THE EFFECTS OF GENDER CONFORMITY/NONCONFORMITY AND ETHNIC IDENTITY ON WORKPLACE SEXUAL IDENTITY MANAGEMENT AMONG LGB AFRICAN AMERICAN INDIVIDUALS

Refer to Capella’s Write my thesis – Dissertation Format Guidelines throughout the writing process.

THE EFFECTS OF GENDER CONFORMITY/NONCONFORMITY AND ETHNIC IDENTITY ON WORKPLACE SEXUAL IDENTITY MANAGEMENT AMONG LGB AFRICAN AMERICAN INDIVIDUALS
by
Kimm M. Perez

HERB HAUSER, PhD, Faculty Mentor and Chair
BRUCE GILLIES, PsyD, Committee Member
LYNDA CABLE, PhD, Committee Member

Curtis R. Brant, PhD, Dean
Harold Abel School of Social and Behavioral Sciences

A Write my thesis – Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy

Capella University
June 2014
Abstract
A sample of 129 African American lesbian, gay, and bisexual workers between 20 and 61 years of age completed an online survey on Psych Data. Respondents were given several measures to determine ethnicity, gender conformity, and workplace sexual identity coping strategies. A 2X2 MANOVA was used to examine the differences between the independent variables (i.e., gender conformity and ethnic identity) and dependent variables (i.e., passing, covering, implicitly out, and explicitly out). Results indicated that no significant difference was found in terms of …

Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to:
My best friend and partner, who has consistently stood by me, encouraged me, and pushed me through this process when I thought I could go no further.
My sister and brother, who have not had the good to follow their educational dreams. I want to remind them that it’s never too late.
My extended family: Thank you for your love, support, understanding, and encouragement.
The organizations that have supported both my financial and personal goals during this process.
My daughters, Cali and Alyssa, who have witnessed me playing the roles of a professional and a student. Also, for the encouragement I have seen in their eyes throughout this seven-year process, I will be forever grateful.

I love you!
Acknowledgments
I want to acknowledge and thank my mentor and committee for providing me feedback and guidance for the successful completion of my research. To my mentor, Dr. Herb Hauser: I thank you for the tenacity and candor to push me towards the dissertation’s conclusion. I hope to embody these same qualities in my professional career. I also want to acknowledge and thank the African-American lesbian gay and bisexual (LGB) organizations and participants who took the time to forward and complete an online survey regarding perceptions of gender and ethnicity in the workplace. LGB issues are not easy topics especially when we consider how they intersect with race, and the research will add to the literature that helps us understand the American workplace.
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments iv
List of Tables (if tables used)
List of Figures (if figures used)
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1
Background of the Problem (Introduction) 1
Definition of Terms
Statement of the Problem (Hit Tab to add page numbers)
Purpose of the Study
Significance of the Study
Research Design
Research Questions and Hypotheses
Assumptions and Limitations
Organization of the Remainder of the Study
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Gender Expression and Gender Conformity
Gender Stereotypes
Stigma, Homosexuality, and Heterosexisms
Workplace Discrimination toward Ethnicity
Work Discrimination and Prejudice among LGB Individuals
Theoretical Orientation for the Study
Minority Stress Model and the Dual Impact of Identity for African American LGB
Coping Mechanisms for LGB Individuals
Synthesis of the Research Findings
Summary
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY
Purpose of the Study
Research Design
Target Population and Participant Selection
Procedures
Instruments (or Measures: quantitative studies)
Research Questions and Hypotheses
Data Analysis
Expected Findings
Summary
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS
Introduction
Pre-Analysis Data Cleaning
Description of the Sample
Summary of the Results
Details of the Analysis and the Results
Conclusion
CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
Summary of the Results
Homework help – Discussion of the Results
Homework help – Discussion of the Conclusions
Limitations
Recommendations for Future Research or Interventions
Conclusion
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A. DEMOGRAGHICS QUESTIONNARE

APPENDIX B. BRIEF MEASURE ON GENDER EXPRESSION
APPENDIX C. MULTIGROUP ETHNIC IDENTITY MEASURE (MEIM)
APPENDIX D. WORKPLACE SEXUAL IDENTITY MANAGEMENT
MEASUREMENT- REVISED (WSIMM-R)

List of Tables
Table 1. Add title (single-space table titles; double-space between entries)
List of Figures
Figure 1. Add title (single-space figure titles; double-space between entries)
(Note: Do not remove the section break that follows this paragraph.)

