.32−0.23
R20.010.030.04
F for change in R21.542.031.41
Note: IH = Internalized Heterosexism, SIC = Sexual Identity Centrality, EIC = Ethnic Identity Centrality.
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

Gutierrez, D. Examining the Most Insidious Stressor: Systemic Protective Factors and Mental Health Outcomes for Latina/e/x Sexually Expansive Women. Sexes 2025, 6, 51. https://doi.org/10.3390/sexes6030051

AMA Style

Gutierrez D. Examining the Most Insidious Stressor: Systemic Protective Factors and Mental Health Outcomes for Latina/e/x Sexually Expansive Women. Sexes. 2025; 6(3):51. https://doi.org/10.3390/sexes6030051

Chicago/Turabian Style

Gutierrez, Dumayi. 2025. "Examining the Most Insidious Stressor: Systemic Protective Factors and Mental Health Outcomes for Latina/e/x Sexually Expansive Women" Sexes 6, no. 3: 51. https://doi.org/10.3390/sexes6030051

APA Style

Gutierrez, D. (2025). Examining the Most Insidious Stressor: Systemic Protective Factors and Mental Health Outcomes for Latina/e/x Sexually Expansive Women. Sexes, 6(3), 51. https://doi.org/10.3390/sexes6030051

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop