The Right Comparisons in Testing the Minority Stress Hypothesis: Comment on Savin-Williams, Cohen, Joyner, and Rieger (2010)

摘要: Savin-Williams, Cohen, Joyner, and Rieger (2010) suggest that purported “mental health discrepancies among male sexual orientation groups are illusory.” They their findings regarding gay men’s depressive symptoms rebut minority stress explanation of mental disparities. But as it pertains to theory, rationale is flawed. Minority a frequently used framework for understanding observed disparities between heterosexual populations (Herek & Garnets, 2007). Minority suggests (1) lesbians, men, bisexuals (LGB) comprise disadvantaged social group subject stigma prejudice; (2) prejudice related predispose LGB excess stress; (3) in turn, this may lead adverse outcomes and, thus, (Meyer, 2003). Studies using the perspective have consistently documented populations. This evidenced, example, studies meta-analysis summarize literature (King et al., 2008; Meyer, 2003). Savin-Williams al. argued disparity faulty because researchers an inappropriate reference studying bisexual men. Typically, compare men with when they document disparities; Savin-Williams should be compared women, not The reason “cross-sex comparisons more suitable situations which nonheterosexual assessed on sexually dimorphic variables.” claim based vast research showed like women than various measures (e.g., Bailey, 2009; Bailey Zucker, 1995). For cite (2009), who has “same-sex oriented are, average, sex atypical self-concepts, motor behavior, body movements, occupational careers, recreational interests men.” Following rationale, go show level different from women. Thus, conclude “once recontextualized, reported by remarkable or even unexpected.” Even if one would concede premise argument— similar men”—there no merit these undermine perspective. main make argument subgroup—gay excluding lesbians women— outcome—depressive symptoms, anxiety substance use disorders. cherry-picked comparison sufficient test theory. rests sociological theory links structure (through impact stress). Therefore, makes predictions about differentially situated (disadvantaged versus advantaged groups) predicts patterns across disorders (Schwartz 2010). err both counts. First, minorities socially our society due homophobia heterosexism group—that is, all subgroups, such those defined gender, race/ethnicity, etc. study stress, therefore, ought minorities—men women—versus heterosexuals. Similarly, gender inequality was studied, men; race/ethnic whites. each we interested average effect advantaged, diverse subgroups within al.’s hypothesis refuted examines heterosexuals group. Consistent hypothesis, comparisons, higher rates 2003). Second, (and generally) status affects aggregate disorders, rather any particular disorder—we whether member disorder caused stress. disadvantage resultant thought generic pathogens. does predict specific on, say, depression Although infallible rule, provide good exclude another. A be, part causing disorder. In hypothetical situation, play causal role, researcher could reasonably hypothesize group. This problem proposed reminiscent 1970s debate sociology role Gove Tudor (1976) claimed evidence women’s Critics argued, argue here, selecting alone wrong provides opportunistic support favorite When were compared, became evident levels refuting (Dohrenwend Dohrenwend, 1976). An alternative offered differing suggesting response differed: Women internalize resulting mood externalize antisocial behaviors (Rosenfield, 1999). If relied gendered difference internalizing externalizing characteristic general population, expect, fact, case: much prevalence problems, including As result, considered, finding consistent but hypothesis. In summary, examining orientation, disorder, find greater exposure Schwartz, Frost, 2008) expected examine carefully light evidence, must refute it. Finally, contend arguments “contribute growing call depathologizing individuals heterosexual.” I reject implication pathologizes individuals. positions source therefore stemming prevailing societal-level stigma, prejudice, discrimination reflection individual traits. some politically-motivated persons pathologize, stigmatize, discriminate against persons, misguided defy logic. During debates led removal homosexuality DSM-II 1973, Marmor (1980) noted how illogical associate pathology pathologizing itself: …the basic issue…is many homosexuals can found neurotically disturbed. ours where uniformly treated disparagement contempt—to say nothing outright hostility—it surprising indeed substantial numbers them did suffer impaired self- image degree unhappiness stigmatized status….It manifestly unwarranted inaccurate, however, attribute neuroticism, exists, intrinsic aspects itself. (p. 400) Minority points pathogenic conditions stigmatize people treat inferior Even at risk misused some, psychiatric epidemiology important help guide funding governmental other agencies direct prevention efforts.