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Background of the Problem
African American workers, 16.5 million strong, represent 10% of the American workforce (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2014). Since 4% of the total workforce—4.6 million workers—are gay or lesbian, it seems safe to assume that approximately 460 thousand gay and lesbian African Americans are working in America today. The American Civil Liberties Union (2014) reported that only 24 of 50 states are covered by statewide employment non-discrimination laws that explicitly protect sexual orientation and gender identity. This leaves many lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) individuals to contend with harassment or discrimination in the workplace; in fact, since differential treatment can be based on actual or simply perceived gay, lesbian, or bi-sexual orientation, a worker need not even be LGB in order to become the target of homophobic discrimination. In addition to this, well-documented research has shown that African American workers encounter negative attitudes and other noxious stimuli during daily workplace interactions with their Caucasian counterparts (Hughes & Dodge, 1997; Mercer, Heacock, & Beck, 1993; Feagin & Sikes, 1994; Bell, 1990). The intersection of these minority identities may compound the number and types of negative interactions a worker faces, so in order to avoid perceived or real discrimination, individuals may conform more closely than they otherwise would to characteristics and behaviors expected of their gender. African American LGB workers negotiate conformity and non-conformity within two distinct minority groups simultaneously (e.g. black and lesbian). The result is that African American LGB workers may overuse coping strategies, such as passing. In passing, a lesbian who has masculine attributes might feel compelled to adopt conventionally feminine dress and mannerisms as a way of avoiding potential discrimination in the workplace. This and other coping strategies used by LGB African American workers illustrate the value of critical research on ethnicity and sexual orientation.
Previous research has shown that LGB workers from minority ethnic, cultural, and racial groups (e.g. African Americans, Jews, Spanish speaking Americans) have to maneuver between the beliefs, norms and values of the dominant Anglo culture and minority professional cultures (Frable, 1997; Gallor, 2006). For instance, Greene (1994) found that LGB workers who claim multiple identities—for instance, both black and gay individuals—have to split their loyalties between different minority groups by concealing different aspects of their identities from different people. Pressure to conform to socially prescribed roles increases stress levels. Further research shows that gender roles and group identifications (e.g. race, ethnicity) influence the level of co- worker interactions and restrict an individual’s career choices (Fouad & Byars-Winston, 2005; Alfred, 2001). Overall, when workers find it difficult to find support in the workplace, it can impede career development while reducing productivity and morale; the more minority identities a given worker embodies, the harder it can be for that worker to gain the support necessary for success.
Research has also found that deviations by workers perceived as LGB from traditional gender roles result in negative attitudes and evaluations by their heterosexual counterparts in the work setting (Cohen, Hall, & Tuttle, 2009). These negative attitudes lead LGB racial minority workers to feel even more disconnected from their co-workers and peers, as they face challenges and barriers their counterparts do not (King, Reilly, & Hebl, 2008). As a result, the African American LGB worker may choose to conceal visible and verbal markers of their sexual identity amid pressure to present as “normal” or heterosexual in the workplace. What is considered “normal” in professional culture has generally been framed according to heterosexual [Caucasian] male standards (Chima and Wharton, 1999). Logically, this can limit career choice, strain colleague interaction, and negatively impact job attendance and performance (Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 2000).
Further complicating issues of ethnicity and gender is the way in which sexual orientation creates an additional level of anxiety for African American LGB workers. Evidence suggests that LGB workers experience stress that negatively impacts their mental health due to coping with and negotiating diverging cultural norms (the parameters that tell us what is “ordinary” and what is “weird”), values (the parameters that tell us what is right and what is wrong), and practices (behaviors that reveal our norms and values) (Diaz, Ayala, Bein, Henne, & Marin, 2001; Harper & Schneider, 2003; Meyer, 2003). For instance, a masculine lesbian may feel uncomfortable and self-conscious all day if she wears a skirt suit. It has been argued that the prevalence of mental health issues such as depression and anxiety among homosexuals arise not from the LGB individual’s intrinsic character, but instead from interactions with a sometimes homophobic society (Marmor, 1980; Meyers, 2003). For instance, Almeida, Johnson, Corliss, Molnar, and Azrael (2009) found that workers whom others perceived as LGB experienced significantly higher rates of depression than their heterosexual counterparts. In turn, African American LGB workers may experience additional job concerns and mental health issues in the context of racial or ethnic discrimination in the workplace. Rather than attributing such anxiety to some natural or inherent flaw in LGB individuals, it makes sense to examine how employment settings and perceived or actual homophobia affect workers’ mental health.
Aside from this, research studies indicate that there might be some positive aspects to identification with multiple minority groups. For instance, Kertzner, Meyer, Frost, and Stirratt (2009) found that minority racial groups have already learned to deal with racial stigma and discrimination, making it easier to cope with discrimination based on sexual identity in later life. The research also suggests that psychological and social well-being improve when formal supports are in place to combat discrimination and stigma (Kertzner, Meyer, Frost, & Stirratt, 2009; Meyer, Dietrich, & Schwartz, 2008). While it is plausible to imagine that life experience and formal supports can mitigate identity-related work stress, these findings do not seem sufficient to negate the claim that individuals who identify with multiple minority groups experience mental health issues, including elevated stress levels, associated with their socially disadvantaged status. For example, Choi, Han, Paul and Ayala (2011) found a lack in the research on ethnic minority LGB individuals whose discrimination experiences led to poor mental and physical health. They conducted six focus group discussions that found five strategies utilized to minimize stigma: concealment of sexual orientation, disassociation from settings associated with sexual identity, dismissal of stigmatization, utilization of external resources to improve strength and comfort, and direct confrontation. Out of the five strategies, ethnic minority LGB individuals used concealment specifically to reduce the impact of homophobia in a social setting. Furthermore, if the ethnic minority LGB individual believed that the stigmatizing setting was unavoidable then they dismissed or ignored the stigma, which can have an immense impact on the emotional and psychological well-being of the individual. Overall, previous research on identity-related stressors in the workplace has not taken a complex enough approach to analyzing how people navigate intersecting and multiple minority status issues. Results focused on a singular identity or minority category can be culturally biased and unreliable (Jones & McEwen, 2000).
More recently, research has shown that emotional stress among LGB workers is linked with characteristics and behaviors that others perceive as gender–nonconforming, based on socially constructed roles (Almeida et al., 2009). Gender nonconformity is used to describe individuals who do not adhere to the behaviors, mannerisms, traits, and attitudes that are culturally designated as appropriate for biological male or female types (Bailey and Zucker, 1995; Sandfort, Mendez, & Diaz, 2007). Institutional norms pressure all of us to conform to gender stereotypes (Chima & Wharton, 1999), and gender nonconformity is commonly associated with homosexuality (Gordon & Meyer, 2007). Consequently, the stakes of gender conformity for LGB workers can be high. Many LGB workers experience immense anxiety when conforming in order to avoid psychological and emotional harm in the workplace.
In conclusion, African American sexual minorities must manage more than one minority cultural status, which can create additional barriers to sexuality disclosure in the workplace (Parks, Hughes, & Matthews, 2004). For instance, an African American lesbian can face multiple oppressions such as sexism, racism, and heterosexism; these oppressions may make her feel responsible for preventing anxiety, either on her own part or on her colleagues’, by isolating herself in the workplace. She faces the choice to disclose or not disclose sexual orientation in the context of the workforce (Ragin, 2004), and the decision not to disclose can produce isolation. As such, the African American LGB individual can engage in a continuum of sex identity management strategies, from avoiding the topic to dressing a particular way to changing pronouns to full-blown passing, to avoid disclosure of these intersecting identities (Croteau, Anderson, & VanderWal, 2008). Prior qualitative research into coping strategies among LGB workers and found that such strategies function within a broader lack of institutional or organizational recognition of how gender and culture impact the disclosure of sexual identity in the workplace (Anderson, Croteau, Chung, & DiStefano, 2001; Lance, Anderson, & Croteau, 2010). By identifying the impact of both gender conformity/nonconformity and ethnic identity on the sexual identity management and disclosure practices of African American LGB persons in the workplace, we can hope to make institutions more sensitive to gays, lesbians, and bisexuals who have complex and multiple identities.
Definition of Terms
Ethnic identity: According to Deng (1997), ethnicity is a cultural term that embodies the “values, institutions, and patterns of behavior” (p.28) of an individual race based on biological and physical differences. Ethnicity refers to the similarity of a group of people who share common customs, historic experience, traditions, and geopolitical residence (Trimble & Dickson, 2010). In other words, ethnic identity is an affiliation whereby individuals view themselves and are viewed by others as belonging to a particular ethnic and cultural group. The affiliation is a dynamic and multidimensional psychological attachment to one’s sense of self as a member of an ethnic group or heritage (Phinney, 2003). More importantly, it forms part of one’s thinking, perception, feelings, and behavior and defines the extent and sense of belonging to a particular ethnic group (Phinney, 1990). Ethnic identity refers to how the individual identifies with their group or culture and can be measured by the MEIM. The MEIM assesses levels of ethnic identity search (a developmental and cognitive component) and affirmation, belonging, and commitment (an affective component).
Gender: Gender describes the social and cultural roles/responsibilities, activities, attributes, and behavior that a particular society considers appropriate to biological males and females (Money, 1994).
Gender identity and expression: These terms are frequently used interchangeably; however, they have different meanings.
1. Gender identity refers to how an individual perceives and identifies him/herself. Dietert and Dentice (2009) define gender identity as a person’s internal sense of existence in relation to their sex. It can either match or differ from birth-assigned sex, and can be fluid or not depending on individual experience. Gender identity is the innermost concept of oneself that can be described by words like man, woman, girl, boy, feminine, and masculine (how one sees self as a gendered being). However, this binary view of gender is biased and less natural than people commonly assume, and it is widely seen as contributing to the oppressive experience of LGB individuals in society.
2. Gender expression refers to the way an individual communicates gender identity to others (Meyer, 2003). Gender expressions are conveyed by external, physical attributes such as behavior, appearance, voice/speech patterns, mannerisms, clothes, haircuts, and social interactions (Horn, 2007). In other words, gender expression refers to a person’s outward manifestation or expression of gender, external characteristics, and the behaviors that are social and cultural norms for distinguishing between men and women.
Gender conformity: This term considers the extent to which a person’s gender expression conforms or complies with the social and cultural expectations people hold of one’s gender identity (Brownlie, 2006; Meyer, 2001). Through subtle or not-so-subtle cues, society lets individuals know it expects their attitudes, behavior and beliefs to correspond, while gender nonconformity may lead to social rejection (Meyer, 2003).
Gender nonconformity: this term refers to an individual’s appearance and behaviors contravening the social expectations of his/her gender (Meyer, 2003), in a manner that is culturally and socially atypical of one’s gender identity. In most people’s minds, gender nonconformity is associated with people with non-heterosexual sexual orientation such as gays, lesbians, and bisexuals (Meyer & Northridge, 2007). The discrimination, segregation, harassment, and prejudice that can contribute to LGB people’s psychological and mental health problems is often triggered by the aggressor’s discomfort with the victim’s gender nonconformity.
Sex: Sex refers to the biological classification of an individual from birth as male or female. The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (n.d.) defines sex as either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures.
Sexual Orientation: The American Psychological Association (n.d) defines sexual orientation as an “enduring emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes.” Furthermore, sexual orientation occurs along a continuum and ranges from heterosexuality through various degrees of bisexuality to homosexuality.
Workplace sexual identity management: Workplace sexual identity management refers to the strategies gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender workers adopt to navigate when amidst workplace discrimination (Lance, Anderson, & Croteau, 2010). Lance, Anderson, and Croteau (2010) describe four LGB sexual identity management strategies that fall on a continuum from Passing to Explicitly Out. Passing includes altering behaviors, mannerisms, and dress and going so far as to fabricate in order to be perceived as heterosexual. Covering is the next strategy and includes “censoring information in order to avoid being seen as lesbian or gay” (p. 245). An individual who is Implicitly Out is truthful but does not clearly identify as a LGT individual, adopting the Implicitly Out strategy “engenders some sense of integrity because one is not engaged in the pretensions of Passing or Covering strategies” (p. 245). At the opposite end of the spectrum from Passing is Explicitly Out, a strategy in which the LGB individual clearly identifies with their sexual orientation.
Statement of the Problem
Gender conformity in a predominantly heterosexual working environment is challenging for LGB people. Many LGB workers of all races face discrimination, social stigma, and heterosexism in the workplace due to their sexual orientation (Herek, 2009; Mays & Cochran, 2001; Meyer, 2003). While discrimination and heterosexism are problems faced by LGB individuals in general (Meyer, Dietrich, & Schwartz, 2008), they are particularly important issues for African American LGB workers who cope with dual minority status—sexual orientation and ethnic identity. Simply put, managing dual identities may leave African American LGB employees more vulnerable to the dual impact of racism and homophobia, resulting in an even greater need to conform to heterosexual norms than their Caucasian American LGB counterparts. To avoid potential discrimination and social stigma in a heterosexual and majority-Caucasian work environment, African American LGB workers may opt to hide their real sexual identities when perceiving potential gender-identity or sexual orientation discrimination or prejudice. They may choose, rather, to adopt the behaviors more likely to be perceived as heterosexual may ward off additional discrimination and social stigma, it can cause other psychological issues such as depression and anxiety (Lewis, Derlega, Griffin, & Krowinski, 2003).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to examine the effects of gender conformity/nonconformity and ethnic identity on disclosure of sexual identity in the workplace in a sample of African American LGB workers. Some researchers have examined how LGB workers cope in the workplace; however, there is a lack of research on the effects of embodying multiple minority identities. It follows that there is no research on the impact of gender nonconformity on sexuality disclosure—that is, the degree to which a worker is “out” in the workplace as LGB—among LGB African Americans. The proposed study will fill this research gap and provide information that may change workplace stereotypes and enable LGB workers to better understand that they are not alone.
Significance of the Study
Discrimination and prejudice regarding an individual’s race or sexual orientation has been identified as a physical and mental stressor (Baxter, 1973; Bigoness, 1976; Donnerstein & Donnerstein, 1975; Linn, 1965; Berg & Lien, 2002; Almeida et al., 2009). Consequently, discrimination against gender nonconforming individuals (whether LGB or heterosexual) and LGB persons (whatever their gender presentations) may vary with the work environment (Harrison, Grant, & Herman, 2012), creating unhealthy physiological and psychological reactions that lead to mental health issues such as depression or anxiety (D’Augelli, Pilkington, & Hershberger, 2002). Graham, Aronson, Nichols, Stephens, and Rhodes (2011) found that a large portion of African American LGB persons’ vulnerability to mental illness is associated with internalized homonegativity. Internalized homonegativity is described by the authors as a “negative, disapproving, or repudiating views or perceptions of homosexuality or related sexuality components that persons with a same sex orientation have accepted, believed, or taken on from an external source” (Graham et al., 2011). Research has also demonstrated that examining intersectional identities helps explain negative psychological outcomes in individuals, especially in relation to identity integration and management (Parks, Hughes, & Matthews, 2004). Lance, Anderson, and Croteau (2010) suggest that given the diversity of the LGB workforce, it is difficult to reach broad conclusions about what makes a particular workplace safe for a particular employee’s disclosure of sexual identity. This demonstrates that focusing on either ethnic or gender conforming/nonconforming-based coping strategies among LGB workers neglects the many people who work at the intersection of both identities. Beyond the examination of the effects of intersecting minority identities on disclosure or “coming out” in the workforce, this research will also address the gap in an existing body of literature that, by and large, examines either homophobia’s impact on LGB people (who are presumed to be Caucasian) or the impact of racism on African-Americans (who are presumed to be straight).
Research Design
The proposed quantitative study will utilize an ex-post-facto design with purposive (non-probabilistic) sampling. Data will be collected through standardized self-administered surveys. Inferential statistics consisting of a 2X2 factorial MANOVA will be conducted. The main effect and interaction between the independent variables (i.e. gender conformity and ethnic identity) on dependent variables (i.e. passing, covering, implicitly out, and explicitly out) will be explored. Descriptive statistics will also be computed and reported to describe the characteristics of the sample.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
The following research questions have been derived from the literature review of studies of gender conformity/nonconformity and of African American LGB individuals in the workplace.
ResQ1: Is there a significant difference in disclosure of sexual orientation in the workplace according to ethnic identity level
ResQ2: Is there a significant difference in disclosure of sexual orientation in the workplace according to high and low gender conformity levels
ResQ3. Are African American LGB individuals who engage in high levels of gender conformity and high levels of ethnic identity affirmation more likely to score higher in passing and covering on disclosure of sexual orientation than African American LGB individuals who engage in low levels of gender conformity and low levels of ethnic identity affirmation (those who are still searching)
Assumptions and Limitations
Assumptions
The study assumes the following:
a. The larger the sample size and the more equal the number of males and females who participate, the more valid and generalizable the results will be.
b. It is impossible to assess the degree to which the present sample represents the African American LGB population, thus limiting the representativeness of the population parameter (Meyer, 2003).
c. Since most of the LGB sample will be obtained from predominantly LGBT organizations, it is assumed that these individuals may have self-accepted are likely already to have disclosed their sexual orientations in at least some non-work settings. It must therefore be acknowledged that participants in this study are likely to be coping better with their dual minority status than individuals who have not self-accepted or who are not in contact with LGBT organizations would be (Kelsey, Thompson, & Evans, 1986).
Limitations
There are several limitations in the existing LGB literature with regard to workplace issues. The body of literature concerning sexual minorities in the workplace is not as extensive as that concerning ethnic minorities. Therefore theories with regard to work discrimination against African American LGB workers are still evolving, a process this study seeks to support.
Second, the research was limited to a study of the influence of African American LGB gender conformity and ethnic identity on disclosure of sexual identity in the workplace. It does not explore this group’s specific mechanisms when faced with minority stress and the appropriate measures that can improve their productivity and satisfaction in the workplace—the development of instruments to assess these fine details must wait for a future study. Despite discussion in the research literature with regard to mental health, there was no instrument to assess the impact of perceived discrimination based on an individual’s gender identity or sexual orientation on the individual’s mental health. Also, the study does not explore how African-America LGB individuals may accept their status and thrive in a potentially oppressive and discriminatory society and workplace (Cochran & Mays, 1994).
Third, with ever-changing legislation and access to information, the data collected may be affected by time, and results may vary over time (Simon, 2011). As anonymity is likely to be an important factor for respondents, the study utilized purposeful convenience sampling instead of universal sampling methods. This is likely to affect what the data collected represents.
Finally, the current research examined the experience of African American LGB workers as a group, and did not focus on distinguishing among African American lesbian, gay, and bisexual workers’ experiences. Research has shown that important differences exist within the sexual minority stress experience and that coping mechanisms based on an individual’s sexual orientation vary (Lombardi, Wilchins, Priesing, & Malouf, 2001). Future research should explore the uniqueness of the African American transgender worker’s coping with discrimination in the workplace.
Organization of the Remainder of the Study
Following is an overview and sequence of the content included in this study. Chapter one contains the research questions that seek to identify the implications of gender conformity/non-conformity and ethnic identity on sexual identity management amongst LGB African American individuals in the workplace. Based on this, the chapter is subdivided into appropriate subtopics that will comprehensively cover the topic under study. These subtopics include the background of the problem of the study, statement of the problem, the study’s purpose, the study’s significance, the study’s research design, the study’s assumptions and limitations, and the definition of the terms that the study will use.
Chapter two contains a literature review that positions this study within the outline of previous research and provides opportunities for the evaluation of similar studies related to the implications of gender conformity/non-conformity and ethnic identity on sexual identity management amongst LGB African American individuals. Additionally, this chapter provides a clear justification for the proposed usage of a quantitative research methodology in this study’s research design. To that end, the literature review provides a comprehensive discussion of the internal and external lives of LGB individuals, featuring arguments from several different sources that cover different aspects of LGB individuals’ experiences.
Chapter three describes the study methodology. It outlines the methods that this study uses to come up with its findings, which are based on the conditions facing African American LGB individuals and the various problems, such as discrimination, that they encounter in their work lives. Details are provided on research design strategy, characteristics of the sample population, instruments used, data collection procedures, and proposed data analysis techniques. Information is also included about ethical issues such as informed consent, privacy, and confidentiality. Finally, limitations of the methodology and strategies to minimize them are clarified.
Chapter four includes a comprehensive reporting of the data collected, along with the supporting tables and figures. Moreover, the data reported is linked to each of the research questions that are raised in this study.
Chapter five of this study interprets the results in light of findings in existence on the implications of gender conformity/non-conformity and ethnic identity for sexual identity management amongst LGB African American individuals. Further, the chapter recommends directions for future study in this area.

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction to the Literature Review
This chapter is a review of previous studies conducted in the gender-related fields of identity, prejudice, and workplace discrimination. The chapter presents an analysis of the various studies that are of interest to the current research.
Gender Expression and Gender Conformity
Research has found that gender expression is a part of gender identity, which in turn gives people the innate sense of belonging to a particular gender (Pegg & Plybon, 2005). Gender expression was first used in the medical psychiatric field to designate “gender identity disorders,” which were defined by the persistent discomfort created by a divergence between an individual’s biological sex and that individual’s subjective identification with the opposite sex. More recently, the term gender expression is used to refer to the modes through which an individual exhibits masculine or feminine traits, whether or not they meet any criteria for a gender identity disorder citation. An individual’s gender expression includes everyday physical appearances, behaviors, and speech; they may or may not match the individual’s internal sense of gender. For instance, a woman can wear clothing made specifically for a man, such as slacks or a tie, yet perceive herself as a woman—the clothing forms part of a masculine gender expression, yet her gender identity is still a woman’s. However, gender nonconformity—a disjunction between gender identity and gender expression—may pose disadvantages for the individual who presents him- or herself in a way fails to meet the public’s expectation about their gender identity (Pegg & Plybon, 2005). The term gender conformity refers to the general act of matching one’s behaviors, beliefs, attitudes, and appearance to the societal expectations of one’s gender: gender-conforming men behave masculinely, gender-conforming women behave femininely, and society rewards those gender-conforming behaviors reference.
Research by Nick (2011) indicates that most organizations have sets of beliefs and values that are specific to them; organizational beliefs and values differ from one organization to another. According to Nick, employees of a given organization generally operate according to that organization’s beliefs and values. Because these beliefs and values inform employees’ behavior constantly, continuously, and recurrently, they become deeply integrated into employees’ behavior and work lives. However, in some cases, employees may find themselves at odds with those beliefs, and then they are confronted with a decision: remain true to their own values, or conform to the organization’s expectations Research by Deblaere et al. (2010) indicate that many LGB employees’ choices to disclose their sexual identities or not are based both on their own personalities and on the organizational cultures they find themselves in. In addition, Swank et al. (2013) note that those employees who have disclosed their LGB status to many people are less probable to conform to organizational values that do not entirely align with their own. As such, those employees who have disclosed their LGB status to fewer people are more probable to reserve their own opinions, create false impersonations, and superficially embrace their organizations’ values. In a similar vein, Israel and Selvidge (2003) postulate that a greater sense of legitimacy in LGB individuals usually leads to significantly lower levels of conformity to the norms of the organizations they work for. All in all, gay-unfriendly workplace cultures offer LGB workers two unappealing choices: come out and be the employee who doesn’t fit, or remain closeted and keep workplace relationships and commitments shallow. Surely those who create office cultures would like to offer better options.
Research by Fine (2011) indicates that employees who are less disclosed in organizations about their LGB status and minority status might be working in environments that oblige these individuals to suppress their personal beliefs and values. Nick (2011) suggests that employers should encourage a sense of realism and authenticity amongst their LGB employees in order to promote an environment that nurtures diversity of thought and benefits from the diverse experiences of all its personnel. Employees will easily conform to such an organizational culture. This kind of conformity enhances their morale to work best and instills a sense of responsibility in these workers to effectively realize the goals of the organization.
Gender Stereotypes
Gender stereotyping also arises due to the changing definitions of gender roles and expression in the workplace. Cohen, Hall, and Tuttle (2009) describe gender stereotypes as beliefs about the psychological traits and characteristics of and the roles associated with either the masculine or the feminine gender. These different roles eventually develop into gender stereotypes that can be positive, negative, or neutral. However, while gender roles are defined by behaviors, gender stereotypes are beliefs and attitudes concerning femininity and masculinity. Gender stereotyping usually occurs when people associate a certain behavioral pattern with either men or women while overlooking the variations among individuals. For instance, the stereotype “women are more nurturing than men” may be based upon real-life observations, but it also ignores both less-nurturing women and the many men who are excellent teachers, nurses, parents, and caregivers.
Gender stereotypes strongly inform how we perceive men and women and how we treat them; these stereotypes can lead both to rigid expectations about roles and to hierarchical ideas about what gender’s work is more or less important or valuable. It is believed that gender stereotyping in European and North American workplaces began in the 19th century during the Victorian Era (Chisamya, DeJaeghere, Kendall, & Khan, 2012). During this period, both men and women were working together, sharing similar rolesgive examples. However, prior to the emergence of the industrial revolution, the majority of the men in North America and Europe began working outside their homes in search of money. Women stayed in their homes to look after their children and perform other household chores. Eventually, this separation led to the adoption of different roles for the different genders and led to the development of the doctrine of two spheres (Dworkin, 2001). According to this doctrine, women’s and men’s interests are divergent, leading to differences in their specialized roles. For women, the areas of specialty were narrowed into taking care of households and children, while men’s roles were expanded to include roles in the outside world, including the work environment. These gender socializations were passed on from one generation to the next and became the social norms of masculinity and femininity that we see today.
Gender stereotyping begins in childhood, when we learn the cultural gender roles that tell us how an individual is expected to relate to the rest of the world based on that individual’s biological sex. For example, children show selective stereotyping against other children based on toy interests. According to Snizek and Neil (1992), these stereotypical views develop to incorporate gender stereotypes and occur in three stages of gender stereotype development. In the first stage, gender stereotypes are undeveloped, and gender knowledge is associated with the behaviors and characteristics linked with particular individuals. In the second stage, children develop self-stereotypes, while still not having any for the opposite gender. The child’s knowledge in this stage comes from same-sex interactions, with too few interactions with members of the opposite gender to form the basis for stereotyping. In the final stage, a child’s knowledge is based on complex and indirect gender-related associations with both genders (Snizek & Neil, 1992), leading to both self-stereotypes and opposite-gender stereotypes. After childhood and into adulthood—once gender stereotypes become strongly integrated into the way a person perceives and interacts with the world—those stereotypes can evolve into prejudices and discrimination against others who fall outside of the learned gender roles. As a result, both LGB and heterosexual adults constantly adapt their identities according to the basic, stereotyped gender rules of society.
Stigma and Homosexuality, and Heterosexisms
Compounding the gender-expression-related stressors described in the previous sections are the specific issues concerning stigma and concealed stigmatized identities. In addition to the constant barrage of stressors sexual minorities receive from a disapproving societal majority, those with concealed identities must also face the impact of stress created by the labor of managing their identities. Concealment involves constantly managing observable gender-associated cues and features such a clothing, body shape, voice, mannerisms, and facial appearance. For instance, a man might consciously adopt a voice that is unnaturally low for him or a stance that is uncomfortably wide for him in order to conform to mainstream gender expectations; he would then need constantly to be on alert against lapses into his more natural, but less gender-conforming, voice or stance. When discussing hidden stigma, Goffman (1963) notes, “whether we interact with strangers or intimates, we will find that the fingertips of society have reached bluntly into the contact, even here putting us in our place” (p. 53).
He continues to say that when stigma is concealable, short-term interactions may not be affected by the negative ramifications of identity management. However, longer and more intimate relationships may come to suffer from these effects. For example, individuals with HIV have described close relationships as sources of stress (Harvey & Wenzel, 2002) largely due to factors related to stigma and concealment within the relationship. As discussed earlier, the majority of the literature on this topic suggests the significance of self-disclosure for the development and preservation of intimate relationships. Pachankis (2007) states that when concealment is a regular part of an individual’s life, it can lead to feelings of guilt or anxiety within an intimate partnership. This can then prevent the concealer from obtaining the benefits of becoming completely known to another person.
Smart & Wegner (2000) have elaborated on this process, stating that the cognitive burden imposed by concealing or managing an identity imposes a heavy cost, and one must constantly scan the environment for stigma-relevant cues and regulate behavior in an effort to fit the socially sanctioned role required at the time. For instance, gender-associated cues assist to identify an individual’s sex more easily and accurately; however, in some cases these gender-associated cues may not be accurately interpreted, leading to unpleasant misunderstandings (Croteau, Anderson & VanderWal, 2008). When such misrecognitions, and active efforts to avoid them, become habitual, they may deprive individuals of social support, particularly if avoiding gender-related conflict promotes lower levels of intimacy within relationships themselves. When exploring the narratives of LGB couples asked to describe experiences of stigma impacting their relationships, Frost (2011) found that the most often described theme was that of stigma as an “ever-present, negative weight on their relationships” (p. 5). The couples spoke of this continuing beyond specific examples of discrimination, including seemingly positive events in their lives (e.g. commitment ceremonies, family events) that are marred by their continued need to hide or manage their sexual identity or status as a couple.
Similar to the concealable stigmas we have been discussing, discreditable stigmas involve differences from the norm that are not immediately observable (Goffman 1963, p. 42). Learning disabilities or membership in a minority religion are examples of discreditable stigmas, ones which a person might choose to hide or not to disclose; homosexuality, too, can fall under this category of stigma. Beatty and Kirby (2006) consider homosexuality an invisible stigmatized identity because it cannot be readily discerned. According to them, race and gender are imputed visible stigmas, based on factors outside of a person’s control (Beatty & Kirby, 2006). Homosexuality, however, is commonly (though erroneously) thought of as controllable and so responsibility is placed upon the gay or lesbian person for their own stigmatized behavior (Beatty & Kirby 2006). This has very real implications for LGB people, as some people view laws protecting LGB people as giving “extra” rights and protections to a group that “chose” to be what they are.
Goffman (1963) places homosexuality among those stigmas which are based on individual character, meaning that people who are homosexual are perceived as having a fault in their personal character. Plummer (1975) indicates that this type of stigmatization of homosexuality tends to appear in societies influenced by a Judeo-Christian tradition—mainstream U.S. society, for instance. This is seen especially in the disadvantages LGB workers face with regard to wages, job security, or career choices. It is also seen in commonly-held beliefs that homosexual orientation is an immoral behavior based on personal choice. Homosexuality, however, like race, can be seen through all three categories of stigma (physical, character, and social).
Related to the term homosexuality is the term homophobia, which describes people’s fear, contempt, and hatred of LGB people (Smith, 1971). The terms homophobia and heterosexism are often used interchangeably, when in fact they describe two related, yet distinct, concepts. The term heterosexism is more in line with the terms racism and sexism, which describe prejudice and stigmatization of a group of people (Harper, 2004). While the term homophobia focuses on an individual’s reaction (phobia = fear) to LGB people, it does not describe the broader prejudice, discrimination, and violence LGB people face (Herek, 1995). For instance, if Mark discloses his homosexuality to Bill and Bill shuns him or even beats him up, Mark has experienced Bill’s homophobia; if Mark experiences similar treatment by most people to whom he discloses, or if he is unable to obtain legal redress for hate crimes directed against him, or if he is unable to procure benefits for his same-sex spouse in a workplace where opposite-sex spouses have access to benefits, then Mark is experiencing heterosexism.
Herek further explains that sexual orientations other than heterosexual are condemned by our society and that cultural heterosexism is manifested in societal customs and institutions. For example, a worker’s capability to perform jobs typically associated with one gender, such as construction worker or decorator, may be assumed to be inferior if that worker’s gender expression does not conform to their gender identity. This form of cultural heterosexism “fosters individual attitudes toward gay, lesbian, transgender, and bisexual persons by providing a system of values and stereotypes that appears to justify psychological heterosexism” (Hunter, Shannon, Knox, & Martin, 1998, p. 25). Overall, heterosexism can lead to the assumption that all individuals are heterosexual; heterosexism’s close relative, heteronormativity, is the assumption that normal people are heterosexual and that non-heterosexual identities are weird or pathological. When everyday interactions are clearly based upon this belief, LGB people can feel excluded, marginalized, and alienated, and their needs and rights can be forgotten or ignored.
Workplace Discrimination on the Basis of Ethnicity
Sexual orientation is not the only axis along which identity is defined —nor the only criterion for discrimination. Ethnic identity is a subset of racial identity. Racial and ethnic identities are integral components of individual and collective identities. Two types of factors influence identity formation: societal systems, traditions, and customs on the one hand, and individual experiences and media exposure on the other (Phinney, 1992). Leslie and Gelfand (2008) argue that racial classification is baseless since when analyzed critically: there are more similarities among the different races than there are differences. Collectively, both ethnic and racial identity models serve as theoretical structures through which people identify with their original cultures (Rodriguez, 2008; Fouad & Byars-Winston, 2005). In addition, Deblaere et al. (2010) indicate that in regard to their ethnic identities, African Americans often experience continuous direct and indirect encounters with racism; racism was exhibited in the forms of hate crimes and discrimination. Racism is not only associated with stereotypes and prejudice against African Americans, but also with systemic discrimination and limited access to resources (Harper et al., 2004) It has been well established that African Americans’ job opportunities and their level of income have been directly affected by racism, and that they are more likely to face poverty and economic hardship than European American people (Duncan, Brooks-Gunn, & Klebanov, 1994; McLoyd, 1990; Murray & Mandara, 2002). Racial or ethnic discrimination can create difficulties both in personal and in professional life; the professional challenges facing ethnic minorities are of several types.
In the work setting, discrimination may be classified as individual discrimination, organizational discrimination, or structural discrimination depending on the source (Rodriguez, 2008). For example, some managers who are prejudiced against African Americans have a tendency to hire them for low-paying jobs and ignore their potential for promotions. As such, recruiting officers who rely on referrals in their recruitment process may limit the potential applicants to their friends with whom they share a similar racial identity.
Discrimination in the workplace is not solely the work of prejudiced individuals. Organizational-level discrimination, encoded in organizational rules, policies, and practices, can make it hard even for well-meaning managers to operate fairly. In most cases, organizational discrimination manifests in terms of promotion and advancement difficulties, especially for African American employees. The highest paying jobs in the country remain reserved for Caucasian males. Herek (2009) observed that only 45% of all the managers in the United States are women, while 97% of managers in blue-chip companies are Caucasian males. The study further observed that, in 2000 industrial sector companies, only 5% of the senior managers were female. In addition, about 40% of the senior managers were Caucasian women, while African American women represented only 4% of the total of this population. Female African Americans comprise about 12% of the entire American workforce, with only 7% of these occupying management roles. A different study also established that females were earning about 50% less than their male counterparts in similar job positions (Chima & Wharton, 1999). Therefore, trends over time have indicated significant differences in job considerations where African Americans are regarded as incapable to handle positions in organizations because of their ethnicity. Additionally, in limited cases where both Caucasians and African Americans hold similar positions, the African Americans are paid less than the Caucasian because of their ethnicity (Swank et al., 2013).
Over the years, discrimination has been and remains a principal challenge for African Americans working in the United States. Bobbitt-Zeher (2011) observed that African Americans represented 13% of the country’s population, and about one-third of them were poor. Such poverty levels associated with African Americans are mainly connected to structural discrimination, which takes the forms of housing, education, and employment discrimination. A study carried out in Washington, DC, established that there were significant differences in the employment levels of college-educated African Americans and Caucasians (Ragins & Winkel, 2011). The study established that the college-educated Caucasians had advantages over their African American counterparts in acquiring jobs. For example, in the education system, discrimination and prejudice against African Americans limit their educational advancement, thus depriving them of skills and qualifications needed for job promotions. In addition to this, housing discrimination confines African Americans to congested district schools that offer substandard education, and hence African Americans who graduate from such schools find it difficult to find the quality higher education necessary for job advancement (Bailey & Oberschneider, 1997).
Work Discrimination and Prejudice against LGB Individuals
Workplace prejudice and discrimination in the U.S. is not limited only to racial and ethnic identities but also targets sexual identities. Gedro (2010) established that rights and legal protections for LGB individuals are increasing in the United States. Discrimination against LGB people in America takes the form of difficulties in obtaining employment and wage inequality. For instance, in [year] President Obama issued a public statement supporting the increased control of sexual-orientation-based classification. Obama’s statement responded to such classification’s connection to increased discrimination against LGB people (Shafiro, Himelein, & Best, 2003).
Discrimination against LGB individuals is multifaceted. Research conducted by the General Social Survey (GSS), a data collection program maintained since 1972 by the University of Chicago’s National Opinion Research Center, established that at least 20% of LGB-identified individuals had experienced some form of employment discrimination due to their sexual orientation at some point in their careers (as cited in Anderson et al., 2001). The GSS report also found that employees who were publicly open about their sexual orientation faced more discrimination in the workplace than those who concealed such identities. Indeed, of the surveyed LGB people, 56% said that they had undergone some employment discrimination because of their sexual orientations, and about 40% of these individuals said that they had experienced such discrimination in the first two years of their employment tenure. In contrast, of the surveyed LGB individuals who were not open about their sexual orientation, only 10% reported experiencing sexual-orientation-based discrimination in the workplace (Harper & Schneider, 2003).
Several other studies have confirmed cases of LGB discrimination in the workplace (Kim & Fredriksen-Goldsen, 2012; Kirby, 2006). Perception of sexual orientation usually influences the employer’s behavior towards job seekers of different LGB groups. For example, Anderson et al. (2001) established that gay men in the United States earn at least 10% to 30% less than heterosexual men.
Research by Gedro (2012) shows that the rates of employment discrimination on the basis of people’s sexual orientation are similar in both the private and public sectors. However, the study further states that in the U.S. alone, complaint filings of sexual orientation discrimination are marginally lower, but similar, in public sector employment as compared to public sector employment. In addition, Harris et al. (2012) indicates that in the U.S., employment discrimination based on sexual orientation is significantly higher in local governments than in state governments. This was the overall case in six out of eight states where state and local employee complaints were compared.
Swank et al. (2013) demonstrate that individual perceptions of personality in LGB applicants are a potential hiring process factor. The research further indicates that most people in the corporate world, especially those in managerial positions, hold the morals of LGB individuals in low regard. LGB individuals are thought to be ill-mannered and therefore incompetent to enhance the organization’s realization of objectives. In addition, most organizations have formed notions that LGB individuals are bound to develop negative organizational images. Therefore, LGB individuals are least considered for employment opportunities because they are perceived to ruin the reputation of organizations and are deemed to bring in little or minimum contributions to realize organizational goals.
Research by Harris et al. (2008) compares employee complaints from several states in the U.S., revealing increased rates of LGB employees being laid off after a few weeks of employment. A further examination of the issue showed that most of these employees had gotten fired from their jobs or received other mistreatment after they had disclosed their sexual orientations. Both African-American and LBG identities, then, are stigmatized in the workplace. What are the effects of these professional stigmas And what happens when a single individual is stigmatized in both ways
Theoretical Orientation of the Study
The minority stress theory suggests that an individual belonging to the LGB minority group may experience mental health disorders because the identity an LGB person must perform at work in order to avoid discrimination and stigma is different from that person’s authentic, natural identity. Meyer’s (2003) model of minority stress posits that an inhospitable social environment places a strain on individuals who are in a disadvantaged position because they are constantly required to adapt to this tension. For LGB individuals, these stressors include negotiating the demands of the greater heterosexist culture. Research has found that individuals belonging to any kind of minority (social, sexual, gender) group, and who also claim certain ethnic identities, are more likely to conform to predetermined stereotypes of how individuals are supposed to behave in the workplace and to avoid forging close relationships with coworkers (Badgett & Frank, 2007). Such repression impedes access to professional and social support, which is often required for further professional development and helps improve the quality of life. Minority stress theory also states that most of an LGB individual’s social stress is derived from the conflict between the individual and the dominant heterosexual society in which he or she lives (Kimmel & Mahalik, 2005). LGB people often feel pressure to conform to heteronormative standards—that is, standards that assume that only heterosexuality and gender-conforming behavior are normal, and that all other orientations and behaviors are deviant. This pressure to conform can produce stress which, in turn, may itself be felt as something shameful (Meyer, 2003). Individuals are confronted with pervasive antigay stereotypes, prejudice, and outright discrimination. These then lead to an array of proximal stressors, including a belief that an individual’s environment is threatening, expectations of rejection, and feeling it necessary to conceal one’s sexual identity. Ultimately, stereotypes and prejudice on the basis of race, gender, and sexual identity cause stress, and workplace stress can affect workers’ mental health.
Perhaps the most impactful to the self of these proximal stressors is the varying degrees of internalized homophobia that LGB people may develop as a result of constant exposure to minority stress. Meyer and Dean (1998) have described internalized homophobia as the most insidious result of minority stress, given that it often becomes self-perpetuating and persists well beyond specific moments when an individual is experiencing explicit external conflict and devaluation. It should be noted here that while located inside the individual and persistent in nature, the minority stress framework clearly places internalized homophobia as social in its origin. It stems from an individual’s coping with widespread heterosexism and sexual prejudice, not from internal pathology or personality structures (Russel & Bohan, 2006).
Now identified as a minority stressor, internalized homophobia has been directly linked to several negative outcomes within intimate relationships of the LGB population. Meyer and Dean (1998) note that a fundamental portion of the existing stigma is the unsubstantiated view that LGB individuals are unable to form and maintain long-lasting, intimate, healthy romantic relationships. Research has suggested that anxiety, shame, and devaluation of LGB people in the larger society are inherent to internalized homophobia and most likely to be manifested in close, interpersonal relationships with other sexual minorities (Coleman, Rosser, & Strapko, 1992).
Facing these destructive emotions in the context of a romantic relationship is likely to negatively impact the relationship itself, decreasing the quality of intimacy and partner satisfaction. As such, internalized homophobia can lead to issues of ambivalence, conflict, misunderstandings, and discrepant goals for the relationship (Mohr & Fassinger, 2006). While struggling with these issues, LGB individuals may attempt to avoid lasting and close intimate relationships and instead seek alternatives for social/sexual connection (such as short relationships or sex without intimacy).
Minority Stress Model and the Dual Impact of Identity for African American LGB
LGB individuals are in an unusual position in our current society, having to cope with regular minority stressors as well as the added difficulty of having a stigmatized identity that is not readily apparent within social situations. Those with concealed stigmatized identities must constantly struggle with how to manage their identities in social interactions (Goffman, 1963; Frable et al., 1998). Specifically, a significant amount of time, effort, and cognitive resources are required in order to monitor one’s current social setting, as well how one’s own behavior may be perceived within a heteronormative framework, in order to pass as heterosexual. As this coping strategy continues over a lifetime, the negative effects that accompany it also accumulate. A major cost of this regular identity management is loss of intimate connections with others, as the individual has slowly learned to model their behavior on what is expected of them in the social setting, not what their actual internal process may suggest (Fuller et. al., 2009).
The previous research discussed also suggests that internalized homophobia is the result of LGB individuals altering their self-perception to include negative cultural ideas regarding sexual minorities. As these individuals have been shown to be more attuned to negative societal beliefs about LGB individuals (Otis et al., 2006), this study suggests that those who exhibit higher levels of internalized homophobia will also engage in higher levels of self- monitoring during social situations. By managing their behavior in this way, those more concerned with negative repercussions due to their internalized homonegativity would thus be more able to avoid social situations in which the concealed stigmatized identity is revealed. Further, a 1998 study by Meyer and Dean suggests that a lifetime of constant effort expended in order to manage one’s social identity and conceal a stigma can result in patterns of concealment and denial that continue to display themselves in everyday interactions, not simply those in which an immediate threat is being avoided. The coping strategy of managing one’s identity is thus likely to appear within intimate relationships as well, bringing with it the negative effects of decreasing intimate connections with a partner.
The concept of minority stress is inferred from the social and psychological model and is related to the juxtaposition of minority and dominant values and the resulting conflict within the social environment (Meyer, 1995). When an LGB individual from the minority group is stigmatized and discriminated against in society, the conflict between him or her and the dominant culture of heterosexism becomes significantly stressful to the minority individual (Phinney, 2003; Meyer, 1995). The racism experienced by African Americans is a chronic source of stress and is distinct from other general life stressors (Harrell, 2000), and has the potential to damage self-esteem and may cause depression and hopelessness (Meyer, 2003).
African American LGB identity is caught in a conflict between two cultures with unique and conflicting stressors and resources, and members of this dual minority have to adapt to the challenges that intersect with their sexual and racial identities (Meyer, 2003). These challenges include social integration, assimilation, marginalization, and separation (Cochran & Mays, 1994). Any social environment includes socioeconomic status and minority status, which lead to exposure to stressors, including general antigay violence, that are likely to increase vigilance and the expectations of rejection (Meyer, 2003).
The African American community has been fighting ethnic and racial discrimination through the civil rights movement to claim the set of rights and privileges that the existing power structure has denied them (Cochran & Mays, 1994). This disadvantaged community is fighting racial alienation, discrimination, and isolation, and it regards heterosexuality as a norm (Cochran, Sullivan, & Mays, 2003). The LGB community is faced with discrimination in public and the workplace due to sexual orientation; moreover, African American LGB individuals are more vulnerable than either white LGB people or heterosexual African Americans. LGB African American experience the stress, stigmatization, and identity problems of a minority group that the social system deems inferior to other groups (Chng & Geling-Vargas, 2000). Moreover, African American LGB individuals as a minority group are not well informed and educated and may tend to conceal their sexual identity for fear of victimization and stigma. Thus, they are more vulnerable to stress and related depression, racism, and homophobia and therefore they have to hide their sexual identities, orientations, and behaviors (Phinney, 2003). The prejudice and discrimination that the LGB community faces on a regular basis, including from family members, coworkers, classmates, peers, and others, contributes to and exacerbates the stress problem that may lead to mental illnesses (Harrell, 2000; Meyer, 2003).
Coping Mechanisms for LGB Individuals
Anti-LGB discrimination in the workplace has led to the rise of coping mechanisms on the part of affected individuals. Kirby (2006) observes that when LGB people find it difficult to go public about their status, they usually develop coping strategies to manage their sexual identities in the workplace. Research by Lance et al. (2010) indicates that many LGB individuals have in recent times showed positivity and growth in the way they handle themselves despite considerable sexual orientation stressors in their environment. Despite high levels of sexual orientation stressors, LGB individuals have developed strengths and coping techniques.
Personal systems and social systems are significant coping mechanisms for LGB individuals (Chung, 2001). An individual’s personal capabilities and self-capacities interact with contextual factors such as negative perceptions of LGB people. These abilities enable LGB individuals to put up with the prejudices that they encounter in their daily lives. According to Lance et al. (2013), family support is considered the greatest supportive pillar to LGB individuals. Families provide moral support to these individuals that enable them to courageously face the negativity and discrimination that they encounter. In addition, family support offers a sense of belonging to LGB individuals, which encourages them to live like other people rather than remaining isolated. Kuper et al. (2013) state that transitory events such as joining new social environments create temporary shifts in people’s well-being; such events offer LGB individuals opportunities to appraise their adaptive strategies. Environmental, transitory, and personal factors all play significant roles in the coping mechanisms of LGB people.
Research by McDavitt et al. (2008) states self-denial of LGB characteristics is a coping mechanism that is employed by many LGB individuals. These individuals internally repress their own sexual intuitions and feelings about being different. This denial enables these individuals to be able to avoid emotional pain and be able to retain their heterosexual benefits. Evasion and silencing absence are other mechanisms that LGB people use to prevent potential consequences and attempt to cope by being able to stop discriminatory incidents before they actually take place. On the other hand, minimization is also a critical strategy. In this technique, LGB individuals ignore, downplay, and dismiss the impact that is caused by environments that look down upon them.
Chung (2001) outlines redefinition as a commonly used coping strategy by LGB individuals. This is a technique where individuals with sexual orientation issues only identify themselves in specific environments where they feel accepted. However, this strategy creates isolated relationships for these individuals. Therefore, these individuals with sexual orientation issues make friends with particular people with similar issues or those without similar issues, but who are able to accept them the way they are. According to Kuper et al. (2008), supportive and common resistance towards negative perceptions and actions against LGB individuals is critical. LGB individuals constantly form movements that aim at expressing the effects of the hostile environments they live in. As much as avoidance is regarded as an emotional coping mechanism since it acts to deny sexual-orientation-related external problems, recent trends indicate that it is also a problem-solving approach that is utilized by LGB individuals to dissociate themselves not only from systems that look down upon them, but also from environments that have formed negative perceptions of them. As such, certain coping mechanisms—such as passing to prevent disclosure of these individuals’ intersecting identities, covering, which consists of censorship of clues on one self to conceal LGB identity, being implicitly out, which involves saying the truth minus explicit language that could disclose the sexual identity of someone, and the act of being explicitly out—are the most widely used coping strategies by LGB individuals (Anderson et al., 2001).
Synthesis of Research Findings
According to Israel and Selvidge (2003), identity development is a crucial task of all people, especially LGB individuals and across several areas of self-identification. Despite the fact that there has been extensive research on the process of identity development amongst individuals who are either sexual or ethnic minorities, few studies have assessed these processes in people who are both sexual and ethnic minorities. The process of ethnic identity development involves a gradual growth of awareness of one’s cultural and ethnic heritage. On the other hand, sexual identity development involves finding one’s sexual orientation and comparing it with the socially accepted one.
Formulated theories on identity development processes for ethnic and sexual minorities do not account for the challenges faced by individuals who belong to both ethnic and sexual minorities. For example, most of the ethnic development models indicate that ethnic identity involves individuals’ entanglement into their particular ethnic communities. However, in the case of sexual minorities, complete withdrawal from the Caucasian American community and consequent entanglement into their ethnic community is often difficult because of homophobia and heterosexism within their ethnic community (Harris et al., 2008). In addition, with respect to sexual identity, individuals who are ethnic minorities often face ethnically based discrimination and oppression from other Caucasian Americans who are sexual minorities, hampering integration and acceptance into the larger lesbian and gay community. Ethnic and sexual identity development progressions can be largely divided into four overarching stages, namely: contexts and timing of identity awareness, the identity development process, diverse oppression experiences, and the community connection (Swank et al., 2013).
Summary
African American LGBs workers are involved in constant negotiations between their authentic internal experiences and externally-imposed standards of racial, ethnic, and sexual identity. Due to the disharmony this produces, mental health problems occur at elevated rates among this group. Deblaere et al. (2010) point out that minority stress models, which seek to understand the negative mental health implications of living in prejudiced or discriminatory environments, have only recently been developed. Regardless of legislation in the Unites States and other countries and organizational policies and rules, ethnicity, sex, and racial identity discrimination and prejudice persist, especially against minority ethnic groups. To survive such discrimination, alienation, and isolation in a workplace that is predominantly Caucasian American and heterosexual, African Americans LGB workers have adopted strategies such as passing, covering, implicitly out, and affirming of identity.
Research by Harris et al. (2008) suggests that it is minority stress—with its negative bearings on health outcomes—that makes minority identity so prominent in a person’s sense of self. However, the research further states that group identities are vital for the emotional functioning of an individual because they address directly the conflicting needs for affiliation and individuality. In addition, identity characteristics can be related to mental health directly via interaction with stressors. The interactive impact model of stress proposes that identity characteristics adapt stress’s effect on health outcomes; LGB individuals with more complex self-identities are, surprisingly, less prone to get depressed in the face of stress than their counterparts with simpler identities (Harris et al., 2008).
With an unfortunate history of marginalization, exclusion, and degradation, LGB individuals face significant stressors that are related to environments that disregard their presence (Gedro, 2012). Prejudicial encounters surrounding the sexual orientations of LGB individuals greatly contribute to unjust conditions with stress factors that negatively impact their wellness. Therefore, this study suggests that LBG individuals experience many forms of negative treatment in a variety of settings, and at the hands of many people in their daily lives. This study’s results also postulate that there is need for LGB individuals to incorporate context and type of negative treatment and perceptions, coping mechanisms, coping resources, and strength-based procedures into practice to counter the challenges they face. Moreover, Fine (2011) states that despite the development of minority stress models, these models have not yet fully incorporated proper comprehension of the strengths of LGB individuals in coping with the stressor factors in their lives, promotion of their well-being, and protocols to counter negative negative implications of their choices. However, in the face of such pervasive sexual-orientation-related experiences, many LGB individuals have still been able to be healthy, successful, and productive because of increased support from government and non-governmental organizations that fight for the rights of LGB individuals. This study affirms that negative treatments and perceptions of LGB individuals such as acts of discrimination are experienced by these individuals in a variety of contexts even though these individuals have in recent times developed coping techniques that enhance their well-being and improve their growth and levels of acceptance amongst people (Harris et al., 2008).
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY
Purpose of the Study
Research has demonstrated that gender nonconformity is, in part, a factor that explains much of the discrimination against lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) persons (Wylie, Corliss, Boulanger, Prokop, & Austin, 2010). LGB workers lack the privilege of exhibiting their sexual orientation in the workplace, and often negotiate the heterosexism of their work environments by conforming to the predominant social and cultural norms of gender (Gedro, 2009). Equally importantly, managing dual identities leaves African American LGB workers even more vulnerable to discrimination (Choi, Han, Paul, & Ayala, 2011) while increasing the risk of mental health conditions such as depression or anxiety (Cochran, Sullivan, & Mays, 2003). Research using the minority stress model (Meyer, 2003) indicated that the greater the number of minority identities an individual embodies (e.g. race, sexual orientation), the more they engage in coping strategies to prevent discrimination (Chung, 2001). To reduce the probability of encountering discrimination, LGB workers may resort to the use of coping strategies such as passing as a heterosexual person by conforming to heteronormative stereotypes (Anderson et al., 2001). Subsequently, Morris, Waldo, and Rothblum (2001) found that disclosing sexual identity relieves psychological distress. Therefore, acknowledgement of LGB individuals’ sexual orientations in job settings can help to promote and enhance mental health.
Research Design
The proposed study will utilize a quantitative, non-experimental (ex-post facto) research design and will utilize survey methodology to evaluate the outlined hypothesis. The target population is employed African American LGB individuals. Since most of the individuals in the study’s target population prefer to remain anonymous, random sampling is not a possible sampling procedure for this study. Instead, purposive convenience sampling will be utilized to acquire participants from African American and lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) groups to participate in the proposed study.
In the current investigation, there are two non-manipulated, independent variables: gender conformity and ethnic identity. The independent variable of gender conformity has two levels: gender conformity and gender nonconformity. Participants will be assigned to either gender conforming or nonconforming groups based on participant responses to the brief measure of gender expression (Wylie et al., 2010) and their response to demographic information on sex. The assignment to ethnic identity level will be made on the basis of the subject’s responses to the Multi-group Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM), and has two possible levels: high and low ethnic identity. The dependent variable is workplace sexual disclosure management, operationally defined by the four scores obtained from passing, covering, implicitly out, and explicitly out of the Workplace Sexual Identity Management Measure-Revised (WSIMM-R).
African American LGB workers of varying ages (18 and older) and professions will be invited to participate in the study by establishing contact with various African American and LGB organizations. The organizations will be furnished with a link to the online questionnaires to forward to their members. Participants will receive information about the study and will be advised to access the research study site via the Internet. The study site will contain information about the study, informed consent with a link to the online survey that contains the MEIM (to assess ethnic identity level), the gender conformity level assessment, and the WSIMM-R (to assess workplace sexual identity management). The data will be automatically uploaded for analysis.
Target Population and Participant Selection
The proposed research is targeting a hard-to-reach population, and therefore random sampling is not possible. Purposive sampling will be utilized, which includes contacting LGB Organizations throughout the community (e.g. OutSmart, Human Rights Campaign, Houston GLBT Community Center, Sister 2 Sister, and Resurrection MCC) and African American organizations (e.g. Greater Houston Associations, Sisters Network Inc., National Coalition of 100 Black Women, and Texas Black Expo) in order to facilitate the recruitment of participants. Specifically, I will send out emails (containing information about the study as well as a link to the proposed study’s survey) to these organizations with a request to forward the email to potential participants. Participation in the proposed study will be anonymous (i.e., no IP address, name, phone, or other identifying information will be kept). The survey will be available online until the required sample size is achieved. The primary characteristics of the larger population from which the sample is drawn include adult individuals who identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual (LGB) and African American, and who are presently employed. G*Power, a power analysis program for estimating required sample sizes for studies, was used to conduct an a-priori power analysis (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007). For the proposed study, in order to achieve .80 power (1-ß), with an expected medium effect (f= .25) sizes and α =.05 (with 1 df for the numerator and 4 groups), a total of 158 participants are needed.

Procedures
African American and LGB organizations will be contacted to inform them of my intentions to conduct the research. This will provide an opportunity to ascertain whether the organizations will be willing to help with the research. Recruitment strategies that these organizations will use for the sampling include newsletters; arrangements will be made to have advertisements, billboards, or email lists appear in these. Participants who respond will be contacted via email with a link to the online questionnaire. The questionnaires will be completed and the data sent between the participants’ computers and my computer, where it will be stored, processed and analyzed. Since the online questionnaires will be forwarded from the organization to its members electronically, the participants will be able to read the questions and respond directly on the page (Jones, Murphy, Edwards, & James, 2008). The participants can also visit the study’s link through the organization’s website. The questionnaires will be available on the internet for interested participants for a period of five months, following a rigorous campaign and invitations for participants (Cox, Vanden Berghe, Dewaele, & Vincke, 2010). At this stage, participants will be informed about confidentiality. The filled self-administered, confidential, and anonymous online questionnaires will be forwarded to me for analysis.
Instruments (or Measures: quantitative studies)
Independent variables.
The Multi-group Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM) (Phinney, 1992) is the most reliable and valid measurement for this study, because it takes into account multiple components of ethnic identity. Over the years, researchers have disagreed on the operational definitions of ethnicity and race, and in some cases these words have been used interchangeably (Edwards, Fillingim, & Keefe, 2001). According to Deng (1997), ethnicity is a cultural term that embodies the “values, institutions, and patterns of behavior” (p.28) of an individual race based on biological and physical differences. Ethnic identity refers to how the individual identifies with their group or culture and can be measured by the MEIM. The MEIM assesses levels of ethnic identity search (a developmental and cognitive component) and affirmation, belonging, and commitment (an affective component). Reliability coefficients for the MEIM are adequate (α =.81) with a sample of high school students (α =.90) and with a college student sample. Follow-up research on the construct validity for the MEIM with a large sample of ethnically diverse middle school students revealed in an exploratory factor analysis that the two factors belonging and exploration are distinct but clearly relate to ethnic identity (Roberts et al., 1999). The MEIM asks participants to self-report a sense of identification with their ethnicity. Examples of these items are: “I think a lot about how my life will be affected by my ethnic group membership” and “I have a clear sense of my ethnic background and what it means for me.” The two factors, exploration and affirmation, were assessed with the 12-item, four-point Likert scale MEIM. Based on responses to the MEIM, these two factors will be dichotomized as high ethnic identity (affirmation) and low ethnic identity (exploration) in this study. A median split is the more common practice when examining dichotomous variables when forming low and high groups (MacCallum, Preacher, & Rucker, 2002). Total scores for the MEIM range from 12 to 48, with higher scores indicating a higher level of ethnic identity (ethnic affirmation); a total score 30 or below is considered indicative of a lower ethnic identity level (ethnic search). Differences between the two groups on the WSIMM-R will be evaluated.
The Brief Self-Report of Gender Expression (BSGE) (Wylie et al., 2010) will be used to obtain information about each participant’s level of gender expression based on their birth sex, thereby determining if the individual is gender conforming or gender nonconforming. The BSGE consists of two questions based on the perceptions of others, one on the individual’s appearance (i.e. style or dress) and the other on the individual’s mannerisms (i.e. such as the way they walk or talk). The two items describe how others perceive them on a seven-point scale from very feminine to very masculine. The total scores for the BSGE range from 2 to 14. A median split will be used to identify gender expression, with lower scores indicating gender conformity; a total score of 9 or greater is considered gender nonconforming.
Gender expression rules in cultures tend to provide standards by which the LGB workers judge not only their own emotions but those of others as well, and lead to the management of their emotions and expressions in efforts to avoid social stigmatization or discrimination (Simon & Nath, 2004). Given that the proposed study will assess ethnic identity and its impact on workplace sexual disclosure, I want to ensure that it is not being confounded by gender conformity/nonconformity. It is also important to note that research demonstrates that gender nonconformity is not likely to change over time (Rieger, Linsenmeier, Gygax, & Bailey, 2008) and is measured on a continuum. Therefore, I include gender nonconformity/conformity as an additional independent variable. However, there is no accurate, reliable, and multifaceted measure on gender expression or gender conformity/nonconformity based on adult experiences. In fact, most gender expression or gender conformity/nonconformity measures have focused on subjective childhood experience (Bailey, Finkel, Blackwelder, & Bailey, 1998) and childhood recall behaviors (Zucker et al., 2006; Bailey & Oberschneider, 1997). The BSGE is a new measure of gender expression, examining how LGB individuals perceive others’ perceptions of their gender appearance and mannerisms. Wylie et al. (2010) recognized that gender expression has not been addressed in the research on LGB communities even though it is an important construct in the field of LGB psychology when exploring mental health disparities in this population.
Dependent variable.
The Workplace Sexual Identity Management Measure-Revised (WSIMM-R) (Lance, Anderson, & Croteau, 2010) will be utilized to measure sexual identity that is defined by the LGB professional’s coping strategy. The WSIMM-R is a 31-question instrument that utilizes a Likert Scale (ranging from 1 = “never” to 6 = “always”). The instrument assesses behaviors that exhibit aspects of sexual orientation and yields scores on four coping strategies: passing, covering, implicitly out, and explicitly out. The original WSIMM’s reliability and validity have been investigated by Lance, Anderson, and Croteau (2010). Internal consistency estimates for the WSIMM-R with a sample of 64 gay and lesbian K-12 teachers were as follows: passing (α = .59) covering (α = .79), implicitly out (α = .75) and explicitly out (α = .95). It was found that the passing scale did not perform well since the variance was low on most items. This may have been due to not only the item variance but the sample not representing the full span of the continuum. Subsequently, the WSIMM-R showed evidence of convergent validity between the passing and covering scales when concealing sexual identity. Furthermore, when compared to a similar assessment for identity management, the Identity Management Strategies-Revised Scales (IMS-R), scales that were conceptually similar showed statistically high positive correlation, while dissimilar scales had significantly low correlations. An additional assessment for validity of the WSIMM-R involved the participants “ranking order of the general descriptions of the four identity management strategies” (Lance, Anderson, and Croteau, 2010, p.22). The participants identified less with the passing and covering; therefore, the items were collapsed in the analysis and a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to examine the differences. Participants who scored highest had the most descriptive strategy that they thought highly identified with them. Based on the participants’ responses, the measure will assess the frequency of the use of sexual identity management strategies; passing (8 items), covering (8 items), implicitly out (7 items), and explicitly out (8 items). On a scale ranging from 1 (never) to 6 (always), the participants will indicate the frequency of each behavior. In comparison to other measures that assess similar constructs (e.g. list one or two), the WSIMM-R UK thesis writers remains the most reliable instrument for the study of LGB workers due to its psychometric properties in the assessment of diversity in occupational groups (Anderson et al., 2001).
Research Questions and Hypotheses
ResQ1: Is there a significant difference in disclosure of sexual orientation in the workplace according to ethnic identity level
H01: There will be no significant differences between African Americans LGB individuals in the high ethnic identity group (affirmation) and African Americans LGB individuals in the low ethnic identity group (searching) on scores of disclosure of sexual orientation in the workplace.
H11: African Americans LGB individuals in the high ethnic identity group (affirmation) will have significantly higher scores on disclosure of sexual orientation in passing and covering than African Americans LGB individuals in the low ethnic identity group.
ResQ2: Is there a significant difference in disclosure of sexual orientation in the workplace according to high and low gender conformity levels
H02: There will be no significant differences between African Americans LGB individuals in the high gender conforming group and African Americans LGB individuals in the low gender conforming group on scores of disclosure of sexual orientation in the workplace.
H12: African Americans LGB individuals in the high gender conformity group will have significantly higher scores on disclosure of sexual orientation in passing and covering than African Americans LGB individuals in the low gender conformity group.
ResQ3. Are African American LGB individuals who engage in high levels of gender conformity and high levels of ethnic identity (affirmation) more likely to score higher in passing and covering on disclosure of sexual orientation than African American LGB individuals who engage in low gender conforming and low levels of ethnic identity (searching)
H03: There is no interaction between gender conformity and level of ethnic identity on workplace sexual disclosure management.
H13: Gender conformity and ethnic identity will interact on sexual orientation in the workplace, such that those who report high gender conformity and high ethnic identity (affirmation) will report higher scores in passing and covering on disclosure of sexual orientation.
Data Analysis
Once the data has been entered and combined from the surveys filled online, a copy of it will be stored in an offline hard drive to make sure that is not accessible to unauthorized persons. Surveys will be kept in a password-protected computer stored in a backup and locked. The types of data to be analyzed will include quantitative and qualitative data from the questionnaires. The data will be analyzed by the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) to provide inferential and descriptive statistics. The organization of raw data will be done through a numbering system that will code the participants’ responses on the questionnaires for future reference. The participants will be referred to by subject identification numbers with no other identifying information in order to protect their confidentiality. The data collected will be managed and processed using SPSS. Given that the proposed study is web-based, invalid and suspicious data will be assessed by looking through participant responses for outliers (3 SD’s from the mean). Recommended procedures for dealing with web-based data from Bauermeister et al. (2012) will be followed to ensure validity of data. Once the cross-validation of the collected data is complete, the data will be assessed to ensure that it meets the statistical assumptions for MANOVAs (e.g., normality, homogeneity). Should statistical assumptions for MANOVA not be met, I will consider the use of data transformation techniques (e.g., logarithm, square root transformations) in order to use parametric statistics, which theoretically have more power than their non-parametric counterparts. However, in the event that these transformations do not make it possible for the data to achieve normality, I will consider the use of non-parametric statistics. General demographic variables (e.g., age, sex, location) will be assessed to determine if they are significantly associated with the dependent variable (workplace sexual identity). If the general demographic variables are deemed to be associated with the dependent variable, they will be considered control variables and will subsequently be adjusted for through an ANCOVA. A 2X2 Factorial MANOVA will be conducted to evaluate the proposed hypotheses (main effects of H1 and H2 and interaction for H3). To summarize the data of the instruments/constructs, descriptive statistics (i.e., measures of central tendency; measures of dispersion) will be conducted and reported.
Expected Findings
It is hypothesized that there will be a main effect of gender conformity on workplace sexual identity management (Anderson et al., 2001; Lance, Anderson, & Croteau, 2010). It is predicted that African American LGB individuals who score high in gender conformity are significantly less likely to disclose their sexual orientation in the workplace. Specifically, research has found that LGB workers avoid disclosing their sexual identity due to heterosexism and stigmatization in different contexts, forcing the LGB worker to conform to accepted workplace sexual norms rather than facing the stress and anxiety of stigma and discrimination (Waldo, 1999). The stigma and discrimination of LGB individuals may be due to an increase in the lack of tolerance for sexual minorities in various contexts (Kim & Fredriksen-Goldsen, 2012). The only coping strategy left for the African American LGB worker is to engage in passing behaviors that do not violate the accepted sexual norms. In turn, this form of sexual identity management may lead to negative workplace attitudes and poor career advancement (Kirby, 2006), as well as higher vocational indecision and lower career maturity (Schmidt & Nilsson, 2006). Likewise, research has found that social interactions that favored gender conformity have led to lower levels of stress (Ingram et al., 2001), making stress avoidance an additional reason the LGB worker is less likely to disclose sexual identity and more likely to gender conform.
It is hypothesized that there will be a significant interaction effect between gender conformity/nonconformity and ethnic identity on workplace sexual identity management in passing, covering, implicitly out, explicitly out. That is, an interaction is predicted such that African American LGB individuals who are classified as gender conforming and high in ethnic identity will have the lowest likelihood of disclosure. Although research shows that African Americans are more susceptible to discrimination for their sexual orientation (Kertzner et al., 2009), no reputable research describe the interaction between gender conformity and ethnic identity in the workplace. However, prior studies suggest that there is a link between gender identity, ethnic identity, and sexual identity. For example, Dworkin (2001) found that LGB individuals with a strong ethnic identity may show more gender conformity due to their unique interactions with their families of origin. Some psychologists believe that these identities are social constructions. Thus, the identities may change based on socio-political attitudes and societies’ historic forces. Biological or genetic factors have minimal influence on these social constructions. Interactions among identities are complex and based on other external factors (Bock & Shortfall, 2006). The proposed research results will contribute to theories related to sexuality, gender and ethnic identities and will describe the interaction of conforming and ethnic identity of African American LGB individuals in the workplace.
Summary
LGB workers face discrimination in the workplace and are deprived the right to express their sexual orientations, having instead to conform to the predominant social and cultural gender norms. African Americans are more vulnerable in such contexts, and are at risk of mental health conditions such as depression or anxiety. Though no research has confirmed this, African American LGBs, as a dual minority, constantly negotiate and apply coping strategies to avoid discrimination—for instance, passing as heterosexuals by conforming to heteronormative stereotypes. Otherwise, though disclosing one’s sexual identity lowers psychological distress, it may lead to alienation, isolation, and discrimination at the workplace.
This study will utilize a quantitative non-experimental (ex-post facto) design and a survey to evaluate and test the outlined hypotheses with the target population (employed African American LGB individuals). The study will have two manipulated independent variables: gender conformity and ethnic identity. Participants will communicate their information via online questionnaires. Since the participants from the target population would like to remain anonymous, the study will utilize purposeful convenience sampling with the participants chosen from African American and LGB organizations contacted via email. The data from the anonymous participants will be tested for validity by MANOVA and ANCOVA before being analyzed using SPSS.
African American LGBs perceive themselves as lacking access to privileges, education, jobs, housing, and quality of life compared to other groups, such as Caucasian LGBs. In trying to avoid discrimination and stigmatization due to lack to tolerance of sexual orientation, minorities in various contexts adopt passing strategies. This form of sexual identity management leads to negative workplace attitudes, poor advancement, higher vocational indecision, and reduced career opportunities. Though some studies support the existence of a link between gender, ethnic, and sexual identity, as well as the perception that African American LGBs are more susceptible to discrimination for their sexual orientation, there is no research of any value that supports this assertion of the interaction between ethnic identity and gender conformity in the workplace. This research will address this under-explored area and the findings in the study will be helpful in future related studies.

CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Introduction
This chapter will present the findings from a quantitative non-experimental (ex-post facto) design and a survey to evaluate and test the outlined hypotheses with the target population (employed African American LGB individuals). The section will analyze the findings of the two manipulated independent variables: gender conformity and ethnic identity with online questionnaires and will explore the results of the research analysis in the context of literature reviewed. Data will be analysed using percentages where frequencies will be calculated. MANOVA analysis will be conducted in the study to determine the relationship between the independent variables and dependent variables in the study.
Pre-Analysis Data Cleaning
Data were collected for 168 LGB participants and imported to SPSS Version 22.0 for analysis. Prior to analysis, responses were assessed to include only participants who met the inclusion criteria, and participants with largely missing data and outliers to any research variables were removed. Thirty participants were removed for largely incomplete surveys. Two participants were removed for not meeting the sample’s inclusion criteria. Seven additional participants were removed for research variable values which were more than 3.29 standard deviations from the mean, indicating outliers (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2012). Final analyses were conducted on 129 participants.
Description of the Sample
Within the sample of 129 participants, 99 (76%) were born female and 30 (23%) were born male. Ninety-nine (76%) also identified as female, and 30 (23%) identified as male. The sample represented 35 (27%) gay, 77 (59%) lesbian, and 17 (13%) bisexual individuals who were either Black (119, 92%), mixed with African American heritage (9, 7%), or of an ethnicity not listed (1, 1%). Fifty-eight (45%) were single, 23 (18%) were in a relationship, but lived separately, 41 (32%) were in a relationship and living together, and 5 (4%) responded they did not fall into any of the aforementioned categories. The highest level of education for any participant was also the most common: participants with a graduate degree (master’s or higher) composed 36% (n = 46) of the sample. Lesser proportions had a bachelor’s degree (43, 33%), some college or trade school (27, 21%), or an associate’s degree or trade school (12, 9%). One participant indicated their highest level of education was high school (1, 1%). Most participants were from the southwestern U.S. (95, 74%), with lesser proportions from the Northeast (11, 9%), Southeast (9, 7%), Midwest (5, 4%), West (3, 2%), or outside of the U.S. (5, 4%). A majority of participants worked full-time (107, 83%). Ten (8%) participants worked part-time, seven (5%) were self-employed, and four (3%) were unemployed. In line with inclusion criteria, unemployed participants had been employed within the six months prior to the survey date. Ages ranged from 20 to 61, with a mean of 37.57 years (SD = 9.968). Frequencies and percentages for categorical demographics of interest are presented in Table 1, while the mean and standard deviation of participant ages are presented in Table 2.
Table 1
Frequencies and Percentages for Categorical Demographics of Interest
Demographic n %

Birth gender
Female 99 77
Male 30 23
Gender identity
Female 99 77
Male 30 23
Sexual orientation
Gay 35 27
Lesbian 77 60
Bisexual 17 13
Ethnicity
Black or African American 119 92
Mixed; parents are from two different groups 9 7
Other 1 1
Relationship status
Single 58 45
In a relationship – living separately 23 18
In a relationship – living together 41 32
Other 5 4
Highest level of education
High school 1 1
Some college or some trade school 27 21
Associates degree or trade school 12 9
Bachelor’s degree 43 33
Graduate degree (master’s degree or higher) 46 36
Region
West 3 2
Midwest 5 4
Northeast 11 9
Southeast 9 7
Southwest 95 74
Outside the U.S. 5 4
Employment status
Full-time 107 83
Part-time 10 8
Self-employed 7 5
Unemployed 4 3
Note. Due to rounding error some percentages may not sum to 100%.
Table 2
Mean and Standard Deviation of Participant Ages
Source M SD

Age 37.57 9.98

Summary of the Results
Research Question One
Is there a significant difference in disclosure of sexual orientation in the workplace according to ethnic identity level
H01: There are no significant differences between LGB individuals in the high ethnic identity group (affirmation) and LGB individuals in the low ethnic identity group (searching) on scores of disclosure of sexual orientation in the workplace.
Ha1: There are significant differences between LGB individuals in the high ethnic identity group (affirmation) and LGB individuals in the low ethnic identity group (searching) on scores of disclosure of sexual orientation in the workplace.
To assess research question one, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to determine differences in coping strategies (i.e., passing, covering, implicit, explicit) between LGB individuals in the high ethnic identity group versus those in the low ethnic identity group. Prior to analysis, the assumptions of the MANOVA were assessed. MANOVA assumes that responses for each dependent variable follow a roughly normal distribution (i.e., normality), that variability for each response is similar for both groups (i.e., homogeneity of variance), and that the multivariate equivalent of the homogeneity test (i.e., homogeneity of covariance matrices) is also met. In addition, the MANOVA requires that dependent variables are similar, but do not too closely correlated (multicollinearity).
Normality was assessed using four Kolmogorov Smirnov (KS) tests, and the assumption was not met for any of the dependent variables. However, Stevens (2009) states that the F statistic is relatively robust to violations of this assumption. Homogeneity of variance was assessed using four Levene’s tests, and the assumption was met for all dependent variables. Box’s M test was used to assess homogeneity of covariance matrices and this assumption was also met. Multicollinearity was assessed using a correlation matrix where any correlation with a Pearson correlation coefficient of .80 or greater was considered to indicate multicollinearity between the two variables. None of the dependent variables were found to possessed multicollinearity, and the assumption was met.
Results of the MANOVA indicated no significant differences in coping strategies between participants with high ethnic identity, or affirmation, versus low ethnic identity, or searching (F(4,124) = 0.59, p = .667). Because no differences were found, no further examination was conducted and the null hypothesis was not rejected. Results of the MANOVA for differences in coping strategies between individuals with high versus low ethnic identity are presented in Table 3.
Table 3
MANOVA for Passing, Covering, Implicit, and Explicit Differences by Ethnic Identity Level
ANOVA F(1, 127)
Variable MANOVA F(4, 124) Passing Covering Implicit Explicit
Ethnic identity level 0.59 0.27 0.90 0.29 0.92

Note. * indicates significance at p < .05, ** indicates significance at p < .01, *** indicates significance at p < .001. Research Question Two Is there a significant difference in disclosure of sexual orientation in the workplace according to high and low gender conformity levels H02: There is no significant difference in disclosure of sexual orientation in the workplace between participants with high gender conformity and participants with low gender conformity levels. Ha2: There is a significant difference in disclosure of sexual orientation in the workplace between participants with high gender conformity and participants with low gender conformity levels. To assess research question two, a MANOVA was conducted to determine differences in coping strategies (i.e., passing, covering, implicit, explicit) between LGB individuals in the high gender expression group versus those in the low gender expression group. Prior to analysis, the assumptions of the MANOVA were assessed. Homogeneity of variance was assessed using four Levene’s tests, and the assumption was met for all dependent variables. Box’s M test was used to assess homogeneity of covariance matrices and this assumption was also met. Normality and absence of multicollinearity were previously assessed. Results of the MANOVA indicated no significant differences in coping strategies between participants with high ethnic identity, or affirmation, versus low ethnic identity, or searching (F(4,124) = 0.13, p = .970). Because no differences were found, no further examination was conducted and the null hypothesis was not rejected. Results of the MANOVA for differences in coping strategies between individuals with high versus low gender expression are presented in Table 4. Table 4 MANOVA for Passing, Covering, Implicit, and Explicit Differences by Gender Expression Level ANOVA F(1, 127) Variable MANOVA F(4, 124) Passing Covering Implicit Explicit Gender expression 0.13 0.04 0.18 0.00 0.29 Note. * indicates significance at p < .05, ** indicates significance at p < .01, *** indicates significance at p < .001. Research Question Three Are African American LGB individuals who engage in high levels of gender conformity and high levels of ethnic identity (affirmation) more likely to score higher in passing and covering on disclosure of sexual orientation than African American LGB individuals who engage in low gender conforming and low levels of ethnic identity (searching) H03: Gender conformity and ethnic identity will not interact on sexual orientation in the workplace, such that those who report high gender conformity and high ethnic identity (affirmation) will report higher scores in passing and covering on disclosure of sexual orientation. Ha3: Gender conformity and ethnic identity will interact on sexual orientation in the workplace, such that those who report high gender conformity and high ethnic identity (affirmation) will report higher scores in passing and covering on disclosure of sexual orientation. To assess research question three, a factorial MANOVA was conducted to determine differences in coping strategies between LGB individuals in the high gender expression group versus those in the low gender expression group and those in the high ethnic identity group versus those in the low ethnic identity group. In this analysis, the coping strategies of passing and covering were combined into a mean score, and the coping strategies of implicit and explicit were combined in the same way. Prior to analysis, the assumptions of the MANOVA were assessed. Normality was assessed using two Kolmogorov Smirnov (KS) tests, and the assumption was met for the implicit and explicit variable, but was not met for the passing and covering variable. However, Stevens (2009) states that the F statistic is relatively robust to violations of this assumption. Homogeneity of variance was then assessed using two Levene’s tests, and the assumption was met for all dependent variables. Box’s M test was used to assess homogeneity of covariance matrices and this assumption was also met. A Pearson correlation between the two dependent variables suggested an absence of multicollinearity and this assumption was met as well. Results of the MANOVA indicated no significant differences in coping strategies between African American LGB participants with high gender expression versus low gender expression (F(2, 124) = 0.14, p = .871) or those with high ethnic identity, or affirmation, versus low ethnic identity, or searching (F(2, 124) = 0.46, p = .632). There was also no significant difference in coping strategies for the resulting interaction between ethnic identity and gender expression (F(2, 124) = 0.18, p = .834). Because no differences were found, no further examination was conducted and the null hypothesis was not rejected. Results of the factorial MANOVA for differences in coping strategies between individuals with high versus low gender expression and high versus low ethnic identity are presented in Table 5. Table 5 Factorial MANOVA for African American Passing, Covering, Implicit, and Explicit Differences by Gender Expression and Ethnic Identity Levels ANOVA F(1, 115) Variable MANOVA F(2, 124) Passing or covering Implicit or explicit Gender expression 0.14 0.09 0.22 Ethnic identity 0.46 0.09 0.90 Interaction 0.18 0.23 0.10 Note. * indicates significance at p < .05, ** indicates significance at p < .01, *** indicates significance at p < .001. Details of the Analysis and the Results Conclusion CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction The previous chapter presented an analysis of the research. This chapter will discuss the summary of the findings by linking it to the literature review. This chapter will also present the conclusions and recommendations in the research according to the findings, results and analysis drawn from the study. Conclusions of the study will be done considerately by highlighting the important findings so that the study objectives can be achieved and study hypothesis tested. REFERENCES Alfred, M. V. (2001). Expanding Theories of Career Development: Adding the Voices of African American Women in the White Academy. Adult Education Quarterly, 51(2), 108-127. Almeida, J., Johnson, R. M., Corliss, H. L., Molnar, B. E., & Azrael, D. (2009). Emotional distress among LGBT youth: The influence of perceived discrimination based on sexual orientation. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(7), 1001-1014. doi:10.1007/s10964-009-9397-9. American Civil Liberties (2014). Non-discrimination laws: State by state information. Retrieved March 11, 2014, from: https://www.aclu.org/maps/non-discrimination-laws-state-state-information-map. Anderson, M. Z., Croteau, J. M., Chung, Y. B., & DiStefano, T. M. (2001). Developing an assessment of sexual identity management for lesbian and gay workers. Journal of Career Assessment, 9(3), 243-260. doi:10.1177/106907270100900303. Badgett, M., & Frank, J. (2007). Sexual Orientation Discrimination: An International Perspective. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis. Bailey, J., & Oberschneider, M. (1997). Sexual orientation and professional dance. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 26(4), 433-444. Bailey, J. & Zucker, K. J. (1995). Childhood sex-typed behavior and sexual orientation: A conceptual analysis and quantitative review. Developmental Psychology, 31, 43–55. Bailey, J., Finkel, E., Blackwelder, K., & Bailey, T. (1998). Masculinity, femininity, and sexual orientation. Northwestern University. Bauermeister, J. A., Zimmerman, M. A., Johns, M. M., Glowacki, P., Stoddard, S., & Volz, E. (2012). Innovative recruitment using online networks: Lessons learned from an online study of alcohol and other drug use utilizing a web-based, Respondent-Driven Sampling (webRDS) strategy. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 73(5), 834-838. PMCID: PMC3410951. Baxter, G. (1973). Prejudiced liberals Race and information. Journal of Conflict, 17, 131-161. Berg, N., & Lien, D. (2002). Measuring the effect of sexual orientation on income: Evidence of discrimination Contemporary Economic Policy, 20(4), 394. doi:10.1093/cep/20.4.394. Bigoness, W. J. (1976). Effect of applicant’s sex, race, and performance on employers’ performance ratings: Some additional findings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 80-84. Blanchett, W. (2006). Disproportionate representation of African American students in special education: Acknowledging the role of white privilege and racism. Educational Researcher, 35(6), 24-28. Bobbitt-Zeher, D. (2011). Gender discrimination at work: Connecting gender. Stereotypes, Institutional Policies, and Gender Composition of Workplace: Gender Society, 25(6), 764-786. Bock, B. B., & Shortfall, S. (2006). Rural Gender Relations: Issues and Case Studies. Wallington: CABI. Bockting, W. O., & Ehrbar, R. D. (2005). Commentary: Gender variance, dissonance, or identity disorder Journal of Psychology Human Sexuality, 17(3/4), 125-134. Brownlie, E. (1999). Constructions of gender conformity and non-conformity: A Q methodological study. (Order No. MQ51306, Simon Fraser University (Write my essay for me – CA Essay writer Canada)). ProQuest Write my thesis – Dissertations and Theses, , 180-180 p. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.library.capella.edu/docview/304573717accountid=27965. (304573717). Byrd, R. P. & Sheftall, B. (2001). Traps: African American men on gender and sexuality. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Chima, F. O., & Wharton, W. D. (1999). African Americans and the workplace: Overview of persistent discrimination. The Journal of Intergroup Relations, 23 (5). Chisamya, G., DeJaeghere, J., Kendall, N., & Khan, M. A. (2012). Gender and education for all: progress and problems in achieving gender equity. International Journal of Educational Development, 32(6), 743-755. Chng, C.L., and Géliga-Vargas, J. (2000) Ethnic identity, gay identity, sexual Sensation seeking and HIV risk taking among multiethnic men who have sex with men. AIDS Education and Prevention, 12, 326–339. Choi, K., Han, C., Paul, J., & Ayala, G. (2011). Strategies for managing racism and homophobia among U.S. ethnic and racial minority men who have sex with men. AIDS Education and Prevention : Official Publication of the International Society for AIDS Education, 23(2), 145-158. doi:10.1521/aeap.2011.23.2.145 Chung, Y. (2001). Work discrimination and coping strategies: Conceptual frameworks for counseling lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients. The Career Development Quarterly, 50(1), 33-44. Cochran, S.D., and Mays, V.M. (1994) Depressive distress among homosexually active African American men and women. American Journal of Psychiatry, 151, 524–529. Cochran, S. D., Sullivan, J., & Mays, V. M. (2003). Prevalence of mental disorders, psychological distress, and mental health services use among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults in the United States. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(1), 53-61. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.71.1.53 Cohen, T. R., Hall, D. L., & Tuttle, J. (2009). Attitudes Toward Stereotypical Versus Counterstereotypical Gay Men and Lesbians. Journal of Sex Research, 46(4), 274-281. Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health. (2014, February 15). LGB individuals living in anti-gay communities die early, study shows. Science Daily. Retrieved February 17, 2014 from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140215122534.htm. Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health. (2010, March 2). Lesbian, gay, bisexual individuals risk psychiatric disorders from discriminatory policies. Science Daily. Retrieved February 17, 2014 from. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100302112022.htm. Cox, N., Vanden Berghe, W., Dewaele, A., & Vincke, J. (2010). Acculturation strategies and mental health in gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39(10), 1199-1210. doi:10.1007/s10964-009-9435-7. Croteau, J. M., Anderson, M. Z., & VanderWal, B. L. (2008). Models of workplace sexual identity disclosure and management: Reviewing and extending concepts. Group Organization Management, 33(5), 532-565. Crow, S. M., Fok, L. Y., & Hartman, S. J. (1998). Who is at greatest risk of work-related discrimination—women, blacks, or homosexuals Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 11(1), 15-26. D’Augelli, A. R., Pilkington, N. W., & Hershberger, S. L. (2002). Incidence and mental health impact of sexual orientation victimization of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths in high school. School Psychology Quarterly, 17(2), 148-167. Deblaere, C., Brewster, M., Sarkees, A., & Moradi, B. (2010). Conducting Research With LGB People of Color: Methodological Challenges and Strategies. The Counseling Psychologist, 38, 331-362. Deng, F. M. (1997). Ethnicity: An African predicament. Brookings Review, 15(3), 28-31. Diaz, R. M., Ayala, G., Bein, E., Henne, J., & Marin, B. V. (2001). The impact of homophobia, poverty, and racism on the mental health of gay and bisexual Latino men: findings from 3 US cities. American Journal of Public Health, 91(6), 927-932. Retrieved from https://monkessays.com/write-my-essay/ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1446470/pdf/11392936.pdf Dietert, M., & Dentice, D. (2009). Gender identity issues and workplace discrimination: The transgender experience. Journal of Workplace Rights, 14(1), 121-140. Dispenza, F. (2011). Minority Stress and Life Role Saliency among Sexual Minorities. Counseling and Psychological Services, Paper 66. Retrieved from http://digitalarchive.gsu.edu/cps_diss/66. Donnerstein, E., & Donnerstein, M. (1975). The effects of attitudinal similarity on interracial aggression. Journal of Personality, 43, 485-502. Dworkin, S. (2001). Treating the bisexual client. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 57, 671-680. Edwards, C. L., Fillingim, R. B., & Keefe, F. (2001). Race, ethnicity and pain. 94(2), 133-137. doi:10.1016/S0304-3959(01)00408-0 Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175-191. Feagin, J. R., & Sikes, M. P. (1994). Living with racism: The Black middle class experience. Boston: Beacon Press. Fine, L. (2011). Minimizing Heterosexism and Homophobia: Constructing Meaning of Out Campus LGB Life. Journal of Homosexuality, 58, 521-546. Fouad, N. A., & Byars-Winston, A. M. (2005). Cultural context of career choice: Meta-analysis of race/ethnicity differences. Career Development Quarterly, 39, 223-233. Frable, D. (1997). Gender, racial, ethnic, sexual, and class identities. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 139-162. Gallor, S. M. (2006). Heterosexual parents’ gender role attitudes, religious orientation, heterosexist beliefs, support group experiences, and relationship functioning with their lesbian or gay children. (Order No. 3222494, University of Maryland, College Park). ProQuest Write my thesis – Dissertations and Theses, p. 194. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.library.capella.edu/docview/305306487accountid=27965. (305306487). Gedro, J. (2009). LGBT career development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 11(1), 54-66. doi:10.1177/1523422308328396 Gedro, J. (2010). Understanding, designing, and teaching LGBT issues. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 12(3), 352-366. Gedro, J. (2012). Leveraging Workforce Diversity through a Critical Examination of Intersectionalities and Divergences between Racial Minorities and Sexual Minorities. Gordon, A., & Meyer, I. H. (2007). Gender nonconformity as a target of prejudice, discrimination, and violence against lgb individuals. Journal of LGBT Health Research, 3(3). Graham, L., Aronson, R., Nichols, T., Stephens, C., & Rhodes, S. (2011). Factors influencing depression and anxiety among black sexual minority men. Depression Research and Treatment, 2011. doi:10.1155/2011/587984 Greene, B. (1994). Ethnic-minority lesbians and gay men: Mental health and treatment issues. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62(2), 243-251. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.62.2.243 Haeberle, E. J. (1998). Bisexualities – The Ideology and Practice of Sexual Contact with both Men and Women. New York: Continuum. Harper, G. W., & Schneider, M. (2003). Oppression and discrimination among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered people and communities: A challenge for community psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 31(3/4), 243-252. Harrell, S. P. (2000). A multidimensional conceptualization of racism-related stress: Implications for the well-being of people of color. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 70, 42–57. Harris, J. I., Cook, S., & Kashubeck-West, S. (2008). Religious Attitudes, Internalized Homophobia, and Identity in Gay and Lesbian Adults. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health, 12, 205-225. Harrison, J., Grant, J., & Herman, J. (2012). A gender not listed here: Genderqueers, gender rebels, and otherwise in the national transgender discrimination survey. LGBTQ Policy Journal at the Harvard Kennedy School, 2, 13-24. Herek, G. (2009). Minority adults in the United States: Prevalence estimates from a national probability sample. Journal of Interpersonal, 24(1), 54-74. doi:10.1177/0886260508316477 Herzog, D. (2011). Sexuality in Europe: a twentieth-century history. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Horn, S. S. (2007). Adolescents acceptance of same-sex peers based on sexual orientation and gender expression. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 36, 363-371. Hudson, W. W. & Ricketts, W. A. (1980). A strategy for the measurement of homophobia. Journal of Homosexuality, 5 (4), 357–372. Hughes, D., & Dodge, M. A. (1997). African american women in the workplace: Relationships between job conditions, racial bias at work, and perceived job quality. American Journal of Community Psychology, 25(5), 581-99. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.library.capella.edu/docview/205334575accountid=27965. Ingram, K. M., Betz, N. E., Mindes, E. J., Schmitt, M. M., & Smith, N. G. (2001). Unsupportive responses from others concerning a stressful life event: Development of the unsupportive social interactions inventory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 20, 173-207. Israel, T., & Selvidge, M. M. D. (2003). Contributions of Multicultural Counseling to Counselor Competence With Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Clients. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 31, 84-98. Jones, S., Murphy, F., Edwards, M., & James, J. (2008). Doing things differently: Advantages and disadvantages of web questionnaires. Nurse Researcher, 15(4), 15-26. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/200782829accountid=27965. Jones, S. R., & McEwen, M. K. (2000). A conceptual model of multiple dimensions of identity. Journal of College Student Development, 41(4), 405-414. Kelsey, J.L., Thompson, W.D., and Evans, A.S. (1986). Methods in observational epidemiology. New York: Oxford University Press. Kertzner, R., Meyer, I. H., Frost, D., & Stirratt, M. (2009). Social and psychological well-being in lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals: The effects of race, gender, age, and sexual identity. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 79(4). doi:10.1037/aoO16&18. Kim, H. & Fredriksen-Goldsen, K. I. (2012). Hispanic lesbians and bisexual women at heightened risk or health disparities. American Journal of Public Health, 102(1), 9-15. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2011.300378. Kimmel, S., & Mahalik, J. (2005). Body image concerns of gay men: The roles of minority stress and conformity to masculine norms. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73(6), 1185-1190. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.73.6.1185 King, E. B., Reilly, C., & Hebl, M. (2008). The best of times, the worst of times – exploring dual perspectives of “coming out” in the workplace. Group and Organization Management, 33(5), 566-601. Kirby, S. (2006). American gay and lesbian student leader perceptions of job discrimination. Equal Opportunities International, 25(2), 126-140. Kuper, L. E., Coleman, B. R., & Mustanski, B. S. (September 01, 2013). Coping with LGBT and racial-ethnic-related stressors: A mixed-methods Ssudy of LGBT youth of color. Journal of Research on Adolescence. Lance, T. S., Anderson, M. Z., & Croteau, J. M. (2010). Improving measurement of workplace sexual identity management. Career Development Quarterly, 59(1), 19-26. Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (2000). Contextual supports and barriers to career choice: A social cognitive analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47(1), 36-49. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.47.1.36. Leslie, L. M., & Gelfand, M. J. (2008). The who and when of internal gender discrimination claims: An interactional model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 107(2), 123-140. Lewis, R. J., Derlega, V. J., Griffin, J. L., & Krowinski, A. C. (2003). Stressors for gay men and lesbians: Life stress, gay-related stress, stigma consciousness and depressive symptoms. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 22(6), 716-729. Linn, L. (1965). Verbal attitudes and overt behavior: A study of racial discrimination. Social Forces, 43, 353-364. Lombardi, E. L., Wilchins, R., Priesing, D., & Malouf, D. (2001). Gender violence: Transgender experiences with violence and discrimination. Journal of Homosexuality, 42(1), 89. MacCallum, R. S., Preacher, K., & Rucker, D. (2002). On the practice of dichotomization of quantitative variables. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 19-40. doi:10.1037//1082-989X.7.1.19. Marmor, J. (1980). Epilogue: Homosexuality and the issue of mental illness. New York: Basic Books. Mays, V. & Cochran, S. (2001). Mental health correlates of perceived discrimination among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 91(11), 1869-1876. McDavitt, B., Iverson, E., Kubicek, K., Weiss, G., Wong, C., & Kipke, M. (January 01, 2008). Strategies Used by Gay and Bisexual Young Men to Cope With Heterosexism. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 20, 4, 354-380. McNeill, B. W. (2001). An exercise in ethnic identity awareness: Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 29(4), 274-279. McAnulty, R. D. (2006). Sex and sexuality. Westport, Conn.: Praeger. Mercer, S., Heacock, P., & Beck, C. (1993). Nurses aides in nursing homes: Perception of training, workloads, racism, and abuse issues. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 21, 95-112. Meyer, I.H. (1995). Minority stress and mental health in gay men. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 36 (1), 38-56. Meyer, I.H. (2001) Why lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender public health American Journal of Public Health, 91, 856–859. Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5), 674-697. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674. Meyer, I. H. & Northridge, M.E (2007). The health of sexual minorities public health perspectives on lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender populations. Scitech Book News, 31(1,) 76-82. New York: NY, Springer. Meyer, I. H., Dietrich, J., & Schwartz, S. (2008). Lifetime prevalence of mental disorders and suicide attempts in diverse lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations. American Journal of Public Health, 98(6), 1004-1006. Mohr, J. J., & Kendra, M. S. (2011). Revision and extension of a multidimensional measure of sexual minority identity: The lesbian, gay, and bisexual identity scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58(2), 234-245. Money, J. (1994). The concept of gender identity disorder in childhood and adolescence after 39 years. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 20 (3), 163–77. Morris, J. F., Waldo, C. R., & Rothblum, E. D. (2001). A model of predictors and outcomes of outness among lesbian and bisexual women. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 71(1), 61-71. doi:10.1037/0002-9432.71.1.61. Morrow, D. F. & Messinger, L. (2003). Sexual orientation and gender expression in social work practice: Working gay, lesbian, bisexual transgender people. New York: NY, Columbia University Press. Nick Rumens. (2011). Minority support: Friendship and the development of gay and lesbian managerial careers and identities. Equality Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 30, 444-462. Parks, C. A., Hughes, T. L., & Matthews, A. K. (2004). Race/ethnicity and sexual orientation: Intersecting identities. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 10(3), 241-254. doi:10.1037/1099-9809.10.3.241. Pegg, P. O., & Plybon, L. E. (2005). Toward the theoretical measurement of ethnic identity. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 25(2), 250-264. Pendakur, K., & Pendakur, R. (2005). Ethnic Identity and the Labor Market: Vancouver Centre of Excellence 4(3). Phinney, J. S. (1990). Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: Review of research. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 499-514. Phinney, J. (1992). The Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure: A new scale for use with adolescents and young adults from diverse groups. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7, 156-176. Phinney, J. (2000). Ethnic and racial identity. In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology, Volume 3, p. 254-259. New York: Oxford University Press. Phinney, J. (2003). Ethnic identity and acculturation. In K. Chun, P. B. Organists, & G. Marin Eds.), Acculturation: Advances in theory, measurement, and applied research (p 63- 81). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Ragin, N. W. (2004). The impact of race and gender on career paths leading to the superintendency in South Carolina. ProQuest Write my thesis – Dissertations and Theses, 135. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/305057561accountid=27965 Ragins, B. R., & Winkel, D. E. (2011). Gender, emotion, and power in work relationships. Human Resource Management Review, 21(4), 377-393. Reimers, C. W. (1983). The labor market discrimination against hispanic and black men. Review of Economics and Statistics, 65 (4), 570-579. Rieger, G., Linsenmeier, J., Gygax, L., & Bailey, J. (2008). Sexual orientation and gender nonconformity; Evidence from home videos. Developmental Psychology, 44(1), 46-58. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.44.1.46. Roberts, R., Phinney, J., Masse, L., Chen, Y., Roberts, C. R., & Romero, A. (1999). The structure of ethnic identity of young adolescents from diverse ethnocultural groups. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 19(3), 301-322. doi:10.1177/0272431699019003001. Rodriguez, M. S. (2008). Perceived discrimination: Multiple measures and the intersections of race and gender. Journal of Afro American Studies, 12(4), 348-365. Sandfort, T. M., Melendez, R. M., & Diaz, R. M. (2007). Gender nonconformity, homophobia, and mental distress in latino gay and bisexual men. Journal of Sex Research, 44(2), 181-189. Sargeant, M. G. (2009). Age discrimination, sexual orientation, and gender identity: UK/US perspectives. Equal Opportunities International, 28(8), 634-645. Schmidt, C. K., & Nilsson, J. E. (2006). The effects of simultaneous developmental processes: Factors relating to the career development of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth. The Career Development Quarterly, 55, 22-37. Sex. (n.d.). Retrieved March 19, 2014, from https://monkessays.com/write-my-essay/merriamwebster.com/dictionary/sex. Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality. (n.d.) In APA Help Center online, at: https://monkessays.com/write-my-essay/apa.org/topics/lgbt/orientation.aspxitem=2. Shafiro, M. V., Himelein, M. J., & Best, D. L. (2003). Ukrainian and U.S. American females: Differences in individualism/collectivism and gender attitudes. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 34(3), 297-303. Simon, M. K. (2011). Write my thesis – Dissertation and scholarly research: Recipes for success (2011 Ed.). Seattle, WA, Write my thesis – Dissertation Success, LLC. Simon, R., & Nath, L. (2004). Gender and emotion in the United States: Do men and women differ in self-reports of feelings and expressive behavior American Journal of Sociology, 109(5), 1136-76. Snizek, W. E., & Neil, C. C. (1992). Job characteristics, gender stereotypes and perceived gender discrimination in the workplace. Organization Studies, 13(3), 403- 427. Stevens, J. P. (2009). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (5th ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Routledge Academic. Sturm, S. (2001). Second generation employment discrimination: A structural approach. Columbia Law Review, 101 (3), 458-568. Swank, E., Fahs, B., & Frost, D. M. (2013). Region, social identities, and disclosure practices as predictors of heterosexist discrimination against sexual minorities in the United States. Sociological Inquiry, 83, 238-258. Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2012). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Trimble, J. E. & Dickson, R (2010). Cultural Identity, in C. B. Fisher & Lerner, R. M. (Eds.; in press), Applied developmental science: An encyclopedia of research, policies, and programs. Thousand Oaks: Sage. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2014). BLS: News Release- The employment situation. Retrieved March 11, 2014, from: https://monkessays.com/write-my-essay/bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf and https://monkessays.com/write-my-essay/bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t02.htm Waldo, C. R. (1999). Working in a majority context: A structural model of heterosexism as minority stress in the workplace. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46(2), 218-232. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.46.2.218. Weinberg, G. (1973). Society and the healthy homosexual, Anchor Books, New York, NY. Wylie, S. A., Corliss, H. L., Boulanger, V., Prokop, L. A., & Austin, S. B. (2010). Socially assigned gender nonconformity: A brief measure for use in surveillance and investigation of health disparities. Sex Roles, 63(3), 264-276. doi:0.1007/s11199-010-9798-y. Zucker, K. J., Mitchell, J. N., Bradley, S. J., Tkachuk, J., & Cantor, J. M. (2006). The recalled childhood gender identity. Sex Roles, 54, 469-483. APPENDIX A. STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL WORK Academic Honesty Policy Capella University’s Academic Honesty Policy (3.01.01) holds learners accountable for the integrity of work they submit, which includes but is not limited to discussion postings, assignments, comprehensive exams, and the dissertation or capstone project. Established in the Policy are the expectations for original work, rationale for the policy, definition of terms that pertain to academic honesty and original work, and disciplinary consequences of academic dishonesty. Also stated in the Policy is the expectation that learners will follow APA rules for citing another person’s ideas or works. The following standards for original work and definition of plagiarism are discussed in the Policy: Learners are expected to be the sole authors of their work and to acknowledge the authorship of others’ work through proper citation and reference. Use of another person’s ideas, including another learner’s, without proper reference or citation constitutes plagiarism and academic dishonesty and is prohibited conduct. (p. 1) Plagiarism is one example of academic dishonesty. Plagiarism is presenting someone else’s ideas or work as your own. Plagiarism also includes copying verbatim or rephrasing ideas without properly acknowledging the source by author, date, and publication medium. (p. 2) Capella University’s Research Misconduct Policy (3.03.06) holds learners accountable for research integrity. What constitutes research misconduct is discussed in the Policy: Research misconduct includes but is not limited to falsification, fabrication, plagiarism, misappropriation, or other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. (p. 1) Learners failing to abide by these policies are subject to consequences, including but not limited to dismissal or revocation of the degree. Statement of Original Work and Signature I have read, understood, and abided by Capella University’s Academic Honesty Policy (3.01.01) and Research Misconduct Policy (3.03.06), including Policy Statements, Rationale, and Definitions. I attest that this dissertation or capstone project is my own work. Where I have used the ideas or words of others, I have paraphrased, summarized, or used direct quotes following the guidelines set forth in the APA Publication Manual. Learner name and date Mentor name and school APPENDIX B. ADD  dissertation writing services at essay bishop. We are fully prepared to work on  essays, and research papers

Published by

Thesis

View all posts